The sea meteor rips easier than any other aircraft i have flown ingame, it never happens with other aircraft.
Therefore you cant high speed it, you cant high speed turn it - you can be in a meteor and dogfight a 262 but the 262 can just stay at full throttle and pull hard, sea meteor cannot do this.
The 108’s and 151’s are WAAAAAAY better.
Honestly mate, play those aircraft and then you will see the 262 aint bad at all and if anything better than all of them apart from the su-11 and p-80.
Dude, MK108 is so easy to dodge I was actually casually dodging Me-163 for most of the round and he never came close to landing anything, LOL.
MG151/20 has extremely low damage output vs jets, with some shots turning small part of wing LIGHT YELLOW, and thx to by far the worst drag coeffixient in game, past 200m it’s no longer going fast.
Sea Meteor has insanely good gun range compared to any WW2 German jet not armed with MK103.
You rip wings? Learn to control your turns.
You have bad climb, bad turn, no acceleration and horrible guns? GL “learning” your way around that.
This is the most delusional statement i have ever seen, the mg 151/20 HEI have only 785 m/s velocity and the Mk108 HEI have only 500 m/s velocity plus both have bad accuracy, on the other hand the 20mm hispano mk.V have HEI shell with 833 m/s velocity, it have better accuracy, velocity and the hispano have better fire rate than both mg 151 and mk108, so pls stop talking nonsense
Mate, you have not even flown the aircraft i mentioned. . . lol.
You literally have no point of reference.
The problem with MG151/20 isn’t even MV, it’s remaining velocity after going for 200-300m - it slows down to a crawl
It’s like that bc Gaijin increased the drage for all Mineshells look at this bug report about Mk103
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/d7kwg2qLoxSp
They are giving soviet cannons way superior coefficient? I’m so surprised.
Same with 20mm - Shvak has v. light cannons shells, AP and HE both weight similar to M-geschoss, yet their ballistic coefficients are very good and Shvak can snipe me from 1000m away. With MG151/20 if you’re going about 550km/h at low alt, it’s impossible for M-geschoss to reach you if the firing distance is outside of maybe 750m.
Same with Ho-5 - just as light as M-geschoss, vaaaatly superior drag coefficient.
And they are both handily beating MG151/20 AP and FI-T and IT rounds that have absolutely no reason to slow down faster than Soviet or Japanese shells.
Problem is - Gaijin has German WW2 ballistic data (with some errors and missing data but gaijin ignores that as long, as these errors hurt Germany), but it doesn’t have anything for soviet and japanese rounds, so they are getting purelg fantasy performance.
Also MK103 mine shells magically dissapear past 1600m, I don’t think they have ever fixed it :D
It is annoying here this is 3 subjects that can buff Germany one got rejected, been waiting for the other for a year now and the third one is list of problems about the 229. and i am sure not a single one of these will be changed
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/rKy9tyRE481C
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/18jyQu7rIh0r
They chose the optimal filling - the shittiest filling they could find.
It’s super funny how US gets depth charges that weight around 550kg and have as much power as German 1000kg bomb, and we can’t even get bombs with better explosives inside.
Oh boy…
Just like Gaijin went against physics and logic ans decided PETN core in MK108 and MK103 is super small, while in drawings etc. It’s obvious it’s around 15g.
Or MK103 incendiary which is completely made up shell right now that explodes with 0 delay before penetrating anything (same problem with japanese APHE).
The classification of “interceptor” is itself a can of worms. It conveys no useful information about the capabilities of the aircraft. It’s all relative.
Yep, because technically… The spitfire should be classed as an interceptor. I’d not say no to air spawn in the spitfire
Call me crazy i just followed our friend advice here @English_Ham and tried a British plane. in the past two hours i just aced Spitfire F Mk IX BR of 4.3 and have a K/D of 2 in it 11 death 22 kills and i compared it to the Bf 109 G-2/trop (also aced i have 465 deaths 250 air kills and 294 ground kills) and let me tell you German planes are slightly over tiered and thier capabilities are over exaggerated.
the Spitfire i just aced in comparison to the 109 G-2/trop is far more superior yes less speed and climb rate but it’s not that big of difference on the other hand the Spitfire have far better turn rate and roll rate, the guns are just amazing you can see your shells and how stable and accurate they actually are plus they don’t lose much speed making you even able to snipe ppl the air frame is also very good and can withstand hits and easily survive in comparison to the 109 that if a shell hit you it will most certainly kill you with one hit.
So just want to say i am a live example right here and i just tested both planes at same BR and will confidently say that German planes are not good compared to other nation planes at the same BR and i am 100% sure the same thing can be implied to early german jets.
G-2 Trop is actually pretty damn bad.
It’s G-2 but slower and worse climbing. Regular G-2 is actually semi-decent. I’d still take old Fw 190 A5/U2 over it. I mean old A5/U2 because 2024 A5/U2 is a flying brick.
