Reasons why i severely lowered my BoS flight time lately [from a BoS enthusiast]

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Not true, I have been involved as an enthusiast and have neither the time nor expertise to throw around numbers. I have never said otherwise. Being part of the conversation IS being part of the community. I suspect few in the community are engineers. All are enthusiasts.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I suspect few in the community are engineers. All are enthusiasts.

But the few are enthusiastic engineers!

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

That too....

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

A plane is considered as better than B plane, and C plane is.... Well, sorry, but that doesn't seem to be very relevant. A warbird is always an alchemy. A rather nice example to illustrate this is the B-239 Brewster : the best, AFAIK, kill ratio in the whole air combat history in Finland, and a catastrophic experience in Extreme-East. Of course, it's relative to opponents, but I'm pretty sure this way of thinking isn't a good one to state how should be a plane.

Agreed 100%

 

Stating plane A is better than plane B without examples says more about the bias of the person saying it than plane A or B..

 

What makes a plane better than another plane has allot to do with the roll (read combat situation) it was being used in..

 

For example, the P39 was considered a poor aircraft in the pacific, where the roll tended to be mid to high altitude operations, but the P39 was considered a great aircraft on the Russian front, where roll tended to be low to mid altitude operations.

 

Long story short

 

You have to consider, and include, the way it was being used when making statements of plane A being better than plane B

Edited February 6, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

An interesting discussion, and I'd like to add a couple of things.

 

On the Spit V vs FW-190 debate: By 1942, many of the RAF's more experienced fighter pilots were being siphoned off to different combat theatres. Facing them on the other side of the Channel were arguably, the most experienced fighter pilots in the world flying excellent aircraft backed up by a very efficient early warning system. The LW had all the advantages and could choose when and where to attack or disengage. Taking these things together, it's not surprising that the RAF got beat up as often as it did.

 

On the subject of fm's: From my experience with mp in BoS and other sims, most people do not fight their aircraft as they did back in the day, (i.e. low-energy turn fight in the 190, don't fight as a schwarm, rotte, pair, flight, etc, engage/disengage at the best time, yada, yada, yada). From what I have read about WW2 air combat, the majority of kills were of the 'quick firing pass' type, perhaps with a turn or two, not the 'classic' dogfight event. Even with a perfectly crafted fm, one-on-one dogfights will eventually expose the advantages and/or disadvantages of each aircraft. 

 

The trouble is, trying to catch an energy fighter with a slower turn fighter when the energy fighter won't turn, or vice versa gets boring very quickly, and we are playing a game after all so you can't really blame us for doing the 'Air Quake'  .

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

Edited February 6, 2015 by CFC_Conky

[LizLemon]

I'm sure it's no more annoying than the constant complaining from the likes of you.

Yet the devs listen to and respond to that constant complaining. Case in point: the unlocks.

 

You aren't the intended recipient of those complaints, so maybe you shouldn't take it so personally.

[JtD]

I'm sure it's no more annoying than the constant complaining from the likes of you.

The "likes of me"? What, same colour of skin, sex, religion, nationality? Who exactly are you discriminating? I'm not willing to take your **** because you have issues with other people or have other people take your **** because you have issues with me. Not that I'm anywhere near constantly complaining in the first place, but then how would you be able to make that distinction.

 

Can't believe I took you off ignore. :-/

[BraveSirRobin]

Yet the devs listen to and respond to that constant complaining. 

 

They're not listening to the FM complaining.  If you've got the test data, send them the test data.  If you don't have test data, learn to live with what we've got.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

They're not listening to the FM complaining.  If you've got the test data, send them the test data.  If you don't have test data, learn to live with what we've got.

Probably a good reason they are not listening to the FM complaining, first and formost until 1C/777 provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C#, no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data. Just too many potential sim pilot errors can be made during testing that can corrupt the results.

