Spitfire IX discussion

[Gambit21]

A little bit off topic, but I'm sure some of you genius' will know.

I'm trying to find out how long operation bodenplatte went on for. Wiki tells me it was launched January the 1st 1945, but I cant seem to find an end date ?

It was one morning - that's it.

The release is about the map and tactical operations in Belgium in late 44/early 45 - not just the morning of Jan 1st 1945.

[ICDP]

The Spitfire,+25lb boost isn't some wonder weapon ( as some might imagine). If the Luftwaffe had been more potent at this stage of the war, been present in larger numbers and the Spitfire IX had been a first tier principle fighter of the RAF then it would have received more attention with regards to maximizing it's potential. Each nation sort to give their pilots an advantage, often this was a constant too and fro incremental progression. With a dwindling fighter opposition and more powerful Griffon engined Spitfires coming to the fore the need to get the absolute most raw performance from the aging Merlin was less of a concern, trumped by reliability, maintenance , supply chain considerations, procurement and training.

 

BoBp will not be fought on the same terms or conditions as those pertaining to Jan 45, Spitfires IX's will not be used for the same purpose ( by the majority) as they were by 2Taf, instead they will be used as fighters, after all this is a FLIGHT/ FIGHT sim. Given the history of fighter development during the Second World War it would be strange indeed to imagine, that given a more challenging set of circumstances, either side wouldn't have ensured that their primary fighter was the most capable it could possibly be.

 

Obviously, all this is moot, if a Spitfire XIV was available in Bp because IT would have been the Spitfire that met the challenge of increased Luftwaffe potency and numbers. The IX could then go back to doing what it was doing in Jan 45 which was beating up the German army and support infrastructure, a job that really didn't require cutting edge performance. If however the IX was the principle, best performing fighter , primarily charged with taking on hordes of equally, or more capable, German fighters ( as it will in Bp) it would have, without a dought,been given it's best performance.

 

I doubt anyone feels the +25lb Spitfire was a wonder weapon, though it markedly improved speed and climb performance up to around 15,000ft and was pretty much equal to a Spitfire XIV +18lb to around 6,000ft.  So it would remove the only advantage Fw190A8 and G14 has respectively (low level speed and climbrate).  I would be delighted if the +25 lb Spitfire made it in to BoB but that doesn't mean the +18 lb Spitfire is uncompetitive as some are implying.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66_18_25.jpg

Edited December 2, 2017 by ICDP

[Bullets]

It is as if those two advantages are solely reserved for axis right ICDP? I mean in every BOX title so far every the blues have nearly always had the speed and climb advantage, It would be unfair to give the red side the advantages right?   

[ICDP]

It is as if those two advantages are solely reserved for axis right ICDP? I mean in every BOX title so far every the blues have nearly always had the speed and climb advantage, It would be unfair to give the red side the advantages right?   

 

What part of my post indicated I wanted those advantages for the blue side retained?  Was it before or after I said I would be delighted to see the +25 lb Spitfire make it into BoBo?

 

It becomes tiresome watching red or blue whiners reading meaning into your post that is clearly not there.  You are clearly accusing me of being a Luftwhiner.  My only "crime" was to try to bring some rationality to he thread by stating I would like a +25 lb Spitfire but that the +18lb Spitfire is plenty competitive with both the 190A8 and 109G14.  Yet somehow my intent gets warped to "wanting to maintain an unfair advantage for the blues".  For single player folks like myself the Spitfire IX, Tempest V, P51D, P47D and the P38L will provide for an excellent experience.  Obviously the more the merrier and I would love to see a Spitfire XIV, Typhoon, Mosquito, B26, Arado 234 and Fw-190A9.  But I am prepared to be patient and wait.

 

It's time to stop the petty nonsense and read what people actually write, rather than assume biased intent.

Edited December 2, 2017 by ICDP

[Bullets]

What part of my post indicated I wanted those advantages for the blue side retained?  Was it before or after I said I would be delighted to see the +25 lb Spitfire make into BoBo?

 

It becomes tiresome watching red or blue whiners reading meaning into your post that is clearly not there.  In the past few days I have been accused by two separate (and clearly red biased) pilots of being a Luftwhiner.  My only "crime" was to try to bring some rationality to a thread by stating the I would like a +25 lb Spitfire but that the +18lb Spitfire is plenty competitive with both the 190A8 and 109G14.  Yet somehow my intent gets warped to "wanting to maintain an unfair advantage for the blues".  For single player folks like myself the Spitfire IX, Tempest V, P51D, P47D and the P38L will provide for an excellent experience.

 

It's time to stop the petty nonsense and read what people actually write, rather than assume biased intent.

 

Sorry I made my comments in jest and it wasn't directed at you specifically!    Also I wasn't insinuating that you wanted to maintain an unfair advantage to the blues I was simply pointing out with the BOBP release people have been quick to point out that the blue pilots wont have it as easy as they have with the past three releases  .   Also I wouldn't call myself a red or blue pilot I like to fly equal sides although the spitfire will always be my #1 ride 

[ICDP]

Apologies bullets, my post was quite aggressive reading it back.  Like yourself I am a red or blue pilot equally and was always trying to even the sides during my old IL2 online days.  I also had a propensity to pick the underdogs such as LaGG3, MiG3, Hurricane, Buffalo, Zero, F4F, Mc200.  Ah the list goes on :D

[Talisman]

Gentlemen, please, the topic of this thread is in the title. Pretty much anything to do with the Spitfire MkV (except in how it will affect the modelling of the IX in-game), MkXIV and whatever you think about each other is irrelevant to the discussion of the MkIX around the time of Bodenplatte and how it will relate to BoBP. Please stay on topic or go start a new thread if there's something else you'd rather argue about rather than derailing my thread.

