Tactics for Cliffs of Dover.

[ElAurens]

OK Chaps, assuming (I know, I know...) that the FMs in Cliffs of Dover are fairly true to historical data, the BF 109E and the Spitfire will be fairly evenly matched up to 16,000 ft. Above that altitude the Spitfire starts pulling ahead of the Messer in terms of speed, and at 20.000ft the Spitfire has a decided advantage.

So what this tells us is that we will have to get high and stay high to be successful in the Spitfire. We also must assume that Jerry will not fly historically, but will pretend it's 1944. So, they will not stay with the bombers, they will not engage in low level turn fights, and in short they will be the buzz killers we know them to be.

http://www.pilotspub.org/phpBB3/images/smilies/happy0035.gif

So Chaps, get altitude, then get some more. Don't give Jerry the chance to be the "Hun in the sun". In short beat them at their own sick game.

Leave the bombers to the Hurricanes, listen to your radar controller, and be back home in one piece for tea and medals.

Carry on.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7345/mkspitfireinflight2jpg.jpg

[David603]

Don't forget that the Spitfire pilots (well the smart ones anyway) will also be using tactics that the RAF only adopted later in the war, and the Spitfire still has a big advantage over the Bf109 for manoeuvrability, regardless of altitude.

[Sven]

We tend to fly as historical as possible but I take you are talking about a regular night in a dogfight server? Then yes, hardly any organisation will lead to the situation you describe. I wish you Allied pilots luck once it launches!

If you are looking for realism, we 5./JG27 are planning to set up a realism CoD server once it's out with historical accurate attacks, but were still in early stage of our plans, no doubt there will be others with the same plans! We hope take part in realism co-op missions once CoD is running on full power as well:)

[Flanker35M]

S!

El Aurens, you just forget one thing ;) That animated movie Searching for Nemo by Pixar..well, the red pilots tend to be like the seagulls in it screaming: Mine! Mine! Mine! ;)

Seriously speaking, I wait for the online experience very much. Maybe it will resurrect the old times when we all had fun. I miss a lot of those guys back then..AFJ, 81Sqn, Cesspool, BlitzPigs etc. You know them ;) We had fun, cheered after a great fight. Maybe time has given a golden edge on the clouds but anyway..those were the times.

[David603]

Maybe the low powered guns on the RAF fighters will lead to more Red co-operation.

Here's hoping ;)

[6S.Manu]

Ok but it's not the next Spit LF variant have to stay lower than the enemy: higher is better in every plane. I'm not going to fly my hurricane at bombers' altitude. I fly high until I see them.

[JG52Uther]

Well,if you want the LW to fly historically,then I expect the RAF to fly hugely outnumbered,in tight VIC formation (known to amused LW pilots as the 'Idioten reihe') and have a 'sitting duck' weaver flying around behind them...
;)
Looking forward to it!

[meplay]

ah man i cant wait, i cant wait :P, i gotta try the spit first i think, after all im a brit, but i love 109s to....i love them all :)

[csThor]

It'll be what I've seen in virtually any flightsim I've played online ... clouds of dweebs upping from Hawkinge/Manston and Calais-Marck gangbanging it out at 500 feet in the middle of the Channel. :roll:

If you seek historical gameplay online be prepared to seek for like-minded folks with magnifying glasses. You won't find it on standard servers.

[Biggs]

It's all about SP for me ... initally
I've been rereading The Most Dangerous Enemy by Bungay, and i really hope that 1C recreates all the strategic planning nuances and blunders of the luftwaffe. raids that start off badly, miscues and missed opportunities.

I'd love to see the evolution of the fighters from being free roaming to being shackled down to the bombers as the battle goes on.

I'm most excited to see how "human" the AI is.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I've been rereading The Most Dangerous Enemy by Bungay, and i really hope that 1C recreates all the strategic planning nuances and blunders of the luftwaffe. raids that start off badly, miscues and missed opportunities.

Superb book. I never stop reading it completely, always looking up some fact or other.
I very much doubt whether any computer sim could generate reality to that extent though!:)

I suppose it's possible that we'll be continually harangued by our AI leaders to rejoin formation if we wander, which might mean tight formations, vics and a tail end charlie, but with a bit of luck they'll drop these tactics sharpish!
I wonder if we'll be able to request a transfer if we don't like the leader?
Fighting Area Attacks anyone?:rolleyes:

[kimosabi]

If I remember correctly, Geoffrey Wellum mentioned in his book "First Light", that the Spitfire had a lower maximum ceiling than the 109. All the way up until the MKV.

*edit* I think I must have remembered wrong. LOL According to this site and data (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html), the Spit mkI had 34700ft ceiling and the 109E had 33792ft.

[Hood]

... clouds of dweebs upping from Hawkinge/Manston and Calais-Marck gangbanging it out at 500 feet in the middle of the Channel. :roll:

Cool, that's just what I like. But then I'm just a 'umble fun seeker.

Hood

[6S.Manu]

If I remember correctly, Geoffrey Wellum mentioned in his book "First Light", that the Spitfire had a lower maximum ceiling than the 109. All the way up until the MKV.

*edit* I think I must have remembered wrong. LOL According to this site and data (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html), the Spit mkI had 34700ft ceiling and the 109E had 33792ft.

Steinhilper agrees with Wellum. The SpitfireII was to worry because the higher ceiling, not the SpitfireI.

[kimosabi]

I MUST get Ulrich Steinhilper's "Spitfire on my tail". I've not read a memoir from the axis side yet.

[Wutz]

Well one can spoil it for the dweebs if the "potholes" last a bit and do not disappear within seconds. By sneaking around the furball heros, ploughing nicely their fields so that the dweeb heros can enjoy their heros landing nose first in the first "pothole" they come across.
I agree to a certain extent with csThor, most will just give a hoot about missions and just gang bang. So be it others enjoy making a wide circute around these "aces of aces" and dropping of a few "parcels" without the heros even noticing what happened. As to online flying I am expecting no changes, reguardless how good a sim is. But I still like the human factor in online flying than flying against a machine, then that´s like playing chess against a computer very frustrating.

[House M.D.]

It's not the plane, it's the pilot and we'll see this once again in CoD.

[SlipBall]

If they got it right, then conserving/worrying over fuel, should keep my attention.:grin:

[mazex]

The only problem regarding fighter tactics with this sim is that we are so spoiled with the fact that Il2 has a majority of all the fighters from WWII... Therefore one of the things that makes it fun is the thoughts like "hmm, which one is it that is faster at low level - the Bf 109 G6 or the Yak 9D?" Should I stay or should I go? Which one turns better? Darn... Should have read up in Hardballs Aircraft viewer or IL2 compare before takeoff!". Therefore we will soon know EVERY detail of the strengths and weaknesses of the ingame representations of the 109 vs Spit or Hurricane... In IL2 it's simply impossible to remember all the matchups at different altitudes etc.

Well, it's good that the 109 E and the Spitfire Mk 1 where so evenly matched that the pilots flying them today do not agree - and neither the war time experiences by pilots from both sides! That will make Olegs statement of that it's the pilot that is the real deciding factor true - and I will probably bite the dust many times vs a Bf 110 when flying a Spitfire ;)

[JG27CaptStubing]

I really love all of this talk about realism... The simple fact remains we fly with virtual lives. Do you think anyone would engage in a fight they couldn't win? Of course not. Do we make retarded decisions because we can just hit refly if it doesn't work out. Of course we do...

I think you get my point. About the closest I've come to using real tactics is when it really counts meaning you only have 1 virtual life and no option to hit refly.

BTW reality is boring... It's always about balancing out Entertainment and Reality. After all this is a game.

[lane]

OK Chaps, assuming (I know, I know...) that the FMs in Cliffs of Dover are fairly true to historical data, the BF 109E and the Spitfire will be fairly evenly matched up to 16,000 ft. Above that altitude the Spitfire starts pulling ahead of the Messer in terms of speed, and at 20.000ft the Spitfire has a decided advantage.

So what this tells us is that we will have to get high and stay high to be successful in the Spitfire. We also must assume that Jerry will not fly historically, but will pretend it's 1944. So, they will not stay with the bombers, they will not engage in low level turn fights, and in short they will be the buzz killers we know them to be.



Hmm, I think that both Spits and Hurricanes match up best against the 109 below say about 10,000' where they have a fairly significant power advantage. Check: Hurricane Mk I Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html) and Spitfire Mk. I versus Me 109 E, A Performance Comparison (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html). That said an altitude advantage going into a fight is certainly desirable.

[6S.Manu]

I really love all of this talk about realism... The simple fact remains we fly with virtual lives. Do you think anyone would engage in a fight they couldn't win? Of course not. Do we make retarded decisions because we can just hit refly if it doesn't work out. Of course we do...

