Jump to content

Solty

Members
  • Content Count

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Solty

  1. Luftwaffe had lots of unit types that were used for different tasks. Fighters flew to shoot down bombers/ground pounders and win air-superiority over the battlefield (that last was hard with 1:30h of fuel time, so not realy effective). JABO and Dive Bombers attacked ground forces and their supply lines. Bombers destroyed infrastrurcture. You cannot demand from a fighter to do those tasks as well. There will be no one to protect the ground pounders then. And everyone will get killed. Only if there is complete air superiority like 1944/45 USAAF had, fighters started to go on mssions to attack ground forces, because there were enough fighters to be the top cover. Luftwaffe didn't have that ability, because they had relatively not many fighters compared to how many ground pounders they had. Even at the end they were building bombers and wanting Me262 to be a bomber. It is not that Fighters did nothing. They did their job, that is killing other planes, primarly bombers and ground pounders. But when escort was spotted, you have to dispach of the escort first. So those that are realy good went after enemy escort, because their skill could disrupt the enemy and those that were average/poor went for ground pounders. And because it was mostly aces that got the kills, for every air force (I remember USAAF estimating that 3% of aces is responsible for 50% of air kills of the UAAF in Europe, please correct me if those numbers are wrong).
  2. Amen brother! :D Realy though, I don't want to treat anyone like I am treated. I am a P-51 fan and I love my plane for what it is. A fast and maneuvrable airplane that can fly 8h of a mission and do variety of tasks. After many years of virtual flying, I can say with 100% of certainty that the most hate towards me and other fans of USAAF equipment came from 109 guys. I liked the plane, now I don't want to touch it, because of the hate and arogance that I associate with those people. I won't lie, there are P-51 fans who claim that "is da best fighta of WW2, because MURICA" But they usually don't know much about the airplane, and are ignorant, never read a single article about its performace. While all 109 guys are devoted to their one true love and are willing to mock others for finding other planes superior in any area. P-51 is a capable dogfighter if flown right. ----------------- Thefore I would rather see 1943-44 period of Western Front. With P-51B and D same P47C and D variants, some Spitfires and some 109G6-G14 and Fw190A6-8
  3. Stick forces are realy important to the pilot. Especially if we give the pilot a G-suit. As Grape Jam said. If the force that the pilot has to use is lower, therefore the plane reacts quicker to movment and it is easier to dodge incoming fire, start your maneuver or do few maneuvers one after another. A body is strained by G forces, so high stick forces become realy problematic when you are struggling to pull the stick to begin with. That is why generally Fw190 was seen as the superior aircraft to the 109, even though disparity between them in level acceleration and max speed was very small. But the stick forces for the 190 were so much easier to handle than the 109's which made the plane easy to control at high speed and therfore a more effective combat aircraft. So what that 109 can turn tighter at low speeds? It is not realy a factor when you are fighting many vs many. You want to get some good hits in an instantenous turn and roll out check six and help your friends while keeping the speed. If there is someone behind you, maneuver and present him as a target to your wingman. As pilots use to say. Speed is life and altitude is insurence. The faster the plane the better... but what if you are fast... but can't use that speed to shoot anyone down in a dogfight and therfore you can't help your friends, and they can't help you. So each of you dive to "safety" but the plane behind you is keeping up with you and you can't roll out of his fire... so you either die or you bail out... or wait for a miracle xD.
