Jump to content

Bf 109 K-4 vs Fw 190 D-9


Krupi

Bf 109 K-4 vs Fw 190 D-9  

111 members have voted

  1. 1. Bf 109 K-4 vs Fw 190 D-9

    • Bf 109 K-4
      58
    • Fw 190 D-9
      53


Recommended Posts

I would have rather had a set of planes that made for interesting and engaging combat, even if the data was a little bit weaker and slightly more guesswork was required.

 

Perhaps ED does not have aspirations for DCS to be a competitive multiplayer simulator for WWII combat, and instead wishes to make their focus be simulating various aircraft in high fidelity. That's a perfectly acceptable choice, as long as you know you are making it.

 

Eagle Dynamics has always made it clear that the focus is fidelity. That's why most of us were here, I thought.

 

Being a hardcore competitive guy myself, I agree that it's a great shame that the balance isn't better than it is (I'd like it to be as balanced as it can be without compromising historical accuracy). But E.D. has always indicated that fidelity trumps competitive balance (and even historical commonness). They aren't pulling a bait & switch on us.

 

Depends on your definition of Multiplayer simulator, are you trying to make a balanced Air Quake game, or are you trying to get closer to realistic missions, no the Kurfurst and Dora werent flying over Normandy, but start giving realistic goals of escorting or intercepting bombers and I think you will see better MP experiences

 

On the other hand, it isn't reasonable to expect players (even hardcore DCS users!) to climb up to & fight at 30,000 feet all the time. That requirement alone practically ensures that multiplayer will be dead. Well, there's air starts, but that isn't exactly lifelike, either.

 

You must understand that the player base as a whole (and, with two or three exceptions, even the most hardcore of us) want fights to be had in a timely fashion. Practically no one wants to fly six-hour missions where they never see an enemy. Why should we? The reality of things is that the vast majority of serious simmers want fights to be reasonably accessible. And there's nothing wrong with that. Even real fighter pilots trained their dogfighting skills via pre-arranged mock-dogfights, rather than flying full-length artificial missions with little chance of finding their "aggressor" trainers.

 

Labelling this kind of quick dogfight practice as "Air Quake," looking down on it, and suggesting that DCS should not accommodate it isn't good. It does a great disservice to serious simmers who wish to maximize their potential as virtual fighter pilots, as well as to have fun dogfighting. These quick combat missions are the most efficient & effective way to become a great flier. And there's nothing wrong or "sub-simmer" with wanting to enjoy lifelike dogfights in accurately-modelled aircraft, without a long wait time in between each fight.


Edited by Echo38
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Agreed that a better balance would be better for MP.

Question, is it possible for server admins to "detune" aircraft, e.g. drop down the power on the K4?

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on your definition of Multiplayer simulator, are you trying to make a balanced Air Quake game, or are you trying to get closer to realistic missions, no the Kurfurst and Dora werent flying over Normandy, but start giving realistic goals of escorting or intercepting bombers and I think you will see better MP experiences...

 

Well at the moment Air Quake is all we got, it'd sure be nice to have other experiences :-)

 

If you just want to be the guy with the most kills, then maybe ED isnt thinking in the same direction as that.

 

Not at all, easiest way to do that is to always fly German :-) At the end of the day there's a lot I really like about DCS, but IMHO at the moment the balance is off and it does detract from the experience a bit. I don't believe I'm unique in this point of view, most of the people that I've talked to online tend to agree.

 

Ultimately, I engage in competitive multiplayer because firstly I like flying, but also I like testing my skills against other players, and improving my piloting. Competitive multiplayer is never entirely historically accurate, the "goggles and scarf" stuff is for singleplayer or coop. But it can also be a lot more than just Air Quake. Personally I'm inspired by books like In Pursuit, and would love DCS to be a platform where competitive multiplayer can thrive.

 

Labelling this kind of quick dogfight practice as "Air Quake," looking down on it, and suggesting that DCS should not accommodate it isn't good. It does a great disservice to serious simmers who wish to maximize their potential as virtual fighter pilots, as well as to have fun dogfighting. These quick combat missions are the most efficient & effective way to become a great flier. And there's nothing wrong or "sub-simmer" with wanting to enjoy lifelike dogfights in accurately-modelled aircraft, without a long wait time in between each fight.

 

Really strongly agree! I actually enjoy coop play as well, doing more historical style simulations. But I also really like competitive multiplayer, and dogfighting and tactics and strategy and practising team work. Now if that makes me an "Air Quaker" then I'm an "Air Quaker" and proud :-)


Edited by Tomsk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Well at the moment Air Quake is all we got, it'd sure be nice to have other experiences :-)

 

And its unfortunate for sure, but it isnt the goal.

