Urgent need to increase B.R (5.3 to 5.7) for the F4U-4 in simulator mode

[z_galocegoz]

I come in this post to ask for opinions about the B.R of the mentioned plane (F4U-4) in simulation mode.

Firstly, I would like to make it clear that my only intention here is to initiate a discussion about gameplay and highlight the advantage of the F4U-4 aircraft compared to its current B.R (5.3). I have no intention whatsoever of disadvantaging anyone or criticizing the aircraft in question.

To the point:

• For those who enjoy playing on the Axis team, they will know that from B.R 4.3 onwards, things start to become challenging. Many aircraft available to the Allied team from this B.R onwards are incredibly good, and there’s nothing wrong with that; the fun of the game is precisely the competitiveness. However, at certain moments when we have B.R changes (4.3-5.3), we see somewhat unbalanced matches, precisely when the F4U-4 is present in the game. Of course, gameplay demands not only a reasonable aircraft but also the player’s skill, so we will always have players of various skill levels in a single match, and my purpose here is not to judge who is good or bad but to discuss the characteristics of the F4U-4.

• In a nutshell, Houston, we have a problem! The F4U-4 performs excellently; it’s a fantastic aircraft, and it reproduces that very well in the game. But we have to admit that there is a discrepancy in flight power compared to many other aircraft in its B.R. The F4U-4 is a UFO among the other planes; it has an extremely strong structure, a high climb rate, is tolerant to damage, and is an aircraft with a very low Stol speed! In addition to being very maneuverable at low speeds and being able to point the nose up efficiently at low speeds. It also has good armament for ground attacks, and a great turning rate when the flaps are down. Thr plane retains a lot of energy and takes a long time to lose it, making it extremely difficult to engage in a dogfight against a mediocre or experienced player flying an F4U-4 against you. In addition, it has devastating machine guns that can destroy you at distances greater than or equal to 1km. These are very accurate shots that don’t require much from the person firing; a short burst can turn any plane into cardboard.

I would like the opinions of everyone, whether they are for or against, to see if it’s worth taking this discussion further.

Thank you all, have an excellent day! o7

(I apologize for any errors or misuse of words in context; I hope it’s understandable. English is not my native language, and I’m not good at writing long texts, so I rely on a translator’s help, but I understand most of you.)

[FeetPics]

You have never played the F4U-4 so your entire assessment must be based on being shot down by it, and as such you make a lot of factual errors.

First off, the F4U-4 does not have a high climb rate; it is quite mediocre. Every single Bf.109 variant that it can face out-climbs it by a noticeable margin.

The Bf.109 K-4 reaches 6000m in the same amount of time that it takes the F4U-4 to reach 5000m.

While at 6000m the F4U-4 is slower to accelerate than the Bf.109 K-4 and it’s barely faster than the Bf.109 G-14 which sits at 5.0 BR. Notice that the 5.0 Ki-84 is also effectively faster than the F4U-4.

The only metric that the F4U-4 is actually good in is its top speed while at sea level. But even then it’s acceleration is lacking compared to other planes. It is only above 550kph where the low drag of the F4U airframe starts to make a difference compared to its peers.

The only other thing that the F4U-4 has going for it is the fact that it has a relatively tight turning radius for a US fighter and has a sustained turn rate that is only slightly worse than the Bf.109 variants that it faces. It is only due to mistakes from enemy players that they end up being decisively out-turned by the F4U-4; it is often times due to the fact that Bf.109 players and similar are not used to having to fight an American plane that can actually keep up with them for the first few turns and they do not know how to properly utilize their thrust to weight ratio or climb rates to leverage an advantage.

TLDR: This post is axis player cope.

[LeoNerdo]

The problem is, that the F4U-4 is quite good at everything.
It can climb, it can dive, it can turn and it can snipe you from 1km.
There is no real weakness that you can work with.

From all allied planes this is the greatest pain in the ass when you fly axis.

Btw. the K4 is at 5.7 and so should be the F4U-4.

