Jump to content

Why do some strike aircrafts have batter climb rate than interceptors?


ErickRednose@live
 Share

  • ErickRednose@live changed the title to Why do some strike aircrafts have batter climb rate than interceptors?
2 minutes ago, ErickRednose@live said:

By interceptor I'm talking about the Me419 and the Dorniers. Any Wyvern out climbs me easily. 

 

Its an carrier based strike aircraft from 1953 with a turboprop engine. Something WW2 planes can just dream about.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ErickRednose@live said:

Yeah but I don't understand how is this allowed in the game 

Because Gaijin has a robust history of completely disregarding logic and reason in their game balance and design decisions.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ErickRednose@live said:

Yeah but I don't understand how is this allowed in the game 

Because although Wyvern is somewhat fast, it's literally sluggish as hell when it comes to it's maneuverability.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because war thunder tries to accurately mimic real life specifications, and those specifications are what those aircraft were capable of IRL. 

 

Plus the listed figure on the stat card doesn't always tell the whole story. Different aircraft will perform differently at different altitudes and environments.  Best example I can think of is the Spitfire LF MkIX which has a 31 m/s climb rate, so you'd think it would massively out climb the Mk14e Spitfire which has a climb rate of 21m/s I think? However the Mk9 only outclimbs the mk14 up to like 2km max, and then the 14 will power past it, as me and a friend found while squadded up playing them. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EXTOR_9 said:

Because although Wyvern is somewhat fast, it's literally sluggish as hell when it comes to it's maneuverability.

B-25s

A-26s

Me-410s

SU-6s

IL-10s

 

All strike fighters from 4.0 to 6.0 that are equally sluggish or worse in maneuvers, but that are at least 100kph slower on the deck....

 

 

Edited by xBromanx
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, xBromanx said:

B-25s

A-26s

Me-410s

SU-6s

IL-10s

 

All strike fighters from 4.0 to 6.0 that are equally sluggish or worse in maneuvers, but that are at least 100kph slower on the deck....

 

 

The B-25s and A-26s have more payload options, all of the planes you listed have turrets, the A-26B-10, PBJ, IL-10, Su-6 and the 410 U-4s can all kill tanks far better than the Wyvern, The IL-10 and Su-6 just flat out outturn the Wyvern while they have energy. The Wyvern also only has 2 drops, while every plane (Minus the 410) has at least twice that number. Probably the worst preforming plane on that list (the 410) is already below, or barely at,  the Wyvern's BR. The PBJ/B-25 is also only a 4.0. The A-26 has full rear coverage with at least 2 50. cals while being fast enough to keep everything short of the Do 335 behind it, the IL-10 is just a better Il-2 in terms of performance, while the Su-6 can take 37mms, which are devastating. 

 

As an attacker, the Wyvern only really bests the 4.0 Me 410, it can't even compete with the PBJs as far as killing targets is concerned. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, xBromanx said:

B-25s

A-26s

Me-410s

SU-6s

IL-10s

 

All strike fighters from 4.0 to 6.0 that are equally sluggish or worse in maneuvers, but that are at least 100kph slower on the deck....

 

 

B-25s are frontline medium bombers, so technically they don't count here. Still, if you want to compare them with it being used as an attacker, B-25s have a ton of defensive guns which can deter a lot of aircraft around it's BR

 

A-26s are heavy twin engine armored strikers. They're actually pretty darn fast for something as heavily armed and armored as they are. Also, pretty much all twin engine aircraft are sluggish except twin engine fighters which is slightly sluggish. 

 

Me-410s are either a heavy twin engine interceptor or a medium armored strikers. The striker ones typically have an anti tank gun or some heavy bombs but both types all have some decent armor all over which definitely increased it's weight, making them rather heavy and slow.

 

Su-6s and Il-10s, are heavy armored strikers. They turn exceptionally well at high speeds but extremely sluggish at low speeds (like most dive bombers). Their slow sleep comes primarily from their heavy armor and the fact that their role is typically to do an accurate gun run which is easier to achieve at low speeds.

 

Wyvern used to be an interceptor back then before being changed to striker when Gaijin decided to change some aircraft to the role that they fit in.

 

In any case this argument is flawed simply because of different BR ranges, type of aircrafts, and their actual role/usage in the field. Some interceptor relies on their speed to reach bomber altitudes while others relies on brute force with heavy firepower and enough armor to survive counter attacks. Same goes for strikers, some relies on speed and heavy payload to hit and run while others go for slow heavil armored flying tanks instead.

