Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: PJ_Godzilla on July 20, 2011, 11:31:48 AM
-
I'm starting this thread to enable members to create a repository (or suppository if that's what you're into) of things they learned from AHII that are corroborated or contradicted by the historical record. Consider my starter examples:
1. In the P40 versus A6M matchup, the P40 is the energy fighter and the A6M the angles fighter. This is entirely coherent with all the stuff I'd read about Claire Chennault's tactical advice to the AVG.
2. The Dora and Pony are both poor angles fighters relative to the rest of the AC set - this was particularly surprising since I'd read how good both were and, 2 years ago, expected to be able to low-speed turnfight in either. No-ah-ah - though, had I bothered to check the mg/A on either, I'd've known a priori.
3. Attacking formations of bombers is difficult, not just for the murderous defensive fire but also because of the difficulty in interception (getting speed AND alt, both of which are needed for any viable attack)
4. In any BoB scenario, the LW is at a distinct E-M disadvantage against both principle RAF fighters. What's all this anecdotal historical falsehood about the Emil's near-comparability (how close is close?) in turn rate?
5. Friendly fire incidents can occur pretty easily in combat
6. 190s generally have poor sustained turn performance but very high roll rates and strong instantaneous turn performance, relative to the rest of the AC set
7. It's very easy to get killed, even if you're a decent pilot.
nyway, those ar ejust a few examples for critique or agreement. Write your own.
-
Might I add two more....
1) Augers are an Art form
2) Trees should be RED
-
Might I add two more....
1) Augers are an Art form
2) Trees should be RED
Actually, if you want to get serious about augers, I'd add:
8. It is amazing that any Luftwaffe pilots survived 109 training, much less scored kills against other aircraft, given the ~500 mph lock that 109 controls experience. I've augered this bird throughout my entire 2years of expereince with it, happily just less than before, thanks to learning to use trim and developing my own special trick.
-
One aircraft alone is a liablilty, 2 or more aircraft is an asset.
ABC, Always be Climbing.
It is easier to lose E then gain it.
Make your kills quickly.
You can tell in one turn if your apponent is competant.
You only have too much fuel if you are on fire.
(I likey this thread PJ)
-
Actually, if you want to get serious about augers, I'd add:
8. It is amazing that any Luftwaffe pilots survived 109 training, much less scored kills against other aircraft, given the ~500 mph lock that 109 controls experience. I've augered this bird throughout my entire 2years of expereince with it, happily just less than before, thanks to learning to use trim and developing my own special trick.
Oh, so you're the one that leaves Brown/Green/Yellow streaks on my G14 Seatback.
:cheers: Oz
-
Contradicted by the historical record would be the kind of low speed death match fights like between a mossie and a zero. Also I think the Me163 in the game is a lot more reliable and effective than it was in real life. I understand it used to blow up spontaneously and caused a lot of back injuries on landing. Also allied fighters could just hang around the field waiting for them to come back with no power. Also that t-stoff stuff would disolve you...there's a graphic graphics challenge.
-
I'm starting this thread to enable members to create a repository (or suppository if that's what you're into) of things they learned from AHII that are corroborated or contradicted by the historical record. Consider my starter examples:
1. In the P40 versus A6M matchup, the P40 is the energy fighter and the A6M the angles fighter. This is entirely coherent with all the stuff I'd read about Claire Chennault's tactical advice to the AVG.
2. The Dora and Pony are both poor angles fighters relative to the rest of the AC set - this was particularly surprising since I'd read how good both were and, 2 years ago, expected to be able to low-speed turnfight in either. No-ah-ah - though, had I bothered to check the mg/A on either, I'd've known a priori.
3. Attacking formations of bombers is difficult, not just for the murderous defensive fire but also because of the difficulty in interception (getting speed AND alt, both of which are needed for any viable attack)
4. In any BoB scenario, the LW is at a distinct E-M disadvantage against both principle RAF fighters. What's all this anecdotal historical falsehood about the Emil's near-comparability (how close is close?) in turn rate?
5. Friendly fire incidents can occur pretty easily in combat
6. 190s generally have poor sustained turn performance but very high roll rates and strong instantaneous turn performance, relative to the rest of the AC set
7. It's very easy to get killed, even if you're a decent pilot.
nyway, those ar ejust a few examples for critique or agreement. Write your own.
Bomber fly much faster in AH than they did in the real deal.
