Critique my understand of Air battles (realistic vs. arcade etc.), the three aircraft types as well as the three fighting styles, the rank I-V vehicles of a few tech trees, and even maneuvers

Critique my understand of Air battles (realistic vs. arcade etc.), the three aircraft types as well as the three fighting styles, the rank I-V vehicles of a few tech trees, and even maneuvers.

I played War Thunder roughly 18 months ago for a while before taking a long hiatus and now I’m finally back. I’m mostly interested in air battles and wanted to have some people critique ad correct the way I understand how air combat works in war thunder as well as a few of the tech trees.

One quick reiteration: in this post I am focused a bit more on how flying styles and several tech trees perform in the early ranks (rank I-V) more so than how the aforementioned may pan out after jets arrive

Pt. I - Arcade battles vs. realistic battles

Realistic battles are in fact realistic in may ways but something is lost on me. As far as I know, combat pilots do not fly with the instructor off hardly ever. This is a big part of what makes realistic battles more challenging… that you must fly without the full guidance of the instructor that you would get in arcade battles. Yet, I must not be seeing this clearly because it seems to me that ARCADE battles are in fact more realistic than “realistic” battles because in arcade the players have the full-fledged guidance of the instructor which prevents them from frequently crashing… which is something we don’t see a ton of in actual combat. What am I missing here?

Pt. II - The three aircraft type

Strike aircraft are generally not viable let alone bombers. If one really wants to do a bit of ground pounding and survive their best play seems to be researching a good fighter with decent secondary weapons and to be selective about what targets they choose and how much weight they carry. That seems to be generally true however there are several nations that have strike aircraft and even a bomber or two that are viable. I am thinking along the lines of the British and Russian tech trees and along the lines of the Stukka dive bomber as well. Russia of course has the IL-2 which is considered one of the only strike aircraft that is better than a “flying egg” that basically awards the opposing team a kill as soon as it spawns in. Further, it seems like the British tree is being overlooked in regards to its versatility. The strike version of the hurricane seems more than capable of holding its own in a dogfight boasting a turn radius that many fighter aircraft would envy. Am I missing something here, or are there more viable stikers/ bombers in the early ranks outside of what I’ve mentioned.

Pt. III - Fighting styles (BnZ vs. Energy fighting vs. Turn fighting)

Many people in the community believe that turn fighting seems to be the most beginner friendly and the most “brain dead” of each of the styles. I don’t necessarily disagree as it seems BnZ in particular requires a great deal of setting up, patience, and even some outright boredom if you don’t want to get yourself killed. On the other hand, turn fighters can often control lower altitudes where ground targets and air fields are which sometimes seems to make them better suited to handling various objectives. Seeing as BnZ fighters (and energy fighters capable of BnZ) are very popular I think that my view of all this is probably incomplete.

One other thing I wanted to add is that it seems to me that turnfighters are more versatile in that a good handful of them are better at energy fighting and even performing some vertical turn fighting techniques / high yo-yo’s / hammerheads etc. than BnZ aircraft are if in fact the BnZ aircraft are at a high speed or on the tail end of a dive. Again, turn fighters don’t strike me as being more popular than fighters of the other two varieties so I’m thinking that maybe I’m overestimated their versatility and their energy fighting capabilities.

Pt. IV - A few tech tree’s that illustrate some of my above points (or misunderstandings)

The American tech tree is one that many players embark on and wish to “conquer” however it seems that new players find it very frustrating because the American planes are typically not very maneuverable and require a great deal of patience, setting-up, and even “resetting.” Take some of the aircraft from the far left column, the P-39n’s, P400’s, and airacobras of the world for instance. If after diving on an opponent you don’t come up with the kill, you are supposed to climb again and set up all over again. Many new players miss on their initial dive a disproportionate amount of the time, turn into their opponents after missing a disproportionate amount of the time, and just altogether fail to “zoom” or at least “run” after their initial engagement all to often. This leaves many new players frustrated and calls into question how skilled one must be if they want to fly a plane of this variety in view of the fact that arcade matches for instance can be over in as little as six minutes. In other words, it seems that a tree such as the American one can be quite overrated for someone who is a beginner because it is somewhat one dimensional and requires a lot of smarts/ experience that new players don’t have.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the British air tree (at least the early ranking vehicles) could be vastly underrated for a beginner or even for more experienced players. Why? Well not only does it feature a “brain dead” sort of combat style by yielding several maneuverable turn fighters but it also seems to have at least a couple of reliable strike aircraft that aren’t extremely easy prey for the enemy (Hurricane mk. IV, tempest, and maybe even the firefly). If that’s all not good enough, it even offers the typhoon as an energy fighter if for whatever reason a newish player finds that they are better off without turn fighting.

