BF109 E-4 and Spit Mk2a - active service dates?

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

When were the 109 E-4 and Spit Mk2a put into active service?

I see server missions with only Spit Mk1a marks but have the BF109 E-4 so I am assuming that the Luftwaffe had the E-4 at the start of the BoB and the Mk2a introduced later.

[Haviland]

The E-4 was operational by the start of the Battle of Britain; the IIa was first operational in August 1940 if I'm remembering correctly.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Spitfire Mk IIA's were first active with RAF in late August of 1940.

E-4's active service from May 1940... so available in gradually increasing numbers through the battle, in a minority to start.

[Kwiatek]

E-4 was in service from beginig of BOB. But auto prop pitch system for 109 E was used in September - so at the end of BOB time.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

Spitfire Mk IIA's were first active with RAF in late August of 1940.

E-4's active service from May 1940... so available in gradually increasing numbers through the battle, in a minority to start.

TF work hard to give us FM that are historically correct and mission makers create mission plane sets that could be argued as being historically correct but the numbers in game are not historically correct? I have yet to see a mission on server one with the Mk2a avaliable and, when the E-4 is avalialble the vast majority choose it (no suprises there).

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

TF work hard to give us FM that are historically correct and mission makers create mission plane sets that could be argued as being historically correct but the numbers in game are not historically correct? I have yet to see a mission on server one with the Mk2a avaliable and, when the E-4 is avalialble the vast majority choose it (no suprises there).

Maybe you need to make a mission? :thumbsup:

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

ATAG_EvangelusE, the most common matchup during BoB would be Bf 109 E1/E4 vs Hurricane I Rotol/Spitfire Mk Ia. Online about as many fly the 109 E1 as those who fly the Hurricane. 2/3 of RAF in BoB flew Hurricanes. You want to force 66% of red to fly Hurricanes? I don't see any statement on ATAG that missions need to be scripted to strict historically accurate standards. I try to create missions that are semi accurate for the time period they portray but are still balanced for gameplay. You'll notice, or maybe you don't, that FallRot & Dynamo have no E4s at all yet Spitfires are abundant on FallRot, a battle the Spitfire played no part in. If E4s are giving you grief if the opponent was in an E3 it wouldn't have been any better. An E1 either for that matter.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

Firstly, the E-4 does not give me any more grief than any other 109 variant (you give me grief lol) - so you can put that one to bed.

It's well known that I prefer the Mk1a despite the Mk2 being available even though I am predominantly an high alt player. Having said that, with the recent TF patch, the Mk2a is the better performer at altitude. The Mk1a performance envelope is better suited to low and mid alt and would probably be the first choice for many Reds who like the low alt DF experience.

The problem Hans is that 'high alt' players are a minority and we need to encourage more people to try high alt - maybe having the better performer in the Mk2a could help in a mission where there was an overlap in operational service dates.

I don't know if it would or not but it seems a pity that the Mk2a currently appears to be relegated to SP.

Historical Correction is a perfectly acceptable argument but most missions are not played as such and why I am not arguing for historical correctness. All too often it's Blue V Red engaged in low alt DFs at a few select meeting points. Thats not your fault, its not the missions fault but anything that encourages 'variety' is worth considering in missions that could viably support that 'ethos'.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Maybe you need to make a mission? :thumbsup:

I appreciate your suggestion is made with humour. :D

Mission design is a talent that few of us have or are willing/able to put the time and energy resources into developing ourselves. Fortunately, the mission designers here are glad to answer reasonable questions about their creations, such as the OP's. The same holds with Team Fusion for legit questions on FM's, DM's, 3D modelling etc etc. Nothing would stifle discussion faster than being told "Perhaps you ought to build your own flight simulation if you aren't satisfied with this one."

OTOH, such a response is perfectly justified in the face of stubborn complaints which serve only to irritate rather than to effect positive change. I think we can all agree that the OP's query does not fall into that category!

:)

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

My final word on this matter but let me point out that when the E4/N was added to the game by Team Fusion it was noted that this a/c is the direct counterpart to the Spitfire IIa. So if you would like to put IIa's in every mission your going to get E4/N's as well. I know for a fact there were a lot of complaints when everybody only flew those two planes.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Final word goes to the Mission Designer. :salute:

EDIT: Aw heck, I'm gonna put in my 2 cents. :D

I like this and the other missions as they are. Although the Spitfire 1a 100 octane has been adjusted to better reflect authentic performance at nosebleed altitudes, this has been offset to a large degree by improved spotting of e/a at distance. I still live at contrail/sub contrail heights since the TF 4.3 Spitfire 1a 100 octanes are no slouches at boom & zoom. I need to practice (really practice) deflection shooting at convergence to get the kill on the first pass. In fact, the Battle of France mission has helped improve my navigation skills (Gromit: I can find Poix Nord now! :thumbsup:), plus it's encouraged me to actually try the Spitfire 1 100 octane (yes, more of a challenge to fly than its CSP brothers, but it IS a nippy little beast once mastered).

I'd still love to try high altitude contrail battles flying each of the 100 octane Spits (Spitfire 1, 1a, 2a) against each of the 109's, including both variants of the E4N's. Hopefully future missions will explore those areas. The possibilities are all there!

:)