I think you get my point. About the closest I've come to using real tactics is when it really counts meaning you only have 1 virtual life and no option to hit refly.

BTW reality is boring... It's always about balancing out Entertainment and Reality. After all this is a game.

I can tell you that in SEOW the pilot's life heavily counts in term campaign result (overall score); during the BoB campaign there were great fights at 7km between E4 and SpitI (with Blue's fuel limited at start).

[Triggaaar]

We tend to fly as historical as possible but I take you are talking about a regular night in a dogfight server?...
If you are looking for realism, we 5./JG27 are planning to set up a realism CoD server once it's out with historical accurate attacks, but were still in early stage of our plans, no doubt there will be others with the same plans! We hope take part in realism co-op missions once CoD is running on full power as well:)So you will fly your 109s nice and slow, next to your bombers, and you'll lose large numbers when the British attack you with more energy than you have - and then the next time you fly the mission, you'll do the same thing? I doubt you'll enjoy that, even though it's historically accurate.

[Sven]

So you will fly your 109s nice and slow, next to your bombers, and you'll lose large numbers when the British attack you with more energy than you have - and then the next time you fly the mission, you'll do the same thing? I doubt you'll enjoy that, even though it's historically accurate.

You don't get the bigger picture, we plan our attack set up attack routes, we don't inform the enemy where we will be, and we don't know where they will be, the only thing the Allies get is an approximate attack grid which they received from the radar stations, don't get this wrong though, the grid is quite limited and the low fuel load on the 109 doesn't allow much altering from a direct course. I do enjoy real life tactics, I want to get the close as possible WW2 experience, I'm not in for a super ace score using modern tactics and hindsight view about the WW2 and what pilots should have done, I like re-enactment, everyone's interest differ, but this is mine. Overall the Battle of Britain wasn't a turkey shoot, there was fierce battle raging on. I'm not going further into this. Ende. Lets keep this civil.

[kimosabi]

I really love all of this talk about realism... The simple fact remains we fly with virtual lives. Do you think anyone would engage in a fight they couldn't win? Of course not. Do we make retarded decisions because we can just hit refly if it doesn't work out. Of course we do...


A 12 plane Spitfire wing, three vics of four, heading directly into 100 plane bomber/fighter formations at co alt would be a "retarded" decision, yes? Even if that formation possibly had 109's in high cover as well? It happened IRL. Just to pick one example. ;)

But yes, we do retarded things with our computers. Indeed. :grin:

[JG53Frankyboy]

I MUST get Ulrich Steinhilper's "Spitfire on my tail". I've not read a memoir from the axis side yet.

but it has not much BoB action in the book, he was shot down very early in the campaign.

[lane]

Steinhilper agrees with Wellum. The SpitfireII was to worry because the higher ceiling, not the SpitfireI.

Actually Steinhilper wrote (page 330 of my copy of his book): “The Me 109 E 4 was capable of reaching 10,000 metres (32,800 ft) with the Mk I Spitfire at a comparable 10,3363 (typo) metres(34,000 ft), but the new Mk IIs soared up to 11,340 metres (37,200 ft.) This gave a tactical advantage of 1,340 metres or 4,300 ft to the Spitfires.”

but it has not much BoB action in the book, he was shot down very early in the campaign.

My copy of Steinhilper’s book describes action during the Battle of Britain, especially concerning I/JG 52, in a loose diary form up to the date Steinhilper was shot down - 27 October 1940.

[Ernst]

By the way reds speak here BoB was a Turkey Shot where RAF massacrated the Luftwaffe. Poor ones the main reason RAF was not ripped from the sky was because a change in Strategy, withdrawing the pressure over the RAF, pilots and airfields to the useless bombings of London. BoB had no winners, luftwaffe just withdraw because the Operation Barbarossa was to begin. Luftwaffe crushed the RAF at Malta for two times and then withdraw because the fighters was needed in some other place. The things only changed when americans came with massive long range fighters.

[JG27CaptStubing]

I can tell you that in SEOW the pilot's life heavily counts in term campaign result (overall score); during the BoB campaign there were great fights at 7km between E4 and SpitI (with Blue's fuel limited at start).

Sort of my point... I fly GhostSkies which is similar to SE but customized... Fly with one life and you will get more realistic tactics.

[Ernst]

The USAAF with their massive fighters and heavy bombers crushed the luftwaffe in the West.

[SlipBall]

Quote ElAurens
We also must assume that Jerry will not fly historically, but will pretend it's 1944. So, they will not stay with the bombers, they will not engage in low level turn fights, and in short they will be the buzz killers we know them to be



Jerry will have maybe 15 minutes of fuel to play with. So I think players will be forced to fly historically...of course there may be the unlimited fuel option chosen, but then what fun would that be.:grin:

[JG52Uther]

I can't wait to find myself halfway across the channel,with my fuel light on!

[Sven]

I can't wait to find myself halfway across the channel,with my fuel light on!

haha classic! I think there's going to be lots of those situations when I find my self in a dogfight, start gaining control, only to return when I see the fuel gauge dropping dangerously low:grin:

[Richie]

Totally forget about London and plug your ears when you hear Goring. This time Molders is running the show!


By the way here's a very ...different documentary on The Battle Of Britain. 109 pilots will love! Click on the youtube logo on the lower right hand corner and watch all 6 parts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDDeLRy7UM0

[6S.Manu]

Actually Steinhilper wrote (page 330 of my copy of his book): “The Me 109 E 4 was capable of reaching 10,000 metres (32,800 ft) with the Mk I Spitfire at a comparable 10,3363 (typo) metres(34,000 ft), but the new Mk IIs soared up to 11,340 metres (37,200 ft.) This gave a tactical advantage of 1,340 metres or 4,300 ft to the Spitfires.”

Checked! You're correct!

[DKoor]

It'll be what I've seen in virtually any flightsim I've played online ... clouds of dweebs upping from Hawkinge/Manston and Calais-Marck gangbanging it out at 500 feet in the middle of the Channel. :roll:

If you seek historical gameplay online be prepared to seek for like-minded folks with magnifying glasses. You won't find it on standard servers.

Quoted for truth.

I don't really get where the optimistic people in this regard find their optimism.

Heck, after all these years you'd think people would know better than to fly on arcade quake shoot em all servers.

Just to be sure those "realistic" quakes aren't any better either, instead of noobs they are just filled with snobs.

And unless something epic happens and 1C makes some realistic mod of playing somehow attractive, quakes will continue to rule.

[DKoor]

haha classic! I think there's going to be lots of those situations when I find my self in a dogfight, start gaining control, only to return when I see the fuel gauge dropping dangerously low:grin:

[Related to my previous post,] that scenario may interest you, me and few other die hards, but I assure you over 90% players don't want to fly 50-60 minutes for 5-10 minutes of action. And we are talking best case scenario because if you don't find anyone to shoot in those 10mins, and you most likely wont since there will probably be no organized groups of 20, 30+ players that will fly in packs and you can spot em from miles away, you must turn back and RTB. Sounds great! Especially when repeated.

I predict some kind of spawn 5 mins from target are or something... and that to be extremely popular option.

PS. sorry for my pessimism.

[major_setback]

Hide behind the cliffs!

[Skoshi Tiger]

Totally forget about London and plug your ears when you hear Goring. This time Molders is running the show!

“Are you spreading sedition and rumours about the competency of your leaders? Your conduct is unbefitting of an officer in the victorious Luftwaffe!
You are hereby stripped of all rank and privileges and will be held under armed guard until morning when you will be taken from this place and shot as is befitting of the traitorous dog you are!”

I doubt COD will allow 100% realism on its servers! ;)

[Triggaaar]

You don't get the bigger picture, we plan our attack set up attack routes, we don't inform the enemy where we will be, and we don't know where they will be, the only thing the Allies get is an approximate attack grid which they received from the radar stationsI completely get that, sounds good. However, when doing that, the 109 pilots know that the best way to defend their bombers is to fly above them, not at the same altitude and speed, which is what did happen. And consequently, I imagine you guys will fly as you know you should, rather than as was done in the war. If you deliberately fly poor tactics, and lose, you'll get frustrated with it (poor tactics might be fine for the odd battle creation, but annoying if it's all you did).
Lets keep this civil.I'm not attacking you at all.

By the way reds speak here BoB was a Turkey Shot where RAF massacrated the Luftwaffe.Not at all, there are also comments like this that suggest the opposite:I expect the RAF to fly hugely outnumbered,in tight VIC formation (known to amused LW pilots as the 'Idioten reihe') and have a 'sitting duck' weaver flying around behind them...

Poor ones the main reason RAF was not ripped from the sky was because a change in Strategy, withdrawing the pressure over the RAF, pilots and airfields to the useless bombings of London.Actually I think that's missinformation. How many airfields were ever out of action, and of those, how many for more than a day? I think the answer to the second question is none. The Germans under-estimated the RAF's resources, and the RAF were never actually close to losing the battle.

