Matrix Games Forums

I'm thinking about adding some more planes to the WIR aircraft types, first and foremost the Ju-87D, but I have place for two more German fighter-type planes.

I'm trying to get the planes in a logical sequence, with Germans fighters, then Minor Axis fighters, then Bombers, which leaves me with two empty slots of German fighters. I was thinking about the Fw Ta-152H and the Do-335 Pfeil. I also considered the Go-229, the Nazi stealth fighter. For bombers I was thinking about the Ar-234 Blitz jet bomber.

Any other suggestions or favourites?

withput special "night" turns the TA makes no sense. I would go for the Do 335 since it has a better chance to be produced than the wooden Go/Ho 229

I would like to see the Tu-2 long range bomber version wich replaced the IL-4.
(Tu-2 ground attack version is in the game)

The Me262A is a fighter-bomber, the "Blitz-Bomber". A pure fighter-version was build later.
The decission of Hilter to build this plane as a "Blitz-Bomber" delayed the developement of this plane seriously.

The Go229 never flew, therfore I would not include it. There were models of a four engine long range jet-bomber too. But only on paper.

@Yogi: One note: The link to the "russian aviation museum" I gave you, is a link to a private homepage. This is not an official site, only a good private homepage.

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor:
withput special "night" turns the TA makes no sense. I would go for the Do 335 since it has a better chance to be produced than the wooden Go/Ho 229

---

The Fw Ta-152 was not a night fighter, but a high altitude interceptor, a development of the Fw-190D. And it actually saw combat (protecting Me-262 during takeoff and landing).

Point well taken regarding the Go-229.

Originally posted by Harry:
I would like to see the Tu-2 long range bomber version wich replaced the IL-4.
(Tu-2 ground attack version is in the game).

---

I'll look into this.

Originally posted by Harry:

The Me262A is a fighter-bomber, the "Blitz-Bomber". A pure fighter-version was build later.
The decission of Hilter to build this plane as a "Blitz-Bomber" delayed the developement of this plane seriously.

---

Agree. However, the existing Me-262 already is at the limits of performance accepted by WIR (AC 30). The one thing we could have is a Me-262 with a low LOAD capacity that is type 0 (fighter) and that appears earlier (before Hitler ordered conversion to Stürmvogel bombers), perhaps in late 1943? But then we run into issues of play balance, and most of all, into hypothetic production. We better not go there...

Originally posted by Harry:
The Go229 never flew, therfore I would not include it. There were models of a four engine long range jet-bomber too. But only on paper.

---

It did fly, but only as a prototype, and of course it never saw combat. It was scheduled to enter Luftwaffe service in late 1945/early 1946.

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
I'm thinking about adding some more planes to the WIR aircraft types, first and foremost the Ju-87D, but I have place for two more German fighter-type planes.

I'm trying to get the planes in a logical sequence, with Germans fighters, then Minor Axis fighters, then Bombers, which leaves me with two empty slots of German fighters. I was thinking about the Fw Ta-152H and the Do-335 Pfeil. I also considered the Go-229, the Nazi stealth fighter. For bombers I was thinking about the Ar-234 Blitz jet bomber.

Any other suggestions or favourites?

---

Yogi

The Arado234 saw service(starting with recce over normandy) and as far as i know was a reliable design but for the typical Jumo flameouts.
The Do-335 was also impressive..

But i'd like to see the Tribefugal.. He He

Nick

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
Any other suggestions or favourites?

---

I know it may sound crazy (I think it's crazy <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ), but could V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rockets somehow implemented?

Originally posted by boba:


I know it may sound crazy (I think it's crazy <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ), but could V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rockets somehow implemented?

---

Interesting idea... I guess V-1 would be the easiest, since it could be intercepted. But it would also be shooting down enemy planes and returning to base <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> so I think its a definite NO to your question.

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:

But i'd like to see the Tribefugal.. He He
Nick

---

What the ##### is "the Tribefugal"?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Yogi, this quote is from Arnaud. What would be your response to this?

I am having second thoughts about including the IAR 80/81. It was produced at less than 400 copies, which would only be enough to fill
and barely maintain one unit. Furthermore, it fits into the "mixed aircraft" type.

