Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Solty

  1. Yes it's interesting what you say about the roll.  The in-game LaGG-3 does roll very well, in fact pretty much on a par with the 190 which is to say better than the Bf 109 (as it should). 


    Now that strikes me as a little odd given that I can find no contemporary references to the ability of a LaGG pilot to simply roll away from a 109, in much the way that a FW 190 pilot could 'supposedly' roll out of the way of a Spitfire.


    Does anyone have a useful reference on the matter, that might explain the apparent anomaly?? 


    Thats a NACA report on roll rate at 3000m. So, there you go. Fw190 is at the top of the chart. I do not know roll rate of the LaGG-3 IRL, but you can check yourself if the Fw190 is matching the figures.


  2. Well you are making an assumption that nobody cared wheather or not the plane is clean. That is BS and would probably offend most of the ground crews. Many times from all sides, pilots said that crew chief cared about the airplane a lot and that they did everything to make it come home and especially with victories. It was their way of fighting the war, repairing and cleaning weapons.


    A great story by Bud Anderson:

  3. I've also read and heard from the pilots that the P-40 was able to outturn the 109. One of the pilots (Wayn Reynard)even said that it was their tactic was to make the German turn with them and they did 2 circles which was enough to shoot him down.




    What we do not know weather he was talking about the P-40E or the P-40F, nor what 109 it was. Maybe it was G6?


    And it is interesting that some sources give it under 20sec turn time, and I have not seen a single one that states otherwise.

  4. I know nothing of aerospace engineering, but yes, as I said, some of his opinions, even to a lamen, seem rather coloured. I think it comes across rather strongly that he's analyzing the two planes based more on what the Americans felt was valuable in a fighter plane, not why the Germans made any of the decisions they did. 


    One of his major critisms running through the whole write up is the endurance of the 109, but imo, given Germany's strategic position and tactical doctrine, it doesn't seem to me that a 109 with an 8hr endurance was what the Luftwaffe needed. 

    Well with long range bombers and long range fighter escort they could have changed a lot on the eastern front.


    But thats not the biggest problem for the 109. I find the pilot ergonomics the biggest issue. The bad visiblity, the problematic landing gear which would cost lots of lives, the control stifness at high speeds. Those are all things that many others comfirm. Both from the German and the Allied side and even modern test pilots that had the ability to fly the 109 or the Buchon.


    At low speeds the airplane is a great dogfighter. Not as good as the Spitfire when it comes to turning but overall its good and clearly had advantages in years 1941-42 over Spit V and most soviet airplanes used during this time period (I153, I16, LaGG-3, Yak7 etc.). Since E4 the prop govenor was very nice and pilot could only focus on flying. Thats a lot of work that the pilot doesn't have to do. Thats very good.


    Its not that it is the only airplane that had limitations but they weren't as piled up on each other it seems.


    The Spitfire also has bad aileron control at high speed, very similar to the 109, just has better ergonomics but the control harmonization is not there at all, the airplane has a very light elevator.

    Typhoon was an airplane which had realy poor aileron control, even worse than 109 and elevator control was probably on par(no data realy avaiable).


    So many airplanes and each has its charm. :fly:

  5. I am wondering how is this thread still open? A guy who claims in his infinite wisdom that some planes are not to be modeled because he doesn't like people that fly them? :wacko:

    I could easily say the same about all Bf109 wheraboos that I dislike, but the Bf109 is part of history just like the Fw190, P-51, Spitfire and many other airplanes. :angry:


    If you do not like to see people talk about airplanes you do not have any affection for, just AVOID the topic or even forum as a whole. Nobody tells you to write or read what is written on the forum. :dash:

  6. OP, I understand that it took you some time to get test done, but what I see is not realy an accurate test. Sorry.


    We don't know the exact ammo types in the weapons. The game shows mix of AP/HE. What does that mean? What munitions are they realy? And where are the Tracer rounds, are they just Tracer or are they IT, or maybe they are APT or APIT etc.?


    Also, we do not know which rounds hit at a given time, because a lot of the time you miss. So on one target you can get 3 hits with HE on whole wing and see little damage, and on the other run you can have 1 hit on the wingroot with AP and rip the wing off because it went through spars and weakened the structure.


    This test would have to be done with much more precision to give any valid results. And they would have to be done a couple more times.


    EDIT: Damage models should not be based on ammount of shells that hit the target, but the real damage the shell does. If I shoot with a 12,7mm API and hit your wing at the wing root with 1 or 2 shots both of them penetrate and damage the structure enough, the wing will fall off. While if you take your 20mm HEI round and are going to bang it on the steel plate behind the pilot, you can be sure nothing new happens.


    People think that if they have a 20mm cannon, they can destroy anything with 2-5 shots. This is a wrong asumption. Many "victories" were scored because the pilot bailed out, many of them were scored without even hitting the target and some will be done with one shot to the engine block, while other will take 15 hits to the whole airplane which will account for some shattered skin and thats it.


    Moral of the story is, try hitting something valuable! Like the engine or the control surfaces or wingroots, radiators etc.

