OutOnTheOP

Well... from my (very limited) experience flying actual aircraft, I would offer that the "seat of the pants" feeling, ability to sense minute motion with your sense of equilibrium, and much more precise control linkages in real aircraft compared to simulators would help a great deal- particularly things like the takeoff roll (where any yawing would be sensed by your inner ear far before your eyes saw it) and flaring for landing (where real depth perception is worlds beyond any method of estimating height over the runway we have in simulation). That, and even if the pilots hadn't flown these particular marks, I strongly suspect pilots didn't go straight from "never flown anything" to "here's a high-performance fighter; have fun!". They generally had some manner of lead-in training with more forgiving aircraft. ...but even so, the mishap rates *were* pretty high, compared to modern air forces.

What is this "overkill" you speak of? There is no "overkill", only "open fire!", and "time to reload!" ;)

Yes... yes, it would. Or ground attack, for that matter. Would make a real mess out of most tanks, even.

It is what it is: an energy fighter. That doesn't make it a BAD fighter, just means that you *probably* shouldn't get into turning fights with anything that has a faster turn than it... which is most any contemporary fighter. Stick to high-speed bounces and use the ludicrous amount of horsepower to get you out of trouble and in position for a reattack, and it'll perform just smashingly.

Oh, sorry if it came off that way... I didn't mean to imply that you were trash-talking the allies, simply that on a great many online forums (and among tabletop gamers, before that!), there is a quite pervasive attitude that the Germans made super-weapons of immaculate engineering, while the allies made utter crap (the whole "Shermans always blow up and kill everyone" myth, for example; the Pzkw IV statistically burned just as often as the Sherman). That kind of generalizing (particularly when driven by popular conception rather than factual support) is a personal pet peeve of mine. Both sides made some very good kit, and some very bad kit. On average, they were comparable in most respects. As to the German scientists being snapped up after the war... sure, of course. The Germans had world-beating knowledge in certain niches (rocketry being the most immediately obvious; optics and some fields of small arms design as well. To an extent, armour design... but I think the allies were more interested in their metallurgy than in the actual engineering of their tanks) But by the same token, if the Germans had won, they'd have been falling over themselves to recruit the Manhattan project crew and the allied aircraft, radar, computer, and other fields' experts. I get the same way about Japanese vs European fencing, by the way: in the US, at least, most laymen seem to think the Japanese swordsman was some kind of mystical blade wizard, but that medieval European swordsmen barely knew the pointy end from the handle and had no techniques more sophisticated than bashing each other inelegantly. .....in both WW2 technology and ancient fighting technique, I take great pleasure in divesting people of their popular-media-fueled misconceptions

I'm not really sure it'd make a ton of difference, either. Frankly, while both are "energy fighters", in this particular match-up, it basically seems to come down to the FW190 being the better energy fighter, and the Mustang being the better angles fighter. ...which is a weird place for the Mustang pilot to be, but it's kind of nice, because it means the 'stang pilots get the opportunity to practice angles tactics against the FW, and energy tactics against, say, the Bf109, Spitfire, or (assuming there are some coming down the pike) pretty much any of the Russian or Japanese WW2 birds.

Oh, I know. And I'm not saying the better fuels are MUSTS, anyway... just that while it could be used to affect game balance, it would be historically justifiable, rather than a "tweak" in MOBA-style-artificial-game-balancing as was implied a few posts back.

