If the Spitfire pilots that shot down two Ta’s said they felt that it was easy to overcome the both of them would you also say that the Spitfire was at least 50% superior to the Ta?
“It was easy to overcome the Tempests… except that one that shot my friend down”.
I’d also take what Reschke says with a pinch of salt (not saying he lied intentionally a lot can happen in battle) after in his recount of the action he denies Sattler being shot down despite the fact he quite clearly was.
There’s a lot of mysticism around the Ta, like the story where Kurt Tank himself was bounced by Mustangs just after he’d taken off and yet he left them both behind. Really? You’re telling me that two Mustangs that are already in the air after diving and attacking an airfield were left behind by an aircraft that had just taken off?
To be clear I’m not saying that the Ta wasn’t an excellent aircraft but to state how it was the best thing since sliced bread because of what one pilot is saying is a bit… wrong.
This case is very well described in Harmann’s book, and since you don’t stop mentioning this case, you must know that the Ta 152H delivered to JG/11 were test aircraft, where a few familiarization flights were made. These aircraft were never used in a mission, because as I mentioned, they were test aircraft and were shot down by Spitfires when they were returning to Leck, test aircraft with pilots unfamiliar with them. Well, it shouldn’t be difficult to shoot them down in this situation, unlike Egon Mayer, who shot down Spitfires in the Anton in combats at over 6,000 meters, in the middle of B17 formations, where the Anton’s engine lost a lot of performance haha
The Zeros turn only matters at low speeds.
The moment the fight is happening at high speed the Zeros advantages goes out the window as it can’t pull more Gs than US pilots, and the Hellcat can turn with the Zero.
Only in WT, where pilots can turn impossible G loads, the Zero can still out turn any other fighter.
I’m sure there were times when Antons shot down Spitfires. There might even be instances where 190 pilots claimed the could out turn the Spitfire. But would you say based on that (much like you’re saying with the Ta-152) that 190’s could consistently out turn the Spitfire and that the 190 was the superior turning aircraft?
The Tempest was an overwhelmingly successful aircraft with a kill ratio of 8:1. This obviously includes Dora’s, Antons and 109’s, would I therefore say that the Tempest was outright superior to those aircraft? No.
Reschke claims he out performed the Tempest but we don’t know what condition the aircraft nor pilot was in. He states himself they were doing strafing runs which is when he bounced them so he’s starting in an advantageous position. Was the Tempest already damaged by ground fire, was the Tempest experiencing engine trouble (the Sabre never was the most reliable lump), was the pilot inexperienced? As you’d mentioned Reschke has already witnessed combat with quite a few confirmed kills. Reschke also mentions that in multiple instances the Tempest makes mistakes turning into his guns.
To base an aircraft’s performance on one skirmish and then declare it should be at least 50% better when there’s so many variables is more than a bit silly… especially when said wonderplane was shot down by a Tempest moments before.
Exactly this, aircraft aren’t performing as they should due to our superhuman pilots. Zeroes in game also like the 109 have magical elevators that can pull out of high speed dives like it’s nothing.
If our pilots were actually human there would be speeds where the 190A could out turn the Spitfire. Instead of unfairly nerfing the Spitfire or buffing the 190A we need to focus on G limits instead.