Pt. V - Maneuvers

This will probably be the least polished segment of my post (not that the previous parts WERE polished). I don’t necessarily believe that maneuvers are “overrated” necessarily, but it does seem to me as someone who has been trying to implement various maneuvers as of late that many of them are fairly overrated and often times, depending on your aircraft, just not particularly helpful at all.

First of all, whenever I read about maneuvering on the war thunder forums or on reddit etc. it always baffles me that there is never a distinction made between out of combat maneuvering and in combat maneuvering. I think this creates some confusion for new players. Players watch youtube videos featuring maneuvers or read a post on reddit that describes many of them and they leave thinking they will be impossible to kill the next time they takeoff in war thunder. Yet . . . MOST MANEUVERS ONE CAN PERFORM IN WAR THUNDER OR ANY FLIGHT SIMULATOR ARE OUT-OF-COMBAT MANEUVERS THAT TYPICALLY DON’T INCREASE YOUR SURVIVABILITY.

To add an extremely important piggy-backing note to this, war thunderers need to understand that there is no maneuver that can serve as a substitute for smart, high-flying that prioritizes altitude, smart positioning, and energy trapping enemies before they close in.

Hopefully the above illustrated that I’ve come to think that there are two different types of maneuvers:

a.  In combat maneuvers - these serve as a poor substitute for good positioning and high altitude

b. Out-of-combat maneuvers - performed prior to an engagement, usually when the nearest bandit is 2+ kms away.  These can also be useful for repositioning and improving time on target against ground targets.

I think I have a perfect pair of examples leading into this segment. Let’s begin with two of the most popular combat maneuvers and why I don’t think they are all that they’re cracked up to be.

1.  The split-S maneuver

Okay before you throw potatoes at me let me explain why I don’t think the split-S is all its cracked up to be. Then, later in the post I will explain why I think it can be strong if used properly. First of all, this maneuver is really only viable in aircraft that have good roll rates (isn’t it?). Trying to roll to one side with an aircraft that isn’t suited for rolling will waste multiple precious seconds that you could have spent jinking or trying some other maneuver. Second, this maneuver can easily lead your plane into mother earth if you are not at sufficient altitude. The same is probably not characteristic of the majority of other maneuvers. There are simply too many occasions in which someone has already ducked and dived to the floor and left themselves with insufficient altitude to perform this maneuver.

2.  The Immelman

To be clear, I actually think the Immelman is a very useful out-of-combat maneuver. But it doesn’t seem to be as useful for the purposes of evasion and energy fighting as others. What’s interesting about the Immelman is the original purpose it was designed for. Former German pilot Max Immelman described this maneuver as being an ideal way to re-engage GROUND TARGETS after completing a strafing run. Depending on the angle of pursuit your attacker has taken I think the Immelman could possibly be quite useful but to me it seems to be better suited for out of combat maneuvering against ground targets.

Now that I’ve mentioned a few maneuvers that I think could be overrated, let me mention a few that seem underrated. You’ll notice that the maneuvers I mention here are mostly pre-engagement maneuvers that are designed to drain energy or position your aircraft appropriately before you get yourself into too much trouble

1. The chandelle (pre-engagement, slow climbing turn)

The chandelle is an out-of-combat (usually) maneuver that you can use to trap an enemy just as he is closing in. Where as I described most out-of-combat maneuvers as being performed when your opponent is just beyond 2km, this one could be performed when your attacker is a bit closer. Yet, the earlier it is performed the safer you will be. This maneuver is a strong, pre-engagement energy drainer that not only makes you safer but also preys upon your opponents eagerness to score a kill.

2. Yo-yo's (high and low - in combat)

No question the various yo-yo maneuvers are fairly popular. So perhaps it isn’t really “underrated” but for new players who haven’t learned such maneuvers, it certainly is.

