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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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…
1 Like
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.
[quote=“Morvran_, post:87, topic:104195”]
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.
[/quote]
I was interested in your interpretation of the Spitfire…
I’m not contradicting them, but it’s an interesting area…
(sorry for off-topic)
The Spitfire is a legend, but it also has its dark side… and that is, and always has been, range. Spitfire range proved to be a problem when escorting heavy bombers (how fortunate that the RAF switched to night bombing, probably British pride would not have died, escorted by Lancers in the form of Mustangs) …
It is a fact that after the “nine” the initial progress of the Spitfires was already exhausted… Although other versions were created, they achieved success, but for the main direction of air combat, raids on Germany, it was no longer sufficient…
For domestic high-altitude defense, they created a version of the Spit HF Mk.8…
This was a machine that could climb quickly and at the cost of brushing off everything inconsequential, it got up and fought at 13,000 meters, but it was unarmored, only 2x 20 mm Hispano, one of which jammed and when only one was fired, the plane turned around the horizontal axis and stayed so high for only a short time, again a small range…
The British cannot deny their efforts, but as far as high-altitude interceptors are concerned, despite all sorts of attempts, they succeeded only with the EE Lightning and the night-time Gloster Javelin (they also tried to adapt it to supersonic, but failed), and then they preferred to buy Phantoms II…
Range proved to be a problem for ALL bomber escorts and the only fighter capable of actually escorting bombers all the way to Germany was the P51 after It was upgraded with the British built rolls Royce engine and received external drop tanks. And ultimately the P51 was DESIGNED for that role
I have no idea what you are on about “British pride”. The Lancaster was able to carry vastly more bombs than the B-17, carry them further and due to flying at night suffered significantly less losses. For day raids Britain employed the Mosquito which had a bomb load equal to the B-17.
You are referring to the highly specialised variant of the Spitfire meant to intercept the ultra high altitude flights of German spy planes. Yes the gun jammed because of the cold weather.
The fact that it A) got that high and B) managed to actually engage the enemy spy plane. Proves the spitfire is highly capable and adaptable.
No US plane would have faired any better
I just wanted to say that the Spitfire was definitely not an interceptor even though the efforts of the British manufacturers were great…
His way of fighting was based on the knowledge of WWII, German bombers first arrived at low altitudes, then at medium altitudes and finally during Operation Steinbock (Baby Blitz), at an altitude of approx. 6000 m.
Compared to Lancasters, they flew at night at heights of around 5000-6000 m, B-17 around 8000 meters, depending on the situation, the weather…
As for the game, for the full use of all the planes, the maps are small, the planes need about 5-10 min to climb to high altitudes and the game does not support this and neither do the players want it … So to return to the Me-262 A1a, before he gets on, where he needs to in the game, the battle is usually already over, or the planes are at altitude, long ago shot down by more powerful planes according to br …
Those famous airstarts that are in the game should be installed much more carefully, this way it is often completely upside down.
------------------------------------------
If we touched you with that pride, I’m sorry, it was an unfortunate turn of phrase…
I’ve flown all of these. Kikka is an outright better 262 with a better TWR, agility, energy retention (due to lower mass) and better cannons. Attacker has airspawn, way better guns, better agility and slightly better TWR. F3D is a similar story, just a bit fatter. MiG-9 is the worst of these, but I would still take it any day over a 262. All of these planes are not worse than the 262.
3 Likes
MiG-9L is not worse
@Morvran & @Night_Trapper : I don’t want to take sides in your rather interesting exchanges, but imho both of you added some claims, which are are a mix of common misconceptions and assumptions which are not backed by reality.
As they are imho way off topic, but somehow loosely connected to the IC/Air Superiority spawn, i decided to to hide my thoughts behind a spoiler.
Summary
-
Imho there is no dark side of the Spitfire. If you do some research, you find out that almost all “real” ground based fighters have similar combat ranges. The sole and famous exception was the A6M - specifically designed for long ranges due to the vast distances in the Pacific.
-
The most successful fighter of WW 2, the Bf 109, had almost identical combat ranges like the most iconic fighter of WW 2, the Spitfire.