-
I guess I need to press post 2 times? I read somewhere something like "there were only great fighter pilots and dead fighter pilots." Meaning that you had to be really lucky or talented to survive long enough to get the skills to survive. I think AH2 illustrates this with the happy exception that you get unlimited second chances. It makes me think of how tough it must have been to lose experienced fighter pilots for Britain during BoB and how hollowed out the japanese air forces must have been after losing most of there best pilots in the first couple years of the war, would you want to be a brand new japanese pilot in 1945?
I don't think very many t-34s shot down very many spitfires.
It is hard to catch a mossie bomber but I thought they cost less than B-17s
-
I just want to see actual WWII footage of 4-engine bombers doing hammerheads and barrel roles and then divebomb a carrier or radar tower. :bolt:
-
reality is such a bore ;)
-
Just remember that most of the fights in AH take place at very low alts. Relative plane performance changes drastically once you get to realistic fighting alts of 20k+. It's a totally different ballgame up there. Having said that, the Mustang does very well at low speeds on the deck in this game, if you know what you're doing.
-
Contradicted by the historical record would be the kind of low speed death match fights like between a mossie and a zero. Also I think the Me163 in the game is a lot more reliable and effective than it was in real life. I understand it used to blow up spontaneously and caused a lot of back injuries on landing. Also allied fighters could just hang around the field waiting for them to come back with no power. Also that t-stoff stuff would disolve you...there's a graphic graphics challenge.
Yes indeed - and this is a function of the fact that we have NO RELIABILITY MODEL. Everything operates at 100% reliability - guns, engines, landing gear, ejections, everything. It's kind of a loss to the richness of the experience but is probably a decent trade for playability, at least at current CPU and transmission capabilities. If Moore's law still holds (not sure, honestly, if it will) and reasonable reliability data is evident, who knows? Your Hispanos might soon have some chance of firing-on-trigger that is slightly less than 100% - and that would be keeeewl. I somehow doubt the Hispanos would be one of the less reliable examples, though.
As for the 163, it was reputed to be a greater danger to its pilots than the enemy - but I'll cite flight journal OL for a fun article/interview with Rudy Opitz: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight5.htm
For the record, that crazy Nazi pilot chick (Hanna Reitsch perhaps?the one who was eerily tight-lipped about flying the Fieseler into Berlin at the end, there) also got some stick time in the Komet. 16 kills = insignificant to the war effort... otherwise, tres kewl...
-
Just remember that most of the fights in AH take place at very low alts. Relative plane performance changes drastically once you get to realistic fighting alts of 20k+. It's a totally different ballgame up there. Having said that, the Mustang does very well at low speeds on the deck in this game, if you know what you're doing.
A good point - both Jug and Pony seem to be designed around fighting at high speed and "up there". I say, "seem" because I am blithely devoid of stick time in either but know enough to not take on a Jug at 20k+ or to fight a Pony at speed (which usually means dodging his firing passes). OTOH, when I do see Ponies down low, it seems like they're usually running or using their excellent high-speed handling to reverse vertically at the end of BnZ passes.
In very few cases do I recall seeing a Pony low and slow - for long. How do you manage to survive in such a situation?
-
At 20+k the p47 is like a zero (compared to most other planes). It is the only plane with a turbo-supercharger, and the result is that its engine performance degrades much less than other planes. Now, once its at 10k, its like trying to quickly move a giant wine barrel with fins, but as you pointed out, 10k is out of its element, so to speak.
-
Yes indeed - and this is a function of the fact that we have NO RELIABILITY MODEL...
As for the 163, it was reputed to be a greater danger to its pilots than the enemy - but I'll cite flight journal OL for a fun article/interview with Rudy Opitz: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight5.htm
For the record, that crazy Nazi pilot chick (Hanna Reitsch perhaps?the one who was eerily tight-lipped about flying the Fieseler into Berlin at the end, there) also got some stick time in the Komet. 16 kills = insignificant to the war effort... otherwise, tres kewl...
...am I reading you right that it would be 'tres kewl' to start a sortie, press the E button, and explode immediately costing you ~100 perks?
Wow our definitions of 'tres kewl' differ widely. As neat as a reliability model sounds, it just doesn't transfer into good gameplay. Dying because your ground crew didn't do its job is not fun gameplay, no matter how you dress it up.
Wiley.
-
At 20+k the p47 is like a zero (compared to most other planes). It is the only plane with a turbo-supercharger, and the result is that its engine performance degrades much less than other planes. Now, once its at 10k, its like trying to quickly move a giant wine barrel with fins, but as you pointed out, 10k is out of its element, so to speak.