Well, after playing with the Focke-Wulf for a while, it *feels* about right, and from dogfighting the AI Mustang a while (mostly at fairly low altitudes, 5-8,000 feet), it seems like neither is out of line, performance-wise. The Dora seems somehow more responsive, in that control responses are very immediate and crisp. This makes it FEEL very agile... but it (to me) has obviously got a somewhat larger turning circle than the Mustang. However, it climbs like a rocket ship. The short version is that it seems to be much easier to get OUT of trouble flying the Dora, but easier to get IN to firing position when flying the Mustang: the Dora's power and climb rate meant I could constantly get into a position of energy superiority, but the Mustang's superior turning meant I had to work much, MUCH harder to get into a firing position with the Dora against the Mustang than I seem to with the Mustang against the Dora. The EZ42 is kind of a pain in the ass... I think because the sight window is so small, and the visibility over the nose kind of sucks. Getting a deflection shot will be tough. Real tough. Regarding weaponry, I'm not quite sure how I feel just yet. Going by the debriefing, the weapons aren't out of line with each other: it normally takes 80-100 .50 hits to down the Dora, and it seemed to take me around 20-40 cannon hits to down the Mustang (according to the in-game debriefing). Both those numbers are quite high, but seem correct, proportionally. I *think* they reflect some kind of damage factor/ hit points inflicted, rather than actual number of bullets, though: the FW felt like it killed with a much shorter (in length of time) burst on target. Considering the time it takes 2 MG151/20s to fire 30 cannon shells (1.38 seconds) is actually slightly longer than it takes 6 AN/M2 to fire 100 bullets (1.18 seconds), this doesn't seem right. Oh. And cowl guns. If the quantity of gunsmoke is an accurate reflection of reality, I vastly, VASTLY prefer wing guns. It's like you line up on the target, pull the trigger, and just hope he keeps flying the same direction... because I don't know about anyone else, but I absolutely lose the target in that smoke. And good luck spotting the fall of your shot!

Well, yes that is a simplistic calculation, particularly considering each have different kill mechanisms. The point is that the general equation is that 1 20mm HE wass/is generally considered to have about the same destructive force as 2-3 .50s. So each shell is more powerful, but the F-86 (and to a lesser extent, Mustang) fires a LOT more bullets than the FW190D9

The difference is that the P-51D with 72 or 75 inches boost was a quite widely-seen thing from mid/late '44 on (and as I recall, didn't actually require any kind of modification, just the higher-grade fuels, and authorization to push the throttle forward!)

Actually, that's a good point: a lot of people have commented how much easier time they had killing the AI P-51 with the Dora than they had killing the AI Dora with the P-51.... it makes me wonder how they set up the fuel in each? Because the P-51 carries a LOT more fuel than the Dora. If you both set them to the same percentage (say, 80%?), the Mustang is carrying potentially hundreds of kilograms of extra fuel weight. However, my experience was that when I set them both to the same fuel WEIGHT (IE, both carrying 300 kg of fuel), the Mustang outflies the AI Dora with almost boring ease. If they're just going into a Quick Combat mission where both aircraft start at 80% of max fuel (which I believe was how the Mustang quick mission was set up, haven't checked the Dora yet), then when flying as the Mustang, you're comparatively too heavy and the AI Dora too light (which makes it hard when you're in the Mustang), whereas when flying the Dora, the AI would be comparatively too heavy in fuel weight (which makes it easier when you're in the Dora). I have found that playing myself at 60% fuel in the Mustang, and the AI Dora at 80-90% is a good match-up: the Mustang is still carrying SIGNIFICANTLY more fuel, but it's a more realistic comparison when you consider that it's about how much the Mustang would likely have over the target on a long-range escort mission, while the Dora probably wouldn't have to go very far to get from airfield to intercept point.

72 or 75 inch boost is NOT nerfing or buffing. They are historical boost pressures that were authorized from the last quarter of 1944 on, when using the high-octane fuels. It's no more "unfair buffing" than the FW190D9 getting the EZ42 sight.

In all fairness, it's not as if the allies didn't have plenty of new machines in the works, too. One might consider a comparison with a P-51H, which was ready and scheduled for full production at war's end... or the P-80. The persistent attitude that the allies were technically incompetent irritates me: in many cases they could have easily switched to more technically advanced designs (for example, the M26 Pershing had been fully developed and could have started production at the onset of 1944 and been the primary tank by Normandy) due to logistical and strategic reasons. The allies won the war, with a favorable overall casualty ratio (particularly considering they were on the offensive for so long), and that would seem to vindicate those choices.

