The P-51’s need FM reworks (as do the 109’s) which is why they seem like easy mode most of the time. That said I disagree with your comments regarding the 109F-4 and P-51C-10. The F-4 is actually a 1943 aircraft with the engine settings it’s using and having to fight a later 1943 aircraft isn’t a problem in my opinion. He’s faster than you but you turn far better than him and outclimb him.
…What isn’t fair is German boosted 1944 109G-6’s and even 1943 G-2’s bullying 1939 British Whirlwinds but that’s another story.
To be honest Germany gets it easy up to EC4/5.0br+. That said the F4U4 definitely needs a b.r increase.
unfortunately, there are no planes dating back to 1943 in front of the f4. there are usually airplanes produced in 1944. I no longer play at br levels where I feed the enemy, whose performance is better than me at every level. I choose bf 109 g10 and do not feed the Korean war veteran corsairs opposite, p51 d30s that entered service in mid-1945.
The game is not a 1 for 1 reenactment of World War II.
The Bf.109 F-4 is not clearly inferior to the P-51 C-10; it climbs better and it turns better.
Generally speaking German airplanes are modeled based on their best possible versions as far as engine performance is concerned; stuff like the Bf.109 G-6 is modeled as a late version of the G-6, and the Bf.109 K-4 is modeled with 1.98 ATA manifold pressure instead of the more common 1.80, ATA manifold pressure.
In real life the only difference between the P-51 D-30 and WWII P-51s is the avionics.
In fact Germany and Axis have things pretty easy all the way up to 5.7BR when the F4U-4B comes out to play. At pretty much every BR axis has planes that are just as under tiered as Allied planes.
IrzDusmani
I agree with you 100%.
I would also prefer an IL-2 version as a War Thunder sim mode with the War Thunder engine and with more authenticity.
but you have to remember that Gaijin only wants to make money with their RB mode. so the sim mode suffers a lot.
there are simply too many nations, planes and tanks thrown into the wt tech trees crosswise. no authentic simulation can work like this.
it’s so obvious that you’re not playing in simulation mode. for one thing, the p51in completely covers the climbing problem with its speed and even adds to it. As for the topic of rotation, which p51 users are usually at a high speed, they can also close this gap, which is mentioned in the information section about the p51, of course, we pluck the head of hair in the face of this situation. I agree with you about the modeling of the bf109s, which can be much nicer with the addition of new aircraft to the tree in the early to late period. With one or two minor changes in the last sim, this problem can be solved significantly. it’s not hard. Some friends say play il2 stalingrad, but that game is not really a game that can be played. I can’t focus on the game from pressing the Zoom key. this game is preferred because it is at a more playable level.
sim brs are simply forgotten i wouldn’t say any side has advantage. Italian and Chinese P-47 D30 sit at 3.7 while american D28 at 4.3 probably for no reason other than lack of effort put into the mode by gaijin. they are touched very rarely and legacly brs are everywhere even worse than arcade brs and the list of examples goes on.
Why is this always the go-to for self-identified simulator battles players? Did you even check my profile? I have more time spent playing simulator battles than you do. And I play more than just Germany.
So what? Should the P-51 be up-tiered until it has to fight only German planes that not only climb better than it, turn better than it, but are also faster than it? The P-51 D5 is obviously a late war fighter so it should only have to face Bf.109 K-4? P-51 D-30 is Korean War Mustang so it should only fight against MiG-15?
Should late war Bf.109s be modeled so that they don’t have enough fuel to fly, and that max pilot skill is capped in order to model late war attrition of Luftwaffe pilots?
:) i was playing this game 10 years ago too. i also know about the terrible periods when the red yak 3p was placed in front of the bf109g2. Look how well you summed it up yourself. there is clearly injustice in the game. There is a general character of each country’s aircraft. They compromise on certain features and perform at a high level in certain areas. Only these p51d30 and corsair monsters are superior in every field! moreover, they are products of the Korean war. I really admire your ability to deflect the topic by getting into a fuel conversation. Yes, we are flying without fuel. Once again, I thank you for confirming the injustices in the game and defending this situation in a biased way. i will not respond to you because it will get into a polemic beyond that (which may be your purpose, let the subject be dispersed and closed).i will not respond to you.
there were historical events in WT in the past. the potential was great. Battle of Britain 1940, Battle of Moscow 41, …Battle of Kursk 43… Battle of Bugle 45, Pacific… on appropriate maps with the right aircraft. superior vehicles were given SP. so it was even reasonably balanced. it was a long time ago.
unfortunately, these events were all abandoned because of a too undemanding community. the developers with AB/RB soul probably tore it down with pleasure.
If there are enough players and developers with ambition and claim then War Thunder could build a great sim with a bit more authenticity.
