Jump to content

Dora or K4 - against Mustang D ?


Recommended Posts

On 3/2/2021 at 10:06 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I have always thought of the G6 late as the plane people are talking about when they say the 109 was outclassed late in the war.  Bulges all over the place.  Looks like a plane that has been modified beyond the capacity of the airframe. Significantly slower than the P-51amd any advantages were not enough to compensate for that.  The late war 109s and the 190D brought the balance back but way too late.

 

True or not true?  Would be interested in hearing from fans of the G6 Late since it was flying very late into into 44 with some probably lingering to 45.

G6 Late is tough against P51D, better pilot wins. Also against Yaks/LaGG it can hold it`s own if the fight has good circumstances. Great plane for late `43 and 44 scenarios.  Later Dora and K4 face much tougher foes like Spit XIV, Yak9U, Yak3 or even King Cobra.

On 3/1/2021 at 9:41 AM, [LeLv34]Lykurgos88 said:

Either way both these fighters are superior to Mustang at the moment. The biggest drawback of Mustang is its .50 cal machine guns that are next to useless with the current damage modeling. You have to hit the enemy with 10 bullets to make same kind of damage as 2 bullets from MG131 (13 mm). Most of the ammunition is also wasted because of poor gun placement. You can compensate this with convergence range, but this takes away your ability to lead long range shots (especially against bombers).

 

In conlusion: Fly Dora, engage MW-50 and destroy everything 😎👍

I kill your Dora with 50cal with one sec well placed burst, if I am able to get into 130m range. The 109 will soak up much more of 50cal just like 30cal with exception of pk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2021 at 2:06 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I have always thought of the G6 late as the plane people are talking about when they say the 109 was outclassed late in the war.  Bulges all over the place.  Looks like a plane that has been modified beyond the capacity of the airframe. Significantly slower than the P-51amd any advantages were not enough to compensate for that.  The late war 109s and the 190D brought the balance back but way too late.

 

True or not true?  Would be interested in hearing from fans of the G6 Late since it was flying very late into into 44 with some probably lingering to 45.

I always thought of the basic G6 as fitting the bill (for being outclassed) more. Without a speed boost, it has the degraded handling from extra weight and a pretty mediocre top speed for 1943. Both the Russians and Western Allies had equal or slightly superior planes; the Yak-9 and La-5 at low altitudes, the P-47 and Spitfire IX at high altitude. What held the P-47 back for much of '43 wasn't the plane itself, as much as poor high-level tactical doctrine.

 

I used to think things like the beulen and worse handling mattered... but now I don't. After much reading and evaluation of all kinds of history, I've concluded that everything revolves around the relatively dull and overlooked elements of war, much more than the materials people use to wage war.

 

An example of what I mean: the Aztecs were wiped out by the Spaniards. A superficial look at history will tell you it was because of horses and guns and steel armor. But the crux of the matter was that the Aztecs were fundamentally ill-equipped to fight along European standards. They didn't fight with group tactics; each warrior was in it for personal honor and glory. They lacked the discipline that had been drilled and beaten (literally) into European soldiers of that time. When their leaders were killed (which were easy for the Spaniards to identify, as they were carried into battle on ostentatious litters), they'd break and flee the field. That's how a tiny number of soldiers could defeat many, many more than their number. The steel and horses were a part of that. But not as large a part as most people assume. And then there's the whole other cultural matter of how the Aztecs were fatalistic and assumed they were destined to be conquered and destroyed, but that's beside the point.

 

Now, having said all the above, see any similarities in WWII?

 

Japanese fought for personal honor; they lacked effective group tactics (and radios with which to use them). The extreme material advantages of the Zero were wholly gone by the end of 1942, as Americans had adapted to use even statistically inferior planes to great effect. Even before we got the Hellcat and Corsair, we'd learned to compensate for the Zero's unrivaled agility. Once we got better planes, we just used the better tech mixed with the already good tactics to absolutely murderous effect. But tactics are the necessary foundation to any technology.

 

So, my really long-winded point is... even if the Germans had the 109K in 1943, it just would've delayed the inevitable. The Allies would've adapted and succeeded; through sheer force of numbers and/or high-quality group tactics and training. The fundamental problem the Germans had was twofold: inferior pilot training programs, and not enough fuel (which exacerbated training problems). No plane in the world, no incremental improvements brought to bear a little earlier, could ever change that.

 

So says I, opinionated and prone-to-going-off-on-a-tangent internet guy.

 

All that aside, the minor statistical changes between versions of the same plane do matter in a simulation. I think they just matter a whole lot less in real life.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2021 at 9:06 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I have always thought of the G6 late as the plane people are talking about when they say the 109 was outclassed late in the war.  Bulges all over the place.  Looks like a plane that has been modified beyond the capacity of the airframe. Significantly slower than the P-51amd any advantages were not enough to compensate for that.  The late war 109s and the 190D brought the balance back but way too late.

 

True or not true?  Would be interested in hearing from fans of the G6 Late since it was flying very late into into 44 with some probably lingering to 45.

 

I agree with @oc2209 on this.

 

Provided the G-6 late is fitted with MW-50, its hard to describe it as outclassed; its often able to make up for disparities in speed through its sheer rate of acceleration, climb rate and dive speed/acceleration. Although by late 1944 its rapidly becoming uncompetitive against the top line fighters like the Spitfire XIV, Tempest and to some extent P-51.

 

However by then, the Bf 109 K-4 was already coming through.

 

It's the early G-6 that was the least competitive due to the combination of degraded handling/performance compared to the earlier G-2 and F-4, while not having an increase in power output to help compensate. In fact when they reduced/limited the boost pressure due to engine reliability issues, it seemed at times the G-6 was less preferable over the F-4 for a while... so the DB 605 was a problematic engine at first but they did eventually find ways around these problems. The actual airframe, I think proved very resilient and useful - it lent itself well to mass production and had reliable mechanical sub-systems (minus the engine) - its greatest limitation being its limited capacity due to its small size.

 

It's really in the first half of 1944, when Germany is using the G-6 in large numbers without the MW50 against the high performing P-51 B/C/D that it looks the least competitive (although the G-6/AS series aircraft were quite capable but a specialised high alt. variant much fewer in number). It's also at that critical period that the Allies change tactics and start chasing down the Luftwaffe over home territory so... they pick their timing and they exploit the advantage to the full which weakened the '109's reputation here.

 

At its heart, its Germany's deteriorating situation on the battlefield and the fact the war hasn't been won that causes the need for a variant like the G-6 (requiring more armament, flexibility, simpler manufacturing) and in terms of materials supply that was affecting engine performance. Having shortages with key materials was also directly contributing to the engine's development not being able to maintain or up-rate performance to match the increase in drag/weight.

