DCS WWII: Pacific Marine Question

[Hiromachi]

DCS P-38L. How awesome would that be :D

 

For the Pacific much proper aircraft is P-38F or P-38G. P-38L was introduced in June 1944 and priority was Europe.

[Echo38]

The P-38L was the definitive variant of the P-38, the one with most of the aircraft's initial problems remedied or at least minimized. The L is also the one that's most likely to be a decent match for the Me 109K and other aircraft we're to end up getting.

 

Since DCS aircraft so far have been modelled to factory spec', I expect that our hypothetical DCS P-38L will have a War Emergency Power setting of 1600 hp. at 60" & 3000 RPM (which allowed a top speed of 420 MPH), rather than the commonly used settings of 1700+ hp. at 64" or 66" & 3200 RPM (which allowed a top speed of ~440 MPH). This means that our P-38 would be less competent versus her contemporary opponents in the sim than she generally was in reality.

 

The P-38 was a heavy fighter; despite the excellent lifting wing & the Fowler flaps, she also relied largely on power-to-weight ratio to achieve her good slow-speed turning ability (did you know that the P-38 turned considerably better than the P-51, below 250 MPH, where the P-38 could safely use the Fowlers?). Having two engines, each offering approximately as much as the single engine of her standard opponent, the Me 109, gave the P-38 sustained turning abilities similar to those of the Me 109 (which weighed about half as much as the P-38).

 

Remove a large chunk of the horsepower which the P-38 historically had, and she loses a critical component of that triangle (the latter being high-lift wing, Fowler flaps, and high power-to-weight ratio). With the lower horsepower that we're sure to get (judging by our P-51D), we're going to have a hard enough time without also having an inferior model selected. For this reason, the best model of P-38 should be selected to ensure the most equal match against her primary opponents; that model is the L. (It also makes sense as the other aircraft so far modelled have been very late-war models.)

Edited January 12, 2015 by Echo38

[Hiromachi]

The P-38L was the definitive variant of the P-38, the one with most of the aircraft's initial problems remedied or at least minimized. It's also the one that's most likely to be a decent match for the Me 109K and other aircraft we're to end up getting. (...)

 

Certainly, but it has very little to do with Pacific. So unless you wish this plane for Normandy, which has nothing to do with the topic, this option is not any good. Pacific P-38s were F and G models, starting on New Guinea at the end of 1942 and going through Solomon Campaign up to Rabaul. Those are models to take if one wishes Pacific.

 

I personally dont think it will be a match for the 109 K-4, in this regard please read this post or rather the spoiler :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2286151&postcount=123

 

(It also makes sense as the other aircraft so far modelled have been very late-war models.)

 

But in future, not such far even, we will have a few early and mid war planes either.

[Echo38]

I personally dont think it will be a match for the 109 K-4

 

So, if the P-38 is going to be (as you claim) inferior to the Me 109K, then it makes sense to use the best P-38 model rather than a lesser one, which would exacerbate the mismatch. Since the Me 109 was the most ubiquitous opponent of the P-38, it doesn't make sense to force a mismatch by taking a less-than-the-best model P-38 to face the best model Me 109, especially if the best P-38 is already going to generally be at a slight disadvantage in dogfights against the 109. The P-38L is unquestionably the best match for an Me 109, out of all of the P-38 models, and the P-38L is also a suitable match for dogfighting against the A6M Zero (the Zero being clearly better at horizontal maneuvering, but the P-38 having the ability to extend & gain energy before closing again).

Edited January 12, 2015 by Echo38

[Hiromachi]

We had that discussion above in regard to P-40F and how inferior it can be when meeting D-9 or K-4.

Guess what was the answer.

 

 

Ps. P-38L vs a Zero, even A6M5 is worst "balance" idea you can get. And it contradicts your previous comment on getting best P-38 for balance against K-4.

You cant eat a cookie and have a cookie.

[NineLine]

No such thing as balance, just give us the aircraft, and our skills or lack there of will dictate the balance...

[Hiromachi]

Well, I'm not looking for balance in they way one may think.

 

I'm looking for historically correct opponents. And P-38L does not fit well in this one mate.

Not like I'm against it, for a Normandy its a perfect warbird.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Hiromachi

[Echo38]

There comes a point where one aircraft has too many advantages over the other in critical areas. If it's something like P-38 versus Zero, the P-38 is indeed superior in general, but the superiority isn't absolute; the P-38 can't win a knife-fight (i.e. a dogfight that occurs entirely within gun range) with the Zero, all else equal. But when you get a situation where one aircraft is faster, climbs better, and turns better, then the other aircraft is screwed in anything approaching an equal situation. An extreme example would be F4F versus A6M5 Zero. The latter does virtually everything better in the dogfight, and so a team of F4F's versus a team of A6M5s will generally get stomped if the number of pilots is the same and the skill pool is roughly equal. This is shitty balance, and there's no need for it. One can have a well-balanced planeset without reducing the fidelity of the aircraft simulation, simply by choosing the most appropriately-balanced model whenever possible. In the case of the P-38L, it's also the most well-documented, so I see no reason to choose a lesser model and ensure that the P-38 is an underdog in yet another virtual depiction.

