Regia Aeronautica
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

213 Neutral

About TLTeo

  • Rank
    Officer cadet

Recent Profile Visitors

171 profile views
  1. And none of them on the B17
  2. Someone can't tell the difference between a 1930s biplane and a Deimler Benz engined monoplane. Amusing.
  3. Aiming is much easier in War Thunder than it is on DCS because of the instructor though, so who knows.
  4. I'd take any army fighter over navy fighters at that tier in RB, with the exception of the J2M2. I'm really not a fan of the early zeroes because their perfomance is mediocre and the cannon ammo is limited. As good as they are in turns, army planes turn either almost as well with massively better performance (ki 44, 61 and 100) or a little better with only slightly worse performance and much lower BR (ki 43). Out of all those planes the Ki-100 and J2M2 are the best, but lower tier planes can also hold their own, they actually have very generous BRs.
  5. The N1K and A7M had flaps that deployed automatically to tighten turns as well. I also read somewhere (no source sorry!) that when Hurricanes first ran into Italian CR42s, they assumed they could just match their turning performance with flaps as they were used to out turning 109s, which proved to be a mistake. All in all I'd say it was fairly likely many planes used flaps if they could.
  6. Interesting. I wonder why they made that particular design decision, it doesn't seem like the greatest choice to say the least.
  7. Why would they be copy pastes of each other? The Reggiane planes are going to be as different from Fiat/Macchi planes, as japanese army and navy planes are for example. In general, Reggiane planes tend to have lower wing loading but worse performance than their Macchi/Fiat counterparts, with the exception of the Re.2000 which outperforms (and out-turns? I'm not sure about that) both the MC.200 and G.50.
  8. That is true, but it really comes down to this - for the duration of WW2, Italy did not produce any succesfull heavy fighter/interceptor plane, so you either use only prototypes and import planes, or you don't add the branch at all. Hell, we used CR42s until the armistice as night fighters! Personally, I am perfectly ok with Italy lacking a heavy fighter line like soviet and american trees.
  9. Import planes will likely be premiums like the USSR tree, except Vampires and Sabres if/when they are added. I would love the G55 Serie 2 sometime though
  10. That makes sense, but shouldn't that be the case for other designs as well? As it stands, I can't think of any other plane in the game that lowers its flap so slowly that they can not be fully deployed during dogfights. Am I missing something?
  11. That is true, but at the same time it likely would only work if it was restricted to events (therefore limiting vehicle lineups). Take the high altitude fight - russian teams would be lambs for the slaughter if games started at 8000m.
  12. It was changed recently to be slower. I do not know if it's historical or not, I suspect it is and a lot of other flap deploying times aren't (it really wouldn't make any sense to design flaps to deploy that slowly if you can avoid it), but I can't prove it. You are correct that fully extending landing flaps is not useful right now though.
  13. The thing with the BV155 is that it's a much more extreme plane than the 190, and its strengths are much less useful in the current average engagement in War Thunder. I'm not saying it should never be included in the game, but it sure would be extremely hard to balance properly.
  14. ~7000m is not particularly high alt. That speed was achieved at 16000m, which is too high for the vast majority of engagements in WT.
  15. I would describe it as a 109G6 with gun pods, but with (much) better turning ability and worse climb rate.
  16. That is wierd, when I fly it I feel like it's the opposite - this plane is fairly slow for its BR and doesn't really do much well; it's less agile than the G55 Serie 1, climbs about as well (which is still not very good), and turns worse, and all it gains is a bit of top speed, and doesn't have great energy retention. I figure standard energy fighting/bnz tactics should work. It definitely can out turn you and out climb you (at least in sustained, low speed climbs), but that's about it. Also, it locks up horribly above around 600 km/h. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side...
  17. bf

    I think one of the things that War Thunder does best is reflect the 109's life. The early E models are fantastic planes capable of out-performing anything they come across, and then the F models take that up a notch and even though the performance gap isn't as large they are still very agile and dangerous dogfighters. The G2 is a bit heavier, but its performance makes up for it. Then you get into the late tiers, and frankly all that is left of the plane is an overweight airframe plus brute force engine that gives you fantastic climb rate and not much else. At least the plane does feel familiar because all 109s fly similarly which really helps, but realistically, I'd take a 190D9 or possibly even A5 over a late-G model (I haven't spaded the K4 yet, but I doubt it's going to be that different) any day of the week.