So, wouldn't it be better to include another - more important - aircraft in the free slot ? If you have an idea, please submit it. If we don't have other ideas then we can include the IAR, but is it really worth it ?

---

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor:
withput special "night" turns the TA makes no sense. I would go for the Do 335 since it has a better chance to be produced than the wooden Go/Ho 229

---

Hi Sole,
the Ta152H was the last FW190, the "Tank Höhenjäger", the best fighter of ww2... so i think we need it <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

You meant the Ta154, the "german mosquito", a good plane, but it haf major failures....

The Ta152H never saw combat on the Russian front. There was no need for it to be there, since combat rarely occurred above 5km. At 5km or lower, the Ta152H would be VVS 'meat', being inferior to Fw 190A-5 or Bf 109G-6.

First, I should commend you on your revamping of the aircraft values. However, there appear to be some discrepencies. For example, the Lavochkin fighters(LaGG, La) were all known to be quite sturdy aircraft - sturdier than a 109, yet you place the 109G at a '27' to a La5FN's '24'. And why is the La5FN '24' when the La5 and La7 are both '25'? The Yak-9U and Yak-3 had the exact same armament(2xUB, 1xShVAK), yet the Yak-9U has cannon value of '9', and Yak-3 '7'. Also, by comparing muzzle velocity, cannon mass, one can see that Soviet 12.7mm UB-MG and 20mm ShVAK were both better than German weapons. VVS Gunsights were very poor on planes like I-16, Il-2(though initial gunsight on Il-2 was reflector). However, most VVS fighters from 1942 had reflector gunsights. Regarding the Bf 109G why does it only have a dogfight ability of '22'? It was roughly equal to the La5FN, and was a superior dogfighter to the Fw 190. Fw 190 could not dogfight for sustained amount of time, unlike the 109, which could also Boom and Zoom. Fw 190 should have '22', since it was only good for Boom and Zoom. Besides, the guns and durability make up for it. Finally, why do Yak fighters have such low durability ratings, and 109 does not? 109 was not as durable as the Lavochkin fighters, and was only slightly more durable to Yakovlev fighters. And Yak-9U was equal to La7 in dogfight ability.

I know this is a lot of complaints, but the air war in the Russian Front is of singular interest to me. Let me say finally that VVS pilots generally didn't fear 190 as much as the 109 'messer'. The 109 was an amazing fighter, and really claimed the Russian skies until 1943 when La5FN arrives. The only advantages 190 had was guns, durability, and the ability to outrun most VVS fighters. Only La-7 was able to catch up with a Fw 190A-8 in a dive. But in combat it was not a big problem. 109 could do everything, fight fast or slow. It was a little fragile like Yaks but it could do an unbelievable 'dance' in combat <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> That was the feared one - messer.

"..The only advantages 190 had was guns, durability, and the ability to outrun most VVS fighters..."

"Speed is life" This term is still true today as it were in the past. Doing much dogfighting risk more to get shot down. A problem with the Me262 was, that pilots tried to use "old" dogfight tactics, slowing the Me262 down so that they could get shot down. But using "zoom and boom" is a much saver method than doing "turn-dogfighting".
Most things I read about the Focker Wulf said, that this plane was the preferd plane if pilots would have had the choise.
The Bf109 series was build in a much greater quantity than the FW190. Because of that the Bfs have to do most of the work for germany, which causing serious problems when they faced the new allied fighterplanes. (P47D, P51B/D, Spitfire, Yak-3, La-7 aso.)Undergunned, slower and not strudy enough.
Yes you are right. 1943 saw the end of the Bf109.
Because of that all, we can simply erase "only" from your sentence above.

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: Harry ]</p>

Originally posted by Harry:
"..The only advantages 190 had was guns, durability, and the ability to outrun most VVS fighters..."

"Speed is life" This term is still true today as it were in the past. Doing much dogfighting risk more to get shot down. A problem with the Me262 was, that pilots tried to use "old" dogfight tactics, slowing the Me262 down so that they could get shot down. But using "zoom and boom" is a much saver method than doing "turn-dogfighting".
Most things I read about the Focker Wulf said, that this plane was the preferd plane if pilots would have had the choise.
The Bf109 series was build in a much greater quantity than the FW190. Because of that the Bfs have to do most of the work for germany, which causing serious problems when they faced the new allied fighterplanes. (P47D, P51B/D, Spitfire, Yak-3, La-7 aso.)Undergunned, slower and not strudy enough.
Yes you are right. 1943 saw the end of the Bf109.
Because of that all, we can simply erase "only" from your sentence above.