Yes, the super air pump, packaged ventrally and lending the notable shape... Yet, in AH, so many are willing to fly them low. This is out of their design brief. My very first true rolling scissor fight was against a Jug on the deck. It ended abruptly when he smashed into the ground but it was kewl, nonetheless. I had gondos and he offered, so I said, what the heck? I realized what was going on when his position in my view (looking up) eerily refused to change despite the fact that I was in a continuous barrel roll. Of course, the axis of that helix bent inexorably downward.
Had I just had the 1x20 I'd've probably just flat-turned on him.
-
...am I reading you right that it would be 'tres kewl' to start a sortie, press the E button, and explode immediately costing you ~100 perks?
Wow our definitions of 'tres kewl' differ widely. As neat as a reliability model sounds, it just doesn't transfer into good gameplay. Dying because your ground crew didn't do its job is not fun gameplay, no matter how you dress it up.
Wiley.
I'll concede the point on gameplay, though, if you read our friend Rudy, he claims the real failure mode was a failure to operate. I'll also concede the point that the perk-paying client might be a little p-o'd. OTOH, if you had reliability built in and people knew it upfront, the ride might not need to be perked.
-
I'll concede the point on gameplay, though, if you read our friend Rudy, he claims the real failure mode was a failure to operate. I'll also concede the point that the perk-paying client might be a little p-o'd. OTOH, if you had reliability built in and people knew it upfront, the ride might not need to be perked.
I wasn't speaking just in terms of perk planes, it was just a fairly strong example of why it's a bad idea. Suppose 163s were unperked, and it was a failure to operate failure mode. So I get on the runway, press E. Hmp. Got a dud. .ef Launch. Press E. Ok, off I go. How did 'e', '.ef', and launching again add to the gameplay experience?
Now aside from that specific example, most of the Japanese stuff was allegedly unreliable. Same with the Russian stuff. I just don't see what it adds to the game other than frustration. Look at how bent out of shape people get when auto ack oils you. A reliability model would give the same result, except it wouldn't matter whether you've chosen to be over a CV or not.
It's the rough equivalent of having a crappy connection to the server. Getting booted mid-flight is no fun, why would it be more fun if it was because the plane you've chosen to fly had an unreliable engine IRL?
Wiley.
Wiley.
-
why would it be more fun if it was because the plane you've chosen to fly had an unreliable engine IRL?
Wiley.
It's a value question. If you want a more realistic experience, you might be willing to endure. If it's purely about the combat at nominal, you might not be so willing. It's kind of like no-icon flying that way.
I'd propose that it be a feature that could be enabled or disabled. For scenario play, it might be really interesting and would provide an offsetting feature that might enable, certainly in the case of the Eastern Front, a stabilizing effect. In the Pac theatre, it'd probably just make things a landslide.
I think your analogy with the server a bad one, though, and I'll provide a counterexample. Consider the instance of 6x50 cal on the Pony D. Assuming you take off and are flying, you now face odds that not all guns are operational at any given instance. That's not a binary fly/no fly, it's a diminution of your firepower for the duration of the mission.
Recall the name of the thread. Such a feature would certainly provide a more historically accurate experience. I make no claims that people would like it better.
-
It's a value question. If you want a more realistic experience, you might be willing to endure. If it's purely about the combat at nominal, you might not be so willing. It's kind of like no-icon flying that way.
Possibly. Good for the masochists, anyways.
I think your analogy with the server a bad one, though, and I'll provide a counterexample. Consider the instance of 6x50 cal on the Pony D. Assuming you take off and are flying, you now face odds that not all guns are operational at any given instance. That's not a binary fly/no fly, it's a diminution of your firepower for the duration of the mission.
Yep. It would be more realistic. So would no autopilot, no autotrim, 40 lb springs on your joystick and rudders and a solid commitment not to leave your chair to go to the head until your sortie is complete. :)
Back to the topic and away from the quasi-hijack, the game impresses on me how amazing it is that anybody survived aerial engagements in those fighters at all when you consider the number of aircraft involved in the fights. Surviving your first few sorties IMO was probably largely a matter of being in the right place at the right time than skill.
Wiley.
-
Interesting point on the P-51 and 190. It seems like these planes were highly touted by their pilots as superior fighters, however, it appears to me that once you lose your energy/speed they become very poor performing planes and an easy kill. The P-51 seems to be entirely overrated as a fighter which is probably why the P-51 pilots in AH are always at 15K or above and only engage an enemy in a dive. I'm not picking on the P-51 pilots just making an observation about the aircraft.