BoB had no winners, luftwaffe just withdraw because the Operation Barbarossa was to begin.The RAF shot down a lot more planes and lost a lot less pilots, and prevented the Germans from invading. That was what they were supposed to do. The Germans were supposed to clear the way for an invasion, and they failed. Of course there was a winner. Suggesting that the Germans were just a bit too busy is school kid stuff - 'oh, we would win but can't be bothered'. The Germans were busy fighting on other fronts, but that's war.

Luftwaffe crushed the RAF at Malta for two times and then withdraw because the fighters was needed in some other place. The things only changed when americans came with massive long range fighters. Firstly, what's Malta got to do with the Battle of Britain? Secondly, Malta was a long way from Britain and difficult to defend, and while Germany and Italy planned to take it (land invasion), they failed. How is that crushing the RAF? Again, needing their fighters elsewhere is part of the problem when they keep getting shot down. I assume you mention US fighters regarding the war in general, not in Malta.

[Richie]

“Are you spreading sedition and rumours about the competency of your leaders? Your conduct is unbefitting of an officer in the victorious Luftwaffe!
You are hereby stripped of all rank and privileges and will be held under armed guard until morning when you will be taken from this place and shot as is befitting of the traitorous dog you are!”

I doubt COD will allow 100% realism on its servers! ;)

LOL...Ya that was the problem. Actually it's a good thing Goring did do those things and butted in. Having 109s fly slow side by side bombers like sitting ducks is not a good idea. That won't happen when I'm General Of my one fighter :)

[Skoshi Tiger]

LOL...Ya that was the problem. Actually it's a good thing Goring did do those things and butted in. Having 109s fly slow side by side bombers like sitting ducks is not a good idea. That won't happen when I'm General Of my one fighter :)

Of course you could be one of the renagade pilots mentioned in the press release! Say yes to the orders then use the tactics that are going to win!

Cheers!

[Richie]

Of course you could be one of the renagade pilots mentioned in the press release! Say yes to the orders then use the tactics that are going to win!

Cheers!

Sounds good.

[swiss]

Don't give Jerry the chance to be the "Hun in the sun".

1st minute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIcWxowigxY&feature=related

[swiss]

Quoted for truth.

I don't really get where the optimistic people in this regard find their optimism.

Heck, after all these years you'd think people would know better than to fly on arcade quake shoot em all servers.

Just to be sure those "realistic" quakes aren't any better either, instead of noobs they are just filled with snobs.

And unless something epic happens and 1C makes some realistic mod of playing somehow attractive, quakes will continue to rule.

If those are FR servers like BoB - Great!

Seriously, I really don't have the nerve to climb for 20 minutes just to get shot down in 2 min battle.
(cruising around at 4-5k on BoB does give you an edge;))

Flying around for an hour without single kill[but I survived -hurray] is not too attractive either, at least to me.
That's why I quit ADW.

After all it's a game*; I want fun, I want action and I want entertainment.

*Wiki says: A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool.


Edit: Haven't had read your 2nd post when I wrote mine, sorry.
Especially when repeated.

ROFL!

[Wutz]

If those are FR servers like BoB - Great!

Seriously, I really don't have the nerve to climb for 20 minutes just to get shot down in 2 min battle.
(cruising around at 4-5k on BoB does give you an edge;))

Flying around for an hour without single kill[but I survived -hurray] is not too attractive either, at least to me.
That's why I quit ADW.

Full real Server does not mean that there are no ding bats! I fly those servers too, and still you have on a lot of maps with great missions, halfway between both bases the usual gang bang of furballers who don´t give a hoot about anything except maybe landing some hits, not really caring if those hits are on friendly or enemy. I doubt very much that this will ever change reguadless what kind of sim ever reaches the market.

[swiss]

not really caring if those hits are on friendly or enemy.

Those pilots are usually rookies - and dearly hope this will never change.
If it does, it means we will run out of new pilots pretty soon.
(and I refuse to play offline)
;)

[BadAim]

I still remember the days when you could get a good tactical battle going on Spits v 109's or ZvW and Warclouds too.

Don't forget guys, there will be smaller maps available for online play, and even user made ones later on for all the "Air-quaking" fun any human could have.

I think there will be plenty of fun to go around, no matter what the individual's taste.

I'm looking forward to some late nights this spring!

[Ltbear]

All war games about wars in the past have one main problem. We know what the did correct and we can figure out what they did wrong. Right there you have the reson why "historical" battles cant be made Historical.

You will have to tie someones dynamic game to a static game to do that. Will the German stay close and slow to the bombers?? Hell no, they know it was wrong to do, they wount be forced to do it.

Same problem with IL2 in the pacific. You have Japanese pilots, flying with tactics they shouldnt and they use radios...

Both sides have to accept that the Historical comes from the time and dates and the hardware, not from the what you will se on the servers. You cant park a game with a static result but trying to use a dynamic way to get the static result.

Historical is a scriptet way towards the endgame, making sure that the Historical facts are used to get to the correct ending..... How many do anyone think they can get to do that.....Blues want to beat reds, they will do anything they can to do that....they dont have "stupid" commanders to order them around....they know by history what they shouldnt do.....

LTbear

[csThor]

Precisely. This grade of historical accuracy can only be achieved offline when the AI allows it. But even the grade of historical accuracy that could be achieved online is virtually impossible outside of tight-knit groups of players with the same outlook, because the great majority of players can't look beyond their limited perspective of dogfight-this-dogfight-that and that gawd-awful ever-present sportive contest (and the pi**ing contest and chart-wars it brings along, not to mention the late-war monsterplane fixation). I'd love to fly a Stuka attack on Portsmouth harbor with its anchored destroyers if that made sense online. Unfortunately it doesn't. Worse - it's a waste of precious time and nerves. First you won't find enough people to man the Stukas, then you won't find enough people disciplined enough to be of actual use as fighter escort and then you'll only draw the score-whores on the other side who want easy prey just to demonstrate what heroes they are. :roll:

But then I may actually be a bit bitter. Who knows? :rolleyes:

[swiss]

Fly at >4k, and you'll be fine.


Btw, why were the Stukas withdrawn? ;)

[1.JaVA_Sharp]

because too many of them were lost.

[352ndBushpilot]

Hi csThor,

Well, the kind of attack you describe here are still being done. I know from personal experience (last night f.e.) that operations like this are still being executed in online campaigns. You need a good operating squad to do this, with equally trained opponents.

Good examples are the AKAFA campaigns and the Ghostskies campaigns.

But you won't find the them on regular online servers, unless you join them with your squad.

example: http://70.87.121.84:8082/campaign/Map_View.aspx

Only problem is the timezone...:grin:

cheers,

352ndBP

[Ltbear]

because too many of them were lost.

Because of historical bad planning and tactics......

This is and will be the main factor of alot of whining when COD comes out. The luftwaffe will encounter things they will se as wierd, the Brits will se things they will scream out was not historical....

We get a game that is a portal back. We are given the tools to recreate battles, but we cant recreate the outcome unless those flying Luftwaffe accept this and will play there game acordingly....

Im looking forward to COD, but i hope someone out there have the same thoughts as me...

Not recreate the BOB, but use it as an arena to create our own BOB

Not using a Historical unit, but create one, make a unit where you make the history and not a Tac that was used by someone else..

Use the interest in history and the skills earned in flightsimming for years. Have a campaign leader who realy understand it is not about re-inactment, but letting us creating our own story...

We all should learn from history are told over and over again. We have learned from history, we know what was good and wrong...this is what we should do. Using these tools of fun createt to us, use them to bring us into history...our own history.....our battle of britain

LTbear

[kimosabi]

I'm wondering if we'll be able to fly under the British radar. The Germans didn't think it was a big deal so they kept comin in at normal altitudes but surely, if they knew the importance of it, they'd sneak under it IMO.

[swiss]

I'm wondering if we'll be able to fly under the British radar. The Germans didn't think it was a big deal so they kept comin in at normal altitudes but surely, if they knew the importance of it, they'd sneak under it IMO.

I thought they actually did, later in the war.

[SlipBall]

I'm wondering if we'll be able to fly under the British radar. The Germans didn't think it was a big deal so they kept comin in at normal altitudes but surely, if they knew the importance of it, they'd sneak under it IMO.



All most certainly...let those spotter's earn their keep, Brit pilots drop their tea and scramble.:grin:

[Sven]

[Related to my previous post,] that scenario may interest you, me and few other die hards, but I assure you over 90% players don't want to fly 50-60 minutes for 5-10 minutes of action. And we are talking best case scenario because if you don't find anyone to shoot in those 10mins, and you most likely wont since there will probably be no organized groups of 20, 30+ players that will fly in packs and you can spot em from miles away, you must turn back and RTB. Sounds great! Especially when repeated.