[Lieutenant_Camel]

well as a developer of a flight sim I would put the F4U-4 in a korean scenario where the plane flies against north korean Yak-9P, La-9, La-11, IL-10 and Pe-2!
here in War Thunder I can’t expect such historical accuracy. unfortunately.
but when I fly Mustang I have also extremely tough Axis enemies like Ta 152 C. These are all relative views.

[FeetPics]

Do you even have the F4U-4?

[zepirulitotiBR]

I think the mains issue is that the M3 is way superior than most nations cannons at that br cuz of the precision and belts( they can carry full explosive belts, while you can expect sparks from other cannons in that br, like german and spits), and yeah a maneuverable plane and an open canopy is sure a pain in the ass…
But I think the br it sits at is fine, its just that there are many other planes that should have their br fixed. If gaijin looked at their sim game…

[FeetPics]

They aren’t talking about the F4U-4B. They are talking about the regular -4 that has 6 .50 cals.

[Metrallaroja]

@Lieutenant_Camel

well as a developer of a flight sim I would put the F4U-4 in a korean scenario where the plane flies against north korean Yak-9P, La-9, La-11, IL-10 and Pe-2!
here in War Thunder I can’t expect such historical accuracy. unfortunately.

The F4U-4 we have in game is on 1945 settings and in fact it saw combat on the pacific, like on Okinawa.
So if any ‘‘historical matchup’’ it should face mid 1945 airplanes.

[Lieutenant_Camel]

yes, then please show me this historical comparison of the nation lineups!!! 90% of these scenarios are bad!

please forgive my sarcasm. But I’ve been trying hard here in the forum for two years to ask for improvements to the nation’s lineups!
Of course, I don’t mean 100% historically accurate. but at least a clear breakdown into WW2 (Axis vs. Allies on WW2 maps) and Cold War (NATO vs. Communists on Cold War maps). .

[z_galocegoz]

Sure. So you brought here accurate information about technical specifications, which logically should be taken into consideration, and I appreciate you for bringing them, after all, that’s what we’re here for. But let’s get to the points.

1. About the BF109 K-4 and the advantage of the climb rate. In these graphs, are you considering the climb rate levels and plane performance with conventional armament (2x 13mm MG131 + 1x 20mm MG151), or are you considering it with additional armament (+2x MG151 20mm)? Adding the extra cannons to the plane results in:

1.1 - An additional 200kg of mass (equivalent to at least 2 more pilots on board).

1.2 - A 10.8km/h reduction in maximum speed.

1.3 - A loss of 2.1m/s in climb rate.

1.4 - A decrease in turn rate performance, with an increase of 1.3 seconds in total time.

This is just the technical data; I haven’t even touched on gameplay, which leads to a significant deterioration in dogfight combat or evasive maneuvers. Especially at sea level, where the F4U-4 can perform equally or better than the BF109 (according to the numbers shown). Even if you argue that the secondary weapons are intended for bombing, I’ll address the issue of cannons and ammunition below.

2. Regarding the F4U-4. Ground attack armament.

2.1 - 2 1000lb bombs (or ~640 kilograms of TNT), enough to destroy AA bases and cause significant damage to airfields and coastal fleets.

2.2 - A set of 8x 100 lb bombs + 2 500lb bombs, which can take out enemy ground units effectively, in addition to the effective machine guns.

3. Firepower of M2 (.50) machine guns -vs- MG151 (20mm) cannons and MG131 (13mm) machine guns.

3.1 - Much more accurate and efficient for medium and long-range shots with the M2 (600~1100m), consistently damaging the enemy in a way that makes them incapacitated, or in most cases, turns the plane into a fireball, or shreds it in the first burst.

3.2 - Poor accuracy when compared to the M2, and relative damage for the MG151 and MG131. This is a serious problem and widely discussed in some threads. In addition, the ammunition belts for the cannons are quite limited in terms of ammo types. For example, there’s the “Air Targets” and “Stealth” options that are very similar. Or “Default” and “Tracer” options, which are also quite similar. But I want to “highlight” tracer rounds, which often do minimal damage, almost like firing HE ammo in a tank battle.

4. Offensive armament.

4.1 - F4U4 with 6x M2 against 2x 13mm and 1x 20mm of the BF109.