The P-51 D-30 and F4U-4 are not superior in every field. The P-51 D-30 has worse climb rate and worse sustained turn rate than the Bf.109G series. Axis planes handily out-climb them by a fairly large margin.
And when it comes to dogfighting, the P-51 D-30 vs Bf.109G-6 can be a close dogfight that the Bf.109G is favored to win. If the Bf.109 pilot knows what they are doing to goes from being slightly favored to win to basically winning every time. The only advantages the P-51 D-30 has is in the ability to run away and force a head-on.
this sharing only makes sense on the graph. as I said, although I don’t play with other planes, I know the flight characters more or less, because I fought against them (which I played d30 at the time, it’s a very comfortable plane). because you’re not listening to what I’m saying, you’re coming to me with different arguments. Yes, the climbing rate of 109s is high. but when it comes to fighting, the f4u 4, which served in the KOREAN WAR at high speeds, makes an INCREDIBLE turn. I even claim that they can outrun even at low speeds. If you’re using this name, I haven’t seen you much in simulation games. Obviously, you need to live up to what I’m saying. Some things here with unnecessary chat and graphics don’t make any sense. these climb rates have no effect on the gameplay of the aircraft. It just has an extra advantage when climbing idle. AS I SAID BEFORE, THE MENTIONED AIRCRAFT CAN EASILY COMPENSATE FOR THIS DEFICIENCY WITH THEIR HIGH SPEED AND ADD TO IT.
The bottom line is that I no longer feed planes that served in the KOREAN WAR, and I recommend that my castmates not feed these planes.
I would suggest that you play your planes to their advantages and to employ tactics of management of energy, however, I suspect that you will respond in all upper-case, “KOREAN WAR, KOREAN WAR, PLANE WAS USED IN KOREAN WAR!!!”
Certain models of corsairs were used as aircraft of attack in that conflict, sure.
The B-29 was used as a platform for launching a rocket plane that broke the barrier of sound, so by the same mentality, one could claim that B-29s need to be placed against supersonic planes.
You may think that it is clever to mention the fact that certain models of corsairs were still used in some capacity in the Korean War, thinking that it supports your assertions, however, in my evaluation the argument is weak, and its logic is flawed and invalid.
During the Korean War, the Corsairs were not fighters of equivalent capabilities to adversaries. F-86 and MIG-15 were peer fighters of this era. Therefore, any reference to a plane which was being used as an attacker in the Korean War, while the fighters in this period were generation 2 jets is irrelevant as purported support to arguments about how that this plane is out of place as a fighter against props of the years of and slightly after WW2.
If you are unwilling to improve strategy and, in opposite fashion have already surrendered to the belief that you are helpless and incapable of surmounting challenges, then your defeat is already assured.
👋🏻
I don’t understand why I have to keep making statements about the same things. I also love it if there are friends who can give advice.
My advice to my friend and my brothers who will comment on this friend later is to please read the other messages and then contribute.
This problem exists not only in air battles but also in tank battles. As you mentioned, with the replacement of Panzer 4 with EBR 1951 produced for different purposes, it becomes a Corsair against the MiG 15.
So, as you said, when vehicles built for different needs in different periods are in the same environment, one does not give the other a chance in the hands of knowledgeable hands. The same situation exists between f4u 4 and k4. Actually, most sim players are aware of what I said. But for some reason I have to explain this situation to people who have no experience.
In fact, you admit it yourself again. It is similar to the situation that the K4 Korean Corsair plane is currently experiencing against the MiG15. although not equivalent.
These matches need a little more attention, at least in simulation mode.
What I also don’t understand is why axis players always have to fight against planes that are stronger than themselves?
My guess is that, based on my experiences from previous periods, the newly arrived propeller aircraft will be rematched among themselves in the post-war period and this problem will be solved. Just like in Yak3p’s time, there were 109 g2 against 109 and like the mistakes where t34 85 was against panzer 4.
I do not fly the K4 in this game because I play a proper version in DCS. I have flown the F-190 D-13 ( when I enter a match where 5.7 is the maximum of a tier ) some amount and never had an issue with the F4U-4. This is the plane that you are so upset about, correct?
You could climb in order to have advantage over the aircraft, however this ties into another issue with this game, and this is visibility / nerfed draw distance and planes arbitrarily flashing in and out of existence which can be caused just through slight rolls to one direction or another, planes entering hud, etc.
You are concerned about planes being more fast? The TA 152 H-1 is 5.7 can climb rapidly and then dive to achieve speeds of 885KPH before the wings rip. There are other such planes that are more than capable of putting up a decent fight.
Many claim certain planes to be overpowered, while they have options that could contest them in combat, and in my evaluation, in many of these cases it is not an issue of overpowered planes, but, rather underpowered brains.
Anyways, regards,
I knew the issue would come to 152. It’s the most playable one in the series anyway. D9 is nice too. Also, I noticed that the fights I have with rivals who have served in the same period are generally balanced.