 

One last thing... which is easy to forget, is by 1944 it was a nine year old design so really the best way to overcome these limitations was always going to be a clean sheet and the fact is, it was very hard to replace it; as it got many of the basics right. So with all this in mind, I think it coped very well considering. Even the Spitfire, for all its fame and similar length of service; might struggle to claim such competitiveness over the length of its lifetime.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Flew an experiment last night based on this thread 1v1, a scenario I'm usually unsuccessful in. K4 Vs P51, 6000m, ~40% fuel in each, standard gun loadout, head to head. He managed to win the first two merges, taking head-on shots at me while I avoided for the most part. (he landed some hits in my left wing and stab.)

 

After the second merge I went into the vertical with an Immelmann which seemed to through the AI as I was immediately able to dive on his 6 and take him down. Because of my bad gunnery that took all of my belts to empty though :P I don't think I would have survived a 1v2 scenario.

 

Love the 109, what a beautiful beast she is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Do remember that a Mustang at 40% fuel load is probably quite close to a Bf109's full fuel load.

 

Yeh, well he still needed to fly all the way back to home base but I was just defending my airfield :P

 

There, I made it narrative.

 

Valid point though ;)

Edited by 40plus
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

At its heart, its Germany's deteriorating situation on the battlefield and the fact the war hasn't been won that causes the need for a variant like the G-6 (requiring more armament, flexibility, simpler manufacturing) and in terms of materials supply that was affecting engine performance. Having shortages with key materials was also directly contributing to the engine's development not being able to maintain or up-rate performance to match the increase in drag/weight.

 

One last thing... which is easy to forget, is by 1944 it was a nine year old design so really the best way to overcome these limitations was always going to be a clean sheet and the fact is, it was very hard to replace it; as it got many of the basics right.

 

All good points.

 

Specifically I agree that Germany's lack of access to certain materials (which Japan suffered from to an even more crippling degree) did inhibit their ability to build practical, advanced engines. They still, of course, tried many impractical designs. It'd be interesting to see just what the German aviation industry could've cooked up had they been able to pair their bewildering and wasteful--yet, strangely effective--research and development system with America's material wealth. I imagine the result would be actual flying saucers, powered by quad-coupled gyro-mounted engines. Or something.

 

Anyway, yes, another huge consideration is that the 109's old design and lack of modern amenities meant that it wasn't rookie-friendly. American planes were designed to allow average pilots to get a handful of kills in their career, and survive (ruggedness and/or top speed being crucial here). The 109, by contrast, was a plane that was easy to learn (sort of) but seemingly difficult to master. And survivability was never a high priority for the 109. Even the more rugged Fw-190, with its tricky stalling, couldn't be considered especially easy to excel in.

 

Using an unscientific, not-data-based mental exercise, I came up with the following summary: American planes were designed to allow, say, 5,000 average pilots to average 2 kills each. While the 109 design was more sink-or-swim and polarizing to pilots of differing abilities. In such a plane, maybe 1,000 talented pilots could average 10 kills each. The other 4,000 would be dead in their first 10 sorties, scoreless. The same end result in total enemies would be shot down; but the American way is sustainable, while the German is not.

 

The only way the German methods would've worked is if the UK or Russia had collapsed prior to '43. At that point Germany would be in such an advantageous strategic position, their inherent structural weaknesses wouldn't have been so easily exploited.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

All good points.

 

Specifically I agree that Germany's lack of access to certain materials (which Japan suffered from to an even more crippling degree) did inhibit their ability to build practical, advanced engines. They still, of course, tried many impractical designs. It'd be interesting to see just what the German aviation industry could've cooked up had they been able to pair their bewildering and wasteful--yet, strangely effective--research and development system with America's material wealth. I imagine the result would be actual flying saucers, powered by quad-coupled gyro-mounted engines. Or something.

 

I think you’re unaware of what they actually did develop. They designed and built top drawer, bleeding edge and very practical hardware.

 

Suffice to say that Germany’s problem wasn’t developing practical, top-drawer tech.

 

Of course you’re still correct to an extent - a problem that was corrected with Operation Paper-Clip.

Edited by Gambit21
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans overestimated their capabilities and underestimated ours.  They saw the US as a nation of shop keepers that could never fight well, and that while we were good at building Fords and Chevrolets, we could never build a proper air force before they had won the war in Europe.  The Japanese worked under the same premise.

 

Never believe your own propaganda.

 

Never.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

All good points.

 

Specifically I agree that Germany's lack of access to certain materials (which Japan suffered from to an even more crippling degree) did inhibit their ability to build practical, advanced engines. They still, of course, tried many impractical designs. It'd be interesting to see just what the German aviation industry could've cooked up had they been able to pair their bewildering and wasteful--yet, strangely effective--research and development system with America's material wealth. I imagine the result would be actual flying saucers, powered by quad-coupled gyro-mounted engines. Or something.

 

Anyway, yes, another huge consideration is that the 109's old design and lack of modern amenities meant that it wasn't rookie-friendly. American planes were designed to allow average pilots to get a handful of kills in their career, and survive (ruggedness and/or top speed being crucial here). The 109, by contrast, was a plane that was easy to learn (sort of) but seemingly difficult to master. And survivability was never a high priority for the 109. Even the more rugged Fw-190, with its tricky stalling, couldn't be considered especially easy to excel in.

 

Using an unscientific, not-data-based mental exercise, I came up with the following summary: American planes were designed to allow, say, 5,000 average pilots to average 2 kills each. While the 109 design was more sink-or-swim and polarizing to pilots of differing abilities. In such a plane, maybe 1,000 talented pilots could average 10 kills each. The other 4,000 would be dead in their first 10 sorties, scoreless. The same end result in total enemies would be shot down; but the American way is sustainable, while the German is not.

 

The only way the German methods would've worked is if the UK or Russia had collapsed prior to '43. At that point Germany would be in such an advantageous strategic position, their inherent structural weaknesses wouldn't have been so easily exploited.

 

It's not about practical design, it's about going the traightforward way, without having to grab deep into the box of tricks, to make their high-powered engines work. In the end, they'd achieve roughly the same power out of an engine that was basicly burning low octane moonshine.

 

The 109's issues weren't with survivability. It was a mid-30s raceplane with little consideration for anything else than a big motor strapped to a small airframe. They didn't have powerful enough engines to put more fancy commodities into aircraft back then. They'd only figure that out two to three years later.

The 109 also wasn't easy to learn and hard to master - if anything it was the other way round.