Overall it seems the American planes were built much like the muscle cars of the late 60's, big, heavy and fast in the straight away but overall poor performers which led to the bnz tactics the American pilots adopted. The British Spitfire is built like a sports car, it's fast and highly maneuverable. Seems to be good at everything. My pick for best overall fighter of WW2 followed by the Zero and 109.
-
1. In the P40 versus A6M matchup, the P40 is the energy fighter and the A6M the angles fighter. This is entirely coherent with all the stuff I'd read about Claire Chennault's tactical advice to the AVG.
The original Flying Tigers never engaged A6ms. They were fighting mostly Nates, Oscars, and Nicks. All were only barely on par with the P40.
I wasn't speaking just in terms of perk planes, it was just a fairly strong example of why it's a bad idea. Suppose 163s were unperked, and it was a failure to operate failure mode. So I get on the runway, press E. Hmp. Got a dud. .ef Launch. Press E. Ok, off I go. How did 'e', '.ef', and launching again add to the gameplay experience?
Now aside from that specific example, most of the Japanese stuff was allegedly unreliable. Same with the Russian stuff. I just don't see what it adds to the game other than frustration. Look at how bent out of shape people get when auto ack oils you. A reliability model would give the same result, except it wouldn't matter whether you've chosen to be over a CV or not.
It's the rough equivalent of having a crappy connection to the server. Getting booted mid-flight is no fun, why would it be more fun if it was because the plane you've chosen to fly had an unreliable engine IRL?
YEA thats the ticket, it should be "all or nothing." It's just a game and it should only be fun.
Nothing that happens in the game should be work or piss off players.
We should have automatic flap deployment, because pushing those extra buttons is too complicated and hurts my fingers.
We should have unlimited ammo because it's no fun running out. same for fuel.
Combat trim should fly the plane for us during our fights.
And nothing that ever challenges you to the extreme should ever again be mentioned in these forums.
:devil Have a happy unchallenging game.
-
In very few cases do I recall seeing a Pony low and slow - for long. How do you manage to survive in such a situation?
a crapload of flap usage, rudder usage, E management, SA, and BALLS... :aok
-
P-51's are very good planes in a scenario setting. 190's are good in a scenario setting depending on the role and the model. For example, the 190A-8 in scenarios is a monster at killing bombers.
In the BoB scenario, the 109E is a very good fighter vs. Spit I's and Hurri I's.
The P-47 has a turbocharger (as opposed to a geared supercharger) -- so does the P-38. So both have excellent power at very high altitudes.
-
I just wanted to put a plug in for the original subject. I think re: the pony and the 190, they were much better real world fighter planes than they are cartoon fighter planes. For the most part I don't think AH2 offers fidelity in aircombat, I'm not talking about the flight model I'm talking about the game play. In the realworld diving 10,000 feet and zapping somebody before they know what hit them, or steaming in head on with all guns blazing would be considered great admirable techniques. I think some of the scenarios give a better feel of being blindsided and only having one chance, anyway its all good
-
In the realworld diving 10,000 feet and zapping somebody before they know what hit them, or steaming in head on with all guns blazing would be considered great admirable techniques.
So true. And it's amazing how many people in this game think that HOing was rare. I love the turn fight and hate getting HOed as much as anyone, but it would be a much happier world without weiners who want everyone to fly the way they they want you to all the time.
-
YEA thats the ticket, it should be "all or nothing." It's just a game and it should only be fun.
And nothing that ever challenges you to the extreme should ever again be mentioned in these forums.
:devil Have a happy unchallenging game.
Yes, because random failures challenge you to the extreme.
Hey, if you want to roughly simulate this level of fun, purchase one of these:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/8c52/ (http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/8c52/)
Turn it on at the beginning of every sortie. Every time it beeps randomly stop using some function of your aircraft, such as the rudder, or hit the E button on your keyboard, or stop turning left, or stop using your MGs, only cannons.
Enjoy your extreme challenge!
Enough with the hijack... I'm done.
Wiley.
-
Yes, the super air pump, packaged ventrally and lending the notable shape... Yet, in AH, so many are willing to fly them low. This is out of their design brief. My very first true rolling scissor fight was against a Jug on the deck. It ended abruptly when he smashed into the ground but it was kewl, nonetheless. I had gondos and he offered, so I said, what the heck? I realized what was going on when his position in my view (looking up) eerily refused to change despite the fact that I was in a continuous barrel roll. Of course, the axis of that helix bent inexorably downward.
Had I just had the 1x20 I'd've probably just flat-turned on him.
