luthier, the historical performance btw 109/spitfire/huricane is NOT simulated in CoD

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by zapatista

the purpose of this thread is to try and provide a summary of historical facts and figures about the performance comparison and combat tactics/behavior of these fighter aircraft during the BoB era

..........

Context:
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, and couldnt fly inverted without starving their carburators of fuel, similar problems existed in other -ve G maneuvers.
- 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)

Hi Zapatista,
you mention precisely the real reasons why RAF won the battle of Britain.
One reason that you did not mention: RAF had the radar interception which gave a tremendous advantage in keeping their few pilots at reast and use them only when needed and could direct a few planes where thery could do maximum damage.

But, (with the exception of the Spit carburator disadvantage) all these reasons can not be simulated on-line nor can be compensated by "toning down" or "toning up" the Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Did the Bf109 own the Spitfires? Probably yes if the Bf109 could fight in the terms they wanted (yeah, yeah, I know I will be flamed for that sentence).
Can the Bf109 decide whether they want battle under their terms or not?
In real life: NO! (this is how Goering screwed them up)
In the game: YES! Because if I am high, I will decide when and where to engage, otherwise I just disengage and go away. Even if I engage, I can always chose to disengage, climb and get away from the battle.
If I stay low, I die (it is an option but it is still my decision)

So, trying to convince 1C that the Spitfires, Huricanes, Tiger Moths, whatever, should perform better in order to give red fliers better (and fairer) chances against on-line gaming is actually not-historical.


I repeat my point: As long as I decide when I engage and when I disengage a fight, I rule.
Is it historical fact that the Bf109 can do that? I think it is!
(at least I never saw anybody of those people who posted million of pages from archives regarding planes' performance during the past ten years at Ubi-zoo and here, ever claiming otherwise).
After that, how well (or how much better) your Spit, Hurri, etc should turn, fly, climb, shoot etc etc, does not change the meaning of the dogfight. The result will depend on how many mistakes the Bf109 pilot will do.
And keep in mind that a lot of people here have been flying Bf109 for over ten years (since the IL2 days) so not many mistakes will you see...

But this is just the warmup...
Just wait for the day blue will have the FW190 series flying over the channel.
I hope you may recall the historical correctness, during the first month of the battle, RAF lost one hundred Spitfires and pilots. The FW190 owned everything during that period and it took the RAF one full year to introduce a Spit that could match it.
There I want to see what kind of tears (and screams) will be heard...

If I am pleased? Hell no, I stopped flying for months now... as long as there are no missions with strategic objectives (due to the memory leak CTD) just flying dogfight against Spits (except SpitII) and Hurris, it is too easy for Bf pilots


Still, we should wait to see what the effect of the changes in plane performance will be (because there is too much wind for nothing right now) but, as long as my rule (I decide when I engage and when I disengage a fight) stands and is historicaly correct, it will not make a difference...

~S~

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

...

In the game: YES! Because if I am high, I will decide when and where to engage, otherwise I just disengage and go away. Even if I engage, I can always chose to disengage, climb and get away from the battle.
If I stay low, I die (it is an option but it is still my decision)


I repeat my point: As long as I decide when I engage and when I disengage a fight, I rule.
Is it historical fact that the Bf109 can do that? I think it is!
(at least I never saw anybody of those people who posted million of pages from archives regarding planes' performance during the past ten years at Ubi-zoo and here, ever claiming otherwise).

One problem with that view is that historically one of the main aims of the German offensive was the destruction of RAF fighters - in some ways the Luftwaffe bombers were the bait to bring the RAF up so that the 109s could get at them.

There are many instances of pure German fighter sweeps flying happily over England with the RAF refusing to engage.

On the other hand the primary goal of the RAF was destruction of Luftwaffe bombers or the breaking up of the raids. When the RAF fighters were committed against the bombers the 109s had little choice about whether to engage or not, even if they found themselves in a disadvantageous position. (which they usually didn't)

[robtek]

The serious intention to protect the bombers could imo only be reached by a server sided evaluation system, giving points for kills only in relation to bombers survived/targets destroyed for blue and bombers downed/targets saved for red.