 

Cheers,

 

HB

 

Hi HB,

 

Thank you for this thread.  If we consider the fuel issue in the wider context, I suggest that 130/150 Octane use by the Allies is not just a Spitfire IX issue.  Perhaps there should be a separate thread covering 130/150 Octane fuels across the board. 

I suggest that anyone taking the care to thoroughly read the link in your original post (including the sub links to squadron log book extracts), covering the advances in fuel technology for piston aircraft used by the Allies, can see that it would make sense for a self respecting, accurate historical combat flight simulation to take the use of these fuels into account.

Clearly the planned release of Bp puts us in 1945, with the last few months of the war to run.  If this combat simulation is not to historically cover the use of 130/150 Octane fuel in a 1945 era campaign release, then when is it going to? 

Surely the use of 130/150 Octane fuels is not going to be swept under the carpet (I don't believe it will be in the long run and trust the developers on this as they have a good track record for accuracy).  I am very pleased that we are getting the Me 262, because it is relevant in 1945.  But so is 130/150 Octane fuel use from 1944 into 1945.

So, the use of high Octane fuel is an issue for many Allied aircraft, including the Spitfire, Tempest V, Mustang, P47, P38, etc.  In fact, the Allies were using so much 130/150 Octane fuel that I suspect that more of this fuel was consumed by the Allies than jet fuel was consumed by the Me 262; what an irony that would be, if jet fuels were to be represented in a 1945 era sim, when historically more 130/150 Octane fuel was used and it was not included.

Any way, I hope the developers have this covered and that they don't see it as too complicated.  It would be nice if they could give us an indication of how they will cover this issue, which is not just about the Spitfire IX in the wider context of this simulation.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman 

Edited December 3, 2017 by 56RAF_Talisman

[ICDP]

Talisman, you started off well and I am in complete agreement with most of what you said.  No matter what anyone else claims re 130/150 usage ratios, it was used and is very much indicative of allied piston engine fighters of the late 1944-45 period.  I firmly believe it should be modelled in Bodenplatte.

 

The problem is when you used the passive aggressive approach re 130/150 fuel compared to Me262 jet fuel based on nothing but opinion.  Do you think it is a nice way to engage the devs by going out of your way to belittle/question the decision to include the Me262, just to legitimise the inclusion of 130/150 grade allied fuel?  Why not ask in a less passive aggressive way next time.

 

For example.  I know it's early days yet and Battle of Bodenplatte is only just announced, but if possible could the developers give an indication if they plan to implement the use of 130/150 fuels for the Allied aircraft?  If you need any documentation on the use of 130/150 fuel I can provide links.  Thanks

[PainGod85]

The whole of the 8th AF was using 150 octane fuel by June '44.

 

The same goes for numerous British squadrons. 2nd TAF was cleared for the use of 25 lb boost in November '44, that's 25 squadrons of Spitfires LF IX and 5 of XIVs. Other Spitfire squadrons had already been converted during May '44.

 

From Feb '44 to Mar '45, the British actually made more 150 octane than 130 ocane fuel. That alone should give a good indication about whether or not a given fighter model would have used 130 or 150 octane, especially considering bomber formations kept running on 130 octane until the end of the war.

 

 

That said, there's also the case of the Mustang Mk. IV, which ran on 25 lb boost in British service.

[Talisman]

Talisman, you started off well and I am in complete agreement with most of what you said.  No matter what anyone else claims re 130/150 usage ratios, it was used and is very much indicative of allied piston engine fighters of the late 1944-45 period.  I firmly believe it should be modelled in Bodenplatte.

 

The problem is when you used the passive aggressive approach re 130/150 fuel compared to Me262 jet fuel based on nothing but opinion.  Do you think it is a nice way to engage the devs by going out of your way to belittle/question the decision to include the Me262, just to legitimise the inclusion of 130/150 grade allied fuel?  Why not ask in a less passive aggressive way next time.

 

For example.  I know it's early days yet and Battle of Bodenplatte is only just announced, but if possible could the developers give an indication if they plan to implement the use of 130/150 fuels for the Allied aircraft?  If you need any documentation on the use of 130/150 fuel I can provide links.  Thanks

 

Hi ICDP,

 

I do not belittle or question the decision to include the Me262, I support the decision very much and support the developers of this simulation.  I have certainly not gone out of my way to do what you suggest either.  Nor do I need to legitimise the inclusion of 130/150 grade fuel, as it is a matter of historical fact, which does not rest on my opinion.  Further more, I do not see that I have been aggressive or rude in my post, particularly if my words are carefully read in full and in context.  

This Spitfire IX thread raises the interesting topic of fuel technology, which in turn is also relevant to many other aircraft types.  So, putting aside your criticism of my writing style, I am pleased that you have responded and thank you for the less personal aspects of your post.

Perhaps I, the OP and many other readers of this thread may be interested in any documentation you have regarding the use of 130/150 Octane fuel; so may the developers of this fine aircraft combat flight simulation.

My juxtaposition of the speculation of the consumption of jet fuel vs 130/150 Octane, was simply a means to move the readers thoughts to a different, but relevant perspective; I had hoped to add value to the conversation.  I, like most people, am not an expert on this topic, but if anyone has information to enable the academic comparison of Axis jet fuel supply/consumption in 1945 to Allied 130/150 Octane use in 1945, it might help put things in historical perspective in a way that could help inform any future decision making on aircraft modelling.  However, if I was asked to place a bet, I would bet that more Allied 130/150 Octane fuel was used in 1945 by the Allies than jet fuel was used by the Axis.  What do you think?

