‘Over-rated’ is usually internet speak for ‘I don’t like it but can’t really explain why empirically’.
All these ‘overrated’ aircraft seemed to be on the Allied side too. Funny that… it’s almost like there is a slight pattern or bias involved…
The error in this is that you’re ignoring the circumstances which caused the results you’re quoting. In France the RAF was already fighting against an enemy that was already battle tested in Spitfires/Hurricanes that mostly weren’t even using 100 octane fuels at that time. Both aircraft had only really fully transitioned a few months after the start of the battle of Britain.
During the battle of Britain the Spitfires and Hurricanes also had to “fight on the climb” which also understandably made life difficult. Once the 109’s were instructed to stick with the bombers and the advantage if anything was reversed things began to change. You can’t use this to decide aircraft performance as that means the P-51’s etc later in the war were vastly superior to anything the Germans had and the History Channel was right all along… Plus I could quote the Spitfire Mk V vs 109’s in Africa and the Med where the Spitfire attained a 5:1 kill ratio against the 109.
As mentioned above we’re talking about aircraft performance. The Spitfire was a superb aircraft as was the P-51 and the Luftwaffe respected both of them equally for a very good reason. As I’ve said earlier you didn’t want to be in a G-2 or G-6 (especially before the boost restrictions were lifted!) against a Mk IX.
I agree, it’s a bit silly to base your perspective on battle results etc as there’s too many variables. Much like basing opinions on the Spitfire because of the battle of France and the disadvantages Britain faced during the battle of Britain.
The difference is that the Spitfire accepted these modifications far more readily than the 109 did which is pretty well known fact. German pilots themselves admitted that the 109 became more powerful but few of the persistent problems were ever fixed. The Spitfire lost a small amount of its agility but it still handily out turned almost everything else in the sky and out climbed them as well. If I can find it I’ll post the chart where the Mk XIV was compared in turn times against the P-51/Typhoon etc and it handily out turns both of them. In regards to speed didn’t the RAE test a very early Griffon against a 190A and Typhoon and the Griffon walked away from the pair of them during testing?
As I said the 109 was a superb aircraft early on and as mentioned I’d choose a 109F over a Mk V Spitfire. But later on the 109 never really caught up. Even with the K-4 barely if any of them even ran at 1.98ata.
1 Like
Just as an example why your whole post is a mix of selective reading (sometimes called misinformation), shifting goalposts and denying hard evidence. One primary source as evidence for one of my claims:
You find 2 excepts of a RAF test report and in the first paragraph of the second page the following sentence:
“As as result the Spitfire and Hurricane are more suitable to intercept high-speed bombers than the Curtis; the Curtis H-75 is undoubtedly the best of these three aircraft for any form of aerial combat in which maneuverability is of prime importance.”
Maneuverability matters the most in CQC (aka as turn fights) - so your reply is objectively seen flat wrong. No need to invest more time to prove your entire post wrong.
Edit: Flag attack - rephrased in order to avoid hurting feelings. Flagging a reply disproving a counter argument as “inappropriate” is a rather sad strategy. Looking for the second flag wave in order to get the post unlocked by a forum mod.
3 Likes
well the yak3 kinda stomped every german plane they did throw at it at the time it was built
but this also just kinda uhhh
pronounces the bs balancing we get for it being at the same br than the plane it was superior to (at least at lower alts where most fights on the eastern front
and also in game took/take place)
1 Like
Since Luftwaffe Lenny has decided to ignore anyone who calls out his disinformation. I will make this clear for those who do read more than one cherry-picked survey
‘CQC’ doesn’t even appear in WW2 aerial combat literature. It certainly does not appear in RAF literature.
Maneuverability is but ONE of multiple factors for a traditional turning fight - plenty of case studies showing ‘less agile fighters’ winning over things such as A6M Zeros despite not necessarily having advantages in terms of energy or speed. It isn’t the magical be-all and end-all.
Here’s the bit of his report fragment from a random internet blog he DOESN’T mention.
“RAE engineers officially logged that the Spitfire could break off combat at will. Because the Spitfire possessed a 50+ mph speed advantage, the British pilot held total tactical control. If the Spitfire pilot was at a disadvantage, they could simply walk away from the engagement; the Hawk pilot had no choice but to stay and fight defensively.”
Wonder why he didn’t mention that bit?
Frankly, his post reads less like an objective summary and more like a Wehaboo rant.
But hey, he’s ignored me so I suppose he won’t be troubled with awkward facts After all, nothing screams ‘I can defend my statements’ like running away!