 

Not at all, easiest way to do that is to always fly German :-) At the end of the day there's a lot I really like about DCS, but IMHO at the moment the balance is off and it does detract from the experience a bit. I don't believe I'm unique in this point of view, most of the people that I've talked to online tend to agree.

 

Ultimately, I engage in competitive multiplayer because firstly I like flying, but also I like testing my skills against other players, and improving my piloting. Competitive multiplayer is never entirely historically accurate, the "goggle and scarf" stuff is for singleplayer or coop. But it can also be a lot more than just Air Quake. Personally I'm inspired by books like (In Pursuit), and would love DCS to be a platform where competitive multiplayer can thrive.

 

I think we will get there, I am already having a blast bombing the heck out of Caen with my testing duties ;) I can see better goal based MP coming with more WWII units, I also see a few AI aircraft that would be awesome to one day be converted to full modules, and you have a WWII fan right here that likes to beat that drum every chance he gets ;)

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know exactly what I mean Sith so no need to be snarky.

 

I would like to see a more relevant aircraft set for the scenario, I have been enjoying the "quake war" and I am eagerly looking forward to Normandy and missions and hopefully multiplayer campaigns however that still won't address the aircraft issues.

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
You know exactly what I mean Sith so no need to be snarky.

 

I really dont, I am not sure what more ED needs to say, what statement you need.

 

They are trying to honour the Kickstarter the best they can, and they are trying to provide a WWII environment we can enjoy for years to come. Calling things they are doing now ridiculous is... well... ridiculous.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, is it possible for server admins to "detune" aircraft, e.g. drop down the power on the K4?

 

Last time I checked, yes, it's possible. Unfortunately, it merely reverses the disparity, rather than correcting it. That is, when you take away the 109K's MW50, it becomes a real underdog compared to the 67" P-51, just as the 67" P-51 is an underdog compared to the MW50 109K. (According to my contacts, the disparity is even worse in this case than it is normally. I can't confirm or deny.)

 

For duelling purposes, the best thing I can recommend is for the 109K to take full fuel and the P-51 to take a very light load (20% at most). That should hopefully do the trick for duels. However, there doesn't seem to be any option for regular dogfight missions, sadly.

 

The "ideal ideal" situation (that is, if development resources were unlimited, and so on) would be for there to be a 109G-6 (or some other "low-end" 109G) to face the 67" P-51D, and for there to also be a 72" (or possibly 75") P-51D to face the 109K. Which exact block/variant/configuration of 109G which would be best suited to face a 67" P-51, and which historical P-51 WEP rating would best be suited to face a 109K, is a point of some debate.

 

As it is, Eagle Dynamics have (IIRC) indicated that they are at least considering—perhaps even planning—to add the 72" rating at some point. This is what I (and others) consider to be the most practical solution to the problem. It at least would allow 67" P-51 to be a match for the FW 190, and the 72" P-51 to be a match for the 109K. Missions featuring both Axis fighters would be problematic, as one of the three fighters would be guaranteed to be the underdog, but at least missions could be made with relatively even fighter balance for each of the German fighters. (In other words: a mission with P-51, Me 109, and FW 190 would be a problem, but at least a mission with P-51 vs. 109 and a mission with P-51 vs. 190 would both work.)

 

Bear in mind, however, that high-fidelity sim development is naturally slow. Doing things right takes a long time, and ED isn't one for shortcuts. I agree with this method, even while I share the community's general impatience. Such is life! That means that we aren't likely to see 72" anytime "soon," I think.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It at least would allow 67" P-51 to be a match for the FW 190, and the 72" P-51 to be a match for the 109K. Missions featuring both Axis fighters would be problematic, as one of the three fighters would be guaranteed to be the underdog, but at least missions could be made with relatively even fighter balance for each of the German fighters.

 

In my opinion this is much too simplistic. I like to compare fighters based on a number of criteria, firstly the ones I think are most important:

 

  • Top speed on the deck: FW 190 + Bf 109 > P-51 > Spitfire
  • Low speed turn rate: Spitfire > Bf 109 > P-51 > FW 190
  • Sustained climb rate: Bf 109 > Spitfire > FW 190 > P-51
  • Roll rate: FW 190 > P-51 > Bf 109 > Spitfire
  • Armament effectiveness: FW 190 > Spitfire + Bf 109 > P-51

 

There are also a number of other factors that are useful, but IMO less critical than the ones above.