---

So, my perspective is this: we have two aircraft that could easily face each other and the more skilled pilot would win, but one of them is at 5.3 and the other at 5.7. The F4U-4 is not only a tough opponent for the BF109 but also an excellent aircraft for ground attacks.

The problem in these forums is that some people take it personally. Some will say, “when I’m in the BF109, I can shoot down any player in the F4U-4, and when I’m in the F4U-4, I can shoot down anyone in the BF109.”

The point here, as I explained at the beginning, is to bring the data and analyze it to see if the F4U-4 isn’t a superior aircraft to many in its BR. I consider battles in BR 4.3-5.3. I’m not saying you have to play with a 4.3 aircraft in a 4.3-5.3 BR, but if you take into account all the qualities of the F4U-4 and its gameplay, it would be reasonable to move it to 5.7, as it will sometimes face 4.7-5.7.

I’m not asking you to agree with me; I’m presenting my point of view.

[z_galocegoz]

Another point! Perfect.

[z_galocegoz]

Yep! It is!

[FeetPics]

@z_galocegoz

About the BF109 K-4 and the advantage of the climb rate. In these graphs, are you considering the climb rate levels and plane performance with conventional armament (2x 13mm MG131 + 1x 20mm MG151), or are you considering it with additional armament (+2x MG151 20mm)? Adding the extra cannons to the plane results in:

The Bf.109 K-4 with gun pods still outclimbs the F4U-4 by a significant margin. The Bf.109 K-4 with gun pods will reach 5600m in the same time that it takes the non-gun pod K-4 to reach 6000m. A minimum fuel F4U-4 reaches 5000m in the same time frame and it has to burn up around 40% of it’s ADI fluid to get that.

@z_galocegoz

1.1 - An additional 200kg of mass (equivalent to at least 2 more pilots on board).

1.2 - A 10.8km/h reduction in maximum speed.

1.3 - A loss of 2.1m/s in climb rate.

1.4 - A decrease in turn rate performance, with an increase of 1.3 seconds in total time.

You are quoting stat cards. They are effectively meaningless.
Without gun pods any late Bf.109 variant can out climb and out turn the F4U-4.
With gun pods the turn rates become roughly competitive with the Bf.109s maintaining better power to weight ratios.

@z_galocegoz

This is just the technical data; I haven’t even touched on gameplay, which leads to a significant deterioration in dogfight combat or evasive maneuvers. Especially at sea level, where the F4U-4 can perform equally or better than the BF109 (according to the numbers shown). Even if you argue that the secondary weapons are intended for bombing, I’ll address the issue of cannons and ammunition below.

It does not perform better. Like most American planes the F4U-4 has a high top speed but only mediocre acceleration. It does not even begin to pull away from the Bf.109 K-4 at sea level until it reaches 570kph on the deck. And due to the fact that the Bf.109s have variable speed superchargers this difference will be even more noticeable at altitudes between 1000m - 3000m. The only place that the F4U-4 is faster than the Bf.109 K-4 is below 1000m and above 7000m; at every other altitude it is slower than the K-4.

@z_galocegoz

2.1 - 2 1000lb bombs (or ~640 kilograms of TNT), enough to destroy AA bases and cause significant damage to airfields and coastal fleets.

2.2 - A set of 8x 100 lb bombs + 2 500lb bombs, which can take out enemy ground units effectively, in addition to the effective machine guns.

Ground pounding is mostly irrelevant to Air EC; especially with AA being as powerful as it currently is. An F4U-4 that is loaded for ground pounding is an easy target for any Bf.109 variant.

@z_galocegoz

3.2 - Poor accuracy when compared to the M2, and relative damage for the MG151 and MG131. This is a serious problem and widely discussed in some threads. In addition, the ammunition belts for the cannons are quite limited in terms of ammo types. For example, there’s the “Air Targets” and “Stealth” options that are very similar. Or “Default” and “Tracer” options, which are also quite similar. But I want to “highlight” tracer rounds, which often do minimal damage, almost like firing HE ammo in a tank battle.