 

This statement is based on the hundreds of test logs I have reviewed over the past 10+ from several different flight sim. I found that most of the errors were in the way the user performed the in-game test, and not an actual error in the FM. For example, not taking into account the difference in the in-game atmosphere and the real world data, which is typically corrected/converted to standard atmosphere, but not always! Another example, in WWII some countries the beginning of a rate of climb test started from a dead stop on the runway, where as others the beginning of a rate of climb test started with the plane air born at a low altitude. Not a big impact on the rate of climb data, but it does affect the time to climb results. Little difference like that can have a big effect on the results.

 

So, until we have a way to log the in-game data, any and all in-game testing should be taken with a grain of salt. As a bare minimum a video (track file) should be generated during the test so others can review the methods used during testing.

 

On a related note, Pilot Combat Accounts.. The are pretty much worthless to say anything about plane performance!

 

In that pilot combat accounts are typically one sided stories that says more about the pilot vs pilot skill than plane vs plane performance.. That and the pilot account typically does not contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to see if you can obtain the same results, let alone the other planes state..

 

For example, for every German pilot combat account of his Bf109 being able to out turn a Spitfire, their is a British pilot combat account of his Spitfire being able to out turn a Bf109..

 

Yet to this day people still think some sort of statistical average can be gleamed from pilot accounts.. But that is a pipe dream IMHO, for so many reasons, but probably the most important reason being, you never get a chance to read the after action report from the pilots that were killed in action!

[DD_Arthur]

Hello all,

 

On the subject of fm's: From my experience with mp in BoS and other sims, most people do not fight their aircraft as they did back in the day, (i.e. low-energy turn fight in the 190, don't fight as a schwarm, rotte, pair, flight, etc, engage/disengage at the best time, yada, yada, yada). From what I have read about WW2 air combat, the majority of kills were of the 'quick firing pass' type, perhaps with a turn or two, not the 'classic' dogfight event. Even with a perfectly crafted fm, one-on-one dogfights will eventually expose the advantages and/or disadvantages of each aircraft. 

 

The trouble is, trying to catch an energy fighter with a slower turn fighter when the energy fighter won't turn, or vice versa gets boring very quickly, and we are playing a game after all so you can't really blame us for doing the 'Air Quake'  .

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

 

@Conky; congrats on being one of the first posters in this thread to point out that what we do in this game has very little to do with the reality of aerial combat in WW2.   

 

Edit;  and an honorable mention for Ace of Aces too.  Didn't Galland warn against the pitfalls of making comparisons of aircraft performance from the cockpit?

Edited February 6, 2015 by arthursmedley

[=CFC=Conky]

Thanks for the kind words arthursmedly, I would argue that even a pair of lowly Lagg3's, fighting as a team using comms on a discrete channel would clean up in mp. With the 190 they would be even more effective. A flight of four using comms? Unbeatable .

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

Edited February 6, 2015 by CFC_Conky

[Mac_Messer]

Yes, you're being asked to give actual proof.  And it's totally legit.  Telling them that the game is wrong and that you want to see the documentation they used is NOT totally legit.  It's like telling a chef that his food sucks, and you can confirm it sucks if he gives you the recipe.  It would probably be a very bad idea to eat at that restaurant after trying to pull a stunt like that.

You know, Russian historical sources...

[BraveSirRobin]

You know, Russian historical sources...

 

Not sure whose historical sources you think are beyond reproach.

[Mac_Messer]

This is a perfect example why anecdotal evidence has to be disregarded whether it's right or wrong.  You find the 190 ground handling comical but I find it perfectly acceptable.  Who is right cannot be objectively assessed and our experiences/comments are purely anecdotal.

 

Likewise I think the FW190 is ok if it's flown "right".  I recommend really reducing the sensitivity of the controls to get a good balance.  I have no idea how the VVS planes stacked up to it but wouldn't be at all surprised if those with the better weight/power/etc balance could comfortably deal with it at lower or even higher altitudes.

