Jump to content
Panthera

Spitfire Mk.XIV poll

Should the Spitfire Mk.XIV be added as a collectors plane to IL-2 Bodenplatte?  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Spitfire Mk.XIV be added as a collectors plane to IL-2 Bodenplatte?

    • Heavens yes! IL-2 BP needs this aircraft!
    • Maybe..
    • Nope, simply not interested in this aircraft.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Should the Spitfire Mk.XIV be added as a collectors plane to IL-2 Bodenplatte?

 

69cR89c.jpg

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I vote yes.

 

The Germans are getting incredibly powerful aircraft in the Me262, 109K4 and Dora-9, thus it's only fair that the Allies are treated the same and the Spitfire Mk.XIV fits that bill. Furthermore the Spitfire Mk.XIV's were operational in sizeable numbers at the point of Bodenplatte, thus I see no point in leaving out this aircraft.

 

Finally it's about time this aircraft is featured in a WW2 flight sim :)

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Voted no. Although real question I answer is, should this poll even be made?
The polls "should plane X be added" are meaningless because, is there a plane we wouldn't want? The real question is what the devs can afford to squeze in. BoB is squeezed into scheadule to be build alongside the future Pacific expansions, and devs  already said later marks of Spitfire are to difficult to make to fit them in timetable. 

Finally, i find bringing "fairness" argument into this phony. Fairness has nothing to do with it, or with simulated war. They make the planes they can afford and think we'll find interesting, we buy them or not.

Speaking of interesting, there's lot of more interesting planes (Hs-123 and Hurricane , to name two) i'd like to see instead.

Edited by LsV_Trupobaw
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Poll is a waste of time as the collector aircraft for Bodenplatte have already been announced... plus with the tank thing and WWI stuff to be worked on the team just won't have time to devote to extra aircraft.

However, if this poll was introduced before collector planes were announced then I would have said yes, obviously...

Edited by Trooper117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Poll is a waste of time as the collector aircraft for Bodenplatte have already been announced… 

 

Yeah, but it is highly unlikely that P 38J and Fw 190D-9 will remain the only ones. In BoK we also got 2 additional planes (109 G6 and La-5FN) so far on top of the original collector planes Spit V and Hs 129.

 

So yes, Spit XIV will be a great collector plane and the list goes on with Typhoon IB, Me 109 G-10, Arado 234-B2, Me 109 G14/AS, Mustang II, Mosquito XVI,...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to the OP's question the answer is most definitely YES on account of historical relevance as it was there in theatre and at that time and YES on account of the Spitfire Mk XIV being such a monster fighter aircraft that really helped to bring tactical air superiority to the Allies where it belonged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

The polls "should plane X be added" are meaningless because, is there a plane we wouldn't want?

true

 

Voted "not interested" nonetheless or maybe even just for this reason.

 

 

I wouldn't necessarily need any additional aircraft related to BoBP at all, but it's likely we will see them eventually.

On 6/3/2018 at 5:08 PM, =27=Davesteu said:

If you absolutely need more BoBP aircraft I would suggest focusing on those:

- Northrop P-61 "Black Widow" with 422nd Night Fighter Squadron based at Florennes plus a detachment of 414th NF Squadron. Besides some nocturnal encounters they very frequently flew intruder & attack missions and often had their dorsal turret removed.

- Hawker Typhoon

- Arado Ar 234

- Gloster Meteor 

BoBP as announced contains fighter(-bomber) aircraft only. The Typhoon isn't that exotic, but historically important. The Meteor is unique, the Ar 234 is unique and not a fighter anyways and same is true for the P-61. Those I'd probably buy, but not a high altitude, fighter only one.

 

Not a fan of its looks anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I like a Griffon Spit at some point? Yes. Should the developers add it to the list of Bodenplatte collectors aircraft? That depends on what they chose to delay in order to add it, and, if they are considering adding more collectors aircraft, what the alternatives are. 

 

These polls are pointless, since they fail to consider the broader context. Not voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see the Mk XIV: It's a beautiful aircraft and the only problem I see is that it is so OP: Basically the only option left to Kurfurst is to do a runner which I must admit has a certain appeal to me if you get my drift. :happy:

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Would I like a Griffon Spit at some point? Yes.