4. Offensive armament.

4.1 - F4U4 with 6x M2 against 2x 13mm and 1x 20mm of the BF109.

MG.151s trade velocity for higher damage out-put. They are not less accurate than other guns but they have a lower velocity which limits their reach. At the same time .50 cals have higher velocity but they do not have the same damage output.

MG.151s work perfectly fine for deflection shots with shorter windows of opportunity that .50 cals simply do not offer.

@z_galocegoz

So, my perspective is this: we have two aircraft that could easily face each other and the more skilled pilot would win, but one of them is at 5.3 and the other at 5.7. The F4U-4 is not only a tough opponent for the BF109 but also an excellent aircraft for ground attacks.

The problem in these forums is that some people take it personally. Some will say, “when I’m in the BF109, I can shoot down any player in the F4U-4, and when I’m in the F4U-4, I can shoot down anyone in the BF109.”

The point here, as I explained at the beginning, is to bring the data and analyze it to see if the F4U-4 isn’t a superior aircraft to many in its BR. I consider battles in BR 4.3-5.3. I’m not saying you have to play with a 4.3 aircraft in a 4.3-5.3 BR, but if you take into account all the qualities of the F4U-4 and its gameplay, it would be reasonable to move it to 5.7, as it will sometimes face 4.7-5.7.

I’m not asking you to agree with me; I’m presenting my point of view.

You have never even played the F4U-4. In fact you have basically not even touched the US side of the tech tree in SB. This is why you get so much basic information wrong.

The only thing that makes the F4U-4 reasonably decent is the fact that it can sustain a reasonable turn rate for longer than previous F4U-4 variants so it can punish Bf.109 pilots when they get sloppy and decide to just pin their stick in a single direction.

It is not a 5.7 plane. It is not faster than the 5.0 Bf.109s. It is not faster than the 5.0 Ki-84 that it always faces. It does not turn better than a 109. It does not climb better either.

And before you actually complain that I am somehow biased because I play US planes…I also play German planes quite frequently and have been doing so for quite some time.

Contesting The Point

[TOMSONE]

Thx to waste your time, for players who complain/judge vehicules without playing it.
And all the game should turn on there POV, based on nothing.

It’s a very long fight, they are numerous!

I don’t get this this force/time anymore.

Give this man a medal!

May the force be with you.

[z_galocegoz]

Correct feetpics, I may not have the skills to expose the problem with the F4U-4, as I don’t really play with it or any other Allied aircraft, and I am a relatively inexperienced player in simulation battles compared to other players. However, I have been observing this additional difficulty in engaging in fights against the F4U-4, and this problem is not restricted to me alone, I always see other comments about the F4U-4.

But I actually come here, not to expose my gameplay, because that could be very relevant. Many things could be wrong if I were basing this post on my play. However, in addition to the discomfort that the F4U-4 causes for players other than me, I come here to try to expose the technical and gameplay data, precisely from players who have the right to talk about the plane in question. That’s why I think it’s valid, you came here and brought any information that could help clarify this issue with the F4U-4, in no way am I bothered by this, in fact I thank you for taking the time and bringing cool things to add to the discussion.

As I mentioned, my intention here is to be able to help and read other players’ opinions. Sometimes, we can jump to conclusions, but what brought me here was not just my experience, but the recurring comments about the F4U-4 and also the low capacity of the MG151, anyway, it’s a shame my post doesn’t have as many visibility, as discussion is healthy and beneficial for the game in general. I would like more people to bring technical and even gameplay data to this discussion.

I just found it unnecessary to bring the gameplay, as it is something very relative, there are matches and matches, I believe that it is not always possible to carry out a defense as efficient as the one shown in the video, and it also does not increase any technical parameters. It would be much more interesting to put 2 players of the same level in the same conditions and make them give their opinions.
In any case, feel free to bring your gameplay, it’s always good to see experienced players in action, and in a way, we can even compare our mistakes in light of that.

But anyway, I hope more people can give their opinion here. In the meantime, I’m going to try to start playing with the US team. Have a nice day.

