Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-12-2011, 06:27 PM
David Hayward David Hayward is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
Actually, it gave a pretty good account of itself. Recent studies of actual kills vs. actual losses suggest that it did just as well if not better than 109s. But 110s were few in number compared to the numerous 109s (roughly 300 vs 1000+ 109s), and their losses (200 or so) compared to their number were severe for the heavy fighter arm. Every 110 that fell, it left a gaping hole; when a 109 was lost it was just one member of a big hive..
If the aircraft had a high loss ratio, then it was probably a pig. 200 lost out of 300 in service, if your stats are right, is a disaster.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-12-2011, 06:29 PM
bongodriver's Avatar
bongodriver bongodriver is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,546
Default

of course it gave good account, many aircraft did, more testament to the crews abilities though, even the hurricane gave a good account of itself and we all know what a pig that is (highest scoring aircraft in the batttle of britain)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-12-2011, 07:14 PM
Blue 5 Blue 5 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Actually, it gave a pretty good account of itself. Recent studies of actual kills vs. actual losses suggest that it did just as well if not better than 109s. But 110s were few in number compared to the numerous 109s (roughly 300 vs 1000+ 109s), and their losses (200 or so) compared to their number were severe for the heavy fighter arm. Every 110 that fell, it left a gaping hole; when a 109 was lost it was just one member of a big hive..
Oh, what clap-trap; you've taken the revisionist line to an absurd degree

It was a good aircraft that has been unfairly maligned by historians, certainly, and the BoB was probably the worst way it could have been used (stemming from Fink and Osterkamp's gentleman's agreement about escort vs free hunting). It also probably accounted for more RAF aircraft than is generally stated (heavy armament and good crews plus most RAF pilots would tend to assume a 109 got them), but the idea that it got more kills than the 109 is risible, think of the exchange rate that would have meant given the numbers involved!

Also, as has been pointed out, the loss rate vs total operational strength is pretty bad (especially given the larger fuel supply and 2 engines meant probably fewer losses of damaged examples in the Channel). 200 is not a 'gaping number compared to their numbers', it's a disaster which - given the smaller numbers of 110s involved - suggests it was simply more vulnerable than a 109.

It's a good design that's got short shrift, but that doesn't mean it didn't do pretty badly over England even if it was not all due to the aircraft itself.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-12-2011, 07:16 PM
whoarmongar whoarmongar is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 265
Default

The Hurricane in 1940 was no pig. Many pilots prefered it, it was more rugged, a better gun platform and could turn inside a spitfire. By 1941 tho it certainly was outclassed and you have to feel sorry for the pilots who had to fly it.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-12-2011, 07:16 PM
senseispcc senseispcc is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 598
Cool During the Battle of Britain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bongodriver View Post
it didn't do so well in real life though, I think they withdrew it during the battle of britain and made it a night fighter because they lost so many.
During the Battle of Britain very quickly they put some BF109 to escort the ME110, the only real defensive tactic of the Me 110 was to form a defensive circle and hope the enemy did not penetrate it. If a Me 110 can out maneuver a Spitfire or a Hurricane there is a mistake somewhere.

Have a nice simulation.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-12-2011, 07:17 PM
bongodriver's Avatar
bongodriver bongodriver is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,546
Default

I meant pig by comparison to its counterparts
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-12-2011, 08:14 PM
Friendly_flyer's Avatar
Friendly_flyer Friendly_flyer is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 412
Default

I am fairly confident the 110, used with the advantage of superior tactics born from hindsight, will be a very deadly opponent. The late war B&Z crowd will probably be able to do wonders with it against planes with limited operational hight.
__________________
Fly friendly!



Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF

Petter Bøckman
Norway
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-12-2011, 08:14 PM
Romanator21 Romanator21 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 507
Default

Quote:
If a Me 110 can out maneuver a Spitfire or a Hurricane there is a mistake somewhere.
Rookie pilots who did not know their aircraft could easily be out-turned by a Bf-109 or even Bf-110.

But besides range, I don't see what advantages a Bf-110 had over a Bf-109.

Question: does CoD model the cannon drum reload? Or does it behave like a belt-fed gun?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-12-2011, 08:22 PM
Geronimo989 Geronimo989 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 61
Default

Ive flown it for few hours after I saw this thread (thought it was pretty useless, like in IL-2).
I must say it exceeded my expectations by far, as I can score more kills with it than with BF-109. It has more ammo (3x60 rounds for each gun), the guns are centered, have higher ROF than 109, and is quite fast (faster than the Spit1). It cannot turn well and bleeds alot of airspeed, but when used in boom and zoom, it is in my hands the most effective plane in this game.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-12-2011, 08:23 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hayward View Post
If the aircraft had a high loss ratio, then it was probably a pig. 200 lost out of 300 in service, if your stats are right, is a disaster.
Loss ratio is only meaningful when pitted against the number of sorties flown; if you pick a long enough period, losses will sooner or later will be a very high percentage of the initial strenght.

Loss ratios are reflecting on the operations, not on the tactical performance of aircraft. The Battle of Britain was a light skirmish if you look at the casulties sustained, but a slaughter if you look at the odds for survival.

Fighter Command started out the Battle with some 900 fighters of all kinds on hand in July; by the end of October, it lost 1140 of them destroyed or written off and another 710 seriously damaged.. so if some 60% loss of the force in two months is 'disaster', how would you call loosing 120% of the initial force..?
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.