Why was the 300L drop tank removed in latest beta?

[DeletedUser44]

The standard Luftwaffe 300L Drop Tank is listed as "Expired Loadouts" beginning Turn 2 for Germany for the Bf 109F-2s. Can be used on turn 1, but not afterwards.

Same for the 109E-7s. (probably same across the board)

Did not see anything in the patch notes regarding setting the last date (for this loadout) to 6/1941.

Was this intentional? (would be really weird if it was... as these 300L drop tanks were used on numerous subsequent 109 variants as well)

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

The standard Luftwaffe 300L Drop Tank is listed as "Expired Loadouts" beginning Turn 2 for Germany for the Bf 109F-2s. Can be used on turn 1, but not afterwards.

Same for the 109E-7s. (probably same across the board)

Did not see anything in the patch notes regarding setting the last date (for this loadout) to 6/1941.

Was this intentional? (would be really weird if it was... as these 300L drop tanks were used on numerous subsequent 109 variants as well)

I believe I read it on the BETA forums that they were taking it out but may have missed the notes on the main forum. But I have slept a couple times since I read the BETA forums and could be mixed up. Been too busy lately and too tired to go look at the moment so will have to wait for the definitive answer from the Powers in Charge or someone that remembers better than I.

[DeletedUser44]

Hope it was not intentional, as the ranges for the 109E-7 and 109F-2 look artificially short. (but verifying to make sure)

I am having transport missions intercepted by Lagg-3s from across the map. WiTE2 has their range set to 58 hexes (historically accurate).

The E-7 was the next major production variant, entering service and seeing combat at the end of August 1940. One of the limitations of the earlier Bf 109Es was their short range of 660 km (410 mi) and limited endurance, as the design was originally conceived as a short-range interceptor. The E-7 rectified this problem as it was the first Bf 109 subtype to be able to carry a drop tank, usually the standardized Luftwaffe 300 L (80 US gal) capacity unit mounted on a centre-line rack under the fuselage, which increased its range to 1,325 km (820 mi)

But then they removed the 300L drop tanks as well?

NOTE: WiTE2 does not allow you to modify AC range directly, but it is calculated from the set of AC specifications to include Endurance, Max Speed, etc. So verifying is a little involved....

EDIT: The WiTE2 ranges look correct for the 109E-7, 109F-2... But how they take 'Range' and convert to 'Radius' is still a mystery....

EDIT2: Think I got it... (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_of_action)

Basically, take the Range and divide by 3 to get the 'combat' radius. (note, this does not hold true for longer ranged AC, such as the JU-88)
Then take 'combat' radius and multiple by 3/4 to get the 'escort' radius.

[jubjub]

This was in the patch notes. Get ready for massive ops losses on your 109's. The ops losses model severely punishes them for having low endurance. They have about a 8 hex radius from their airbase where they can operate without taking automatic damage from flying too far, running out of fuel, and emergency landing (apparently).

It was probably removed because the drop tanks didn't work too well on the early 109's.

[Denniss]

Removal was intentional as they were rarely used in the East.
They were common for long rang ops like in the Med or for increaed endurance on high alt interceptions like in the West/Defence of the Reich

[Teo41_ITA]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Removal was intentional as they were rarely used in the East.

But rarely does not mean never. I don't get the point of removing them.

[metaphore]

ORIGINAL: Denniss
Removal was intentional as they were rarely used in the East.

Next, we are also going to remove Paratroopers and Amphibious units as they were rarely used in the East.
After a while, we are going to remove players imput as well and let the AI play a scripted version of the game instead, hence, no risk to use the Forces in a way we don't like.

[Denniss]

With previous data they were almost always used to extend the range. That was ahistorical and is stopped now.

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

This was in the patch notes. Get ready for massive ops losses on your 109's. The ops losses model severely punishes them for having low endurance. They have about a 8 hex radius from their airbase where they can operate without taking automatic damage from flying too far, running out of fuel, and emergency landing (apparently).

It was probably removed because the drop tanks didn't work too well on the early 109's.

OPS losses only accounted for 13% of the total AC losses suffered by the Luftwaffe on the eastern front, through 1941.

But what you are saying about massive OPS losses correlates to my experiences any time you approach AC Range limits -- you are harshly punished. For example, flying one of the default Air Transport Escort assignments, as provided in the game's preloaded list of AC Transports / Escorts.

Regarding 'drop tanks' as far as not working well on the early 109's... cannot find anything to really support this. Especially considering they keep adding provisions for drop tanks in numerous subsequent variants, as well as the FW 190 variants....

The E-7 rectified this problem as it was the first Bf 109 subtype to be able to carry a drop tank, usually the standardized Luftwaffe 300 L (80 US gal) capacity unit mounted on a centre-line rack under the fuselage, which increased its range to 1,325 km (820 mi). Fuel from the drop tank was pumped to the internal fuel tank via a large fuel line that ran up and along the inside starboard wall of the cockpit, with a clear sight glass located in the fuel line's main span so the pilot could easily see the flow of fuel and know when the tank was empty. Alternatively, a bomb could be fitted and the E-7 could be used as a Jabo fighter-bomber. Previous Emil subtypes were progressively retrofitted with the necessary fittings for carrying a drop tank from October 1940.

Thanks to the improved aerodynamics, more fuel-efficient engines and the introduction of light-alloy versions of the standard Luftwaffe 300-litre drop tank, the Bf 109 F offered a much increased maximum range of 1,700 km (1,060 mi) compared to the Bf 109 E's maximum range figure of only 660 km (410 miles) on internal fuel, and with the E-7's provision for the 300-litre drop tank, a Bf 109E so equipped possessed double the range, to 1,325 km (820 mi).