You can, quite simply, never have enough Spitfires. Why, even Adolph Galland himself, when asked by Goering what he needed to take control of the skies over England, said, "A squadron of Spitfires, Herrr Reichsmarschall!"

Oh, and didn't vote either for all of the mentioned reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A second Spit in BoBP is perhaps a bit much, and I would prefer a Mossie as an extra plane anyway

01048-never-say-die-low-res.jpg?w=1008

 

Edited by Roast
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think I would prefer a Mosquito or a Typhoon if we could have a British collector plane after Bodenplatte, I like the Spit Mk XIV and I think it's really cool, but the two planes I mentioned (specially the Typhoon) would better contribute to the planeset for the Bodenplatte expansion I think.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

I would love to see the Mk XIV: It's a beautiful aircraft and the only problem I see is that it is so OP: Basically the only option left to Kurfurst is to do a runner which I must admit has a certain appeal to me if you get my drift. :happy:

 

Yeah it would definitely be hard for the German props on the maps where the XIV was included, but I feel the Me262 would balance that situation by forcing the XIV's to always have to look over their shoulder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not before I get my Hurricane!!!😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/8/2018 at 9:22 PM, Holtzauge said:

I would love to see the Mk XIV: It's a beautiful aircraft and the only problem I see is that it is so OP: Basically the only option left to Kurfurst is to do a runner which I must admit has a certain appeal to me if you get my drift. :happy:

 

The Mk 14 is so fast that it can fly around the world and shoot it's own behind off.

Oh but i forgot that it also turns so good it could outmaneuver such an attack with ease.

 

This is all meaningless talk.Ii shot it down more than enough times with 109 g6 and fw A4 and such .

Overpower , underpowered are just excuses people find when they get shot down for making a mistake (By the way this is what an unbiased american pilot said, not me).

 

Edited by IVJG4-Knight
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 6:40 AM, Panthera said:

I vote yes.

 

The Germans are getting incredibly powerful aircraft in the Me262, 109K4 and Dora-9, thus it's only fair that the Allies are treated the same and the Spitfire Mk.XIV fits that bill. Furthermore the Spitfire Mk.XIV's were operational in sizeable numbers at the point of Bodenplatte, thus I see no point in leaving out this aircraft.

 

Finally it's about time this aircraft is featured in a WW2 flight sim :)

 

 

 

People have WILD expectations for the 262. The amount of people who will have the gunnery to be anything other than a moving tech-demo are like 2 people. The 262 will not be a competitive dogfighter. It will MAAAAAAAAAAYBE be scary to bombers if the pilot is good enough to aim his rockets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GridiroN said:

 

People have WILD expectations for the 262. The amount of people who will have the gunnery to be anything other than a moving tech-demo are like 2 people. The 262 will not be a competitive dogfighter. It will MAAAAAAAAAAYBE be scary to bombers if the pilot is good enough to aim his rockets. 

 

Sure some people have wild  expectations of the 262.You can't perform miracles no matter which plane you fly.

 

But to say that it will maybe be scary to bombers is complete nonsense.Or that it's somehow not as good as ww2 prop planes.

P38 didn't need to dogfight to kill lots of japanese zeros and Mig15s in Korea didn't need to be dogfighters to kill p51s that turned better .The mig15's cannons fire at 2260 ft/s while the me262 cannons fire at 1770 ft/s not that big of a difference while the mig15 is faster and shooting is harder . 

Also the me262 killed lots of fighters during ww2 and proved a great fighter .

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be suprised if this version dont get made as single collectable like yak1b and la5fn after relise of bobp. And it should be available as its easy fit bobp.

 

regarding me262, in 46 df servers where it was even limited to 4-6 on mission it was either waisted when some rokies used it or it was nightmare when veteran players used it.

i saw it used mostly as first strike on big point ground targets( factory ammo storages, railways and so on) where you can just dive fast drop from big alt as target area was big and run away. And then you can just wait over your targets to pick up players focused on ground attack that dont c u coming. Also red team would usealy be preocupied on hunting players in me262 so blue would have less red defending targets and could hit them eseyer.

It was no suprise to see some players hit ground targets and then collect 5+ kills in 60 min flight, but also you could see players just trying to turn with 51s and get gangbanged or crash in dives or blow up engines on to harsh use of trottle, so i only see it as problem if used in veteran player hands, basicly like any other plane in game.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should have the Mosquito FB   and the Beaufighter X in the game too !