I predict some kind of spawn 5 mins from target are or something... and that to be extremely popular option.

PS. sorry for my pessimism.

Not talking about a dogfight server mate, but a co-op where we try to re-enact a battle, ( Squad vs Squad ,or multiple) sure you're right it wouldn't fit a quick arcade action server. I wouldn't like to see that on a regular server as well, but if you take a look at the Spits vs 109 server, that's what I think is the best, lots of ground action, action not far away but also not very close, and comes a lot closer to reality then just a regular dogfight server.

[Triggaaar]

Will the German stay close and slow to the bombers?? Hell no, they know it was wrong to do, they wount be forced to do it.

Same problem with IL2 in the pacific. You have Japanese pilots, flying with tactics they shouldnt and they use radios...

Both sides have to accept that the Historical comes from the time and dates and the hardware, not from the what you will se on the servers. You cant park a game with a static result but trying to use a dynamic way to get the static result.Exactly my view. And I don't think it's a bad thing. But there are those that believe they will fly in an historically correct manner, which I think is daft, unless it's a one off to re-create a specific battle.


Precisely. This grade of historical accuracy can only be achieved offline when the AI allows it. But even the grade of historical accuracy that could be achieved online is virtually impossible outside of tight-knit groups of players with the same outlookI think it's tough even within a tight-knit squad. The one way it can be done is if your squad flies the same mission twice, with you all having a go on both sides. The rule would be that you floow the orders given to you. One side might have good tactics, and advantage going into the fight, or superior numbers. That way it doesn't matter if you've been set-up to fail, you switch sides afterwards and try and better your opponents victory. What I find difficult to imagine is that someone would stick to historically accurate tactics and always fly blue.

I'd love to fly a Stuka attack on Portsmouth harbor with its anchored destroyers if that made sense online. Unfortunately it doesn't. Worse - it's a waste of precious time and nerves. First you won't find enough people to man the Stukas, then you won't find enough people disciplined enough to be of actual use as fighter escort and then you'll only draw the score-whores on the other side who want easy prey just to demonstrate what heroes they are. :roll:

But then I may actually be a bit bitter.Yes I think you might be :) I actually think it'll be easy to setup a successful online mission for you to bomb Portsmouth in your Stukas. 109s should be happy to escourt you from above (if the RAF's mission is to shoot the Sukas, what else can a 109 pilot do except look for the reds by covering the Stukas?), and you can always limit the number of Spits against you. If you haven't found that sort of thing online before, maybe you've flown on the wrong servers.

Because of historical bad planning and tactics......

This is and will be the main factor of alot of whining when COD comes out. The luftwaffe will encounter things they will se as wierd, the Brits will se things they will scream out was not historical....The only complaints I saw in IL2 were where people thought the planes weren't historically accurate - I've never seen people complain that the pilots aren't flying as per their historical counterparts, because no one expects them to.

We are given the tools to recreate battles, but we cant recreate the outcome unless those flying Luftwaffe accept this and will play there game acordingly....It's unrealistic to recreate battles totally accurately. Not only would we have to have accurate planes, numbers and tactics, but we'd need accurate pilot skill, and each side would have to be appropriately miss-informed about the abilities of the opposing aircraft, etc.

We all should learn from history are told over and over again. We have learned from history, we know what was good and wrong...this is what we should do. Using these tools of fun createt to us, use them to bring us into history...our own history.....our battle of britainLol, if we want to create our own history, and we truly have learnt from the past, then lets end this stupid war and all go down the pub!

[Tacoma74]

I'll be flying German kites mostly... more specifically the Bf-109E3. They have several key advantages over that of the Hurricane and the Spit: A direct injection system, better dive, better climb, and far superior armament. However, it takes a good pilot to really take advantage of its advantages as it is a cruel bitch to tame. And the 109 was never designed to fly slow, it's at its peak performance at higher speeds. The tactics in the beginning of the BoB for the Luftwaffe was to fly the 109s in ahead of the bombers and keep their airspeed up, making it a much more effective weapon. But then Goering ordered them to stick with the bombers, which means they had to fly alot slower... thus making the act of engaging the enemy a much harder task. When the enemy was spotted you don't have near enough airspeed and momentum to make the necessary combat maneuvers making a nice target for any Spits or Hurris that get in behind you. This was one of the key tactical failures for the Luftwaffe.

So my suggestion for any Bf-109 pilot is to get plenty of altitude, keep your speed up (400km/h and up i would say)... go in fast ahead of your bombers, and when you spot the enemy use one of your planes key advantages: climb climb climb! (unless you already have a good altitude advantage) But it's crutial to keep that airspeed up above 300km/h and your throttle way up in the climb. Hopefully it'll put you in a good position to dive in right behind em... and with a bit of flying and shooting skills you should be pretty successful. If you happen to run into trouble, just throw that stick forward and dive out of harms way. Those Merlin powered birds have a lot of trouble with negative G forces. :cool:

[Richie]

You guy's should watch the whole thing. Actually I would like to send it to Oleg or Ilya to watch. 3 minutes


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8FsRU0fv_A

[Tacoma74]

You guy's should watch the whole thing. Actually I would like to send it to Oleg or Ilya to watch.

I did.. very interesting perspective that was told. Many Brits feared the 109, they saw what it could do in Poland and France. In the end it was the poor tactics and organization that lead to the Luftwaffe's demise. Not this time around though :)

[kimosabi]

I think we need some 190's. I need my easy escape route.

[BadAim]

Lol, if we want to create our own history, and we truly have learnt from the past, then lets end this stupid war and all go down the pub!


Here, Here!

[BadAim]

All war games about wars in the past have one main problem. We know what the did correct and we can figure out what they did wrong. Right there you have the reson why "historical" battles cant be made Historical.

You will have to tie someones dynamic game to a static game to do that. Will the German stay close and slow to the bombers?? Hell no, they know it was wrong to do, they wount be forced to do it.

Same problem with IL2 in the pacific. You have Japanese pilots, flying with tactics they shouldnt and they use radios...

Both sides have to accept that the Historical comes from the time and dates and the hardware, not from the what you will se on the servers. You cant park a game with a static result but trying to use a dynamic way to get the static result.

Historical is a scriptet way towards the endgame, making sure that the Historical facts are used to get to the correct ending..... How many do anyone think they can get to do that.....Blues want to beat reds, they will do anything they can to do that....they dont have "stupid" commanders to order them around....they know by history what they shouldnt do.....

LTbear

Exactly, Exactly. Isn't this what wargaming is about? To try to do the battle better? It's always a "what if" scenario, if not what's the point really?

[Richie]

Can you imagine P-51s being forced to fly wing tip to wing tip wing B-17s. I don't think that would work very well

[TinyTim]

"It [the 109] had one advantage over the spitfire - it could get higher. We always were at disadvantage - every time we met them they were higher than we were."

from interview with spitfire ace George C. "Grumpy" Unwin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI)

[Xilon_x]

REGGIANE 2005/2006 is much much superior to p51 and spitfire and also p38.

http://www.clubfreccetricolori.com/clubfrecce9/Reggiane/re2005/Re2005-26_1.jpg
if italian use this airplane in BATTLE OF BRITTAIN WINN THE WAR.

[fruitbat]

but it has not much BoB action in the book, he was shot down very early in the campaign.

No he wasn't, it was in october, and his plane came down near a village called Sarre, about 2 miles away from me. His plane is on display at Hawkinge, and he flew over 100 missions in BoB.

I suggest you re-read the book,

by the way, i finished it about a month ago.

[Daniël]

@ Xilon, Wikipedia says the project was started in 1941. After the BoB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005
An interesting Italian plane, just like the Fiat G.55

[robtek]

@Tacoma74

if you fly the 109 always at 400+ km/h you would have to land in england without fuel

[SlipBall]

@Tacoma74

if you fly the 109 always at 400+ km/h you would have to land in england without fuel


Yes...even if CoD has an close to target, air start spawn, I'm sure that the fuel on board will be low. It should reflect what would have been burned during the normal trip, and I would be surprised if Oleg has this different... Fuel concerns, dictating player tactics will have to play a major role here. If not the game will be kind of a joke, for me anyway.:grin:


I should have mentioned that my thoughts are for the full switch servers only...

[Triggaaar]

Yes...even if CoD has an close to target, air start spawn, I'm sure that the fuel on board will be low.Well Oleg will have made the 109 carry the amount of fuel it was supposed to. It's not his fault if a map maker gives you an air spawn off the cost with 100% fuel. Hopefully the map making system will allow the map maker to set your fuel, should that be wanted.