I am not sure if you ever read the requirements of specifically designed interceptors - but imho you should try to revisit those descriptions.
It boils down that fast climb, very good high alt performance, high speed and heavy armament are the main factors - with the target to intercept high flying targets (mainly bombers). Best example is the P-38 which ended as twin boom due to the requirements of a turbo supercharger.
That planes which are designed as air superiority fighters were used as interceptors is no question. But the climb rate and speed was a goal in order to get the upper hand in combat and a result of low weight, available hp and aerodynamics. To fight enemy bombers you needed fighters with more punch, that’s why the US favored the 37mm cannon for the P-38 (and P-39).
So from a pure technical perspective the standard 262 A-1a is no real interceptor as the main goal was to overcome the mach limitations of props (= higher top speed). It is also no question that the armament (Mk 108 & R4M) was optimized to kill bombers - but for everything outside the Heimatschuetzer variants with rocket boosters - there is imho historically seen no justification for an IC spawn.
That gaijin spreads rather randomly IC spawns is first and foremost a pure “balancing” decision. Most of the planes with IC/Air Superiority spawn are not specifically designed interceptors (like P-61, F-82 or 190 As) whilst gaijin refuses to grant air spawns for “real” interceptors (like XF5F, J2Ms, Bf 109 Z or Ki-94).
If that’s true there are just logical explanations:
A) The BR of the 7.0 version is too high or
B) The BRs of their adversaries are too low
A word to the F-80 A-5. I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that the plane is a post war 1946 production with the J-33-A-17 with 4.600 kp thrust. The first 1946 production variants of the P-80 A-1 had the J-33-A-9 with 3.860 kp thrust - which made them much slower.
So setting a 1944 production Me 262 A-1a vs a 1946 F-80 A-5 production is a classical confirmation, that:
is not valid for US players. The 262 was described by the former USAAF:
After the war, the USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding, “Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number (the Me 262A’s being at M 0.86), from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter.”[12]
Same as with P-80 A-5 (1946+) and the 1948 (!!!) production F-80 C-10 - the Sea Meteor was converted from a F.3 - with 1.490 vs 930 kp thrust of the F.3 - and if you see the first production model with Derwent V engines (the F.4) also a 1946 plane.
In other words:
The 262 A-1s was far superior compared with the Meteor F.3 and the YP-80 - as the main decisive factor “critical mach number” was higher - what makes a slower aircraft inferior by default.
But “Nazi stuff” can’t be superior - therefore the BR of 7.0 is comprehensible from their pov.
Define “specifcally designed”?
Spitfire’s recieving Hispanos was a Specific upgrade meant to deal with the armour on bombers. In all other respects, the Spitfire was continuously upgraded with the aim of climbing and intercepting bombers.
Now yes, its a very murky grey area.
But then, what about Lightning F6? Air spawn becasue its an interceptor?
To be honest. no aircraft should have air spawn in war thunder unless it is 100% needed. Bombers and maybe some strike aircraft on a case by case basis. I dont play enough “air defence fighters” like the Hornet to say whether or not they should loose air spawn, but maybe the msot htey need is a spawn just above the AF, at 1000ft.
The idea the Me-262 needs airspawn because its a “interceptor” opens a can of worms to speciifcally define an interceptor. In my opinion. Spitfire/Hurricane could be defined as that, F-104, Lightning, Sea-Vixen, heck one could even argue the Sea harrier was designed specifically to intercept soviet Tu-95s shadowing British carrier groups.
It just gets messy and fighters getting air spawn… just kills bombers.
Fully agree #1
already done:
Fully agree #2
Imho that is a comprehensible conclusion, but from my pov the non-effective .303s were the main reason for cannons - as the main target was to deliver a way more deadly punch within the short time frame an enemy is in gun range.
Fully agree #3
Have a good one!
Sea meteor is considered one of the best lower tier jets for good reason…
The Sea Meteor is described in the WT wiki:
In 1948, two production aircraft were converted to the Gloster (Sea) Meteor F.Mk.3 version for Royal Navy test flights from aircraft carriers. The fighters had their armament removed, a landing hook fitted, and the gear legs reinforced. The Derwent Mk.1 engines were replaced with Derwent Mk.5 models. These aircraft performed 32 landings on board HMS Illustrious.
In other words - a total number of 2 of at least 1945 production aircraft were converted with engines (just available as prototypes late '45 with 50% more thrust) in 1948 - and were set just 0.3 above the 1944 production model of the 262 with 40% less engine power.
Just Imagine a 1939 109 E-1 with the 1942 1.475 hp engine of the G-5 fighting a 1940 Spitfire Mk I (with the 3 bladed prop and 100 octane US fuel) with an early Merlin and 1.030 HP and being just one BR step higher. You would see the same effect - everybody would praise the 109 E-1…
I understand what you’re saying but what does this have to do with my comment, unless you’re just agreeing with me
Sry man - i thought it was clear. Ofc i agree.