 

Anyway, don't forget that the majority of the VVS pilots weren't particularly good and didn't have the experience or training of the LW pilots.  In such situations I'm not at all surprised that LW pilots could outmanoeuvre VVS pilots.  Anecdotally you hear of 109s turning inside Spits and that may the experience factor again, when pure maths suggest they couldn't.

I flew IL2 for over 7 years. Never really got the idea that the FW190, any model or variant, was one of the best WWII aircraft like it was said to be. I mean it was ok on the offensive but once you faced just about any VVS fighter it was over. Certainly, any of the yearly adequate 109s were far better in IL2. The 'gamey' Focke Wulf is just fast, that`s it. Without getting into the numbers story, one has to scratch his head if the FW190 ever was portrayed anywhere near the famous Focke the Brits kept panicking about.

[Mac_Messer]

A plane is considered as better than B plane, and C plane is.... Well, sorry, but that doesn't seem to be very relevant. A warbird is always an alchemy. A rather nice example to illustrate this is the B-239 Brewster : the best, AFAIK, kill ratio in the whole air combat history in Finland, and a catastrophic experience in Extreme-East. Of course, it's relative to opponents, but I'm pretty sure this way of thinking isn't a good one to state how should be a plane.

Would you be then willing to explain how in the world did the FW190 get the label of one of the best WWII fighters ever?

[Guest deleted@30725]

This thread is missing helicopters and apocalypse now.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

SQUIRREL!

Edited February 6, 2015 by deleted@30725

[SYN_Ricky]

Would you be then willing to explain how in the world did the FW190 get the label of one of the best WWII fighters ever?

Because it was flown in a real war were its pilots flew as teams and tried their best to enter the fights in a favourable position, and where enemy pilots could sometimes be hampered or be put in an unfavourable position by orders, mission requirements and so on.

[=CFC=Conky]

Because it was flown in a real war were its pilots flew as teams and tried their best to enter the fights in a favourable position, and where enemy pilots could sometimes be hampered or be put in an unfavourable position by orders, mission requirements and so on.

 

Exactly.

 

The 190 was also quite the technical marvel for the time with all its electrically-powered systems and single-lever engine management. Not having to adjust mixture/pitch levers and other doodads lets the pilot more fully concentrate on combat.

 

Good hunting.

Edited February 6, 2015 by CFC_Conky

[Wulf]

Luftwaffe losses in 1942 on the Eastern front alone were near 4000 aircraft destroyed. Overall Luftwaffe losses in 1942 were more than 100% the entire Luftwaffe destroyed, plus near another 100% damaged, far more than 10000 aircraft in total. Comparing kills to total losses is misleading at the very least. You try to paint a picture of the Luftwaffe taking a walk in the park with their opponents falling like leaves left and right, where it was in fact a huge and bitter struggle for the entire year. And by the end of 1942, the Luftwaffe had ended up with the short end of the stick - weaker than in early 1942, with all the opponents stronger.

 

 

According to Mike Spick (1996), the Soviet Air force contained between 12-15 thousand operational aircraft at the outset of Barbarossa, with about half of this number being fighters.  German intelligence sources at the time put the figure at about 5700 combat aircraft (in the overall European sector) - so less than half the actual figure..

 

Against this force, the Luftwaffe mustered fewer than 2,000 aircraft or approximately two-thirds of their total inventory at the time.  Less than 500 of the aircraft available for the Russian campaign in 1941 were actually fighters.  These were composed of 109 Es and Fs and a smaller component of 110s.  These aircraft  were grouped into three Luftflotte which were allocated to the three Army Groups tasked with the assault.

 

So, according to these figures at least, for the Germans to have sustained losses of 4000 aircraft in the East, in 1942 ,(as you claim) would have necessitated some serious 'magical' thinking.

 

My information on VVS/Luftwaffe loss tables comes from the work undertaken by Claes Sundin and Christer Bergstrom in 1997.

