Plane set commentary

[republic]

Originally posted by Krusty
"Assuming 2 birds are the same"

All birds pale in comparison to the Norwegian Blue, beautiful plumage.

[Stampf]

I don’t know who is better than whom in what, and I really don’t care either.  Right now the AvA is a lot of fun.

I will say one thing though, about the axis side.  The majority of the guys playing axis, have extremely large amounts of seat time in the planes.  All of them.  As we saw last war, as the plane sets changed, the axis just rolled with it, even when it looked like they were at a disadvantage on the face of it.  Going from the Emil to an A5 is like changing socks for a lot of the axis guys.

Seat time has some effect on performance.  It has to.  Also the axis side has benefited from long standing, organized squads making up the roster.  Call it what you will, “Teamwork” when its you, “Ganging” when it’s the other guys…etc, etc, It plays into performance on the whole. It has to.

I think the Allies are getting tougher and tougher as they get more organized.  Last night was some great action.

Any stick from the MA can jump in one night and rack up a great K/D in any plane.  Just like any NFL team can beat another on any given Sunday.  It’s the “season” long regular weekly wins, and consistency that makes a champion though.

There is also the unspoken, but certainly tangible camaraderie and “never say die” mind set among the axis guys that is a lot of fun to be part of.  All in all, it’s a blast flying with the axis guys.

[captain1ma]

well spoken, well said!!

[KONG1]

Originally posted by Urchin
It looks to me as if my assumption is that the K/D of a random allied pilot = K/D of a random axis pilot, and yours is K/d of a random allied pilot < K/D of a random axis pilot.  

Is that a correct statement?

Your statistical analysis is once again flawed because you have missed a very important factor. Equal K/D statistics in no way equate to equal piloting skills. That stat does not take into account the risks a pile-lot takes. A good player may place himself in unfavorable circumstances for the pure fun of it while a poor player may play it safe thus earning the poor player a much higher K/D stat.

More importantly since the arena is Axis v Allies. If the average K/D of the Axis planes is better than the allies, then mathematically speaking, the average K/D of the axis pilots will surpasses the average K/D of the allies.

Therefore if you choose "random allied players" and "random axis players" repeatedly thus depleting the sample of players you would find that more often than not the K/D of the "random axis player" would exceed that of the "random allied player".

[Karnak]

Well, it is my opinion that the flight modeling of the Spitfire Mk I and Hurricanes Mk anything are significantly off.

Read pilot commentarries on the two from pilots who flew both, such as Robert Stanford Tuck.

In short the Spitfire responded effortlessly, you didn't sit in the Spitfire, you wore it, you thought about where you wanted to go and it did it without any consious effort.

The Hurricane's praise was in the lines of, it was a good, stable gun platform, it was a rugged aircraft, it had better visibility over the nose than the Spitfire.



Now, which fighter in AH responds effortlessly?   For my part, when flying the Spitfire Mk I it feels like I am wrestling against it constantly whereas the Hurricane Mk I, while slow, responds easily and rapidly.


I am also quite skeptical of the Bf110's flight modeling, for what it is worth.

[republic]

Originally posted by Stampf
I don’t know who is better than whom in what, and I really don’t care either.  Right now the AvA is a lot of fun.

I will say one thing though, about the axis side.  The majority of the guys playing axis, have extremely large amounts of seat time in the planes.  All of them.  As we saw last war, as the plane sets changed, the axis just rolled with it, even when it looked like they were at a disadvantage on the face of it.  Going from the Emil to an A5 is like changing socks for a lot of the axis guys.

Seat time has some effect on performance.  It has to.  Also the axis side has benefited from long standing, organized squads making up the roster.  Call it what you will, “Teamwork” when its you, “Ganging” when it’s the other guys…etc, etc, It plays into performance on the whole. It has to.

I think the Allies are getting tougher and tougher as they get more organized.  Last night was some great action.

Any stick from the MA can jump in one night and rack up a great K/D in any plane.  Just like any NFL team can beat another on any given Sunday.  It’s the “season” long regular weekly wins, and consistency that makes a champion though.

There is also the unspoken, but certainly tangible camaraderie and “never say die” mind set among the axis guys that is a lot of fun to be part of.  All in all, it’s a blast flying with the axis guys.

Can't get any simpler than that.  