 

Nothing about the Fw 190's stall was tricky - don't stall and you're fine. In fact, the "tricky" stalling was used as an escape-maneuver, as it was an easy "on"/"off" maneuver, since the aircraft recovered by itself when doing the right thing. Just make sure you won't stall at low altitude, but that's an axiom to live by in any aircraft.

 

You're completely leaving out the matters of training and the kind of aerial warfare the aircraft is used in.

 

 

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Germans overestimated their capabilities and underestimated ours.  They saw the US as a nation of shop keepers that could never fight well, and that while we were good at building Fords and Chevrolets, we could never build a proper air force before they had won the war in Europe.  The Japanese worked under the same premise.

 

Never believe your own propaganda.

 

Never.

 

From a psychological standpoint, it would be interesting to know if the high command and top Nazis actually believed it themselves, or if they were at least semi-conscious about their delusions. It's not like they were all *dumb* people and it doesn't take much to figure out where the whole act is going, once all the american war-machinery (like Britain's and the still mostly unscathed USSR war-production) was getting up to speed.

 

The question is at which point they'd realize all was about to come to an end and so they'd consequently just enjoy their time in power as long as it could be maintained.

They knew their heads were going to be served on somebody's platter if they failed...

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I think you’re unaware of what they actually did develop. They designed and built top drawer, bleeding edge and very practical hardware.

 

Suffice to say that Germany’s problem wasn’t developing practical, top-drawer tech.

 

Of course you’re still correct to an extent - a problem that was corrected with Operation Paper-Clip.

 

Well, I didn't explicitly say what I assumed was obvious--that Germany couldn't build advanced engines in useful numbers. I know they were well ahead of the Allies in many fields, both on a conceptual and practical level.

 

But applying these designs to large scale production is another matter. That was where Germany could never compete. They knew this, and that was probably one of the reasons they engaged in so many absurd attempts to work around their industrial shortcomings with impractical concepts like the He-177 and many others.

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Nothing about the Fw 190's stall was tricky - don't stall and you're fine. In fact, the "tricky" stalling was used as an escape-maneuver, as it was an easy "on"/"off" maneuver, since the aircraft recovered by itself when doing the right thing. Just make sure you won't stall at low altitude, but that's an axiom to live by in any aircraft.

 

 

I kind of doubt an inadequately trained pilot circa '44 would have the confidence or presence of mind to use the intentional stall flick as an escape method. Veterans, yes. But veterans could also fly the 109.

 

The Luftwaffe's disintegration as an efficient fighting force wasn't because of its plane designs alone, and it wasn't because of its breakdown in training quality. It was a combination of the two.

 

Pre-war trained pilots could handle the 109 perfectly well. Then they got thinned out in the Battle of Britain. Gradual, steady losses from '40 to '43 eroded the quality further. By the time the death blow was delivered in '44, the Luftwaffe was already extremely brittle. Like the Japanese, it relied on a core of experienced pilots who survived by raw talent alone. Talent is rare. The tactical cohesion that people like Molders refined and encouraged prior to the war, was impossible to maintain as the war progressed. Impossible because of the inferior training replacements got.

 

American pilot training was more consistent in quality and allowed inexperienced pilots to avoid becoming useless fodder; helped along by resilient aircraft designs that immense industrial capacity could afford to indulge in. American (and Russian and British) tactical quality improved as the war progressed, while Japan and Germany's declined with each veteran's death. Never to be replaced even by small degrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The German underestimation of the USA wasn't their problem. Yes they did - but not that far. The speed with which the USA pumped out a powerful military from basically nothing in itself is as impressive an act as Germany's lightning victory in France 1940 - so that this ability was underestimated by the Germans is hardly surprising. Yet they were aware of US industrial power. And being racist through and through they attributed propably good fighting abilities to the Americans based on the fact, that many were of Germanic or Celtic descent.

 

And it seems clear that the Germans also were well aware that they'd lose a war of attrition - hence the whole military was tuned to a quick decisive victory.

 

The Nazi leadership made decision on a lot of wrong assumptions - but that can also be said for most decisionmakers during WWII.

 

So of the many strategic blunders of Nazi Germany the two I think were the most decisive:

 

1st ignoring the British threat of war in case of an invasion of Poland without the slightest idea of how to defeat Britain.

 

2nd Seriously underestimating the Soviet will and capability to fight (due to racist ideology and bad intelligence) and thusly assuming a quick victory in the east was possible.

 

Everything else are nuances in comparison - and these two wrong assumptions explain many others.

Basically ignoring the British from '41 to invade the Soviet Union? Makes sense when you believe that you'll have soviet ressources and production centres out of british reach available to fight this war against Britain that you'll otherwise lose.

Declaring war on the US? Firstly due to the convoy situation in the Atlantic it's mostly making it public anyways. Secondly in 42 the Soviet will definitly fall - so againn yummi ressources!

 

And due to this bad strategy we have so many impressive feats on a tactical or technical level:

Hartmann: No fighter pilot should ever have the opportunity to shoot down 352 enemies unless something went really wrong.

Rudel: Sending one pilot on more than 2000 combat serious sorties a sign of desperation.

V2, Jetengines, Panther tank: Pressed into service very early because available good equipment wasn't enough and only a technological edge was the only advantage that could still be hoped for.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things I'd like to add which I think influenced Germany's production and pilot training programs but also in a general sense:

 

- Ideologically the Nazi's opposed mass production in the truest, capitalist sense and declare this - they resent the American way of capitalism and are socialists (racist socialists) and believe that the workforce in the factory should be mainly well supported, skilled craftsmen. Mass production is all about minimising the need for high-end craftmanship by individuals and focusing on machines and tooling to reduce time consuming tasks and bring repeatability and speed. The idea of "taking away" these skills from their workers doesn't sit well with their ideology - unless of course the workers are not Nazi's - by which they end up using forced then slave labour. The irony is that in order to compete under the enormous pressure on several fronts they end up needing people like Albert Speer to then engage in trying to mimick certain methods of mass production... as they cannot possibly compete in output to countries that are.... using mass production techniques.

 

- Resources were always scarce for the Nazi's because they controlled the prices of goods (state control / intervention) therefore you never know the value of anything because its not dictated by the market conditions and not determined through the economic principles of supply/demand. This is also why its hard to evaluate how sound certain logistical decisions were (in their actual circumstances), because no one knew the real market cost of steel, rubber, ammunition or food - so how do you allocate it efficiently? you would have to ask every unit in the army, airforce and every household etc how much short they are - and they're still going to lie because there's rationing - there's a war going on!

