Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister

The actual loss ratios seem about right to me. The reason so many a/c are shot down compared to real life is because of the high numbers of a/c engaged on both sides.

Serviceability rates are too high for all nationalities resulting in artificially high numbers of a/c available for ops ie at present in the game it isn't uncommon for Lw. jagdgruppen to have full complements of a/c available but if you look at the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen the usual figure is between 50-75%. Serviceabilty rates should be even lower for multi-engined a/c and/or a/c with complex avionics fits. The problem is also compounded by certain Allied units being over established (RAF SE day fighter Sqns and USAAF heavy bomber groups).

von Shagmeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: medaloffairness

Hmm... finally I also have to state my opinion on that topic.

I do well know that nothing I say here will neither find positve feddback by all of the readers nor find a way in the programming code.

First:
Reality:
Attack on Schweinfurt and Regensburg 17th August 43:
almost 60 Bombers shot down - 25 fighters lost --- according to Mike Spick Author of the Book : Jägerasse der deutschen Luftwaffe
please keep this in mind, when talking about kill ratios of 1:1.

I always use this raid as a good metric for the game. During the intro scenario I can routinely bring down 90-120 B-17s for the loss of 40-50 Axis fighters. This ratio compares well to the real life ie ~2:1 albeit the actual numbers lost being high.

I had also a chance to talk to 2 fighter pilots in my life. One of them joined the Luftwaffe in 1941/42 flying the Ju87 (in Styria) and then in 1943 he switched to FW190 flying on Eastern front and then in 1944 switched to Germany.

Biwald was his last name. Maybe you have the sources to find a track of him in some of your records.

This is what he said about fighting against bombers:

Actually it doesn't matter whether a single pilot is experienced or not when fighting against a tight bomber box. The thing which matters is the leader of the formation. If the leader can navigate the group to a good attack point they turned around and made 1-2 strafe attacks close to each other onto the bombers. The reason why it doesn't matter is, that a bullet doesn't distinguish between experienced or unexperienced pilots when fighting against bombers. Therefore the inexperienced pilots had almost the same results on the bombers as experienced ones, because theay were told to never break formation and keep shooting next to their leader. The loss rate of the unexperienced pilots were high, because most of them never trained to overcome critical situations when the plane is damaged, which is likely to happen when entering bomberformations. This means that even unexperienced pilots had great success against bombers (some of them only shot down 3-5 bombers and after 20-30 mission have been shot down by fighters.)

Agreed leadership in the air in this situation is very important, also ground control is a significant factor in vectoring interceptors to a favourable position whereby the formation leader can assess the aerial conditions. However many inexperienced pilots often broke away too early when attacking box formations, irrespective of what they were told. To say experience doens't matter when attacking bomber boxes is an over simplificaton.

I asked him also about the planes. He said that the Me109 was very different to the FW190 but against bombers it was not that important to really shoot them down but to make them brake them out of formation and force him to drop bombs before he arrives the target.

Agreed disruption of the bomber formations is critical to successful outcome though the FW 190A is was far better for this purpose than the Bf 109. Even basic FW 190A models (not Sturm variants) were far more robust and better armed than Bf 109s

Keeping this in mind and combined with the knowledge I gathered from the sources I have I can raise the opinion that:

It is not a question about the plane you are using against bombers when speaking of kill ratios. It doesn't make sense to me that if the effect of my shooting on one (!!!) plane is not effective like I want, the chance to get shot down is increasing. Why??
Because even I would have a 5 meter cannon with which I am firing against one plane against a box of 25-50 planes will not reduce the firepower of the others firing at me.
In the game the kill ratio bombers : Fighters is mainly equal... which is really wrong from my point of view...

Some attacks against cohensive bomber boxes often cause losses to fighters in excess of the bomber losses but if you contentrate on the same bomber formations until they start to break up and stragglers start to drop out then they become easier targets. One factor however is at this stage of the war (c.Aug 43) USAAF group box formations contained ~18-21 a/c not 32 which must effect casualties

Second:

Experience of Pilots:

From my point of view the experience of allied pilots, especially of American fighter pilots is way to high.
From my point of view the learning curve is also really slow in the game.