  4. Hahahahah. I am sorry. I type very little on these forums, as I mostly do not fly BOS, I like my western planes (P51 and P47 mainly) way more than early German and Russian. But this just cranks me up :D You were defending them in any possible way. Even when the Fw190 had 29m/s ROC and K4 had NO sitfness, you were there to say that it is the best sim and that BOS and other "games" are not even close to the DCS' level of fidelity xD. You were actively fighting against bug fixing even xD You've got burned in your own game of mockery and false claims. There you go. ------- Anyway, I think that what Leatherneck is doing might be realy interesting. I wish for a good adversary to the Corsair, maybe A6M5? Who knows. To me the worst one can do is praise one dev and only criticise the other. I have BOS, DCS and WT installed right now on my PC and I enjoy them as much as I can. I won't lie that I don't like some parts in ALL of those games. But there are things I like about all of them. There is no "BEST SIM" Right now. They all have flaws and they were always still faaaaar away from reality. But this is what we get... unless someone owns a LaGG-3 or P-51D20NA :D
  5. Very good read and great research. War is hell o7
  6. Yes? What about Wielun 1st of Spetember 1939, a completely non military target bombed by the Luftwaffe. Warsaw (1939 and 1944) which was the most destroyed city in Europe, and many other Polish cities. Towns and cities in Holand like Eindhoven, Belgium, France, Norway, London and many other cities of UK, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Sevastopol and many other cities of Soviet Union. Germany was bombing cities as first and you are telling me that Allies were responisble for civilian casualties? Hahaah Japan was bombing Chinese civilian population too, so they were not angels you are trying to portray. Face it, thats the war Axis wanted, thats the war that was brought to them. End of (hi)story
  7. The one in this thread? He said clearly that the P-51 as he felt, together with Spitfire were more suited for turning than Bf109, just due to the fact of slots getting in the way at combat speeds and to him those were useful only at close to landing or take off speeds, thus both Spitfire and 51 were more stable in a turn. You should sometimes listen things you comment on. You don't get it don't you? By somebody saying something doesn't mean its ultimately true. And even if he said that 109 was superior to Spitfire in turning it wouldn't make it right. Its just pilot's subjective view. I've provided both sides of the issue saying that "my plane is better" because thats what usually a pilot says, especially if he hasn't flow other planes. I have already said. Objectively the 109 would have a slight advantage over P-51 in a very sustained low alt turn fight, as it is lighter and has better power to weight ratio. Still slats produce drag when deployed and 109 will be accelerating even worse in a turn than it would without them, but it can hold itself in the air for a bit longer too. So there is your trade off. A simple yoyo for the P-51 pilot is enough to gain a position and enough energy to keep up with the slow turning 109 for a quick kill especially if he drops flaps. If 51 keeps up the fight with it at that slow speeds, he is going to stall before 109. But normally almost nobody would go into such maneuvering because "speed is life" and in a normal combat environment its usually not 1v1 but many vs many where it is normal to switch targets all the time and B&Z proves superior to T&B fights. If a 109 would start flying 270kph at a steep turn trying make circles one of the Spits/51s/47s/LAs/Yaks/Tempests etc. would just kill it with a one quick attack. Because its mostly not 1v1. Sim≠Life
  8. He is just as much confident about that as any of the American pilot's I have quoted are sure about having no problems outturning 109s and 190s in their P-51. Besides, Willy Reschke cannot say about many engagements with Mustangs as he had claimed 27 kills within 70 missions and 20 of that were bombers. And he has shot down 3 Mustangs. I can only imagine that one of them could have been a 1v1 duel. I don't think you can be realy confident after 3 encounters what the enemy can do or do not and that it could have been circumstance. http://www.luftwaffe.cz/reschke.html Also the tired argument of allied superiority in numbers. Germans have used massed airforce attacks since 1939 and nobody from the allied part complains realy ;P You don't have to have a lot, to have a lot in one place. Rall had been fighting in both times of air superiority in 1940 and struggle numerically against VVS in 1944. When you are under attack you are almost always outtumbered because your enemy will be massing his units to create at least 3:1 scenario. Thats how war works. I just wanted to point out that pilot opinion can varry very much. Even so much that an American (Holm) would say German equipment is superior and a German (Rall) pilot feel the same about American equipment and I think people shouldn't be holding somebody's words as the only truth. Yes their experience is useful, and thats why I would like to ask him how it was to fly all those planes, and how they behaved and that could have been a very useful piece of information on pilot's feedback but that doesn't mean that it is 100% accurate, there always will be human perception error. Especially when providing a comparisson.
