Author Topic: Spitfire IX overmodeled?? (Read 35601 times)

Squire · « **Reply #45 on:** January 22, 2004, 05:04:14 PM »

The Spits get hosed on external tanks. The Spit V has no DTs where it had 3 different types in real life. The Spit IX had at least 3 if not more types of DTs. Look at the P-47 and P-51 types in comparison.

...also seems the late model IXs had a 72 imp gallon rear fuselage tank, but we would need a more definitive type of Spit IX in AH to have that added I think.

HoHun · « **Reply #46 on:** January 22, 2004, 05:10:57 PM »

Hi Hogenbor,

>Hmmm, I wonder how the LW would have done if they would have had A6M2's instead of Bf-109E's?

Having just read Winterbotham's "Ultra", I'd say the Luftwaffe would have lost worse than they did since Dowding tried to counter the Luftwaffe raids with small formations that were meant to kill at minimal losses to themselves.

(He was tremendously helped by Ultra telling him in advance about the Luftwaffe strategy - though usually not about the targets.)

With the Spitfire being considerably faster than the A6M2 and the Hurricane slightly faster, too, the British fighters would have had an even greater advantage with regard to the tactcal initiative than against the Me 109.

The A6M2 couldn't hunt down the British fighters like the Me 109 could, and hunting them down was just what the Luftwaffe had to do to gain air superiority.

>On the other hand Zero not well protected and vulnerable, even to .303's.

Good point, the British armament would have been much more effective against the A6M2 than it was against the Me 109E.

>Maneuverability would be interesting but the Zero will probably have the edge.

Certainly. That could have worked in the A6M's favour because historically, the biggest problem fighting the Zero was abandoning pre-war doctrine of dogfighting for the kill. Thanks to this doctrine, the Zero was considerably more effective than it would have been against enemies aware of its deficiencies.

(Chennault had presribed the Flying Tigers the perfect anti-Zero tactics, that's why they were so successful. OK, it looks like they mostly fought the Oscar, but the relative strengths are just the same :-)

It's the question whether the RAF would have been quick enough to adopt proper anti-Zero-tactics, too. The Australian Spitfire experience seems to indicate that they actually found this a bit difficult, but Dowding's cautious strategy would have certainly saved the RAF from being wiped out before they could figure out how to beat the Zero.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Squire · « **Reply #47 on:** January 22, 2004, 06:27:00 PM »

High Gs? I dunno, no I have not noticed any big difference really.

The armament thing will go on forever (US 50 caliber, LW 20mm...), Im not touching it, I will say that there are many that think their favorite gun should blow ac away with 2 rounds though.

Squire · « **Reply #48 on:** January 22, 2004, 06:33:38 PM »

The Spitfire and the Zero never really had a long, hard fought campaign against each other, Australia was a series of limited raids in 1943 only, which is the only place the two ac met.

As far as proper tactics, all the Allied flyers adopted what worked for them eventually, P-40, P-39, Spitfire, F4F, F6F, whatever. Seeing friends die is a great learning tool I would think. That was true for both sides, from 1939-45. None of them were stupid, they knew the limits of their ac.

Something else too, the RAF had plenty of experience fighting slower but more manueverable fighters before the "Flying Tigers" did anything. They fought MC200s and CR42s in Hurricanes in the Med from 1940-42. It wasnt like it was some "new" concept...SE5a pilots fought Fokker Dr1s in 1917.

GODO · « **Reply #49 on:** January 22, 2004, 07:03:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
IFuel burn is adjusted higher because all bases in AH are close together relative to real world conditions. However, altering fuel burn affects vertical distance, which remains the same, and time, which also remains the same.

This effect may be minimized switching to lower or even 1:1 burn rate while autoclimb is enganged.

Karnak · « **Reply #50 on:** January 22, 2004, 10:38:13 PM »

storch,

Yes, you are wrong. G effects are the same and generic to the sim.

As to the MG/FF and Type 99 Model 1s, well, Hitech said something about redoing the way damage is calculated vis a vis velocity and explosive content so that explosives would more closely match historical performance.

200 yards would have been considered an insane range to fire their cannon at by Bf109E-4 or A6M2 pilots.

Squire,

The last dogfight of the war was between A6M5s and Seafires. The Seafires won, but not without taking losses.

Pongo · « **Reply #51 on:** January 23, 2004, 01:14:36 AM »

Spit IX overmodeled.
I think not.

GScholz · « **Reply #52 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:01:33 AM »

Hey, good looking Yak you've got there! (j/k)

GScholz · « **Reply #53 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:02:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
the only response i've seen is well we'll fix it in AHII (pfffffffffft) like thats about to happen soon.

HTC has said that ALL development on AH1 was stopped when they started on AH2. Live with it. AH2 seems to be a lot better.