[NineLine]

Well, I'm looking for balance in they way one may think.

 

I'm looking for historically correct opponents. And P-38L does not fit well in this one mate.

Not like I'm against it, for a Normandy its a perfect warbird.

 

Balance isnt the right word there, but I agree, the right aircraft for the right theatre and time period for sure... makes sense.

[Echo38]

Incidentally, I'd like to point out that I have no problem with the idea of matching P-38G versus A6M. My concern lies with the P-38's ability to fight its most challenging (and commonly-encountered) opponent, the Me 109. And since we have an Me 109K, the P-38G would be a poor match for that.

[Hiromachi]

Balance isnt the right word there, but I agree, the right aircraft for the right theatre and time period for sure... makes sense.

 

It's just natural.

 

If it's something like P-38 versus Zero, the P-38 is indeed superior in general, but the superiority isn't absolute; the P-38 can't win a knife-fight (i.e. a dogfight that occurs entirely within gun range) with the Zero, all else equal. But when you get a situation where one aircraft is faster, climbs better, and turns better, then the other aircraft is screwed in anything approaching an equal situation. An extreme example would be F4F versus A6M5 Zero. The latter does virtually everything better in the dogfight, and so a team of F4F's versus a team of A6M5s will generally get stomped if the number of pilots is the same and the skill pool is roughly equal. This is shitty balance, and there's no need for it. One can have a well-balanced planeset without reducing the fidelity of the aircraft simulation, simply by choosing the most appropriately-balanced model whenever possible. In the case of the P-38L, it's also the most well-documented, so I see no reason to choose a lesser model and ensure that the P-38 is an underdog in yet another virtual depiction.

 

It's not about balance. Its about realism. I can't recall how many P-38s were on Pacific and how many of them were L model, but I am sure the Lightnings over Burma, New Guinea or Solomon Islands were none of these.

[NineLine]

P-38 reminds me of the F-16, everyone wants it, no one really talks about making it, its well documented makes you think there are plans to do it, we just dont know about it yet :)

[Echo38]

There's nothing unrealistic about having a P-38L dogfighting an A6M.

 

However, I'll concede the point about the Pacific; this is really the wrong thread for me to be arguing in favor of a P-38L for fighting the Me 109K

 

; )

[Hiromachi]

There's nothing unrealistic about having a P-38L dogfighting an A6M.

 

Point is how much of a battle it was. Late 1944 as its time where they could have been used like over the Philippines is time when amount of Zeros shot down was extremely high. And first time when they were used as kamikaze. The technical disproportion was obvious for both sides.

 

Zero was used in 1944 and 1945 not because Japanese wanted but because it replacement, A7M2 was not read and could not be produced. You can also throw A6M5 against P-51D, I mean Japanese Navy Ace shot down one mustang in his A6M5.

 

But pattern is different.

 

And well, keep that Lightning L alive. I like that warbird :)

[NineLine]

Point is how much of a battle it was. Late 1944 as its time where they could have been used like over the Philippines is time when amount of Zeros shot down was extremely high. And first time when they were used as kamikaze. The technical disproportion was obvious for both sides.

 

The challenges of doing things historically... we see it right now with ED, we have the D-9 and K-4, these aircraft were great fighters and in DCS easily hold their own against the Mustang, but in the time period, Germany's back was already against the wall, and were pretty much fighting a loosing battle... but we see an even fight and they hold their own. Could be the same for Pacific fights in DCS...

[Hiromachi]

The challenges of doing things historically... we see it right now with ED, we have the D-9 and K-4, these aircraft were great fighters and in DCS easily hold their own against the Mustang, but in the time period, Germany's back was already against the wall, and were pretty much fighting a loosing battle... but we see an even fight and they hold their own. Could be the same for Pacific fights in DCS...

 

I dont see anything uneven in K-4 and D-9 in real life. It wasnt the performance that they were short, as DCS show in multiple ways, particularly K-4, are superior to P-51D.

 

It was tactics and tactical situation. You would have superior pilots in P-51s flying in a formations and with numerical advantage. Situation would be that Germans would have to fly up to reach bombers, like B-17s with a Mustangs as an escort.

 

On most servers I was there is nothing like this, more like team deathmatches in way not far from War Thunder. Bases close to each other, no long flights which would be a disadvantage for the short range 109s ...

All the historical advantages of P-51s are negated here. What is left is pure plane performance and player skill. In regard to the performance, its my opinion, but I see German planes superior. Harder to handle in some ways, but having some crucial advantages.

And skill, well, everyone can speak for himself. But if you take 2 average pilots than it is about one who has a better plane and one who understands his machine a bit better than other.