Reading this thread it seems that nearly all want about the same thing. We want to have a go with the same planes our ancestors used, but with the benefit of hindsight. But I don't think the few that think they want the scenario to be as realistic as possible really know what they're asking for. A successful RAF pilot would have flown a couple of sorties a day, for a few months - normally not making contact with the enemy, and totalling up maybe 2 kills by the end of it. Are there seriously people here who'd want to spend a few months doing that?

[Triggaaar]

I'll be flying German kites mostly... more specifically the Bf-109E3. They have several key advantages over that of the Hurricane and the Spit: A direct injection system, better dive, better climb, and far superior armament.Your points on the fuel system and superior diving match what I've read, but I'm not so sure about climb rates. Where are you getting the data from? According to wwiiaircraftperformance.org (and I have no idea how accurate it is, but a few here have pointed to it) the BoB Spits are faster than the 109s and climb at least as well:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
on that page the climb rate is shown as about the same for the standard MkI Spit, and I assume the 12lb boost model would be a lot better. Speed wise the standard Spit is slower at many altitudes, but at it's optimal altitude the Spit is faster. The 12lb boost Spit is faster than the 109s at all altitudes.

I'm not suggesting that information is definitive, feel free to post any other relevant information.

[kimosabi]

Ta.

[Xilon_x]

Germany had a quantity 'number of aircraft far superior to the British.
Germany in those conditions, the winning ratio was 60 to 40 will
.
british for my opinion have good luck in battle of brittain and germany not use massive and total 100% powers.

[Xilon_x]

German bombing tactics and strategy in the battle of brittain is = to examples italian GENERAL Giulio Douhet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet

[swiss]

Germany had a quantity 'number of aircraft far superior to the British.
Germany in those conditions, the winning ratio was 60 to 40 will
.
british for my opinion have good luck in battle of brittain and germany not use massive and total 100% powers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11029903

[Abbeville-Boy]

german loses were high because of radar
in game will be same :evil:

[Xilon_x]

english tactics is use radar instruments patrol area 24h to 24h and escort england convoy german have the 1 canche for destroy ENGALND massive surprise attak to LONDON but this attak failed because German use only areal force if germany use areal force+navy force+earth force the course of war for my opinon is different.

[Ernst]

Most Germans loses were Bomber aircraft badly escorted by fighter lacking of fuel endurance. Obviously, radar helped, British could concentrate their attacks in defenseless germans bombers. But when fighter gone against fighter the fight was very well matched, not the Turkey shot some were saying. It ll be not surprise if many just not come home crash landing in the Channel by no fuel, not destroyed by RAF.

If we consider Africa and Malta were the conditions were much more equal the Luftwaffe had the edge. At Afrika and Malta the 109 performed better than the spitfire. After USAAF and massive long range fighters take the edge.

[Triggaaar]

this attak failed because German use only areal force if germany use areal force+navy force+earth force the course of war for my opinon is different.They'd have lost quicker. Britain had a larger Navy than Germany, biggest in the World I think. Trying to transport troups across the chanel with a fully functional RAF would have been disasterous.

[swiss]

if germany use areal force+navy force+earth force the course of war for my opinon is different.

No sh1t, really?
What do you think BoB was about?

(btw, even if they managed to destroy London, which was impossible, they still couldn't land.
Or are you suggesting they should have landed in London?)

[lane]

I highly recommend Stephen Bungay’s
The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Most-Dangerous-Enemy-History-Britain/dp/1845134818/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295727313&sr=8-1) It’s a must have!

According to wwiiaircraftperformance.org (and I have no idea how accurate it is, but a few here have pointed to it) the BoB Spits are faster than the 109s and climb at least as well:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
on that page the climb rate is shown as about the same for the standard MkI Spit, and I assume the 12lb boost model would be a lot better. Speed wise the standard Spit is slower at many altitudes, but at it's optimal altitude the Spit is faster. The 12lb boost Spit is faster than the 109s at all altitudes.

That page is extremely well sourced. Apparently the +12 boosted Spits and Hurricanes are the only ones relevant to a Battle of Britain sim.

[Triggaaar]

But when fighter gone against fighter the fight was very well matched, not the Turkey shot some were saying.Yes the fighers were well matched. Pilot stories all say the fighters were well matched. Can you quote where someone said this was a tukey shoot (or words to that effect), because we know that wasn't the case. A lot of the pilot losses are down to the fact that when the RAF bailed over Britain, they weren't captured, and British fighters had 1 pilot in them, vs several airmen in a German bomber. With that in mind though, the RAF shot down more German aircraft because of better tactics. One annoying thing for red pilots in IL2 is the lack of ammunition in Spits, but this wasn't such a problem in real life, because pilots don't tend to shoot down 5 opponents per sortie in real life.

It ll be not surprise if many just not come home crash landing in the Channel by no fuel, not destroyed by RAF.I'd give them more credit to be able to read their instruments than that (unless they've been shot and had a fuel leak).

[Xilon_x]

yes ROYAL navy is a big power but Germany have the perfect and dangerous u-boat and have air superiority.
attak london whit a surpraise areal attak and german navy landing to london yes is impossible but for me is a 1 canche for invasion of britain because in that moment REGIA MARINA ITALIANA not move? i ask? why?
i think in the sea manica is more more sea mine and the access from the sea is very dangerous.

[Ernst]

Yes the fighers were well matched. Pilot stories all say the fighters were well matched. Can you quote where someone said this was a tukey shoot (or words to that effect), because we know that wasn't the case. A lot of the pilot losses are down to the fact that when the RAF bailed over Britain, they weren't captured, and British fighters had 1 pilot in them, vs several airmen in a German bomber. With that in mind though, the RAF shot down more German aircraft because of better tactics. One annoying thing for red pilots in IL2 is the lack of ammunition in Spits, but this wasn't such a problem in real life, because pilots don't tend to shoot down 5 opponents per sortie in real life.

I'd give them more credit to be able to read their instruments than that (unless they've been shot and had a fuel leak).

I give them credit, but manage your aircraft in such hostile enviroment and flying in the endurance limits is not so simple.


The fuel comsuption it is not a very clear and fixed variable, if you need to operate at combat RPM for a longer time maybe you ll not have fuel to RTB. A certain amount could give you 20 minutes or 30 minutes more depending on your engine RPM. In battle bad things happen, even you were not shot (malfunction, lose of orientation, if you fly wrong route for only little time etc). If you are near home, you just land. If you are far from home opsss. And considering luftwaffe fighters were flying in their limits, sometimes things get worse.

[Triggaaar]

yes ROYAL navy is a big power but Germany have the perfect and dangerous u-boat and have air superiority.Germany didn't have air superiority - that was the point of the Battle of Britain. Germany couldn't land troups without being attacked from the air. And while the u-boats were great in the Atlantic, they wouldn't fair as well supporting an invasion force. They'd have to move and give up their position, and they'd be sunk.

attak london whit a surpraise areal attak and german navy landing to london yes is impossible but for me is a 1 canche for invasion of britainAlthough Germany made mistakes in the Battle of Britain, they had amazing success in the war as a whole. If they could have successfully invaded Britain, they would have. It would have made it rather tricky for the US to come and join in.

[Abbeville-Boy]

I give them credit, but manage your aircraft in such hostile enviroment and flying in the endurance limits is not so simple.


The fuel comsuption it is not a very clear and fixed variable, if you need to operate at combat RPM for a longer time maybe you ll not have fuel to RTB. A certain amount could give you 20 minutes or 30 minutes more depending on your engine RPM. In battle bad things happen, even you were not shot (malfunction, lose of orientation, if you fly wrong route for only little time etc). If you are near home, you just land. If you are far from home opsss. And considering luftwaffe fighters were flying in their limits, sometimes things get worse.


you have good understandings

[JG52Uther]

I think its in Steinhilpers book that he talks about many 109 pilots coming down in the channel due to running out of fuel,something like 16 or so (guessing,can't quite remember,but it was a lot) in one day,with most of the pilots drowning.
This is another thing,surely the RAF planes should have a heavier fuel load than the LW fighters?
A 109 should be just around the 50% mark when it gets to the combat area.
So RAF boys,what do you do? Carry a full tank and hope you don't meet a 109 with 50% fuel, or take off with 50% and hope you don't run out and have to land before we turn up...
Will make for some strategic flying on a realistic server! :)

[Wutz]

I think its in Steinhilpers book that he talks about many 109 pilots coming down in the channel due to running out of fuel,something like 16 or so (guessing,can't quite remember,but it was a lot) in one day,with most of the pilots drowning.
This is another thing,surely the RAF planes should have a heavier fuel load than the LW fighters?
A 109 should be just around the 50% mark when it gets to the combat area.
So RAF boys,what do you do? Carry a full tank and hope you don't meet a 109 with 50% fuel, or take off with 50% and hope you don't run out and have to land before we turn up...
Will make for some strategic flying on a realistic server! :)

Well that is where some flyable seaplanes would come handy to pick up downed airmen out of the drink. The Do 24 did a lot of SAR missions.