Don't forget all those MTO and ETO Jug Groups flying ground attack. The Jug did a lot of fighting down low and did tangle with enemy birds down there too. I've been reading the history of the 405th FG, 9th AF that flew Jugs in the ETO doing ground attack. Down low was where they were :)
-
The original Flying Tigers never engaged A6ms. They were fighting mostly Nates, Oscars, and Nicks. All were only barely on par with the P40.
YEA thats the ticket, it should be "all or nothing." It's just a game and it should only be fun.
As for the first, yes, you are correct. My statement about the E-M matchup P-40 to A6M is too, but not in the context of Claire Chenault and the AVG. Therefore, I stand at least partially corrected. Kudos for correcting my sloppy misstatement.
As for the second, you sarcastically make my point well enough to at least mildly annoy Wiley, with whom I was having a civil discourse. I agree but you get a style deduction.
Overall, 9.4, expect less from the Russian judge, for he is humorless and afflicted with hemorrhoids.
-
Might I add two more....
2) Trees should be RED
:rofl
-
As for the second, you sarcastically make my point well enough to at least mildly annoy Wiley, with whom I was having a civil discourse. I agree but you get a style deduction.
I am using the BBS Justice League tactic of beating first, asking questions later.
-
Overall it seems the American planes were built much like the muscle cars of the late 60's, big, heavy and fast in the straight away but overall poor performers which led to the bnz tactics the American pilots adopted. The British Spitfire is built like a sports car, it's fast and highly maneuverable. Seems to be good at everything. My pick for best overall fighter of WW2 followed by the Zero and 109.
Badboy's thesis on the E-M, IIRC, supports your opinion w/r American tin. Also agreed on Spitty, but that doesn't mean I want to fly one all the time (where's the fun, where's the challenge, where are the big brass ones?).
Next Caller...
-
Before Aces High I thought it took 1 Person to fly each bomber in a formation. Boy was I ever wrong.
-
Before Aces High I thought it took 1 Person to fly each bomber in a formation. Boy was I ever wrong.
That's nothing. I thought getting splattered on a windscreen like lasagna, then incinerated in a fireball might actually hurt, or at least be mildly inconvenient. Instead, it turns out that people are just like PunkinPuss in the old Hannah Barbera cartoon.
My mom used to tell me not to pull those three stooges moves on the siblings. She obviously didn't know anything about history.
-
You mean that's not Lasagna that splatters all over the canopy after I get those weird check 6 thingies from that guy who must suffer from gigantism and turret's syndrome?
-
Before Aces High I thought it took 1 Person to fly each bomber in a formation. Boy was I ever wrong.
I always thought it took two pilots, a navigator, bombardier and gunners :)
-
I always thought it took two pilots, a navigator, bombardier and gunners :)
What are gunners, why do you have two guys to fly the airplane (isn't that a bit cramped?) and why do you have two guys to navigate and aim the bombs?
-
What are gunners, why do you have two guys to fly the airplane (isn't that a bit cramped?) and why do you have two guys to navigate and aim the bombs?
You ever seen me fly? You bet I need another pilot. Seen my shooting? I sure do need gunners. Navigate and drop a bomb? Need I say more? :)
-
AH taught me that the UK was the only airplane supplier for the allies in WWI.
-
There are times the game resembles actually history. 1 on 1s with pilots of equal skill, each using the strengths of the airframes is one of them. Another, my favorite example, is the historical recreations that uses actual period/theater aircraft on actual historical accurate operations.
But generally ? Most people would rather have fun then play strict history. Still if you up against an enemy in a strong position, against a stick who knows how to use his strengths against your weaknesses ? You will probably have a historically accurate problem. ;)
-
The Hellcat was not as good a performer as its 17:1 kill ratio implies.
The U.S.Navy really underestimated the need for rearward visiblity, and got the message much later than the Army Aircorps did.
The Pony is an over-rated dog fighter, but I can see why it was such a great overall combat aircraft. [range, speed, firepower, payload]
The 190 is an over-rated dog fighter.
Flight style for fun vs. Flight style for a real war: It's clear that in the real war, very little dog fighting took place and most kills were racked up sneaking up on unsuspecting aircraft. As a result, fast planes, that dove well, and had lots of firepower gained reputaions as great planes. But AH really makes clear that these planes had severe limitations. And by showing these limitations, confirms that action in the real war was nothing like the "jump in and mix it up all the time" style of most AH players.
Explained why P-38 were removed from the European theater.