  18. Ki-51 and Ki-64-III as well! The earlier ones were unarmed but the third version had both heavy fighter and ground attack variants. edit: oh, G3M and ki 48 too. There are actually quite a lot of planes missing from the Japanese tech tree. And the B-26 Marauder and A-30 Baltimore in the American tree, even though it's not like that tree is lacking in ground attackers or bombers...
  19. To be fair, the early anti-air missiles were very unreliable and couldn't easily be shot at an opponent at lower altitude and/or flying towards the sun, so one could kind of make an argument for Vietnam-era planes if the maps are redisigned significantly enough. If we want to be very nitpicky that can't be excluded either, his wording is "good enough anti-air missiles" rather than just "anti-air missiles".
  20. Imagine the rage if Italy also gets the Thunderstreak before the US....
  21. I am an actual physicist . Unfortunately, I doubt that will count in Been_Benuane's eyes.
  22. I don't do realize that the fact that the word "state" is used in a context, does not mean it can not ever be used in a similar context, but in a different field, and that what applies to physics does not necessarily apply to dogfighting? That said, here's another fun example for you. Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering, by Robert L. Shaw, copyright of the United States Naval Insitute. Written by a former US Navy pilot. You can find the link here under tactics (I figure I'm allowed to post this, since it's the first result of a google search?). Chapter 3, page 124, bottom of the page, "The outcome of the rolling scissors with similar fighters is highly dependent on relative energy states at initiation of the maneuver." There are plenty of uses of the same sentence in other parts of the book, but I can't be bothered to list them all. As I said, at the end of the day it's just semantics, no more and no less. ps: two things. One, anyone who's studied physics at any decent level knows that "quantum phsyics" is an incorrect expression that no physicist actually uses, what you are looking for is either "quantum mechanics" if you refer to the original 1920's work by Heisenberg, Shroedinger and company, or "quantum field theory" for the successive application of quantum mechanics to the basic forces in particle physics. Two, while we're at it, I received my education from The University of Milan, The University of Milan Bicocca, the Brera Astronomical Observatory, and the Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy in Amsterdam. How about you?
  23. Ok if you want to go all technical on me, in classical mechanics a particle's (as in, whatever the hell you're studying) state is described by six quantities: position over the three axis (say, x y and z if you're using Cartesian coordinates), plus either velocity or momentum along the same axis, depending on whether you're using a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formalism. Energy is a function of those quantities, and it may or may not change as the particle moves through phase space, depending on what the particle is doing exactly. I see no problem with calling the position of the particle in each point of time a "state" which can have a quantity called energy associated to it. That is most certainly NOT the same as an (observable) state in quantum mechanics, ie an eigenvector of the Hamiltonian describing the system, that is correct. In this case, energy is the eigenvalue corresponding to your chosen eigenvector; the formalism is completely different from classical mechanics (which we aren't discussing). Angular momentum has different quantum states and it is also a measurable quantity. Your argument makes no sense, and if you were to say this sentence at any physics exam you would get failed on the spot. Chemical potential is negligible when it comes to dogfighting so it sounds like you're just mentioning it because you can. The whole point of energy is that what really matters is the combination of potential and kinetic energy of a chosen plane. As a plane maneuvers the total sum of total and kinetic energy may or may not change, and the individual contributions to total energy may or may not change, and if any of those do change yes, the plane is in a different goddamn state because of how its coordinates in phase space have changed. edit: on and while we're at it:
  24. Not necessarily. The state of a plane is described in terms of energy, and the plane shifts between those states. The only difference is that planes are described by classical mechanics, in which energy can assume contiuous values (ie, planes dont immediately jump from having x amount of kinetic energy to y amount of potential energy, they go through all the values in between), while electrons in atoms (and protons in nuclei, and quarks in protons, and atoms in molecules, and semiconductors, and a whole lot of other systesms) are described by quantum mechanics, in which energy can only assume fixed values. That said, it is just semantics and both terms are scientifically correct.
  25. The FM-2 definitely belongs in the game!
  26. Yep definitely, it's very wierd. The navy line is fairly overtiered, the early army line is very undertiered, then the late ki61s go back to being overtiered again.
