Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409152)

your showing your ignorance and are mixing up 2 different concepts. or as they say in dutch, “you heard the bell tolling, but don’t know where the pendulum hangs”. Meaning, you heard some things about this subject, but don’t really understand the essence or meaning

first, Me 109's of the BoB era are less able to hit Spitfires they are chasing (from straight 6 o'clock position) in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside the spitfire in stern attack. the spitfire had a higher rate of turn and a smaller turning circle than the Messerschmitt (presuming both planes were flown by similarly experienced pilots, each kmowing how to exploit their machine strength and play on the opponents weakness).iirc the spitfire also preferred the right hand turn compared to the left, because the engine torque provided an advantage in that direction (please have some experten confirm or refute this last part)

a spiral climb is something completely different. this was used very successfully by experienced 109 pilots throughout most of the war (and i have used it successfully online in the old il2 series, with great satisfaction :) ). the critical factor is that both lead and chase plane must be at roughly the same speed when you start your spiral climb, and the spiral must be executed by the leading 109 in the tightest steepest spiral possible. predictably the chasing spitfire or hurricane cant get enough lead on you to aim correctly and get a deflection shot (when they pull the stick to much in trying, they stall out), and it can take a while for the 109 to get out of trouble (so not a good idea to use when there are multiple reds zooming around, but effective even if you have a conga line of chasing reds behind you ). the effectiveness of the maneuvre is based on the fact that the 109 has that little advantage in climb that allowed it to sustain a banked climb which the RAF planes were unable to match. it's a slow fight in the sense that it takes time for the chasing plane to be out-turned (unusual) or getting them to stall out (most common result, and is what you hope for). once you see the chasing plane stall out and drop back, you stomp full on the rudder and do a hammerhead in your 109, with the result you end up right on the tail of the plane that was chasing you (whom is still flying very slow and barely starting to regain speed, so is not very maneuverable), giving you an easy kill. when done correctly it is one of the most satisfying victories, and it frustrates the heck out of the red pilot that was chasing you

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch (Post 409219)

Hi Tom,
Just google '303 squadron battle of britain' and you'll find loads of info.
Here's the page from wonderful wiki though,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303...ghter_Squadron

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom (Post 409192)

They shot down bombers...

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 409236)

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer View Post
Historically the Hurricane did account for more victories than the Spit in BOB. Historially accurate flight models combined with historical tactics should give all the combatants a fighting chance.



It looks that some have little knwowledge about these days but still they think they know better :)


Salute to 303 Squadron Pilots !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...zjon_303_4.jpg

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber (Post 409115)

Originally Posted by klem

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

Well said. +1




Quote:
Originally Posted by Buchon
This is not about balance but realism.

If you want talk about balance go to some arcade game where climb with your Corsair like a rocket and shot with his eight cannons or to some Call of Duty or Battlefield forum where you can degree shotguns, MGs and pistols to rush with your Thompson like gun at will.

This is about realism, this is about make the most realist WWII airplane behavior out of real documented data and real pilots to make the most realist Simulator.

Its not the 1940s airplane engineers fault don't make Hollywood planes like.

If a plane have weak points is in the hands of the pilot get over it, in fact every plane have weak points, if your plane is weak at speed you should rely in maneuverability, if your plane is weak at climb you just should stay at low altitude.

This is not about balance but Realism.

This is IL-2 !!


+1

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 409236)

It looks that some have little knwowledge about these days but still they think they know better :)