 

Their loss tables for the Eastern Front (which are derived from a triangulation of several sources) are as follows:

 

1941 - 5000 Soviet aircraft destroyed for the loss of 600 LW aircraft

1942 - 9000 Soviet aircraft destroyed for the loss of 600 LW aircraft

1943 - 9000 Soviet aircraft destroyed for the loss of 800 LW aircraft

1944 - 7000 Soviet aircraft destroyed for the loss of 1100 LW aircraft

1945 - 2000 Soviet aircraft destroyed for the loss of 1000 LW aircraft

Edited February 6, 2015 by Wulf

[Mac_Messer]

Hello all,

 

An interesting discussion, and I'd like to add a couple of things.

 

On the Spit V vs FW-190 debate: By 1942, many of the RAF's more experienced fighter pilots were being siphoned off to different combat theatres. Facing them on the other side of the Channel were arguably, the most experienced fighter pilots in the world flying excellent aircraft backed up by a very efficient early warning system. The LW had all the advantages and could choose when and where to attack or disengage. Taking these things together, it's not surprising that the RAF got beat up as often as it did.

 

On the subject of fm's: From my experience with mp in BoS and other sims, most people do not fight their aircraft as they did back in the day, (i.e. low-energy turn fight in the 190, don't fight as a schwarm, rotte, pair, flight, etc, engage/disengage at the best time, yada, yada, yada). From what I have read about WW2 air combat, the majority of kills were of the 'quick firing pass' type, perhaps with a turn or two, not the 'classic' dogfight event. Even with a perfectly crafted fm, one-on-one dogfights will eventually expose the advantages and/or disadvantages of each aircraft. 

Been years online, seen it all. Online players with hundreds of hours flying FW190 got massacred by Yaks/La`s most of the times. Regardless of altitude of engagement.

 

Yes, people do great B`nZ with the 109, just not the FW190.

[Mac_Messer]

Because it was flown in a real war were its pilots flew as teams and tried their best to enter the fights in a favourable position, and where enemy pilots could sometimes be hampered or be put in an unfavourable position by orders, mission requirements and so on.

So why not the 109, then?

[Bearcat]

It is responses like this from you and the devs which frustrate a huge portion of this community. You rarely have any input of value other than, "THE NUMBERS!"

 

I can justly be called a fanboi but have you read any of my other posts? Anecdotal information cannot be entirely discarded. While I agree the hard data should be the primary source, original pilot experience - particularly test pilot testimonials/historical record and customer expectations based upon those records does have value.

 

Yes but what else can they go on. I imagine that in some cases anecdotal data can be considered but at the end of the day it is the hard facts, the hard numbers that are needed to A)Prove that XXX FMs are wrong and B)Provide the "correct" information. Those are the facts. They will always be the facts in flght sims.

 

Enough of the niggling.

 

You got that right... There are PMs inbound.

[von_Tom]

Been years online, seen it all. Online players with hundreds of hours flying FW190 got massacred by Yaks/La`s most of the times. Regardless of altitude of engagement.

 

Yes, people do great B`nZ with the 109, just not the FW190.

 

 

My experience was the other way around, but for sure it depended on teamwork and real discipline.  It also means a shallow "zoom" and not how people fly the 109.

 

As for being one of the best fighters, I guess you could say that about a discrete period of time over Western Europe, say between it's introduction and the Spit IX being introduced.  From then on you can probably pick an allied aircraft that matches it or is better all round as a fighter.

 

A4 - A8 probably beaten by the IX, then XIV and Tempest etc

 

D9 - depending on altitude it'd be the XIV, Tempest, P51 etc

 

Over Russia, I don't know.  Maybe it was good at the start but not so good compared to the La5FN, Yak 3 etc. 

 

I didn't check facts and figures for the above, it's just by way of possible examples.     Maybe it was just the pilots that made a difference. 

 

Despite being a FW190 fan I can't see that it should be as awesome as some think it should be.  It would be nice if all FMs were demonstrably accurate, of course, but the FW190 isn't a Tie Fighter and I personally don't think it ever was.

