This is not a complaint thread but a note on a topic I find kind of interesting. There are a lot of variants of the Bf 109s and Fw 190s in the German tech tree, and in my opinion most of them for reasons of flight performance vs BR are not “worth” flying in air RB as opposed to other variants of the same plane, and I feel like flying them I’m putting myself at a disadvantage for the sake of fun and variety.
My reasoning here is that, most of these planes are at the same or higher BR while having noticeably worse flight performance than an alternative variant (Like the 190 A-4, A-5, and A-15/U12 vs the A-5/U2), or their improvement in performance is too small to justify the BR increase (Like the 109 G-14 compared to the G-6.
I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about this, and I’m sure many people disagree with my determinations.
I mean yeah there are 18 German 109s and 12 German 190s, of course they can’t all be the best. They all have trade-offs compared to other variants, in performance and/or BR. Fly the ones you enjoy but also give the others a chance- for example the G-14 and A-8 models are some of my favourites.
this is a leftover from when Gaijin forced War thunder to have the most military vehicles of any video game ever, it can’t be fixed in full but you can skip a large amount of the beginning of the copy-paste plague as they are mostly in folders
Do not forget the 109 B-1, the best 109 because it can pull 13G at high speed lololol.
You should consider that some of those planes are better suited for different roles, like some of the 190s having more varied weapon combinations you can take, or the D-9 not being better than the D-12/13 at higher altitudes, so all those alternative choices are not useless, they just don’t fit the Air RB meta. The tier list for ground/sim modes surely differs to that of Air RB.
The Ta 152 H and C are not comparable with each other, other than being at 6.X BR. The C is more of a Dora upgrade.
And a quick note about the 109 E variants: The E-4 climbs just as good as the F-4, which is better than the F-2 and F-1. Consider the weight and maneuverability differences between the E-4 and F-4, and which roles you want to fulfill more.
I did make this thread in regards to the Air RB meta, but I also recognized that there are different roles for planes. The D-12/D-13 are only superior to the D-9 starting at about 7km/23k ft and above, and disappointingly I just don’t know any mode or role where high altitude performance is relevant in WT. Certainly not in ground RB.
The Ta 152 C is maybe conceptually a Dora upgrade, but it’s actual flight performance does not reflect this as it’s just too heavy. In terms of top speed, the D-9 and 152 C are within 5 MPH of each other at relevant altitudes (~6km and lower). They both go about 380 MPH at sea level, and about 430 MPH at 5km. The Fw 190 D-9 is fast for 5.0, but the same speed at 6.3 is thoroughly unremarkable in the face of it’s opponents. The 152 C’s extreme weight without a proportional increase in power or wing area makes it an awful climber and truly hopeless in a maneuvering engagement. I would rather fly the Fw 190 D-9 at 6.3 than the 152 C as the D-9’s performance is outright superior.
Compared to the D-9, the Ta 152 H trades about 20 MPH top speed at relevant altitudes in exchange for a 1.0 BR increase, interceptor spawn, and monstrous dogfighting capability thanks to it’s wings. It is easily the most capable German prop fighter that stands the best chance against US superprops.
Hmmm, bait…
F-4/trop engine is overall superior for WEP use, which makes its engine perforce across the match superior.
G-14 I prefer over the G6 and G2 due to the superior engine.
K4 is a higher BR.
I’ve never used the F-1.
E-1 and E-3 are my preferences due to higher ammo counts.
I wasn’t aware there was any difference in the engine performance of the tropical variants, is that really the case?
The G-6 and G-14 ingame have the exact same engine producing the exact same power. The difference in performance between them is tiny, but the G-14 is 0.6 BR higher allowing it to face extremely tough opponents at 6.0 and 6.3 like the P-51H, F2G, F8F-1B, etc. that the G-6 doesn’t face.
The K–4’s performance is substantially superior to the G-14 and G-10 at all meaningful altitudes thanks to its extra ~180 hp engine, it’s faster, climbs better and turns better, while being the same BR as the G-10 and only .4 higher than the G-14. The opponents you will face in the K-4 are not much different than what you will have to face in the G-14, but the K-4 is a lot more capable.
…and all of them are somehow artificially weakened by gaijin.
Either regarding engine power/cooling and/or the flight model (FM). You can try to find workarounds via MEC, but this affects your performance drastically as there are severe overheating issues on all of them.
Whilst the 109s excel with cooking engines at certain models (and their top speed is basically just a useless number as you fry your engine trying to get there) the 190s have massive issues with engine degradation, that’s why your engine flashes red at 83° degrees C in long matches, despite this temperature is “white” early match.
You can’t use prop pitch adjustments to “tame” the overheating issues as easy as within other aircraft as you will kill your engine by over-revving. If you are familiar with the “Einheiterverstellgeraet” discussions in forums debating MEC in IL-2 or WT you find out that this was technically impossible. Combat reports / memoirs stated the later 109s (G-6 and higher) were flown with full WEP during sorties above the invasion front.
The FM of 190s and derivates is not even close to irl reporting regarding agility and handling.
