I am not your enemy.
I accept your surrender 😂
Jokes aside - this exchange became like a “Groundhog Day” - happy to hear from you again. Have a good one!
1 Like
At least in RB the TA152C’s performance is 100% worse than DO335B, especially when they are in high speeds. Consider TA152C now is already 6.3…
No offence bud but aren’t you the one earlier that said “Reschke only had 20 kills and his only impressive encounter was ramming a bomber” when you was using one engagement to somehow prove that the Ta-152 was at least “50% better!!” than the Tempest???
The Tempest which Reschke himself reported made several mistakes and we have no idea as far as I’m aware of how experienced said pilot was.
I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that I’d choose the 4x ace over a potentially fresh pilot out of flight school even if he had 400 hours of training…
Also weren’t the Ta’s mainly only given to ace pilots? That kind of shoots down the “they were all rookies!” narrative.
1 Like
This was me.😎
The number of kills says nothing about the quality of a pilot:
-
There are various studies claiming that 60-80% of fighters were killed without being aware of an enemy in close proximity.
-
If you have read enough books about this topic it boils down to having targets.
-
So whilst a hell of allied pilots had in the last phase of the war serious issues to find any targets - the LW boys had way too much too handle.
-
If you have ever read Bud Anderson’s memoirs (recommended!!) you might remember the efforts (like pretending to be a bomber group by flying slow) they had to use to prove a reaction by the LW.
The context matters here too:
Based on Rescke’s training downing some B-17s/ B-24s plus a handful of escort fighters was nothing special. As successful ramming attacks were rather rare i assessed this as remarkable; otherwise his track record is just average.
No - i recommend this book (i visited my basement just 4U):
-
Even admitting that these 2 Fighter Groups were in the earlier years extremely well trained (imho the first “All weather” fighter groups) - mainly regarding navigational skills/IFR - they had the same issues as all other LW groups - attrition killed the experienced ones. The later trained pilots had usually just a rudimentary training and no ACM training.
-
The dogfight in question is described in detail - and the alleged 152 kill by a Tempest is mentioned as not explainable (like 2 other crashes before) as no enemy fire was observed. The other Tempest used his superior top speed to escape.
-
And - the pilots were no ace pilots in the sense of exceptional dogfighters. The book contains detailed tables including kills and corresponding KIA/WIA/MIA data. The only true “ace” unit was the JV 44.
The book also describes the very positive pilot feedback regarding the turn and overall performance and this leads us back to the OP:
How is it possible that the shorter wing and increased weight of a C-3 (compared to a H-1) turns the C-3 into a fighter brick with a flight model of a heavy bomber? I am not talking about ptw or any other figure…
2 Likes
Which polish guy?
2 Likes
U got me😎
I remembered this French guy:
…as having a Polish ancestry. No idea why…
I don’t want to get dragged into a scientific dispute (like Whittle vs von Ohain) - but if you google “who invented high octane fuel” your nominee is not even mentioned…and somehow GM claims to have invented high octane fuel - in 1921…
Edit:
It found an older post which was mentioning the correct nationality:
Kurt Welter trained German pilots for fighter aviation for 4 years, and only went into combat in 43, and in 3 missions he was already an ace with 7 kills, so training counts a lot, Ta 152 given only to experienced pilots? Where does it say that? K4 units were given to recruits with a few hours of training, why do you think this would not happen with the Ta 152? and I mentioned this Reschke fight, because it was in fact a fight, not a boom and zoom pass, and combining the fact with the published performances of both aircraft and Reschke’s testimony in the interview, saying that he had no difficulty in fighting Tempests, Reschke said that he and the Tempest pilot used all tactics to gain an advantage, that is, the Tempest pilot was not at all lost, Tempest has the same weight, a larger wing area and a more powerful engine, the fight lasted a long time, it was supposed that the Tempest would start to surpass the H1 as the fight lasted, that’s on paper, but did that happen? no, the opposite happened, Reschke closed the curve on the Tempest, he did that, it’s because the Tempest pilot was defending himself, as the friend mentioned in the comment above, the kill count does not necessarily say whether the pilot is better than another, do you think Günther Hall is better than the Marsaille?
1 Like
Wasn’t that generally the case that rookies first flew the Bf 109 and generally only later transitioned into flying Fw 190s?
No, you flew the plane that made up the squadron you were assigned to, the 190 was easier to fly than the 109, in fact
We’ll never know until we can somehow dig them up, clone them and make them fight. Although I don’t think the authorities would approve of that somehow.
I will say there were speculations over Marseille overclaiming on his victories and to be fair (much like how you mentioned Meyer earlier) he did get his arse beat 1 vs 1 by a Hurricane…
Twice.
I know of Rall’s most famous shootdown when he was ganged up on by multiple P-47’s where he lost his thumb but I’m not sure about the others.