 

But since I am an addict of the big twomot fighters  (JU88C too)   I am not completely objective ;-)😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

Sure some people have wild  expectations of the 262.You can't perform miracles no matter which plane you fly.

 

But to say that it will maybe be scary to bombers is complete nonsense.Or that it's somehow not as good as ww2 prop planes.

P38 didn't need to dogfight to kill lots of japanese zeros and Mig15s in Korea didn't need to be dogfighters to kill p51s that turned better .The mig15's cannons fire at 2260 ft/s while the me262 cannons fire at 1770 ft/s not that big of a difference while the mig15 is faster and shooting is harder . 

Also the me262 killed lots of fighters during ww2 and proved a great fighter .

 

Calling it "nonsense" simply comes off as apologism for the sake of a plane you like and I'm sure you're smart enough to know that... 

 

This is all out of context. Putting aside the care with which the plane should have to be flown (assuming the sim models it somewhat accurately, which I'm sure they will...), which will be a significant challenge given people's bad habits in the previous 3 installments of this sim, the 262 will be flying around at, as Jason puts it, "near mach speeds" of 900kph, trying to hit bombers going 400kph...or fighters going 550kph. In either case, it's like 2x as fast... That's going to require quick and skilled gunnery. There is already historical proof that this posed a significant challenge in real life and it's been posted in, like, every ME262 thread there's been...:   

 

Quote

 

The Royal Navy's best test pilot, Captain Eric Brown, chief naval test pilot and commanding officer of the Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Royal Aircraft Establishment, who tested the Me 262 noted: "This was a Blitzkrieg aircraft. You whack in at your bomber. It was never meant to be a dogfighter, it was meant to be a destroyer of bombers... The great problem with it was it did not have dive brakes. For example, if you want to fight and destroy a B-17, you come in on a dive. The 30mm cannon were not so accurate beyond 600 metres. So you normally came in at 600 yards and would open fire on your B-17. And your closing speed was still high and since you had to break away at 200 meters to avoid a collision, you only had two seconds firing time. Now, in two seconds, you can't sight. You can fire randomly and hope for the best. If you want to sight and fire, you need to double that time to four seconds. And with dive brakes, you could have done that."[49]

Eventually, German pilots developed new combat tactics to counter Allied bombers' defences. Me 262s, equipped with up to 24 unguided folding-fin R4M rockets—12 in each of two underwing racks, outboard of the engine nacelle—approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns, fired a salvo of rockets with strongly brisant Hexogen-filled warheads, exactly the same explosive in the shells fired by the Me 262A's quartet of MK 108 cannon. One or two of these rockets could down even the famously rugged Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress,[50]

 

 

and...

Quote

"I passed one that looked as if it was hanging motionless in the air (I am too fast!). The one above me went into a steep right-hand turn, his pale blue underside standing out against the purple sky. Another banked right in front of the Me's nose. Violent jolt as I flew through his airscrew eddies. Maybe a wing's length away. That one in the gentle left-hand curve! Swing her round. I was coming from underneath, eye glued to the sight (pull her tighter!). A throbbing in the wings as my cannon pounded briefly. Missed him. Way behind his tail. It was exasperating. I would never be able to shoot one down like this. They were like a sack of fleas. A prick of doubt: is this really such a good fighter? Could one in fact, successfully attack a group of erratically banking fighters with the Me 262?" ~Johannes Steinhoff, Luftwaffe fighter ace

 

You can't seriously sit there and tell me I'm ridiculous for saying the ME262 is not going to be god's gift to the luftwaffe when it comes to bomber hunting, and you most certainly can't say I'm being ridiculous for saying it will be not ideal for dogfighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, GridiroN said:

You can't seriously sit there and tell me I'm ridiculous for saying the ME262 is not going to be god's gift to the luftwaffe when it comes to bomber hunting, and you most certainly can't say I'm being ridiculous for saying it will be not ideal for dogfighting

 

Yeah but that doesn´t mean it won´t be a good fighter. I don´t think anyone claimed it would be a good dogfighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Yeah but that doesn´t mean it won´t be a good fighter. I don´t think anyone claimed it would be a good dogfighter.