With the Bf 109G, a number of special versions were introduced to cope with special mission profiles. Here, long-range fighter-reconnaissance and high-altitude interceptors can be mentioned. The former were capable of carrying two 300 L (80 US gal) drop tanks, one under each wing; and the latter received pressurized cockpits for pilot comfort and GM-1 nitrous oxide "boost" for high altitudes

The rack and internal fuel lines for carrying a 300 L (80 US gal) under-fuselage drop-tank were widely used on G-2s, as were the underwing 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon gondolas.

The G-6 was very often seen during 1943 fitted with assembly sets, used to carry bombs or a drop tank, for use as a night fighter, or to increase firepower by adding rockets or extra gondola-style, underwing gun pod mount ordnance.

The base subtypes could be equipped with Rüstsatz add-on standard field kits; in practice this meant hanging on some sort of additional equipment like drop tanks, bombs or cannons to standard attachment points, present on all production aircraft.

Additional Rüstsätze (equipment kits) such as a 300 L (80 US gal) drop tank (R III), bombs up to the size of 500 kg (1,100 lb) (R I), underwing 20 mm Mauser MG 151/20 cannon gondola pods (R IV) or 21 cm (8.3 in) Wfr.Gr. 21 rockets (as on the Gustav models) could be carried after minimal preparation; the latter two were rarely used by Bf 109 units at this stage of the war...

The Fw 190G-1 was based on the A-4/U8. It used a drop tank rack provided by Weserflug that had been developed for the Junkers Ju 87. Each rack could carry a 300 litre/ 66 gallon drop tank.

The Fw 190G-2 saw the Stuka type tanks replaced with new low drag Messerschmitt racks. The first prototype was based on the A-5/U8 (with the A-5’s longer fuselage). Like the G-1 it had a ETC 501 rack under the fuselage and could carry one 300 litre drop tank under each wing. The Messerschmidt carriers (Trägers) were made up of two parts – a very low drag base mechanism that was fixed to the wing and N shaped bracing struts that carried the fuel tank, and were dropped with it. When the tanks were dropped, the G-2 was only 2mph slower than the standard Fw 190A-5/U8, making this the most efficient of the fuel tank racks used on the Fw 190G.

[GibsonPete]

"But rarely does not mean never. I don't get the point of removing them." Teo41_ITA makes a valid point. Should not the player decide which tools they will use. Drop tanks IMO are not an exploit. Denniss please reconsider the decision.

[Zovs]

Here is some data from some test games for just turn 1. You'd have to got the War Room to see/understand what jubjub and metaphore's T1 AD look like and how I merged them and added to them for my own. But at least for Turn 1 you can see the operational losses (along with everything else).

What I really think the devs need is analysis like this over a period of time that shows operational losses. That is just my opinion though.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Here is some data from some test games for just turn 1. You'd have to got the War Room to see/understand what jubjub and metaphore's T1 AD look like and how I merged them and added to them for my own. But at least for Turn 1 you can see the operational losses (along with everything else).

What I really think the devs need is analysis like this over a period of time that shows operational losses. That is just my opinion though.

How in the world do you people play with spreedsheets? I see enough spreedsheets at work.

[Zovs]

Lol I only use them in Wargaming lol

[Denniss]

I can't influence plane and pilot Ops losses, I consider them to be on the high side too.

[Nix77]

I've been using drop tanks strictly to extend the range of my fighters on quite large scale (ie using them with several Bf109 JGs), which probably isn't historically accurate so I understand Denniss's argument of removing them. There's also the argument of reliability, availability and how resource efficient the drop tanks actually were on the eastern front.

I'd be however more pleased to see them as an available option, but with the drawbacks being more visible. Not sure how easy this would be to implement with the current game engine.

[carlkay58]

The LW had limited production facilities for the drop tanks and their needs in other theaters trumped the Eastern Front. This is the reason they were rarely used in the Eastern Front - air bases were usually quite near the front line and LW flew very few escorted missions beyond the front line so they did not feel the need for drop tanks.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

The LW had limited production facilities for the drop tanks and their needs in other theaters trumped the Eastern Front. This is the reason they were rarely used in the Eastern Front - air bases were usually quite near the front line and LW flew very few escorted missions beyond the front line so they did not feel the need for drop tanks.

Yes, and I guess the general German ground support oriented doctrine on the eastern front didn't really justify a need for drop tanks.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

"But rarely does not mean never. I don't get the point of removing them." Teo41_ITA makes a valid point. Should not the player decide which tools they will use. Drop tanks IMO are not an exploit. Denniss please reconsider the decision.

Rarely doesn't mean all the time either. Which is what players will do, use them so much that rarely has no meaning.

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

"But rarely does not mean never. I don't get the point of removing them." Teo41_ITA makes a valid point. Should not the player decide which tools they will use. Drop tanks IMO are not an exploit. Denniss please reconsider the decision.

Rarely doesn't mean all the time either. Which is what players will do, use them so much that rarely has no meaning.

Using drop tanks significantly increases the fuel cost of each sortie. I think it's more productive to ask why players are paying more per sortie and fixing that issue than to ban a feature outright.

Ultimately it won't be fixed until the devs work on the air, but using drop tanks was a welcome relief from the atrocious ops losses, and it's a feature that will be sorely missed.

[Teo41_ITA]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

"But rarely does not mean never. I don't get the point of removing them." Teo41_ITA makes a valid point. Should not the player decide which tools they will use. Drop tanks IMO are not an exploit. Denniss please reconsider the decision.

Rarely doesn't mean all the time either. Which is what players will do, use them so much that rarely has no meaning.

They could just increase fuel consumption per each sortie, forcing the player to think twice before adding drop tanks in each fighter wing every turn. Is this so complicated to code?