[JG52Uther]

Yes,but those dastardly RAF types used to hunt the rescue planes,and I don't think the people flying CoD will take any notice of the red cosses either! ;)

[Xilon_x]

because the fuel ended?
had not previously done a good briefing?
do not calculate how much fuel could he do?
maybe there were losses caused by bullet holes.

[David603]

I think its in Steinhilpers book that he talks about many 109 pilots coming down in the channel due to running out of fuel,something like 16 or so (guessing,can't quite remember,but it was a lot) in one day,with most of the pilots drowning.
This is another thing,surely the RAF planes should have a heavier fuel load than the LW fighters?
A 109 should be just around the 50% mark when it gets to the combat area.
So RAF boys,what do you do? Carry a full tank and hope you don't meet a 109 with 50% fuel, or take off with 50% and hope you don't run out and have to land before we turn up...
Will make for some strategic flying on a realistic server! :)
If it takes you 50% of your fuel to reach the area of combat then how are you going to get home after fighting? ;)

I'm thinking it will be more like Bf109's on 60-70% fuel and Spitfires and Huricanes on 70-80% fuel if the fight takes place over England. Over the Channel this would be reversed, since the RAF fighters would have further to fly.

[JG52Uther]

I won't be fighting,I'll be running ;)
Actually you won't find me,as I'll be hedge hopping on the way to Kenley with some presents...

[SlipBall]

I won't be fighting,I'll be running ;)
Actually you won't find me,as I'll be hedge hopping on the way to Kenley with some presents...


LOL, funny


quote
Yes,but those dastardly RAF types used to hunt the rescue planes,and I don't think the people flying CoD will take any notice of the red cosses either!


They will view the cross as a target, and blame poor eyesight:-P

[Icewolf]

who says the spitfire outturns the 109? show me the references from 1940

[Abbeville-Boy]

oooh
cod first graph and chart thread
for proofs :grin::-P

[Triggaaar]

who says the spitfire outturns the 109? show me the references from 1940Pilot accounts said the Spit turned better. Here's a quote from wwiiaircraftperformance.org - http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

"The RAE determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire." and that the corresponding time to turn through 360 deg is 25 seconds for the Me 109 and 19 seconds for the Spitfire. 73 (See also Me 109 and Spitfire. Comparison of Turning Circles and Spitfire and Me 109 Diagrams of Turning). 60 years later Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings. 74 "

So, reading that WWII performance site, the Spit was faster, climbed better, and turned better. Oleg may have had to program the fighters closer just to give the 109s a chance.

[lane]

who says the spitfire outturns the 109? show me the references from 1940

Did you see the video posted earlier in this thread by TinyTim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI

“Invariably in a fight you’re chasing each other round and round and round but you could turn much more tight (that way)… smaller turning circle than any German fighter, especially the 109; and that was the best feature, by far.”

Unwin flew Spitfires with 19 Squadron right through the Battle of Britain. I guess he should know.

[Tacoma74]

@Tacoma74

if you fly the 109 always at 400+ km/h you would have to land in england without fuel

Flying at 400km/h isn't that hard to do at about 45%-55% throttle in level flight (with the proper trimming of coarse). Or at least that's what I've noticed in IL-2: 1946. I'm not one of those that fly at 110% everywhere i go, that is just nonsense... But like people are saying fuel concerns are going to be the biggest limiting factor when it comes to time spent across the channel. But we'll just have to wait and see just exactly how accurately fuel consumption is modeled in CoD. The RAF will definitely have the advantage as far as fuel tho....

[Tacoma74]

Your points on the fuel system and superior diving match what I've read, but I'm not so sure about climb rates. Where are you getting the data from? According to wwiiaircraftperformance.org (and I have no idea how accurate it is, but a few here have pointed to it) the BoB Spits are faster than the 109s and climb at least as well:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
on that page the climb rate is shown as about the same for the standard MkI Spit, and I assume the 12lb boost model would be a lot better. Speed wise the standard Spit is slower at many altitudes, but at it's optimal altitude the Spit is faster. The 12lb boost Spit is faster than the 109s at all altitudes.

I'm not suggesting that information is definitive, feel free to post any other relevant information.

I've been doing a bit of reading and it seems you may be somewhat correct. The Spit MkI did outclimb the Bf-109E, but only above about 7,000 feet or so. But I stand firm with my claim of other advantages. The 109 just seems a better plane to me, but it takes alot of practice and getting used to.

[David603]

So, reading that WWII performance site, the Spit was faster, climbed better, and turned better. Oleg may have had to program the fighters closer just to give the 109s a chance.
Oleg has said several times in the past that his aim is to simulate reality, not to create "balanced gameplay".

[BadAim]

As has been said soooo many times, here and elswhere, the pilot has much more to do with the outcome of a battle than the aircraft. The simple fact is that both aircraft have strong points and weak points and the pilot who knows them, exploits them properly and has conserved his fuel enough to exploit them at all will be victorious. Or at least get home in one piece.

I'll be the ball of fire heading towards the ground.

[Triggaaar]

I've been doing a bit of reading and it seems you may be somewhat correct. The Spit MkI did outclimb the Bf-109E, but only above about 7,000 feet or so.I'm only reading from that wwii performance site link, I haven't read much of that before. According to the info there, the Spit even outclimbed the 109 from the deck, if the 12lb boost was engaged. The details from the 190 that landed in Britain is interesting too.

But I stand firm with my claim of other advantages. The 109 just seems a better plane to me, but it takes alot of practice and getting used to.Do you mean it seems like a better plane in IL2?

Oleg has said several times in the past that his aim is to simulate reality, not to create "balanced gameplay".Thanks for that. Although that's what we'd all ask for, it's not necessarily what's best for the game (depending on the area). The balance of pilot skill on our servers will be fair, but in real life it was very different. And numbers on our servers, and tactics are also similar, but in real life these were very different too. If these reports are really true, that the Spit was faster (slghtly), climbed better (with boost), and out-turned the 109E (easily), and Oleg makes them as such, there will be a lot of unhappy blue players.

[BadAim]

Oleg has said several times in the past that his aim is to simulate reality, not to create "balanced gameplay".

Yea and Amen! The plane-set is intrinsically perfectly balanced. Those of us who get shot down will do so because we ran out of altitude, airspeed or luck and no other reason.

[Tacoma74]

As has been said soooo many times, here and elswhere, the pilot has much more to do with the outcome of a battle than the aircraft.

Yes very true. Overall it was a pretty even match and really came down to pilot skill.

[Blackdog_kt]

Very enjoyable and interesting thread, but unless we set a basic common ground in regards to difficulty options in the server and mission profiles, every single opinion in this discussion would be correct :-P
Are we taking about full difficulty or not?
Are we flying on a custom made DF map with smaller distances or the full size one the game will ship with?
Are we flying historical profiles or are we going to use our hindsight to gain an edge?

And since we can't all agree, i suggest that we give our personal "starting conditions" before presenting our opinion.

For me, this is full difficulty servers on the real-life sized map (at least i hope there will be servers that do that regularly :grin: ), while using tactics of our own instead of Goering's ones.

In that sense, i expect that the plane to really outshine and surpass its real life counterpart will be the 110, because people will actually fly it in a way that maximizes its advantages in the sim.

They will learn to stay fast and only boom and zoom, they will either range ahead of the bombers or zig-zag above them as top cover, they will do low level bombing raids to key, pinpoint targets under the cover of radar and generally fly in a smart way. Back in the day i've seen people take on model 1943-1944 Spits at 7000m or more when flying model 1942 110G-2s on the warclouds server.
With the proper people who know their teamwork and just a single engined fighter to force the spits to maneuver it's pretty scary how effective it could be, and the 110G-2 in IL2 is a total dog when compared to late war allied fighters. In CoD where the performance gap won't be as wide, i can't imagine what will happen but i'm really interested to find out. For the record, i was mostly flying 190s in IL2 but in CoD there's so many new possibilities that i'll most probably fly both sides regularly.

Anyway, all this hindsight we have opens up a big can of worms, since the 110 is actually turned into a useful aircraft with the range to escort the bombers all the way to the target. It just has to be flown in a top cover role and not close escort.

First of all, fuel is an issue but has the potential to cause problems for the defenders too, as illustrated here:

So RAF boys,what do you do? Carry a full tank and hope you don't meet a 109 with 50% fuel, or take off with 50% and hope you don't run out and have to land before we turn up...
Will make for some strategic flying on a realistic server! :)

Another point, since i assumed i'm not going to fly the way they did but try to see the "what if" scenario of the battle, things will be further shaken up.
For starters, since the axis force will have some way to travel, it's no harm climbing to their absolute ceiling IF we're talking about a level bomber attack.