  7. Funny how that is a feeling shared for most of community, yet everytime someone brings up the matter the DM/FM police come quickly saying theres nothing wrong.... "learn to play" and similar...   :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:


    Anyways, I already grabbed my popcorn. 



    The main problem is that people think that MG151/20 is some kind of magical wand that makes airplanes disapear.


    It was a fine weapon, but you cannot expect it to kill an airplane within 1-3 shots every time. You hit what you hit and thats it. Stop treating it as a wonderweapon. For reference watch some gun cams.

    • Upvote 6

  8. lol what? its the opposite. german escorts loved comfort and lonewolfing, they loved chasing and left their stukas unprotected and shot down. Thats what you get when you dont order them to escort and not to give pursuit. and against escorted il2 formations the german fighters couldnt do much. just sit there and look at them.

    When US started bombing campaign they had no fighters, when they added fighter protection to the bombers and it cut the losses a bit, but still Luftwaffe was sucessful. When US got a fighter airplane that can fly with the bombers anywhere and stay in the air for long time (P-51) and Gen. Doolittle came as the chief of the 8th AAF, he changed the idea.


    Before the The mission of the 8th's fighter groups is to bring bombers home. Doolittle changed it 8th's Fighter Groups mission is to destroy the Luftwaffe.


    They allowed for freedom for escort fighters and they broke the massed German assaults before they could asseble. Fighters were no longer staying with bombers but pursuing the German airplanes untill they were shot down.


    German escorts were successful at defending bombers during BoB, it was just the fuel state that didn't allow them to pursue the RAF planes to the ground. Later Goering told fighters to stay closer to the bombers and losses rose, luftwaffe was loosing BoB.


    So as you can see, it is not about staying close to the objective, it is to destroy the threat before it gets close enough to do any damage and destroy it as a whole.

    • Upvote 1

  9. Sure, I've played a lot of different war/FPS games. As far as I can recall none of them involved murdering noncombats or unarmed personnel, at least to where you could actually see it...I exterminated plenty of cities in Rome Total War :). It's not really a matter of guilt or feeling morally superior (LOL I'd have a long way to go there), it's just that playing a game that recreates something as awful as war would be depressing as hell to me if it was 'too realistic'.


    The rest of your post is on point though...killing other players in their chute isn't useful either.

    So I see you never had 5 stars in GTA

    • Upvote 2

  10. Whats the difference? It is a game. Have you ever played FPS games? People "murder" or "frag" each other for 30 years and nobody feels guilty. Why would anyone feel guilty of shooting down a bunch of polygons?


    I don't attack parachutes because it simply doesn't make any sense, you waste ammo to destroy something that has no meaning. Unless parachutes give points, then maybe I should reconsider :ph34r:.


    Either way, usually that a guy jumps on a chute, I am glad he didn't waste my time anymore, as he was usually beaten anyway. :cool:

  11. You have completely ignored the truth and facts I have presented and repeated your mantra.


    Wielun, London, Warsaw, Eindhoven etc were not tactical targets connected to ground support. Those were atrocities by Luftwaffe on allied civilians. No real military goals were achieved.


    The fact that Germany has conquered those places with terror on the ground doesn't help. Luftwaffe on many occasions was just a prelude and moved on to another target. It changes nothing because Luftwaffe was still part of those atrocities. And civilian population was targeted.

  12. With the exception of the air attacks against the UK the Germans did not try to destroy their enemies will to fight (like the RAF did) nor did they try to destroy their enemies capability to fight (like the USAAF did) by air attack on a strategic scale.

    This is not 'just' down to lack of equipment, but also a consequence of the ground war focussed doctrine the Germans had. Even if they had had the perfect equipment, a strategic bombing campaign of Western Allied scale just doesn't make sense in a strategic situation like on the Eastern Front.


    That said, I've read that the whole bombing campaign wasn't cost effective. It was a good read, and I tend to agree. Until very late in the war (~1945), when Germany's defences had already been overwhelmed and the Allies could efficiently and effectively deliver the bombs, the strategic bombing cost the Allies more than the damage they did with it. Had they instead of bombing gone for important things, the war might have been over sooner. Just think how helpful another 100 convoy escorts would have been in 1941, available at a fraction of the bomber costs.

    Are you crazy? Germany started the whole terror bombing campaigns in 1939, attacking Polish cities and towns. Starting with Wieluń 1st of September 1939. A purely civilian target.



    German bombings of Eindhoven from 19th September 1944 and 1944 bombing of Warsaw proves that their method has not changed over the years.


    Have you seen how human losses compare between allies and axis? And big part of it is due to Luftwaffe bombings of cities in Poland, Britian, Soviet Union, Greece etc. Germany just didn't have aircraft that could fly far enough and take a big enough bombload. Even Hitler wanted everything to be a bomber, even Me262 was suppose to be the 'Blitzbomber'. Just because Germany never bulit as mighty and powerful bomber force as the USAAF, that doesn't mean they didn't do terror bombings and didn't wanted to brake the will of people!




  • Create New...