You brought up an interesting point in two of your comments: the superhuman tolerance to G-forces pilots have in WT. After pulling 1 or 2 extreme turns above 7G, the pilot recovers way too easily. This should really be a main topic here, because this superhuman ability makes a huge difference in dogfights. Once a pilot is fully upgraded, it’s almost impossible for them to black out — they’d need such crazy G-forces that the plane would probably break apart first.
Another thing I want to mention is the test I did in RB mode. I redid the test using a 190 A5/U14 and a Spitfire Mk IX. I can confirm that in vertical climbs, the Mk IX outperforms the 190, especially in nose authority. The 190’s controls stop responding around 210 km/h, but the Mk IX still handles well even below 130 km/h. Also, the 190’s engine needs to be cut below 150 km/h and right rudder applied, otherwise torque makes it go into an unrecoverable spin. This lets the Spitfire stay lower but in control, level out quickly, recover from a stall, and start defensive maneuvers before the 190 can even point its nose at it again. I’m talking about gameplay and drag physics here. So I’ll say it again: there’s not much you can do once a Spitfire gets on your six, even if it’s low on energy and speed. The vertical fight, which should be a strength for the 190, gets neutralized because the Spit can instantly get back into a defensive position.
Also, the 190’s dive ability is badly modeled. In IL-2, for example, with a 190 A3 or A6, you have to be careful when diving because the plane can hit over 700 km/h in seconds — which is a big advantage. And moving away from just gameplay, real tests showed that this initial dive speed was a key strength of the 190, giving it better acceleration than Allied fighters.
And again, the G-force issue really needs to be discussed. Even if the Spitfire can turn very tightly, in a long fight the pilot shouldn’t be able to handle superhuman Gs all the time. IL-2 models this really well — even in the 190 you have to be careful not to black out after dives or sudden turns. There are stages of losing consciousness, up to a full blackout where your screen goes dark and you can’t control the plane. After blacking out, the pilot also takes a few seconds to recover before being able to pull hard Gs again. This could be a game-changer, even more important than small adjustments to the planes themselves.
2 Likes
Yes, most of the comments are probably talking about the LF Mk IX, LF Mk IXc (the US premium), etc.
These planes are at 5.0 (WTF!?). They are aircraft that would easily fit in BR 5.7. There’s no reason to keep the FW190 D-9, D-12, and Ta 152 H-1 at 5.7, and the D-13 at 5.3, while leaving this UFO-like LF Mk IX at 5.0 in SB mode… I actually think they should lower the BRs of the 190 Doras to at least 5.3, and the 190 A-4 and A-5 to 4.3.
A good practical comparison is to look at the scoreboards for BR 5.0 matches: most of the top scorers are flying LF Mk IXs… Are they all really amazing pilots, or is there a clear imbalance in the gameplay and BR these planes are given? In general, the Mk IXs should all be at 5.0 instead of 4.7, and the LF Mk IX should be at 5.7 at the very least.
Günther Hall himself said that the best driver was Marseille, let’s make another comparison, who do you think is better, Adolf Galland or Illu Juutilainen?
I was confused that when we compare with TA152C, at least we need to consider like P51H/F2G/Spitfire MK24? Ta152c is just like a better FW190D13, which is 5.0 right now
@HeckedDragon-live - Mate - you are watering down the quality of the thread - the topic is flight models and not pilot skill…
@Chocolate_Pasta
Have in mind that the thread deals mainly with Air SB BRs and implemented FMs, that’s why you see SB BRs. As the FMs of Air RB and SB are identical sometimes Air RB is mentioned, but in general the BR setting in SB is not really comparable to RB.
1 Like
I can agree with this.
But also do the same to Ki-84.
I think 5.7 might be fair?
F4U-4B, LF Mk IX, Ki-84 all at 5.7 (at least for first pass balance).
The only issue is mostly the Ju-288. For me at least, planes at 5.7 might as well not exist as you only get 1 cycle to play them without going into ju-288 territory so I’d love if we could shove that thing up to 7.0 too lol. Not because it’s OP, more that it makes finding a lobby that’s actually fun very hard.
1 Like
I totally agree. The 4.0–5.0 (SB) matches are, in my opinion, the most unbalanced in the entire game. And that’s mainly because of the Spitfire mentioned (the LF Mk IX).
Let’s see what Axis options you have: FW190 A-4 (4.0), A-5 (4.7), A-5/U2 (4.7), A-5/U14 (4.7), and very rarely the FW190 C (5.0), which you almost never see in matches, plus it’s unavailable for players on consoles (@live/@psn/Steam).
Then you face planes like the D-9, which was one of the main opponents of the Mk IX series historically, and yet it’s totally outclassed by the UFO-like LF Mk IX. The D-9 is at 5.7, while the Spit is sitting comfortably at 5.0… that’s not balanced. If virtual pilots couldn’t withstand superhuman G-forces, maybe the LF Mk IX could stay at 5.0 like the Doras. But we see players pulling insane turns, being able to turn the fight around with a single move, or at the very least having an easy time dodging any attack.
Anyway, I think this topic deserves its own thread, and it’s great to see the community agreeing that there’s clearly an imbalance with these planes, especially when you consider 1v1 fights. Because unlike real life, where squadrons fought squadrons, in WT you usually end up in 1v1 situations.
Also, the F4U-4B, Yak-3P, and planes like those are at the right BRs… actually, I’d even suggest lowering the P-51D-30 to the same 5.0 as the D-20; I don’t see any reason to keep it higher.
From my point of view, the FWs have a totally unique FM, and I don’t want to try and turnfight Spitfires — I just want to see some of the real advantages the FW190 had, so we can have dogfights based on skill, not just “I’ll spin like a UFO and get on your six.”
With any FW190, you can’t accelerate better to gain an advantage in a scissors, you can’t climb faster to reposition, you can’t turn because the virtual pilot is a superhuman who can handle up to 13G, you can’t take the fight vertical because your FW190 loses control authority way before the Spitfire does, and you can’t set up an effective energy trap because the Spitfire recovers its responsiveness way too quickly… so why the hell do you keep a plane like that Spit at 5.0, with so many advantages, and keep the FW190 D-9 at 5.7? Just because the FW190 can carry a few bombs if needed? It’s unreal.
I’ve been playing WT in simulator mode since around 2022, and after many updates over these years, we’ve seen the FW190 series get totally nerfed and outdated, both in performance and in drag physics. This is just my personal experience and might not mean much here in this topic, but I think it’s worth saying. The way Gaijin treats the FW190 compared to other fighters is just unfair and doesn’t make much sense. I used to have matches where I sometimes went undefeated with high kill counts, which was clearly unbalanced too, but after the last big update that heavily nerfed the Anton series of FW190s, the balance against other planes — which kept their overperforming features — was lost.
It’s not that flying the FW190 is impossible now, far from it, but there’s no real competitiveness in close engagements. You always have to keep insane amounts of energy just to deal with situations that should come down to skill and precise control. But that’s ignored. The main reason I’m commenting here is to point out this disparity between two planes that were direct rivals, and how one of them (the Spitfire) has a very clear advantage in tight dogfights.
I really hope something changes, because the FW190 was an iconic aircraft just like the Spitfire. I don’t want one to be superior to the other, but there should be balance like there was in reality. I respect Spitfire fans and I truly think it’s a beautiful plane with amazing history, but there’s another side of the story — the FW190’s side. After 1942, when the Mk V started falling behind the FW190 A-3, the Mk IX came into play, and there wasn’t such a huge gap in maneuverability. The Mk IX had many advantages, but the 190, even the early Antons, was still a tough opponent. So what can we say about the Dora versions? Anyway, I think the BR and the drag physics plus mass center of the FW190 really need fixing. It’s not fair to treat the Spitfire LF Mk IX with the Merlin 66, or even the Merlin 61, as something so vastly superior in overall performance.
And honestly, I don’t feel frustrated losing dogfights. I’ve fought against worse planes and lost, and that often comes down to your own mistakes or the other player’s skill — and I always like to learn from that. But against the LF series Spitfires, there’s not much you can do. Any strategy leaves you in trouble; any defensive attempt, even when you have the advantage (like forcing an overshoot or winning an energy fight in a scissors), that Spitfire can just turn and catch you. So I don’t see much of a real fight here, just “Gaijin made me unbeatable, unless I’m distracted sipping tea and you shoot me down.”
2 Likes
Could you compare the Ta 152C with the P51H, Spit Mk24 etc, in the most advanced versions of the same, equipped with the DB 603N of 2,750HP and aerodynamic refinement, even with the H, which in this case would be the H-6, with the Jumo 213J generating around 2,700HP, and 300KG of thrust at 9,000 meters of altitude, which is the same amount of thrust of the Me 262 engines
The F Mk IX is fine where it is, it’s completely balanced against the 190’s but the LF IX absolutely should be 5.7. The Yak-3 also needs moving up to 5.0 along with the P-47N and the 109G-6.
1 Like
Again, I have to agree. The Yak-3 would be fine even at 5.3, and the LF Mk IX would be perfectly comfortable at 5.7. Like I said, unless they change the G-force modeling. But I think that’s unlikely to ever happen unless we make a big topic with a lot of engagement.
We also need to talk about the Yak-3’s supposed fragility — it was a plane made of plywood, yet it can take hits from explosive 20mm shells… try shooting a piece of plywood with a 9mm pistol using hollow-point ammo and see the damage it does. Now imagine it being hit by a 20mm explosive round… Gaijin is really dreaming big when it comes to these old Soviet planes. Anyway, I agree they should raise the Yak-3’s BR, especially that premium Yak-3(e) which for some reason has ammo that can destroy you with a single hit.
2 Likes