Hi Zapatista,
you mention precisely the real reasons why RAF won the battle of Britain.
One reason that you did not mention: RAF had the radar interception which gave a tremendous advantage in keeping their few pilots at reast and use them only when needed and could direct a few planes where thery could do maximum damage.

But, (with the exception of the Spit carburator disadvantage) all these reasons can not be simulated on-line nor can be compensated by "toning down" or "toning up" the Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Did the Bf109 own the Spitfires? Probably yes if the Bf109 could fight in the terms they wanted (yeah, yeah, I know I will be flamed for that sentence).
Can the Bf109 decide whether they want battle under their terms or not?
In real life: NO! (this is how Goering screwed them up)
In the game: YES! Because if I am high, I will decide when and where to engage, otherwise I just disengage and go away. Even if I engage, I can always chose to disengage, climb and get away from the battle.
If I stay low, I die (it is an option but it is still my decision)

So, trying to convince 1C that the Spitfires, Huricanes, Tiger Moths, whatever, should perform better in order to give red fliers better (and fairer) chances against on-line gaming is actually not-historical.


I repeat my point: As long as I decide when I engage and when I disengage a fight, I rule.
Is it historical fact that the Bf109 can do that? I think it is!
(at least I never saw anybody of those people who posted million of pages from archives regarding planes' performance during the past ten years at Ubi-zoo and here, ever claiming otherwise).
After that, how well (or how much better) your Spit, Hurri, etc should turn, fly, climb, shoot etc etc, does not change the meaning of the dogfight. The result will depend on how many mistakes the Bf109 pilot will do.
And keep in mind that a lot of people here have been flying Bf109 for over ten years (since the IL2 days) so not many mistakes will you see...

But this is just the warmup...
Just wait for the day blue will have the FW190 series flying over the channel.
I hope you may recall the historical correctness, during the first month of the battle, RAF lost one hundred Spitfires and pilots. The FW190 owned everything during that period and it took the RAF one full year to introduce a Spit that could match it.
There I want to see what kind of tears (and screams) will be heard...

If I am pleased? Hell no, I stopped flying for months now... as long as there are no missions with strategic objectives (due to the memory leak CTD) just flying dogfight against Spits (except SpitII) and Hurris, it is too easy for Bf pilots :(


Still, we should wait to see what the effect of the changes in plane performance will be (because there is too much wind for nothing right now) but, as long as my rule (I decide when I engage and when I disengage a fight) stands and is historicaly correct, it will not make a difference...

~S~

One problem with that view is that historically one of the main aims of the German offensive was the destruction of RAF fighters - in some ways the Luftwaffe bombers were the bait to bring the RAF up so that the 109s could get at them.

There are many instances of pure German fighter sweeps flying happily over England with the RAF refusing to engage.

On the other hand the primary goal of the RAF was destruction of Luftwaffe bombers or the breaking up of the raids. When the RAF fighters were committed against the bombers the 109s had little choice about whether to engage or not, even if they found themselves in a disadvantageous position. (which they usually didn't)

The serious intention to protect the bombers could imo only be reached by a server sided evaluation system, giving points for kills only in relation to bombers survived/targets destroyed for blue and bombers downed/targets saved for red.

This might lead also to more sophisticated tactics, like to lure the fighter cover away before the Hurris arrive, or fighter wings flying in bomber-style formations and speeds.

Here is a link to Spit Ia entry in IL2 bugtracker with links to documents http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84 I asked B6 to forward it to FM programmers @ sukhoi.ru

It would be great if we keep all data in one place for easy access by the devs. Please vote for it and add entries for other types and 109 if their performance is off.

As for BoM we can also create entries as feature requests for future.

Edit:
In a link from Spit Ia entry we read:
Could someone confirm if this is correct and update the issue in the tracker? I am not an expert myself. We'd better provide the devs with reliable data if we want quick changes IMO.

Dear zapatista, I would like to ask you to post your wishes and needs in the first person singular.

Thx Varrattu

Hi Ataros,

There is no problem with the view. This is the tactical advantage of the Bf109. And in an on-line game the reds get to feel the heat.

As far as the historic truth is concerned you were right, that was Luftwaffe's aim.
Why Luftwaffe failed, because the monthly production of planes was higher than the attrition rate; Which was one of the miracles of the UK production facilities.
Luftwaffe destroyed two times the amount of enemy planes they thought RAF was in possesion off and RAF kept coming...

~S~

Fly for the RAF then ;)

Do you think that regarding the actual performance or tactics deployed (e.g. RAF time needed to scramble and outclimb the enemy approaching?)

Ataros - that all depends on the airscrew and fuel used. de Havilland CSP with 87 octane fuel, armoured windscreen achieved 288mph at S.L. (R.6774), +6.25lbs, 3000rpm. Spitfires were considerably faster below FTH with 100 octane fuel, doing some 10mph more than Emil at the S.L. We would need to know what configuration are the devs aiming to reproduce in the sim.

Let's wait for the patch, we'll see. Imho there is no reason to compare the real BoB and the game regarding tactics as the conditions are way too different.

The reason the LW failed was that the British kept calm and carried on. ;)

Groundhog Day again ....
These threads are as old as Il2 birthday.
I see them come I see them leave and I am pretty sure my grandchildren will reads those threads too.

The point is there will never be an agreement on what is historrical ,what is correct. You present Data 1 from date x.x.1940, I present you Data 2 from y.y.1940.

At then end leave the job to the dev team, do constructive critism and maybe parts of that will influence the development.
But for now there are much more important things than FM to fix in the game.
Be thankful the game kept & keeps developing, instead fading to black after a catastrophic release and wait for things to come.

Further more you are talking about things you just read and never tested yourself, patience is a virtue.

Finally you cant satisfy each player, this isnt a perfect world we are living in.
So if things should really happen that bad, as you paint it, I would look forward to take the challenge in fighting vs a plane that "shall" perform better.

Sissyfiregirls or Luftwhiners .... so what?
At the multiplayer end, a server admin or map creator is responsible to balance sides.

Hey im blind or most needed data are show here in these topic? Only thing 1C need to do is to check performacne of these planes in CLoD and then adjusted it to RL data

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110