  9. No he doesn't state that, at least if to believe subtitles. Mr Reschke states that P-51 was very good at instantaneous turns and that it was possible to outmaneuver them at lower speeds. And if you fly for a long time, you would know that it is entirely possible to even outmaneuver a more nimble oponent. It only shows that those planes were so close in performance that it is the pilot that counts the most in a dogfight. Just as many P-51 pilots have written or said in their reports that they had no problems with turning or outturning 109s and 190s. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-bishop-11sept44.jpg "Ill never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides." Richard Bishop "I always felt that I can outmaneuver any German airplane with the P-51" "I went into the luftbery circle, a tightest turn I could do (...) but whether it was the Mustang that much better or me beeing better than him or combination of both I was gaining on him..." http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-daniell-26nov44.jpg "It wasn't difficult to get on his tail as I was turning with him." J.S Daniel http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-bryan-27sept44.jpg "At no time did I have any trouble either overtaking or out-turning the FW 190s or ME 109s". Donald Bryan "I had no difficulty turning inside of him firing all the way around the turn, bur observed no hits." Major William T. Halton, 26 December 1944, 352nd FG I got into a turning duel with the leader of their top cover flight and found no trouble in out turning and out climbing him at this altitude (10000).William T. Halton So as you can see many pilots can have their opinions.This is a very good site at which you can read about P-51 pilots' experience http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html It depends on many various factors. I just wanted to point out that this so hated laminar flow wing accordig to Gunther Rall was actually more stable than 109's wing. Thats it. Only pilot's feeling, not an absolute statement to follow.
  10. It is not about that. Look as Rall says that both Spit and Stang have according to him more stable airframe during turning. While the Holm's inteview states that the P-51 can't turn at all compared to the Bf109. The difference in perception is amazing. And no they don't always pop-out unevenly but it shows that you had to be much more careful than with a Spitfire or P-51 during the fight in the 109 so that you won't get into a spin due to uneven slat deployment. That on its own is a disadvantage that can cost you life. 109 slats giving it higher lift is normal I don't question that. But what was their impact on turn time and turn rate is a different story entirely. Holm said, that 109G would outturn Spitfire Mk IX, Rall says that both Mustang and Spitfire are more stable in turns giving them the advantage. What comes to the equasion is additional maneuvering as turning is not realy what defines a better figher plane. But it shows that this laminar flow wing of the P-51D is not as bad as people keep painting it as very easy to stall, if a 3rd highest scoring ace of the world said that it was more stable than the 109 during turning. We have to be realistic about it, a normal dogfight doesn't go bellow 300kph too often, and so the P-51 is not going to be put at a great disadvantage by the 109, especially that 109G6, G10, K4 are not the same nimble E4 or F4 that would be able to hold turns at lower speeds.
  11. Its an interesting inteview, although I think some questions were already asked in other ones. How much we could know from him from the technical part of things if some interviewer had ever asked him about them. Still a cool interview. I would deffinitely ask about behaviour of 109 at different stages of flight, forces on controls, differences between 109 versions and comparisson to other planes. And as I remember he had a possiblity to tranistion to FW190... wonder why he didn't do it. The most interesting from the simmer part of me was his plane talk from around 4min. It is the 3rd time I think he mentiones slats as beeing the bad thing about Bf109 and said that they were problematic during combat maneuvering and during rough turns the slat would pop-out uneven and get you into a snap. And the most intriguing part of what he said about 109 in comparisson to the Spitfire in turning fight: "Wing of the Spitfire was very stable, same with the Mustang P-51" Never thought I will hear such words. It stands with a nice contrast to the Skip Holm interview that so many take as an only truth. It only shows that opinions of pilots can varry so much.
  12. Yeah, the biggest misconception seems to be that people think that all 20mm shells were Minengeschoss...
  13. Define a real sim pilot. Who gave you the licence? Who tested you? I fly since Janes Attack Squadron and later I flew on IL2 and then IL2 46(my first multiplayer) and then I played CloD, and the War Thuder and then I bought BOS and DCS. You are the one that should grow up and realise that adult people can choose what they want and not follow orders from the likes of you that act like rebelious teens.
  14. Its just the way people treat each other based on what game they play. People who say "the real sim" or "real virtual pilots don't fly in WT", its just silly. "Normal" people would say "Wierdos, instead of doing something valuable, they stay at home and play their simulations like some dorks" or "Want to fly a plane? Fly a real one". Realy you don't have to segregate people, based on what difficuly/complexity level they want to play. War Thuder is free, I don't see a problem with it. It is its own thing and many people I know started flying via that game, and moved from WT to other sims.
