Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Its a SIMULATOR... It simulates.... If you want fairness your in the wrong "game".

perfect luftwhiner behavior there for a fake-real advocate, gloating they will/are further unfairly toning down the spitfires and hurricanes compared to their historical performance (other then the spitfire IIb currently needing a little toning down in level flight speed performance). historically the 109 and spitfires of the BoB era were very evenly matched, and each had their respective advantages/weaknesses. we (the red team) are not asking for equal performance in combat aircraft (109 vs spitfire), but we ARE ASKING for simulation of correct historical strong/weak points so the red/blue sides in CoD can be "equally matched". BUT THIS IS CURRENTLY NOT POSSIBLE IN CoD !! this historical relationship is currently not modeled in the sim in its curent state (and luthier and Co seems to be totally unaware of this problem, so i suspect mostly fly for the blue side when they use the sim), AND THIS PROBLEM IS ABOUT TO GET WORSE IF THEY CRIPPLE THE RED TEAM FURTHER BY NEUTERING THE SPIT IIb. generally speaking the problem can be summed up in their historical context as:

the spitfires:
- where more agile, had better roll rate and tighter turning circles then 109's.
- but there carburetors would cut out on a sudden dive/nose-down
- had the advantage of flying above friendly soil, allowing ejecting or downed pilots to fight another day (sometimes even on the same day)
- could refuel and rearm quickly, being back in the air protecting home soil 2 or 3x faster then the blue team, and ready for the next wave of incoming bombers. this meant the same allied pilots could hit a german formation (and escorts) on the way in, and on the way out of their mission, meaning each allied pilot almost doubled in ability to engage the enemy
- english production of spitfires and hurricanes significantly outpaced the german ability to provide new planes and crews, this did become a factor in the 2e half of BoB when allied fighter plane numbers started to outnumber german fighters, AND allied aircrew were rotated to less active rear-located airfields for rest and recovery which the germans never were (for the whole duration of the war on all fronts). hence allied crews were generally more rested, and were constantly supplied with new replacement planes (but had the initial disadvantage at the beginning of BoB that very inexperienced fresh new pilots kept being being sent to frontline squadrons, leading to high fatality rates for those that were not quick learners)
- once luthier cripples the spitfire lineup further by reducing the IIb in speed so severely (whereas it only needs some minor trimming), all we end up with is that all spitfire models behave similar to hurricanes in relation to 109's, with the spitfires flight performance being toned down to hurricane levels, and giving the 109's in il2-CoD total performance advantage in almost all situations (which was not the historical case)

the 109's:
- had slightly better dive speed (used successfully for escape from engagements with spitfires but only when done from sufficient altitude), mainly because that slight speed advantage combined with the "no carburator fuel starvation"problem in the initial part of the dive,
- had similar level flight speeds and climb rates to the spitfires at low and medium altitudes (except at high altitude where they had an advantage initially),
- could spiral climb out of reach of a chasing spitfire, the combined climb/rudder action was a unique strenght for that plane model (shape/size/wheight) during most of the war
- had the disadvantage of very brief flying times over enemy territory, and limited ability to escort bombers all the way to london (could do for coastal airfields and installations)
- when starting an engagement with hight advantage, they could jab and take potshots at enemy fighters and zoom back to altitude to sit back on the perch, and then do the same all over again. the slingshot speed effect that allowed them to regain altitude was the main advantage here (combined with the linear aiming of the nose guns that didnt need to wait for convergence to be correct at a specific distance from the enemy). BUT USING THIS TACTIC LED TO MASSIVE UNSUSTAINABLE LOSSES IN THE BOMBER FORMATIONS SENT TO ENGLAND, hence it was not a sustainable strategy to try and have a "succesfull outcome of the war" (from the german view point). point exactly proven by the historical massive 109 losses that ensued when they were ordered to close escort the bomber formations, without their slingshot potshots and sitting on the pirch advantage
- when fighting at equal altitude and engaging at equal speed (without the element of surprise to be able to shoot an unaware enemy pilot in the back while they were not looking), THE 109's WERE OUTCLASSED BY THE SPITFIRES DURING THE WHOLE BOB PERIOD, why do you think Garland asked Goering for squadrons of spitfires to be supplied so they could be more effective against the enemy ? why do you think so many german pilots came down with stress related problems ((Kanal Krankheit) which further reduced their ability to perform well ?
- the combined result of these factors led to the fact that in the last 1/2 of the BoB era, german fighter pilots were either closely escorting bomber formations (as instructed) and getting decimated, or were in high altitude "free hunt" positions over the southern part of the english coast and RELUCTANT TO COME DOWN TO FORMATIONS OF ALLIED FIGHTERS AT MEDIUM/LOW ALTITUDE.