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: Harry ]

---

It is true that the Fw 190 was the easier plane to fly for new jagdfliegeren, but in terms of combat ability, the Fw 190 was better in a ground attack role. Of the two planes encountered, the VVS had more respect for the 109 - even by 1944, because in the hands of a knowledgable pilot it could still make you pay for a single mistake. Though the 109 was not faster than the later VVS fighters, it was often just as quick, and it could leave a La-7 in a dive. The reason the Fw 190 was not as much of a problem was because it could only Boom and Zoom. The La-5FN, Yak-3, Yak-9U, and La-7 could do both better(energy-fight or maneuver-fight) than a 190, but against a 109 you had to be very careful, since it was quite good in each area.

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]</p>

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Yogi, this quote is from Arnaud. What would be your response to this?

---

I can absolutely relate to this point of wiev. Unfortunately I can't think of a single aircraft type that was "important" and is still left out. However, one idea would be to differentiate between the Ju-87B and Ju-87D, since they are averaged into the WIR Stuka. The Berhta would be the current Stuka with load 15, the Dora would have longer range and load 40. It entered service in 1942.

The problem with this is that the Fokker slot is for a "non selectable for production"-plane ie minor axis or obsolete. The only significant one I could think of was the IAR-80/81. If that hardcoded constraint is removed, then by all means introduce the Ju-87D instead of the IAR-80.

Originally posted by Grisha:
The Ta152H never saw combat on the Russian front. There was no need for it to be there, since combat rarely occurred above 5km. At 5km or lower, the Ta152H would be VVS 'meat', being inferior to Fw 190A-5 or Bf 109G-6.

---

Agree, the Ta-152 was a high altitude fighter. But it would be usefull against western fighter escorts. Unfortunately we cannot differentiate stats between east and west front, but I have given radial engine planes a bonus to AC.

Originally posted by Grisha:
...the Lavochkin fighters(LaGG, La) were all known to be quite sturdy aircraft - sturdier than a 109, yet you place the 109G at a '27' to a La5FN's '24'. And why is the La5FN '24' when the La5 and La7 are both '25'?

...Finally, why do Yak fighters have such low durability ratings, and 109 does not? 109 was not as durable as the Lavochkin fighters, and was only slightly more durable to Yakovlev fighters.

---

I haven't touched the durability ratings, they remain exactly as in WIR 3.101. I had no hard data to work with so I saw no reason to think I could do a better job with durability.

Originally posted by Grisha:
The Yak-9U and Yak-3 had the exact same armament(2xUB, 1xShVAK), yet the Yak-9U has cannon value of '9', and Yak-3 '7'.

---

You're right. I must have mixed up the MGs on the Yak-3, counting them as 7,62mm, not 12,7mm. Will be corrected.

Originally posted by Grisha:
Also, by comparing muzzle velocity, cannon mass, one can see that Soviet 12.7mm UB-MG and 20mm ShVAK were both better than German weapons. VVS Gunsights were very poor on planes like I-16, Il-2(though initial gunsight on Il-2 was reflector). However, most VVS fighters from 1942 had reflector gunsights.

---

I did those calculations too.The vastly better Russian machineguns have been taken into account. Note that even the I-15 (ter) with 4 LMGs outguns the Bf-109F with 2 LMG and one HMG. When calculating firepower, all Soviet MGs have been rated higher than their German equivalents.

When it comes to cannons however, the Soviet ShVak IS higher rated than the early MG FF, but not more than the 20mm MG/151. That cannon was easily the equal of the ShVAK.

About gunsights, I put a 10% Soviet penalty across the line for that. Perhaps that should be removed for post 1942 models?

