Calm down, he is right and you are wrong…
6 Likes
I quote myself “You only see a few of every vehicle’s stats information in the format of “stat card”” which means if you open the files for a specific planes like for example bf109K4, you see hundreds of different things that create the experience of that plane’s flight model. The stat card tells you how many of those hundreds? a few?
Lemme guess you can’t understand a simple thing that if there is a speed indication in the stat card, it’s only for the specified altitude that’s also written in the stat card and I’m not surprised your non-existent brain didn’t realize that.
The stat cards are functionally meaningless. They don’t come from the files. They are manually set which means they very often are wrong to how they perform ingame. Plus, the limits on the stat card can often be surpassed through things like fast dives. Take the P-63C-5 for example. That plane’s rated top speed is 663 km/h. In a dive I can. easily push 750 km/h with it and I’ve hit 800 km/h in some instances. Yes, the stat cards are technically true under certain parameters, but the chances you will actually be in those exact parameters are low enough that the statcard can be functionally ignored for performance.
And don’t accuse me of not having played long enough. You account was created on January 18, 2020. Mine was created on February 1, 2017. I have played for nearly 3 years longer than you.
2 Likes
And cool down right now or I will go get an actual moderator involved.
3 Likes
Just because they are both 109’s doesn’t mean the airframe is identical.
The BF 109K-4 likely has more drag due to the large blisters for the landing gear on each wing as well as the nose cowling being enlarged for engine-related upgrades.
In fact, the BF 109F-4 had the cleanest airframe of any BF 109 variant IIRC.
But they don’t even look the same.
- BF 109G-2 has a 21.7 m/s climb rate.
- BF 109K-4 has a 23.6 m/s climb rate.
- BF 109G-2 has a top speed of 620 km/h @ 5000m.
- BF 109K-4 has a tp speed of 701 km/h @ 5000m.
Both of those values are based on extremely accurate testing using identical conditions for both aircraft.
2 Likes
You do realize they fought France Poland and early war Russia? Early war 109s had an edge, late war they were outperformed by contemporary allied designs. If you want to know more about IRL performance and comparisons I can recommend this videos from this channel
4 Likes
You know that 9 years ago all Bf 109’s were heavily nerfed because some nation mains other than germany cried a lot about it and they got what they wanted right? You knew that?
I’m actually asking for all the nerfs to be undone. These planes are nerfed even the G2 and no one ever mentions it. Is it not time yet?
If I want the 109’s to go back to their old good time, do I have to cry about it on the forums a lot and get some friends to do it too?
Is this behavior of gaijin not gonna change?
Are they only caring for those army of whine-a-lot ?
Full fuel, probably military power, probably sea level.
@Mighty_Yamato
There are no nerfs to be undone. This is a game that models flight models and weapon systems as accurately as possible.
If you have an issue with the flight model, prove it.
If you have an issue with engine output, prove it’s wrong.
And the guns are accurate so you can’t change much there.
Just because you don’t know about the nerfs doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Go watch any video on YT about Bf 109’s from 9-10 years ago. They will all tell you the nerfs and how easier it is to fight 109’s and much harder to fight in them.
Problem is the fact that I have to start a dogfight with a big altitude advantage to be able to win against anything. On the other hand, a spitfire can follow me on any maneuver such as stalls, spirals or scissors despite having a weaker engine whilst being the historically the useless one. Such historical accuracy in this game wow!!!
Its pretty well documented that the spitfire is a more aglie and manuverable aircraft and in certain varaints certainly faster and more powerful than the BF-109. Engaging your targets with an altitude advantage and Boom and Zooming is probably one of the best things you can do in a 109
3 Likes
Nerfs are a thing for arcade games.
War Thunder does historical changes, simulation improvements, and so forth.
Cannon damage has been changed at least 5 times since the game started, which is normal for a game that seeks to improve damage simulation over time.
There’s a very strong Spitfire platform at 5.7 called the LF Mk9, and it is probably the single strongest all-rounder Spitfire in the game, and certainly stronger than all the BF 109s, even giving a P51H5NA a headache if used correctly.
However, there are other Spitfires that aren’t as powerful.
Power to weight matters far more than raw power of engines. Otherwise the Bearcat would be the best prop fighter in the game producing over 2700HP, or the 6.0 Corsair producing ~3000HP of power.
Physics realism has nothing to do with historical accuracy, and WT gives us tools to use WEP on manual-engine control, something that real pilots would avoid doing during dogfights.
If you have problems with the flight models, gather up historical documentation on the aircraft’s flight performance and bug report it.
Meanwhile, most BF 109 variants are still extremely competitive and easily capable of carrying games.
3 Likes
Messerschmitt 109 series is over performing in game compared to real life and other Aircraft’s of WW2. 109 series main weaknesses have all been removed in game what allies pilots exploited in WW2 and made into popular tactics.
BF 109’s Had a high drag coeficient, bad maneuverability especially at high speed because they lost control of ailerons due to its high wing-loading, they would stall under ‘g’ and had a relatively poor rate of turn and roll rate. 109’s had Heavy controls suffered from control stiffness at 250mph what was catastrophic in a dive exceeding 300mph and would result in total loss of controls and aircraft. Flaps wouldn’t deploy at speeds in game, 250kmh is max deployment speed for 20 degrees of flaps what is not considered safe operating speed and would take a little while to deploy. There’s some anecdotal evidence from senior luftwaffe pilots of wing failures from pulling out of dives to sharply.
If someone want’s to do the honours and volunteer and file a bug report most of information will be on interwebs ww2aircraft.net has alot discussions on what are fact checked with manuals books and pilot notes.