if you compare that to the 109 uber plane behavior we have now (with the recent news of spitfires being further crippled in speed), you arrive at a completely fictitious scenario where:
- 109's outpace spitfires at all altitudes
- 109's are like flying bricks of concrete and much more damage resistant
- 109's can explode in a fireball and be fully on fire without their flight performance being affected
- 109's can out-turn, out-dive, and out-climb spitfire at any altitude
- german fighter pilots can completely ignore escorting and protecting their bomber formations, yet still claim to win engagements
- downed german pilots keep magically and perpetually re-spawning to fresh planes without the historical context being included

CONCLUSION:
so the "fake real" 109 luftwhiners shouldnt constantly and perpetually be able to try and replicate the hight/speed/dive advantage, have bullit proof planes that fly while on fire, and out maneuvre the red team (as it is becoming right now). this problem is much exacerbated online because the only servers gameplay that is present right now is air-quake over the channel, THIS SCENARIO IS NOT BOB FOLKS !! in RL they would have been court marshaled or shot by friendly fire from their surviving bomber pilots who made it back to base

but it is about to even get worse !! as the previous il2 series has shown, and we are about to have history repeated, you can predict the russian planes to significantly outperform their german counterparts, where i-16's will dominate 109's for ex. the russian planes will be modeled on russian "facts" and figures, based on glorious war propaganda reports of their historical greatness, and completely ignore the 100's of german pilots with "above 50 kill scores" in that era of the war, because the initial russian campaign was by and large a big turkey shoot for the germans. il2's didnt have rear gunners initially and were easy pickings (no matter how well armored), and the early mig's and i-16's were swatted down like flies (unless some stupid german fighter pilot tried to dogfight at low speed with them)

right now what we need to correct the flight models and damage models of the blue/red relationship in BoB, is historical facts and figures to keep presenting to luthier and Co, AND we need luthier to gives us il2-compare type data OPENLY so we can see exactly what they provided under the hood, in 2012 it is way to late to expect us to make do with "lets just imagine this plane behaves historically, and if i outperform the historical opponent it just means i was the better pilot". facts regarding the date used in the sim for plane performance and speed needs to be OPENLY PROVIDED


ooops, this got a bit to long its is worth debating historical facts on the 109/spitfire/hurricane performances in a separate thread

[ATAG_Doc]

^^^^^^^

That's a very nice post.

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...

Dick Tator, let me introduce you to Sternjaeger - I think you two will get on famously...

Read Klem's post above for the reality.

In fact, everyone arguing about balance versus realism - read Klem's post.

[kristorf]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...

Originally Posted by kendo65

Dick Tator, let me introduce you to Sternjaeger - I think you two will get on famously...

Read Klem's post above for the reality.

In fact, everyone arguing about balance versus realism - read Klem's post.

+1

Also read Stephen Bungay's 'Battle of Britain' (one of the most authoratative and respected BoB books published), a compressed version appears in zapatista's post above (well compressed mate)

Originally Posted by kristorf

+1

Also read Stephen Bungay's 'Battle of Britain'

Cheers Kristof, I need to get hold of a copy of your recommended book. Thank you. I've read so many historical account of BoB before.

So we are in accord not to blame the flying crate but the tactics which mandated the outcome of the said airplanes. So the numbers game are more important than individual performance if we look at the outcome of the war, not just a fight.