[Odee]

Originally posted by stodd
spit1-----d3a is a good matchup
usually whenever some one1 sees a d3a they think easy kill and make stupid mistakes.

yup  D3A is a surprisingly nimble lil minx for sure.

[Urchin]

Originally posted by KONG1
Your statistical analysis is once again flawed because you have missed a very important factor. Equal K/D statistics in no way equate to equal piloting skills. That stat does not take into account the risks a pile-lot takes. A good player may place himself in unfavorable circumstances for the pure fun of it while a poor player may play it safe thus earning the poor player a much higher K/D stat.

More importantly since the arena is Axis v Allies. If the average K/D of the Axis planes is better than the allies, then mathematically speaking, the average K/D of the axis pilots will surpasses the average K/D of the allies.

Therefore if you choose "random allied players" and "random axis players" repeatedly thus depleting the sample of players you would find that more often than not the K/D of the "random axis player" would exceed that of the "random allied player".

Actually, I sort of think that taking stats over multiple tours would tend to mitigate that factor.  Also, I think one could assume that there are just as many careless 'skilled' fighters on the allied side as on the axis one, and careful 'unskilled' ones.

I'm not arguing that the average K/D of axis planes is higher, that is something I truly do not know.  I do think that in this particular setup they have better planes.

Karnak - I wonder at that myself.  If the Hurricane I was so much better than the Spit I, and the Hurri IIc was so much more effective than the Spit V... why do we have Spit IX, VIII, and XIV?  I would've been pumping out Hurricane VIII, IX, and XIVs...

[Panzzer]

Originally posted by Urchin
Karnak - I wonder at that myself.  If the Hurricane I was so much better than the Spit I, and the Hurri IIc was so much more effective than the Spit V... why do we have Spit IX, VIII, and XIV?  I would've been pumping out Hurricane VIII, IX, and XIVs...

If I may quote a pilot who actually fought Hurricane Mk II's, Hans Wind, a Brewster pilot at that time:

The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames.

, facing the Soviet air force.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Urchin
Ah, so your presumption is that the axis pilots are, on average, much better than the allied pilots?

Cause he's tested the theory in a most unbiased and scientific way, yaknow.

But since suspician equals facts I suspect the Axis players are well aware of the carb starve on a couple of planes and managed to perfect the skill of nosing down alot during the stick-stirring evasive moments therefore buying time for one of their six wingies to eventually line up the shot. And I suppose that's a skill worthy. But I'm sure, with practice (given time, opportunity, etc) even a mediocre spit/hurri jockey might develop a method or two to cope. Especially with Zeke drivers that like alt. You know ... those pilot skills known as alt, numbers. We *know* it can't be any advantage in planeset. All planes are essentially the same, anyway. So there .... my suspician plus Kong's, of a similar nature but obviously offset arrogance, *must* be fact.

Now ... having stuck my nose in the whinefest. *IF* it's the challenge ... don't whine. *IF* it's an advantage ... don't whine. Don't whine that I told you all not to whine, either. Nevermind, do whatever.

[KONG1]

I never typed "the axis pilots are, on average, much better than the allied pilots". Urchin did. If that's the way he feels then that's the way he feels.

If I wanted to say that, it would go more like this:

"Chumps couldn't organize a Tupperware Party."

or

"Those guys couldn't fly a flag."

Not that I'd ever say anything like that.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Urchin
Karnak - I wonder at that myself.  If the Hurricane I was so much better than the Spit I, and the Hurri IIc was so much more effective than the Spit V... why do we have Spit IX, VIII, and XIV?  I would've been pumping out Hurricane VIII, IX, and XIVs...

I think the Hurri's roll rate is too fast, perhaps as much as 50% too fast.  I think the Hurri's roll acceleration may be too high.  I think the Hurri's instantaneous turnrate may be too high (it did turn tighter than a Spit in sustained turns, no question). I think it is hardly affected by rising airspeed, which cripples both the Bf109E and Spitfire Mk I, even though the Hurri's ailerons are fabric like the Spit's.   I think the difference in durability between the two is overstated in AH, namely that the Spit is excessively fragile while the Hurri may be a tad tough.

None of this do I have any data for as I have absolutely no Hurricane date at all other than speeds.  Stoney did mention a lecture in which the speaker, and RAF guy of some sort (not WWII for sure), referenced the Hurri's time to complete a full roll as 4.5 seconds and in AH it takes about 3 seconds.

