Just Started Flying the Freidrich - Wow!!!

[unreasonable]

The soviets learned how to reduce the effectiveness of LW vertical maneuvering by stacking units in layers. LW fighters zooming or climbing up from a lower fight would be attacked by a high layer.

 

There is not necessarily any cover at altitude free from enemy, where you can lurk, cheeta-like: sometimes you just have to attack what shows up in front of you or run for home, in which case superior climb is not a panacea. The bigger the battle the more true this would be.

 

Interesting side question - the LW used both types of fighter to maximize manufacturing capacity. But suppose this was not a constraint, and they decided to rationalize instead and only produce either 109s or 190s. Which would they have chosen?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Nope. The 109 would climb reasonably high over the target, slowly closing the angle of course. In the shallow dive it will reach 650kph and will keep the speed advantage forcing the 190 to perform a rolling manouver to get out of line of fire, burning energy.

 

You forgot one thing... The 190 is currently climbing.

 

From here there's 2 solutions.

 

First, the 109 climb high enough to be able to get enough speed in his futur dive (you realize that 650km/h is not nothing ?) then dives on the 190 which is currently climbing at high speed, the problem is... to do this, the 109 will have to get high, really high (650km/h really ?), which mean he has lost sight of the 190 since a long time -> End

 

OR... after the head-on pass, the 109 makes an immlemann and try to follow the 190... He's done.

 

In Squadron Combat the The 109s would have to try and work as predators, seperating the 190s from each other like cheetas against antilopes.

The 109s can however always quickly return to their cover at altitude, which the 190s can't.

 

And you forgot the head-on pass that 109s will have to avoid.

 

I think more than the 190s will separate and disorganise the 109s from the beginning, not the opposite.

[69th_chuter]

No-one used gunpods except to attack bombers and then dive for home. Against a fighter it is suicide. These pods also carry very little ammo. It gives you one, or if you are very lucky two passes at a B-17 or B-24 then "verreisen" is the strategy for everything that comes. Maybe you can hunt Il-2's. Solitary ones.

 

Speed didn't seem to suffer that much (without carrying ammo though):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/VB-109-14-L-43.pdf

 

But adding weight on a plane that had already seen its best days is not a good Idea. It is especially a bad idea if you have a MK-108 in the nose already. One or two good hits is what it takes. With the 109F it is a different strory. Galland kept the MG FF in the wings in a configuration as the 109 E had.

 

 

AND --->  That weight is out on the wings, so if have a plane that is already beginning to suffer reduced roll at speed those gunpods will make it much worse.  Or, if you have a plane with outstanding initial roll like a 190 then removing the outer guns will step up that roll advantage even more besides the usual benefit of reduced weight. 

 

Well, on real planes you can see this.

[LukeFF]

No-one used gunpods except to attack bombers and then dive for home. Against a fighter it is suicide. These pods also carry very little ammo. It gives you one, or if you are very lucky two passes at a B-17 or B-24 then "verreisen" is the strategy for everything that comes. Maybe you can hunt Il-2's. Solitary ones.

 

The gunpods were initially designed to combat Il-2s, well before there was a heavy bomber threat in the West.  

Edited June 24, 2015 by LukeFF

[ZachariasX]

The gunpods were initially designed to combat Il-2s, well before there was a heavy bomber threat in the West.  

 

Oh, I didn't know that. Thnx for pointing that out. I thought it the other way around.

[ZachariasX]

 

Interesting side question - the LW used both types of fighter to maximize manufacturing capacity. But suppose this was not a constraint, and they decided to rationalize instead and only produce either 109s or 190s. Which would they have chosen?

 

FW-190, but if possible in the flavor of the Ta-152. The RLM thought loudly about discontinuing the Bf-109, especially since there was also the Me-262 that showd the future and all further developpments from the 109 that were supposed to eliminate at least the most obvious shortcomings of the 109 (line 209 or 309) were failures.

 

But rationalizing by just droping a proven type is not that easy, especially since German production was based on slave labor and by 1944 they (the slaves) got really good at building the same type over and over again (with some variation) and peak production output at the time of the heaviest bombing. You don't want to retrain all those again when they could be productive now. Concentration camps were bulit to host those labor slaves (there were more than 200 of them in the area of Munich alone) and those are not to be confused with camps specifically built for extermination such as Auschwitz or Treblinka. Dachau was breathing the same spirit, but not serving the same purpose (although they effectively did it).

 

But back a bit more on topic, even though the Bf-109 may have been cheaper to build (a very underestimated and fantastic feature of that type) but the choice was clearly for the Fw-190.

[unreasonable]

 

But back a bit more on topic, even though the Bf-109 may have been cheaper to build (a very underestimated and fantastic feature of that type) but the choice was clearly for the Fw-190.