Then the damage model of the weapons for either the Dora or the Sabre is broken. The F-86 may only have .50 cal, but it has 6 guns at ~1200 rpm each, firing for a cumulative 7200 rounds per minute. The FW190 has 4 guns firing at approximately 650 rpm, firing a cumulative 2600 rounds per minute. The 20mm should be approximately two to three times as effective per round, but considering the F86 is putting out 2.76 times as many rounds, the effect on target should be comparable. The Mustang uses the AN/M2 with only 850 rounds per minute per gun, meaning it would put out 5100 rounds per minute, or 1.96 times as many bullets per second. ...actually, the F86 should have better effect on target than the Dora (and the Mustang generally close to parity); out of the 2600 rounds per minute the Dora fires, over half are the (rather anemic) 13mm machine gun, which has significantly less kinetic energy than the Browning .50 cal.

You're welcome to it; all that extra weight will kill what little maneuverability the Dora has.

Closer to 300 meters in the Mustang. You're better off shooting a *little* on the far side than on the near side of that

I'm fairly certain the Mustang was built to a design load (as you say, safety load) of 9G. I believe the factor in it's case was 1.5 (which would mean failure/ ultimate load at 13.5G), but I'm not certain on the safety margin.

No one is saying they should always only take X hits to kill. We're saying that the average should be lower than it is. With good shooting, they should go down in around 20 hits. As it is now, I have never seen it go down with less than 60-ish. Considering the amount of FW190s I've shot up (including some that were just about perfect 20 degree deflection shots against practically unmaneuvering targets at exactly 0.3 km (IE, harmonization range) that hit right around the junction of fuselage and wing, I would expect that at some point, I'd have seen both the minimums and maximums it can take before going down. I've seen some maximums (almost 200), but the minimum seems to be around 60.

As compared to 1,200 M1A2 and a further 4,800 M1A1(HA), AIM, and SA models with armor packages comparable to the M1A2. Yes, this makes the T90, relatively speaking, rare as hen's teeth. Or, in comparison to the Russian tank force in totality, they make a whopping 450 out of 15,000, with the vast majority being T72 and T64, and quite a few T54/55 still in "reserve" status. Or if you prefer to only count operational tanks, more like 450 out of 3-4,000 (as it is highly suspect that the reserve tanks have much better than 30-40% operational rate without a factory overhaul.) Further, the thing about cost: who cares. The US economy could/ can afford to field more Abrams than the Russians can field T90. I'm sure it would be of great consolation to the Russian field commander to be assured that "yes, but our tanks are CHEAPER", while he's being overrun. I will admit to mistakenly remembering the price equivalencies of the missiles, though. It took a bit of time to dig out where I'd heard it; it was from "T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93" by Steven Zaloga, and the actual rate was that the price of a platoon's basic loadout (not each tank) was enough to buy an extra tank.

Yes, I was responding to his frankly ludicrous claim that the T72 was designed to fight defensive battles in the steppes of Russian territory, when it is quite clearly designed with an offensive mindset. Yes, the T72 has -4 degrees gun depression available. The M1 Abrams has -9 degrees of gun depression available. As to why that's significant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down Yes, T72 (and most Soviet armor vehicles) were designed with smoke grenade launchers that lofted their grenades FAR further than western ones. The western tanks were designed to fight from successive battle positions in a mobile defense/ local counterattack situation. The Russian ones were designed for high-tempo offensive operations. Full stop. Source: http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/gr/5.htm Note the part where it says ". When this grenade is fired at 45 degree ± 1 degree elevation, it has an average range of 200 – 350 meters."? There's a reason it lofts them so far (despite producing only a 10-20 meter wide screen): it's so that a formation of tanks can fire them AHEAD of themselves and advance into their own smoke screen, rather than firing the smoke and immediately overrunning it. Western smoke projectors are more defensive in nature, and are designed as an active response to an incoming ATGM or other fire. Note that the smoke is immediate, covers almost 180 degrees, but projects only a short distance, because it is designed to protect the tank while the tank withdraws from one firing position and moves to another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODr5NKNuCg Now, again, where does this fail to support my assertion that the features of the T72 indicate that it is designed as an offensive tank for use in advances, rather than defense?