 

The quick and short answer? Can't really compare them since it really depends on the aircrafts. It's like saying why is Jagdpanther is faster than M26 in some way.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuckusAndFun said:

The B-25s and A-26s have more payload options, all of the planes you listed have turrets,

Fair on the bombloads, but only a few have turrets that are in any way threatening.  Everyone of them can be dealt with easily with at least a small amount of forethought.

 

1 hour ago, RuckusAndFun said:

the A-26B-10, PBJ, IL-10, Su-6 and the 410 U-4s can all kill tanks far better than the Wyvern

Fair, but the Wyvern is at least as good, if not much better than most of those at killing soft targets, which are on most maps now contributing to tickets.  It can also destroy light pillboxes at a respectable rate, and it's performance and armament makes it much more effective against the AI planes on every map which also effects ticket bleed.

 

1 hour ago, RuckusAndFun said:

The IL-10 and Su-6 just flat out outturn the Wyvern while they have energy.

But are >100kph slower on the deck with worse climb rate....

 

1 hour ago, RuckusAndFun said:

Probably the worst preforming plane on that list (the 410) is already below, or barely at,

Me-410BR-6 is at 5.0

 

1 hour ago, RuckusAndFun said:

the IL-10 is just a better Il-2 in terms of performance,

Which is trash....so, the IL-10 is just not quite as trash.... It's in no way as powerful as the Wyvern when it comes to speed and climb rate

 

1 hour ago, RuckusAndFun said:

As an attacker, the Wyvern only really bests the 4.0 Me 410,

As an attacker, considering the prevalence of soft targets now that contribute to tickets, and it's strike spawn and effectiveness against the AI planes on every map, it's just as good, if not better than most of the attackers I mentioned at influencing ticket scores. 

 

It's also a much better fighter than just about all of those since it has insane top speed at low altitudes and superior climb rate.  In the right hands at 4.0 can be a very powerful support fighter.  

 

In overall potential to impact the outcome of a match, I think the Wyvern is at least on par with any of those that are 5.0.  Certainly at 4.0 it's a little bit ridiculous.

 

Edited by xBromanx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, EXTOR_9 said:

....

In any case this argument is flawed simply because of different BR ranges, type of aircrafts, and their actual role/usage in the field. Some interceptor relies on their speed to reach bomber altitudes while others relies on brute force with heavy firepower and enough armor to survive counter attacks. Same goes for strikers, some relies on speed and heavy payload to hit and run while others go for slow heavil armored flying tanks instead.

 

The quick and short answer? Can't really compare them since it really depends on the aircrafts. It's like saying why is Jagdpanther is faster than M26 in some way.

The argument is not flawed.  The Wyvern is labeled as a Strike Fighter.  Those aircraft are all also labeled as Strike Fighters.  They all get the Strike Fighter air spawn.  The Wyvern has advantages over all of them in speed and climb rate.  It has a powerful enough armament to significantly impact ticket scores through ground attack, at least as well as almost all of those aircraft, yet it's performance makes it significantly better in the air to air role.  It does what those aircraft can do, and more, so it shouldn't be at a lower BR than them.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ErickRednose@live said:

By interceptor I'm talking about the Me419 and the Dorniers. Any Wyvern out climbs me easily. 

 

Me-410 B1 f.e. is one of the worst planes in game (performance vs BR) so it's not surprising. 

Do-335 is a destroyer of worlds, but the trick is to stay fast. 

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many years playing game and participants still fail to notice BRs are adjusted according to player statistics, not by planes performance.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Wyverns quite often used as airspawn interceptor. Last time I noticed someone doing this he scored 3 air player kills. 

 

Why is the Wyvern 4.0 and the FW 190 F8 5.0?

 

Elaborate this? Isn't the Wyvern a 5.0 candidate as well?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Loofah said:

Me-410 B1 f.e. is one of the worst planes in game (performance vs BR) so it's not surprising. 

Do-335 is a destroyer of worlds, but the trick is to stay fast. 

 

Can confirm that the B-1 is bad. I've aced in every 410 I own except the B-1, because that plane is terrible. I should've suggested lower BRs for the Me 410s in the BR changes section (not that anyone on the balancing team is paying attention, but it would make me feel better). The Me 410 A-1/U4 is the exception... decent at 3.0. I have good games in it, but the plane is not for everyone.

 

The wyvern is effectively an airspawned jet in prop matchmaking. Its speed makes it invulnerable to anything but american aircraft dropping from space with .50 cal loaded; other planes simply cannot catch it, ever. And diving on it wastes energy, making that a non-viable option at any time except at the end of the match, when the Wyvern has already established ticket lead and can simply camp base. It may turn worse than the A-26, but that doesn't matter, because it plays like a jet.

 

Should be 5.0 at the very least.

