Storm, IIRC they still cannot model correctly the aircraft's performance over 7km. They said it in a "update" thread I think.

On BoM it will be corrected, they said.

No they said they'd correct it in the sequel.

Yes, I love the 190, too. Especially in 4.11 ;) But yes, these discussions never end, been there many times before with Il-2, now same stuff with CloD. People are people. :eek:

I agree, many RAF pilots fly too low, but there are quite a few who you meet up high only.

In fact that is the trait of just about any well designed aircraft (inc. 109 etc.). All designers design wing stall characteristics so that to roots stall before the tips, and to maintain aileron control.

Oh, I don't think anybody has trouble acknowledging the superior aerobatic qualities of the Spitfire for making loops and other aerobatics pleasing to the eye, and as such its a superior aerobatics plane but all of that is completely useless feature for air combat, which is the very reason why the 109 is generally superior as a fighter.

So were the Luftwaffe just mesmerized by the showmanship of the RAF allowing them to get shot down?

Lol. I just see them freeze to ice and falling like stones to earth.

The Luftwaffe was basically outproduced, not necessarily outgunned. In fact, comparing fighter losses the numbers lost are pretty even to my knowledge.

Even if the fighter losses are comparable the RAF fighters had to shoot down huge numbers of bombers too, the LW only had to deal with fighters, so the RAF chaps had to do all that in the middle of their aerobatic routines.

I remember the interview of an italian veteran about the planes he had flown.
Talking about the italian planes he said that they were well looking, with good aerobatic characteristics (italian pilots were famous for their flying skill)... he was smiling as he thought those things where useless in a war...

When he talked about the 109 he changed his expression: "that was a real war machine..." he said.

In the same interview another italian veteran who flew the 109 said that the Mustang was their dangerous enemy, since he could outturn them very easily (!!! :-) )

But so had the Luftwaffe to fight off the parallel campaign by the Bomber command.

BTW the RAF destroyed just about 20% more aircraft than the LW with the advantage to fight over own territory. It is not to dismiss the capability of the RAF pilots who did an outstanding job nor the performance of the RAF planes. I personally think from the performance sides (planes and pilots) both sides were quite equal.

Other aspects however came into the game:

LW used better fighter tactics.
RAF fought over own territory.

LW set out to conquer air supremacy.
RAF defended their home country.

LW had - at least initially - the higher numbers.
RAF had radar and a very clever defence system.

LW had experience.
RAF had better fighter production output.

To my opinion having read a couple of books I think that this battle, which was overall a battle of attrition was won by the RAF by shooting down not more aircraft than the LW but by shooting down aircraft quicker than the LW could replace before the LW could achieve its objectives (also due to highly flawed German strategy). That's why Britain won.

I think you missed my point Manu, especially that part where I used the term "Ceteris Paribus". You speak as if you always have advantage but in war you cannot guarantee that, just ask Al Deere.

I don't need flying advice, that's not what i'm talking about.

@Von Bruhl
Couldn't find your stats but mine are

37 missions, 16 kills, (0.43), shot down or hit and forced RTB twice.

So, who are you online?