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Kurfurst]

This may prove interesting. RCAF 126 Wing (Spitfire IX) of the 2nd TAF converted to 150 grade fuel in early February 1945, and it wasn't without troubles. It is definitely outside the territorial and time scope of Bodenplatte operations. It is February, and 2nd TAF units moved into Germany by that time (their Wüntstorf is south of Hamburg)

 

126 Wing converted back to 100/130 grade in April.

 

From Monty Berger's 'Invasion without Tears'.

 

Edited December 3, 2017 by VO101Kurfurst

[EAF19_Marsh]

Right, so you still think that posting facts is somehow rubbish, disingenuous etc. and now also obfuscating. Well, I am afraid that you are the only one that feels so confused and visibly enraged that a piece of information on the number of Mk Vs, Mk IXs and Mk XIIs and Mark XVIs in front line service in 1944 is you, and I am also afraid that the sole reason to that is to be found in you and you only.

 

 

I suspect that the echpes rebounding around your skull drown out everything else, but do try to keep up:

 

- Bodenplatte will be a release focused on December 1944 onward

- There were not Mk vs over European in December 1944

- There were several hundred still on the books the previous Spring, though very few in the squadrons flying over Europe (that does not upset me, now sure why it should)

- IXs were the most common variant, running 18lb boost (for various reasons, clearing rubbish is not likely a significant one -  care to explain that brilliant piece of insight?)

- Mk XIIs were in very small numbers and in ADGB

- Mk XIVs were in small numbers, amounting to around 4 squadrons worth

 

Please show me where this is inaccurate? Introducing old Mk V numbers from Spring 1944 into a debate about aircrfat in December is disingenuous. I advise you to research the term; it is not assisting, merely clouding an argument with factt of limited relevance in oder to try to swing the emphasis in [you], direction - ie that the RAF is rubbish and the glorious Luftwaffe reins supreme.

I think the development team made the correct choice to concentrate on the planes such as the Mark IX that were actually there and present in considerable numbers, fighting historically over the Ardennes forest instead of planes that were slowly arriving to the frontlines in insignificant, penny packet numbers, instead of giving in to the whiners who always cry for bigger boosts and the best versions or just pure fantasy aircraft for the period,

 

 

Which is what I and plenty of others have said all along, so it is odd you keep ignoring this. BTW, how many D-9s in service 1st December '44? How many K-4s? How many definitively running what engine setting? Just want to ensure it is a level playing field; would not want and 'bigger boost', 'best versions' or 'pure fantasy', now would we?

 

So, in summary:

- IX at 18lb boost for now

- C or E if possible

- Clipped and full if possible

- Bubble canopy not likely in the initial release, but would make a de-facto XVI

 

If time and energy were no issue, why not a 25lb version - but there are far higher priorities.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Imho, I think we should get it as a modification and let the mission designers and server admins decide if they want to have it or not for their missions. We are also getting a green map afterall which could cover a later timeframe (an earlier one as well) so it would give more flexibility.

Edited December 3, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Kurfurst]

Furthermore, this is what the Germans thought when they inspected the first 8th AF Mustangs using 150 grade (via Calum Douglas http://www.calum-douglas.com/).

 

Note - 9th AAF USAAF fighters (as well as 15th AAF fighters kept using 130 grade due to logistics reasons)

 

[PainGod85]

This may prove interesting. RCAF 126 Wing (Spitfire IX) of the 2nd TAF converted to 150 grade fuel in early February 1945, and it wasn't without troubles. It is definitely outside the territorial and time scope of Bodenplatte operations. It is February, and 2nd TAF units moved into Germany by that time (their Wüntstorf is south of Hamburg)

 

126 Wing converted back to 100/130 grade in April.

 

From Monty Berger's 'Invasion without Tears'.

 

Invwotrs-001a_zps91c5e370.jpg

 

 

Yeah, that was 'PEP' fuel, which had additional ethylene dibromide added to it in order to mitigate spark plug fouling. That was achieved, but the new fuel corroded valve seats in the engine...it caused a number of engine failures etc, and eventually they switched back to the normal 150 octane.

 

 

Furthermore, this is what the Germans thought when they inspected the first 8th AF Mustangs using 150 grade (via Calum Douglas http://www.calum-douglas.com/).

 

Note - 9th AAF USAAF fighters (as well as 15th AAF fighters kept using 130 grade due to logistics reasons)

 

 

 

If mechanical failure due to 150 octane had been as much of an issue as you're making it out to be, there would have been more than just a handful of crashed P-51s behind the frontlines. During testing, it was found spark plug fouling was caused by running the engines at low power and could easily be mitigated by applying WER for a few minutes, which would burn the lead off the spark plugs and remove the rough-running characteristics of the engines so affected.

 

 

 

Also, 150 octane had been used for seven months already, and only now failures occur? When the Luftwaffe had already defanged itself in Bodenplatte?

 

One plane out of ten crashing may be caused by mechanical failure of some sort - one out of 100, or even 1000? Not so much.