Really? I have to provide a link to prove that he grossly mis-attributed my statements and provided un-sourced prices for totally different equipment than I was talking about in the first place?

Yes, I can see how a tank designed with inadequate reverse gearing, the inability to depress the gun far enough to fire effectively from hull defilade, and an armour array divided fairly evenly between hull and turret is ideally suited for defensive warfare. I mean, when I'm designing tanks for the defense, I always prioritize high forward speed and provide them a basic ammunition load comprising primarily HE, most useful for attacking dug-in infantry. I always ensure to mount smoke mortars that lob the smoke bombs hundreds of meters in front of the tank so that it doesn't overrun it's own smoke immediately while advancing, rather than the denser 20-30 meter pattern common in western tanks. You know, as opposed to, say, Leopard 1. Or Challenger 2. Or even the Abrams. T72 designed for defensive warfare. That's a good one! I never said that the T-72/T-80 was designed for flat terrain or defensive use. YOU did. And now you're committing the sin of the straw man; trying to put a statement in my mouth that I never made. What I SAID is that the Svir/Refleks was designed as a counter to ATGM-firing tank destroyers. It fills much the same doctrinal need as the SVD rifle does in the infantry squad: since the primary weapons (be it the conventional ammunition for the 2A46 cannon or the AK-series rifles) have such inadequate effective range, the Soviets introduced a small number of longer-reaching weaponry to help fill that gap in case the need arose. As to your fantasy scenario of a massive Kursk-esque battle on pool-table-flat terrain, I suggest you go actually look at some real terrain and consider that even "flat" desert and steppes easily provides sufficient relief to provide intervisibility lines sufficient to hide a tank. It only takes a couple meters, after all. Tank smoke grenade launchers only need to get a tank from one such IV line to the next, not across some 5,000 meter charge-of-the-light-brigade. Your tanker's-wet-dream also fails to acknowledge any supporting arms, such as the extensive western attack aviation that would decimate the Soviet tank formation if they were foolish enough to remain massed in the open. Yes. Svir is $37,000 (on the high side of what you cherry-picked). The contract cost for the last purchase of T72s (the tank I was talking about, not the rare-as-hens-teeth T90 that you cherry-picked for your argument) was only $900,000 per unit in 2006. In 2009, Iraq bough a bunch of (used) T72 for $50,000 apiece. Those costs were for upgraded variants, too. In the '80s, when the missiles were introduced, the T72 only cost around $250,000-$350,000. Their costs have ballooned as the Russians realized they really needed to start introducing modern features to their tanks. Now, the T90 (while fanbois try to deny it) is not significantly cheaper than it's western counterparts. Either way, when fanbois love raving about how much cheaper the T72 series is than western tanks, it's inconsistent that they ignore the price of the munitions that go aboard.

This. Also, the reason I *really* rather wish they had not included the EZ42 sight on the FW190: if they're going to fudge fuel quality to "balance" the P-51 and FW190, why didn't they leave the (historically rare) gyro sights off the FW, so that the higher damage weapons (FW) and more accurate weapons (Mustang w/ K14) were balanced? Consider that the allies estimated that the gyro sight made weapons roughly twice as effective, and the 20mm is 2-3 times as effective as the .50.... seems like a fair trade to me. I hope there will at some point at least be a server option to force players to use only the fixed reticle (for that matter, this should be an option for Mustang as well).

I've seen the enemy go down with a burning engine (but wings and all intact) a number of times... and on a rare occasion, I *have* killed the AI pilot (at least, I think so- I broke off my attack due to closure rate, he seemed to be flying perfectly controlled, if un-evasive, and while I came around for re-attack, did a nice, graceful arc into terrain), but the vast majority of kills *do* seem to be the "hey, his wing snapped clean off!" type. This may, however, be simply to overzealousness on our part as marksmen: for all we know, the enemy plane is done for already, but since destroying the engine or killing the pilot may not have quickly identifiable symptoms, we just keep shooting until something more obviously fatal (like, say, a wing departing company?) happens to it.

And most estimates of the M1A2's frontal array effectiveness against HEAT fall in the 1200-1300mm RHAe range.