You might look this up - from my pov you are not correct:
- June 1939: First significant shipments of 100-octane fuel arrive.
- Late 1939 - March 1940: Engine modifications authorised and carried out; conversion of squadrons begins.
- May–June 1940: Front-line Fighter Command units switch over.
- 10 July 1940: Battle of Britain officially begins.
This looks like a misconception.
The whole point of the Dowding system was the opposite. Radar and ground control usually managed to put the fighters in a good position before contact, often with alt advantage. Late scrambles happened, sure, but they weren’t the normal situation. The system’s strength was that it mostly stopped the RAF from having to fight on the climb the way you’re describing.
That looks like a fair point, but unfortunately these numbers are just a result of RAF overclaiming (like in the ETO) and are not backed by actual LW losses. In other words: If you find a primary source confirming your claim for the whole campaign i owe you a drink.
Not sure if we talk about the same. My understanding of overrated is based on battle impact and results, not about performance in a direct 1 vs 1 in various potential combat scenarios irl or wt.
-
My view follows the kill vs all losses (due to all causes) approach - meaning that even assuming that all kill claims would be correct the combat effectiveness is a mix of numbers of sorties vs total A2A kills compared to losses to all causes.
-
That’s why i fully acknowledge that Spits and P-51s filed for 6,300 & ~ 5,000 A2A kills, but the price for that were 3,000 and 2,500 plane losses - meaning barely a 2:1 kill to loss ratio.
-
Based on this metric 109s and 190s were even worse as their total production was about 55,000 whilst their kill claims are widely disputed (range of - 30,000 to 70,000). Even if you deduct the specialized ground attack versions from this equation the picture just gets slightly better.
My main point i was trying to make is that irl the tide turned in Spring 1944 and at this time the air war (especially LW vs USAAF and RAF) shifted from the LW barely staying alive to a crushing defeat. And in this fight aircraft performance played no real role as irl was similar to wt Air RB in the TDM mode: Playing in numerical disadvantage does not work if you are totally outnumbered 😂
Basically the only (cynical) advantage the LW had was that they inflicted way more battle deaths of flying servicemen if you aggregate RAF, USAAF and VVS human losses than they suffered, but this is just a side note - and even that turns negative as soon as you count dead civilians they were unable to protect.
It’s a free world 👍Have a good one!
1 Like
It’s clear that air warfare had many variables besides the raw potential of the aircraft model. For example, the quality of the pilots and their training, which initially favored Germany, changed over time. Between opening another front and the entry of the United States, the Luftwaffe had to spread itself across several fronts, accumulating more and more casualties and unable to replace them with well-trained pilots. Meanwhile, as time went on, both the Americans and British were able to accumulate expert pilots, who became instructors and, in turn, generated a large number of pilots who, while not extremely skilled, were very competent. Therefore, the war ended with the Luftwaffe having only a few experts and a large number of overly inexperienced pilots, while the British and Americans filled the skies with competent pilots.
1 Like
“Meanwhile, as time went on, both the Americans and British were able to accumulate expert pilots, who became instructors and, in turn, generated a large number of pilots who, while not extremely skilled, were very competent.”
That’s how the Western Allied system worked and how it was designed to. If you got your X sorties down as a Western pilot - you’d be rotated out to train the next gen, and so on. Imagine learning the ropes from someone who had just come back from flying combat - they’d be right on top of the latest tactics, the latest hardware, what was working, what wasn’t. That’s know-how that keeps people alive.
A German or Japanese pilot would just fly until they inevitably got killed. Also Soviet pilots - they had a bit of a ‘fly until you die’ routine going.
Great for making legends. Crap for making a resilient Air Arm.
I know which way of war makes most sense to me!
2 Likes
it’s meh, the MG 151 nerf really had an impact on the German fighters. Mine shells are way underperforming in damage. They should have worse ballistics but great damage to compensate, now they have neither.
most of the allied teams also just didn’t bother to climb and as you said player experience shifted
1 Like
The general situation on each front also contributed to this. If you’re as desperate and barely clinging on as the Soviets were in the early stages of the war and the Germans in the latter, you’re forced to constantly throw everything and everyone at the enemy without having the luxury of letting large cadres of pilots accumulate sufficient flying hours under the tutelage of experienced pilots not needed at the front, in comparatively safe conditions far removed from enemy action.
By and large all warring parties organised the training system they could afford to adhere to at a given time. For some it was less a matter of choice than of necessity. Desperate times etc.
2 Likes
It was also the heyday of the spaceclimbing pre-nerf German La-5FN premium.
