Tactics for Cliffs of Dover.
 

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/imag.../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/img266/7...flight2jpg.jpg

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.

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:)

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.

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

Here's hoping ;)

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.

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!

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 :)

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.

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.

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:

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, the Spit mkI had 34700ft ceiling and the 109E had 33792ft.

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

Hood

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

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

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.

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

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

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 ;)

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.

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 and Spitfire Mk. I versus Me 109 E, A Performance Comparison. That said an altitude advantage going into a fight is certainly desirable.

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).

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.

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:

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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:

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

Checked! You're correct!

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.

[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.

Hide behind the cliffs!

“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! ;)

I 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).
I'm not attacking you at all.

Not at all, there are also comments like this that suggest the opposite: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.

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.

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.

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!

Sounds good.

1st minute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIcWx...eature=related

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.
ROFL!

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.

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)
;)

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!

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

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:

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


Btw, why were the Stukas withdrawn? ;)

because too many of them were lost.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.


I 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

My take on the 109..
 

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:

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

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 :)

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

Here, Here!

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?

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

"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

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

http://www.clubfreccetricolori.com/c...e2005-26_1.jpg
if italian use this airplane in BATTLE OF BRITTAIN WINN THE WAR.

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.

@ 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

@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...

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?

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.

Ta.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?)

I highly recommend Stephen Bungay’s
The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain It’s a must have!

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

Although 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.

you have good understandings

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.

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! ;)

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.

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.

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

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

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

Pilot 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.

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.