Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   CoD Multiplayer (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=192)
-   -   ATAG Dedicated Server is up! (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=21191)

csThor 01-08-2012 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG5_Thijs (Post 377191)
Hello all,

I would like to give my two cents regarding limiting the Bf109E-4 on the server and allowing mainly the E-1 to be used. Which, as the table below shows would not be correct. (I also like to state that apart from the, now poorly working, automated pitch on the 109E-4 the only difference is the canopy, which doesn’t have a large impact on flying, the only difference between the two subtypes of the Emil is the armament) The E-4, and the E-3 slightly less so, packs a far greater punch compared to the E-1 in the gun department with the MG17 being replaced by the MG FF (in the E-3) and the MG FF/M (in the E-4) making it a much more effective fighter. This is probably the reason why most people that fly fighters on the German side prefer the E-3/E-4 compared to the E-1.

Of course it annoying to get shot down by one of these cannon armed 109’s and therefore wanting to limit them.(like limiting the number of Spitfire MK II which is annoying to fly against, to say the least, for a German fighter pilot in the game. A good case can be made for limiting the number of Spitfire MK II’s when one looks at historical numbers in the actual Battle of Britain).

If the aim of the server is to give a somewhat historical planeset I don’t think severely limiting the number of cannon armed is a good one. Since a lot of documentation of the Luftwaffe was destroyed it will be impossible to find out what the exact numbers of every subtype of 109E that fought in the Battle of Britain was. There are however a number of Geschwader which documents have survived. I only have the books by Jochen Prien on JG3 (all 3 Gruppen that flew in the Battle of Britain) and JG53 that provide numbers on the losses sustained by these units during the Battle of Britain (Period taken 10 July- 31 October 1940). Both Geschwader operated the 109E in this period.

I made a list of the losses of each Geschwader (In both damaged, written off in France and shot down over England/Channel) in the period stated above per subtype of the 109E.

I./ JG3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 12 (percentage 36 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 2(percentage 6 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 18(percentage 54 )
Bf 109 E-7#A/C lost 1(percentage 3 )


II./JG 3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 16(percentage 37 )
Bf 109 E-3#A/C lost 1(percentage 2 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 26(percentage 60 )
Bf 109 E-7#A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )



III./JG 3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 13(percentage 32 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 27(percentage 68 )
Bf 109 E-7 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )


JG53
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 44(percentage 38 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )
Bf109 E-4 #A/C lost 69(percentage 59 )
Bf109 E-7 #A/C lost 4(percentage 3 )


As we can see from the tables above it is clear that although the 109E-1 still was a substantial part of the Luftwaffe inventory during the Battle of Britain the majority of planes in use by these units* was the E-4. I therefore have to say that limiting the number of e-4’s, or e-3’s, would not be a good to limit the number of the cannon armed 109’s on ATAG.

*Both JG3 and JG53 were not privileged units in that they received the latest equipment first and can be considered as ‘normal’ units in respect of converting to the latest plane types.

Note in all the books I checked, In October 1940 the E-1 appears in very limited number and has been largely replaced by losses of 109 E-4’s.
It is also safe to assume that lost 109e-1’s were replaced by 109e-4’s since the E-1 was phased out as the Battle of Britain went on.


Maybe someone that has the Jagdfliegerverbande series by Prien or the JG27 and JG77 by the same author could provide numbers of the losses in the Battle of Britain period by these units in the manner I have done above.

Regards

Thijs

Actually it's not that the E-1 was phased out and replaced by new E-4. The Bf 109 E is unique among the german aircraft as an Emil that was upgraded received a new sub-type number on the Werknummer plate. It was common to rebuild earlier types (such as E-1 and E-3) with the new MG FF/M wing-mounted cannons and turn them into E-4s. It wasn't uncommon for aircraft to be built as E-1s, upgraded to E-4s and finally into E-7s. The german Technikmuseum in Berlin has one such aircraft, an E-7 salvaged from a lake near Murmansk, which was built as E-1, got an upgrade to E-4 and another to E-7, served in the MTO, was refurbished and sent to JG 5 at Petsamo.

JG5_Thijs 01-08-2012 12:58 PM

You are right CsThor, I should have phrased that better, thanks for clarifying this for everyone.