Angus · « **Reply #54 on:** January 23, 2004, 08:55:04 AM »

"BTW, I have no problem with a clipped wing 1943 Spit LF IX. Do you have a problem with a 1945 F4U-4C(4 M3 20MIL) or a 1944 F4U-1A(430MPH at 20K)? "

None, if you don't have a problem with the final 1945 Spits either

MiloMorai · « **Reply #55 on:** January 23, 2004, 09:23:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
"BTW, I have no problem with a clipped wing 1943 Spit LF IX. Do you have a problem with a 1945 F4U-4C(4 M3 20MIL) or a 1944 F4U-1A(430MPH at 20K)? "

None, if you don't have a problem with the final 1945 Spits either

Would that be the Mk21 with the 4 20mm cannons? Something like 450mph @ 25kft was it not?

Angus · « **Reply #56 on:** January 23, 2004, 10:40:15 AM »

Something like that yes. I can try to find some data if you like

HoHun · « **Reply #57 on:** January 23, 2004, 11:46:29 AM »

Hi Squire,

>The Spitfire and the Zero never really had a long, hard fought campaign against each other, Australia was a series of limited raids in 1943 only, which is the only place the two ac met.

I could say the Battle of Britain was a series of limited raids in 1940 :-) Obviously, it was bigger than the Australian campaign, but it certainly was a rather short (yet intense) battle.

>As far as proper tactics, all the Allied flyers adopted what worked for them eventually, P-40, P-39, Spitfire, F4F, F6F, whatever. Seeing friends die is a great learning tool I would think. That was true for both sides, from 1939-45. None of them were stupid, they knew the limits of their ac.

Well, they didn't know the limits of the enemy aircraft though. It took quite a while before the weaknesses of the A6M were finally realized, so "eventually" is the keyword here.

I agree that the RAF would have adapted to the threat, and I do actually believe that the A6M would have fared worse than the Me 109, but I'm certain the RAF would have taken heavy losses early on, and there's no way of telling just how quickly they would have adapted.

>It wasnt like it was some "new" concept...SE5a pilots fought Fokker Dr1s in 1917.

Long-serving RAF experts like Sholto Douglas certainly knew about that, but I'd say the Camel school of thinking was just as influential as the SE5a school of thinking, and I'm not sure the WW2 pilots were trained according to any of them as the RAF expected the fighters to defend their home country by intercepting unescorted bombers.

Bringing the individual combat pilots up to Sholto Douglas' level of tactical expertise would have taken some time, especially if it were attempted during the Battle.

But with regard to Sakai's comment: The A6M was not the aircraft that would have won the Battle of Britain because endurance wasn't the factor that lost it. It were radar and Ultra that were decisive. Endurance could have helped the Luftwaffe to get a more favourable exchange ratio, and fitting drop tanks to the Me 109 would have done them better than equipping their combat squadron with the A6M in my opinion. However, the final outcome would have been just the same.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Crumpp · « **Reply #58 on:** January 23, 2004, 01:06:30 PM »

The Decisive factor in the Battle of Britain was a German lack of strategic focus. Radar and Ultra definately prolonged the fight and allowed the RAF to make better use of their available forces but they didn't win it. The LW came with in days of winning the battle in spite of ultra/rader by attacking the airfields and grinding the RAF down. More pilots were being killed than the RAF could hope to replace. Their replacement pool came within just a few days of being completely empty. Same thing happenend to the LW in the final year of the war. They maintained and even tried a comeback with Bodenplatte but once they were losing pilots faster than they could replace them air superiority was lost. When the replacement pool dried up the breakdown was rapid. From Jan 45 til May 45 the Luftwaffe almost ceased to exist. In less than 4 months the LW collapsed.

Only when Hitler ordered the LW to shift to trying to bomb London into submission did the RAF turn the situation around.

War is all about perception and heart. The side with the perception its winning and the heart to see things through til the bitter end will win. Each side thinks they are about to win AND teetering on diasaster.

The Germans couldn't maintain their focus and their hearts wavered with the "last spitfire" being shotdown over England. Sort of like "the light at the end of the tunnel" and " the troops will be home by christmas". Hitler felt that England was a diversion from the real goal of Russia. In actuallity the 109's were ahead in fighter to fighter kills. 587 109's were lost in the Battle of Britain. 380 Hurricanes, 210 Spitfires, 18 Defiants, and 27 Blenheim fighters - a total of 635 A/C lost. Qualitatively the RAF single engine fighters and the LW 109's were about as even match as has ever met on the battlefield. Quanitatively the LW had a major advantage.

The British new they were in a fight for their survival and conducted themselves accordingly. Had the LW continued to bomb airfields and aircraft factories England would have been forced to capitulate. You just can't get blood from a stone. Given Breathing room after the German change in strategy the RAF continued to throw everything they had into the fight and broke the German will to conquer them. It truely was "Their finest hour". This is why the "few" are so celebrated today.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #59 on:** January 23, 2004, 01:16:58 PM »

Well I would hope the 109s were ahead in the f2f kills for they did not have bombers to shoot at unlike the Spit and Hurrie which had to split their target preferences between bomber and fighter.

The RAF was not near to being out of trained pilots, though the fighter pool was getting rather low.

The Germans still had to get across the Channel and the Germans had no way of stopping the RN.