the 109s vs bombers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

Hard Sarge -> the 109s vs bombers (10/14/2009 6:51:07 PM)

Little quibble, elsewhere I had seen complaints about the bf109G6, ditto, they get wiped out like flies. (not trying to be smart, but, didn't they get knocked down like flies ? the G6 was old, worn out design (and the 109 is one of my RL Fav's) it was basicly slow and heavy, didn't dance like it did in the old days when it was the terror of the skies, the 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)
Exactly, and because of these limitations it is extremely vulnerable and is knocked down in substantial numbers, 2nd to the B17

not trying to argue or what not, just wanted to be clear on this

when the 109 first started to go up against the Heavies, the LW pilots said, hey, we don't have enough fire power, and it is dangerous to get close to them things, they got a lot of guns all the way around them

since they had been using the Gunboats on the Russian front, they tried them out vs the Bombers

and the pilots basicly said, hey, that is great, 2 more guns, we are still underpowered and them things got a lot of firepower of there own, and are dangerous to get close to

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

then you got the FW, and the pilots said, hey we got more guns then the 109, but, we don't have enough firepower to take on them bombers, they are dangerous to get close to

so that made changes, they added armor, and they added guns, and the pilots were like, Kewl, we can get close to them now, and we may be able to knock them down, with all of the extra firepower we got, but most times, we are still going to have to bail out once we get though the formation, boy, them things got a lot of firepower and are dangerous to get too close to

even worse, if there are fighters around, then we get shot at from the front and from the rear

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

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

the guys who were good at it, did good, and most of them died

the ones who wern't that good at it, they died too, some of the Aces (and they were good) got shot down, 16-17-18 times, if they were lucky




Nikademus -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/14/2009 8:17:40 PM)

were the combat routines reworked or tweaked from the originals?



Nicholas Bell -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/14/2009 9:04:00 PM)

I agree with your description of history, Hard Sarge.  I also think that what happens in combat looks pretty darn close.  I think what some want to see is bombers destroyed immediately at low cost, while the reality was closer to bombers being damaged and getting knocked out of formation at a high cost.  The damaged stragglers would then be shot down at lower cost.  And the whole point of the Germans hanging everything from rockets to Anti-tank guns on planes was to increase the range at which the bombers could be destroyed - a range outside the defensive fire of the bomber formations.  To enter the envelope of the bombers guns was dangerous.  You no doubt have also read the accounts of German squadrons making repeated attacks until there was only one or two German planes left - the others shot down or shot up.  And as I mentioned in another thread, many of those damaged fighters ended up force landing which in game terms is shot down (but not shot down to official German records).

However, I do think that far too many planes on both sides get shot down, which makes the ME-109 losses look even worse because of their large numbers. Even though individual combats have a variety of historically possible & realistic results, there are far too many engagements during the coarse of the day.  The daily loss per sortie rate is way too high - even with conservative play.

Is there no way to introduce some level of self-preservation into the program so that units sometimes break off combat early or refuse combat when out-numbered or at a situational disadvantage?  The morale routines as they stand now do not work to degree necessary to produce historical loss results between historical numbers of engaged aircraft at the macro level.



KenchiSulla -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/14/2009 9:54:49 PM)

I agree on the fact that 109G feels about right. I also agree on the fact that the killrate is slightly off (on the high side, both sides). Perhaps that could be tweaked.






harley -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/15/2009 12:52:38 AM)

I don't think the killrate it too high, it's more likely there is more combat than historic, as Nicholas said. The actual outcomes are fairly accurate IMHO.

Nik - there were changes to the system, but generally it is in-tact. A major bug that allowed interceptors to climb at their max climb once per minute per aircraft (so a staffel of 10 planes with a 2000fpm climb could climb 20,000 feet per minute) was squashed, and I adjusted the Kill/Bail/Caputure ratios to something less drastic, and more likely to result in the defender retaining pilots. I forget the exact numbers, but we had a consensus on that one.

I made some other changes allowing max speed to come into play a little more, as escorts were fighting at cruise, but interceptors at max.



zoul310 -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/15/2009 1:45:13 AM)

Some units do break off.



von Shagmeister -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/15/2009 8:33:08 AM)

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



Nikademus -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/15/2009 4:08:35 PM)


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


That can be a culprit. WitP has this problem big time. Average servicability per group tends to be 95% or better unless your at a base being bombed to heaven or has little to no support. This leads to more planes in the air....hence bloodier combats.



medaloffairness -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/15/2009 11:49:43 PM)

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 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.)