Edited by BlackberryAvar
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, xBromanx said:

Fair on the bombloads, but only a few have turrets that are in any way threatening. 

Any turret is "Threatening", even Italian 12.7mm turrets will mess you up if you're in their line of fire. The A-26 has the best turret set up out of the listed planes, while the PBJ just relies on sheer numbers. The 410's turrets are actually pretty good, since it's got German 13mms which just straight up tear through enemies. The Su-6 has an acceptable turret, the Russian 12.7mm sets anything it touches on fire, while the IL-10 has probably the worst because of it's limited ammo pool and IIRC horrible aiming angles.

 

16 hours ago, xBromanx said:

Fair, but the Wyvern is at least as good, if not much better than most of those at killing soft targets

The PBJ-1H has 100 more RPG, and twice the number of guns. The PBJ-1J has 3 times the number of guns. The A-26B-10 has either 2 more guns, a 37mm and the same number of guns, or 2 37mms. The A-26B-50 has almost 4x as many guns, with comparable amounts of RPG, The 410 R/3 has 30mms and 20mms, with less RPG for the 30s, and slightly more for the 20mms, The 410 B-1 has 13mms and 20mms, with 2x the RPG for the 13s, and 50 more RPG on the 20mms. The IL-10 has 2x23mms with 1/2 the RPG, and 2x 7.62 ShKas with more than 2x the RPG, while the IL-10(1946) has probably the worst set up with 4x23mms that only have 1/2 the RPG. The Su-6 comes in a few flavours, with the worst one being the 4.3 SU-6, since it has no turret. The other 2 are capable of being armed with a lackluster forwards armament.

 

So, without looking at turrets, the Wyvern only really beats the Su-6s and IL-10s, with the 410s being able to stagger fire their guns, and the US planes just having more, with more ammo and more guns. Including turrets, the Wyvern really doesn't stand a chance against anything except the premium Su-6. Every other plane has the ability to kill at least 50 soft ground targets pre flyout, since turrets have massive ammo pools to draw from.

 

The Wyvern does have the 16x RP3s, but in most cases those will only net you 10-16 soft target kills. While the Su-6 could bring 10 RBS-82s and 6 50kg bombs, which while only resulting in 12-14 kills, are far more consistent. 

16 hours ago, xBromanx said:

Me-410BR-6 is at 5.0

Yeah, I forgot that one existed, I blame the trauma from facing it in GFRB.

16 hours ago, xBromanx said:

Which is trash....so, the IL-10 is just not quite as trash....

Lol, The IL-2s are probably some of the best planes for solo clubbing in the game, (Not the early ones) they have absurd levels of firepower, good turn rates (Despite the stat card), and competitive climb rates that place them at +1000ft of most AF fighters.

 

16 hours ago, xBromanx said:

As an attacker, considering the prevalence of soft targets now that contribute to tickets, and it's strike spawn and effectiveness against the AI planes on every map, it's just as good, if not better than most of the attackers I mentioned at influencing ticket scores. 

That is just not true. A wyvern left alone cannot even kill a convoy, while any of the listed planes could do so, and still have ammo left over.

16 hours ago, xBromanx said:

It's also a much better fighter than just about all of those since it has insane top speed at low altitudes and superior climb rate.

Yes, the strike fighter from 1950 is a better fighter than the bombers and attackers from 1940. It should move up in BR, but not because it is a better attacker. That is just false.

 

While the Strike aircraft change was overall good for a lot of nations, a few planes managed to slip through and get massive buffs. More specifically the Tis Ma, which already had perma-WEP, but now has Perma-WEP, an air spawn, 2 of the best bombs in game, and can be taken in GFRB without affecting the spawning of another fighter, like the ITP. I feel dirty playing it now. (I'm not gonna stop tho, SL is SL)

 

Here are probably the biggest offenders for "Strike Fighter Syndrome" 

The A-36

The AU-1

The Wyvern

The Tis Ma

The SM.91

The SM.92

And probably a bunch of jets that I don't really care about.

 

All of those planes would preform fine with a runway takeoff, and they need it not because they are better attackers, but because they are better fighters. (The Tis Ma is the exception.)

 

Edited by RuckusAndFun
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RuckusAndFun said:

Any turret is "Threatening", even Italian 12.7mm turrets will mess you up if you're in their line of fire. The A-26 has the best turret set up out of the listed planes, while the PBJ just relies on sheer numbers. The 410's turrets are actually pretty good, since it's got German 13mms which just straight up tear through enemies. The Su-6 has an acceptable turret, the Russian 12.7mm sets anything it touches on fire, while the IL-10 has probably the worst because of it's limited ammo pool and IIRC horrible aiming angles.