Regarding the total number variants: I would love to see the 190 A-9 with the 2.000 hp BMW 801 TS engines (production stated 09.44) - but why would i want to fly them (or even buy them) if the US/USSR competition benefits from partially way too low BRs and if the plane flies like a brick?
…whilst i agree in general, i see the variants of certain aircraft more like a combination of adapting to different roles and natural developments to historic experiences vs contemporary opponents.
Gaijin’s approach to set BRs on a mix of theoretical values (like burst mass) and (imho mainly) user/ player performance kills the realism and immersion effect of meeting contemporary aircraft as it simply doesn’t happen.
So if the major aspect of aerial warfare (fighting vs contemporary aircraft) is absent, the number of variants plays no role.
My prime example is the Yak-3 at 4.0/4.3 - those planes saw action starting September/October 44 - whilst the first G-14s were seen way earlier (and produced starting March 44) whilst the in-game implemented 109 G-6 at BR 4.7 was not longer produced. The G-10 was operational in October 44 whilst the first K-4s saw action in October 44 with JG 26.
5km according to wtapc.org
Take the high alt variants to simulator air battles.
I use the Dora and the 152 C in the same exact way, where weight is not an issue. I still feel like the 152 C offers an upgrade over the Doras, even despite the increase in opponent capabilities. I feel it is more “you get punished for mistakes harder” kind of situation, rather than rendering the plane useless.
I’ll agree with you if we stick to the deck.
I’d compare the Ta 152 H with the BV 155 rather than the Doras.
I don’t play sim much as if I’m in the mood for that I typically play IL-2 instead.
How do you fly a plane where weight isn’t an issue? Weight is a major factor in climb, acceleration, and maneuvering, so if you ever do any of those things excessive weight will be holding you back.
How is the 152 C an upgrade over the Doras, as in what performance advantage does it have below 6km? What advantage does it have against common opponents at 6.3 like the P-51H, F2G, F4U-4B, F8F-1B etc? I think without interceptor spawn the 152 C would end up like the J7W1 and be a lot less commonly flown, because it’s main opponents outperform it pretty overwhelmingly.
The D-9 has better power to weight at all altitudes below 6km, not just on the deck, and due to the 152 C also having higher drag, despite it’s extra power it only starts to outrun the D-9 significantly above 5km or so.
Been flying the F4 a bunch lately and it’s very funny in ASB. Flying for about 30 minutes with AEC practically forces you to fly at 80% throttle or risk overheating. It was very pleasant to discover in the most pleasant of ways.
Although, having looked at Il-2 tutorials on how to not crash Bf109s on take off, I did notice something that actually seemed eerily familiar…
It does seem to line up with the K4’s modelling in Il-2 sturmovik for combat settings (which I assume 100% AEC represents in warthunder?). Unfortunately, i can’t find the same engine limitations sheet for the DB-601E the F4 uses.
The 10 min emergency/WEP limit is definitely… suspiciously absent. It feels like just 1 minute before heat issues.
For what it’s worth, I find it exceedingly rare to have dogfights in ASB above 4-5 km altitude. A big reason for this likely lies in how rendering/spotting works: it’s far easier to see planes above you than below you even correcting for the fact that the wing/nose is in the way - planes kind of blend into the ground. Bomber hunting being the exception where I’ve had engines fail me trying to catch some of them.
Another reason beyond spotting is that the “Air Superiority Objective” puts a hard limit around 5.0-5.5 or so km high for your presence to contribute to capturing and said objective gives a lot of points and tickets.
That was my main point why i claimed that 109s and 190s are artificially nerfed.
It speaks volumes that the same (but licensed built) engines in JP, SWE or IT aircraft can be easily controlled via MEC (without the over-rev risk) and can be flown with infinite WEP settings.
So even fully aware the 190 As had much shorter WEP limits (as their BMW engines actually started to overheat) - there is no point to follow gaijin’s logic:
Have in mind that these (and all other) parameters are mainly set for engine preservation - so the approach used by Il-2 or wt is to use these values as hard limit by killing the engine and not as recommendation is somehow comprehensible, but if you think about it from a holistic perspective they make not really sense.
I mean in these video games you start every battle with a factory new aircraft, so as long as you don’t have to take care (and/or pay for) about the general lifespan of your engine, drastically shortened maintenance intervals or a replacement engine after every match these hard limit implementations are pointless.
If you invest some time reading about irl experiences in combat (books) you might agree that in cases 109s flew against all odds (and it was an issue of life or death) WEP itself was used without limits. I don’t remember the names but at least 2 pilots described this whilst fighting the USAAF and the 2TAF above France after D-Day and i am quite sure i read the same about 109s attacking the Remagen bridge…
At least in the last 12 months there was no shortage of new aircraft for the LW boys - so the experienced pilots did not care if they wrecked their engine if they had the chance to get out of a fight and stay alive.
Another (non-German) example of how gaijin manages overheating:
In case you have time - i recommend to read about fuel and engine management in P-51s with Merlin / Packard engines. You find out that the infinite WEP settings you can use in wt (100% PP, cooler 80% for C-10 iirc) were “technically seen” impossible. You would have to fly with one hand - opening the cooler this large would require you to press the respective button permanently with your other hand…
Let me rephrase my sentence: Other people may find the D-12/13 more useful than the D-9, making those planes not useless tech tree fodder.