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.

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...

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.

Reasons:
In real life 1/3 American fighter even never saw a fighter in 1944 in the air. This is called air suppority my gents. So just flying a plane doesn't give you any combat experience. 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.

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

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

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.


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.

























Golden Bear -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/16/2009 12:43:10 AM)

OK, and don't get ME wrong. This sounds a like a post from the "LW fighters were always the best" side - as opposed to the "Spitfire pilots were always the best" side and you have information from one only side of the argument. WHere are your acquaintances from the bomber formations or the allied fighters? Sorry but this doesn't qualify as an a meaningful argument without looking at all sides. Pretty much just application of the scientific method for me to say this.

It seems apparent to me, IN MY OPINION, which is countered to your opinion which is not fact, that great pilots were pretty much born and not trained. The U.S. pilots were rotated out so that the massive kill numbers for LW aces are pretty hard to compare in order to determine the "better" pilots. U.S. pilots had huge training flight times before combat and many of the earlier ones had wide experience outside of the battle over the Reich (Zemke, Gabreski, etc.)

Another point is that the 90+ Allied pilots disappear very quickly in the game since once shot down they are gone. Your LW pilots keep coming back. That's just the way things are.

If you are trying to say that Galland would shoot down Gabreski in a dogfight, well I just don't know about that. I do know from reading books on fighter tactics that dogfights were rare and the vast majority of kills were by diving and scooting.

There used to be a fellow who posted about BTR who loved the Spitfire and could quote to you every statistic about how it outperformed the P51 or the FW190 or whatever and was basically the super plane of the war. Of course, his comparisons were all drawn from RAF testing... and he could never see how I might consider this information to be tainted.

Arguments like yours are more meaningful if you were to argue against your natural, umm, predilections. If you said, "I'm German but my feeling is that RAF pilots were superior" you might be listened to. But, living in the U.S., if I say, "Goodness but people just don't recognize how good those Mustang pilots were!" you would have every right to think me, at best, parochial.

In that regard let me say that I believe that the best LW pilots may well have been the best anywhere but they were very few in number. I personally believe that all nations produced top pilots of basically equal skill. If it is a percentage based thing, as I believe, then the U.S. should have a few more because of much larger population and many more pilots.

In the game, if you were to play the Allied side, you would see just how few of these special pilots you start with... and you don't get any more.


Carl



von Shagmeister -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/16/2009 10:48:16 AM)

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
























RAM -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/16/2009 1:47:08 PM)

oh noes, another debate with Sarge...but here I go :)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
it was basicly slow and heavy


not unless in the R6 configuration. The 109G6 was slightly heavier (50kg or so) than the 109G2 while retaining the same power; and the 109G2 was renowned by the russians as the best fighter the germans had. The G6 has a lot of bad fame related to it because a lot of sources used data of a G6/R6 british test as their base to give opinions about the "clean" G6.

quote:

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


Nope, don't agree. The G6 as I said was a G2 with more firepower and a somewhat worse aerodynamics because of the MG bulges. But they were equals in maneouverability. The finnish had G6s and the pilots who had the chance to fly both the 109G2 and G6 said the G6 didn't feel any heavier than the G2, but that the heavier punch was well noticeable. And the G2 was a well respected (not to say feared) fighter.


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)


The G-14 was a semi-copy of the G6. It was a failed try to estandarize the whole lot of G6s by then in service. Some had MW50, others not. Some had the DB603 superchargers, some not. And it introduced new economical procedures of building to make the plane cheaper. But it didn't try to correct anything because there was nothing to correct (the G6 had no noticeable failure other than being a tad slow for late 1943)

The K series was the endline for developing the model, that I agree, but the G10 was not a way to get the fixes into a basic model. It was partly that, but what it was, in fact, was an equalizer for the Gustav line to put it on pair with the Kurfurst-4. The G10 had either the same motorization as the K4 (DB605DB/DC) or a very similar one (DB605ASCM/ASBM). It also succeeded where the G-14 failed, because this one did achieve the desired standarization the germans needed with so many models of the G6/G14 around.

quote:

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


Don't understand the reasoning. Which limitations?. the 109 had just one: it had problems in high speed because air forces on the elevator. It didn't dive very well, but was really maneouverable, climbed like a rocket, and without being a rock, wasn't the frailest of the planes around...

quote:


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


take a look at any loss report in any AAR around. The 109 was an equal to the spitfire until the end of the war (with slight advantage for one or another plane depending on the date), yet it's killed in mass.

