**: Imbalance in SB Mode for (F) Spitfires Compared to Inferior Aircraft**

Game Discussion Simulator Battle
1

: Imbalance in SB Mode for (F) Spitfires Compared to Inferior Aircraft

Hi everyone,

I’d like to bring attention to some questionable balance decisions made by Gaijin regarding certain Spitfire variants in Sim mode.

Why are the Spitfire Mk XIVe, Spitfire Mk XVIIIe (both Griffon-powered), Seafire Mk XVII, and Spitfire LF Mk IX sitting at 5.3 BR, while aircraft that are worse in almost every aspect are placed at 5.7 or even higher?

Examples: Fw 190 D-9, Fw 190 D-12, Ta 152 H-1, Ta 152 C-3, F4U-4B, I-225, La-9, Ki-84 Otsu, J2M5, Sea Fury FB 51, and others…

The Spitfires I mentioned could easily sit at 5.7 and still dominate most matches without the pilot needing to put in much effort to outperform “higher-rated” aircraft. If we swapped the BRs—moving current 5.7s to 5.3, 6.0s to 5.7, and these Spitfires from 5.3 to 5.7—we’d still see Spitfires outperforming many opponents in dogfights, energy fights, or sustained engagements.

So here’s the simple question:
Dear Developers, what is the logic behind putting these Spitfires at 5.3 SB, while the aircraft listed above are stuck at 5.7 or even 6.0?

These Spitfires outperform most counterparts in nearly every category:

  • Superior climb rate
  • Better turn rate
  • Excellent energy retention
  • Superior in low-speed dogfights
  • Often better acceleration and armament
  • Fewer weaknesses overall

In SB, they also benefit from great cockpit visibility, robust engine WEP time, and excellent structural integrity in dives.

Now imagine flying a Fw 190 D-9 or D-12 and having to face any of these Spitfires in a fight. Your only hope is to have significantly more energy, boom-and-zoom, and run away—and even then, Griffon Spits will likely catch up regardless of altitude. Forget turnfighting, energy trapping, or verticals—these Spitfires outperform most opponents in nearly all aspects.

Let’s not ignore the historical inconsistency either:
The Spitfire Mk XVIIIe was a late-war/early-postwar aircraft and should not be sitting at 5.3—it deserves at least a 6.0 BR if balance and historical context matter at all.

I would seriously appreciate any justification from Gaijin for keeping these planes at 5.3. From a balance perspective, it makes zero sense. Even an average pilot can turn a fight around with these aircraft due to their absurd turn rate and acceleration compared to many opponents at a higher BR.

Thanks for reading, and I hope the devs reconsider the current placement of these aircraft in SB.

2

Spitfires are hard to fly in sim, and I assume that that’s the only reason why they are lower. If the wings didn’t stall violently if you pulled too hard, they would be a higher BR.

That mostly doesn’t matter.

4 Likes
3

Exactly what I was going to say, when I fly one I have to limit my elevator pull, otherwise the plane throws itself into a flat spin. I remember hearing something about how the more agile a plane gets, the less stable it is: this is why the F-16 need flight computers to stay airborne; as you would fall out of the sky without them. So the more stable a plane is, the less agile it is. Like the F-4 phantom. You can’t have both.
If you are going against a spitfire in air simulator, the pilot is fighting the aircraft and you. This is why they have lower BR than they have in air RB.

4

That is likely not an “average” pilot you are facing

5

Spitfires are some of the hardest aircraft to fly in SB which needs to be factored in

1 Like
6

spits are not easy to fly but once you slightly get a grips of them you tend to just stomp anyone else

7

Every aircraft has its own difficulties when it comes to flying. And the vast majority of planes will stall if you don’t manage the controls properly during a tight turn — that applies to almost any biplane, with very few exceptions. The Spitfire is by no means such a difficult plane to fly.

Notably, the Spitfire can turn — a lot, really — and it’s no surprise that it gets unstable in sharp turns, because there’s a physical structure behind that behavior. Have you ever tried holding an FW190 D-9 in a sustained turn? That’s also pretty difficult.

And even if the Spitfire is somewhat hard to control at times, it’s vastly superior in several aspects — it’s very easy for a Spitfire to end up on your six. Even though it has a slightly off aiming prediction, since it has a heavy engine up front that you need to compensate with trim, you still can’t outrun it, you can’t out-turn it, and you can’t even hold enough energy to bait it into an energy trap — unless you’re way faster than it.

I’m up for the challenge: let’s go for a 1v1. You pick any of the aircraft I mentioned, and let me fly the Spitfire against you. If it turns out to be balanced, fine — I’ll apologize and delete my post.