Also, as long as you fly at 6-7k altitude with d13, it is normal that you will not encounter any problems. Except for the clouds :) Even though the D13 was put into service late and was a terrible aircraft to maneuver, in my opinion, the 5.3 is a poor aircraft. The d13 seems to be a much more useful aircraft in realistic wars.
However, as you know, dogfights generally take place at medium altitudes in simulation battles.
Also, you may not have encountered any serious competitors. What everyone agrees on is that the performance of the f4u4 and d30 series is terribly higher than their counterparts with the same BR. In fact, some models of these P47s have ridiculously low BRs. An incredible aircraft in skillful hands. For example, one part of a plane that entered service in 1944 is 4.3, it’s a joke.
My opinion is that planes should be adjusted according to years in simulation battles.
You do not play them. You do not even have them unlocked.
I have tested the P-51 D-30 vs Bf.109G match-up at length. The P-51 D-30s only advantage is that it is faster than late model Bf.109Gs while turning slightly worse and climbing significantly worse.
The P-51 D-30 sits at 5.3 BR in sim. Your argument that it needs to be up tiered means that you think it should be 5.7 BR at a minimum and that you think that it is equal to the Bf.109 K-4 or superior to it…because KOREAN WAR OP PLEN…in spite of the fact that the P-51 D-30’s only real difference from World War II to Korea is that it got updated avionics. The D-30 in game runs 75 inches of manifold pressure which is what P-51D models were approved to run during World War II; in fact P-51s in Europe typically ran 72 inches of manifold pressure. The other P-51D that we have in the tech tree runs 67 inches of manifold pressure which is not the setting that it would be running to fight late war German fighters.
Let’s actually break down some hard numbers here.
First lets talk about climb rate again. Here is a climb chart with the P-51D models compared with late Bf.109G and K-4 models. This chart represents the altitude that each airplane can reach in a given time when starting from the runway and using WEP while maintaining best climb speed.
First lets look at just the lines; from the chart you can see that both the World War 2 and “OP KOREAN WAR” variants have climb rates that are worse than all of the Bf.109s that are from 5.0BR - 5.7BR. The P-51 D-5 is especially awful in this comparison. The OP P-51 is much closer…but is still significantly worse in climb rate.
Now lets talk about speeds. The two comparisons I make are sea level acceleration and 6000m acceleration which are going to be in between where most combat in sim takes place. If you also have the horsepower curves of each airplane relative differences can be inferred at intermediate altitudes.
Technologically speaking the German supercharger system is superior so their aircraft experience minimal horsepower loss between 0 - 6000m, while the P-51s will experience a fairly substantial reduction in power at intermediate altitudes between sea level and the optimum altitude for its supercharger.
The sea level acceleration is going to be the most favorable for the P-51s because they are not losing any horsepower due to their supercharging system, and their performance down low is going to really show the low drag qualities of the airframe itself. At the same time the massive power to weight ratio of the Bf.109s is also going to play a factor with the low end acceleration of the plane, but the drag of the airframe is more prevalent at high speeds.
Now if you look at the numbers on the chart you will see that all of the Bf.109s reach 550kph before the P-51 D-5 and that the P-51 D-5 is barely faster than any of the late model Bf.109Gs that it shares the same BR with.
The P-51 D-30 for does not begin to pull away from the late model Bf.109Gs until around 500-510kph. Keep in mind…this is at sea level where the differences are going to be the most favorable for the P-51 series.
When compared to the Bf.109 K-4, the P-51 D-30 only starts to pull away once the speeds reach 580kph, and its speed at sea level negligibly better.
The P-51 D-5 is actually slower than ALL of the late Bf.109G models after accelerating for two minutes. The only way that it becomes faster than the late model Bf.109s is by going to an even higher altitude, or if it is already traveling above 600kph.
The same comparison also ends up applying to the Bf.109 K-4 and the P-51 D-30. The Bf.109 K-4 is for all intents and purpose faster than the P-51 D-30 at 6000m.
So what advantages does the P-51D series actually enjoy over contemporary Bf.109s…dive speed and a comparable initial turn rate. That is at the cost of energy retention and energy generation. It’s climb rates is significantly worse. Its sustained turn rate is significantly worse in the case of the D-5, and marginally worse in case of of the D-30. It’s low end acceleration is significantly worse with high end acceleration being marginally better.
The only reason that you are struggling against the P-51 D-30 is not because it is better in every aspect…you are struggling because you are entirely used to fighting against planes like the P-51 D-5 that are effectively worse than your plane in most metrics by significant margins. Of course your solution to this problem isn’t to even consider that you might be doing something wrong, or that there are other players that are better…it’s simply to come to the forums and ask that all American planes be up-tiered so that you don’t have to make any effort while flying your pet nation.