But essentially I have had your very thought on many occasions.  If these models are near correct, why was it the Spitfire F.Mk XIV and Bf109K-4 at the end in reality and not the Hurricane F.Mk XIV and Bf110K-4?  Sure, they'd both have been a bit slower, but I'd bet a Griffon 65 powered Hurri would top 425mph and a Bf110 with a couple DB605s would top 440mph, and both without the crippling high speed limitations on handling of the Spitfires and Bf109s.


EDIT:

The RAF considered the Hurricane Mk IIc so outclassed as a fighter compared to the Bf109F that it was considered a ground attack aircraft.  Many (most?) pilots of the twelve .303 armed Hurricane Mk IIb had the outer four guns taken out, leaving it with the same eight guns as the Mk I, as they had such a negative impact on manueverability.

[PhantomBarron]

If I wanted to say that, it would go more like this:

"Chumps couldn't organize a Tupperware Party."

or

"Those guys couldn't fly a flag."

Not that I'd ever say anything like that.

[E25280]

Originally posted by Karnak
I think the Hurri's roll rate is too fast, perhaps as much as 50% too fast.  I think the Hurri's roll acceleration may be too high.  I think the Hurri's instantaneous turnrate may be too high (it did turn tighter than a Spit in sustained turns, no question). I think it is hardly affected by rising airspeed, which cripples both the Bf109E and Spitfire Mk I, even though the Hurri's ailerons are fabric like the Spit's.   I think the difference in durability between the two is overstated in AH, namely that the Spit is excessively fragile while the Hurri may be a tad tough.

None of this do I have any data for as I have absolutely no Hurricane date at all other than speeds.  Stoney did mention a lecture in which the speaker, and RAF guy of some sort (not WWII for sure), referenced the Hurri's time to complete a full roll as 4.5 seconds and in AH it takes about 3 seconds.

But essentially I have had your very thought on many occasions.  If these models are near correct, why was it the Spitfire F.Mk XIV and Bf109K-4 at the end in reality and not the Hurricane F.Mk XIV and Bf110K-4?  Sure, they'd both have been a bit slower, but I'd bet a Griffon 65 powered Hurri would top 425mph and a Bf110 with a couple DB605s would top 440mph, and both without the crippling high speed limitations on handling of the Spitfires and Bf109s.


EDIT:

The RAF considered the Hurricane Mk IIc so outclassed as a fighter compared to the Bf109F that it was considered a ground attack aircraft.  Many (most?) pilots of the twelve .303 armed Hurricane Mk IIb had the outer four guns taken out, leaving it with the same eight guns as the Mk I, as they had such a negative impact on manueverability.

Two things I think you are forgetting or overlooking.  First, AH dogfights and real life dogfights are generally nothing alike.  In real life, speed was relied upon much more to evade your enemy and get home alive.  The low, slow turnfight that the Hurri excels with in the AH world was not a situation real life pilots wanted to be in.  The spitfire was faster, was a more modern design, and could thus "advance" whereas the Hurri was considered a technological dead end.  

Even in AH the IIC is dreadfully slow and can be picked apart if you are patient and maintain your speed advantage.  Surely this was not overlooked by those flying it in real life . . . on either side of the conflict.

There is also a matter of pilot ergonomics.  We "cartoon pilots" have the same ergonomic feel in any airframe, which just isn't the case in real life.  "You wear a spitfire."  That has wasn't necessarily due to its performance, but ergonomics.  If you as a pilot felt like you were driving a truck in a Hurri but riding a race car in the Spitfire, regardless of the comparison of the actual stats, you are going to like the plane that "feels good" better, and sing its praises.

Just some food for thought.

[Karnak]

E25380,

I don't think you are entirely right.  I think you are exagerating the differences.  In all the reading I have done on WWII air combat there have been many, many, many accounts of manuever fights.  Many more so than the blow through and keep running fights you seem to say were the vast majority.

And look at Panzzer's Finnish front quote.  That is a turn fight.

I have killed many a Hurri in AH doing what you describe, it takes a long time.  Nothing at all like the Finnish pilot described.


In addition I have read quite a few accounts of Spitfires coming home shotup, but in AH if it is tougher than an A6M I can't tell.