Bf109s and FW190s are the worst experience i've had in this game

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
522

I mostly find myself agreeing with what you’ve said about the merits of German aircraft and the ever decreasing skill of German players, though I’d say that this decrease in skill is present in other nations as well, and only so noticeable in German pilots because of their former prowess, especially compared to the Americans, who would struggle to get worse.

That said, I think you are viewing German aircraft with rose-tinted glasses. If they were everything that they should be, and were not facing planes dreamt of by Allied and Soviet propagandists, then your high opinions would be entirely justified. As is, the majority of German aircraft manage only by the mistakes of their enemies, and fall short against any competent enemy flying a similar BR plane in a comparable energy state.

Bf 109s are, generally, either overtiered or face mostly undertiered enemies. They still do well with energy, but either they climb worse than they use to, or the planes they fight climb a bit better, because I notice less disparity in climb rate than I used to. They just aren’t fully competitive, and I’d say that they range from below-average to thoroughly mediocre in actual performance, even though I like their playstyle.

There was a solid period of 2-3 years where I considered myself an Fw 190 main, and if the Fw 190s weren’t in their current state, and were not facing the issues common to German aircraft, then I would likely still consider myself one. As of now, their guns have been nerfed multiple times; they lack the boosters they historically had, to my knowledge; they overheat rapidly despite all historical evidence, objective and anecdotal, to the contrary; their elevator authority is artificially limited; and once again, against all evidence to the contrary, they now compress at high speeds quite a bit more than they used to.

Fw 190s have suffered the fate of Me 262s, and exist now as fodder for Allied and Soviet players. I do not believe they are intended to be playable in their current state, and in my view the deluge of nerfs have passed from the realm of incompetent indifference and into that of deliberate action.

I still mostly play German aircraft, still finding their playstyles more to my liking, and being overall more impressed by the engineering choices in their historical designs. I just don’t fly them with nearly the same enthusiasm or fun as I used to, and more often than not become frustrated after little time playing them; doubly so if I then switch to flying a P-51 afterwards and can feel the difference in performance.

7 Likes
523

This is one of the best reviews of the Bf-109 I’ve ever read, from the G6 variant up.

G6
The Bf 109 G-6 in War Thunder has an “old” type airframe (similar tail to the G-2), but its engine has MW-50 injection, so in terms of performance it is a 1944 aircraft. G-6/Late would be an acceptable designation.

G-14 (German)
The German Bf 109 G-14 in War Thunder has the external appearance of a regular G-14, but has a high altitude engine, so its performance is closer to the G-14/AS. The reason Gaijin did this is to differentiate the G-6 (which has late series performance) from the G-14 (which would normally be virtually identical to the late series G-6).
The G-14 in the game also has an Erla cockpit canopy, which improves the pilot’s visibility. This later became standard on the G-10 and K-4.
Another point that distinguishes the G-14 from the G-6 is the landing gear covers on the upper wings. It appears to use the same type that was later used on the G-10.

G10
The G-10 was a larger, redesigned version of the Gustav and was equipped with the new Daimler-Benz DB 605D engine.
The DB 605DB had a take-off power of approximately 1,850 hp, offering a slight increase in power over the older DB 605AM and 605ASM engines. The high-octane variant, the DB 605DC, had a power output of up to 2,000 hp. Both of these variants were used on the G-10 and K-4, and varied from one type to the other depending on the availability of fuel and MW-50 fluid. In War Thunder, the G-10 is modeled with the DB 605DB engine. The new engine also had an enlarged oil cooling assembly, which required minor changes to the forward fuselage, but these small bulges are only really noticeable if you know exactly what you are looking for.
Otherwise, the G-10 was largely similar to the G-6/Late and G-14 models. One notable modification was the increase in the height of the tail wheel strut, which slightly reduced the nose-up position of the aircraft on the ground. This made the aircraft easier to control on the ground, and also safer to land, as it was possible to perform a three-point landing without having to raise the nose as high.
However, since ground attacks were not a high priority for Germany at the end of the war, weapons options were limited compared to the G-6 and G-14. More than anything else, Germany needed fighters to counter the seemingly endless Allied bomber attacks, and the designs of their aircraft from the end of the war reflected this need.