If you read my post, you know that yes, the 190 outperforms the Spitfire in turns, as long as the German pilot turns the right way for his fighter, the Spit has an advantage in initial turns due to its larger wing area. Let’s put an example exercise, a Spit and a 190 cross paths, both pilots turn looking for the maximum angle. Let’s put the numbers just for the sake of example, the Spit achieved an angle of 50° degrees and the 190 of 45°. As time goes by, the turn angles decrease due to the loss of energy, but the 190 loses angles more quickly due to its smaller wing area. It needs more air to maintain a high turn angle, which makes the pilot push harder and harder, which makes him get slower and slower and eventually be overtaken. This is the case where the Spit surpasses the 190, but it’s because the pilot played the Spit’s game, now the way correct, to be correct, both planes cross each other, the spit makes a turn seeking the maximum angle of 50° degrees, the 190 makes the turn seeking energy conservation, then makes a turn of 35° degrees, in the first seconds the spit starts to gain the turn, but then its performance starts to drop, going to 40° degrees, while the anton remains at 35° degrees, a few more seconds pass and both stabilize at 30° degrees, let’s go like this because the spit pilot decided not to force the turn anymore to maintain energy, and seeks a turn like the 190, even so, due to its larger wing area, it creates more friction with the air causing it to lose energy, so its turn drops, 29°, 28°, 27°, 26°, 25° degrees, while the 190 stays at 28°/30° degrees, because its smaller wing area, it conserves more energy in turns at medium/medium high angles, and That’s where the 190 starts to win the curve, there’s a guy who makes a video on IL2 Great Battles which is in fact a pure simulator, in a D9 doing this against a Spitfire, and it wins, in the WW2 era there was no such notion today of instantaneous turns and sustained turns, for example F16 pilots turn seeking to conserve energy, they don’t turn to the maximum, because the F16 was the last fighter designed for dogfights with cannons, while other fighters like Rafale, F18 etc, have turns with high attack angles, to frame the opponent faster for heat-seeking missiles, that’s why these fighters are better than the F16 in 1-circle combat, but in 2-circle combat the F16 is superior, in a German fighter, you should turn thinking like the F16 pilots, because its smaller wing area will conserve more energy with medium/medium-high turn angles
One more thing, the Ta 152 in all its variants, the spars are made of steel, which makes the wing more rigid, making the plane reach the turn angle desired by the pilot, more quickly, and also reach higher turn angles, and once again, I have a table that shows the turn performance of the spit, 109, P51, Tempest, D9, H1, and the H1 surpasses all with the exception of the 109 which is the K4.
Nobody cares about this as the context matters: Here the time they entered combat and quality (hardware AND pilot skill) of their opponents and general circumstances. Tempests fought mainly vs less trained adversaries, had thanks to radar support in almost every occasion numerical superiority AND altitude advantage.
If you had invested just a fraction of your time in reading the Tempest combat reports (link for the 2nd time):
…you might have noticed this.
Technically seen your reference to an allegedly 8:1 K/D is just proving that you run out of real arguments. Based on your logic the Finnish B-239s were the best fighters in WW 2 - with a K/D of 26:1. 😉
Even without being a fanboy the Ta 152s (especially the H versions) were fascinating from a technological pov. In order to beat expected B-29s their very high alt performance was unmatched and their technicians & designers managed to create a high performance aircraft with plain 87 octane fuel - whilst all of the very late and post war so called allied “superprops” gained their performance mainly based on high octane (100-150) fuel provided by the US and invented by a Polish guy.
The sole exception from this rule were the very late Spits (last in combat in WW 2 - F Mk XXI) with an imho unmatched high critical and tactical Mach number for prop aircraft - a really good design.
…and other vids (a lot of vids regarding 190s) on his channel. Even if sometimes his patriotism seems too much (i share his passion regarding P-47s) there is a lot of research included.
I’d be very suspicious of that table especially when it claims that the 109K can out turn the Ta yet the Spitfire cannot… Which Spitfire are we talking about? The Griffons didn’t turn as well as the Merlin but there’s comparative fighter trials that can be found online which shows they still had an extremely tight turning circle.
Considering the 109K and G’s were noticeably less agile than the F’s I find it somewhat hard to believe the K out turned a Spitfire unless it was a test with a damaged Spitfire.
Comparing the power to weight ratio of the Ta and a Griffon Mk XIV we get.
Spitfire: 0.258hp/lb (2050hp/gross weight: 7923lbs)
Ta-152: 0.196hp/lb (2050hp with MW50/gross weight: 10421lbs) This is the lightest weight of the Ta I can find, some sources claim it weighed over 11,000lbs. Turns out there’s a very good reason why people used duralumin instead of steel…
Wing loading:
Spitfire Mk XIV: 32.72lb/sq ft.
Ta-152: 40.3lb/sq ft.
The Ta would probably have less drag than the Griffon but considering it loses out on power to weight by a comfortable margin and also has a higher wing loading to go with it you can see why I’m sceptical, at high speeds the Ta might be able to out sustained turn an XIV but in most instances I can’t see it happening. At turning fight speeds you want less weight and more acceleration along with a low wing loading. The Spitfire aces all three compared to the Ta.
Yes but this is my EXACT point. You cannot base aircraft performance on pilot anecdotes or encounters like what was done earlier with the Ta-152 this is what I’ve said for ages now. This is why I said that we knew Reschke was a quadruple ace (20 confirmed kills wasn’t it?) but we have zero idea of the condition of the Tempest nor the experience of the pilot.
