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.
to stalk the profile of another player to then write here how incompetent he is. this really sucks.
people are allowed to write their subjective experiences here. even if someone is wrong, there is no crime.
the performance data of the aircraft in Sim are not so accurately reproduced. since Sim is a RB modification in which update for update things are changed. in addition, the constant call of the entire WT community for balancing. the Cal. 50, for example, have been improved, degraded, and improved again, and changed again, update after update. even the flight characteristics of the aircraft and even the engines are sometimes changed. so everything in the game is just a snapshot.
A game with such a poor map and scenario design and modified RB planes generally doesn’t have a high level of detail.
…or make a graphic of which third person bomber gunner can shoot the farthest… cough yes I don’t even want to know
I can only recommend you to fly together with other people and talk about Discord.
you can learn so much from each other. exchange impressions and opinions. get into conversation with other players without posting in an annoying forum.
if you are lucky you will find people who like teamwork and who are funny. You should avoid “I am the best” people.
If I find a game with good alternative playability, I will skip it, but this game is the best right now.
I’m sure the producers are aware of these imbalances in the game.
What I don’t understand is that some people are still incapable of explaining the obvious injustices with the graphics they put up. Even as the years pass, the number of children in this forum environment does not decrease. The interesting thing is that when I voiced the same similar problems 10 years ago, the same shameless incident was brought up again to the Luftwaffe-gasoline deadlock. Just from this inference, you can make an inference about the relevance of the friend who is talking about the hardware on the subject to the game. We explain it 30 times and they come back with the same arguments over and over again. In our Turkey, there is a saying “as if you were explaining it to Bilal”. I would like to explain it in detail so that my friend can understand.
There is no such thing as a hassle when it comes to climbing. You start the game at the highest altitude before the simulation battle. However, seeing the enemy is a different problem since you are confined to the cockpit in the simulation environment. And this does not make a difference like in realistic wars. I would like to point out again that this climbing problem is largely solved thanks to the high speeds of American aircraft. Since the simulation battles generally take place at medium altitudes and the mentioned f4u4, d30 and griffon planes generally perform well at low altitudes, there is not much of an altitude advantage. I would also like to point out that the problem here does not cover the K4 series. Since they were active in the same period as p51 d30, dogfights are generally enjoyable between them. Still, the d30 series is more comfortable to play than the k series. The problem is that we cannot explain to our friend that the BR of the d30, corsair f4u 4 series is too low. There is no way the 109g10 14 series can fight these planes. I’m not even getting into the manual engine control issue. Let me give advice to a friend who uses D13. When it has to catch a faster plane, it achieves much better performance when it manually turns off the radiators. Of course, you should pay attention to engine temperature.
I DO NOT MAKE ANY INTERESTS FROM THE VALUES YOUR FRIEND PRESENTS ON PAPER. I AM PROVIDING MY EXPERIENCES IN THE DOGFIGHTS THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY DONE.
It is said to have similar performance, believe it or not, the D30 and G10 perform much better than the G10 in turns even with the flaps fully open. It would be funny if there was no mention of maneuvering at high speeds, energy retention and weapons.
I guess there is such a situation in the game environment. Axis players always have to fight against planes that are much better than them. For example, Panzer4 facing EBR 1951 or F4U4 aircraft with the same BR as G10. One of them entered service in 1944, the other in 46-47. At least in “Simulation Wars” this balance needs to be observed. I was also involved in the fight between the planes that entered service in the same years, there is balance in their fight. Some turn easily, some can maintain their energy, and some seem to maintain control at low speeds. It’s time to give up on this.
How many times do we see players come on here to ask for changes, but they have no experience with what they want changed? Flying the aircraft itself and fighting against it are two very different experiences.
FeetPics was just taking the time to cross-check to make sure the OP argument is valid, and it turns out, it is not. Doing some research and trying to prove a point is not stalking, sir.
There is no justice, like the T-62 tank fighting in the simulation, very modern tanks in almost everything, such as CV-90105 and Merkava tanks, there is no justice, unfortunately.
Yes, the conclusion drawn by the friend who did cross-experimentation was that since there was no gasoline in the Luftwaffe, it should be treated accordingly.
You insist on not understanding. To summarize the current situation in the game, it is to put 109 k4, which has a level of 5.3, against 109 g10, which has a level of 5.3. There is no other explanation for this. There is no point in making anyone look like a fool. I even increase it even more. It is to put bf109 f4 in front of bf109 e4. Corsair f4u 4b or 4 series completely replaces f4. For your friends to understand further, you can see that yak3p and 109g2 have the same BR.