 

The PBJ-1H has 100 more RPG, and twice the number of guns. The PBJ-1J has 3 times the number of guns. The A-26B-10 has either 2 more guns, a 37mm and the same number of guns, or 2 37mms. The A-26B-50 has almost 4x as many guns, with comparable amounts of RPG, The 410 R/3 has 30mms and 20mms, with less RPG for the 30s, and slightly more for the 20mms, The 410 B-1 has 13mms and 20mms, with 2x the RPG for the 13s, and 50 more RPG on the 20mms. The IL-10 has 2x23mms with 1/2 the RPG, and 2x 7.62 ShKas with more than 2x the RPG, while the IL-10(1946) has probably the worst set up with 4x23mms that only have 1/2 the RPG. The Su-6 comes in a few flavours, with the worst one being the 4.3 SU-6, since it has no turret. The other 2 are capable of being armed with a lackluster forwards armament.

 

So, without looking at turrets, the Wyvern only really beats the Su-6s and IL-10s, with the 410s being able to stagger fire their guns, and the US planes just having more, with more ammo and more guns. Including turrets, the Wyvern really doesn't stand a chance against anything except the premium Su-6. Every other plane has the ability to kill at least 50 soft ground targets pre flyout, since turrets have massive ammo pools to draw from.

 

The Wyvern does have the 16x RP3s, but in most cases those will only net you 10-16 soft target kills. While the Su-6 could bring 10 RBS-82s and 6 50kg bombs, which while only resulting in 12-14 kills, are far more consistent. 

Yeah, I forgot that one existed, I blame the trauma from facing it in GFRB.

Lol, The IL-2s are probably some of the best planes for solo clubbing in the game, (Not the early ones) they have absurd levels of firepower, good turn rates (Despite the stat card), and competitive climb rates that place them at +1000ft of most AF fighters.

 

That is just not true. A wyvern left alone cannot even kill a convoy, while any of the listed planes could do so, and still have ammo left over.

Yes, the strike fighter from 1950 is a better fighter than the bombers and attackers from 1940. It should move up in BR, but not because it is a better attacker. That is just false.

 

While the Strike aircraft change was overall good for a lot of nations, a few planes managed to slip through and get massive buffs. More specifically the Tis Ma, which already had perma-WEP, but now has Perma-WEP, an air spawn, 2 of the best bombs in game, and can be taken in GFRB without affecting the spawning of another fighter, like the ITP. I feel dirty playing it now. (I'm not gonna stop tho, SL is SL)

 

Here are probably the biggest offenders for "Strike Fighter Syndrome" 

The A-36

The AU-1

The Wyvern

The Tis Ma

The SM.91

The SM.92

And probably a bunch of jets that I don't really care about.

 

All of those planes would preform fine with a runway takeoff, and they need it not because they are better attackers, but because they are better fighters. (The Tis Ma is the exception.)

 

 

 

One little claryfiaction - Me-410s can't really reliably kill light pillboxes on most maps. On some - they can, but usually, with uni belt, you will need some absurd amount of ammo before anything happens. 

Me-410 with 50mm is better at killing tonks, but it's just so damn slow compared to wyvern. 

 

 

 

Edited by Loofah
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Loofah said:

 

 

One little claryfiaction - Me-410s can't really reliably kill light pillboxes on most maps. On some - they can, but usually, with uni belt, you will need some absurd amount of ammo before anything happens. 

Me-410 with 50mm is better at killing tonks, but it's just so damn slow compared to wyvern. 

 

 

 

I mean, they can kill about 7 (For comparison, the PBJs can kill 20, and the IL-10 can kill 15), 2 with bombs, and the rest with 13mms and 20mms, but the 410s are... Not great. I want them to be good, but I just cannot make them work. Much sad.

Edited by RuckusAndFun
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/11/2021 at 09:22, ErickRednose@live said:

Yeah but I don't understand how is this allowed in the game 

 

Why would it not be allowed?

 

The classifications into strike, fighter, bomber, etc, are game conveniences.....  the actual performance of the aircraft is (supposedly, hopefully) what it could actually achieve in real life.

 

So hte Wyvern outclimbs those aircraft because that's that the wyvern could do. 

  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RuckusAndFun said:

I mean, they can kill about 7 (For comparison, the PBJs can kill 20, and the IL-10 can kill 15), 2 with bombs, and the rest with 13mms and 20mms, but the 410s are... Not great. I want them to be good, but I just cannot make them work. Much sad.

 

Yeah with 13mm with AP-I I guess + short range. I'm a strong fan of IAI belt, but I guess for end-game strafing one can indeed rearm. 

7 is still rather bad for a strike fighter :/

Edited by Loofah
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...