 

von Tom

Edited February 6, 2015 by von_Tom

[JtD]

Been years online, seen it all. Online players with hundreds of hours flying FW190 got massacred by Yaks/La`s most of the times. Regardless of altitude of engagement.

 

Yes, people do great B`nZ with the 109, just not the FW190.

My average K/Loss in the Fw190 in Il-2:1946 was around 40. I flew lone wolf and got killed by AAA more often than by enemy fighters. So I wouldn't really blame the aircraft.

 

So, according to these figures at least, for the Germans to have sustained losses of 4000 aircraft in the East, in 1942 ,(as you claim) would have necessitated some serious 'magical' thinking.

No, just an air war as documented in Luftwaffe loss records. Edited February 6, 2015 by JtD

[Wulf]

Wulf, on 07 Feb 2015 - 10:56, said:

So, according to these figures at least, for the Germans to have sustained losses of 4000 aircraft in the East, in 1942 ,(as you claim) would have necessitated some serious 'magical' thinking.

No, just an air war as documented in Luftwaffe loss records. 

Edited by JtD, Today, 00:16.

• 
•  
• 0

Facts are the best defence against the experts.

 

 

So, your sources say 4000 LW aircraft were lost in the East in 1942.  Hmmmm, interesting ... okay, what do your sources tell you about LW losses in the West in 1942???

 

So I guess what I 'm asking is, what therefore were total LW aircraft losses in 1942 - according to your sources??

[Wulf]

My average K/Loss in the Fw190 in Il-2:1946 was around 40. I flew lone wolf and got killed by AAA more often than by enemy fighters. So I wouldn't really blame the aircraft.

 

No, just an air war as documented in Luftwaffe loss records.

 

 

Wow ... that is impressive.  I used to fly the 190 on the old War Clouds server and I don't recall anyone getting anything like that sort of K/D ratio in the 190 - not ever; not even close.  

 

So, sounds like you must have been some mean Hombre bro.  Yeah.....

[Wulf]

Because it was flown in a real war were its pilots flew as teams and tried their best to enter the fights in a favourable position, and where enemy pilots could sometimes be hampered or be put in an unfavourable position by orders, mission requirements and so on.

 

 

What you say is true to an extent.  Only a complete nut-job would actually fly an aircraft (on his own), in a real shooting war, the way we do online.

 

But that doesn't really explain why the BoS 190 is such a disappointment.  As you suggest, in combat the idea is to kill the enemy in a manner that exposes you to the least possible risk.  Unfortunately, as we all know, life seldom goes to plan.  Destroying an enemy formation in a couple of quick slashing attacks from above sounds great until you suddenly discover that you have enemy fighters above you.  If you're in an aircraft that can't perform at least as well as the enemy, in that situation, you're in very serious trouble.  As Mac Messer has noted, even when flown from an initial height advantage, the pilot of a 190 will very soon find that he is co-alt with his enemy and very shortly thereafter on the defensive or dead.  Yes, if you elected to run at the first sign of trouble you may well be able to out-distance the enemy.  But those are hardly the sort of tactics that are going to win you a war.  And frankly, if dive and run is your full bag of tricks, you don't need a 190 for that.  There would be plenty of other, cheaper options, that would give you that capability.  

[FlatSpinMan]

I question whether this thread serves any further purpose.

 

We know that info from any source needs to be questioned for bias - intentional or otherwise.

 

We know that people's perceptions can have value BUT they are fallible by their nature.

 

We know that any data - pilot accounts, kill/loss ratios, or flight test data - must be viewed in context.

 

This seems to me to be the main points of recent posts, aside from all the bickering. If it continues in this venal vein it'll be locked to avoid further I'll-will between members.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

A4 - A8 probably beaten by the IX, then XIV and Tempest etc

 

D9 - depending onfightere it'd be the XIV, Tempest, P51 etc

 

Over Russia, I don't know. Maybe it was good at the start but not so gyocompared to the La5FN, Yak 3 etc.