JG52Krupi 01-08-2012 03:17 PM

:( not happy with the current mission, it seems to have hit my performance massively, too many object on the ground.

JG5_Thijs 01-08-2012 06:54 PM

According to Radinger & Schick (Messerschmitt Bf109A-E Development Testing Production, by Schiffer publishing) on page 97 "In mid- 1940 the units (meaning Jagdgeschwader, note by myself) rejected the E-1 because it was inferior in action, Consequently the remaining E-1s in service were converted into E-4 or E-7s, while the last 175 E-1s were completed as E-7N's"

This, in addition to other sources (like Prien and Prien/Stemmer) on JG3 and JG53 shows that the E-1 was replaced, especially later in the BoB, by E-4’s and E-7’s and that the majority of 109’s were cannon armed.

jimbop 01-08-2012 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 377398)
:( not happy with the current mission, it seems to have hit my performance massively, too many object on the ground.

Is it my imagination or are there more clouds too? I haven't noticed any difference on my system, though.

ATAG_Dutch 01-08-2012 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 377398)
:( not happy with the current mission, it seems to have hit my performance massively, too many object on the ground.

Huh? :confused:

My system copes with it fine (see sig) and I've run exclusively bombing missions so far. I'd've thought yours would be better mate.

The mission itself is a huge improvement IMHO, with achievable objectives for both sides and some strategic thinking required (some very nasty flak though!).

There was an initial hiccup which I fedback to Bliss regarding the wrong 'target destroyed' messages coming up, so that the blue guys were defending a target which had already been destroyed, whilst leaving an untouched target undefended, but I'm assured this is now corrected.

Would like to see variations on this theme become the norm. ;)

JG52Krupi 01-08-2012 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbop (Post 377479)
Is it my imagination or are there more clouds too? I haven't noticed any difference on my system, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch (Post 377486)
Huh? :confused:

My system copes with it fine (see sig) and I've run exclusively bombing missions so far. I'd've thought yours would be better mate.

The mission itself is a huge improvement IMHO, with achievable objectives for both sides and some strategic thinking required (some very nasty flak though!).

There was an initial hiccup which I fedback to Bliss regarding the wrong 'target destroyed' messages coming up, so that the blue guys were defending a target which had already been destroyed, whilst leaving an untouched target undefended, but I'm assured this is now corrected.

Would like to see variations on this theme become the norm. ;)

When I fly near Hawkinge my fps go from ~65 to 16 :(, not the only one with this problem.

Osprey 01-08-2012 09:08 PM

From looking at those records posted from JG53 the only conclusion which can be drawn is that more E4's were shot down. JG53 may have been well equipped but not all crews were. Steinhilper makes it clear that only 'the Spaniards' got the E4 in his squadron for example. If there is a good source for ratio information I would love to read it though, all parties regardless of preference should make efforts to understand the historical information we have in the interests of making a sim not a game.

As an RAF pilot I do not fear the cannon because it is harder to hit with, lower muzzle velocity etc. In actual fact although I call for an E4/3 limit to enforce use of the E1, I fear the E1 much more because it has a minute of ammunition! Very dangerous indeed - but I still want it in for the sake of history.

The other feared item is the FM's which are awful, but mainly the "rear deflector shield" carried by 109's, where that can be hammered by belt after belt and remain largely unaffected. Still, I think that will change and when it does half the 109 drivers will shout and the other half will change their tactics.

FFCW_Urizen 01-08-2012 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 377488)
When I fly near Hawkinge my fps go from ~65 to 16 :(, not the only one with this problem.

Had the same today south of littlestone, at altitude!!! Going from smooth 40 down to 5 or less. OK there were a major furball going on at that time, but the moment it was quieter, i still struggled at around 15 fps. and i´ve already lowered my settings to the point where it hurts looking at the graphics :( .
Next thing i heard on comms, was people being disconnected from the server.
Maybe the problem isn´t mission related.

335th_GRAthos 01-08-2012 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 377488)
When I fly near Hawkinge my fps go from ~65 to 16 :(, not the only one with this problem.

When I look at the Hawkinge airfield my fps go from ~68 to 28 :(
If I flying near it without looking at the airfield my fps does not suffer.

~S~


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.