 

After all I see that German planes more than hold their own, they often spank Mustangs :pilotfly:

[NineLine]

But if things were done historically, like your example with the P-38 and Japanese fighters, well then the German aircraft probably wouldnt stand much of a chance... Same could happen with the Pacific in DCS, with non-historical missions you might see Zero's and such do much better...

 

I dont see anything uneven in K-4 and D-9 in real life. It wasnt the performance that they were short, as DCS show in multiple ways, particularly K-4, are superior to P-51D.

 

It was tactics and tactical situation. You would have superior pilots in P-51s flying in a formations and with numerical advantage. Situation would be that Germans would have to fly up to reach bombers, like B-17s with a Mustangs as an escort.

 

On most servers I was there is nothing like this, more like team deathmatches in way not far from War Thunder. Bases close to each other, no long flights which would be a disadvantage for the short range 109s ...

All the historical advantages of P-51s are negated here. What is left is pure plane performance and player skill. In regard to the performance, its my opinion, but I see German planes superior. Harder to handle in some ways, but having some crucial advantages.

And skill, well, everyone can speak for himself. But if you take 2 average pilots than it is about one who has a better plane and one who understands his machine a bit better than other.

 

After all I see that German planes more than hold their own, they often spank Mustangs :pilotfly:

[Solty]

No such thing as balance, just give us the aircraft, and our skills or lack there of will dictate the balance...

That is wishful thinking that a better pilot can be always better than the enemy even against a better machine. Many WW2 aces and combat pilots always mention their and their enemies performance and say how important that was in their fighting capablity. If they went with that idea, there would be no need for better planes, because you could always have better pilots and win but that wasn't the case. Look how much they speak about their plane's performance.

 

 

Of course you can win against a better plane and probably it is going to be very nice feeling. It would be cool from time to time to fight against some better planes. But not every time you go on MP server. It becomes a tedious work and porduces the feeling of hopelessness for one of the sides.:cry:

 

Pair 2 planes. If they have similar charcteristics, it will be interesting. Or, one with better turn rate, the other with better max speed it is also going to be interesting. The best for that is to make planes from coresponding time frame of the WW2. Going by the numbers, which plane was the most common and what was it's most common enemy taking into consideration their performance and their tactics against contemporary enemies.:pilotfly:

 

I can give you few fine matches that could result in great fights that are usualy resolved by pilot's skill and understanding of his and his enemy machine.

 

P-51B vs Bf109G6

P-47D30 vs Fw190A8

F6F3 vs A6M5

 

Put one plane that is superior in everything and the other one that is inferior and you will have slaughtering grounds.:joystick: I want to see people play this game for years. Not quit after 5 days after beeing beaten every time because there was nothing they could do.

 

It seems you have no idea how it will impact the comunity of the game and its longevity. IL2 was very well balanced that is why it survived 10 years and people still play that game, even if it is far from perfect.

 

Yes those scenarios happened, like the Fw190A3 outclassing Spitfire MkV or A6M2 outclassing F4F. But mostly that happened for some short periods of time, and was not a standard for every engagement.:book:

 

Again pilot's skill is a big factor, but you cannot demand from one side to be always prepared to be better pilots than the other side just to even the odds.:cry:

[Hiromachi]

But if things were done historically, like your example with the P-38 and Japanese fighters, well then the German aircraft probably wouldnt stand much of a chance...

 

So there is some kind of balance :lol:

 

Same could happen with the Pacific in DCS, with non-historical missions you might see Zero's and such do much better...

Certainly, they would not be flown by kids with barely any training. And scenarios would create different tactical situations.

[Friedrich-4B]

P-38L vs a Zero, even A6M5 is worst "balance" idea you can get. And it contradicts your previous comment on getting best P-38 for balance against K-4.

You cant eat a cookie and have a cookie.

 

:smilewink:

[Hiromachi]

@up

Georges incoming !

 

[NineLine]

 

Again pilot's skill is a big factor, but you cannot demand from one side to be always prepared to be better pilots than the other side just to even the odds.:cry:

 

When we are talking about DCS, there are many factors, most important are how people play the sim, do they communicate, do they work as a team? There is quality of the missions, and then there is pilot skills... so many things come into play.

 

But at the end of they day, if you are striving for balance, your are striving to lose, air combat is all about having an advantage or using the ones you were given, its no different in DCS.

 

The fun of flight sims to me is being put in a historical mission, being the underdog, and seeing what you can do to change history.

[panzerd18]

Would love a Zero and Ki-43 though. Would be a joy to fly such nimble machines.

[NineLine]

Would love a Zero and Ki-43 though. Would be a joy to fly such nimble machines.

 

Ditto, would love DCS quality versions for sure...

[Hiromachi]

Ditto, would love DCS quality versions for sure...

 

Both are possible. For Zeros ... its really not that hard. Considering there is no existing K-4 and yet we got one in really nice quality I am all positive as there is a bunch of existing Zeros and some are still flying.

 

There is also one Oscar III flying in Australia I think ->

 

BTW. Here is part two of that nice animation of George 21