 

I didn't check facts and figures for the above, it's just by way of possible examples. Maybe it was just the pilots that made a difference.

 

Despite being a FW190 fan I can't see that it should be as awesome as some think it should be. It would be nice if all FMs were demonstrably accurate, of course, but the FW190 isn't a Tie Fighter and I personally don't think it ever was.

 

von Tom

A5-A8 "probably beaten" by Spit9? Where do you get that from?

D9 beaten by P51 or Tempest??? Maybe P51N from Korean War. Never ever by the Tempest, Dora was pretty much better in everything beside speed at ground level. Dora was also better then the P51D in everything but tight horizontal turn.

"Over Russia you don't know." You should have stopped there. La5Fn was not better then A5. It was the First Russian plane to Match it. Same ground speed, the higher it goes the more the A5 has the advantage. FN has better climb rate though. But the A5 "not so good" against it is ridiculous, Sorry.

 

Yak3 and Spit Mk14 were indead superb aircraft. Alongside Dora and Ta152 probably the "best (in dogfighting)" from Ww2, that's also what you hear mostly from our beloved anecdotal evidence.

Overall i would say the P51 was the best. When you take "secondary characteristics" like range, technical fidelity etc into account. It got outclassed by the Dora and the K4 though (not that it mattered, due to numbers)

[Wulf]

A5-A8 "probably beaten" by Spit9? Where do you get that from?

D9 beaten by P51 or Tempest??? Maybe P51N from Korean War. Never ever by the Tempest, Dora was pretty much better in everything beside speed at ground level. Dora was also better then the P51D in everything but tight horizontal turn.

"Over Russia you don't know." You should have stopped there. La5Fn was not better then A5. It was the First Russian plane to Match it. Same ground speed, the higher it goes the more the A5 has the advantage. FN has better climb rate though. But the A5 "not so good" against it is ridiculous, Sorry.

 

Yak3 and Spit Mk14 were indead superb aircraft. Alongside Dora and Ta152 probably the "best (in dogfighting)" from Ww2, that's also what you hear mostly from our beloved anecdotal evidence.

Overall i would say the P51 was the best. When you take "secondary characteristics" like range, technical fidelity etc into account. It got outclassed by the Dora and the K4 though (not that it mattered, due to numbers)

 

 

At low/medium altitudes, I'd say any A-5-A-8s would have a real fight on their hands with a Mk IX.  However, above 20,000 feet the Spitfire would be the safer bet. 

 

A Tempest V would possibly be the last thing you'd ever want to see in any 190 variant at low/medium altitude.  Very fast, can turn and will out-roll a 190 at speed.  A nightmare for a 190 A or D down low.

 

A Pony and a Dora would be well matched at altitude.  I think it would just come down to pilot skill (assuming a one on one fight).

 

A Spitfire 14, would again be a very difficult proposition for any 190.  If I had to choose I'd say the Spitfire was the better machine at altitude in particular, but possible at almost any height. 

 

But of course, we aren't talking about late War action in the West.  We're only really concerned about what would happen if a 190 encountered a bunch of early War Soviet machines.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

At low/medium altitudes, I'd say any A-5-A-8s would have a real fight on their hands with a Mk IX.  However, above 20,000 feet the Spitfire would be the safer bet. 

agree

 

 

Tempest V [...] will out-roll a 190 at speed

where you got that from? i find that hard to believe, given the fact that the Tempest is the advancement of the Typhoon, and has an even bigger wing surface, which restricts the roll rate.