 

I never said I wouldn't be a good fighter. I said people's expectations for the plane are wildly exaggerated. Knight historical examples of jets dogfighting in Korea as a counter, so obviously he does seem to disagree with the sentiment that the 262 is not for dogfighting.

  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GridiroN said:

 

 Knight historical examples of jets dogfighting in Korea as a counter, so obviously he does seem to disagree with the sentiment that the 262 is not for dogfighting.

 

What Knight said: " Mig15s in Korea didn't need to be dogfighters to kill p51s that turned better "  

 

I see no point in continuing the conversation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have a humble wish for bombers in Bodenplatte , even a modified A 20 . B 26 would ofcource be great. But for reasons stated above I know there will be none. A new supersonic fighter is last I want first. A bomber should and must come before any new fighter anyway

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I have a humble wish for bombers in Bodenplatte , even a modified A 20 . B 26 would ofcource be great. But for reasons stated above I know there will be none. A new supersonic fighter is last I want first. A bomber should and must come before any new fighter anyway

 

The  262 wasn't supersonic.Maybe in some really rare circumstances it might be remotely possible that it was.But there are serious doubts:

 

According to" Hans Guido Mutke" and "A computer-based performance analysis of the Me 262 carried out in 1999 at the Technische Universität München concluded that the Me 262 could indeed exceed Mach 1." In a dive that is.

 

I would also want a b26 or b17 or me 410 or he162 or spit14  .Each one would make me happy.

Edited by IVJG4-Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bombers would indeed be welcome in BoBP, but mainly AI ones.

After all, what are 262's supposed to intercept besides fighter aircraft? 😮

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/10/2018 at 9:56 PM, GridiroN said:

 

People have WILD expectations for the 262. The amount of people who will have the gunnery to be anything other than a moving tech-demo are like 2 people. The 262 will not be a competitive dogfighter. It will MAAAAAAAAAAYBE be scary to bombers if the pilot is good enough to aim his rockets. 

 

Not really, I'm basing it on my experience flying it in the previous installments where it was none other than dominating any map it was allowed on unless serious limits were put on its number of available spawns. 

 

It's all about practice, as once you get used to the lower velocity of your guns you will be one of the biggest threats in the sky.  People forget that we get the opportunity to keep practicing in these birds (we aren't ever grounded due to lack of fuel etc.) and can push them to their limits without the fear of losing our lives in the process should we exceed them - luxuries the real pilots simply didn't have. As such were are bound to become more proficient in the aircraft than the majority of the pilots who got to fly it during the war, and as a result we will also end up flying a lot more aggressively in general, in any of the WW2 fighters, than the real pilots did.

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panthera said:

As such were are bound to become more proficient in the aircraft than the majority of the pilots who got to fly it during the war, and as a result we will also end up flying a lot more aggressively in general, in any of the WW2 fighters, than the real pilots did.

 

I can't believe you actually believe that statement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who fly real aircraft (in combat or otherwise) can become proficient in doing so. Likewise, people who fly aircraft simulations developed for entertainment purposes (in combat or otherwise) can become proficient in doing that. Proficiency in one cannot however be equated to proficiency in another. That's just silly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

I can't believe you actually believe that statement...

 

I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood what I wrote then.

 

For example I'm not saying we can fly the real aircraft because we can fly a representation of it in a flight simulator game, not by a long shot. What I'm saying is that since we are able to practice all sorts of situations in our virtual aircraft as often as we like, and can go right to the edge and beyond without any fear of losing our lives in the process, many of us are bound to eventually become more proficient in our virtual aircraft than most WW2 pilots were ever given the time or opportunity to become in their real aircraft before being sent into combat.

 

 

59 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

People who fly real aircraft (in combat or otherwise) can become proficient in doing so. Likewise, people who fly aircraft simulations developed for entertainment purposes (in combat or otherwise) can become proficient in doing that. Proficiency in one cannot however be equated to proficiency in another. That's just silly...

 

I never said they couldn't become proficient, what I'm saying is that those of us who play this game a lot can become more proficient in our virtual aircraft than most WW2 pilots were in their real ones simply because we can practice any situation as often as we like and explore the very edge of the flight envelope at any point without consequence whilst the real pilots back then simply didn't have that luxury. (As a result people also tend to fly a lot more aggressively/recklessly in flight sims than what was actually done in real life)

 

As an example the average Me262 pilot got 1 hours worth of instruction before his first flight in the type, and barely a couple of hours worth of actual flying under his belt before being sent directly into combat. Needless to say you couldn't expect anyone to become particularly proficient in any type of aircraft in such a short space of time.