[furbs]

Originally Posted by kristorf

+1

Also read Stephen Bungay's 'Battle of Britain' (one of the most authoratative and respected BoB books published), a compressed version appears in zapatista's post above (well compressed mate)

I found James Holland's Battle of Britain to be a good foil to Bungay's book.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...

If there was ever a viewpoint on the BoB that was so wholeheartedly wrong, it is this one.

Originally Posted by zapatista

perfect luftwhiner behavior there for a fake-real advocate, gloating they will/are further unfairly toning down the spitfires and hurricanes compared to their historical performance (other then the spitfire IIb currently needing a little toning down in level flight speed performance). historically the 109 and spitfires of the BoB era were very evenly matched, and each had their respective advantages/weaknesses. we (the red team) are not asking for equal performance in combat aircraft (109 vs spitfire), but we ARE ASKING for simulation of correct historical strong/weak points so the red/blue sides in CoD can be "equally matched". BUT THIS IS CURRENTLY NOT POSSIBLE IN CoD !! this historical relationship is currently not modeled in the sim in its curent state (and luthier and Co seems to be totally unaware of this problem, so i suspect mostly fly for the blue side when they use the sim), AND THIS PROBLEM IS ABOUT TO GET WORSE IF THEY CRIPPLE THE RED TEAM FURTHER BY NEUTERING THE SPIT IIb. generally speaking the problem can be summed up in their historical context as:

the spitfires:
- where more agile, had better roll rate and tighter turning circles then 109's.
- but there carburetors would cut out on a sudden dive/nose-down
- had the advantage of flying above friendly soil, allowing ejecting or downed pilots to fight another day (sometimes even on the same day)
- could refuel and rearm quickly, being back in the air protecting home soil 2 or 3x faster then the blue team, and ready for the next wave of incoming bombers. this meant the same allied pilots could hit a german formation (and escorts) on the way in, and on the way out of their mission, meaning each allied pilot almost doubled in ability to engage the enemy
- english production of spitfires and hurricanes significantly outpaced the german ability to provide new planes and crews, this did become a factor in the 2e half of BoB when allied fighter plane numbers started to outnumber german fighters, AND allied aircrew were rotated to less active rear-located airfields for rest and recovery which the germans never were (for the whole duration of the war on all fronts). hence allied crews were generally more rested, and were constantly supplied with new replacement planes (but had the initial disadvantage at the beginning of BoB that very inexperienced fresh new pilots kept being being sent to frontline squadrons, leading to high fatality rates for those that were not quick learners)
- once luthier cripples the spitfire lineup further by reducing the IIb in speed so severely (whereas it only needs some minor trimming), all we end up with is that all spitfire models behave similar to hurricanes in relation to 109's, with the spitfires flight performance being toned down to hurricane levels, and giving the 109's in il2-CoD total performance advantage in almost all situations (which was not the historical case)

the 109's:
- had slightly better dive speed (used successfully for escape from engagements with spitfires but only when done from sufficient altitude), mainly because that slight speed advantage combined with the "no carburator fuel starvation"problem in the initial part of the dive,
- had similar level flight speeds and climb rates to the spitfires at low and medium altitudes (except at high altitude where they had an advantage initially),
- could spiral climb out of reach of a chasing spitfire, the combined climb/rudder action was a unique strenght for that plane model (shape/size/wheight) during most of the war
- had the disadvantage of very brief flying times over enemy territory, and limited ability to escort bombers all the way to london (could do for coastal airfields and installations)
- when starting an engagement with hight advantage, they could jab and take potshots at enemy fighters and zoom back to altitude to sit back on the perch, and then do the same all over again. the slingshot speed effect that allowed them to regain altitude was the main advantage here (combined with the linear aiming of the nose guns that didnt need to wait for convergence to be correct at a specific distance from the enemy). BUT USING THIS TACTIC LED TO MASSIVE UNSUSTAINABLE LOSSES IN THE BOMBER FORMATIONS SENT TO ENGLAND, hence it was not a sustainable strategy to try and have a "succesfull outcome of the war" (from the german view point). point exactly proven by the historical massive 109 losses that ensued when they were ordered to close escort the bomber formations, without their slingshot potshots and sitting on the pirch advantage
- when fighting at equal altitude and engaging at equal speed (without the element of surprise to be able to shoot an unaware enemy pilot in the back while they were not looking), THE 109's WERE OUTCLASSED BY THE SPITFIRES DURING THE WHOLE BOB PERIOD, why do you think Garland asked Goering for squadrons of spitfires to be supplied so they could be more effective against the enemy ? why do you think so many german pilots came down with stress related problems ((Kanal Krankheit) which further reduced their ability to perform well ?
- the combined result of these factors led to the fact that in the last 1/2 of the BoB era, german fighter pilots were either closely escorting bomber formations (as instructed) and getting decimated, or were in high altitude "free hunt" positions over the southern part of the english coast and RELUCTANT TO COME DOWN TO FORMATIONS OF ALLIED FIGHTERS AT MEDIUM/LOW ALTITUDE.