[FTC_Riksen]

Despite of not being used at the time of operation like some have shown here, I still think it would be a nice addition to have the 25lbs Spit. Let the mission designer pick if he wants something more historical or not ... the good thing is that more options makes it for more possibilities and scenarios and stuff. Using the 150 oct fuel should be viable as well as the C3 fuel for the Luftwaffe and thr possibility of a 1.98ata K4. The more options the better it will be ... let the mission designers worry about that

[Barnacles]

Despite of not being used at the time of operation like some have shown here, I still think it would be a nice addition to have the 25lbs Spit. Let the mission designer pick if he wants something more historical or not ... the good thing is that more options makes it for more possibilities and scenarios and stuff. Using the 150 oct fuel should be viable as well as the C3 fuel for the Luftwaffe and thr possibility of a 1.98ata K4. The more options the better it will be ... let the mission designers worry about that

 

Spot on.

 

I just would not want a situation where every single Mustang and Spit is running 25lbs boost and every single K4 is running C3/MW50, both because of historical reasons and that a variety of capabilites leads to a more interesting game. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Agreed. I think my concern is more on if the devs have the necessary time and resources to do it. Maybe they do (they managed to do both Merlin 45 and 46 for the Spitfire V which was great). The great thing about the new IL-2 is that modifications such as these can be restricted for multiplayer and single player as necessary. Single player is less of an issue but its great that the mission designer can choose what they want/what is best suited to the situation.

 

Multiplayer has tons of options for setting limits on different things or limited numbers. It wasn't as easy in the old IL-2 which led to many an argument. Now its much easier to craft the situation to meet the need.

[Barnacles]

Agreed. I think my concern is more on if the devs have the necessary time and resources to do it. Maybe they do (they managed to do both Merlin 45 and 46 for the Spitfire V which was great). The great thing about the new IL-2 is that modifications such as these can be restricted for multiplayer and single player as necessary. Single player is less of an issue but its great that the mission designer can choose what they want/what is best suited to the situation.

 

Multiplayer has tons of options for setting limits on different things or limited numbers. It wasn't as easy in the old IL-2 which led to many an argument. Now its much easier to craft the situation to meet the need.

 

They also did the 1.65 ATA for the FW190 A5, I reckon that any different fuel could be implemented in a similar way.

[Kurfurst]

Spot on.

 

I just would not want a situation where every single Mustang and Spit is running 25lbs boost and every single K4 is running C3/MW50, both because of historical reasons and that a variety of capabilites leads to a more interesting game. 

 

I would rather not see it happening it again either. In the old Il-2, you usual dogfight server looked liked this.

 

Everyone was flying either the +25 lbs Spit IXs (trialled by 2 or 3 Squadrons in 1944 and did not see much, if any action), or the so-called "RAF Mustang IIIs" (also on +25 lbs, which existed but again only 2 Squadrons which apart from two (2) engagements did not see much action either. Or some German napkin plane or weird prototypes like the Soviet BI-2 rocket plane, or small series/prototype Yak 3s with VK 107 or VK 108 or some Yak with a monster 37 or 45 mm gun. Because the historically correct planes just won't cut it, no matter how potent they still are. Its the uber plane inflation of flight sims.

 

You can't blame people for choosing the 'über' planes because if someone starts it, people may give a try or two to the 'historical' planes but if they start to perceive (regardless how much it is true) that they could hopelessly outclassed by some weird prototype or super-rare variant, they will start to fly something similar, too. And you end up with everyone is only flying the uber planes syndrome.

 

It is a very unhealthy situation because it soon renders the historical planeset to being hangar queens and the full fidelity and the historical 'feeling' of it just goes out of the window. Then why fly in WW2 flight sim in the first place, if not for the historical accuracy, seeing how you can cope with the other guy's advantages and your own. The term 'balance' does not have a place in flight sims because its not a simulation then anymore, its an PvP MMO. We have plenty of those, where the gameplay is centered around pitting as close as possible planes against each other in a competitive MP environment. I doubt that is the 'mission' of the resurrected Il-2 series though. 

[=RvE=Windmills]

I would rather not see it happening it again either. In the old Il-2, you usual dogfight server looked liked this.

 

Everyone was flying either the +25 lbs Spit IXs (trialled by 2 or 3 Squadrons in 1944 and did not see much, if any action), or the so-called "RAF Mustang IIIs" (also on +25 lbs, which existed but again only 2 Squadrons which apart from two (2) engagements did not see much action either. Or some German napkin plane or weird prototypes like the Soviet BI-2 rocket plane, or small series/prototype Yak 3s with VK 107 or VK 108 or some Yak with a monster 37 or 45 mm gun. Because the historically correct planes just won't cut it, no matter how potent they still are. Its the uber plane inflation of flight sims.

 

You can't blame people for choosing the 'über' planes because if someone starts it, people may give a try or two to the 'historical' planes but if they start to perceive (regardless how much it is true) that they could hopelessly outclassed by some weird prototype or super-rare variant, they will start to fly something similar, too. And you end up with everyone is only flying the uber planes syndrome.

 

It is a very unhealthy situation because it soon renders the historical planeset to being hangar queens and the full fidelity and the historical 'feeling' of it just goes out of the window. Then why fly in WW2 flight sim in the first place, if not for the historical accuracy, seeing how you can cope with the other guy's advantages and your own. The term 'balance' does not have a place in flight sims because its not a simulation then anymore, its an PvP MMO. We have plenty of those, where the gameplay is centered around pitting as close as possible planes against each other in a competitive MP environment. I doubt that is the 'mission' of the resurrected Il-2 series though. 

 

This was never a problem in 1946 and there is no reason for it to become one here.

[bzc3lk]

I would rather not see it happening it again either. In the old Il-2, you usual dogfight server looked liked this.

