The FW190A-8 is now three aircraft in IL-2

When the FW190A-8 appeared on the IL-2: Battle of Bodenplatte aircraft list 10-months ago, I wondered if 1CGS would modify the aircraft to make it both a FW190A-8 and a F-8. The FW190F-8 being a direct modification of the A-8 and optimized for ground attack. It seemed like an easy update. What I hadn’t counted on was the FW190G-8 also being added to the list and with it, a massive bombload for the diminutive fighter.

What’s the difference?

An FW190A-8 with MK108 cannons in the wings quickly dispatches a Pe-2.

Let’s start with the FW190A-8 which I consider the “base” model and so does IL-2. The A-8 itself actually comes with a fairly extensive modification list without going over to the F-8/G-8 option tree.

The A-8 is primarily a fighter which has bomb carrying capabilities although its not optimized for that role. Designed to counter enemy fighters and bombers, the A-8 is a fast and powerful aircraft with excellent roll rate but a turn rate that is less than ideal when dogfighting is concerned. It’s a far better boom and zoom machine and in that aspect it excels.

Modifications for this version are centered around additional firepower. By default it has four MG151/20 cannons plus MG131 heavy machine guns in the nose. A pair of 21cm BR air-to-air rockets is an option and so too is the MK108 30mm cannons of which one can be fitted in each outboard wing cannon slot (replacing the outer MG151/20).

Facing down the bomber threat, the FW190A-8 also has a Sturmjäger modification which adds extra armor to the cockpit area of the aircraft offering additional protection from machine gun fire from enemy bombers. The differences can be readily seen in the cockpit. Check out this comparison and note how thick the canopy sections are.

The F-8 variant

Standard fighter-bomber loadout for the FW190F-8.

Adding armor plates along the bottom of the fuselage and around the engine, the F-8 version is meant to be able to take more hits while also dishing out more ground attack firepower. Panzerblitz rockets or four SC70 bombs and a single SC250 or SC500 bomb can be fitted underneath the aircraft.

This version is heavier due to the added armor plate and partially compensates by removing the outer MG151/20 cannons.

And now the G-8 version

A FW190G-8 carrying the massive SC1000 bomb.

The G-8 was extremely similar to the F-8 version and was optimized to add slightly more range to the aircraft. The biggest difference between the F-8 and G-8 is the MG131 machine guns are deleted on the G-8 version leaving just two MG151/20 cannons as its armament.

What the G-8 has that no other FW190 does in the series is the ability to haul the massive SC1000 bomb, with a slight tail fin reduction, under the aircraft. Minor modifications to the aircraft and to the bomb enabled the FW190 to be able to carry a weapon suitable to demolish reinforced targets with its huge blast. The G-8 can also carry three SC250 bombs at a time.

There aren’t many differences between the F-8 and the G-8 but getting this added modification gives us something unique and fun for pilots to experience. More options is always better in my mind and with the addition of this modification, we now have an extensive list of features available for the FW190A-8/F-8/G-8 version.

The explosive power of the SC1000 can demolish hardened targets and sink ships with a single hit.

1CGS didn’t have to do this and had already fulfilled my expectations by adding the F-8 variant to the FW190. Adding the G-8 and going above and beyond is much appreciated by me and no doubt by at least some others. It’s often the “small” things like this that show that 1CGS is putting in the effort to make IL-2: Battle of Bodenplatte a really well rounded package.

FW190G-8 screenshots



13 Comments Add yours

  1. William T Taylor says:

    while im really looking forward to bodenplatte i must say the 3 for the price of one aircraft system the Germans are getting this round topped with the 262 makes me worry about the multiplayer game as what im seeing as the Germans are maintaining the ground attack ordinance advantage with the ju 88/ He111 / Ju87 and now the 190A-G-8. while the Americans with have the p47 with 2x 500kg bombs or 3x250kg bombs same from the P-38. This being followed by maybe the A-20 will put the Allies at a strong disadvantage in online multiplayer servers. while from experience the German players tend to focus more on Air to Air than air to ground that has let the Russians pull of some unexpected wins on TAW and Coconut Expert but with the pure weight of ordinance capabilities landing firmly on the German side in bodenplatte. and the need to find the bombers / attackers in those two servers especially. i fear a strong imbalance


    1. ShamrockOneFive says:

      The Luftwaffe did seem keen to put as large a bomb on some aircraft as possible. Again, I tend to write with the interests of the simulation itself in mind rather than multiplayer “balance” but I’m not terribly worried about the Allies for ground attack and this is why: rockets.

      The Panzerblitz rockets are good but it was definitely the Allies that really had some impressive air-to-ground rocket propelled weaponry. The HVAR, the RP, and the M8 (Bazooka). The Spitfire IXe carries just two of those and they are easily the best rockets I’ve used in the series so far.

      I’m looking forward to a P-47 carrying two 500lb bombs, M8 rockets, and a full load of .50cal. That’ll definitely lay waste to ground targets in a way that a single SC1000 cannot.