 

  • High speed handling: FW 190 > P-51 > Bf 109 > Spitfire
  • Cockpit visibility: P-51 > FW 190 > Spitfire > Bf 109
  • High altitude performance: Bf 109 > P-51 > Spitfire > FW 190

 

It's also not just about the individual attributes, but how they come together as a whole. For example the FW 190 excels in top speed, high speed handling, roll rate and weapons. That's exactly what you want to fly in a "boom-and-zoom" style. The Bf 109 excels in top speed (it's only very slightly slower than the 190), climb rate and high-altitude performance. That's a great "climb fighting" package. In reference to the original topic I consider the FW 190 and the Bf 109 to be about equal. They have quite different "styles", but they both excel at what they do.

 

The Spitfire excels in low-speed turning. It also isn't bad at climbing, and the weapons are also okay. This means it's good at "turn fighting". Although when I fly the 190 I don't generally consider the Spitfire a big threat unless I mess up, they are just too slow.

 

The P-51 excels at ... well basically nothing. It would most naturally be a boom-and-zoom style plane, but it's let down in that role by the poor top-speed and (most of all) the poor armament. It does IMO have the nicest cockpit, but it's a dubious advantage at best and the 190 cockpit is also very good. Going to 72" would help the P-51's top speed, but probably only to about on par with the German planes, and without the ability to sustain it that MW50 gives: running away from German planes would still be very tough. It would also help climb rate a bit, maybe putting it on par with the 190 but it'll never climb away from a 109. It wouldn't improve any other category, and the P-51 would still not excel at anything.


Edited by Tomsk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The show stopper here is the Damage Model. It's unfair for all of us, both allies and axis players. From my perspective, this must be addressed with high priority. The artificial "balance" of the planes will bring more frustration than joy with the current DM.

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed that a better balance would be better for MP.

Question, is it possible for server admins to "detune" aircraft, e.g. drop down the power on the K4?

 

Ok the cooling on the k4 needs looking at, but the mustang is getting it's correct 72" and you are getting the mkxiv. So don't worry it will be balanced soon.


Edited by Brigg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The show stopper here is the Damage Model. It's unfair for all of us, both allies and axis players. From my perspective, this must be addressed with high priority. The artificial "balance" of the planes will bring more frustration than joy with the current DM.

 

Agree completely, more than anything else the damage model is what currently makes the P-51 so uncompetitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok the cooling on the k4 needs looking at, but the mustang is getting it's correct 72" and you are getting the mkxiv. So don't worry it will be balanced soon.

 

No, it won't. The new Spit will be fine, but the P-51 will still be at a disadvantage with the 50's as they are. Giving it more power will help it be a better B&Z fighter, but that requires a lot of snapshots. The weak 50's won't work for snapshots.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
No, it won't. The new Spit will be fine, but the P-51 will still be at a disadvantage with the 50's as they are. Giving it more power will help it be a better B&Z fighter, but that requires a lot of snapshots. The weak 50's won't work for snapshots.

 

Its less about the 50's and more about the damage model, and that is in work, so I hope that turns some things around as well.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its less about the 50's and more about the damage model, and that is in work, so I hope that turns some things around as well.

 

Kind of the same thing no? The 50's are fine in everything but the damage they do.

 

 

At least I think it's wrong. If it isn't then i'll live with it. It just seems like I need to hit a plane a lot more times than what I see from the real fights in WW2.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to use MP Air Quake servers for rapid dog-fight practise to hone gunnery skills on particular aircraft and hone aircraft, engine and energy management, including SA skills in a highly dynamic and pressured environment (also good for testing/experimenting new settings and combat manoeuvre techniques, particularly after patches/updates to flight models). Competing against AI is just kidding yourself in my book; if you intend to properly test yourself and get to know the limits of your fighter aircraft, one needs human opposition, lots of it and the better the Air Quake opposition pilots are the more one learns and improves. So, for me, Air Quake is all about practise for the real deal, which for me and most of the squads I fly with is about historically based WWII scenarios with and against human players on MP. Sad to say, I have come across snobbery towards Air Quake, but I find these MP servers are useful and have their place as much as any other type of server. The frustration I find with DCS at the moment is that we are waiting, waiting and waiting and trying to keep faith that DCS can deliver a WWII environment and appropriate plane set. I also like air racing, but 2 years of no Mustang racing series is also sad, but understandable due the state of flux DCS sim versions are in at the moment. So, 190 or 109? I don't know, but I do know there is some way to go to before we get some historically based WWII action servers (and not just with AI only flight models). It appears that there may be a lot of potential, but we just have to wait and see.

 

Happy landings,


Edited by 56RAF_Talisman
spelling.