 

Everyone was flying either the +25 lbs Spit IXs (trialled by 2 or 3 Squadrons in 1944 and did not see much, if any action), or the so-called "RAF Mustang IIIs" (also on +25 lbs, which existed but again only 2 Squadrons which apart from two (2) engagements did not see much action either. Or some German napkin plane or weird prototypes like the Soviet BI-2 rocket plane, or small series/prototype Yak 3s with VK 107 or VK 108 or some Yak with a monster 37 or 45 mm gun. Because the historically correct planes just won't cut it, no matter how potent they still are. Its the uber plane inflation of flight sims.

 

You can't blame people for choosing the 'über' planes because if someone starts it, people may give a try or two to the 'historical' planes but if they start to perceive (regardless how much it is true) that they could hopelessly outclassed by some weird prototype or super-rare variant, they will start to fly something similar, too. And you end up with everyone is only flying the uber planes syndrome.

 

It is a very unhealthy situation because it soon renders the historical planeset to being hangar queens and the full fidelity and the historical 'feeling' of it just goes out of the window. Then why fly in WW2 flight sim in the first place, if not for the historical accuracy, seeing how you can cope with the other guy's advantages and your own. The term 'balance' does not have a place in flight sims because its not a simulation then anymore, its an PvP MMO. We have plenty of those, where the gameplay is centered around pitting as close as possible planes against each other in a competitive MP environment. I doubt that is the 'mission' of the resurrected Il-2 series though. 

 

I couldn't agree more Kurfurst, might as well play Warthunder if you want balanced aircraft. I like to experience the different idiosyncrasies of the aircraft on offer, whether good or bad and relive the virtual battles via Pat's mission generator to appreciate to a small degree what the real pilots had to contend with. The idea of "seal clubbing" my way through my virtual squadron life has no appeal for me.

 

[Bullets]

Kurfurst you seem to be forgetting that the server mission makers can decide what modifications are allowed for each aircraft for each mission.... So that is not really a solid argument there    

[EAF19_Marsh]

Nice to see you answering the post. Kurfust. I'll take that as recognition that you cannot see the point pushing irrelevant facts about the V and XII, given there was actual general agreement before your contribution. BTW, in April 1945 there were still c. 500 Mk Vs in Fighter Command UK training units plus a load of Hurricanes - should we count these for the Bodenplatte scenario or would that be disingenuous?

 

ADGB Spitfire IX squadrons begin use of 150 octane and higher boost settings in May. The reason for its lack of use over Europe was primarily supply and a prioritization of reliability over performance, given the numerical superiority enjoyed over Europe- see Shores 2nd TAF trilogy on this.

 

I am intrigued by your reference to 'some German napkin planes' re: IL-2 '46. I can see indications that 180-200 D-9s were delivered to squadrons by 1945, mostly III /JG 54 and JG 26 in the west. By comparison, Spitfire XIVs were in use by Winter '44 by 41, 130, 250, 322, 403 and 610 plus as recce aircraft in 2 and 430 Tac/R squadrons. Further conversions by April (do not have equivalent D-9 deliveries by this date) bring 2nd TAF strength up to 600 - 700 aircraft, so the XIV is not that much of a minor player compared to the D-9.

 

Kurfurst you seem to be forgetting that the server mission makers can decide what modifications are allowed for each aircraft for each mission.... So that is not really a solid argument there

 

 

Given that D-9s and K-4s, the minority in December 1944, will be seen extensively online it is not a solid argument any way you look at it.

 

Nevertheless, in order to be in any way sensible it would be better if the IX were modeled in its various configurations, beginning with 18lb boost and an E- / C-Wing option an then moving on from there.

Edited December 4, 2017 by EAF19_Marsh

[Kurfurst]

Kurfurst you seem to be forgetting that the server mission makers can decide what modifications are allowed for each aircraft for each mission.... So that is not really a solid argument there    

 

True, there are tools. My point is that as soon as soon as the fantasy/semi-fantasy "boosted" variants are introduced (such as +25 lbs IXs that some call for), far too many will just to fly the best planes and ignore/sideline the ones that actually flew. AKA the Über Planes Inflation.

 

Server settings are one thing, but people will just flock to servers where they can fly the uber planeset, thereby in practice I fear that the appearance of and the whining for über variants by a vocal MINORITY could kill off the demand/possibility to fly historically relevant planes in historically correct scenarios for the sake of some balanced AirQuake that does not interest me, and I believe many others flying more serious flight sims at all. If I want to do that, I will fly War Thunder, which is fine and fun in its own right, but can prove to be utterly repetitive for the sake of "balance".

 

Not that I believe the current suggested plane-set would unbalanced in any way, though there are some important types left out - but we all understand that developers resources are finite.

 

Its far better if the plane-set will just re-create a plausible late war scenario at around the time of the Wacht am Rhein / Bodenplatte with the historically significant types at their common boost ratings, not trials aircraft or types that were very little used in this Battle, or not at all. Hence the problem with any +25 lbs boost Spits.

 

They might be even plausible for a end of the war period (March-April 1945), but geographically by that point all the fighting took place in Northern Germany, not over the Low Countries, so the Map is wrong for that. Asfor the Ardennes Campaign/Bodenplatte, simply the plane itself would be utterly wrong since their were exactly 0,0 Spitfire IXs with +25 lbs participating in it.  So you either end up with fantasy planes on a real map, or with feasible planes on the wrong map - and the possible whining shortly after for even better über fighters.

[Bullets]

If I remember correctly remind me again how many 190's there was over Stalingrad at the time of that battle?    

don't crucify me if I am wrong I am no expert I just seem to remember the answer to this being 0

Edited December 4, 2017 by Bullets

[EAF19_Marsh]

If I remember correctly remind me again how many 190's there was over Stalingrad at the time of that battle?