 

- Pilot attrition is a problem for the Luftwaffe, but what makes it worse is that pilots are not rotated with much rest time; the doctrine is often to keep Luftwaffe pilots in-service till they're wounded or dead - this is in part because there is never enough of them and they're often being moved around. In the RAF and USAAF (broadly speaking) pilots were much more often able to recuperate and in some cases could fit in training flights between the days of big missions... the Luftwaffe was often operating round the clock by 1944 and doing 3 or 4 sorties a day was not uncommon for a fighter pilot. Also, there was a Prussian psyche element in here, they always wanted maximum strength fielded; which meant they kept throwing newer and newer pilots into combat squadrons with fewer and fewer hours rather than developing them first to gain a decent level of proficiency. Most of their new pilots in 1944 did not have any instrument rating, only the most basic of hours on the type's they flew and neither were they given much gunnery training; which lets them down in combat situations where things get intense and situational awareness is lost quickly.

 

- Next one you probably wouldn't think of... the T-6 'Texan'. A significant advantage for the US was this trainer aircraft specifically designed to bridge the gap between light trainers (mainly biplanes) and higher performance monoplane fighters. The most important aspect of it is that it was built to deliberately mimic the negative traits you get with high performance aircraft - some torque, prop wash, trim conditions, somewhat difficult to master in aerobatics. That's why today its still the standard aircraft you are trained to fly before getting into warbirds... for good reason. Germany had some light training aircraft like the Arado 96, but much fewer and arguably not as effective in teaching how to handle difficult flight characteristics. The T-6 teaches pilots the in's and outs but most importantly pitfalls - and develops some muscle memory with a mid-powered tail dragger. This didn't stop the US having many, many thousands of accidents during training and general flight (Germany wasn't much if at all better), but the T-6 did help US pilots develop skills that were going to make for very effective pilots and that increasingly mattered as the war went on and attrition set in.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, oc2209 said:

I kind of doubt an inadequately trained pilot circa '44 would have the confidence or presence of mind to use the intentional stall flick as an escape method. Veterans, yes. But veterans could also fly the 109.

 

It's not about confidence or presence of mind - it's more of a dogmatic approach to things. Like "when attacked, dive away", which stopped working with the appearance of the P-47 and has caused several pilot's bums to be kicked. There are a couple of pilots - many of them not being from the early-war cadre - who talked about this trick and since it's relatively easy to perform with little exercising necessary (stall the airplane, and release backpressure on the stick), it's not a hard thing to do under pressure. Certainly better than having to actively fly and fight your way out of the same situation. In fact, it's a pretty good trick to teach inexperienced pilots, because it doesn't rely on their training, as the airplane mostly does the work for them.

 

Veterens pranged the 109 just as much as the others. They usually just had more hours in-between their incidents.

The 109 will bust yout butt, as it's just waiting for a moment of inattention. You can always argue this will only happen when you've made a mistake (which is true for any incident), but the set of mistakes that can bust you is larger for the 109 and the margins are a bit thinner than on other airplanes. That's the whole secret behind the 109's handling qualities.

 

6 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The Luftwaffe's disintegration as an efficient fighting force wasn't because of its plane designs alone, and it wasn't because of its breakdown in training quality. It was a combination of the two.

 

The real breakdown of training quality happened in 1944 (which is relatively late). Before, the new pilots had deficits, but most could compensate by hanging on. Their losses weren't that much higher than pilots on the other side (say, the RAF), since to a certain degree surviving the first couple of missions were down to factors outside of a pilot's control, as he didn't have any idea what to look for and react to.

Keep in mind that there was no BFM training back in the day.

 

6 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Pre-war trained pilots could handle the 109 perfectly well.

 

They would also prang the kite fairly regularily, which they did. Some were killed, some were not.

The 109's handling issues were not a thing you could just train away. You had to conquer these on any take-off and on any landing. If you had a good technique, you'd probaly get away with it without much trouble, but many people didn't and the slightest inattention or mishandling could send you on a trip you had no control over.

The step up to the 109 was a big thing for new pilots. Always.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Mass production is all about minimising the need for high-end craftmanship by individuals and focusing on machines and tooling to reduce time consuming tasks and bring repeatability and speed.

Toyota doesn't agree with you. But they are not American, I give you that.

 

1 hour ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Resources were always scarce for the Nazi's because they controlled the prices of goods (state control / intervention) therefore you never know the value of anything because its not dictated by the market conditions and not determined through the economic principles of supply/demand. 

Thieves always know the value of things and always have. It is the core expertise they have. Trust me.

 

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

This is also why its hard to evaluate how sound certain logistical decisions were (in their actual circumstances), because no one knew the real market cost of steel, rubber, ammunition or food - so how do you allocate it efficiently?

In an all out war, the market is usually not functioning. Hence you have no free market and ignoring that will get you killed. A market requires a choice. In war, you don't. If you need ALL and EVERYTHING of certain goods for your little war, the price of that or these goods are simply the amount of money you can pay, leaving you no money for other things. For the simple reason that the vendor can ask for this because you have no alternative. You can on the other hand have some dudes knock on the vendors door at 4 am and then those goods cost nothing anymore, an offer the other guy couldn't refuse before he went up the chimney. So what is the price?

 

The USA was about the only country at that time with a somewhat functioning economy, hence you could calculate in $. As for the rest, the only profitable thing would have been to surrender. Then again, it's maybe your way up the chimney. I guess it's not so good then to be profitable.

 

It is not really productive to use standards of what worked for the USA on other countries during that time, although it is commonly done.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Toyota doesn't agree with you. But they are not American, I give you that.

 

Well, Toyota is a pretty exceptional example and like with all Japanese firms and (until very recently); its culture for a long time has promoted working extreme hours to make that very system of excellence and mass manufacture actually work together in such a way. Most people would not tolerate working 80 hours of overtime a month to justify getting by. I think they're more the exception than the rule... but a good point none the less. I'm trying to simplify things here, the Nazi's believed strongly in polar opposite ideas to the US and this played out very clearly. One was clearly a far superior system than the other in terms of production; that's why the US was able to supply not only itself generously but also the UK and the Soviet Union as well.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Thieves always know the value of things and always have. It is the core expertise they have. Trust me.

 

Haha fair enough. They also manipulate the price of things, which upsets the market dynamics needed to allocate resources in an efficient way.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

In an all out war, the market is usually not functioning. Hence you have no free market and ignoring that will get you killed. A market requires a choice. In war, you don't. If you need ALL and EVERYTHING of certain goods for your little war, the price of that or these goods are simply the amount of money you can pay, leaving you no money for other things. For the simple reason that the vendor can ask for this because you have no alternative. You can on the other hand have some dudes knock on the vendors door at 4 am and then those goods cost nothing anymore, an offer the other guy couldn't refuse before he went up the chimney. So what is the price?

 

The USA was about the only country at that time with a somewhat functioning economy, hence you could calculate in $. As for the rest, the only profitable thing would have been to surrender. Then again, it's maybe your way up the chimney. I guess it's not so good then to be profitable.