Yes and no. It is also a mindset of the LW in particular having Experten rack up impressive scores but not really sharing that know-how among the institution as a whole.
Early-war Luftwaffe pilots were not rotated out of the line and continued to be frontline (hence why some of 109 aces racked up significant tallies). By the time you got the Battle of Britain, many of those LW pilots would have been rotated into a teaching/instructional role if they’d been in the Commonwealth or USAAF.
Same for the IJA and IJN. In the early years of their war they had ample opportunity to be rotated out. Yet, they were kept in the line until unfortunately they were killed.
Later on? Sure - you’re going to throw people in again and again if truly desperate. However, pilots take a long time to train to fly, even longer to fly well and considerably longer to fly and fight. They’re a resource that any Air Force (whether on the offensive or defensive) really does well not to squander.
Correct, but basically none of your points play a role in WT.
That’s why comparisons of IRL and WT are futile. Your training example is one of the best examples you can choose to prove this:
-
IRL pilot training focuses on learning to fly, to navigate, to manage resources like fuel and to know what to do in critical situations. WW2 aerial combat training was rather limited regarding the time investment and boiled down to learning by doing by getting teamed up with more experienced pilots.
-
In WT’s popular modes the whole flying, managing resources and controlling the aircraft is done by the instructor - and combat relevant topics like situational awareness is delegated to markers.
-
That means that WT players can focus exclusively on combat – making them compared to IRL pilots “super-aces” - no matter which nation they fly at which BR. A 400 hour trained IRL pilot would be easy victim in WT fighting a guy with 400 hours WT fighter experience.
The issues addressed in this topic deal with competitiveness in a plain vehicle based shooter. As pointed out earlier: The WT prop-Air RB meta shifted completely from German dominance to German inferiority. That means:
- The mix of open and hidden nerfs combined with open or hidden buffs for adversaries makes it extremely difficult for average players to be competitive outside niche modes like Air SB. Gaijin’s BR setting policy reflecting battle results of their players is somehow not able to reflect the shift of the WT meta regarding German aircraft.
- From a holistic POV the only logical conclusion would be to rework all flight models (in order to eliminate buffs and nerfs) and to rework game mechanics like G-LOC and instructor limitations - otherwise you can’t level the playing field.
- But as long as the game works like right now WT excels just in presenting very selective aspects of realism which are actually favoring the opponents of German aircraft - so whilst the control stiffening of 109s above 550 km/h seems accurate the high speed manoeuvrability of Yaks is far beyond human capabilities. Same as engine power nerfs. That is why I don’t fly German prop planes in Air RB as 109s and 190s are way too easy targets regarding their performance related to their BR.
As a side note:
- The main reason for the Germans having less trained pilots was not the lack of candidates or aircraft - it was the result of the lack of fuel.
- If you dig deep enough in the web you find lots of sources stating that German flight schools had at least from late 1940 / beginning of 1941 onwards massive issues to get fuel to train recruits.
- That means training of new pilots took longer than necessary, whilst the effects could be seen only much later (1942-1943) when losses increased whilst replacements were unable to replace the losses at full strength.
- The idea to shorten training in order to produce more replacement pilots makes sense only if you accept that pilot quality (based on training) is decisive just on roughly equal terms, but irrelevant in a significant number disadvantage (there are some noteworthy exceptions, but the general view is solid) – same as individual aircraft performance.
2 Likes
For me, the serious problem, not just with the planes but with all the vehicles in the game, is that the developers have decided to add realism to certain vehicles, but only in certain aspects. With planes, for example, the fact that the rudders of some planes compress realistically while others barely have any problem moving. Or that the ballistics of the cannons is a factor in the game while the explosive payload hardly matters. The fact that some planes have their flight model changed simply to make them worse, etc.
2 Likes
lol are you seriously trying to use “trust me bro” without irony? lmao even, the audacity.
Lmao total armchair general.
1 Like
Feel free to counter any of my points. I look forward to it - doubtless you can show me what I’m getting wrong…
Or you can do as the other poster did and run to the Ignore Button the moment someone calls out their misinformation with some basic logic… which is quite frankly hilarious.
Sad, but hilarious. You can’t give people the ability to think critically after all; just try to encourage them to use a bit of common sense…
It’s your choice.
His general conclusions are supported by historical sources I have read.
One of the things missing from this conversation is pilot experience levels at the time of the Battle of France + Battle Of Britain. Average German pilot at the time had a fair bit more flight time than their British counterparts. This ratio would significantly change throughout the course of the war.
Murrays “Strategy For Defeat” goes into significant detail.