 

 

The 'no unusual aircraft' argument is mostly used against US / UK / Soviet aircraft, what with the late war Luftwaffe having been down to so few operational aircraft in terms of sortie generation that many aircraft become de-facto 'unusual'. As would be expected, the better-performing aircraft tend to fly more sorties (common sense and a rather Darwinian process), where as the Allied focus could afford to fly a smaller % of sorties of the less usual types because they had thousands of earlier aircrfat to carry the load.

 

Now, try to define 'unusual' and you start running into issues: Absolute numbers built? Delivered? On strength (tricky when many are sitting around out of fuel? % of local forces? % of total forces? % of average day's sorties?

 

So, though the 25lb boost IX is a minor player, and though the 2TAF were perfectly capable of running it in December, they did not (they did not have to, it would have complicated wider support, it may have reduced engine life and serviceability). Same way, the XIV was present in December in 4-6 squadrons (depending how you look at it), but it is also a relatively minor player in % strength terms and so should only be included after the IX. The XVI [read late IX] was growing in number but still likely a minority.

 

The most obvious of these is the 262 - everyone would like to see it, but from every single angle it is unusual and in a minority. But then you try that argument regarding D-9s and K-4s, which were a minority in December, and suddenly some people have a total tantrum...

Edited December 4, 2017 by EAF19_Marsh

[Herne]

True, there are tools. My point is that as soon as soon as the fantasy/semi-fantasy "boosted" variants are introduced (such as +25 lbs IXs that some call for), far too many will just to fly the best planes and ignore/sideline the ones that actually flew. AKA the Über Planes Inflation.

 

Server settings are one thing, but people will just flock to servers where they can fly the uber planeset, thereby in practice I fear that the appearance of and the whining for über variants by a vocal MINORITY could kill off the demand/possibility to fly historically relevant planes in historically correct scenarios for the sake of some balanced AirQuake that does not interest me, and I believe many others flying more serious flight sims at all. If I want to do that, I will fly War Thunder, which is fine and fun in its own right, but can prove to be utterly repetitive for the sake of "balance".

 

Not that I believe the current suggested plane-set would unbalanced in any way, though there are some important types left out - but we all understand that developers resources are finite.

 

Its far better if the plane-set will just re-create a plausible late war scenario at around the time of the Wacht am Rhein / Bodenplatte with the historically significant types at their common boost ratings, not trials aircraft or types that were very little used in this Battle, or not at all. Hence the problem with any +25 lbs boost Spits.

 

They might be even plausible for a end of the war period (March-April 1945), but geographically by that point all the fighting took place in Northern Germany, not over the Low Countries, so the Map is wrong for that. Asfor the Ardennes Campaign/Bodenplatte, simply the plane itself would be utterly wrong since their were exactly 0,0 Spitfire IXs with +25 lbs participating in it.  So you either end up with fantasy planes on a real map, or with feasible planes on the wrong map - and the possible whining shortly after for even better über fighters.

 

I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

 

TAW server even on the early moscow maps is fully populated during prime EU time. People do not necessarily flock to the servers where they can fly their "Uber Planes" 

 

Now all I ask is the that the Dev's give us something representative of what was available for the time frame the game will be representing. According to an answer in this thread operation bodenplatte was carried out, and all over after just a single morning, so the scope of the game will obviously go beyond that, but by how much ? days / weeks / even months ?

 

I don't understand your resistance to +25 ibs boost. The Dev's from what I can tell are pretty hot on their research, I trust that whatever they do, it will be within the best interests of the games time frame that they have in mind. I look forward to flying all of these new IL2 birds, whichever fuel / engine settings they come with.

Edited December 4, 2017 by =11=herne

[ICDP]

If I remember correctly remind me again how many 190's there was over Stalingrad at the time of that battle?    

don't crucify me if I am wrong I am no expert I just seem to remember the answer to this being 0

 

That is a good point.  Some collectors planes are added as a bonus but have no significance to the actual battle.

 

Battle of Moscow - collectors planes

P40E, Mc.202

 

Battle of Stalingrad - collectors planes

Fw190-A3, La-5 (at least La-5 was present at Stalingrad)

 

My opinion is as long as the uber planes can be restricted in the server, why not have them.

[PainGod85]

Everyone was flying either the +25 lbs Spit IXs (trialled by 2 or 3 Squadrons in 1944 and did not see much, if any action), or the so-called "RAF Mustang IIIs" (also on +25 lbs, which existed but again only 2 Squadrons which apart from two (2) engagements did not see much action either. Or some German napkin plane or weird prototypes like the Soviet BI-2 rocket plane, or small series/prototype Yak 3s with VK 107 or VK 108 or some Yak with a monster 37 or 45 mm gun. Because the historically correct planes just won't cut it, no matter how potent they still are. Its the uber plane inflation of flight sims.

 

1. +25 lb boost was not trialled by two squadrons in late '44, it was in full use:

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

 

2.There weren't just two squadrons of Mustangs Mk. III, there were Mk. IVs as well:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html

 

That said, they were usually used in mixed III/IV squadrons, but there were more than just two: No. 19, 65, 118, 122, 129, 316 squadrons, among many others.

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/129-davis-23march45.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/65-pearson-5april45.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/118_ORB_8march45.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/316sqdn-orb.jpg

 

E: And the V-1s? By September they were no threat to the British anymore as they'd overrun the launch sites capable of reaching beyond the channel.