What i would do if i had a team of like-minded pilots in such a scenario? Easy, i'd sent the bombers out with 110s as top cover first of all. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think i read somewhere that the 110 was faster than both the hurricane and the spitfire. Sure, maneuverability and acceleration might not be great, but if all you do is dive on RAF fighters and spoil their firing pass on the bombers before you climb back up, then that won't be much of an issue, plus you'll be getting your share of kills too.
If the 110's also do it in pairs instead of all at once, even if the first pair that dove down gets attacked, another pair will be able to dive down and clear them.

This means the fighters will not be "on-call" for the bombers, but attacking under favorable terms. Initially, this will be hard for bomber pilots but overall and statistically speaking, it's a better deal. It's better to lose 3 bombers during the first pass of the RAF fighters but shoot down or damage and force to RTB 50% of them, than lose 1 bomber during the first pass but get tangled in a dogfight which ends up with less RAF fighters killed, your escorts decimated and the bombers making the rest of the way unescorted.

So, what about the 109s? Well, i would send them AFTER the bombers and 110s were about halfway across the channel. Remember, best economy cruise speed doesn't usually equal best endurance speed which tends to be lower. Effectively, this means that 109s cruising at 220km/h might have fuel for 75 minutes and have a range of X miles, but if they cruise at 300km/h they might have fuel for 50 minutes and yet cover X+200 miles.

So, instead of having the 109s follow the bombers even loosely and wasting that range, i would send them off after the bombers and 110s. How long? Well, that needs some planning and a bit of math. In any case, long enough to overtake the bombers before they reach the English coast and be over the target maybe 5 minutes before the bombers reach it. Assuming they have 10 minutes of fuel in combat power over there, they are free to do as they want and attack, shoot down and damage as many RAF fighters as they can before they even get up to the bomber's altitude.
The ones that do get away and press on to the bombers will be outnumbered by the 110s, which will proceed to boom and zoom them repeatedly.

You'll ask me why can't the RAF players reinforce/go at it again? Of course they can. It's just that on a 1:1 scaled map, the fuel needed to get there and the altitude the bombers are flying at, it might take an extra 20 minutes to do so if you want to enter combat from a proper starting altitude (by which time the 111s might be half way to France), or it might mean scrambling from a closer airfield but having to go on a maximum climb profile which makes you slow for prowling axis fighters. Not to mention that we'll have engine limitations in the new sim, so that climb will certainly not be at full throttle when flying in full difficulty servers.

This combination makes the most use of the 109s advantages, while making sure that the 110s won't have to deal with hordes of slower but better maneuvering, better accelerating single seaters so that the 110's better range can be exploited to stay with the bombers all the way to target and back.

This is exactly what the US 8th air force did later in the war when they decided to send the fighters ahead of the bombers and keep a token top cover escort in case something got through, it worked like a charm. Granted, the 8th didn't send heavy fighters to escort their bombers at that time (the p-38 was mostly phased out of escort duties at that time), which made the tactic even more effective.

As for the other aircraft, Stukas will probably get massacred as historically happened, but if they are escorted that way they'll at least stand a chance of taking out their targets first.

Finally, i expect we'll see a lot of people using bomb ladden 110s in under-the-radar raids with 109 escort, since the 110s can cruise at a speed which maximizes the 109s range.

Assuming we get a full difficulty online campaign server for the new multiplayer mode, that's what i'd do before anything else and raid the radar towers that way to open "corridors" for the level bombers.
Combine with a second wave of Stukas at high altitude, but coming behind the 110 strike package and you have this situation: the AI ground control vectors me to the high flying Stukas with the 109 escort (radar was mostly near the coast, so it's a shorter hop across the channel that 109s might be able to handle).
At that point i either spot the low flying 110s/109s and choose to dive back down towards them with an energy advantage, or press on to the Stukas regardless if i spotted the low flying 110s or not.
In any case, i will either have to allow one raid to break through or split my flight of RAF interceptors and take on two groups with half my force on each one, both of which groups are escorted by 109s. It's not pretty.

Notice that i didn't say anything about specific charts, i didn't quote any numbers and i didn't factor in pilot skill. The reason? This is how i would plan for flying and the things i'd take into consideration when flying either side in an online campaign with full difficulty.

Of course, for single missions like COOPS or what we currently have in mission-centric gameplay DF servers things could be much different, but if the multiplayer campaign has sufficient statistics tracking for each team's supplies like available pilots, aircraft, fuel, ammunition, repair timers for ground targets dependent on available resources,etc, things would get very interesting very fast. In fact, it could be the closest we could get to recreating a "what if" battle of Britain with the Luftwaffe flying proper tactics ;)

[kimosabi]

Nice post blackdog. Which makes me wonder how, or if, sunglare off aircrafts will present itself on lower targets. There are countless reports from BoB pilots that mentions a sunglare off the canopy perspex/glass that reveals their bogeys position below.

[Triggaaar]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think i read somewhere that the 110 was faster than both the hurricane and the spitfire.Do a search and see what you can find. This is from http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/0014.html

"The Messerschmitt Bf110 originally was designed as three seat strategic fighter that had the task of clearing the way for the bomber formations that followed. Soon to become known as the Zerstörer (the Destroyer) they made their presence felt during the early part of the Battle of Britain when the Luftwaffe began their attacks on the Channel convoys. But even at the hands of hand picked elite aircrew, the Bf110 was to prove no match for the Hurricane or Spitfire and soon started to succumb heavy losses. Soon, Bf110 formations were to be escorted themselves by Gruppes of Bf109s and even though the elite Erprobungsgruppe 210 had many major successes, the Bf110 which started out as a fighter escort was relegated to the role of just a fighter bomber after the Battle of Britain. "

"Straight line top speed of the Bf110 was greater than that of the Hurricane, but it could not outrun the Spitfire. Normal practice was to force the Bf110 into a turn where its slow and wide turning circle was its greatest drawback. Another problem for the Bf110 was from surprise attacks by British fighters, where they became vulnerable because of slow acceleration from cruising to top speed. The Bf110 was to suffer heavily during the Battle of Britain. "

[Doogerie]

the rAF Pilots used to get in as close as possabel to the LUftwafa and then let rip with thee gun's so thats what i will do

[VO101_HWick]

who says the spitfire outturns the 109? show me the references from 1940

I think its in Ulrich Steinhilper's book when he is talking about why the allies though the 109 couldn't turn very well. It was that the captured planes were flown in a much "gentle" way. He mentioned that turning for an experienced pilot started when the leading slots opened up with a bang which scared the living day out of the rooky pilots.

He were also talking about the way they climbed. Beginners are always lagged behind on the first few sorties until they learned how to use pitch control in manual settings. He describes the exact way of gaining more power which is valid to the IL2 109s to this day. Use manual pp to overrev a little than switch back to auto straight away before u damage your engine.
He wrote that you could hear if someone with experience flown the 109 from this constant revving.

I might be mixing the source of this, so apologies if this is the case. I will look it up later on when i have access to my books.

HWick

[SlipBall]

quote: Blackdog kt
For me, this is full difficulty servers on the real-life sized map (at least i hope there will be servers that do that regularly :grin: ), while using tactics of our own instead of Goering's ones.

In that sense, i expect that the plane to really outshine and surpass its real life counterpart will be the 110, because people will actually fly it in a way that maximizes its advantages in the sim.

They will learn to stay fast and only boom and zoom, they will either range ahead of the bombers or zig-zag above them as top cover, they will do low level bombing raids to key, pinpoint targets under the cover of radar and generally fly in a smart way.


Some well thought out idea's Blackdog, will certainly be disruptive to RAF defenses no doubt.:grin:

[Matt255]

"The RAE determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire."
Those are calculations with wingloading only, which would only make sense, if both planes would use the same airfoil (and if the 109 would have washout or the Spitfire wouldn't have washout). Those numbers mean nothing.

But whatever, most sources (both german and british) say, that the Spitfire turned better then 109 E. However, that's pretty much the only real advantage the Spitfire has. Both have about the same speed and climb, the outcome depends on energy and how long the pilot can use maximum power before overheating.

The 109 can climb steeper (not faster), can roll faster at low to medium speed, can dive faster, has the better armament (imo), the better forward view (makes deflection shooting easier, the Hurricane has a better forward view then the Spitfire aswell), has no problem with negative G, has a relatively harmless stall behaviour.

I think both planes will be "balanced" when modelled as realistically as possible in a PC flightsim.


And of course, when we're talking about realism here, we won't see only Spit vs. 109 E. We'll see way more Hurricanes and both the Hurricanes and Spitfires should (probably won't) take the bombers out asap. Of course there are also some 110's around to mix it up. And the Hurricane is not really that good against 109's.