K4
Other than that, the K-4 airframe was very similar to the G-10. The engines were also the same - either DB 605DB, or 605DC depending on fuel availability. In War Thunder, the aircraft is modeled with the DB 605DC engine which makes it the highest powered and fastest Bf 109 in the game. In raw numbers, the K-4 should also be the most maneuverable of these four late 109s, but this only applies to sustained turn performance with full engine power, which the K-4 has aplenty. In terms of handling characteristics, though, the G-6 and G-14 may have a slight edge since they have slightly lower empty weight. There are some dubious inconsistencies in the relative empty weights of the K-4 and G-10, though - with the same armament options, they should have nearly identical empty weights, but the K-4 is marked as quite a bit heavier in the official data sheets, so that might be making a difference there…
K-4 also changed the default motor cannon into a MK 108, though MG151/20 could also be used. Other armament options included MG151/20 or MK 108 gun pods on the wings.

In general, it can be said that they are demanding in terms of shooting skills (especially be careful with frontal attacks, the ballistic curve of the weapons is quite disadvantageous compared to other aircraft, it first rises above the horizontal axis of the aircraft and at the target it drops a little below the axis) and it is an energetic aircraft that ideally exchanges height for speed and also quickly loses speed in tight turns) so in dogfights near the ground it can often be defeated…

524

The G-6 and G-14 in WT are virtually identical.

What is that? Some AI summary?

1 Like
525

I’m also flying the Ta152C-3 and facing similar issues—a terrible flight model, repeated firepower reductions, and to top it off, the addition of piston-engine aircraft spawning mid-air has made it utterly unbearable.

3 Likes
526

The airspawn is the only thing that makes the C-3 even remotely playable. Without it, it would be entirely useless. The main issue, though, is really just how stiff it is. I think it’s probably the least maneuverable plane I’ve played aside from the F-104. It means that even if you energy trap someone and drop all flaps, you still probably can’t pull in.

1 Like
527

I would say it this way…
The Gustav G6 version was the last completely new development platform for the Bf-109 type. Subsequent variants were already built on this platform. Although they had different engines, other partial changes in the design, but the basis is still the G6. I see it as one of the first attempts to make a modular aircraft design that can be used universally (add different engines, different sets of weapons, etc. to the standardized airframe).
I think that the G6 airframe was the final completely new model of the BF 109, the next one would be a completely different aircraft, a different design, a different name, etc…
Although they worked with the Me-209 project, but the clear successor is the Me-262 and the designers already considered this design obsolete…
The next machine would probably be some machine from the Secret project category of the Luftwaffe, but that’s science fiction…

1 Like
528

I’ve flown most early variant BF109’s, surprised to see so many negative comments on them, the only one I consider truly awful is the E-3.

And the reason I find it absolutely dreadful isn’t because the plane itself is bad, it’s mostly the fact prop players are dogshit and your team melts away, you’re just constantly boxed in. No one fucking climbs as well so you’re always the only guy at alt and you have 4 monkeys with spaghetti alphabet names (wink wink) running you down. The guns are also atrocious but that’s something you can work around imo.

^ This also applies to the Ta152H, good plane, horrible matchmaker and teammates.

The G6/K4 etc sound dreadful, no interest in flying those against bullshit like the H5/3U.

1 Like
529

this is mostly about anything after the E variants i think but the early 109s are rlly good

thats the only bad thing about the E-3 i can remember

1 Like
530

It’s comical, your 7.62 deal more damage.