 

Meanwhile we simmers can simply load up a any imaginable scenario that we desire and practice our gunnery and flying until we've figured out all the best possible methods of approach to any given scenario.

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What @Panthera is saying is absolutely correct. Putting aside that actual combat pilots have attested to not knowing half of the contents of In Pursuit (a digital combat aviation text book, for those not in the know), if you go look at actual guncam footage, people are not getting shot down doing wacky maneuvers. Even reading descriptions of dogfights of written reports it can be seen that BoS doesn't really do a very good job of simulating actual conditions. Which is fine, but just because a plane can do something, doesn't mean the pilot would ever risk doing it, or have the strength to do it. People forget, G-force, stick force, and that something as simple as a stall at the wrong time means, you could die, not just respawn, lol. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people want to imagine that proficiency in a game is the same thing as proficiency in real-world combat, fine. They can imagine what they want. Just don't expect anyone else to take them seriously.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

If people want to imagine that proficiency in a game is the same thing as proficiency in real-world combat, fine. They can imagine what they want. Just don't expect anyone else to take them seriously.

 

I don't think @Panthera made any claims about translating game experiences to the real world. 

 

9 hours ago, Panthera said:

As such were are bound to become more proficient in the aircraft than the majority of the pilots who got to fly it during the war, and as a result we will also end up flying a lot more aggressively in general, in any of the WW2 fighters, than the real pilots did.

 

This is entirely correct. Virtual pilots can easily build up experience in predictable, repeatable environments. After hundreds of victories in a virtual 262, it's very likely that I'd be more accurate than a real pilot that's only fired his guns in anger a handful of times. Needless to say, that does not mean that I'd be successful outside the game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, 'more proficient in the aircraft' is a very specific claim to make, since it suggests that 'the aircraft' is the same thing in both cases. It isn't, and that is all that needs to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure in good time we’ll see some different aircraft, sure I’d LIKE to see one in game, hell, any planes are good, but right now, with the projects that are ongoing, no way. The team seems very busy as it is, no point in making it harder on em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/13/2018 at 7:44 AM, AndyJWest said:

The thing is, 'more proficient in the aircraft' is a very specific claim to make, since it suggests that 'the aircraft' is the same thing in both cases. It isn't, and that is all that needs to be said.

 

But you're now making up a claim that was never made, and I'm not really sure why you feel the need to do this?

 

I'm pretty sure that for most people it's quite clear that flying a flight sim representation of an aircraft is not the same as flying the real thing, and I made that pretty clear too just incase someone misunderstood me the first time. 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Panthera said:

 

But you're now making up a claim that was never made. Why do you feel the need to do this?

 

I'm not making anything up. You wrote "As such were are bound to become more proficient in the aircraft than the majority of the pilots who got to fly it during the war". Ignoring the typo (we all make them, me included: I assume you mean we're not were) this statement only refers to one 'aircraft'. Or if it doesn't, what exactly is 'it' referring to? The virtual aircraft we sit in our comfortable chairs flying, or the actual thing that might kill you of its own volition if the enemy doesn't get you first? They aren't the same thing, and accordingly your attempt to compare 'proficiency' simply makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I'm not making anything up. You wrote "As such were are bound to become more proficient in the aircraft than the majority of the pilots who got to fly it during the war". Ignoring the typo (we all make them, me included: I assume you mean we're not were) this statement only refers to one 'aircraft'. Or if it doesn't, what exactly is 'it' referring to? The virtual aircraft we sit in our comfortable chairs flying, or the actual thing that might kill you of its own volition if the enemy doesn't get you first? They aren't the same thing, and accordingly your attempt to compare 'proficiency' simply makes no sense.

 

All your saying now is that you don't want to understand, you'd much rather willingly misinterpret what someone else writes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

All your saying now is that you don't want to understand, you'd much rather willingly misinterpret what someone else writes. 

 

I understood what you were trying to say. It is nonsense, since you can't equate proficiency sitting at a desk playing games with proficiency in flying a 6-tonne first-generation jet fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×