 

It is not really productive to use standards of what worked for the USA on other countries during that time, although it is commonly done.

 

Interesting points, yes - its hard to compare like for like because they are different circumstances... you're right there. Markets aren't functioning normally in the sense of peacetime because they are geared to war production... true; but there are still economic dynamics going on and Germany didn't start full wartime (around the clock) production in the same sense the Allies did till 1942.

 

You're also quite right that US factories were not being threatened and were therefore insulated, but then again the US was still recovering from the great depression like so many other countries around that time - so you have to ask the question how they did that.

 

Economies do still exist and function in wartime in terms of productivity and incentivisation. If you award a contract to a firm for a given price, and you can find credible ways to incentivise and link the workers performance to output then you're naturally going to promote higher productivity than by capturing people in a manipulated socialist system; then looting tools and equipment from captured factories; beating people with (metaphorical and physical) sticks until they either do what you say or then cause sabotage or indifference to the situation around them.

 

The truth is Germany had available to it some of the largest factories in the world after its invasions in 1940; including Skoda and Renault and others - which could have been used to outproduce the Allies - so they were at times very inefficient in allocating resources. They were failing to outproduce Britain in aircraft production by July - August of 1940... that early on. That's despite aircraft like the Bf 109 being easier to produce.

 

So it's not that they can't - they are just not interested in furthering anything or anyone that does not support their supposedly "best" people - its still an ideological (racist) problem and they are trying to manipulate and control things including the economics in order to centralise control and benefit from it disproportionately.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
Link to post
Share on other sites

People often assume the militaristic Nazi government turned Germany into a full blown war economy ASAP - which simply isn’t true. And it was socialist only by name - it stayed a market run economy quite long. In a short war (the only kind Germany planned for) you you don’t need a war economy - you win or lose with your available pre war equipment basically. 
 

Only after Stalingrad Germany mobilised her economy - after it was absolutely clear, that a swift victory in the east won‘t happen.
 

that in itself is quite telling I think

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

its still an ideological (racist) problem and they are trying to manipulate and control things including the economics in order to centralise control and benefit from it disproportionately.

What they say is one thing. What they do is another. Always look at what somebody does, not just what they say. Helps with judging politicians as well. Always has.

 

I would just add that for instance Koppenberg out McKinseyed the entire competition, national and international, to become one of the main players in the German aviation industry. Only Messerschmitt (due to political ties) and FockeWulf could somewhat resist. Most other companies were devoured by Junkers and economically gutted. Koppenberg did that by offering simple one-size-fits-all (see F-35) solutions and providing leaflets with colored(!) charts to make even the dimmest bulb in the RLM understand what the point of his fabricated numbers were.

 

Needless to say, they loved Koppenberg at the RLM. You wanted an answer at the RLM, Koppenberg had one for you. Koppenberg was the best American salesman under the sun at that time. You know, that child of a Kindelberger actually cared about building his own aircarft. Imagine that. But as we know, by now Lockheed and Boeing have grown up too. Killing the competition by making them contract manufacturers killed the ability to make their own designs, a danger that Antony Fokker was extremely aware of thirty years before and hence flat out refused to produce Albatros etc. types in his shop. In contrast to the Americans who could view contact building as a mere logistic issue once you know your trade (they could just call the bulldozers and build a new plant, hire new staff without any interference to their current design teams) while the Germans didn't have that luxury. Hence about half of the aviation industry consolidated under Koppenberg. THAT is mass production. AND you eat your competition.

 

The British had to scheme in a much more childish way, for instance RR screwing Napier at very turn out of sheer principle, and who cared that it hurt the war effort. Koppenberg on the other hand actually built a lot of stuff. The Germans were so American, even the Americans didn't (and still don't) understand it.

 

At the time, the Germans say they care about their workers, but they don't. They say they want local highly skilled workers, but in fact staffed their floors with foreign slaves. They make promises in colored brochures yet are not really keen on any form of liability. What else do you want? Thinking of Junkers' production, an American owned sweatshop in Tijuana comes to mind. It might be small, but it mass produces the pair of sneakers you are wearing.

 

Think of the German (aviation) industry as of what Ayn Rands would have imagined her most deregulated enterprise to be. Her wet dream. Her end game. (Wait, that was when she was (at least morally) defrauding public funding when she had cancer and took social health service to treat her. So it's gonna be her second most beloved idea then.) You have only one buyer though, but he wants to buy more than you can make, and that is your one and only problem. You really have to understand that a company not necessarily shares the same interests as you might have, as dire as your problem might be. Even though they are producing the goods you ordered. And this happens here and there. Then and now.

 

/end of sarcasm.

 

 

 

As for the OP's question, I'd go with the 190D-9/12. This for the simple reason that it is a well balanced aircraft to fly, not a brute like the later 109. You know, you actually have to fly the aircraft and it is easier to make much with a well balanced aircraft. Then again, I'd rather don't fight at all if I had the option.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

What they say is one thing. What they do is another. Always look at what somebody does, not just what they say. Helps with judging politicians as well. Always has.

 

Yeah I'm not saying that socialism (of any kind) actually works. I'm just saying that was their ideology and what they preached - in practice it was a totalitarian state of course under a dictatorship and they tried to assimilate many different things to try and make it work.

 

---

 

From a piloting perspective I do get why people like the Focke Wulf's - lower stick forces, easier ground / takeoff handling, higher roll rate, better all round visibility and armament.

 

Makes sense, just I think it was too complicated a design for Germany to rely upon in the way some people think it could have been (which the Germans themselves seemed to assess from trying to build and operate them) especially after the issues with the BMW 801 and the A Series lack of high altitude performance which became a major disadvantage in an air war moving to higher altitudes.

 

The Dora however (I can't put my finger on why), it just doesn't seem to meet expectations in-game as I feel it would have done in real life. No doubt about it - it was an outstanding aircraft and was known for having decent handling qualities so... there's something missing there I feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It's not about confidence or presence of mind - it's more of a dogmatic approach to things.

 

They would also prang the kite fairly regularily, which they did. Some were killed, some were not.

The 109's handling issues were not a thing you could just train away. You had to conquer these on any take-off and on any landing. If you had a good technique, you'd probaly get away with it without much trouble, but many people didn't and the slightest inattention or mishandling could send you on a trip you had no control over.

The step up to the 109 was a big thing for new pilots. Always.

 

 

 

When I say 'presence of mind' I'm referring to totally raw pilots. I'm saying that most of those would simply freeze for a few seconds when fired upon. I've read so many combat reports (American) that state the target aircraft made no evasive attempts after being fired on. The pilot or controls couldn't have been hit every time. I expect many of those were simply rookies who froze in combat. It happens on the ground, and I'm sure it happens in the air. Especially at the absolute nadir of Luftwaffe training quality.