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


for having such a hard day, the 8th AF offensive over Germany looked like a field day for them until early 1944. Regensburg, Schweinfurt(twice), are only two instances where B-17s fell like flies out of the sky, killed by 109s and 190s mostly.

Try that in the game. It is not possible, Sarge, it's that way.

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


That wasn't "the best". that was the most mortiferous, different thing. A small burst of fire into the B-17 cockpit guaranteed a kill, something you couldn't do from behind. And you were almost untouchable by the bomber guns.

As you say this only was possible for high quality pilots. The standard way to attack a B-17 during Schweinfurt, for instance, was to come in close fast, from up and the side, line up, let loose a long burst from long range up to mid-close, then roll upside down and pull into a dive.
And it was a VERY successfull (I know you don't need the numbers of losses during those raids) way to attack.


yes, attacking a bomber box wasn't a trip in the beach. It was horrific because of the sheer volume of fire you were receiving from a lot of different planes. Pilots hated it, but tell me a single pilot who liked being fired at. There were not many single engined planes losses during the 8th AF offensive over europe, until the P47 and P51s got the range to escort the bombers all the way to their targets and back. And then it was because of enemy FIGHTERS, not bombers.

in the game, the best 109 killer is a B-17, sarge. And that was NOT the way it was in real life. When a 109G6 unit with bomber bounce orders dives into a box of unescorted B17s, damages none and loses 5 and 3 further damage of their own numbers, something is not right. And is a result I've seen several times so its not a single-case incident.



Golden Bear -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/16/2009 4:25:44 PM)

Really interesting post, RAM. Tough to argue with much of it. However, a couple of quibbles - the 109 was among the frailest of planes by this time in the war. Wing support was always a problem. I cannot really comment about its comparison with the Spitfire in this respect. By the time of BTR the Spit seems to have run its course and is a secondary player in the big battles.

Certainly the 109 was more frail than the 190 and any of the U.S. fighters.

I'm not certain that I agree that the B17 is the major killer of 109s in the game. I haven't done an actual count for comparison but have observed escorts knocking down tons of them - they are also around in vast numbers which raises the probability.

Seems to me following the rough logic that they were present in much larger numbers than any other LW fighter, they were the oldest design, not too sturdy, the losses to me aren't out of line. Well, given that a huge number of planes get shot down because of the unrealistically high availibility, etc. that is discussed somewhere around here.

We probably just have different opinions about some of these things but that's OK. I got several insights from that post.


Carlos



Howard Mitchell -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/17/2009 8:48:38 AM)


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.


Wandering a bit off topic, but the Spitfire was still very much a major player and made up most of Fighter Command/ADGB in the BtR timeframe.

2TAF was also used the Spitfire as its main weapon, and the air battles over Normandy were at times as fierce as those over Germany, even if they receive less attention. The Spitfire also covered the Allied armies after the breakout, and when Luftwaffe opposition faded away switched roles to that of fighter-bomber. Chris Shore’s series of books on the 2TAF are a good source of information for just how active the Spitfire was.

It’s worth remembering as well that the USAAF didn’t have to fly CAP over its bases as there was a huge number of RAF fighters, mostly Spitfires, between them and the Luftwaffe. This cover was so secure that it is taken as a given and hardly mentioned.



Dobey455 -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/18/2009 7:18:13 PM)

A few things of notre about the Spits role late war:

1) It was very much it the thick of things.....indeed one of the reasons for choosing Normandy for D-Day over other possibilities was that it was inside spitfire range and it was the main tactical fighter.

2) The "Guts" of the air war in 1944 and 1945 was the bomber offensive by the USAAF. In this respect the killing was being done by escort fighters like the P-47 and the P-51.....there is a reason the P-51 had more kills than any other fighter in the ETO in WWII......more than manouverability or fire power the main quality in this theatre was RANGE and range was an area where the wonderful Spitfire DID NOT excel.



Howard Mitchell -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/18/2009 9:49:20 PM)

Quite right. The RAF never developed an escort fighter and believed, from before the start of the war, that such an aircraft would never be able to compete with short range interceptors (like the Spitfire). The failure of the Bf 110 in the Battle of Britian just confirmed this to them. The American approach was much more flexible and the USAAF fielded not one but three very effective, very long range fighters, allowing them to take the war to the enemy in a way the Spitfire couldn't do unless there was something to draw the enemy into its range, such as the Normandy landings.