  27. Eh, even that example is too limited, and honestly let's not kid ourselves, the G50 and Mc200 are fun planes to fly and I love both but they are most certainly not superior to a P40. It is true that in raw climb rate both are better than the P40, but the P40 will hold its energy much better, so even when he's outclimbed he can easily equalize energy states at the very least (which is what you call "running away"). The same identical scenario plays out at higher tiers with G55s against P51s and/or P47s. I'm not really sure about how both planes accelerate in a dive too - the G50 and MC.200 can reach very high speeds, but I don't know how long it takes them to get to that speed compared to a P40. All that said, if the G50s and Mc200s can hold their own and beat their allied counterparts, what they have to do is simply create a numbers advantage early on so that the lone P40 pilot is up against 3-4 enemy planes. In that case the margin for error is too small for most people to come out on top.
  28. This is really just the old argument of "performance vs turn rate" which you see over and over again, and the truth is there really isn't a definitive answer that applies to real combat situations. In an ideal world performance would beat maneuverability every time, but in the real world an agile plane can punish mistakes very easily (see all the whining about the G55), and that makes it extremely dangerous. Flying against a P40 pilot that knows what he's doing does suck in a G.50 (and to a certain extent Mc.200), but that does not mean that early italian fighters can't hold their own at their BR. Plus as long as whatever you're flying isn't insanely undertiered in the first place, being uptiered sucks in pretty much any plane.
  29. Also the 4th SM79's armament is worse, it does not have the ventral gondola. Historically it was taken off because these were used for torpedo bombing and so defending against attacks from below was not as useful as a gain in performance. The performance remains mediocre though. Plus, even at 1.7 the BR.20 is superior to the SM.79s in all aspects, minus being able to torpedo stuff on Norway...
  30. I think the C205N2 is the most underwhelming (it's basically a slightly faster, heavier, less maneuverable G55 with worse high speed handling at 4.7 instead of 4.3), but others like it so I guess there are ways to make it work. If you dislike late 109s, the italian G14 is no exception. I have enjoyed all the others I have flown so fare (I have spaded them all except the G14 and G56).
  31. Unfortunately, that same argument could be applied to the vast majority of the US fighters.
  32. It's not particularly wierd. British Sea Hurricanes were also launched from simliar systems. It's definitely cool though!
  33. Correct. After all, energy retention and straight line acceleration for example are not useful measures of a plane's effectiveness. The only two maneuvers that exist are diving straight to the deck, and horizontal turning.
  34. Ah no the G50 is immesnly overpowered, and so is the MC.200. Clearly. I mean, it can dive straight to the deck as fast as a P47 and out turn a Spitfire, right?
  35. Just because, pic with camos of the planes that are most likely to be in the second line:
  36. Yea I can see it now, but for some reason the link wasn't working for me. I posted screenshots and replay.
  37. I do not have permission to see that thread
  38. Sorry for the late reply. The issue seems to be gone, I will contact you if it appears again.
  39. Yup, replay attached. #2017.06.12 00.08.48.wrpl
  40. My War Thunder randomly crashes in the middle of a match, all I receive is a Fatal Error message; it is now happening so often as to make the game unplayable. I have tried deleting the cache and compiledShaders folders but it hasn't changed anything. I have attached the clog file of the latest crash and dxdiag. 2017_05_29_23_22_24__2152.clog DxDiag.txt