8

Every aircraft has its own difficulties when it comes to flying. And the vast majority of planes will stall if you don’t manage the controls properly during a tight turn — that applies to almost any biplane, with very few exceptions. The Spitfire is by no means such a difficult plane to fly.

Notably, the Spitfire can turn — a lot, really — and it’s no surprise that it gets unstable in sharp turns, because there’s a physical structure behind that behavior. Have you ever tried holding an FW190 D-9 in a sustained turn? That’s also pretty difficult.

And even if the Spitfire is somewhat hard to control at times, it’s vastly superior in several aspects — it’s very easy for a Spitfire to end up on your six. Even though it has a slightly off aiming prediction, since it has a heavy engine up front that you need to compensate with trim, you still can’t outrun it, you can’t out-turn it, and you can’t even hold enough energy to bait it into an energy trap — unless you’re way faster than it.

I’m up for the challenge: let’s go for a 1v1. You pick any of the aircraft I mentioned, and let me fly the Spitfire against you. If it turns out to be balanced, fine — I’ll apologize and delete my post…

9

Every aircraft has its own difficulties when it comes to flying. And the vast majority of planes will stall if you don’t manage the controls properly during a tight turn — that applies to almost any biplane, with very few exceptions. The Spitfire is by no means such a difficult plane to fly.

Notably, the Spitfire can turn — a lot, really — and it’s no surprise that it gets unstable in sharp turns, because there’s a physical structure behind that behavior. Have you ever tried holding an FW190 D-9 in a sustained turn? That’s also pretty difficult.

And even if the Spitfire is somewhat hard to control at times, it’s vastly superior in several aspects — it’s very easy for a Spitfire to end up on your six. Even though it has a slightly off aiming prediction, since it has a heavy engine up front that you need to compensate with trim, you still can’t outrun it, you can’t out-turn it, and you can’t even hold enough energy to bait it into an energy trap — unless you’re way faster than it.

I’m up for the challenge: let’s go for a 1v1. You pick any of the aircraft I mentioned, and let me fly the Spitfire against you. If it turns out to be balanced, fine — I’ll apologize and delete this.

11

Yeah no. Spitfires are a 1 trick pony.

“Hurr-durr they slow speed turn good!!??!!!”

Damn… That’s crazy if only idiot circles on the deck wasn’t the only way to dogfight.

12

But the spitfires are notably more difficult to control compared to nearly everything else. The only plane that I know of that is similar are the I-16s. They are great when properly used, but they are difficult to use properly.

And it being harder to use balances that out.

1 Like
13

Literally, this doesn’t bring a significant disadvantage, especially after a few days of training with this aircraft. I’ve been playing Simulator mode for years, almost exclusively using the rudder axis, and I can guarantee there’s no reasonable way to shoot down a Spitfire unless you catch it off guard, or simply keep high energy and run home to try to reposition. I know exactly what I’m talking about—no other aircraft presents such a huge discrepancy in terms of difficulty to reverse a dogfight or even to evade when at similar energy levels. An average player in a Spitfire on your six is practically a death sentence unless you get fast cover from an ally. You can even prolong some dogfights by exploiting the Spitfire’s low roll rate, but even after countless overshoots and strategic repositioning, it can aim at you with much less energy than you. There’s simply nothing you can do when you’re in a FW190 or a P-51. Like I said, the only alternative is to hit and run, and maintain a significant energy advantage during the dogfight — something that after 2 or 3 dives, the Spitfire can already catch up with you vertically. Not to mention how hard it is to land shots in sustained dogfights — the Spitfire almost meets you in head-ons during sustained turns due to how superior its turn rate is. To sum it all up, it being ‘hard’ to control in turns is not a plausible reason to keep it at 5.3. Considering all this, it has far more advantages than disadvantages compared to the aircraft I mentioned. I don’t see any reason to keep the ones I listed at 5.7 and the Griffon-engine Spitfires at 5.3 — at the VERY LEAST they should be at the same BR."

14

And the problem doesn’t stop there. The flight models of aircraft like the P-51, FW 190 (Dora), or TA 152 C and H are completely misrepresented. An FW 190 D-12 or D-9 should have superior acceleration at low altitudes — it should at least be able to gain some distance in initial acceleration compared to the Spitfires. But regardless of your altitude, Spitfires don’t lose performance at low altitudes the way they realistically should, and the engine power of the aircraft I mentioned is heavily underestimated by the WT developers. So not only does the Spitfire have a real advantage over the FW 190, but the few advantages that should be present for the 190 are completely ignored in the game — with everything coming down to who can turn better. That basically sums up War Thunder’s gameplay. I also play IL-2, and the FW 190’s acceleration is represented much more accurately there, and the Spitfire can’t maintain tight turns with such energy retention like it does in WT. If there were a more realistic flight model, maybe the BR would be fair, but with the current one, there’s just too much discrepancy for a fair dogfight in most situations.