531

Might I recommend giving WW2/prop tier air sim a try (at 3.0-5.7 - we have rotating max BR rather than random up/downtier as follows: Warthunder Air Sim BR Calendar)? This was mostly why I ditched ARB (initially as an american main, since then I diversified to multiple aircraft - especially 109s) and sim has solved it in multiple ways:

  1. Big map, No marker, max 3 hour rounds: No forced furballs. They still exist, but you can pick your poison usually. Way more opportunity for uninterrupted 1 vs 1
  2. Players /tend/ to be more sensible at WW2/prop tiers (occasionally you get weird toxicity, usually involving streamers or high ego people. I found 4.0-5.0 lobbies the worst for this - don’t really see it on other days) outside of big event grind periods (then we get people J-ing out and lobby hobbing as a national sport).
  3. Full-real controls can dramatically alter certain aircraft’s capabilities (like 109s and their leading edge slats, engine effects leading to some unique behaviours)
  4. Multiple lives in a long round removes the snowball effect (although lobby system instead gives you people who ditch hard lobbies. Usually not THAT big of an issue at 3.0-5.7, but event periods can make it worse).

**Perspective written based on lobbies played around UTC+0 19:00-23:00 window. Cant comment on how other timezones behave except for weekends occasionally.

It’s not that hard to get into if you take a moment or two to familiarize with how propeller-driven planes behave and work (Reqiuem/BFM tutorial library has a “principles of flight” playlist; plus GA instruction videos (altho warbirds behave more like acrobatic planes). You also don’t need HOTAS or a headtracker - MKB (WT Live // Controls by RunaDacino - altho am thinking of some modifications to further improve this) or a xbox controller (WingalingDragon has tutorials) can be more than competetive too!

1 Like
532

The E-3 in the “right” hands is an absolute beast - i met last year quite often an exceptional player (stat link) whilst playing the UK Hellcat. You are forced to play around him as the E-3 & E-4s outturn my Hellcat (which outturns any Yak) rather easy, i have inferior climb and just a slight speed advantage - and i don’t perform head-ons.

I do agree that the MM at this BR is a pain a lot of highly motivated but also highly inexperienced GER team mates facing broken planes like Yak-1B or MB 157. If you want to have fun: Use the C-3604 as fighter!

1 Like
533

I should’ve specified that while I find the plane itself excellent, the reason I consider it awful are the absolutely anemic guns, i mean the 7.62’s in the nose seem to do more damage for fuck’s sake. It’s a good thing you can just helicopter above your target over and over in case the guns don’t do anything I guess.

Highly motivated to chase one bomber around and leave me 1v5? Yeap, agreed.

I’ve flown this thing a bit and it’s just disgusting, the enemy team is basically screwed as long as you’re alive.

1 Like
534

Yeah, it’s generally miserable to play Ta-152 (H or C) right now. With everyone airspawning, there’s no energy advantage and the flight model does not allow to be succesful. H can dogfight some planes, but Spit Mk XVIII or Yak-3U diving from above is usually too much to handle.

And right now like 50+% of maps seem to be all airspawn. Why the hell? Don’t know.

3 Likes
535

I wonder, why use E3 when E1 has more consistent armanent? In all honesty, I prefer MG17 to MGFF…

536

same here, pretty sure most kills I got on the E3 came from the nose machine guns.

537

I will ask him next time😉

Edit:

He plays the E-1 & E-3 with similar exceptional success…

538

Ta152H is the single biggest dissapointment this game gave me so far. Teams are genuinely completely and utterly retarded, every single one of the 8 matches I’ve had were 1v7s, there’s quite literally nothing you can do because NO ONE will take the fight unless they’re surrounded by their rat teammates as a safety net.

Props genuinely are the worst BR’s in the game.

1 Like
539

See my earlier invite! ARB will just get you frustrated. Sim has its flaws, but it solves most ARB issues and it’s quite learnable in a few hours. WW2/Prop sim is 4 out of 5 times fun. If you got a wingman, even more often than that.

1 Like
540

no props are rlly fun if you play them right
but superprops are just very unbalanced (a few examples would be Yak-3U, Spit LF mk-9, etc, etc) and therefore not very fun

1 Like
541

no offense but I know what I’m doing and props are simply. not. fun.

It’s the most vile display of rat behavior and third partying sweatfest, practically everyone playing props these days is garbage.

The p51h basically ruined 6.0, yeah.