[Ernst]

I guess if him even considered slats deploying. In the scientifc way i known well that sometimes one force their results, considering not all variables or considering more, to match the results. It is not wrong at all, but is at less questionable. Maybe both calculation are made most at the same way and considering the same way, this way they agreed so well. You must present the full article (conditions, variables considered) for better understading.

[DKoor]

So you guys really dug up on the 50-60min sorties... great.
I mean all this not-enough-fuel fixations, RAF being in disadvantage with full tanks etc.

About Luftwaffe being in any kind of advantage in this sim... believe me the only advantageous position as I see it is that they have about 20-30mins to change your mind and RTB and save their virtual life.
Quick reality check... in "realistic" game setups, any kind of malfunction with your plane and your life is in danger quite literally... while RAF can more or less just hit CTRL+E unless they are over sea.
Plus they have enough fuel to chase Luftwaffe to France which I'm sure they will do in this game, so LW can say goodbye to their experten fuel management.
Even if Luftwaffe turn back to RAF chasers shot them all down and win they will still probably end up in drink (and most likely die).

Note I'm not saying anything on some big scale tactics I am just talking about micro scenarios that will happen to you on "daily" basis.

In short, I can't wait for this sim to hit the shelves to actually see how many of you elated forumites will still fly after one month of playing such "joyful" scenarios.

:grin:

[Abbeville-Boy]

So you guys really dug up on the 50-60min sorties... great.
I mean all this not-enough-fuel fixations, RAF being in disadvantage with full tanks etc.

About Luftwaffe being in any kind of advantage in this sim... believe me the only advantageous position as I see it is that they have about 20-30mins to change your mind and RTB and save their virtual life.
Quick reality check... in "realistic" game setups, any kind of malfunction with your plane and your life is in danger quite literally... while RAF can more or less just hit CTRL+E unless they are over sea.
Plus they have enough fuel to chase Luftwaffe to France which I'm sure they will do in this game, so LW can say goodbye to their experten fuel management.
Even if Luftwaffe turn back to RAF chasers shot them all down and win they will still probably end up in drink (and most likely die).

Note I'm not saying anything on some big scale tactics I am just talking about micro scenarios that will happen to you on "daily" basis.

In short, I can't wait for this sim to hit the shelves to actually see how many of you elated forumites will still fly after one month of playing such "joyful" scenarios.

:grin:


so you refuse to save fuel so you can't return to base :-P

[Wutz]

Ah he is just worried that too many will join the dark side and that the poor dweebfires will be blasted out of the sky. So they got to boost moral, like making a collectors version only for the British side. I think they fear that they are going to be over run by hundreds of Bf109s, Bf110s and He111s and Ju88s.
I can only say keep your shovels ready they are going to be a lot of potholes to fill in!

[WTE_Galway]

So you guys really dug up on the 50-60min sorties... great.
I mean all this not-enough-fuel fixations, RAF being in disadvantage with full tanks etc.



What will ACTUALLY happen with the online 3D-AIR-HALO point whore brigade is they will meet up mid channel and there will be a gigantic WWI style furball 10km off the coast of Dover :D

[IceFire]

What will ACTUALLY happen with the online 3D-AIR-HALO point whore brigade is they will meet up mid channel and there will be a gigantic WWI style furball 10km off the coast of Dover :D

Bingo! :)

And you know... if that makes people happy there is no reason to rain on their parade. Everyone has different likes.

[Wutz]

Bingo! :)

And you know... if that makes people happy there is no reason to rain on their parade. Everyone has different likes.
Ah but that is only talking about the poor who can only afford a single engine. You are forgeting the dedicated bomber nuts, that are certainly not going to join in, in that gang bang. But will let the little tykes play with their furball while they make a wide circle around them and plaster their bases. And the furballers will be just wondering how that could happen. Pretty much the same as in IL2.

[DKoor]

Bingo! :)

And you know... if that makes people happy there is no reason to rain on their parade. Everyone has different likes.
Oh man, forget it!

I like to rain on such parade too much to miss it:lol:.

You know, "well look at me, I'm tough experten who flies 10min sorties on WW view, I eat Spitfires for breakfast and use Hurricanes as toothpick".

These types I like best.:cool:

[Erkki]

A 10 min kickban is a good motivator for surviving your sortie.

A personal stats' reset too. :rolleyes:

Never understood why people pick a simulator game and then play it all helps on, yet still whining how its too difficult or like in the case of il2, "why no missiles". Then all the rules: "no bnz", "no vulching" etc.

We need a purists' club. :grin:

[robtek]

........We need a purists' club. :grin:

I'll drink to that!!!:-D

[DKoor]

Sad fact that purists are minority, and also rather sad fact is that they are practically the only ones who should be playing this in the first place.
However we all know that sales must be up so there must be compromise.

Which, in my case, mainly consist on reading wonder woman aces (boasting, whining, charting etc.) stories on UBI, 1C forum or somewhere else.

[6S.Manu]

I'll drink to that!!!:-D
Count me in! :)

[jameson]

Count me in as well! I really hope CoD will penalize the lazy, I haven't got time, can't be bothered, never read the manual, it's not allowed mob. We'll need two squads though, one blue, one red...

[ElAurens]

You snobs realize that if only you purchased/played flight sims there wouldn't be any, don't you?

Penalize someone for enjoying the title in their own way?

Idiots, the lot of you.

[jameson]

Well, thanks for that! I do wonder why someone would want to buy the "most realistic" flight simulator and then never use it's realistic features, perhaps you could explain that?

[JG52Uther]

It might well be the most advanced combat flight sim ever,but there will still be a rather large group that just want a WW view,and fly around shooting stuff down,and blowing stuff up.
I personally like full switch settings,but am quite happy for others to play with arcade settings on another server.I would be more than happy if there is a server setting to turn points off!
Each to their own really. :)

[robtek]

If taking on a challenge makes me a "snob", well, then i must be one.
BTW, ElAurens, where did you get that "penalize"- part???
And also thanks for getting personal, tells a lot about your personality :-D
One thing i've seen from young people today that it is "cool" not to know something
and not being able to to something because to be eager to learn is extremely "uncool".
To defend this behaviour is, lets say, "uncool"??
Anyway, i hope that there will be not only servers where the realism is more limited as it already is by playing on a computer.

[Tacoma74]

One thing i've seen from young people today that it is "cool" not to know something
and not being able to to something because to be eager to learn is extremely "uncool".

Some say it is not kind to stereotype, but i have to agree. I'm 21 and trust me i hate my generation. Everyones interest lies solely in their appearance and very little effort goes into obtaining any useful knowledge. I have an extremely hard time trying to start up a conversation with anybody my age... they all seem so dull. Hopefully they will realize that by the time they are 30 and have more appreciation for learning. I grew up watching the history channel and absolutely love it. WWII has especially been a huge interest to me :)

[ElAurens]

It might well be the most advanced combat flight sim ever,but there will still be a rather large group that just want a WW view,and fly around shooting stuff down,and blowing stuff up.
I personally like full switch settings,but am quite happy for others to play with arcade settings on another server.I would be more than happy if there is a server setting to turn points off!
Each to their own really. :)


Exactly my point.

A successful title has to accomodate a myriad of play styles, even if those of us who fly "full switch", and I do mostly, don't use them ourselves.

It's about preferences, not jugdgements. And I see a lot of people here being very judgemental.

[SlipBall]

Well one thing is clear to me, the harder the skill level (switch setting) one play's at, the higher the amount of tactics are necessary to be able to RTB,:grin:


So far only Blackdog came up with something that I can use, a very promising idea! and March is closing in quick:-P

[IceFire]

Ah but that is only talking about the poor who can only afford a single engine. You are forgeting the dedicated bomber nuts, that are certainly not going to join in, in that gang bang. But will let the little tykes play with their furball while they make a wide circle around them and plaster their bases. And the furballers will be just wondering how that could happen. Pretty much the same as in IL2.

That's just another play style that I'm very happy to see accommodated. Sometimes they coexist on the same server and sometimes there are dedicated coops and servers for that sort of organization and coordination. I've done both and I will continue to enjoy both for their unique angles on the game.

It's all about the variety... some people just focus on fighters. Some fly bombers and some fly tactical aircraft. If everyone did the same then the online experience would be boring :)

[jameson]

A Fine Blue Day | interview with WH 'Dizzy' Allen, Bob Pilot:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/battleofbritain/11419.shtml

Worth a listen! Very forthright in his views!

Would someone from outside uk post to say if they can listen to it? I don't know, thanks.

[Biggs]

A Fine Blue Day | interview with WH 'Dizzy' Allen, Bob Pilot:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/battleofbritain/11419.shtml

Worth a listen! Very forthright in his views!

Would someone from outside uk post to say if they can listen to it? I don't know, thanks.

from the US... i can here it fine.. good stuff!