This might lead also to more sophisticated tactics, like to lure the fighter cover away before the Hurris arrive, or fighter wings flying in bomber-style formations and speeds.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by kendo65

One problem with that view is that historically one of the main aims of the German offensive was the destruction of RAF fighters - in some ways the Luftwaffe bombers were the bait to bring the RAF up so that the 109s could get at them.

Hi Ataros,

There is no problem with the view. This is the tactical advantage of the Bf109. And in an on-line game the reds get to feel the heat.

As far as the historic truth is concerned you were right, that was Luftwaffe's aim.
Why Luftwaffe failed, because the monthly production of planes was higher than the attrition rate; Which was one of the miracles of the UK production facilities.
Luftwaffe destroyed two times the amount of enemy planes they thought RAF was in possesion off and RAF kept coming...

~S~

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Why Luftwaffe failed, because the monthly production of planes was higher than the attrition rate; Which was one of the miracles of the UK production facilities.
Luftwaffe destroyed two times the amount of enemy planes they thought RAF was in possesion off and RAF kept coming...

The reason the LW failed was that the British kept calm and carried on.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Robo.

The reason the LW failed was that the British kept calm and carried on.

Hmmm... historicaly inacurate assumption (pressumption)

Hadn't that stupid German bomber pilot dropped his bombs in the town (due to navigational error), thus causing the RAF bomber raid to Berlin, thus causing Hitler to order the bombardment of the British towns (instead of the industry and airfields), you would probably be speaking German as first language now...


And hadn't the Greeks kicked the Italian army thus obliging Hitler to invade Greece and have his airborne division massacred in the battle of Crete, probably the Russians would be speaking German, too...


irrespective how well the Spitfire turned (or didn't).

~S~

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Hmmm... historicaly inacurate assumption (pressumption)

Hadn't that stupid German bomber pilot dropped his bombs in the town (due to navigational error), thus causing the RAF bomber raid to Berlin, thus causing Hitler to order the bombardment of the British towns (instead of the industry and airfields), you would probably be speaking German as first language now...

Wrong.

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

And hadn't the Greeks kicked the Italian army thus obliging Hitler to invade Greece and have his airborne division massacred in the battle of Crete, probably the Russians would be speaking German, too...

Wrong.

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

irrespective how well the Spitfire turned (or didn't).

~S~

Agreed.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Hmmm... historicaly inacurate assumption (pressumption)

I ment it rather as a joke. But you got to get the British credit for their stoic determination, stubborn resistance... and guts. And for how they didn't allow the bloody Luftwaffe to win the battle.

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Hadn't that stupid German bomber pilot dropped his bombs in the town (due to navigational error), thus causing the RAF bomber raid to Berlin, thus causing Hitler to order the bombardment of the British towns (instead of the industry and airfields), you would probably be speaking German as first language now...

Oh so what was that dude's name. I'd like to thank him personally for losing the war for Germans. Thank you very much, Helmut, danke vielmals!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Hmmm... historicaly inacurate assumption (pressumption)

Hadn't that stupid German bomber pilot dropped his bombs in the town (due to navigational error), thus causing the RAF bomber raid to Berlin, thus causing Hitler to order the bombardment of the British towns (instead of the industry and airfields), you would probably be speaking German as first language now...


And hadn't the Greeks kicked the Italian army thus obliging Hitler to invade Greece and have his airborne division massacred in the battle of Crete, probably the Russians would be speaking German, too...


irrespective how well the Spitfire turned (or didn't).

~S~

You seriously believe this? You are practically a sympathiser.....


For serious historians though please vote:
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Osprey

You seriously believe this? You are practically a sympathiser.....

WOW WOW WOW Baby!

Part of my family died in Crete defending my country against the nazis.

So you better wash your frigging brain, twice, before posting insults like that!

And read some more history and understand it instead of playing games, wondering how many octanes your Hurricane needs so that you do not get kicked.

~S~

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein