This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
6 Likes
Manus is an AI that searches for data on the internet, I asked to get the available data from the H1 and simulate what it would be like with the C3, since they are the same plane, just with different wings and engines, the C3 has 4 meters less wing area, but has an engine with 250hp more, it is not difficult to deduce that they would have a similar performance, with the H1 having an advantage in instantaneous turns, and the C3 conserving energy in medium/medium-high angle turns, and recovering energy faster when exiting a turn.
2 Likes
The ammunition weight for the MG 151 corresponds to the MG 151/20.
300 x (0.205kg + 0.0172kg) = 66.66kg (Shells + belt links)
MG 151/15 shells only have a weight of 0.15kg
Even though it’s not impossible that the MG 151/20 could have been swapped out for MG 151 to match the ballistics.
MG 151 ammo was still developed in 1944 and the ammunition is listed as being in production.
So more planes should be able to use them.
3 Likes
I liked your post as it shows some passion.
It boils down that everybody who has ever flown or fought the Ta 153 C-3 is fully aware of its flaw to have a flightmodel like an aircraft carrier. And that seems to be a result of gaijin’s tendency to misrepresent the FMs of almost all members or the 190/152 family.
In order to make your goal way more transparent, i recommend:
- Gain some forum XP which allows you to edit your OP.
- Rename the title to make your target clear
- Restructure your OP to make it more readable
- Use upfront the forum search for threads regarding 190s/152s
I am quite sure that you will receive some support by other 190/152 fans as the topic pops up frequently - as it is obvious that gaijin’s approach to simulate flight characteristics is not really working for them.
I was aware of Reschke’s encounter with the Tempest - have in mind that research in the last years showed some flaws (mainly dates and locations) in his memoirs. You might also look for official and unofficial mock-up fights between 109s and 190s which showed at least in one case (109 G vs 190 D) similar dog fight capabilities.
Have a good one!
3 Likes
I am referring to the Ta 152C, the H1 is indeed represented as being lighter than the P47 and Corsair, but the C3 is portrayed as being much heavier, something that is wrong, the P51 has a 1700HP engine and a takeoff weight of 5,500kg, and the Japanese ace Honda put it as being superior to the Corsair, and the empty weight of the C3 is 4,109kg, as shown in the Fock Wulf document
2 Likes
First of all, I’d like to thank the user for sharing such relevant information about the FW 190 and TA 152 series. It’s clear that this was the result of in-depth research, using sources that are not easily found in superficial searches. It’s more than evident that Gaijin often represents some aircraft with exaggerated maneuverability, while others are depicted like flying bricks.
This post is both interesting and educational. I believe the least Gaijin could do is reconsider the flight models of the FW 190 and TA 152 family. These aircraft are clearly underrepresented in many ways, while others are massively overrepresented—with maneuverability and energy retention more akin to an arcade game.
Once again, thank you to the user Hacked Dragon for sharing this research and clearly demonstrating that there are serious inaccuracies in the flight models of the 190 series and its entire lineage.
Just one question: if these aircraft were truly so sluggish and hard to handle against their opponents, would they really have achieved the level of success and recognition they did, according to multiple sources?
The questions regarding the weight of the F4U, P-47, and the account from pilot Willi while engaging a Tempest and a P-51 are essential to understand that this aircraft (the Ta 152 C-3) was far from being unmanoeuvrable — just like the entire FW 190 line.
Wake up, Gaijin—check out this post!
3 Likes
I don’t think a plane needs to be all that maneuverable to be successful.
Like compare the Bf 109 to Fw 190.
The E model had two 20mm and later only got a single 20mm while Fw 190s for the most part had 4 20mm cannons.
At that time that was more similar to a heavy fighter.
You can easily make up for maneuverability with squad tactics and speed.
Just like with tanks, planes, single seat planes particularly, where usually shot down without knowing what hit them.
Now that I think about it, probably the best reason to have a back gunner.
Even when the armament was insufficient, you had another pair of eyes that would be able to call out an enemy.
In RB you have much better awareness than Sim so it’s much easier to evade.
At the same time it’s also easier to make deflection shots, since you always know where you’re aircraft is aiming, relative to the enemy.
But you need to be able to pull a lot of AoA or be able to cut into someone’s flight path to do that.
So maneuverability is much more important in WT than it was in real life.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
A plane indeed didn’t need to be the most manoeuvrable to be successful. Look at the fw190 which decimated the allies throughout the war. Dogfights were never longer than 2 to 5 minutes anyways and usually lasted one or two passes (for high altitude interceptions).
I mean you indirectly confirm the OP that the FMs of the 190/152 family are not even remotely realistic - try to fight a 3.7/4.0 Spit in a Fw 190 A-4 and compare your experience with this article:
The key message of flying the Mk IX vs a plain 190:
The roll of the Fw 190A was far superior to that of the Mk IX, and the overall manoeuvrability was superior, except in the case of turning circles, where the Mk IX could get inside the Fw 190A for the all-important killing shot. However, the ability of the Spitfire to turn was one of its most well-known traits, and experienced Luftwaffe pilots would likely have avoided this at all costs in any case.
So it looks like that wt and irl are different worlds😂
1 Like
I honestly was only replying to the comment about real life, war thunder and real life are completely different. I’m currently reading Pierre Clostermann’s book and it highlights well how much many planes were almost equal in strength. But in this argument’s case, I think the flight models might be different from their irl counter parts, yes, though i have no proof and I don’t want to look for any, i like flying the 190s in the game
This information is just as relevant as the original post. I think it serves as a great addition to show that there wasn’t such a huge gap between these two aircraft (the 190 and the Spitfire) as the game currently represents.
Countless times I’ve engaged in dogfights against Spitfire Mk IXs and their variants using a 190 (A5, D-9, D-13, etc.), and the only real chance of coming out on top is by starting the fight with significantly more energy and altitude. Otherwise, there’s no real way to reverse the fight or even escape to reposition.
Even if you try to take the fight vertical or attempt any possible maneuver, the Spitfire will just fall in behind you like taking candy from a baby.
In other words, there’s no use trying to run, scissors won’t work, climbing won’t work, and not even setting up an energy trap is effective—because the time you take to dive back at him is just enough for the Spitfire to regain position and already be turning around you.
It makes me wonder: were FW 190 pilots superhuman magicians, or were Spitfire pilots just that bad? Because if these aircraft were truly modeled accurately in-game, then the Luftwaffe would’ve been wiped out within days.
When I say that Gaijin prioritizes and over-represents certain aircraft characteristics while under-representing others, it’s not an exaggeration.
Any average to decent player can defeat a FW 190 without much trouble.
The only BR where you can realistically stand a chance against a Spitfire in a 190 is around 3.3, where you face the Mk V—there, you still have a power and acceleration advantage.
The current 190 flight model in-game has an absurdly punishing and inaccurate drag profile. The Spitfire LF Mk IX feels almost like a UFO compared to any 190: its climb rate is ridiculous, and its drag is practically nonexistent. Even with a significant altitude advantage and bringing the fight into the vertical, it can still catch you with ease—and it regains maneuverability after a stall climb almost instantly.
I simply can’t understand why there’s such a massive gap between these aircraft in-game, when in reality they were fairly matched in combat.
1 Like
Thx, but this whole discussion is nothing new - basically the topic pops up every few weeks / months and lasts for several years. That’s why i recommended to use the search function - over the years i saw countless threads dealing with 190/152 FMs.
From my pov any attempt to convince gaijin to change their practice (like here: Non competitive FMs) is futile. They can read too and are fully aware of this - you can just vote with your wallet.
From my pov the main issue is the popularity of the German ground TT. Basically everybody there wants to play Tiger and buys German aircraft in any case (to perform CAS or play CAP) - no matter how good or bad their FM is.
If you’ll allow me, I’d like to respectfully disagree a bit. I believe that if there’s a massive outcry from the community, recognizing the unfairness that’s being pointed out here in this post, there might be some change. I bet they receive tons of complaints regarding the 190s/152s. I’ve been an active player since 2020/2021, and I believe many of us here have already noticed the ridiculous discrepancy surrounding these aircraft.
That’s why it’s important to share this kind of information — and those who actually want a game that resembles a true simulation won’t enjoy flying a UFO and beating another plane knowing it wasn’t because theirs was better, but because there’s a clear imbalance. I’ve even posted a few things about the 190 myself — it’s on my profile, by the way — but as you said, Gaijin can read, they just don’t care.
Still, if a user manages to create meaningful engagement, maybe some change could come. Until then, we keep trying haha o7
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Which is something that should not be done. Period.
My comment only discredits the post because pretty much everyone agrees you should simply not touch AI when it comes to these topics. Especially not ask the AI to create actual performance data.
Spoiler
I’m also pretty sure a lot of your more recent comments are AI prompts, or at least use AI in some way, given certain… patterns.
Yes, my comments go through ChatGPT, but only with the intention of translating what I’m writing. I’m not a native English speaker, and to avoid misunderstandings about what I want to say and to make communication easier, I just ask for my message to be translated.
And that’s precisely why I ask the AI to properly organize the sentences so that they are grammatically correct, because my English is far from decent. It would take me an entire day to write a short text, with a high chance of spelling and grammar mistakes.
Besides, it would sound too formal and awkward to someone who is fluent or a native English speaker. I don’t see anything wrong with asking for a translation of words I created in my own native language.
1 Like
It was all there but now the images are dead:
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Take this anecdote with a pinch of salt for two reasons.
1: We don’t entirely know the skill level of the Tempest pilot nor all of the parameters in which the fight took place.
2: Evidence suggests prior to this a TA-152 was already shot down by a Tempest.
Speaking from an SB perspective the 190 will have zero problem dealing with the Mk V Spitfires. The only advantage the Mk V has is what it had in reality which is turning performance. The 190A easily out runs and out zoom climbs the Spitfire as it should. In fact the A flight model is far too forgiving compared to historical accounts.
If you’re comparing it to an F Mk IX then things get a lot more even as it did in reality. But still the 190 out rolls, out dives and I’d wager it out zoom climbs the Spitfire. If any 190 decided to get into a turning fight with a Spitfire it’s dead… as was the case in reality.
No, they weren’t.
You’re comparing a later 150 octane LF IX to an earlier 190A. That Spitfire would absolutely mulch the A and outperform it pretty much across the board. The top of the line 190 that Spitfire would be facing would be the Dora.
The LF IX was a specialised low altitude hot rod with a climb rate of around 5000ft/m off memory matched to a highly manoeuvrable airframe. The issue in WT is that the BR is too low for the LF IX. In SB it’s 5.0 when it could even be 6.0.
2 Likes