Bell_UH-1 side.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems like I need to hit a plane a lot more times than what I see from the real fights in WW2.

 

So I really like this website. It's a bit "finger in the air" but they do compare results with official testing.

 

In short the test data that does exist seems to suggest that a single 20mm round is worth about 3 50 cal rounds. So the P-47 (with 8x .50 cals) should have about the same firepower as the FW 190 Dora (with 2x MG 151/20 and 2x MG 131). The P-51 having 6x .50 calls should obviously have about 3/4 the firepower. So if it takes a 1 second burst from the Dora to kill something, it should be about 1.3 seconds from the P-51. The Dora has less convergence issues than the P-51, so let's call it 1.5 seconds.

 

As someone who regularly flies both the Dora and the P-51, I'd say that IMO it's currently not anything remotely like that in game. Based purely on my experience I'd say it's more like 3 to 1 at the moment. In short, I think the .50 cals are about half as effective as they should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I really like this website. It's a bit "finger in the air" but they do compare results with official testing.

 

In short the test data that does exist seems to suggest that a single 20mm round is worth about 3 50 cal rounds. So the P-47 (with 8x .50 cals) should have about the same firepower as the FW 190 Dora (with 2x MG 151/20 and 2x MG 131). The P-51 having 6x .50 calls should obviously have about 3/4 the firepower. So if it takes a 1 second burst from the Dora to kill something, it should be about 1.3 seconds from the P-51. The Dora has less convergence issues than the P-51, so let's call it 1.5 seconds.

 

As someone who regularly flies both the Dora and the P-51, I'd say that IMO it's currently not anything remotely like that in game. Based purely on my experience I'd say it's more like 3 to 1 at the moment. In short, I think the .50 cals are about half as effective as they should be.

 

MK 108 shells should be 10x more powerful than they are atm, comparing to .50 cals. Bare in mind that you cannot make a snapshot kill with .50 cal mounted on the wings.. unless your aiming is godlike.


Edited by amazingme

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least with DCS we can finally settle, once and for all, the endless debate about which nation's fighters were the best. It was without a doubt Germany. Most aviation history buffs already know this, but nationalist bias is hard to overcome.

 

I have no doubt that the new damage model will make the P51 more competitive, but you have to remember that when the P51D entered service as a primarily high altitude escort fighter, the Allied aircraft outnumbered the Axis ones, 10 to 1.

 

I almost wish that the P51D gets all the upgrades that people are wishing for, it will still be eaten alive by the Dora in a 1 on 1 fight, all things being equal, including the pilot.


Edited by OnlyforDCS
grammar

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least with DCS we can finally settle, once and for all, the endless debate about which nation's fighters were the best. It was without a doubt Germany. Most aviation history buffs already know this, but nationalist bias is hard to overcome.

 

I almost wish that the P51D gets all the upgrades that people are wishing for, it will still be eaten alive by the Dora in a 1 on 1 fight, all things being equal, including the pilot.

 

Not sure if serious.

?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpub%2Fimages%2FNot_Sure_If_Serious_1072.png


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi gents,

 

here my 2 sence of gun DM/Hitpower of the different planes on air-targets, as i understand it without the nice side postet from Tomek, that i also like.

 

1. Bf109K-4 / (P-38, even when it is not there, but has guns in the nose )

2. Fw190D-9

3. Spitfire MKIX

4. P-51D

 

I think this is right even without looking on the gun power from the guns, only looking at the different location and settings.

 

So 109 is best as it is all located in the nose, with a gunsetting that point all the guns to one point 600m ahead of the plane. As all guns are in the nose and the distance between the guns is so small, smaller than a planebody, so it doesent matter if i open fire at close range or long range.

 

Same goes to the Fw190, even with the big guns in the wingroots, this guns are also so close to gether, that they will also hit the plane body at close range or long range, as long i know the lead i have to use to hit.

 

Third is spitfire, the zwitter, has the same problem than the P-51 wingmounten guns, but can compensate it as i had to learn on Cliffs of Dover :music_whistling::megalol:. And the P-51 not. As i understand it the guns from spit are also pointed to one point 250 - 300 yards in front of the plane, So again we have guns centered to one point. This brings the spitfire in the position to open fire between 250 - 300 yards and for close range only aiming with one side of the winguns and than they have again a centerd gunfire with 1x 20mm and 4x .303 is like Bf109 with 20mm. But again it is centerd.

 

Last we have the P-51D also pointed the guns 1000 feet ahead of the plane but not centered, its a hitting box and this makes deflectionshots or one wing at close range shots less effective.

 

From my point of view is the change in a box system higher that we have more missing bullets as in a centered system. The P-51 could do it like the spit and aim with one wing but has still the probelm with the box system.