 

That is very much my opinion too. Given that the 190 was more expensive to build, this can only mean that the LW must have believed that the 190 was clearly the superior war-weapon.

 

The difference in perception for some BoS pilots reflects to some extent personal flying styles, but also that although BoS is a pretty good simulation of flying an individual aircraft, (IMHO, usual caveats etc) it is a lousy simulation of military operations for all the reasons people have already mentioned.

 

Is it even possible to assign 190s or 109s to the soviet side - I would so like to see what happens in a 109 vs 190 MP server.

[Chuck_Owl]

The rivalry between the Focke-Wulf 190 and the Bf.109 is an interesting topic. Saying that one plane or another is "an experten's plane" is silly: there were scores of aces flying both machines. Erich Hartmann flew the 109, Gunther Rall flew the 190, and they were both incredible pilots in their own right.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related

[III/JG2Gustav05]

The rivalry between the Focke-Wulf 190 and the Bf.109 is an interesting topic. Saying that one plane or another is "an experten's plane" is silly: there were scores of aces flying both machines. Erich Hartmann flew the 109, Gunther Rall flew the 190, and they were both incredible pilots in their own right.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related

maybe you are trying to say Nowotony instead of Rall who flew 190 mostly.

[KoN_]

The soviets learned how to reduce the effectiveness of LW vertical maneuvering by stacking units in layers. LW fighters zooming or climbing up from a lower fight would be attacked by a high layer.

 

There is not necessarily any cover at altitude free from enemy, where you can lurk, cheeta-like: sometimes you just have to attack what shows up in front of you or run for home, in which case superior climb is not a panacea. The bigger the battle the more true this would be.

 

Interesting side question - the LW used both types of fighter to maximize manufacturing capacity. But suppose this was not a constraint, and they decided to rationalize instead and only produce either 109s or 190s. Which would they have chosen?

Good point , When i am attacking i go for higher enemy . if need to ecsape Split ~ S use speed to get away .

[PB0_Roll]

 

Erich Hartmann flew the 109, Gunther Rall flew the 190

Rall flew the 190D at war's end, and AFAIK, most if not all his victories he got on 109.

 

http://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-ace-gunther-rall.htm

 

Same for Barkhorn, 2nd best between Hartmann and Rall.

 

Most succesful aces flew the 109, but yes there are 190 aces in the 200+ league.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

some guys electroshock themselves when they get killed

 

I saw that video as well ha ha! Electric shock stuff at 15:40

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKLV4rpxfuE

 

Shame I can't find one with subtitles

Edited June 28, 2015 by JG5_Emil

[BlitzPig_EL]

The dead is dead type of server was tried many times in original IL2.   Usually you could not rejoin for 5 to 15 minutes if you were virtually dispatched.

 

It was just a tedious game mechanic that really didn't work, because you can't come back as a fresh recruit pilot, you come back as yourself, with all the skill set that you have built up over years (decades even) of virtual flying.

Those servers faded after the novelty wore off, which was pretty quickly indeed.

 

That said I do try to fly in a manner that keeps me alive these days, but:

 

A. It isn't much fun and I end up just flying around not seeing action.

 

B. The aggressive pilots win the missions more than the conservative ones do.

 

C. Did I mention that it's not much fun?

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Co-Ops were DiD and were more popular than anything

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Sorry 15:35 he has all those things strapped to him. I am sure there used to be a subtitled version and he was saying how he liked to fly with a sense of risk so when he got shot he would be electrocuted.

[BraveSirRobin]

Co-Ops were DiD and were more popular than anything

 

That only works if the person who is killed can jump into another coop mission almost immediately, and that only works if there are lots of people flying on multiple servers.  And by "lots" I mean several hundred.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

That only works if the person who is killed can jump into another coop mission almost immediately, and that only works if there are lots of people flying on multiple servers.  And by "lots" I mean several hundred.

 

Not really, people used to wait in the co-op slots for ages until they were full so they were launched, when a couple of people dropped out we would have to carry on waiting until those slots were filled again, this could go on for ages sometimes.

[BraveSirRobin]

Not really, people used to wait in the co-op slots for ages

 

I'm sure there were a few people willing to do that, but the overwhelming majority want to get right back into a mission.  That is why coops failed miserably in RoF.  Not enough people.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I'm sure there were a few people willing to do that, but the overwhelming majority want to get right back into a mission.  That is why coops failed miserably in RoF.  Not enough people.

 

I'm sorry but that's simply not true at all at least for IL2. As far as ROF goes there are other reasons for that like the lack of a lobby and maybe number of players.

[BraveSirRobin]

I'm sorry but that's simply not true at all at least for IL2. 