Rall, Hartmann, Gabreski, Bong, or Campbell wouldn't stand a chance against Grizz or Bruv119. :D
-
Good points re: USN. Let's face it, they had the horde and probably, in many cases (though not all - see Sakae's gripping account of being attacked by 16 HellKitties) , even the skill level on their side by late war. What a steamroller. Had they been mixing it up 1:1 against experienced Japanese pilots all flying Ki-84s and N1K2's, a different ratio might've obtained.
Also: totally agreed on the USN 6 view <play sucking sound here>.
As for the bnz, I suspect most "statistics" never saw it coming.
-
Flight style for fun vs. Flight style for a real war: It's clear that in the real war, very little dog fighting took place and most kills were racked up sneaking up on unsuspecting aircraft. As a result, fast planes, that dove well, and had lots of firepower gained reputaions as great planes. But AH really makes clear that these planes had severe limitations. And by showing these limitations, confirms that action in the real war was nothing like the "jump in and mix it up all the time" style of most AH players.
This.
- oldman
-
The Hellcat killed more enemy airplanes then any other. Certainly there were other factors, so many it would be hard to compare them against any Jap fighter. Most of all land based ones.
The Japanese started a war against an Industrial juggernaught that roll out super carriers and airplanes like so many sausages. That could give an unending line of Pilot candidates hundreds of training air hours before putting them in combat.
While the KI-84 was a problematic design I'd agree to a point with you with the N1k2. This was an impressive design and all things being equal it could fight with any of the best US fighters. But all things werent perfect. Jap industry had a lot of problems building and maintaining its top end fighters, let alone building enough of them. Even still I'd be willing to bet the Hellcats and Corsairs did better then 1 to 1 against the N1k, which was only flown by the best IJN sticks still breathing.
Very interesting opinion PJ. Actually I'd love to see the film of AHs 20 best Hellcat and Corsair sticks going against AHs 20 best N1k and KI-84 sticks. :salute
-
One aircraft alone is a liablilty, 2 or more aircraft is an asset.
ABC, Always be Climbing.
It is easier to lose E then gain it.
Make your kills quickly.
You can tell in one turn if your apponent is competant.
You only have too much fuel if you are on fire.
(I likey this thread PJ)
or taking off in Lancasters(Too Much Gas). :airplane:
-
Contradicted by the historical record would be the kind of low speed death match fights like between a mossie and a zero. Also I think the Me163 in the game is a lot more reliable and effective than it was in real life. I understand it used to blow up spontaneously and caused a lot of back injuries on landing. Also allied fighters could just hang around the field waiting for them to come back with no power. Also that t-stoff stuff would disolve you...there's a graphic graphics challenge.
Peroxide Rocket motors were very dangerous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=743kWB7hLpM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=743kWB7hLpM&feature=related)
-
Vink is absolutely right ref the F6F. Grumman got the message early from pilots that a better 6 view was needed. When it reported to the USN the estimated decrease in F6F production rate the Navy decided the F6F was good enough "as is" and pressed on with the F6F-5 and -5N till the end of the war. The F6F was more than capable of dealing with the likes of A6M and Ki43 and arrived on the scene as typical combat ratios tipped in favor of the USN. (The first F6F combat saw 90 Hellcats take on less than half their number of zekes. 27 kills for three losses were claimed iirc. This was typical as the war ended) When the PW R2800-18 engine went to F4U4 Corsair production, the writing was on the wall for the Hellcat and by that time Grumman had already gotten the F8F off the drawing board anyway. The F6F was also seen as deficient in roll rate and top speed before the end of the war. Retention was partially due to the ease of use for new pilots vs the "Ensign Eliminator."
I think the F6F is modeled beautifully in AH. You can see how it would thump the zeke but be vulnerable in the European theater. The Germans had better aircraft, better doctrine, better training, better access to raw materials, better logistics, better scientists, and last but not least a much better retention rate of pilot cadre. The ETO was referred to as the "Big Leagues" at the time by American aviators for good reason. "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai and "General Kenney Reports" give excellent perspectives of the Pacific war. The Jap Bushido code turned into a huge liability. I digress. The F6F is not as good as the stats imply but it is right there with the jug as my fav fighter nonetheless.
-
...am I reading you right that it would be 'tres kewl' to start a sortie, press the E button, and explode immediately costing you ~100 perks?
Wow our definitions of 'tres kewl' differ widely. As neat as a reliability model sounds, it just doesn't transfer into good gameplay. Dying because your ground crew didn't do its job is not fun gameplay, no matter how you dress it up.