Edited December 4, 2017 by PainGod85

[Warpig]

We have to remember the game playability should be fun.

 

Sure, the highest performing Spitfire would be nice, but for match up sake, would it make the game as a whole more fun?

 

The classic 109 vs Spit match up is to have superior turning with the Spit, and superior speed with the 109. Effectively making them both an even match up.

 

If one plane outclasses it's rivals in every area (which is what Spitfire fans seem to want), the game is no longer fun due to being one-sided. We need to think about playability before just demanding the best of the best planes out there. As long as the planes existed on the same theaters, the Spitfire IX is plenty good enough, and allows a better match up between allies and axis that will actually translate to a fun gameplay experience.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Warpig

[PainGod85]

We have to remember the game playability should be fun.

 

Sure, the highest performing Spitfire would be nice, but for match up sake, would it make the game as a whole more fun?

 

The classic 109 vs Spit matchup is to have superior turning with the Spit, and superior speed with the 109. Effectively making them both an even match up.

 

If one plane outclasses it's rivals in every area (which is what Spitfire fans seem to want), the game is no longer fun due to being one-sided. We need to think about playability before just demanding the best of the best planes out there. As long as the planes existed on the same theaters, the Spitfire IX is plenty good enough, and allows a better match up between allies and axis that will actually translate to a fun gameplay experience.

 

That's what server locked mods are for.

[Bullets]

We have to remember the game playability should be fun.

 

Sure, the highest performing Spitfire would be nice, but for match up sake, would it make the game as a whole more fun?

 

The classic 109 vs Spit match up is to have superior turning with the Spit, and superior speed with the 109. Effectively making them both an even match up.

 

If one plane outclasses it's rivals in every area (which is what Spitfire fans seem to want), the game is no longer fun due to being one-sided. We need to think about playability before just demanding the best of the best planes out there. As long as the planes existed on the same theaters, the Spitfire IX is plenty good enough, and allows a better match up between allies and axis that will actually translate to a fun gameplay experience.

 

?????????????    

Okay so...

 

Spit Vb vs 109 (not E or F2) = Not a "fair" match up...

109 is faster and climbs better what is fair about that, the only way you would win is if you start higher or the 109 pilot flies like a rookie.    A IX +25lb boost spitfire however would m i g h t make it an even match up against the K4 and D9 and definitely a good contender against the G14 and A8.. Which would make it far more interesting.

 

"o n e   s i d e d".... I see you have the forum tags of BOS & BOM but did you actually play them?       You can't deny the advantages the blues had in those titles yet it was still fun to play red.. Ideally I wouldn't want either side to be one sided but sometimes historical accuracy (in those cases) causes it. 

 

At the end of the day who doesn't want it to be fun... 

[Warpig]

"o n e   s i d e d".... I see you have the forum tags of BOS & BOM but did you actually play them?       You can't deny the advantages the blues had in those titles yet it was still fun to play red.. Ideally I wouldn't want either side to be one sided but sometimes historical accuracy (in those cases) causes it. 

 

It seems you're more after a revenge plane, than a fun match up.

 

I don't think the blues carry that heavy of an advantage currently. It's still the classic speed vs maneuverability. It's definitely not a one-sided match up on any of the current theaters.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Warpig

[CIA_Yankee_]

Its far better if the plane-set will just re-create a plausible late war scenario at around the time of the Wacht am Rhein / Bodenplatte with the historically significant types at their common boost ratings, not trials aircraft or types that were very little used in this Battle, or not at all. Hence the problem with any +25 lbs boost Spits.

 

They might be even plausible for a end of the war period (March-April 1945), but geographically by that point all the fighting took place in Northern Germany, not over the Low Countries, so the Map is wrong for that. Asfor the Ardennes Campaign/Bodenplatte, simply the plane itself would be utterly wrong since their were exactly 0,0 Spitfire IXs with +25 lbs participating in it.  So you either end up with fantasy planes on a real map, or with feasible planes on the wrong map - and the possible whining shortly after for even better über fighters.

 

If historical accuracy is the argument behind not allowing +25lbs Spit IXs, then logically it should follow that similar historical restrictions should also be placed on the LW. For example, fuel restrictions, a 4 to 1 allies to LW player ratio, and other such restrictions which arise from the dominating air superiority of the allies in the time period. Anything less would be inaccurate, after all.

 

Of course, this wouldn't make for a very enjoyable sim, and so naturally those restrictions won't be enforce. But let's not pretend that restricting Spit IXs to 130 octane fuel is a must and that anything less would violate historical accuracy, because that already went out the window the moment the LW is allowed to fly its most modern hardware at anything close to approaching numerical parity.

[EAF19_Marsh]

If historical accuracy is the argument behind not allowing +25lbs Spit IXs, then logically it should follow that similar historical restrictions should also be placed on the LW. For example, fuel restrictions, a 4 to 1 allies to LW player ratio, and other such restrictions which arise from the dominating air superiority of the allies in the time period. Anything less would be inaccurate, after all.

 

 

Or, given D-9 and K-4 deliveries by beginning of December, simply drop those.

 

But then you drop the 262 as well (there were very few by any measure) and so forth

 

 

Of course, this wouldn't make for a very enjoyable sim, and so naturally those restrictions won't be enforce. But let's not pretend that restricting Spit IXs to 130 octane fuel is a must and that anything less would violate historical accuracy, because that already went out the window the moment the LW is allowed to fly its most modern hardware at anything close to approaching numerical parity.