These forum environments are usually the scene of verbal fights, that’s why I don’t like them.
I hope modern war vehicles will be saturated and focus will be on WW2 vehicles.
I have to repeat, I saw that in this game, Yak3p, which has the same combat rate, was placed against the BF109 G2. I know, some of you may not be old enough, we have experienced this ourselves, the old ones are witnesses to this. I know that the red baron called yak3p hunted down 4-5 planes one by one.
Likewise, I know that in the technology tree where the Panther D is located, the t34 85 44 model is placed against the Panzer 4 in the simulation battle.
After stating it here, that error was corrected. Likewise, I believe that the current error will be corrected. Moreover, I see that there are many people who think like me. Again, as in that period, it is obvious that those working at gas stations were in the minority.
Simple and realistic battles do not interest me, but simulation ap should be considered as a separate category and regulations should be made accordingly.
I would invite the person to Discord to fly together and not deny him competence here on the forum.
The mood in the forum won’t get any better if we all come up with graphics to prove we’re absolutly right.
The mood will only improve if we all at least agree that Sim really needs a big fat major facelift.
…and if people like Stona_WT and others would be kind enough to answer the question. will someone from the high gaijin ivory tower come to our sim forum to answer the most important sim questions? - then we would all be at least a step further here… a small step for a Gaijin worker, a big one for the Sim -Community!
or what’s left of it
This “stalking” is merely from looking at his player card which is something anyone can do in-game.
He is not only writing about subjective experience. He is making objectively false claims to justify his subjective opinion.
He claimed that the P-51 D-30 and the F4U-4 are superior to their German counterparts in “every field” of their performance metrics. This is objectively false and is objectively testable.
He also claimed that I do not play sim. This is also counterfactual; I actually have more time played in sim and have used a much wider variety of aircraft. I am not someone who mains only one nation or one plane.
I have actually done my homework and have thoroughly tested things like P-51 D-30 vs late model Bf.109s. I have tested it against some of the most experienced players in the game.
The only performance metric that the P-51 D-30 is superior in is top speed, while being inferior in climb rate, acceleration, and turn performance.
Moving the P-51 D-30 up by a single BR step means that it would be considered equal to the Bf.109 K-4…a plane that is effectively just as fast as it is. And that is the bare minimum of what the OP wants. What he actually wants is for it to have to fight Korean War era jets because that is “historical accuracy”.
This creates a situation where the “best” World War II Mustang is the P-51 D-5…a plane that is vastly inferior to late model Bf.109s in every possible metric outside of straight line dive speed. Essentially what the OP is asking for is to be able to freely seal club in late war German planes because he cannot handle not having massive advantages in every performance metric.
I can only say. I often had bad luck and greek air force as enemy. somehow then every enemy plane feels OP. nevertheless numbers and facts do not lie of course. at least until next update.
Sim has a lot of potential and it can be a lot of fun as a team. but the mode feels like a game in the early access open beta phase. and the developers stopped building after the lunch break.
Some of you are having a hard time understanding. Once again, defense is started with irrelevant arguments. Of course, we do not want post-war planes to compete with post-war jets or jets that are still in the war. The propellers of their own countries must fight against the propellers and the jets against the jets. However, as an event, defending against me262s etc. would be quite enjoyable.
See, you are benefiting from robotic data regarding d30. The d30 can maneuver much more easily at high speeds, and it is very difficult for the k4 to get away from it when it joins it. Climbing and maintaining energy and climbing are two different matters. “I think” you are deliberately confusing the climbing data between 0-1km and energy conservation up to a certain distance at a certain speed. Of course, the 109 series is successful when climbing is attempted after taking off from the airport. However, when it comes to energy conservation, p51s are much more successful. And again, I have to repeat it 30 times for you to understand some things. P51 can easily outturn 109s and TA152 external FWs at high speeds. Not to mention the Korean War Veteran Corsair f4u4s, they fly even better than the Japanese planes.
I can’t believe I’m telling you such details.
I even increase it, even at low speeds, the D30 can outturn aircraft other than the 109 series and the TA152. KOREAN VETERAN CORSAIR F4U4’s are already worth it, there is no need to discuss it.
I’m going to sound personal, but I don’t believe you tested these planes. You are deliberately defending an obvious injustice.
It would be fair if the d5 series matches with g6 or 14, the d20 series with g10, and the d30 with k4. a8(?) d9 12 13 (garbage?) ta152 for Fws, I can’t find a definition for the KOREA VETERAN corsair monsters. d30 looks like a little brat next to it.
Frankly, new tools are required. like k6 14? As he said in camel, it is necessary to focus on simulation battles.