 

While it pales in comparison to reality, I think it's worth mentioning here. The first time I was fired on in multiplayer, it was a bounce because I was busy looking at my instruments and trying to figure out where I was going (much like many novices in reality, I wager). I was in a Dora. Before I even knew what I was doing, sometime between thinking 'oh fudge' and 'fudge fudge fudge', I instantly pushed the stick to the left and rolled. My attacker luckily made only one pass at me, and I was able to land with the damage I'd incurred.

 

My point is that, even in a game, even with nothing on the line, even with 1000+ hours in flight sims in my life (99% of that versus AI), I still kind of panicked and didn't do anything very smart. I can well imagine how someone would react in reality, with much less fake experience than myself.

 

As for the 109, I have an account I consider pretty telling. It's a modern pilot who flew one of the post war Spanish 109s. So yes, not perfectly equal in handling, but the ground behavior I expect was largely similar.

 

He and his sons put 150 combined flights into it; he himself 45. The only time he was afraid of a mishap was when he was landing in a perfect (heavy) crosswind, on grass, and hit a dip in the runway that briefly launched his 109 off the ground. Nothing bad happened, but it was a little dicey.

 

On concrete, he said that after a (landing) roll of about 200 feet, it would sometimes violently dart one way or the other. He'd use full opposite rudder and brake. After 2 or 3 sashays, it'd be down to 60-70 knots, and then roll straight for the rest of the run.

 

Now, I consider that pretty much the extent of just how bad it could be on the ground. This pilot was a lifetime flier, and had flown other famous WWII planes (Mustang, Hellcat, many others). So in other words, the very pinnacle of experience level. His overall synopsis was that the 109 could give you some spooks, but wasn't as bad as he was expecting from its reputation. He actually enjoyed taking off in it.

 

Once again, as I mention above, I can imagine a total rookie freezing when the darting happens. Freezing for just one second and failing to apply the rudder. Boom, ground loop. So yes, a pain in the ass, but once you expect it, I can't imagine it being that daunting. No worse than the Spitfire, I wager. Except I doubt as many completely raw recruits were put into the Spitfire with as little training as mid-end war Luftwaffe pilots were put into 109s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I finally got around to testing the thread topic. For various reasons I haven't flown for the last 8-9 days (which is long for me).

 

I gave the AI P-51s extra ammo, 2/3 fuel load, 150 octane. Ace setting. 2v4, my one wingman also an ace. Starting altitude 3,000m, but that doesn't matter at all since I'd always drag the AI down to the dirt. Since the OP explicitly mentioned single player, we needn't consider how a human enemy would react to my crude manipulations.

 

After getting shot down/fatal engine damage a few times each, I finally got warmed up and finished two clean sorties. With the 109, I got 3 kills and a damaged. With the 190D, 2 kills and a damaged.

 

The 109 attempts were easier for me. Twice while pursuing a target in the 190D, I stalled in a turn and flipped over. Annoying. A good 190 pilot wouldn't, of course, fly it exactly as they'd fly a 109 (which is what I do, because I'm fundamentally not a good pilot), so take that as you will.

 

20210306153807_1.thumb.jpg.1f168db89eef84e0784b051166cf160b.jpg

 

Useless wingman was dead by this point, so the real fight was 3v1. Queue up!

 

After all of that, I decided to try my own test. Yak-9 versus P-51s, same settings as above. In one attempt, I got 4 kills. Wingman survived. 3 of those kills were after I lost my right horizontal stabilizer to an exploded P-51's wing.

 

20210306155739_1.thumb.jpg.21f41bade57a56e6ad8cbaee8e818bc4.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2021 at 5:59 PM, Aurora_Stealth said:

From a piloting perspective I do get why people like the Focke Wulf's - lower stick forces, easier ground / takeoff handling, higher roll rate, better all round visibility and armament.

 

Makes sense, just I think it was too complicated a design for Germany to rely upon in the way some people think it could have been (which the Germans themselves seemed to assess from trying to build and operate them) especially after the issues with the BMW 801 and the A Series lack of high altitude performance which became a major disadvantage in an air war moving to higher altitudes.

 

The Dora however (I can't put my finger on why), it just doesn't seem to meet expectations in-game as I feel it would have done in real life. No doubt about it - it was an outstanding aircraft and was known for having decent handling qualities so... there's something missing there I feel.

For this reason I like FW190 threads. The local history buffs described multiple times what was the Focke Wulf experience in opposition to the 109. There are many great explanations on this forum on why the 190 was just a better plane overall. From what I took away, ingame we notice maybe a 3rd of features that 190 benefitted the pilot over the 109.

 

It mirrored many times on my personal experience with 190 being the regular 109 virtual pilot. I never loved the 190 and getting it in mission felt like having a bad hand, though when I actually was able to use it the way 190 jocks described, I got home safely and with a few kills. It`s a different flying philosophy, even from a simple gamer standpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

I never loved the 190 and getting it in mission felt like having a bad hand, though when I actually was able to use it the way 190 jocks described, I got home safely and with a few kills. It`s a different flying philosophy, even from a simple gamer standpoint.

 

I believe very much in pilot philosophy and the individual attitude changes required for each plane (but that still doesn't mean I'm willing to change). 

 

The complexity inherent to the decision making process in combat is quite interesting, if you think about it. There are 4 simultaneous streams of separate consciousness (in a manner of speaking) competing in a pilot's mind at any given moment:

 

1) The pilot's innate tendencies.

2) The pilot's training.

3) The pilot's experience.

4) The airplane's requirements; the pilot's perception thereof.

 

When all of the above can be streamlined into one coherent thought process, you have a dominant ace-level pilot. When thoughts and reactions conflict, you have a loss of piloting efficiency.

 

None of us have training, unless we watch YouTube videos or something. Most of us default to 1 and 3 as the dominant forces in our minds. It takes extra effort to hone points 2 and 4.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the dream would be the G-10 but the D-9 would do just fine as well as the K-4.

@oc2209 speak for yourself - we all have training! I hope you are keeping track of your mistakes when you get shot down (be it vs AI or human), I know I am!

 

The one thing I can tell you and all the aces here will is this... IT ALWAYS DEPENDS ON THREE THINGS

  • Seeing the enemy first.
  • Putting yourself in the most advantageous position to be on the offensive before the merge.
  • Staying on the offensive throughout the engagement.

Everything else is just conversation.