if you compare that to the 109 uber plane behavior we have now (with the recent news of spitfires being further crippled in speed), you arrive at a completely fictitious scenario where:
- 109's outpace spitfires at all altitudes
- 109's are like flying bricks of concrete and much more damage resistant
- 109's can explode in a fireball and be fully on fire without their flight performance being affected
- 109's can out-turn, out-dive, and out-climb spitfire at any altitude
- german fighter pilots can completely ignore escorting and protecting their bomber formations, yet still claim to win engagements
- downed german pilots keep magically and perpetually re-spawning to fresh planes without the historical context being included

CONCLUSION:
so the "fake real" 109 luftwhiners shouldnt constantly and perpetually be able to try and replicate the hight/speed/dive advantage, have bullit proof planes that fly while on fire, and out maneuvre the red team (as it is becoming right now). this problem is much exacerbated online because the only servers gameplay that is present right now is air-quake over the channel, THIS SCENARIO IS NOT BOB FOLKS !! in RL they would have been court marshaled or shot by friendly fire from their surviving bomber pilots who made it back to base

but it is about to even get worse !! as the previous il2 series has shown, and we are about to have history repeated, you can predict the russian planes to significantly outperform their german counterparts, where i-16's will dominate 109's for ex. the russian planes will be modeled on russian "facts" and figures, based on glorious war propaganda reports of their historical greatness, and completely ignore the 100's of german pilots with "above 50 kill scores" in that era of the war, because the initial russian campaign was by and large a big turkey shoot for the germans. il2's didnt have rear gunners initially and were easy pickings (no matter how well armored), and the early mig's and i-16's were swatted down like flies (unless some stupid german fighter pilot tried to dogfight at low speed with them)

right now what we need to correct the flight models and damage models of the blue/red relationship in BoB, is historical facts and figures to keep presenting to luthier and Co, AND we need luthier to gives us il2-compare type data OPENLY so we can see exactly what they provided under the hood, in 2012 it is way to late to expect us to make do with "lets just imagine this plane behaves historically, and if i outperform the historical opponent it just means i was the better pilot". facts regarding the date used in the sim for plane performance and speed needs to be OPENLY PROVIDED


ooops, this got a bit to long its is worth debating historical facts on the 109/spitfire/hurricane performances in a separate thread

I must applaud, very well expressed thoughts here and hard to argue against.
I will be way more brief and make some direct points:
- 20 mm. cannons + 15 mm. heavy machine guns
- superior speed - due superior speed, so much tactical options in dogfight

This should be enough for debate these as raw power equipment - Luftwaffe 109 wins hands down.
Where Luftwaffe lost was the tactics, determination (guts), and radar guidance

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

I must applaud, very well expressed thoughts here and hard to argue against.
I will be way more brief and make some direct points:
- 20 mm. cannons + 15 mm. heavy machine guns
- superior speed - due superior speed, so much tactical options in dogfight

This should be enough for debate these as raw power equipment - Luftwaffe 109 wins hands down.
Where Luftwaffe lost was the tactics, determination (guts), and radar guidance

15mm heavy machine guns???

How about 7.92mm MG17 light machine guns.