      It’s hard to say right now but it looks like the Tempest V will get RP carrying capability (at least from the concept art). It’s a bit of a fudge historically but they were cleared for use – just not used.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. William T Taylor says:

    good point and this is why i like posting on your blog .. i will point out that the p-38 has havars as well
    also i seem to one of few voices that post focusing on Multiplayer… which lets be honest is one of the main ways games grow in the current gamer environment. I know i personaly feel that multiplayer is majorly under supported by major sim titles which have the capability of pulling plenty of gamers from titles like world of warplanes and War Thunder. while i do understand they Devs focus on the game as a whole i am a firm believer that multiplayer needs to be included into decisions as well. and as a counter point to the P-47 its not a bomber and never was it showed combat capabilities comparable to the P-5. and .50 cal mgs do verry little against ground targets except trains and light trucks and AA. This i feel is a major oversight as the pure velosity could punch the top deck of Pz4 and below.. so if they are going to successfully make the the balance of power reasonable they must make sure weapons act accordingly. for example .50 doing the damage to ground targets properly.. 100kg bombs acting like 100kg bombs not 100lb bombs… (note im an U.S. Iraq war Vet) and based on simple math and personal experiances the kg ratings in IL2 act more like LB ratings in reality so a 100kg bomb acts more like a 100lb bomb in blast radius and damage. mind you im not an expert but all ordiance (yes including the 2500kg bomb) does not seem to act properly unless the argument is the 2500kg bomb is in all cases an AP setup instead of HE… oh and as a question for you….

    DOES anyone think that G forces are accurately modeled in IL2??? i mean you dont even black out after a dive bomb attack in a Ju87…. This tells me we are getting more performance in high G maneuvers in all aircraft than should be available.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. ShamrockOneFive says:

      Well you’ve convinced me to talk more about multiplayer in the future. I will definitely do a few articles over time in that area.

      I’ve seen enough argument/counter argument to not be sure about .50cal striking power against armor and in terms of what bomb radius damage should be like. It’s certainly out of my area of expertise so I can’t comment too much on that or know enough to suggest to the devs one way or the other.

      We do know that they continually upgrade the series and re-evaluate their efforts (case in point was the refined dispersion values in 3.006 and the updated effects) so maybe we’ll see changes there.

      I will do some more thinking on multiplayer for sure.

      One thing about current multiplayer balance is that although the Ju88 and He111 can carry great bombloads, I actually find that the Pe-2 and A-20 are the more survivable bombers being faster, more agile, and harder to spot. So in everything is a kind of balance. For Bodenplatte… I will think some more on this.


    2. TJR says:

      I am one of the those losers who only play single player, however:
      I love the .50 Cal, and from my experience it is an absolute beast, I dont think you can underestimate it penetrative power, BUT I have never seen it engage an AFV. I can say that doctrinaly we can kill a BMP 1/2 from the side at 600 M (Canadian AP Rds). So you could definitely get through the top/rear turret and hull of a Panzer IV at 600-700M at at 90 degrees to the target.

      Its true, after dropping a 250 Kg bomb on a convoy and only clearing 1-2 trucks in a 15 m radius, literally only 3x the lethal radius of a 60mm mortar ~6 Kg.

      This is the second time I have seen G Force being brought up in the comments, is there someway of showing the Forces applies in game? The only plane I have ever fully blacked out my pilots in are the spits. I gray out in the 190 or 109 after power diving onto bombers. I am unsure what this proves though, I don’t have enough experience in the new realistic sims, or real life with G Force.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. TJR says:

        Overestimate* not under.


  3. William T Taylor says:

    well lets see G forces have alot to do with momentum … ie it takes a harder pull at lowers speeds to make a pilot black out. so if your diving an aircraft at 400mph and pull out it will take less pressure from the elevators to pull the blood from your brain as it is also traveling at 400mph .. .think of roller coasters those sharp turns tend to express 2-3.5 Gs at 45-60mph but it is a realy tight corner but if you were going 200 mph think of how much harder the pull would be to make the same turn… also in a car take a turn at 15 mph and do it again at 45 mph and notice the difference in pull. So if you read Stuka by Hanz Rudel he mentions over and over about blacking out on pull outs and the fact that stuka’s were equipped with automatic dive breaks to prevent blacked out pilots from crashing if the the attack was made within trained ranges. .50 bullets individually are not monsters at lest on the way in .. but 6 guns firing 800-850 rpm … we will use 800 for this is alot of impacts in a small area… and due to most people setting their convergance out further than they actualy fire we will use 3×800 = 2400 rounds per min. so to get the amount of bullets in a 1 second burst we have 800x 3 = 2400 then divide by 6 so 2400 / 6 = 400 then devide by 10 … so 40 bullets per second from 3 .50 cal guns. then figure that you only hit the target for .5 seconds that is 20 rounds in a relatively small area. and the fact that gun spacing on american arcraft tended to be 4″ between barrels and at 300 yards the standard dispersion was around 1 meter… so 20 AP .50 cal round s in a 1 meter strip in .5 seconds… that is serious damage.. and that is assuming only half the guns hit. turn it a round and at 300 yards (convergence point) thats 40 ap rounds in the same area… then bring in for example the P-47 you can up that to 50 rounds in the same area same time… or if you want we can use the p-38 which allows for 4 .50s in a tight group same dispersion as P-47. based on .50 AP round efficiency (penetration) if the engine of a 109/ 190 passes through that stream its going to receive between about 20-25 armor piercing bullets in just its engine … 90% of engines used in WW2 would be completely destroyed … 109s and 190s cant boast that because they only use 2x 13mm (.51 cals) and the majority of 20mm rounds were not AP so .50 cal bullets have a much higher chance of doing major engine or structural damage than either 109s or 190s in their basic format. also most of the Weapons testing for mg/cannon damage was done on extra wings… (no wires fuel tanks just sheet metal and spars) so total damage capabilities were never properly ascertained. also i have yet to find any info on the exact destructive power of the .50 api damage to engine blocks but battle damage received by PZ4 and lower show that it punch an engine block easily. if it can punch hardened tank armor even if its .5 to 2.5 inches thick. that is why american aircraft had such a high kill rate with guns that were considered inferior for Air to air combat.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. TJR says:

      Will I think you and I are in violent agreement, and I understand what you are saying about volume of fire. I don’t think its only about the rds that hit the engine compartment and ruin the engine , but the 1 or 2 of those burst that get to ricocheting/spalling around the crew compartment and the crew is toast.

      Caveat:All my experience is with the M2 in the dismounted roll, second hand as we had a couple legacy in the system, and you guys gave a bunch from the 1920’s to the Afghans for their trucks. (RoF on those bad boys are definitely not 800Rpm.)


  4. William T Taylor says:

    correct TJR but It is well documented that the U.S. Army Air Force used the .50 cal set for 800 rpm. also near the middle of WW2 the hydraulically fired M4 (Air-fifty) came into service later used on the F-86 Sabre and most recently used on the OH-58D/R (which i worked on as a crew chief in OIF1/2 2004-2005) was capable of up to 1100 rounds per min. The M2 Browning which is the ground version is usualy set for 650 rpm for accuracy do to kick and the safety of nearby infantry as within about 10 feet the concussion from the muzzle blast can be rather uncomfortable ( my experience with the M2 was an LMTV mount firing while i was driving i swore it altered the rhythm of my heartbeat while firing no not fact .. it is uncomfortable).

    what im pointing out with rounds on target is that it is a lot in a small area and short time ricocheting and engine hits are the main causes of damage and by using them math it shows how many rounds were fired. after doing some more research on the p-47 i found that there was a discrepancy and that with the M4 the rate of fire was usually closer to 825 rpm than 800 rpm… assuming that different units set it differently P-47 pilots were told that the P-47 spit 108 rounds per second when you do the math that is 810 rounds per min from 8 guns.. fun fact if you take the heavy ammo load from the P-47 of 3400 rounds and divide by 810 that computes to 31.481 seconds of fire from all 8 guns.. good lord save anything in front of the P-47 even with a bad shot


  5. William T Taylor says:

    Hey shamrock you said you intend to bring more multiplayer commentary into your wonderful Blog well let me suggest 3 severs for you to focus on they seem to be the most active in the 3 main categories..

    1. wings of liberty .. anyone who has played online has seen this server as the most actively populated on the mp list its great for casual simmers that what a decent difficulty. This server allows GPS map icons for the player but not icons in game either friendly or enemy.

    2. TAW … This server is full realism including the need to let your engine(s) warm up before take off and is rather active. Tho you do have to sing-up on the website and choose a side for the duration of the campaign also you have a limited plane set per map and need to have the web browser open to track aircraft availability.

    3. Coconut … This community member has two servers an EXPERT server much like TAW without aircraft restrictions or the need to register. This is offset by only one airfield being open immediately and if you want aircraft at other available airfields you must position them there yourself .. but they stay in place till the end of the campaign. Coconut also runs a Normal difficultly server allowing icons and GPS nav..
    unfortunately this is also a less populated server as it is not as strongly advertised as the others… but is my personal favorite by a long shot.

    also notes you may find useful …

    Both TAW and WINGS have Teamspeak servers but last i checked the TS for WoL is sporadic and many squadrons stick to their own voice com system. TAW has an active team speak with players from all nations and a range of language channels to attempt to cater to most players allowing them to group with people who naturally speak the same language. Tho this can get complicated too. COCONUT runs a simple Discord server and you will find people use it while playing often. I Personally fly with a sim Community called Point Blank [Pb] my tag is Boxcar … at the moment it changes so if you check out the servers during U.S. Eastern evenings i’m on fairly often mostly on coconut Expert.. so if you See [Pb]Boxcar feel free to come harass me god knows i deserve it with all the walls of text i leave on your blog ;P hope to see you in the skys shamrock and look forward to your opinions on the Multiplayer side of the game.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Nil says:

    Shamrock15! thank you for this FW190 presentation. I do not know theses aircraft at all, but it gives me some good insight about the different versions. Keep up the good work!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s