-->

 

 

 

A Pony and a Dora would be well matched at altitude.

at high alt yes, at 6km and below the Dora would clearly be the better bet (more speed, better acceleration, better climb rate, better rollrate (beside topspeed), better divespeed (slightly), worse horizontal turn (slightly) ) 

 

 

But of course, we aren't talking about late War action in the West.  We're only really concerned about what would happen if a 190 encountered a bunch of early War Soviet machines.

fully agree

Edited February 7, 2015 by Celestiale

[unreasonable]

Luftwaffe losses in 1942 on the Eastern front alone were near 4000 aircraft destroyed. Overall Luftwaffe losses in 1942 were more than 100% the entire Luftwaffe destroyed, plus near another 100% damaged, far more than 10000 aircraft in total.

Curious to know where those figures come from (leaving aside implications for aircraft quality - too many other variables): I have a table claiming 1942 total LW losses 9,602, of which "without enemy influence" 4,954! deliveries 13,271.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Ok so half of Germanys entire war losses occurred against the Russians in the year 1942...interesting

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j1kjl57xo3md588/2015-02-07%2008.08.12.jpg?dl=0

[JtD]

So, your sources say 4000 LW aircraft were lost in the East in 1942.  Hmmmm, interesting ... okay, what do your sources tell you about LW losses in the West in 1942???

 

So I guess what I 'm asking is, what therefore were total LW aircraft losses in 1942 - according to your sources??

I already stated that in % - more than the entire Luftwaffe was destroyed in 1942, near 7000 aircraft. For plausibility, between the figures you are stating and I am stating, feel free to check loss records for individual units. Like JG52 - first one I picked, III/JG52: Loss records are there for March to December 1942, average unit strength ~35 aircraft. Losses in 3-12/1942: 82 aircraft - 230% unit strength. If this is indicative for typical front line losses, it's completely impossible that your figure of 600 covers the entire Luftwaffe losses. Feel free to check in more detail.

 

Wow ... that is impressive. I used to fly the 190 on the old War Clouds server and I don't recall anyone getting anything like that sort of K/D ratio in the 190 - not ever; not even close.

 

So, sounds like you must have been some mean Hombre bro. Yeah.....

Just tactics. I generally didn't do 1vs1 at low altitude against La's or Yak's, and if I did, I left the fight when I still could. And with 10 year on the virtual aircraft, I keep saying that it wasn't the best fighter in game, but the best killer. And, on the bottom line, a kill is what counts, not the fight.

[JtD]

at high alt yes, at 6km and below the Dora would clearly be the better bet (more speed, better acceleration, better climb rate, better rollrate (beside topspeed), better divespeed (slightly), worse horizontal turn (slightly) )

I hope that you are aware that the Jumo213 of the Dora came in three major boost levels. The first one, without any Sondernotleistung, was weaker than the BMW801 at low altitude, and the D-9 was a lot slower than the P-51, except for at around full throttle altitude. It was in service only very early and probably not in significant numbers, but still overall a worse performer than the P-51 down low. The second one introduced a usable Notleistung, and with that, the D-9 was speed wise on par with a P-51 between 0-2000, a little worse between 2000-4000 and a little better between 4000-6000. All in all not much to chose between these two versions down low. This was the most numerous variant in service in 1944. By the end of 1944, the use of MW50 was added, which by the end of the war nearly all D-9's had. That gave another power boost, which would, below 6km, finally give the D-9 a noticeable performance advantage over the 18lb boost P-51D, on paper, at least.

[JtD]

Curious to know where those figures come from (leaving aside implications for aircraft quality - too many other variables): I have a table claiming 1942 total LW losses 9,602, of which "without enemy influence" 4,954! deliveries 13,271.

I tend to take the figures from "Strategy for Defeat".