 

I suppose IL2 was played by a unique group of people that were willing to wait for an hour or more for a coop to start instead of just jumping into an active dogfight style mission, but that seems unlikely.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I suppose IL2 was played by a unique group of people that were willing to wait for an hour or more for a coop to start instead of just jumping into an active dogfight style mission,

 

but that seems unlikely.

 

The first part of your comment is 100% correct the second 100% wrong.

 

There are not many of the old people on this forum but as one I will tell you that was the case.

[BraveSirRobin]

I'm sure that sitting around waiting for an hour or more for a mission to start was great fun.  Surprised that it's not still a thing.

 

Maybe there aren't many of the old guys here because they died of boredom?

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I'm sure that sitting around waiting for an hour or more for a mission to start was great fun.  Surprised that it's not still a thing.

 

Maybe there aren't many of the old guys here because they died of boredom?

 

Maybe the missions were worth waiting for unlike the ultra dweeb fest circle jerk DF server stuff.....who knows

[BraveSirRobin]

Maybe the missions were worth waiting for unlike the ultra dweeb fest circle jerk DF server stuff.....who knows

 

The RoF/BoS mission tool allows for missions that are just as realistic as any coop mission.  They could even make you wait 45 minutes before you can join if they wanted to, but, oddly, no one does.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

The RoF/BoS mission tool allows for missions that are just as realistic as any coop mission.  They could even make you wait 45 minutes before you can join if they wanted to, but, oddly, no one does.

 

I'm not saying they don't...some of us are flying coops in BOS...

[BraveSirRobin]

I'm not saying they don't...some of us are flying coops in BOS...

 

Good for you.  But it's not going to reach the level of popularity as in IL2 until the player numbers reach the same level as IL2.

 

Co-Ops were DiD and were more popular than anything

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Good for you.  But it's not going to reach the level of popularity as in IL2 until the player numbers reach the same level as IL2.

 

I never said they would

 

The old days are dead

[BlitzPig_EL]

Good for you.  But it's not going to reach the level of popularity as in IL2 until the player numbers reach the same level as IL2.

 

 

Wow, we finally agree on something.  Well said sir.

 

And yes, people did wait for very long times to join co-ops.  We were a dedicated lot back then.

[BraveSirRobin]

Wow, we finally agree on something.  Well said sir.

 

And yes, people did wait for very long times to join co-ops.  We were a dedicated lot back then.

 

Dedicated isn't the word I would use to describe it.  There is no reason to wait if there are other servers available.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Did  you fly original IL2?

 

I ask because I'm not sure you quite understand how co-operative missions worked in the original.

 

It's not like a DF server where you can join in progress.  A true co-op mission has a limited number of slots, and it has a very specific mission goal, and typically the host won't launch till all the pilot slots are full, as the mission will not play outproperly otherwise.  Once that mission is completed the mission is over, and either the host puts up another and those that are already in reselect an aircraft slot and wait for launch, or move on, or the host may just decide to run the one and that's it.  Co-op missions had a very dedicated following and the various mission makers had folks that liked their mission better than others, so would wait for them to run one.

 

Another facet was stringing several related co-op missions together into a mini campaign.

 

This is why so many people clamor for true co-op missions in BoS.  They could be, and often were, far more immersive than run of the mill DF servers, and they fostered far better team play. This format simply cannot be duplicated by a "co-op like" Df server, no matter how well structured.

 

I was always more of a DF guy, but some of the better co-ops were very very good and they inspired some of the better DF hosters to up their game and produce more mission goal oriented DF servers.

Edited June 29, 2015 by BlitzPig_EL

[BraveSirRobin]

Did  you fly original IL2?

 

I ask because I'm not sure you quite understand how co-operative missions worked in the original.

 

I know exactly how coops work.  And the idea that they are somehow more immersive or realistic than a well designed dogfight style mission is completely ridiculous.  

[BraveSirRobin]

When you start a coop mission you know exactly how many enemy you face and you have a pretty good idea how many are going to what targets.  And even if you don't know that last part, you definitely know the total number of enemy.  As each enemy is shot down or disabled, you get a better idea of what you face.  In a dogfight mission you never know how many enemy there are or when they're going to show up.  You may know the total numbers, but when someone is shot down they may end up in the middle of your fight a lot sooner than you may have expected.  Just like in real life.

[BraveSirRobin]

Dogfight servers have their place. I don't dispute that at all, but BraveSirRobin I feel you're just being an argumentative puppy for the sake of it!

 

You'd be wrong about that, too.

Perhaps 1/5th of total planes flying together in formation and/or on coms?

 

Minimal ground attack aircraft.

 

Suicidal vulchers.

 

Is that realistic?

 

 

All those issues also apply to coops.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Lol flight simmers are touchy little girls at heart :-)

Edited June 29, 2015 by [TBC]AeroACE