[FlyingDoctor]

Damn I like your information on those graphs, where you get that?

[zepirulitotiBR]

Most issues are specifically on the f4u4b, bcz of the union of open cockpit, maneuverability, and precise and powerful cannons, which leaves you very vulnerable even when b&z and high yoyos with great energy as he can snipe you very easily( and, you guessed it, you can’t hit him because he hears you)

[FeetPics]

@z_galocegoz

Correct feetpics, I may not have the skills to expose the problem with the F4U-4, as I don’t really play with it or any other Allied aircraft, and I am a relatively inexperienced player in simulation battles compared to other players. However, I have been observing this additional difficulty in engaging in fights against the F4U-4, and this problem is not restricted to me alone, I always see other comments about the F4U-4.

The F4U-4 and other American planes are harder to fight for axis players because they are accustomed to US planes that have abysmal climb rates; just doing a lazy upwards ascending turn is basically an automatic win against something like an F4U-1 or P-47 D-22. Also earlier German planes also have a much more obvious advantage in turn rates.

@z_galocegoz

But I actually come here, not to expose my gameplay, because that could be very relevant. Many things could be wrong if I were basing this post on my play. However, in addition to the discomfort that the F4U-4 causes for players other than me, I come here to try to expose the technical and gameplay data, precisely from players who have the right to talk about the plane in question. That’s why I think it’s valid, you came here and brought any information that could help clarify this issue with the F4U-4, in no way am I bothered by this, in fact I thank you for taking the time and bringing cool things to add to the discussion.

The whole point of showing gameplay is to prove the point that I am not arguing about things that are purely theoretical. I do not play one nation or one plane exclusively.

The other point showcases that MG151 does more than adequate damage. It’s a little lacking right now compared to other 20mm cannons since the realshatter buff changes…but that isn’t because Mg.151 damage got reduced…every other 20mm received effectively a massive damage buff.

@z_galocegoz

As I mentioned, my intention here is to be able to help and read other players’ opinions. Sometimes, we can jump to conclusions, but what brought me here was not just my experience, but the recurring comments about the F4U-4 and also the low capacity of the MG151, anyway, it’s a shame my post doesn’t have as many visibility, as discussion is healthy and beneficial for the game in general. I would like more people to bring technical and even gameplay data to this discussion.

Your whole initial post is filled with a bunch of conclusions that you had jumped to; especially regarding the performance of the F4U-4. A dogfight between late model 109G and F4U-4 is basically dead even for Enduring Confrontation purposes and the winner is going to be based on pilot skill and starting position.

This is a much more balanced matchup than Bf.109F-4 vs F4U-1 where even if 109 is in bad position it can pretty easily secure turn rate and energy advantage where only card F4U-1 has to play is ability to dive and run away.

@z_galocegoz

I just found it unnecessary to bring the gameplay, as it is something very relative, there are matches and matches, I believe that it is not always possible to carry out a defense as efficient as the one shown in the video, and it also does not increase any technical parameters. It would be much more interesting to put 2 players of the same level in the same conditions and make them give their opinions.
In any case, feel free to bring your gameplay, it’s always good to see experienced players in action, and in a way, we can even compare our mistakes in light of that.

In a pure 1v1 scenario between experienced players something like the Bf.109 has the ability to abuse it’s power to weight ratio against F4U-4. The only real chance F4U-4 has is by being extremely aggressive and pulling for early shot after the merge.

Most Bf.109 players are not aggressive enough so they give aggressive US players free position to the extent that they can’t just turn out of it or use power to weight ratio. Most common tactic of 109 players is lazy ascending turn which only works if opponent has already bled off their energy.

[Lieutenant_Camel]

There are several 100 types of aircraft in the game. Are you going to endlessly discuss every single plane now?
is this a competition to see who has the greater technical expertise? we are all just players moving pixels from a to b here.

Are there no major construction sites in the game? Basic problems with maps, scenarios, AI units… and much more.

[rafa_br]

Something is wrong. See what happens in the rooms…F4U pilots with +10 kills and few “deaths” in several. Corsairs and XP-50 pilots sweeping everyone VERY easily.