Wiley.
sadly, it wasnt always the ground crews fault. the fuel components inthe 163 (T Stoff and the other one) were highly combustable when i ncontact with eachother. add in the burning of it in the mixing chamber... ground crew cant avoid what happens there, can they?
back to the OP... i learned that HO's were a viable tactic, though barely used due to the risk.. in game used like its nothing risky. we need a slightly more realistic flight model.
-
F6F is not as good as the stats imply but it is right there with the jug as my fav fighter nonetheless.
Those are my two favorite WWII fighters. :aok
-
Explained why P-38 were removed from the European theater.
The P-38 was never removed from the European theater.... Moreover, the faults of the P-38 are not remotely evident in the game....
-
Moreover, the faults of the P-38 are not remotely evident in the game....
Very true.
- oldman
-
The P-38 was never removed from the European theater.... Moreover, the faults of the P-38 are not remotely evident in the game....
Faults of the P-38 are very evident. The plane can't dive.
That was it's critical fault. There were other faults, but that was the big one. Completely removed? no, sidelined wrt escort an fighter sweep? yes.
-
Faults of the P-38 are very evident. The plane can't dive.
That was it's critical fault. There were other faults, but that was the big one. Completely removed? no, sidelined wrt escort an fighter sweep? yes.
It was a potentially lethal problem, but I wouldn't single it out as "the big one".
-
Faults of the P-38 are very evident. The plane can't dive.
That was it's critical fault. There were other faults, but that was the big one. Completely removed? no, sidelined wrt escort an fighter sweep? yes.
Compressibility was never considered a major issue with the P-38, once pilots were trained on how to deal with it. No, it could not easily follow a 109 or 190 to the deck from 27,000 feet. However, that didn't matter as they were supposed to stay with the bombers anyway. All J models were eventually fitted with dive recovery flaps, and all new L models had them when delivered. The three big issues with P-38s in the ETO were engine failures due to fuel incompatibility, lack of cockpit heat and complexity of the aircraft to fly and maintain. P-38s were doing fine in the MTO, flying from Italy to Germany, Austria and the like without engine failures. Likewise, the P-38 completely dominated the Japanese, flying at medium altitudes (usually under 25k).
At the heights we fly in AHII, compressibility is not much of a problem. In point of fact, if you have any idea how to fly the P-38, it's no problem whatsoever.
I'd suggest that you do some research on the P-38 before telling us what you perceive as "the big" fault.
-
The three big issues with P-38s in the ETO were engine failures due to fuel incompatibility, lack of cockpit heat and complexity of the aircraft to fly and maintain.
Number Four was its distinctive and comparatively huge size.
- oldman
-
Number Four was its distinctive and comparatively huge size.
- oldman
Oh yes, seen in plan form, the P-38 was very easy to ID. However, from front and rear, its cross section is very clean. Japanese pilots commented on how hard it was to spot a P-38 from front and rear, whereas radial engine fighters like P-47 and F6F was easier to ID. Even when viewed from the side, the P-38's profile isn't significantly bigger than a P-51D. However, the fact remains that the P-38 was far easier to ID than most single-engine fighters.
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff480/Tredlite/P38-51silo.jpg?t=1311553908)
-
Vink is absolutely right ref the F6F. Grumman got the message early from pilots that a better 6 view was needed. When it reported to the USN the estimated decrease in F6F production rate the Navy decided the F6F was good enough "as is" and pressed on with the F6F-5 and -5N till the end of the war. The F6F was more than capable of dealing with the likes of A6M and Ki43 and arrived on the scene as typical combat ratios tipped in favor of the USN. (The first F6F combat saw 90 Hellcats take on less than half their number of zekes. 27 kills for three losses were claimed iirc. This was typical as the war ended) When the PW R2800-18 engine went to F4U4 Corsair production, the writing was on the wall for the Hellcat and by that time Grumman had already gotten the F8F off the drawing board anyway. The F6F was also seen as deficient in roll rate and top speed before the end of the war. Retention was partially due to the ease of use for new pilots vs the "Ensign Eliminator."
I think the F6F is modeled beautifully in AH. You can see how it would thump the zeke but be vulnerable in the European theater. The Germans had better aircraft, better doctrine, better training, better access to raw materials, better logistics, better scientists, and last but not least a much better retention rate of pilot cadre. The ETO was referred to as the "Big Leagues" at the time by American aviators for good reason. "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai and "General Kenney Reports" give excellent perspectives of the Pacific war. The Jap Bushido code turned into a huge liability. I digress. The F6F is not as good as the stats imply but it is right there with the jug as my fav fighter nonetheless.