What is this cope post again
Look at the climb rates using this chart. Useful. You can see the k4 climbs the best.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1hgHbWlSjefFhCqOUeGpoKQntdQDPG32X7XQo9EqDF00/htmlview#
Their kills were also bolstered by the mass amounts of Il2s through the war which were essentially free kills for them. I love that guy’s video’s. Very educational.
1 Like
You can look at the 109 from every possible angle - the 109 is still the most successful fighter aircraft ever built, flown by the most successful fighter pilots ever airborne and used by the most successful fighter wing ever existed (JG 52).
It looks like that it also had the highest number of non-combat losses due to the conscious decision (for easier rail transport) of attaching the landing gear (undercarriage for UK guys) to the fuselage.
Almost everybody loves his channel - at least from a pure technical perspective. There is no doubt that he loves the P-47 and is very patriotic regarding US hardware - but this is fine as it is his channel.
Btw - regarding you video regarding drag: Just look at this regarding speed:
… performance advantages are mainly based on available and “usable” high octane fuel - resulting in an increase in hp available - and not because they were the better aircraft designs.
Dude i told you this last year - avoid tap water. :-)
Jokes aside - you are experienced enough to acknowledge that the old and new forum is filled with posts describing open and hidden nerfs of various aircraft. Either by missing loadouts (like missing 2 x SC 2500 for Ju 288) or by unannounced changes of FMs.
Start a survey and ask long term Ju 288 players how often their plane got slower or the rip speed decreased over night - or why engines started to overheat much earlier - ofc without any official communication.
But the best example for FM deviations (irl and wt) is still the abysmal bad FM of Fw 190 A models.
Comparison 190 vs Spitfire
Evidence:
In that same month, a Mk IX with a 61-series Merlin was flown against the captured Fw 190A. The test found that at varying altitudes, the speed difference was not more than 10 mph and the Spitfire was usually superior, but only by a small margin. In a climb, the Fw 190A was slightly better due to its superior acceleration, but not remarkably so, while in a dive the Fw 190A was better, especially in the early stages. 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. One noticeable advantage of the Fw 190A was its ability to get away from a Spitfire by doing a flick-roll in the opposite direction to the angle of attack and then diving away, so Allied pilots were warned to expect this move.
From here:
Anyway - have a good one!
Seriously? You want to compare two not even remotely connected things like wt and real life? And assess 109s as overperforming in wt???
Maybe this might be the reason why the P-51 D-30 sits at BR 5.0 the G-14 at 5.3 and the G-10 & K-4 at 5.7. The major difference is that series production of the D-30 started after WW2 ended in Europe. It looks like that a few saw action in the Pacific.
Imho you might consider getting some actual knowledge instead of claiming nonsense like this. Aircraft with a top speed of 440 mph at 25,000 feet (K-4 - in horizontal flight) won’t compress and crash in a dive with 300 mph.
Your post in general became useless with such claims.
The next “opinion” post.
It looks like you have zero knowledge about the difficulties the LW fighters had to kill these beasts. Almost every LW memoir describes just 2 successful / reliable ways to kill an Il-2: Prefered from below aiming for the retractable oil cooler (delayed kill) or from direct above aiming for the cockpit glass (instant kill).
Everything else was either extreme CQC like performed by Hartman or coming from the side in a right angle to avoid that 20mm shells just bounce of the heavy armor. The most successful 190 Pilot (Otto Kittel) was killed after 267 kills by (most likely) a rear gunner of an Il-2 in February 1945 - so much regarding free kills.
That their combat losses were high is true, but this is also a result of the high risk business flying multiple sorties a day in an extremely dangerous combat area.
I had 100% of an idea of what the LW had to do to figure out how to kill IL-2s. What the hell is up with you and downplaying. I already knew they had sophisticated ways of killing IL2s, so that they didn’t hit the heavily armored fuselage. I knew that. But once they had figured out of a way to effectively taking out IL2s, they were easy kills for them. The IL2 was just too heavy to act as a fighter, it’s engine was too weak (it produced a bit of power but it was also very heavy). If they took proper precaution they were easy kills. Rear gunners as far as I am aware weren’t all that effective, one notable guy dying to a rear gunner isn’t enough proof for it to suggest they were very effective or that the IL2 wasn’t easy to kill. This is the weakest argument.
Because of aerodynamic control problems at high speeds. Also, several failures in the aircraft structures under rough handling while “pulling” out of steep dives at high “G” Loads.
Aerodynamic fact Messerschmitt Bf-109 had a reputation for difficulty in pulling out of a high-speed dive due to its design and the aerodynamic forces at play. The aircraft’s narrow landing gear and high wing loading made it prone to entering an uncontrollable dive at high speeds. Additionally, the Bf-109’s elevator control stiffened at high speeds, making it challenging for pilots to pull out of a dive. These factors combined to make recovery from high-speed dives more difficult compared to some other contemporary aircraft.
Messerschmitt’s elevator control was very heavy at high speed and there are reports that Spitfire pilots would escape from 109’s by diving towards the ground and pulling up at the last moment knowing that the German would find it much harder to pull back on the stick to escape destruction.
Pilot notes even state 250-300mph where controls stiffen occurred. In level flight at 400mph pilot could only exert one fifth of Ailerons
Actually according to wiki 109 K4 maximum speed with MW 50 and maximum boost was 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) at level altitude not in the horizontal.
Ju-288, a plane that I’ve been using since it release.
Its changes were all open and justified.
It was too fast, and its wings worked at too high of speed.