 

So even with out the the info from this side http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

it is clear that even the spit has the uper hand over the P-51 in this case. Even with 6x .50 call from P-51 in the wing of the spitfire the P-51 would loose against the spit in makeing DM. Center vs box system, center system will win. Box system makes it easyer to hit, because i am spraying, so the change is higher to hit, but with mutch less bullets than with the center system if i hit with center system.

 

If i now look at the side and look at the fighter/gun comparison and the time is needed to do a Fixed value damages, the P-51 loose, not because the gun power itselfe is so mutch lover than from 109/Fw190 and Spit its the box system as i get more bullets in time to a target in a centered system, all guns are aiming for the target at one point + the point that even at close range more bullets will hit the target than the box system. And for deflection shoots it is mutch worser also. For spit also but the center system makes it easyer.

 

Sorry this are long 2 sence :smartass:

 

regards

 

Little_D


Edited by Little_D

1./JG2_Little_D

Staffelkapitän

1./Jagdgeschwader 2 "Richthofen"

 

"Go for the leader, if you can. The path is the goal, the kill the result."

"The one who has 12, leads. The one who has six, follows."

 

YouTube Channel: 1./JG2 Filmkanal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I almost wish that the P51D gets all the upgrades that people are wishing for, it will still be eaten alive by the Dora in a 1 on 1 fight, all things being equal, including the pilot.

 

That wouldn't be historic. The P-51 has almost 5000 kills in WW2. It wasn't always because they had higher numbers in the fight. Sometimes it was the other way around.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi gents,

 

here my 2 sence of gun DM/Hitpower of the different planes on air-targets, as i understand it without the nice side postet from Tomek, that i also like.

 

1. Bf109K-4 / (P-38, even when it is not there, but has guns in the nose )

2. Fw190D-9

3. Spitfire MKIX

4. P-51D

 

I think this is right even without looking on the gun power from the guns, only looking at the different location and settings.

 

So 109 is best as it is all located in the nose, with a gunsetting that point all the guns to one point 600m ahead of the plane. As all guns are in the nose and the distance between the guns is so small, smaller than a planebody, so it doesent matter if i open fire at close range or long range.

 

Same goes to the Fw190, even with the big guns in the wingroots, this guns are also so close to gether, that they will also hit the plane body at close range or long range, as long i know the lead i have to use to hit.

 

Third is spitfire, the zwitter, has the same problem than the P-51 wingmounten guns, but can compensate it as i had to learn on Cliffs of Dover :music_whistling::megalol:. And the P-51 not. As i understand it the guns from spit are also pointed to one point 250 - 300 yards in front of the plane, So again we have guns centered to one point. This brings the spitfire in the position to open fire between 250 - 300 yards and for close range only aiming with one side of the winguns and than they have again a centerd gunfire with 1x 20mm and 4x .303 is like Bf109 with 20mm. But again it is centerd.

 

Last we have the P-51D also pointed the guns 1000 feet ahead of the plane but not centered, its a hitting box and this makes deflectionshots or one wing at close range shots less effective.

 

From my point of view is the change in a box system higher that we have more missing bullets as in a centered system. The P-51 could do it like the spit and aim with one wing but has still the probelm with the box system.

 

So even with out the the info from this side http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

it is clear that even the spit has the uper hand over the P-51 in this case. Even with 6x .50 call from P-51 in the wing of the spitfire the P-51 would loose against the spit in makeing DM. Center vs box system, center system will win. Box system makes it easyer to hit, because i am spraying, so the change is higher to hit, but with mutch less bullets than with the center system if i hit with center system.

 

If i now look at the side and look at the fighter/gun comparison and the time is needed to do a Fixed value damages, the P-51 loose, not because the gun power itselfe is so mutch lover than from 109/Fw190 and Spit its the box system as i get more bullets in time to a target in a centered system, all guns are aiming for the target at one point + the point that even at close range more bullets will hit the target than the box system. And for deflection shoots it is mutch worser also. For spit also but the center system makes it easyer.

 

Sorry this are long 2 sence :smartass:

 

regards

 

Little_D

 

I'm not sure about this and if it was done but, do all the guns have to set at the same convergence? That would up the odds of hitting at different ranges.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
That wouldn't be historic. The P-51 has almost 5000 kills in WW2. It wasn't always because they had higher numbers in the fight. Sometimes it was the other way around.

 

Not sure that is the best number to throw out, how many kills did the 109 have in WWII? I thought I heard some crazy number like 30,000... but I have no source :) I am sure someone knowns or will look it up now though :)

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...