Thoughts ?

[raaaid]

the game got the turning issue right on spot at the begining, it was up to the pilot

after succesive patches i dont feel like taking a 109 for a circle dogfight however bad is my opponent

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Just off the cuff:

Ace of aces, just a though but do you ever go online? You are always on the forum. I was talking to a few guys today and they had never seen you online...

Nothing hostile just an obsevartion.

None taken..

Yes all the time.. Not as much as I use to though.. Been working on my webpage when I get some free time, i.e.

IL-2Compare Online

Basically an online version of IL-2Compare.. but I provide more graphs and options than the orginal IL-2Compare

When I am at home coding.. It is easy to pop into the forum and see what is going on.. much easier than when flying online!

Was playing IL-2 4.11 alot tonight..

But probally the reason you don't see me has alot to do with the fact that STEAM does not require you to use your 1C forum handle when flying CoD

[5./JG27.Farber]

Ahh your that guy!

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

55s of 2x7.92mm is the same weight of lead as 15s of .303. But of course if you can only keep your sights on target for 1 or 2 secs this makes a big difference.
The cannon armed 109s had 9s of cannon fire in addition to this and I'm not sure what the wing mgs had in the earlier versions.

Tom Neil's comments had also been suitably edited to make out that the RAF won from a terribly inferior position, 'We had peashooters against these cannons' etc, right after Holland had emphasised the 55s of 20mm cannon fire.

Ludicrous.

erm, I'm afraid you don't fully comprehend how aerial gunnery works..
The efficiency is not based just on how many seconds of fire it takes to deliver the same amount of "lead", but on how it is delivered.
The RAF was stuck for a good time on the "Dowding Spread", which proved ineffective, dispersing the potential pack punch of gun convergence.
The 8 brownings of Spits and Hurries would have been effective if converged, and even then you need to make sure to hit the target at your convergence distance to achieve maximum effect.
In the heat of the battle it's kinda hard to always be at an ideal distance from your target, and considering the weak .303 calibre, achieving effective hits on a target was not an easy task.
The Germans got around this by using simpler converging (the two cowl mounted guns were very near, making for a longer converging range) and above all making every single hit count with cannons.

So yes, in terms of gunnery, the Germans had the edge, at least until the .50cal M2 was introduced (and even then converging was crucial).

Doesn't do anyone any favours. Not the layperson, not the historian, not the brave men who did what they did on both sides.

you're confusing facts with propaganda.
It's a hard job being a historian, especially when your work confutes well established theories, based on national pride or political matters. It's like what happened to Fritz Fischer and his research on the causes of WW1, which sparked very harsh reactions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Fischer but hey, it's part of the game..

The man's a charlatan. Holland that is.

Queue Sternjaeger.

lol seriously? He didn't do too bad for a "charlatan", but I'm sure you know better

[bongodriver]

Hmmm......did you hear that?.......I swear I just heard a floodgate creaking.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Ahh your that guy!

What's his name then? I have him on ignore.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

erm, I'm afraid you don't fully comprehend how aerial gunnery works..
The efficiency is not based just on how many seconds of fire it takes to deliver the same amount of "lead", but on how it is delivered.

Yes I know, I'm a terribly dense person. I also forgot to mention that the synchronising gear on the cowl mounted guns of the 109 reduced the rate of fire to quite a bit less than the Brownings, thus reducing the weight of lead delivered per second even further. I have a feeling they also had a lower muzzle velocity, but not sure about that one. Sorry for being such a thicko.

The Dowding spread was soon chucked out of the window, but has no relevance to Holland's blatant exaggeration of the 109's firepower.

I say again, 55 seconds of cannon fire? Is that a fact, or just propaganda? Not confusing anything here mate. Poppycock and balderdash Old Boy.

'Charlatan - One falsely claiming a special knowledge or skill' - OED. Sound familiar?

[jg27_mc]

To me it's pretty obvious, the RAF won the battle due to fighter command network and tactics... Also with the "help" of retarded Göring on the German side. IIMHO it's not about a question of Spitfire Vs Bf 109, although if I was to choose a side in BoB as a pilot, looking at the whole picture, I would have joined the RAF in a glimpse. Looking exclusively at the planes in question, I would go for the 109 (more suitable to my flying approach and tactics). Documentary only shows that the British approach to the battle was brilliant and that the Germans had a slight better fighter.

Regards.

[Sven]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Yes I know, I'm a terribly dense person. I also forgot to mention that the synchronising gear on the cowl mounted guns of the 109 reduced the rate of fire to quite a bit less than the Brownings, thus reducing the weight of lead delivered per second even further. I have a feeling they also had a lower muzzle velocity, but not sure about that one. Sorry for being such a thicko.

The Dowding spread was soon chucked out of the window, but has no relevance to Holland's blatant exaggeration of the 109's firepower.

I say again, 55 seconds of cannon fire? Is that a fact, or just propaganda? Not confusing anything here mate. Poppycock and balderdash Old Boy.

'Charlatan - One falsely claiming a special knowledge or skill' - OED. Sound familiar?

He says 55 second of FIREPOWER! If you hold down all the triggers in the 109E you indeed have 55 seconds of firepower, nobody said 55 seconds of cannon fire in this 6 minutes of video.

Cannons can be very effective under any angle of attack, in a very short amount of time you can inflict colossal damage to an enemy aircraft. Which is extremely important in the way the 109 is best flown against the Spitfire.

Overall this short documentary contains no new information for me, but it's nice to hear the real fighter pilots talking though!

[bongodriver]

But apparently it was not a 'battle', it's now a well established concept that the british were innept monkeys who wasted all their time waving union jacks and trying to figure out where the keyhole was for the clockwork winding mechanism on the merlin, meanwhile the glorious Luftwaffe were sunning their aryan bodies and berbequeing Bratwurst on the Normandy beaches as a wind down for their European tour, everyone knows the German bombers were dropping candy and flowers but the evil British empire were dedicated to prevent the spread of peace and love.