Okay...first off sorry if the following is a lot of offtopic. Perhaps a moderator could move this to a different topic to discuss.
Next I would as well like to see your quotes and basis for discussion then if you already question my own only available linkable source of data which posted. As I said the data I posted is roughly comparable to my other data from various books I have around. Including fighter pilot reports, from Galland and others for example.
@skarczew:
You said you post your "facts" on the opinions of fighter pilots...did you fly 109F and Gs yourself or whom do you quote on that ? I also read a few pilot reports and have to say they do differ actually in what they tell. Thats why I include also stastical and technical data available. So please give your references for pilot opinions and I will gladly reconsider my current standing on 109F and G models.
The engine had more horsepower, but it was much more heavier (because it was basically resized version of an old engine). The plane's aerodynamics went worse, because the heavier engine required new, bigger wheels - and it was needed to introduce "bulbs" on wings. For the same reason similar "bulbs" appeared on fuselage, to make some space for armament.
The motorization of a G and f model was exactly equal. 0.46 hp / kg. Calculate yourself:
F-4: empty weight 2080kg, flight weight 2890 kg, and 1350 HP max. = 0.4671 hp/kg, means a usage load of 810kg
G-6: empty weight 2250kg, flight weight 3200 kg , and 1475 hp = 0.4609 hp/kg, means a usage load of 950 kg
So yes the G was heavier but also allowed for more usage load, which was used to incorporate more ammo and the much better 13mm cannons instead of the 7.92mm guns.
I dont see the proof in your one posted image - what aerodynamic disadvantage should that be proof for ? Did you do a 3D aerodynamics calculation of the F and G models, may can give some experimental test data ?
Also I think those "bulbs" you see on this one image are a relic of the "optional" arming when used as a bomber....I am referring to standard fight Model Gs - not the fighter bomber re-armed ones.
Faster, yes. More maneuverable - joke.
Btw, late engines had more HP, but were far less reliable than from E and F versions.
Now its your turn to link something ? Otherwise I have to reject this argument to be a joke.
As far as reliability ....that would be tough to model into PzC stats right ? We do not have the reliability modeled with other equipment as well so how would you propose for that ?
And heavy armament makes you think that something is automatically better?
Yes in a way it does....see the discussions about P47 vs P51 were the 7.92 mm of the P51 are nearly always quoted as a disadvantage even though the P51 has up to 8 such guns.
But also too heavy non-auto fire arms were rarely an advantage in air-air fight. But even aircraft with 47mm or bigger "guns" were used to fire on bombers from below - though with little real advantage compared to the hits scored by fighters with straight forward and automated firing machine guns.
Reading the info from Wiki made you think that. Good.
Ignoring my and wyldman68 comments (which are based on pilots' opinions) made you think that you cant be wrong. Even better.
I did not say that reading wiki made me think that. As I said there are other books I read. I also did not ignore your and wyldmans comment, I rather posted a different viewpoint to it. But would you care to give me your sources then ?
Btw, introducing tactbomb and fighter versions for every possible subvariant is a thing that has no place in PzC now. The same thing would have been introduced for every other plane for every side - and then we would have hundreds of different types - thats simply too much.
I agree. But the BF109g as it is portrayed in game now more resembles the "fighterbomber" or TacBomber subtype then the fighter as it was designed and used for. Thats why I suggest a stats enhancement for the BF109G in its present RC3 state.
There were quite a lot of political reasons for which Messerschmitt could produce faulty and aging machines, and other producers were shut down - even though they had better types available.
Yes I know that. Otherwise they would have produced more ME-262 from 1942 on....which they did not. They would likely as well have produced more FW190s - but there was a massive engine shortage...but thats all what IFs.
AA agree, Initiative lower/the same, AD lower. And no separate tactbomber.
Yes thats basically what I think should be dont to Bf109G in PzC. We do not need the TacBomber special IMO. As for the AD I am undecided. I think I will try editing my pzequip with higher AA, equal Ini and same AD and see where that goes. Perhaps if this is done cost needs to be slightly enhanced for G's.
I once thought that T-34 was the best tank. But I had to change my opinion after MANY articles.