There's many instances where out-numbered Hellcats inflicted big losses on Japanese fighter units. Grumman had built and tested the XF6F-6 as a quick upgrade to the F6F-5. Performance is variously reported between 417 mph and 425 mph, depending upon the source of test data. Corky Meyer, who flew the prototypes, stated that climb rate was increased to over 4k a minute. The Navy decided that with the F8F showing far greater promise, that the F6F-5 was adequate for the time being. The Navy expected to have over 400 F8Fs on carriers for the projected invasion of Japan scheduled to occur in November of 1945. F8F-1s were in squadron service and arriving in theater when Japan surrendered in middle August. The Navy liked the F6F because it was easy to fly around the boat and had enough performance to defeat the enemy. It was also more rugged than the F4U, with a significantly lower loss to sortie ratio.
On thing that the AHII flight modeling doesn't reflect is that the F6F-5 was a genuine 400 mph fighter at critical altitude. What we fly in game reflects the maximum speed using MIL power, not WEP. It's not a big deal as it's quite rare to fly your F6F above 20k. Also, having had the opportunity to spend a few hours in the cockpit of an F6F-5, I can tell you that AHII restricts head movement too much. You can place your forehead on the canopy glass and see better to the rear than you can in the AHII F6F. Both issues are very minor... A big improvement over the F6F-5 in AHI, with one of the nastiest stalls in the game. With many WWII pilots having stated that the F6F was in some respects, easier to fly than the SNJ trainer, that evil stall was hard to swallow.
-
One of the last engagements of the war was an instance of 6 Hellcats vs 12 Zekes. At least 6 Zekes went down for the loss of 3 Hellcats.
If the F6F is supposed to be 20kias faster at 20k I'll take it! Buff escort in an F6F would be great. Right now that is the realm of the jug for me.
Never had the opportunity to "meet" an F6F, I am very jealous indeed!
I suspected the view in the real aircraft was better however I hadn't complained because of the fact that head position is rather more restricted in RL than in AH, especially when under G. Still, if it is significant I hope you'll bring it to HiTech's attention.
:salute
-
Actually, if you want to get serious about augers, I'd add:
8. It is amazing that any Luftwaffe pilots survived 109 training, much less scored kills against other aircraft, given the ~500 mph lock that 109 controls experience. I've augered this bird throughout my entire 2years of expereince with it, happily just less than before, thanks to learning to use trim and developing my own special trick.
That's probably because real life accounts told that while controls were super heavy you could actually pull out of a dive without playing with the trim.
-
Thanks for that answer. I'd always wondered about it. I read that there was definitely an "issue" with casualties and wrecked ac in the 109, but I believe it had more to do with the trciky ground maneuvering caused by the narrow track.
-
if someone can prove that the real life F6F had better view movement than the ingame one, I'm sure that HTC will not look at it :D
-
I've learned that trees were made of flubber, and frequently tossed tanks weighing many tens of tons back and forth to one another, before finally depositing them upside down on the ground.
-
Compressibility was never considered a major issue with the P-38, once pilots were trained on how to deal with it. No, it could not easily follow a 109 or 190 to the deck from 27,000 feet. However, that didn't matter as they were supposed to stay with the bombers anyway. All J models were eventually fitted with dive recovery flaps, and all new L models had them when delivered. The three big issues with P-38s in the ETO were engine failures due to fuel incompatibility, lack of cockpit heat and complexity of the aircraft to fly and maintain. P-38s were doing fine in the MTO, flying from Italy to Germany, Austria and the like without engine failures. Likewise, the P-38 completely dominated the Japanese, flying at medium altitudes (usually under 25k).
At the heights we fly in AHII, compressibility is not much of a problem. In point of fact, if you have any idea how to fly the P-38, it's no problem whatsoever.
I'd suggest that you do some research on the P-38 before telling us what you perceive as "the big" fault.
wing,
Go to 20K in a P-38 and get vis on a 20K Dora. Then chase him as he dives on a 15K bomber formation. Tell me how you do. :salute
-
wing,
Go to 20K in a P-38 and get vis on a 20K Dora. Then chase him as he dives on a 15K bomber formation. Tell me how you do. :salute
Vink, you couldn't prevent that regardless of what you were flying.... Besides, at 20k the Dora is about 30 mph faster than the P-38J/L.
Could I follow the Dora? Sure, since I'm flying with manual trim, I'd deploy the dive recovery flaps and head on down. The P-38 will begin to shake at Mach .66, and be into full compression not much past Mach .70, but it's controllable. The problem is that the Dora pilot may make one pass and then just skedaddle. The P-38 won't catch him anyway.