15

Having read through the comments, I would like to make a response to the following as the rest is conjecture really.

The Spitfires I mentioned could easily sit at 5.7 and still dominate most matches without the pilot needing to put in much effort to outperform “higher-rated” aircraft. If we swapped the BRs—moving current 5.7s to 5.3, 6.0s to 5.7, and these Spitfires from 5.3 to 5.7—we’d still see Spitfires outperforming many opponents in dogfights, energy fights, or sustained engagements.

All of the vehicles in this game are balanced based on the average performance achieved by the playerbase. Vehicles are not balanced based on their potential as mentioned above.

It’s not uncommon for me to get 15+K/D in the Jagdpanzer IV (4.3) when I’ve had a good night sleep but I still average a K/D of 3 overall. Just because something has potential doesn’t mean it will ever be realised. Vehicles battle ratings shouldn’t be based on player speculation, it is based on actual results.

If you think it’s over performing, go gather some data on players who are over performing.

3 Likes
16

There’s nothing wrong with the Griffons. They’re fighting max performance/boosted aircraft whilst they’re gimped to 21lbs of boost. If all Griffons (even the Seafire for whatever reason) gets pushed to 6.0 because Ze Germans actually have to think for once in regards to fighting Britain then let our Griffons run at 25lbs of boost and see how you feel then. Your Dora will still be fighting the same aircraft but now they’ll be even more powerful.

Thinking along the same lines as your post I’d also advocate for the A7M2 to be 6.0 because my poor old Mk IX is completely outclassed by it. The Ki-84’s can go there too along with the TA-152 as it can out sustained turn my Griffons pretty easily.

17

The same could be said of the 190 though.

18

Ahhh sure, okay then, let’s operate the Dora models with the Jumo 213J using C3 fuel and MW50, giving it over 2500HP. Also running at 1.95 ata. For comparison’s sake, if that were the case, we’d have super props reaching over 750 km/h at 2,000 meters. And that’s not just fantasy from my head, but actual test data from 1944

19

You’re talking about this in a completely superficial and baseless way. I guarantee you’ve never faced a Griffon-powered Spitfire while flying an FW190. The only one that might stand a chance in prolonged engagements is the Ta 152 H-1, and it’s at 5.7 just like the D-9 and D-12. There’s nothing you can do to effectively fight a Spitfire (with a Griffon engine) while flying a 190. Even if you force your opponent to overshoot and miss multiple engagements, he’s still capable of losing all his energy and easily getting on your six. Even my grandmother could reverse a dogfight against a 190 if she were flying a Spitfire.

20

How many Dora’s entered service with this engine setting? Because 25lbs of boost with 150 octane fuel was certainly used on the Spitfires yet we aren’t allowed them. If 2500hp Dora’s saw genuine service then it should be added.

If the Griffon Spitfires are to be pushed up in BR then what will Britain have to fight against the D-9 and the late 109’s, will we be stuck fighting max boost K4’s in the Typhoon 1b and F Mk IX? Because the IX LF is if anything even faster than the Griffons down low and it certainly climbs and turns better.

The Dora needs to be careful when engaging the Spitfires in the same way that a P-51D-5 needs to be careful when fighting any late 109. I genuinely don’t see the issue especially when you consider that despite late WW2 battles Britain is unfairly gimped against the Axis most of the time.

21

**"Friend, I’m not here to discredit the Spitfire Mk. IX and its variants — I actually think the Spitfire is a fantastic wartime design, both in terms of looks and effectiveness. But the point I’m making here is about the (F) Spitfires with Griffon engines being placed below the aircraft mentioned in terms of B.R. I’m not going to repeat everything I’ve already said, but WT gameplay seriously overvalues this plane’s turning capability.

Anyone who plays SB understands that energy is one of the most important things in decisive moments. Even in real life, the Spitfire clearly had a better turn rate than the Fw 190 — I’m not questioning that. An amateur pilot could engage a Spitfire in horizontal maneuvers and be defeated, as expected. I don’t want the Fw 190 to turn better than the Spitfire, but the examples I bring up are about the possible advantages the Fw had, like energy retention, acceleration, and an excellent roll rate. None of that is effective against a Spitfire at low altitude.

The Spitfire was a fantastic aircraft, but it had its limitations — it really should fall behind in an initial acceleration against a P-51 or Fw 190. The question is simple: why is a 5.3 B.R. aircraft, which has several strong points, ranked below its 5.7 opponents that are equal or even inferior in some aspects?"**

2 Likes