Edited by JG7_X-Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2021 at 2:41 AM, [LeLv34]Lykurgos88 said:

The worst aspects of Kurfurst are poor roll rate

 

In conlusion: Fly Dora, engage MW-50 and destroy everything 😎👍

I would just say the 109s roll rate is okay, not poor. It can still handle a rolling scissors fight perfectly well and maneuver with them, at high speeds they definitely get slow but the application of high speed roll rate is pretty rare

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

@oc2209 speak for yourself - we all have training! I hope you are keeping track of your mistakes when you get shot down (be it vs AI or human), I know I am!

 

The one thing I can tell you and all the aces here will is this... IT ALWAYS DEPENDS ON THREE THINGS

  • Seeing the enemy first.
  • Putting yourself in the most advantageous position to be on the offensive before the merge.
  • Staying on the offensive throughout the engagement.

Everything else is just conversation.

 

You're ignoring individual psychological makeup and capabilities/limitations when you break combat success down to 3 simple rules. If it were as simple as following 3 rules, there would've been a lot more aces than there were. I believe there are more variables in the equation.

 

Yes, the rules you listed are important--under the assumption the skill and experience level of the participants are nearly equal and very high, and that they instinctively know what to do and when to do it. At that point it's like perfect machines fighting. Imagine a novice swimmer watching Michael Phelps to study his technique. 99.99% of swimmers will never swim as well, or better, than Phelps. Study him all you want, and it won't happen. He has unique qualities that, when enhanced by intense training, combined to make him what he is. Natural talent by itself will only get you so far; training by itself will only get you so far.

 

For the majority of pilots in real life, impulses of the moment and personal flying style (what they're comfortable with) would dictate their actions. Sometimes training would kick in; other times not. Sometimes an overly rigid adherence to how you were trained might be catastrophic, depending on the quality of the training and the kind of enemy you're facing.

 

Most often this high degree of variability would result in death or at least being hit, when confronted by a superior enemy; or an adequately skilled but very lucky enemy. Luck is always in play: why someone zigs when they could've zagged. How a formation shatters after being bounced, like billiard balls after a break. 

 

Reducing variability by following certain rules is a sensible route... but it's also not a replacement for raw talent.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of you are not talking about the same thing. 

5 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:
  • Seeing the enemy first.
  • Putting yourself in the most advantageous position to be on the offensive before the merge.
  • Staying on the offensive throughout the engagement.

This describes how the engagement is

 

6 hours ago, oc2209 said:

1) The pilot's innate tendencies.

2) The pilot's training.

3) The pilot's experience.

4) The airplane's requirements; the pilot's perception thereof.

This discribes who is more likely to win. 
 

Experience, talent and training determine who sees the enemy first, wether a tactical advantage can be achieved before combat and if it can be maintained. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Okay, I finally got around to testing the thread topic. For various reasons I haven't flown for the last 8-9 days (which is long for me).

 

I gave the AI P-51s extra ammo, 2/3 fuel load, 150 octane. Ace setting. 2v4, my one wingman also an ace. Starting altitude 3,000m, but that doesn't matter at all since I'd always drag the AI down to the dirt. Since the OP explicitly mentioned single player, we needn't consider how a human enemy would react to my crude manipulations.

 

After getting shot down/fatal engine damage a few times each, I finally got warmed up and finished two clean sorties. With the 109, I got 3 kills and a damaged. With the 190D, 2 kills and a damaged.

 

The 109 attempts were easier for me. Twice while pursuing a target in the 190D, I stalled in a turn and flipped over. Annoying. A good 190 pilot wouldn't, of course, fly it exactly as they'd fly a 109 (which is what I do, because I'm fundamentally not a good pilot), so take that as you will.

 

20210306153807_1.thumb.jpg.1f168db89eef84e0784b051166cf160b.jpg

 

Useless wingman was dead by this point, so the real fight was 3v1. Queue up!

 

After all of that, I decided to try my own test. Yak-9 versus P-51s, same settings as above. In one attempt, I got 4 kills. Wingman survived. 3 of those kills were after I lost my right horizontal stabilizer to an exploded P-51's wing.

 

20210306155739_1.thumb.jpg.21f41bade57a56e6ad8cbaee8e818bc4.jpg

 

i tried this myself too. me, one ace AI wingman vs 4 AI ace p 51s. 40% fuel, 150 oct and extra ammo for 51.

my spawn altitude 3000m. enemy 4000m 5km away. face to face.

3rd edit: map was rheinland, winter 1944-45. ( not sure if 51s have g suit here)

 

 

first with k4. (dc engine 90%fuel)

1st try: could not shoot anyone, got killed.

2nd try: my wingman was handling 3 51s himself so i managed to shoot down the lonely one and rushed to help my wingman.

We managed to shoot two more (2 kills for my wingman, we both shot at the 51s tho) We did not manage to find the last one.

3rd try: again my wingman does well and very quickly gots one kill. now i manage to get 2 off his tail.  again we lost the last one.

4th try: me and my wingman quickly kill 3 51s but crash into each other while tailing the last one.

 

K4 felt nimble and i was able to use high climb rate to my advantage. AI lets u have plenty of time to counter their actions between attacks. 30mm was annoing at long range and i had to get quite close. 13mm were good enough to damage 51s so that they are out of the fight or stall in hard turns and crash.

 

D9. (90% fuel)  i tried 3 times. 51s did not manage to kill me (edit: sorry, they got me once in headon. elevator snapped off) but they got my wingman once.  Did not manage to kill all 4 51s as they would run away at some point.

(maybe out of ammo or something)

 

Fights felt longer and i did not feel like having any edge in plane performance. AI attacks are just super easy to avoid and all fights were me running, making te AI overshoot his attack and then quickly cople hits to hims so he is out. repeat this till all mustangs are dead or u cant find them. guns felt better at long range, effective enough and plenty of ammo.

 

 

it was easier to be agressive and attack with k4. superior climb rate lets u turn tables with climbing spiral.

 

D9 i was just constantly defensive.

 

I would recommend K4.

 

2nd edit: 4th try with d9. 51s did split 2 for me and 2 for my wingman. managed to kill 2 then rushed to help my wingman. killed both 51s he was fighting. so all 4 51s dead. 

AI was definitely better with k4. not sure uf the AI D9 managed to get any kills.

 

 

Edited by Mollotin
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2021 at 6:27 AM, esk_pedja said:

Strenghts are ...


Let me reply to this one. Let's look at the numbers, top speed and climb rate.

 

Both K4 and P51 have similar top speeds below 6000m with K4 being a bit faster. But, K4 has a GIGANTIC climb advantage over Mustang. Which means it can outclimb it very quickly and easily if they merge at the same alt/energy. Moreover, K4 outclimbs anything in this game with a HUGE margin. The only chance for P51 is to have an energy advantage or hang over at 8500m where it is slightly (but only slightly) faster. 