I agree on first point, I don't think there is enough differentiation between pilots with high levels of combat experience and those who may be well trained but basically green. Experience as represented in the game should be a combination of Training, Flying Ability and Combat Experience. Not so sure on the 2nd point though not privvy to the exact mechanics of how it works

Reasons:
In real life 1/3 American fighter even never saw a fighter in 1944 in the air.
This may be correct but depends on the role in which they were employed. FGs with tactical AFs (ie 9AF) had less opportunity for air to air combat.
This is called air suppority my gents. So just flying a plane doesn't give you any combat experience.
Agreed, but will probably improve your training and flying ability
At least at this point some of you will agree I hope.
Johnnie Johnson (British fighter ACE fyr) once said that his 38 kills were nothing against prillers 101 because the fought in the same time frame but Pips got more fighters to see.

On the other hand we have the german pilots where almost every flight was a combat flight. This was alos stated by the pilot I spoke too. He told me that, if a pilot from school survived the first 15 missions he has a good chance to stand against a 1:1 fight against an enemy fighter.

Again I agree. Luftwaffe pilots had ample oppurtunity to gain combat experience if they survived but surviving their initial combat sorties was the hard part, their basic flying skills were often lacking due to the poor standard of training that was starting to make itself felt from 1943 onwards

Therefore it was the mass not the quality of the American airforce which broke the neck of the Luftwaffe.

Agree, though with caveats. Allied Air Forces did have a massive numerical superiority which increased with time, but their a/c were generally good and their pilots were trained to a far higher standard than Luftwaffe replacements at this time. In general Luftwaffe units from 1943 onwards had some outstanding pilots but the majority of pilots were poorly trained replacements who if they survived rapidly gained combat experience whereas most Allied units had some very good pilots with the others being well trained and competent but generally with less chance for air to air combat. As the war propressed the number of outstanding Luftwaffe pilots decreased through attrition and these individuals where irreplacable, whereas the Allied trianing systems kept pumping out well trained pilots with good flying abilities who had a chance to steadily gain combat experience. Luftwaffe replacement pilots had to sink or swim, they were literally dropped in at the deep end. Many did become good pilots and gain combat experience rapidly most however did not

In the game I can see American pilots with 80-90 experience points. How come? In 1943? Galland was fighting more than 4 years this time and has same experience? puh... hard to imagine

I agree, I don't think there is enough differentiation between pilots with massive levels of combat experience and those who are well trained but still basically green. I think that the basic experience levels for some of the USAAF bomber groups are too high as well. Having a quick look, many pilots have a base experience of 70, I think 60 would be more realistic

As I think that experinece really does have an effect on the outcome of the combat I think that there is aneed for adjustment.

Agree



My suggestion would be to give pilots an average skill level at start of their carear. With every contact to the enemy he will increase his abilities... first fast and then the steps will be tinier and smaller until they reach the enourmos value of 99.
Its like doing sports, if you do... the first steps a hard but you will have the huge steps at the beginning. Once you are an expert you won't see these huge improvements anymore.. I am a swimmer... unfortuantely I now what I am talking about... at least for sports.

Agree, with an average starting experience based on national training standards at the time. This has been advocated in the past, I'll see if I can find some of the old posts.


I hope that you didn't get me wrong. It was not a claim thread or a complaining about anything. I am really like watching the game, but real life consumes all my life and I appreciate your work.

And looking behind to the days I talked to the 2 fighter pilots and listened to their stories I am really have the good feeling that we are all here sitting on the same planet not as foes but as friends and partner and having time to discuss such interesting but thank god past times.


EDIT: Typos and grammar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
it was basicly slow and heavy

quote:

didn't dance like it did in the old days when it was the terror of the skies

quote:

he G14 was an attempt to correct the faults and upgrade as much as they could, the K4 was the end of the line for Upgrading, the G10 was to get all of the good fixes to the 14/4 into a basic model, for ease of production, what over 30,000 of them made, and not many made it past the end of the war, in the game as in RL, in the hands of a good pilot, it can do wonders, in the hands of a rookie, it is a coffin)

quote:

Exactly, and because of these limitations it is extremely vulnerable and is knocked down in substantial numbers, 2nd to the B17

quote:


what in the game, doesn't match what the LW was saying at the time ?

quote:


the 109 had a HARD time knocking down the Heavies, the 109 R6 had a HARD time, the FW had a HARD time, unless a very good pilot, which can also be said about the 109

quote:

the best form of attack was head on, on a slight dive, with a very high closure rate, some 600-700 miles per hour, which gave you less then a second and a half to aim, fire, and make your break before you flew into the target

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golden Bear
By the time of BTR the Spit seems to have run its course and is a secondary player in the big battles.