We all change opinions from time to time. But the early T-34 (in 1941) was definitely better than the german counterparts in many aspects. The later models though were no match for Panther and higher models. They were around Pz IV's with some advantages and some disadvantages in this comparison.
Fw-190F - lower AA, higher Initiative probably, higher AD. (hits for less, but better vs other fighters)
Me-410 - higher AA, lower Initiative, lower AD. (hits harder, but also gets more damaged by enemy fighters)
I am rather undecided about how to change those two atm. I'd think I would make the Me-410 higher AD and the FW190F and G lower AD though. The rest from what you propose should likely do the trick to optimize the german Tacs Bomber Balancing in regard to these aircraft types.
P.S. Don't base your opinions on Wiki, please. It is not a reliable, historical source.
I do not (solely). It is just a quotable source for me which, when I quote it is fitting my other knowledge I have.
The war is not a duel between tanks. You got the completely wrong idea about it.
I know - but for a game like PzC with certain abstractions it has to go a little down that route - a Tank division was not just 400 Tanks of identical type on a square mile.
Therefore as PzC usese abstractions and the tanks are representatives for their role models we can balance their stats on their technical data. As far as available and fine tune the rest with other balancing considerations.
Believe or not, but there were less than 25k T-34/85 tanks produced during war.
And T-34/85 was not a main tank, it was T-34.
Please can you give a source for that ? Also I only posted the T-34/85s produced I did not included numbers on the other models. And yes there were quite a lot tanks built.
I think you forgot to count the real German workhorse tanks.
No. I did not but I also did not count every allied model produced did I ?
But its been roughly 8-9k Pz IVs and 6k Pz IIIs. + another roughly 15k Antitanks most of which where Stug III (~9k ).
The Allied production of various models was even higher in comparison. Another 30-35k T34 early models for example....not counting in british tanks another ~20-40k... 15k US antitanks various models...etc.
Thats just the numbers which I remember without looking them up.
Even during field operation, especially on the western frontlines MOST tank hits were achieved by aircraft.
Source, please.
Will take me a few days to dig it up...but thats fact. I think it was mentioned in Piekalkiewicz "The 2nd World War".
An official tank lecture for american and british units clearly stated that combat with Tiger Tanks should only be started if at least a 5:1 majority was achieved, otherwise they should tactically retreat and call for air support.
I think that should make you think a little more about this.
But it doesn't mean British/Yankee tanks were worse. Also, source please.
Not the direct quote but I will find it. Also yes tanks of the allied were worse comared to Panther and Tigers. Also russian tanks were. The IS-2 though a very great tank was close to these.
Btw. the Panther Design was used to create the first german After war tanks in 1955. Basically they had been panthers rebuild with newer parts. Later from this the Leopard I and II tanks emerged from that design.
the Sherman, due to its 76mm gun, had major difficulty penetrating the glacis of Panther tanks. The Sherman had a gun that could penetrate roughly 88mm at 1000 m. The average combat range noted by the Americans for tank vs. tank action was around 800m to 900m. This was enough to penetrate a Panzer IV frontally, a tank designed in 1939. If facing a Panther, the Sherman would be facing a tank with roughly 140mm of line-of-sight armor frontally. Hypothetically, if the Soviet Union decided to invade the rest of Europe during the war, the Sherman would face the Is-2 with a glacis of roughly 140mm line of sight armor. In order to deal with a Panther, a Sherman would have to get relatively close, due to both the armor and low-flash powder of the Panther. Sherman crews also had issues with firing from range as the Sherman's high flash powder made their shots easy to spot. Summer 1944, after breaking out of the bocage, saw US tank crews assaulting German defensive positions with sometimes 50% casualties before spotting where the fire was coming from.
From: "Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Lorraine" by Roman Jarymowycz, Ch. 13 "Who killed Tiger?" The Great Scandal
Also:
The armor of the Sherman comparatively to the Panther can be described by statements used in a report to SHAEF Eisenhower:
"I have actually seen ricochets go through an M4 at 3000 yards." "I have seen HEAT fired from a 105mm Howitzer at a Mark V at 400 yards. The track was hit and damaged, and a direct hit on the turret only chipped the paint."[65]
Found in: Maj. Gen I. D. White. "Comparison of US equipment with Similar German Equipment" Report for Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force. 20 March 1945
(Sealion 40´)
.
.