  41. Now that we have a decent idea of what the initial tech tree will look like, I have compiled a list of possible future additions with a few notes on each. I have taken production numbers from wikipedia (and from this wikipedia page) for lack of a better source. There already are threads about many of these planes, but I think it would be good to have everything in one place. I assume the final tree will be two fighter branches, one light bomber/ground attack branch, and one medium/heavy bomber branch, and possibly a float plane branch. I have included planes French and German that were flown in significant numbers, which at this point is something likely to come since we already have a 109G14 in the tree. I included jets separately, many which are already listed here. 1) Single engine fighters/fighter bombers: - Aereonatuica Umbra Trojani AUT.18: one prototype built, designed to meet the same requirement as the G50, MC200 and Re2000. - Ambrosini SAI 207: 14 pre production models built and sent to squadrons during the summer of 1943, seeing limited service. - Ambrosini SAI 403: evolution of the SAI 207 fixing several of its shortcomings, one prototype built. Evaluated and ordered into production (which never materialized) both by the Luftwaffe and Japanese Air Force - Ambrosini SS.4: one prototype built. Canard-style plane very smilar of the XP-55, first flight in 1939 (vs 1943 for the XP-55). - Caproni Vizzola F.4, F.5, F.6: the F4 and F5 were various prototypes of the same airframe fitted with different engines. One F4 prototype was built, 13 pre production F5 models were built and saw limited use as night fighters. The F6 was built in two prototypes, and it was an adaptation of the airframe to the DB605 engine. - Piaggio P.119: one prototype built; mid-fuselage engine like the P39. Designed around the same time as the 5 series fighters. - Dewotoine D.520: 60 captured planes were operated in the defense of Italy from allied bombings due to their cannon armament. - Morane-Saulnier MS.406: 25 of these were captured and operated by the Italian air force, but unlike the D.520 it's hard to find info on how much combat they saw. - Reggiane Re.2000: competitor to the G50 and MC200 and mainly flown by the Hungarian Air Force. Notably one variant was adapted for catapult usage and launched from italian battleships. - Reggiane Re.2001: competitor to the MC202, 252 built as fighters and fighter/bombers. - Reggiane Re.2002: fighter/bomber developed from Re.2001 but around a radial engine. 225 built. - Reggiane Re.2005: developement of the Re.2001 around the DB605 engine. 48 built. - Reggiane Re.2006: developement of the Re.2005 around the DB603 engine. One prototype built, but without the engine. - Caproni Ca.335: planned to be built under license and employed by the Belgian Air Force. The project was cancelled when Germany invaded Belgium. One prototype built. - IMAM Ro.41: biplane fighter contemporary of the CR32, although it did not have the same success as a fighter. Saw limited service both during the Spanish Civil War and World War 2. Used as a trainer for most of its career, retired in 1950. 743 built. - Fiat G.59: Merlin-engined G.55 built post-war or converted from existing G55's and used as a trainer by the Italian Air Force (many planes were unarmed). 91 built. Armed versions mostly exported. 2) Single or twin engine light bombers/attackers/heavy fighters (arguably the Re 2002 would go in here as well). There are lots of planes here because many projects failed to leave the prototype stage: - Caproni Ca.135: served mostly as a trainer by the Regia Aereonautica, but was used as a light bomber by the Hungarian Air Force. 140 built. - Caproni Ca.310: light bomber meant to replace the Ba.65. Like the Ba.88 it was soon phased out of front line service due to mediocre performance. 312 built. - Caproni Ca.311-313 series: developed from the Ca.310, mostly used as a recon, light ground attack and trainer aircraft on most fronts. 313 Ca.311 built, 271 Ca.313 built. - Caproni Ca.314: : final version of the Ca.31X series. Also used as a torpedo bomber. 425 built. - Caproni Ca.331: twin engine night fighter/heavy fighter, 3 prototypes built. Never mass produced despite positive opinion from pilots (including Werner Molders). - Breda Ba.201: single engine dive bomber/ground attacker, 2 prototypes built. Project likely cancelled due to the adoption of the Ju87 and later Re.2001 in the same role. - IMAM Ro.37: single engine, recon/light bomber biplane, operated on every front the RA was involved in. Would make a better reserve plane than the Ba.65. 617 built. - IMAM Ro.57: twin engine ground attack/night fighter. 