 

 

Quite, but if there is a timetable of release and focus of limited resources, I would prefer a baseline IX 18lb / 130 octane as the likely most numerous model in service as at 16th December '44. Since - as your correctly point out - the actual limitations of the jagdwaffe are never represented then there is no reason not to have a 25 lb boost IX as there were in service from the clearance given in November, while the D-9 and K-4 deliveries for the start of the Ardennes offensive are very unlikely to match large numbers that will be found in servers. And the XIV would be entirely welcome as well, given the numbers of the D-9 and K-4 as of December 1944

 

Given the likely return on team investment, I expect the initial IX to be a fairly early aircraft in 2018 so I would suspect an initial release then possibly a re-visit later to flesh it out.

 

Since their were exactly 0,0 Spitfire IXs with +25 lbs participating in it.

 

 

Actually, you have never shown this to be true. Again, number of 262s, D-9s and K-4s actually present and operational, % of force present, % of sorties? As of 16th December, if possible.

Edited December 4, 2017 by EAF19_Marsh

[=RvE=Windmills]

He is throwing it on the argument that if it is in the game at all, everybody will be using it.

 

Which is just completely untrue, both WoL and TAW make extensive use of restricting loadouts. Even using the rocket rails to simulate earlier Yaks.

 

I don't know what server he's flying atm, but I have't seen a mission based server that just allows everything all the time.

[CIA_Yankee_]

It seems you're more after a revenge plane, than a fun match up.

 

I don't think the blues carry that heavy of an advantage currently. It's still the classic speed vs maneuverability.

 

To be fair, Speed vs Maneuverability is not really a fair matchup, and never was ever since pilots learned to energy fight in WW I.

 

Speed/climb (in short, energy) is the decisive factor when it comes to air combat. The pilot and airplane that is able to gain (and maintain) the energy advantage gets to dictate the engagement. This is why the SPAD was such a big deal in WWI, and the 109 in WWII. They were remarkable machines that excellent in the aspects that mattered the most for a fighter aircraft.

 

Now, naturally, there are plenty of circumstances where maneuverability could be useful, particularly in a tactical theatre like the eastern front (where bombers/attack aircraft need to be shot down and escorted, which meant that sometimes 109s had to go low and slow and couldn't just stay perched above and pounce on their prey at will), but nevertheless being the better energy fighter was a clear advantage (and clearly is in the sim).

 

Now, there's nothing wrong with that, let's be clear: the sim should simulate the accurate performance of aircraft and if one side had a clear edge (as the LW did vs the VVS until 1943-44), then this should be reflected in the simulation (and it most certainly is).

 

But going back to the topic at hand the debate is around permitting the use of 150 octane fuel on the Spit IX, which is in fact entirely accurate as plenty of Spit IXs did have this capability, The only argument against it is that the Spits involved in the Bodenplatte area/time had not yet converted... but this argument is not really valid because it simultaneously ignores the far more extensive restrictions which should rightfully be placed on the LW if the historical accuracy of the theatre was enforced. Since obviously these would make the same very much unenjoyable (flying for or against a crippled LW would be pretty sad), there's no reason why the Spit IX shouldn't have access to 150 octane fuel (since it actually could since 1944).

[Sgt_Joch]

If anyone wants to get a feel for 2nd TAF Spitfires in action, the RCAF official history is free online:

 

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/oh-ho/detail-eng.asp?BfBookLang=1&BfId=54

 

the RCAF had two wings with 2nd TAF, no. 126 and 127. 126 had 5 squadrons of spits, 4 of IXs and 1 of XIV.

 

no. 126 moved to airfields in Belgium in early September and was in action the rest of the war.

 

Their role was essentially fighter-bombers attacking ground targets, since encounter with the Luftwaffe was infrequent, but there were regular fights. German aircraft were spotted about 5-10 times a month. About half the time, the Germans would leave before they could be engaged.

 

Most fights were against 190As and/or 109s. Some were small affairs, but regularly up to 20-40 LW ACs were engaged. ME-262s were spotted 1-2 per month from sept. 44 onward. 190 D9s which are referred to as "long nose" FW 190s started to be engaged from the end of the year onward.

 

There also infrequent encounters with ME-410, Ju-88s, Ju-87s and Arado Ar-234.

 

Many of the dogfights were at relatively low altitudes, 6-10,000 feet, although some were at 24-28,000 feet.

 

RCAF Spitfire pilots showed no reluctance to engage the enemy and would charge right in even when outnumbered. After action claims often showed a 3-4+:1 kill ratio against the LW. There is no mention that the 190D is better than the 190A in combat. All 109s are referred as simply 109, although we can presume there were G and K-4s encountered. No mention that 1945 109s (K-4?) were any more of a threat than the earlier model.

 

Note that the history seems to be based exclusively on RCAF AARs without any verification of German documents, so the kill claims are in all likelihood inflated. However, it does show that RCAF Spitfire IX pilots were certain that their AC could handle anything the Luftwaffe could put up.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Sgt_Joch

[Warpig]

To be fair, Speed vs Maneuverability is not really a fair matchup, and never was ever since pilots learned to energy fight in WW I.

 

True, but the speed advantage that is currently carried by the axis planes, isn't that great that they can't be caught in a bad spot.

 

A 109/190 pilot still has to be diligent and aware of their surroundings. They don't have an automatic get away free card.

 

Of course, my earlier statement about speed vs maneuverability is a simplified one. There are other factors involved like climb, energy retention, performances at different altitudes etc. My only concern is that we do not have one plane that holds all the cards to such a degree that match ups wouldn't be enjoyable for both sides.