 

At the same time D9 is much closer to P51, it is faster below 5500, and is slower above, climb rates are comparable. Overall, P51 and Dora are very close airframes in terms of performance.

 

TLDR: K4 is an magic uber-helicopter that outclimbs even Me163 (if it was modelled in the game). So go for K4 if you can.

 

p51k4.png

p51d9.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the P-51 always have G-suit abilities built in? Pulling G's seems to be a variable. I'd set up two K4 or D9 vs four P-51's, and when pressing an attack after stacking the deck with some vertical separation, I was surprised to see over 5 G's on the G meter in the UI (I'm a yank -- my brain can't comprehend km/h! :)) as the P-51's tried to force an overshoot. I'm still flying earlier career planes, and pulling 4 G's seems like it writes a pretty big check from the physiology bank. the K4, D9, and P-51 are just monster planes.

 

It was handy having an AI wingman. For one go of two K9's vs four P-51's, three P-51's latched on to the wingman's tail. I zipped in to clear his tail. It literally was a blob of P-51's in the gunsight. Can't miss with a 30mm.

 

-Ryan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Dora, but like all 190 it lives from keeping its speed up and using that against the enemy, which is fine for A3 - A5, but an A8 or D9 is gonna have a bad time trying to achieve a speed advantage against something like a Mustang or Tempest

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

You're ignoring individual psychological makeup and capabilities/limitations when you break combat success down to 3 simple rules. If it were as simple as following 3 rules, there would've been a lot more aces than there were. I believe there are more variables in the equation.

 

Yes, the rules you listed are important--under the assumption the skill and experience level of the participants are nearly equal and very high, and that they instinctively know what to do and when to do it. At that point it's like perfect machines fighting. Imagine a novice swimmer watching Michael Phelps to study his technique. 99.99% of swimmers will never swim as well, or better, than Phelps. Study him all you want, and it won't happen. He has unique qualities that, when enhanced by intense training, combined to make him what he is. Natural talent by itself will only get you so far; training by itself will only get you so far.

 

For the majority of pilots in real life, impulses of the moment and personal flying style (what they're comfortable with) would dictate their actions. Sometimes training would kick in; other times not. Sometimes an overly rigid adherence to how you were trained might be catastrophic, depending on the quality of the training and the kind of enemy you're facing.

 

Most often this high degree of variability would result in death or at least being hit, when confronted by a superior enemy; or an adequately skilled but very lucky enemy. Luck is always in play: why someone zigs when they could've zagged. How a formation shatters after being bounced, like billiard balls after a break. 

 

Reducing variability by following certain rules is a sensible route... but it's also not a replacement for raw talent.

LOL Dude I am talking about our video game! 

It has been my observation that those who talk about how to survive combat have never lived it. :mellow:

 

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

P51 has G suit from mission date Oct 2, 1944 onward,  I do believe.

 

September 2, 1944

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The first impressions from your opinions is that Dora has better "spraying" area in gunsight / K4 is less sensitive to unpredicted spin and rolls in dogfight.

 

Due to numerical inferiority, which one suffers less speed-loss in evading maneuvers ?

:wacko:

 

Edited by esk_pedja
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

 

 

Due to numerical inferiority, which one suffers less speed-loss in evading maneuvers ?

:wacko:

 

 

Depends on maneuver but i would say D9. Is it relevant tho?  i used to let the AI 51s overshoot me and then get to their 6 so some speed loss is good.

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

 

Depends on maneuver but i would say D9. Is it relevant tho?  i used to let the AI 51s overshoot me and then get to their 6 so some speed loss is good.

Tell me about it...😉   I like that with A8, with 1-3 seconds remaining to "spray and pray" before P-51 leaves  me behind in USAAF "gun and run" tactics

 

...apparently expecting he's wingman to finish me off... If you are damn fast and numerically superior, you don't have one single reason to get stuck in dogfight

 

( Copy of Pacific tactics, regarded as "unfair" by desperate Zero pilots, eager for dogfight )

☹️

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Both of you are not talking about the same thing.

 

Well, I do have a tendency to talk myself into circles.

 

What I'm really getting at here but failing to convey properly, is that in this game, most of us develop experience before we undergo anything like training. Therefore our natural habits combine with our experience to form our combat and flight style.

 

In real life, pilots gain combat experience after they train. They don't develop bad habits that they have to untrain like many of us have to do. Untraining is more difficult than training up a clean slate with a receptive mind. My mind is closed at this point in my virtual career. Old dogs and new tricks don't mix. 

 

2 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

The first impressions from your opinions is that Dora has better "spraying" area in gunsight / K4 is less sensitive to unpredicted spin and rolls in dogfight.

 

Due to numerical inferiority, which one suffers less speed-loss in evading maneuvers ?

 

 

I find the Dora retains speed very well on boost. The problem is Gs pulled with the extra speed. I like to cut throttle a lot during maneuvers to ease G loads. The 109 works better this way, in my opinion. The Dora is more suited to 'full bore' all the time. Since the boost seems to take an appreciable amount of time to kick in fully (it doesn't feel instantaneous like the 109 does from combat to emergency power), you don't want to micromanage the throttle as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

What I'm really getting at here but failing to convey properly, is that in this game, most of us develop experience before we undergo anything like training. Therefore our natural habits combine with our experience to form our combat and flight style.

 

Actually I think this is an interesting point, we do all have habits and it does effect how we perform in combat; whether we see that or not. And you can't always be an automaton and get the situation or optics right, sooner or later you find yourself in a disadvantageous situation. You hear this quite a lot in the memoirs about the various experten that Hartmann meets and learns through his time on the Eastern front. Everyone has their own fighting styles and habits.

 

I feel that the Bf 109 accommodates different fighting styles better (turn and burning, energy fighting etc), and it offers you that cushion to rely upon which is its lower speed / stall handling while the Fw 190 requires you to focus a lot on exploiting its roll performance and maintaining the speed. Once you've lost that, you're very vulnerable; whereas if this happens in the Bf 109 you know you can regain energy fairly quickly and have a chance to recover.

 

Also, a personal one for me is knowing that against clipped wing Spitfires... their roll rate is competitive enough to make me quite uncomfortable if i'm at a similar energy state in a Fw 190 - and the problem is you're relying on that advantage in roll rate to win the fight. I really would not enjoy tackling a Mark XIV if it had a clipped wing while in a Focke Wulf.

 

Those are significant drawbacks that affect (my perception?) of survivability in the Focke Wulf. I'd rather have a broader toolset to out-fly a potential opponent than having to rely on maintaining speed, then hoping the aircraft can take the hits if I get cornered.

  • Upvote 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...