-
The air war above Europe 1940 - mid 1944 was marked by missing ground warfare. The deployment of bomber fleets from the “unsinkable” aircraft carrier UK were solely aimed to put pressure from the USSR.
-
Strategic bombers on both sides (UK & US) were developed and deployed based on the interwar doctrine “bombers can fight their way trough” during daylight (=higher precision) attacks - with the main goal of carpet bombing industrial areas or population centers to kill civilians as the technology to achieve “pin point accuracy” was not available.
-
Whilst the RAF BC realized quickly that this doctrine was outdated, the USAAF thought it was still a viable strategy.
-
Both nations wasted the lives of their bomber crews for actually useless results regarding the outcome.
-
Every serious analysis of the strategic bombing campaign vs Nazi Germany admits that the main target (destruction of industrial capacity either by killing plants or their workers) failed. If you do some research regarding which amount of bombs were dropped at which time you find out that the most tonnage dropped on Germany happened in the last 14 months of the war - so without real opposition. Imho the last somehow remarkable bomber losses were the infamous Nuremberg raid (RAF BC, 106 bombers lost 31.03.44) and a few clashes with “Sturmgruppen” mid to late 1944 of the USAAF with last peak around Christmas.
-
Depending on which sources you want to cite, there is a common understanding that the industrial capacity remained to 80-85% intact. The pictures you remember like flattened German cities are simply misleading.
-
The war was won in 1942, latest summer 1943 with the failed attempt of the Wehrmacht to capture the oilfields in the Caucasus. The only logical conclusion would have been to agree to a peace deal. But the ultimate goal of “unconditional surrender” prevented this approach - i mean you can’t earn money with the production of weapons if there is no war.
-
Your discussed range issue of bomber escorts is just dealing with the failed doctrine “bombers can fight their way through”. Imho there is no pride issue of RAF BC being escorted by Mustangs - the RAF BC proved that they are incapable of performing any large scale successful daylight raids against Germany with intact air defenses, most famous the Augsburg raid.
-
The Mustang is and was always controversial. Whilst US mains claim “they won the war” usually UK mains claim that “without the British Merlin” the plane was useless. Imho both sides simply forget that the Mustang was developed by the US based on a British specification for a fighter the US had not asked for - and that Packard was heavily involved in optimizing the various Merlin iterations.
-
If you try analyze the combat effectiveness of the Spitfire and the P-51 fighting the Luftwaffe - and consider the time when their air-to-air kills happened - i fully support the view of the Spitfire fan base. They fought mostly on equal terms vs them (=meaning strength and pilot training of the Luftwaffe pilots) - and the majority of P-51 kill claims in the ETO were achieved after the collapse of the Luftwaffe regarding basically untrained opponents. Just research about pilot training in WW 2 and you see that.
-
The myth of “specifically designed as long-range escort” seems to be “unkillable”. If you look closer you find out that this is technically seen flat wrong (adopted to “perform as” is correct) as the basic design was just a regular fighter and the long range was achieved by a) giving it a capable high-alt British engine (high alt= less drag = less fuel consumption, b) very advanced aerodynamics of fuselage and wings (even more less drag), c) adjusting the already existing airframe to carry a hell of small and a very large internal fuel tank(s) and finally d) drop tanks. Research why the fuel in the large tank behind the pilot had to be used first - the plane was incapable to fight with full internal tanks.
-
Regarding Lancaster vs B-17 myth bomb loads and combat losses.
- Imho both of you should check the actual combat losses vs production numbers and flown sorties - and see why most of the fame of both types is rather a myth than based on actual performance.
- So whilst the Lanc gained his fame mainly due to rather bold attacks with very high loss rates, the B-17s started to shine as soon as the fighter threat disappeared - and was mainly connected to the rather tough airframe than to anything else.
- The max payload / speed / range dispute usually neglects the fact that the Lanc (maiden flight 1941) was the “newer” model - developed from the Manchester which flew first in 1939 - whilst the B-17 (Model 299) first flew in 1935.
- In addition the higher bomb loads were in general just theoretical values - read combat diaries and you find out that actual bombloads were determined by the distance to the target and required fuel to get there. They high bombloads with stuff like “Grand slam” or “Tallboy” (google the total number of dropping those bombs) were just a result of the different design approaches (low wing vs mid wing layout) regarding the design of the bomb bay with several advantages & disadvantages for both concepts.
