Friday Night Flights

[Joel Billings]

And here's the 109G-6.

[Harrybanana]

I am again compelled to retract my opinion. Locating this information on the Editor is a lot easier than I thought and not too much work at all. All it took was a few clicks and the information on each aircraft is right there. The only hard work was writing down the max speed altitude for each fighter aircraft I was interested in, which took me all of 15 minutes. Well actually the hardest thing will be not losing the piece of paper I wrote the numbers down on.

[LiquidSky]

Note the extra weapon set #2 for the Bf-109. An extra 2 cannons.

[soeren01]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I am again compelled to retract my opinion. Locating this information on the Editor is a lot easier than I thought and not too much work at all. All it took was a few clicks and the information on each aircraft is right there. The only hard work was writing down the max speed altitude for each fighter aircraft I was interested in, which took me all of 15 minutes. Well actually the hardest thing will be not losing the piece of paper I wrote the numbers down on.

You can do a csv export of the aircraft information from the editor, load it up with you favorite spreadsheet software and have all of the data on one sheet,

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Note the extra weapon set #2 for the Bf-109. An extra 2 cannons.

Whats the maneuver penalty for overloading the bf-109 and how does that affect the results??

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: soeren01

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I am again compelled to retract my opinion. Locating this information on the Editor is a lot easier than I thought and not too much work at all. All it took was a few clicks and the information on each aircraft is right there. The only hard work was writing down the max speed altitude for each fighter aircraft I was interested in, which took me all of 15 minutes. Well actually the hardest thing will be not losing the piece of paper I wrote the numbers down on.

You can do a csv export of the aircraft information from the editor, load it up with you favorite spreadsheet software and have all of the data on one sheet,

"csv export"[&:] I don't know what any of that means. "favorite spreadsheet"[&:] I don't even have one, let alone a favorite. I think you might have confused me with someone who is computer literate [:D]

[LiquidSky]

Not sure what the exact effect is but this is what the game says:

[Harrybanana]

My recollection is that the default load out for the Bf109 is 2 machine guns and 1 cannon. Logically speaking the 2 cannon load out would be better against bombers and the default load out better against fighters. An interesting test would be Bf109 vs Bf109, one group armed with the default load out and the other with 2 cannons.

[LiquidSky]

It would be interesting....veeeeewwwwy interesting.

I already know the answer. The Bf 109G-6 will win.


But since you have given me a plethora of ideas to pursue, I bring you a special Tuesday Night Tussle.

And what a surprise...the plane with the extra 2 cannons won

[LiquidSky]

Here's what happens when I set the Non-Extra canonized at 30k feet, and the canonized Bf's at their optimum altitude 20k feet.

Experience, Altitude, Firepower.....is why I shoot down more planes then Q-Ball



EDIT: From what I can tell, you fight at the altitude you set for you planes, if they are in a directive. If not, you fight at the altitude of the attacking group you are intercepting.

[Harrybanana]

Can't say I'm an expert on this topic, but I believe that if the 2 cannon loadout is a superior dogfighter to the 2 Machine gun + 1 cannon load out than this is not historically accurate. For what it is worth Wikipedia agrees with me:

"In place of internal wing armament, additional firepower was provided through a pair of 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons installed in conformal gun pods under the wings. Although the additional armament increased the fighter's potency as a bomber destroyer, it had an adverse effect on the handling qualities, reducing its performance in fighter-versus-fighter combat and accentuating the tendency of the fighter to swing pendulum-fashion in flight.[36]"

I see in a recent post that Helpless is (correctly in my opinion) reducing the effectiveness of the small bomb load out in Naval Patrol missions and increasing the effectiveness of torpedoes and mines. Perhaps this is something that can be looked at as well at some point.

[Ralzakark]

The cannon pads on the Bf 109 were widely disliked by pilots as they significantly affected the aircraft's performance. Aircraft armed with them should fare badly against identical aircraft without them.

[Helpless]

Load out effects can be adjusted in editor.

[LiquidSky]

You cant have a sporting event without statistics! For your infinite enjoyment, here is some exciting figures!

I am doing this as a warning. When I run a flight, I usually do it once as the axis player, and once as the allied player to eliminate any turn bias.

And I was asked to maybe help out in figuring out if there is some problems with load outs etc...in the editor.

So....I did an experiment. Exact same plane (the ever popular Fw-190-7).

Similar experience/morale levels...but not exact because they cannot be set individually for the pilots...only an average.

I then flew 10 flights with the Axis going first...then 10 flights with the Allies going first...

And this is the result:

Axis First Turn:

Axis lost/Allies lost

118/104
105/134
119/110
136/107
130/98
123/118
119/119
110/116
126/91
119/113

Allied First Turn:

Axis lost/Allied Lost

127/92
122/125
114/91
102/119
124/101
111/96
96/123
118/84
124/108
113/108


What I notice is that the axis are tending to lose more planes then the allies. This is probably because the experience/morale levels are not identical..the allies probably have a slight advantage.

In the Axis first the total loss is 1205 Ax / 1105 Al
In the Allied first the total loss is 1151 Ax / 1047 Al

It doesn't appear that there is a turn bias. It doesn't matter who attacks who.

So when I do a flight, there could be a random number bias. It seems to skew between 25%.

Even with the apparent allied bias, there was a couple of times where the allies lost a lot more then the axis... and if that was the one time I flew a flight, you might think that something was 'broken'
But it was just the random number generator favouring the axis that turn...maybe some key allied pilots were damaged/wounded/kia early..then the rest of the week it snowballed.

So you have to do a lot of missions..and average the results to get a true reading. The more you fly, the truer the readings.

In the Axis first scenario....the allies did 9.0% more kills. In the Allied first scenario, they did 9.9% more kills. Less then a percent is not enough of a bias for me to be concerned about it.

So if you want accurate data...like whether or not the added cannons effect the combat....you would have to run the mission multiple times and average the results.

[LiquidSky]

Sooooo..now the real test. I want to see if Rockets play a role in air-air combat. Having read that rockets were used to blow very big holes in allied bombers, I was wondering if they had any appreciable effect in air-air combat in game.

Here is the result....with the Germans carrying the rockets, and the allies not....both flying Fw-190-7's

Axis Lost/Allied Lost

123/112
114/106
108/112
135/105
116/108
130/105
123/107
121/113
135/105
120/99

Total: 1225/1072 or 14.3% in favour of the allies. Since this is greater then the 9.9% bias I had in the Allied First scenario above...it seems that carrying the Rockets (with the drop tanks) has a negative effect on air-air combat.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
...it seems that carrying the Rockets (with the drop tanks) has a negative effect on air-air combat.

I was so hoping to see some formal statistical testing [;)]

more significantly, I think that while you are right - large, relatively slow rockets are not for WW2 dog-fighting, especially with an added drop tank. But that is not their target, the real test is do they do more damage to allied bombers?

Before my airforce fell apart in my last game I experimented with mixed airgroups so that some intercepting squadrons were rocket armed and others more conventionally. Since it was a PBEM I clearly couldn't rerun etc, but it seemed like a good solution/compromise.

[LiquidSky]

Looking in the editor at the WGr 210 rocket...it appears it has no effect on any Air to air combat...and is only used against armour.

[Helpless]

Bumped in the light of bf109 performance discussion. [:)]

[HMSWarspite]

I am sure this is known, but we have to be careful when talking of fighter vs fighter action not to think of this as the same as dogfighting.
Dogfighting is usually considered your classic 'WW1' turning fight although by WW2, many of them were 'vertical turning fights', that is with 3 dimensions (rolls and split S, Yo yo manoeuvres etc).

In game this is air combat as a whole not just a dogfight. The best theoretical fighter of WW2 would be one that is fast, high rate of climb and dive, good detection ability (good cockpit view and better radar than yet invented), gyro/tracking gun sight and adequate weapons. It would then spot the enemy first, put itself in a optimum position, bounce the enemy at high speed, open fire at greater than 600 yds, score a kill and return to the heavens. Any ability to turn is strictly for air displays.

Now this aircraft obviously doesn't exist, but to the extent it can be modeled in game, it should have negligible losses and either high kills (sees the enemy first) or a 0:0 draw (enemy sees it, and prevents the bounce) - all assuming adequate supplies and competent crews.

The classic example of air fighting is P40 or F4F vs Zero - Zero better in most respects and won in RL for a while, until the US (particularly) stopped dogfighting. They bounced a Zero if they could and stayed well away if they couldn't. The Zero then starts suffering. This is effectively what 'Exp' should be giving in game... low exp aren't only flying the plane 'worse', they are using it wrongly...

So, back to where we started, extra cannon pack 109Gs cant just be assumed to lose to basic 109s, unless the effect on flying characteristics is so pronounced as to make the a/c unflyable (unlikely). But high Exp/Mor pilots on both sides have to be assumed to be flying each to the best advantage... the Cannon pack will be trying for a bounce and completely refusing to turn (dive away instead). The basic 109 will be avoiding the bounce, and then turning. If the delta is very pronounced they may even encourage the bounce to start to get the attacker to come down to fight, then turning the tables on them, as some of the best Tempest and Spit XIV pilots did late war with LW a/c/ that would not engage...

Oh, and the test needs running lots more as said elsewhere.

[Rusty1961]

How is the P51D rated more maneuverable than the 109G6 given the G6 has a lower wing-loading?