Golden Bear -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/19/2009 12:42:26 AM)

OK, sorry if I sound like I'm running down the Spitfire. Not at all. Big fan of the plane. By "Big Battles" I meant the big air battles over the center of the Reich. The Spitfire continued to be effective within its own range constraints. Once again though it was an older air frame, a very good one like the 109, but didn't stretch well into the thick of the new long range air war.


Carlos



Peter Fisla -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/19/2009 1:54:23 PM)

The flight performance between G-2 and G-6 should be really minimal since the combat weight of G-6 I  believe is around 2600kg. So G-2 is basically the same thing except being 50kg lighter and doesn't have the MG bugles. 109 is not a bomber interceptor, it's fighter...a hunter. Using 109s as bomber hunters is a bad idea for a very simple reason, 1 bullet in the oil cooler and you are done. It the same thing with P-51, if P-51s were used to attack B-17s the result would be the same. The 109 and Spitfire are tactical fighters...nothing more nothing less. Using the 109s with gunpods against the bombers is bad idea because the gun pods are too heavy and the 109 then is a lot less maneuverable and slow...easy target to the bomber escorts. I don't have the Matrix version of BTR, however when I used to play the Talonsoft's version I used the 109s as escorts for FW-190s which were used to attack the bombers from the front only. Anyways, the AA guns shot down more allied plays during the Allied bombing campaign than all the Luftwaffe planes combined. So I would also concentrate on production and proper distribution of AA guns. I'm at work right now so I can't pull the exact figures but out of 35k 109s (total production number) only about 3 - 4k were lost during combat this means complete write offs...the rest was lost during take off and landings (I think this figure is about 12k), other were lost in training or in transport, destroyed on the ground etc. The G-10 and K-4 (Using C3 fuel) hold its own very well against the P-51 (you have to realize that the P-51 was using from 100 - 150 octane fuel whereas Luftwaffe fighters in 1944 were pretty much flying with 87octaner fuel B4), the problem was by 1944 most of the Luftwaffe experienced pilots were gone.



Golden Bear -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/19/2009 4:46:44 PM)

A nice post. Funny that you should comment on the flak because that is the part that causes me, as Allied player, the biggest headaches. After a few months in '44 it does start causing more losses than fighters simply because I can overwhelm the LW fighters but cannot target the flak which just keeps growing and growing.

I notice that the Matrix game does a fiendish job of positioning flak and mobile flak from the very start. I don't know for certain if this was upgraded from earlier but it seems to be a greater problem earlier now.

I wonder if some of the LW losses against bomber units would be abated if the interceptors sat back - maybe attacking the high escort units only on the way in - and left the bombers alone until after the flak over the target has disrupted them. Then pour it on as you have said with the 109s engaging escorts and 190s and twin engine planes going straight to the bombers. Might also help with those attacks on Mediums.

The BGs seem pretty sturdy against interceptors while they are intact on the way into the target.


Carlos



KenchiSulla -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/19/2009 4:51:16 PM)

Golden bear, I have executed many a flak gunner for shooting down friendly aircraft so rest assured, you as allied player are not the only one hurtin' [:D]

Watch out for the axis flaktrap!



Nikademus -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/19/2009 5:41:55 PM)

Anyone done a recreation of Schwinfurt?



Rocco -> RE: the 109s vs bombers (10/20/2009 12:49:37 AM)

For what it's worth, I recently read a journal kept by my wife's grandfather.  He was a radio operator for a B-17 in the 8th Air Force, 381st Bomb Group, 535th Bomb Squadron.

He kept a journal log after each of his 35 missions, talking about each raid and what all happened.  He seemed to be very afraid of Flak above all else.  He only mentioned interceptors a few times and said they were quickly taken care of by escorts.  He flew in late '43 and early '44 if I remember right.  He mentioned the Flak so often, you could almost feel it exploding around you as you read it.  But interceptors did not seem to be a major concern?  He talked about almost being killed by Flak numerous times, along with other crew members.  Holes in the wing, fuesalage, and so forth; Once he said he saw Flak hit near another plane and realized he didn't have his Flak jacket on so he went to put it on and seconds later the seat he was in had shrapnel from flak tear right through where his chest would have been.  9 inch hole through the fuselage.

I guess my experience from reading his journal was that the crew felt so confident in their escorts and .50's that the biggest fear was the Flak that hit out of no where.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125