- The B-17 had a much higher bomb load with external payload - but the USAAF increased range, combat altitude and speed with just internal loads - the increase in speed and alt was imho way more suited to reduce losses than their defensive armament. On top of that: Boeing was unable to implement / adopt more powerful engines to the B-17s.
- The claim of attacks during the “Baby Blitz” with just 6 km alt are imho not correct. With some research you find sources stating that the few He 177s able to survive those mainly low number runs (=higher chance to get intercepted) flew around the British isles and attacked coming from Ireland at 9 km alt, entering a shallow dive to keep their airspeed at around 700 kmph in order to outrun enemy night fighters.
Have a good one!
true dude
Your opinions are interesting and you have quite a lot of insight, but I think we basically agree…
ad 1) The Spitfire tried its best, so it took the escort over Belgium and the Netherlands (I mean version 9) then, because the RAF understood that it wouldn’t work during the day, they introduced night raids, which were not for the Spitfire…
¨
ad 2) Yes, but they took off from airfields in occupied Europe (Bf had an advantage) … it was a reverse version of BoB … Spitfires had too little fuel to fight over Europe, when starting from England…
ad 3,4,5,6 and others ) Yes, it was the Douhet doctrine, but it failed already in 1939 (Air Battle over Heligoland bight ) … but RAF BC , it was a classic ossified administrative structure, it took a while to get the hang of it realized and the Americans, they still had to learn it cruelly at the time… In Germany, General Walther Wever developed Douhet’s theory, but in 1936 he died in the crash of a He-70, during take-off (Udet et al., they no longer dealt with it) … and basically the Allies used his conclusions to create a bombing campaign over Europe…
Yes, the training level of the Luftwaffe gradually decreased, but there were still enough high-quality fighters + Experten left, their real disaster did not come until 1.1.1945 ( Bodenplatte ) …
Spitfire vs. The P-51 is essentially a US vs. GB…
He started already at the time of the arrival of the Eagle Squadrons in Europe (US volunteer pilots), long before the arrival of the “Mighty Eighty”.
These pilots achieved the greatest success on Spitfires, but the US command did not like it… , they needed to sell the American success and they still have this principle … we never praise what we did not invent …
The Americans wanted to take control of the war in Europe and succeeded.
The British, they played second fiddle in the end, but they were still successful…!
All of them, it cost terrible human losses, but in the post-war years it was fully used politically, it’s cynical, but it’s true … From the dead are heroes, from planes and other equipment are legends and possible mistakes of commanding officers? Either it will be covered with the inscription TOP SECRET, or it will not be talked about and quietly waited for it to settle in the dust…
Grand Slam, Tallboy … also special bombs that are legends today, but I agree with you that the most frequently used bomb load was 8x 250 kg, or 2x 500 kg + 4x 250 kg, etc., you really need to thoroughly read the available logbooks , reports of raids, etc.
Finally Baby Blitz, those bomber numbers are huge, I wouldn’t underestimate it…
For this event, the Luftwaffe deployed BC, basically everything they had, not only He-177, but also Ju-88, Do-217, Me-410, Ju-188, battle FW 190…
They started in February 1944 and ended in May 1944, the strategic successes were questionable, but the British cities were broken a lot…
The Germans wanted to do something they didn’t have the technology, concept or experience to do and the British try to play it down because even though it wasn’t as bad as 1940 they just couldn’t stop the bombers completely…
Then came the invasion so they never got across the channel, plus the USAF won the bombing campaign known as the “Battle of Gasoline”, the de facto Luftwaffe BC effectively ceased to exist…
No.
German word for Interceptor and Fighter is the same (Jagdflugzeug). The only difference that you can use to distinguish between the two roles is their adaptability to the role. Here’s a source even calling the A1-a “Interceptor” “Abfangjäger”. This is also why it has air-to-air rockets designed to intercept heavy bombers.
Dennis R. Jenkins - Messerschmitt Me 262 Sturmvogel. Typen und Technik im Detail
Honestly with how large maps are now airspawn for C1-a and C2-b wouldn’t even be op ong
At least give the A1-a its RATO, kikka gets it already.