By looking at the following physics formula:
mgh = 0.5 * mv^2
Which can be simplified to
h = 0.5/g * v^2
Note how mass is irrelevant when converting from speed to altitude.
So, as long as you are fighting an opponent with a sufficiently lower total energy state (implying the existence of your team), you have a safe way to engage an opponent.
According to this chart the 152 C overtakes the D-9 in speed at 2km of alt. This means the 152 C is more effective at utilizing energy tactics than the D-9 at 2km and higher. As for the D-9 having easier opponents, they’re not all that much easier in my opinion. You can’t really carry in either plane, even if the D-9 is more on par with competitors.
None, you listed godly US planes that are undertiered. The D-9 faces the same issues.
In regards to the thermal discussions in this thread, I’m going to describe my experience with German engines:
When I’m flying at constant speed, I set prop pitch manually targeting a slightly lower RPM than set by AEC, letting me climb/cruise with a cool engine. Then, in situations I know will force me to change speed, I enable auto prop pitch or AEC. This lets me work the engine quite efficiently, and the drop in performance isn’t very bad while easing off on the engine RPM. I have prop pitch controls bound to numpad +/-, and to ctrl+scroll wheel, letting me do fine adjustments.
You are right that mass does not matter for a zoom climb due to conservation of energy, I failed to consider that. Excess thrust does matter since we are not dealing with a thrown ball in a vacuum and since the Ta 152 C is marginally faster it should win here I think.
That chart is very old and a lot of the numbers for the other aircraft are totally wrong (eg. it says F8F-1 has no WEP and is drastically slower than F8F-1B) so I am skeptical of it, I do expect the 152 C to be faster but not by quite as much. If we do take that chart at face value, the 152 C is 1km/h faster than the D-9 at 2km, this is totally negligible. The gap rapidly widens though, and between 3km to 6km the 152 C is somewhere from 9km/h to 17km/h faster than the D-9. This speed gap is… not NOTHING… but it is a really small amount of speed to exchange for a total loss of maneuverability, inferior sustained climb rate that makes it harder to get altitude in the initial climb, and a 1.3 BR increase.
If downtiered to the 4.0 - 5.0 bracket, or the 4.3 - 5.3 bracket, the strongest US opponents the D-9 faces are the P-51D-30, F8F-1, and F4U-4. The P-51D-30 and Fw 190 D-9 are very competitive with each other in my opinion despite the D-30 being a bit better. Spitfire variants in this bracket are very slow and often lacking in performance even at medium altitudes. The most dangerous Russians are Yak-3 and La-7.
In a full uptier to the 5.0 - 6.0 bracket, the most dangerous US opponents are the F4U-4B and the F2G, and the British have the Spit Mk 14 and LF Mk 9, and of course the Hornet. There are also La-9, Yak-3U and Yak-3 VK-107. Some of these opponents outclass the D-9 completely, but this is a full uptier.
Meanwhile, the Ta 152 C-3, in a FULL DOWNTIER to the 5.3 - 6.3 bracket will face P-51H, F8F-1B, F4U-4B, F2G, while 5.0 planes like the P-51D-30, Yak-3P, La-7B, Spit Vc & Spit XVI aren’t even in the equation, from the Americans you will just face nothing but monstrous post-war superprops.
In a small uptier the Spitfire Mk 24 comes into the mix, and in a full uptier to the 6.3 - 7.3 bracket, opponents can be F-80A, F-84, F-89B, F2H Banshee, MiG-9, Sea Meteor while P-51H, F8F-1B, Spitfire Mk 24 etc are still in the mix as well.
The Ta 152 C faces a worse matchup in a full downtier than the D-9 faces in a full uptier, and all it has to face this challenge with over the D-9 is however much better of an energy fighter that being 10-15kmh faster above 2km makes it, while sacrificing any ability to maneuver and having a worse climb rate. This plane is carried by interceptor spawn and low-skill US superprop pilots.
I think it’s extremely noteworthy that the Fw 190 D-9 can never face the P-51H even in a full uptier, while the Ta 152 C can never get into a bracket where it won’t face P-51Hs if the US is on the other team.
I agree that the US planes are undertiered, but I don’t think any of them belong higher than 6.7, and unless they were moved up way into jet BRs where they don’t belong, the Ta 152 C-3 will continue to face them every game, while the D-9 would go from seeing some of them in a full uptier, to never seeing them at all. The Ta 152 C-3 is more overtiered than the US superprops are undertiered.
I managed to carry a match while playing yesterday in the Fw 190 D-9, I got 5 kills, by which time the last of my teammates had died so I stood alone against 4 enemy fighters, ultimately managed to shoot them all down at low alt with 2 minutes remaining. I don’t think the 152 C-3 would have been flexible enough to kill them with the time that was remaining, I needed to be able to maneuver. In the past I carried another game in the D-9 by winning a low alt 1v3 dogfight against US props.