Originally posted by Grisha:
Regarding the Bf 109G why does it only have a dogfight ability of '22'? It was roughly equal to the La5FN, and was a superior dogfighter to the Fw 190. Fw 190 could not dogfight for sustained amount of time, unlike the 109, which could also Boom and Zoom. Fw 190 should have '22', since it was only good for Boom and Zoom. Besides, the guns and durability make up for it. ... And Yak-9U was equal to La7 in dogfight ability.

---

To make the answer short, because its NOT a DOGFIGHT value, its an AIR COMBAT value. The primary determining factors are the two most important factors of aerial combat - Speed and climb rate. Fast diving speed also gives a bonus.

Poor turn radius and poor roll rate do give a penalty, but that is all - since turning dogfights are a stupid way to engage your enemy, especially if you have better speed and climb rate. The unassailable dogfight champion of WIR would be... the I-15. Because it was a biplane, no other plane could turn with it. Nevertheless, it was dead meat when it encountered less nimble but faster Bf-109s.

As for the relative strenghts of Bf-109s and Fw-190s, its true that the Fw-190 turned like a battleship. Nevertheless it OUTCLASSED the Spitfire Mk V that the Bf-109 was in no way superior to. And the A model had a radial engine with good low altitude performance so it would have been especially usefull on the eastern front.

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]</p>

Hi Sole,
the Ta152H was the last FW190, the "Tank Höhenjäger", the best fighter of ww2... so i think we need it

You meant the Ta154, the "german mosquito", a good plane, but it haf major failures....

You are right, I mixed up the TA's.

Maybe because I played too much "Secret Weapons of the Nachtjagdkorps", a fan made mod to Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe (LucasFilm/LucasArts) which featured the TA.

I'd like to see the He 112 (or something) alternative fighter to the Bf / Me 109. It would be a hypthetic plane though since it did not enter real service.

Yogi,
My apologies regarding durability ratings. I didn't realize those were original values. You might want to change those to more realistic values too, and if you want assistance I'd be more than happy to offer mine in that respect <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

You are right about ShVAK and German 20mm. They were very similar in perfomance, though ShVAK was slightly better. Still, not enough to make a difference here.

As for dogfight/air combat values, I understand what they meant. Basically, overall performance in combat. The thing about air combat is that to be effective you need a little bit of both, unless its an ambush. While it is nice to fly around at high speed, you won't be shooting anything down unless you maneuver to your target. There's a fine balance between maneuver and speed when it comes to air combat, and if you give up on one of them, then you risk the chance of being a target yourself. Pokryshkin had a motto for air combat, "Altitude - Speed - Maneuver - Fire." He was no dogfighter, but he knew that maneuver was needed for that decisive shot. The problem with speed is that while you'll mostly likely survive an engagement with the enemy, you'll probably shoot nothing down either. Anyway, I'm blabbering now, but the point is that to fight effectively in air combat in WWII, both facets, speed and maneuver, were needed to be successful. The early to mid 109s did both extremely well, as did latter VVS fighters.

Personally, I think that speed is overrated in air combat. What matters more is acceleration, so long as you have a top speed close to 600kph. Speed matters when its time to get out, more than anything else. Or when you're trying to catch up with one of those who are trying to get out <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> But, in the end, what beats any aircraft, no matter what the performance, is numbers.

Anyway, your numbers are an improvement from the old ones, so it's for the benefit of the game in general. Thanks for taking the time to do so <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Well,

one big problem with the russian air war is, that the russians had much more planes, much more pilots and really good planes. But, and that hurts some &#8222;russians&#8220;, untill June 44 the germans had more or less air superiority and until the end of war, the russians had much more losses in air fightings than the germans.

Also, if i can remember correctly, no nation in this world had such good aces like Hartmann, Rall, Bär, Steinhoff...
So the dilema is, if we see this game, should the russian planes are equal and &#8211; from 42-43 on, superior, so it is easy for the russians to gain air superiority they do not have, or should we try to balance this point out ?

For the TA152H, well this plane was used in Early 45, and i hoped, we could have this plane to eat up the allied fighter cover... using it in russia would be really wrong, because, as you said, H means Höhenjäger (high altitude) and that wouldn´t be smart in low level fightings...)

Because some "russians" tell me a liar, the russians lost est. 70.000 planes (plus minus 10.000) and they fall not down all in 1941 - 1942....