  15. I find that hating on WT is the next "cool" thing to do lately. I think its a great soft-sim, that is a very good entry point for people that are first time encountering a flight sim. Having that platform to first try SB and buy the stick, learn to deal with basics of a flight. I like the standard mission layout. You fly once and if you die, you go to the hangar. So you realy have to watch out not to "die". I like those breaks between flights. It feels like two teams fighting for supremacy. Of course the game is not as advanced as BOS or DCS, but I nevertheles would say that its not as bad as some of you describe it. And I am certainly not going to call people names like some do, for playing WT. And I flew in IL2 (46) and CloD and I tried BOS(my PC sucks so I can't fly more) and I fly in DCS. FM/DM wise, not realy impressive. A lot of bugs and problems with how planes react to damage and damage output and FMs are a mixed bag as usual. Some planes become UFOs, while some can't even take off. But I can have a good time there. Just lower your expectations and play... or don't. But for Pete's sake, don't call people names/exclude) just because they enjoy what you don't.
  16. DCS has some realy good points. The aircraft operation is very advanced. Takeoff and landing feel very natural and airplanes behave very realistically in normal flight operations. But the biggest issue I have is that the work progresses very slowly. The lack of a proper map is not a big issue for me... although it kills immersion. But even when Normandy map arrives, its still not going to be fine with me. Why? Because Fw190D9 and Bf109K4 never flew over Normandy. Its my preference though. I also, never understood why K4. I like Bf109. 109G2 was my fav for a long time in il2 46. But I've always found the Me109K4 as the "Gerry fanboy 109." It was so "super" and "best" and "latests". It was built in very small numbers when compared to Bf109G6 and G14 and very little were available during 1944. So why K4? It doesn't fit to the Normandy map and there are no flyable ones, and not even a single plane that has survived (correct me if I am wrong). Most data for 109s is taken from G models. Balance? The K4 makes the 190 less unique beeing just as fast low and quicker at high alt, and it turns better than P-51 while it is faster than P-51... It makes no sense to me... Overall, I am waiting for DCS 2.0. I am a little bit excited and hope for the game to pick up pace in development of modules and patches for all the existing ones. It certainly looks good. What I am happy the most about, is that the game will have better framerate and the whole thing will be one exe, and that means its gonna load faster
  17. "Poor man's P-51" I'll take it :D... realy though. I wish it was in the main pack. I like to buy physical copies in stores... but that P-40 is realy looking good.
  18. Hey people. I just was told that I should turn against 109K4 in DCS as P-51 has advantage in turning :D How about that huh? Check the post below. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2354515&postcount=124
  19. Or rather turn fight them. Dogfight=/=Turnfight Dogfight is a term descrbing fight between planes that want to kill each other. How they do it is another story.
  20. So the Zero was the best dogfighter of the war? What is dogfighting to you? Turning in circles? If so then maybe I-153 is the best dogfighter of the war. Tell me how Bf109 can dogfight at 700kph? It can't! It is stiff. Spitfire? Ailerons are stiff in Spit... Why do you think Fw190 was always seen by experts as the better fighter than Bf109? I would argue that B&Z is dogfighting too Both parties are trying to out do the other. According to wiki: "The first written reference to the modern day usage of the word comes from Fly Papers, by A. E. Illingworth, in 1919, “The battle develops into a ‘dog-fight’, small groups of machines engaging each other in a fight to the death.”" There is no definition that states that both planes need to turn or fly on the edge of their stalling performance.
  21. Depends what a dogfight for you. If thats only turning and tight maneuvering, then I guess A6M Zero is the best plane of the war. It had very long range and even fully loaded could outturn 109 and 190 no problem. Does that make Zero better dogfighter?
  22. Well... that would be just similar to BoB. Just the other way around. GB didn't have any long range airplane to escort bombers as well... It is not my fault that Germans wanted to invade everything.
  23. Well... that was not my intetion To be Frank (see what I did there?) we don't know much about Ki84. Only tests were made on US higher octane fuel and we have no idea about stick forces at different speeds, nor the reliability of the engine, weapons, durability and many other aspects that are crucial in air combat. So I wouldn't say "Ki84 is better than P-51 in all aspects except top speed". Just because there is not enough information available. But yes. Numbers, tactics and pilot training matter the most in air combat... but strategy is what wins the war. Bf109 example has shown us that it was not capable of gaining air superiority. Even though pilots were very good and Germans had numerical advantage. Range was too short. It was a good airplane, but not one suited for the mission. It was downright awful as bomber escort or air superiority fighter having just 10min of flight time over target area.
×
×
  • Create New...