3. Split-S (AS AN OUT-OF-COMBAT MANEUVER)

Earlier I suggested that the split-s was “overrated” because I think a lot of players view it strictly as a post-engagement, in-combat “escape valve” of sorts that will get multiple bogeys off your tail in one magic swoop and that just isn’t realistic for ANY maneuver let alone one that could wind up having you smash your plane into the side of a mountain. On the other hand, it’s imperative for players to learn how to cut into and under would be attackers who are diving on them. A split-S that involves appropriate banking/ angling seems like it can serve as a pre-engagement maneuver that cuts under the nose of a would be attacker that is/was closing in from roughly 1.75 - 2km’s leaving a would be ZnBer out of sorts and wanting for a much simpler dive.

4.  Spiral climbing (pre-engagement/ as engagement begins)

As I understand the spiral climb, it is essentially a more “acute” version of the chandelle. The ideal time to employ a spiral climb is when an enemy below you at a distance of about 1.5-2+km’s is en route to perform an ascending attack. Aggressively banking while ascending slightly, creating what is basically a corkscrew trajectory, helps one to achieve a “spiral climb” which can often result in your enemy losing most all of their energy.

That sums up my novice understanding of maneuvers. Again, what I have learned is that there are really no post-engagement/ in-combat maneuvers that will save your bacon after you have failed to fly high and to utilize PRE-ENGAGEMENT maneuvers. Please pick apart my description of these various maneuvers and add in any that seem useful that I’ve forgotten. For instance I have sometimes been pleased with the simple barrel roll from time to time when I have someone on my six. Honestly, I think if beginners really want an “escape valve” that they can consistently implement (because it is inevitable that in War Thunder SOMEONE will wind up on your six) I would suggest some simple diving with jinking mixed in. Remember, if someone is on your six, they don’t have great sight on the vital parts of your aircraft and a greater number of their shots will bounce.

Well there you have it guys. Educate me on my War Thunder self-education.

I disagree, this is the main challenge you get in simulator battles (that and decreased awareness). The main thing that separates arcade from realistic is the flight models. In arcade you can pull 13Gs+ and this causes fights to be a lot more fast paced with less emphasis on positioning, energy, vehicle characteristics etc. While this is great for lower tiers, I don’t like the pacing this creates in the mid to top tiers of the game.

Thats true, but for a good reason. One needs to take into consideration the other gamemodes you can being aircraft in, such as ground rb. This is where strike aircraft shine when used properly. They can also be used for ticket bleed, which while unpopular can win a match.

More interestingly, I have seen modern variants of the su25 be used to kill airfield campers outside of AA range, which is quite creative and interesting to see.

Not to mention that with the upcoming seperation of ARB brs from GRB we will hopefully get strike aircraft that are much more viable in air battles.

I disagree. I would say that context matters significantly in pretty much every scenario, and by extension it is necessary to decide on what playstyle to engage the opposing player with. In addition, I would argue that air in general revolves around you understanding your own plane, the enemy plane, and the circumstances around you to determine what your best course of action is. Trying to turnfight or bnz everyone in every scenario will only get you so far.

Though I do agree that in terms of skill requirements, something like turnfighting can be a lot more easier, but the hidden downside to it is that its also limiting. A zero cannot really do much against a bf109 that is energy fighting it properly, as turning becomes significantly less important in this scenario.

I am not very certain where this line you are trying to draw between in-combat and out of combat maneuvering begins/ends, but I disagree with this (using the definitions you gave in the code bracket). I don’t see it much, but delaying a maneuver (such as waiting a bit and using a split S to dive on an enemy below instead of just trying to go for a gun shot on them) can be extremely beneficial as it provides better positioning and makes it harder for the enemy to fight back at you.

??? As I understand it the main purpose of a Split-S is to conserve energy, not turn faster. Roll rate becomes irrelevant if you are high up and are just trying to conserve as much energy as possible when boom and zooming an enemy. Only factor the roll rate assists in is pulling the maneuver in a speedy fashion, but this ignores the fact that you probably shouldnt be doing split-s maneuvers mid turnfights.

Yes this is the energy trap and you need to do it with care. If you are too predictable you can easily get gunned down but if you do it well, you will have the easiest kill of your life. I have hit 1km+ on planes trying to energy trap me, but I have also been shot the same way.

I highly suggest watching DEFYN as his gameplay and guides are top notch when it comes to ARB (which I would say requires more skill and knowledge compared to air arcade).