 

Ok so half of Germanys entire war losses occurred against the Russians in the year 1942...interesting

Germany produced more than 100000 aircraft in WW2. If Germany lost only 16000, what happened to the remaining ~100000?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I hope that you are aware that the Jumo213 of the Dora came in three major boost levels. The first one, without any Sondernotleistung, was weaker than the BMW801 at low altitude, and the D-9 was a lot slower than the P-51, except for at around full throttle altitude. It was in service only very early and probably not in significant numbers, but still overall a worse performer than the P-51 down low. The second one introduced a usable Notleistung, and with that, the D-9 was speed wise on par with a P-51 between 0-2000, a little worse between 2000-4000 and a little better between 4000-6000. All in all not much to chose between these two versions down low. This was the most numerous variant in service in 1944. By the end of 1944, the use of MW50 was added, which by the end of the war nearly all D-9's had. That gave another power boost, which would, below 6km, finally give the D-9 a noticeable performance advantage over the 18lb boost P-51D, on paper, at least.

We were talking about the best fighters in the war, so i meant the Mw50 version of course. 

 

I tend to take the figures from "Strategy for Defeat".

 

Germany produced more than 100000 aircraft in WW2. If Germany lost only 16000, what happened to the remaining ~100000?

 

Those are the aircraft shot down by enemy planes and flak. Not accounted in this numbers are pilot errors, means losses without enemy contact, which happened a lot, especially on the german side (think to remember that they lost more planes without enemy contact, then in fight, but i have no numbers here) Also not accounted planes who got back from a fight, but weren't reestablished, because it made no economic sense. And most airplanes just retired, because a better one came out, that was an absolute normal procedure in the war. Happened till the end of the war, Germany had always enough planes, the pilots and the fuel were the problem. Just read about a pilot in 1944, who told that their whole stock of planes got upgraded, all G6 retired, and they got G14 instead. Compared to the whole stock, only a small percentage of planes were losses. This applies for every side in WW2.

[JtD]

We were talking about the best fighters in the war, so i meant the Mw50 version of course.

In that case you may want to compare it to a 25lb boost version of the Mustang, which is both faster and better climbing than even the best D-9. 

 

Those are the aircraft shot down by enemy planes and flak.

So these are not losses, but air combat kills. A huge difference. My figure was losses. I disagree with your opinion that most of the Luftwaffe aircraft were retired. If I again take III/JG52 as an example, the website shows 224 losses due to enemy action, 179 losses not due to enemy action, 131 going to maintenance, 92 to other units. The last two figures are what may be considered retired, phased out, upgraded. The first two are the losses. So it's roughly 2 losses for 1 retirement. Also, 400 losses within 3 years - easily 10 times the unit strength. So I also disagree that only a small percentage of planes were losses - if the performance of III/JG52 was representative for the entire Luftwaffe of ~6000 aircraft, Germany would have needed 60000 aircraft just to keep up with the losses between early 42 and late 44. However, front line single engine fighter units aren't 100% representative (for instance III/KG27 did pretty well and got only destroyed 7 times over and had half their aircraft phased out), but can still be used as an indicator (for instance III/SG2 had similar figures).

[unreasonable]

My aggregate figures from "The German Fighter Since 1915" Rudinger Kosin states less than 90% of planes produced were delivered to LW. Rest were lost to bomb attacks on the aircraft factories and parks, test flying and shipment accidents.

 

Rounded for ease of reading (1939-45):

 

Produced 110,000+

Delivered 100,000

Lost to EA 30,000

Lost, no EA 40,000 (includes training units)

 

This obviously leaves 30,000 unaccounted for, which should include aircraft retired through technical or tactical obsolescence and those left on strength at the war end. I think this is a better overall guide than a single unit sample with one tactical role in one theatre. I am too lazy to reproduce the chart unless someone asks, but the majority of LW losses occurred in 1943 onwards.

 

On retirements: take Me109 E versions for example. At a point in the war a given version would be phased out or maybe handed over to a Balkan ally, they were not all flown until they crashed or were shot down.

 

 

Anyway do not want to divert the topic too much: these numbers are open to interpretation - personally I am more in agreement with the view that USSR pilots were, on average, barely competent at best in 1942 just like LW pilots, on average, in 1944. But a barely competent fighter pilot can still shootdown a bomber or stuka if he is sufficiently determined.

[JtD]

Pretty reasonable figures, imho.