50 built in two variants. - IMAM Ro.58: developement of the Ro.57 with heavier armament. One prototype built. - Savoia Marchetti SM 85: twin engine dive bomber, 34 built. Replaced by the Ju87 B and D. - Savoia Marchetti SM.88 (italian wiki with more data and pictures here: twin engine heavy fighter, one prototype built. Predecessor to the SM.92. - Savoia Marchetti SM.89: twin engine heavy fighter/ground attacker, one prototype built. Armed with twin 37 or 54 mm cannons. Developed from the SM 84 bomber, which in turn should have replaced the SM 79. - Savoia Marchetti SM.91: twin engine heavy fighter/ground attacker, two protptyoes built. - Savoia Marchetti SM.92: twin engine, twin cockpit heavy fighter, one prototype built. - Savoia Marchetti SM.93: single engine dive bomber powered by a DB605. One prototype built. - Ju87B21 and D1: several operated by the Regia Aereonautica to replace outdated or mediocre planes like the Ba 65 and 88. - Breda Ba.64: predecessor of the Ba.65, 42 built. Saw limited service during the Spanich Civil War and World War 2. - Fiat FC.12: (italian wiki with more data and pictures here): single engine ground attack plane, ten pre production models sent to operative squadrons. Originally designed as a trainer. - Cansa FC.20: twin engine ground attack plane, initially discarded. Pre production models pushed back into service in 1943. 6 built. - Fiat CR.25: twin engine bomber, initially discarded in favor of the Ba.88. Later pushed back into service as a recon plane with positive reports. 12 built. - Potez 630: 13 to 77 planes captured, no info on combat service. - Me.110: 3 C4/G4 night fighters acquired. - Do217J: 11-12 night fighters acquired. - Caproni A.P.1: single engine ground attack plane, predecessor of the Ba.65. Saw limited service during the Spanish Civil War. 34 built. 3) Medium/heavy bombers: - Caproni Ca.133: three engine fixed landing gear medium bomber. Only used as a bomber in the East Africa theatre due to its vulnerability, remained in service as a transport plane until 1948. 505 built. - CANT.Z1018: expected to replace the CANT.Z1007, the project was cancelled after the introduction of the CANTZ.1007Ter. 15 built. - Junkers Ju.88A: 46 acquired. - Loire et Olivier LeO 451: several captured, later some traded to the Luftwaffe in exchange for D.520 fighters and some were assigned to ground attack squadrons. - Savoia Marchetti SM.81: three engine, fixed landing gear medium bomber. Saw most of its service as a bomber during the Spanish Civil War; phased out of bomber duties by the SM.79 during WW2. 535 built. - Savoia Marchetti SM.82: three engine transport adapted as a heavy bomber. Retired in the 1960s from transport duties. 726 built. - Savoia Marchetti SM.84: three engine bomber, intended to replace the SM.79 but in turn it was replaced by the CantZ 1007 instead. 329 built. - Piaggio P.50: experimental four engine bomber. Three prototypes built with different engine configurations. - CMASA BGA: twin engine bomber, designed to meet the same requirement as the BR20 and SM79. Discarded after initial tests, one prototype buit. - Piaggio P.32: introduced around the same time as the BR.20, quickly retired from active service due to disappointing performance. Did not see combat. 28 built. - Piaggio P.16: contemporary of the P.32, was not ordered into mass production. One prototype built. 4) Float planes: - IMAM.Ro44: float plane biplane fighter, 35 built. - CANT.Z501: anti submarine/patrol flying boat. 454 built. - CANTZ.506: three engine maritime bomber. Replaced the CANTZ.501. 314 built. - Savoia Marchetti S.55: civilian tranport converted to maritime bomber. 25 operated. - Caproni Ca.316: twin engine float plane developed from the Ca.310 and intended to be operated from battleships. 14 built, but did not enter service. - CANT.Z511: four engine float plane, originally a civilian design but later converted as a military transport and maritime bomber. It was intended to carry up to four torpedoes or even manned torpedoes for anti shipping operations. Two prototypes built. - CANT.Z515: twin engine float plane intended for maritime use. 11 pre production models built, did not go into service. - CANT.Z508: developed from the CANT.Z501, inteded as a maritime heavy bomber. 3 pre production models built, served during WW2. - Fiat R.S.14: expected to complement the CANT.Z506, but entered service only in 1941 due to production delays. 186 built. 5) Jets: - Fiat/Macchi Vampire: various license-built version of the DeHavilland Vampire. 271 operated. - Canadair CL 13 mk.4: 179 operated. - F86K Sabre: NATO version of the F86D. 93 operated. - Republic F84F Thunderstreak: 194 operated, along with 78 unarmed RF-84F Thunderflash reconaissance planes. - Aermacchi MB326: 135 trainers and 2 ground attack G models operated. The attack models were likely only for evaluation. - Fiat G.80/82: 3 G.80 and 4 G.82 prototypes operated. Intended for training rather than combat. - Aerfer Sagittario 2: two prototypes built. Likely discared in favour of Sabres. - Aerfer Ariete: one prototype built. Likely discarded in favour of Sabres or F104s. If you have anything to add let me know!