The facts we know are you have a 20 kill quadruple ace starting from an advantageous position against a potentially damaged Tempest with possibly a green fresh out of flight school pilot and people are using this as a sign of the Ta’s superiority.
This evidence being so daft is the sole reason why I keep reminding you that the Ta was also previously shot down by a Tempest on that exact day and in the brief encounters with Spitfires they got butchered. I’m essentially using your own methods against you to show how stupid this is.
Again you’re not seeing the point being made. I mentioned the 8:1 kill ratio when you rambled off about Egon Meyer shooting down Spitfires. It was a sarcastic point against you using pilot anecdotes and encounters to prove which aircraft is superior. “Egon shot down Spitfires in Antons at altitudes where the engine lost a lot of performance haha”. Well as stated the Tempest was 8:1. You’ve listed Tempest combat reports where they clearly shoot down late war 109’s and 190’s so the Tempest must be superior to all of them eh?
The F-16 is also incredibly light with a high power to weight ratio. The 190A with emergency power has a power to weight ratio of 0.20hp/tonne. To put that into perspective a Spitfire Mk Vb has a power to weight ratio of 0.22hp/tonne. Although I believe that’s an LF variant which may be what we have in game as it goes.
Anyways to get back on topic because we could no doubt debate this until the cows come home.
In War Thunder right now the Spitfire F Mk IX is not over powered. The 190A out accelerates it comfortably, is superior in a vertical climb and retains energy far far better than the Mk IX. The Mk IX’s strength is in its turn performance as it should be.
As for the Ta-152C-3 it turns like an absolute bus but if you want me to do the same tests as I did with the A vs Mk IX I can.
I half-wonder if complaints about Spitfire F Mk IX are complaints about Spitfire LF Mk IX.
Spitfire LF Mk IX, when asking Team LFG discord, is described as a vastly different beast compared to F Mk IX. LF Mk IX is comparable to Ki-84 in oppressive quality, F Mk IX is ‘strong but with flaws’ like G.55 Sottoserie 0 is.
In SB, F Mk IX is 4.7. LF Mk IX is 5.0.
Lf Mk IX is Rolls-Royce Merlin 66
F Mk IX is Rolls-Royce Merlin 61
Raw power to weight without consideration for prop efficiency and all that we get…
If it’s the LF IX then in my opinion it could easily be 5.7 like the Ki-84’s could be. I can’t remember what the F4U4’s BR is but that could be higher as well. The flight model is ridiculously easy.
He pretends not to know that in 44, when the Tempest entered into operation, the majority of German pilots were recruits with little training, with some having only 10 hours of flight time, and already being sent to active squadrons.
Hey, there’s a video of a guy who makes videos for IL2 Great Battles telling interesting facts about the K4, where it’s mentioned again that the K4 turns more than the Spit XIV, wing loading in the end doesn’t say much, since bombers have very low wing loading, and by any chance they turn more than fighters? But once again you ignore the fact that the United Kingdom did not share the performance data of the Ta 152 compared to the Tempest, which corroborates with Reschke’s reports and the published data of the Germans, where the H1 is superior to the Tempest, I cited Egon Mayer, because above 6,000 meters the Anton’s engine loses a lot of performance and the rare air effect, should make the larger wing area of the Spit, should increase the advantage even more, but Egon apparently didn’t take notice of the phrase “never turn with a Spit” hahahaahahah the table quotes the historian Green, and I’m not surprised that the K4 outperforms the H1, since the maximum weight of the K4 is 3,400 tons and the engine generates 2,000HP, the H1 had advantages in initial turns of high angles of attack, but to sustain the K4 it will be better and in the table the performance is close, but the K4 still has a little more advantage, in IL2 Great Battles, the H1 outperforms the Tempest too, it is a pure simulator, where the simulator faithfully seeks the performance of the aircraft, the 109 was getting heavier, but the problem that most affected its performance was that the German pilots continued to fly it the same way as the E and F versions, where the pilots did not turn with maximum power, but rather reduced power, so that the slaps on the leading edge of the wing would activate more quickly, so that the plane gained a high angle of attack. However, in the G and K versions, this technique was no longer as effective, so instead of turning to retain energy, they turned thinking about adding the slaps. The first versions of the 109 were so light, they almost became aerobatic planes.
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.
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…
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:
