DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

[Cripple]

I like the fact we are getting the earlier Mark IX tbh.

 

Not too keen on the (over) emphasis on late-war aircraft (particularly as it's a bit of an Allied steam-roller...), and like the idea of mid-war scenarios being developed.

 

Oh, and I also prefer the aesthetics of the mid-war cockpit and canopy. :)

[MiloMorai]

I like the fact we are getting the earlier Mark IX tbh.

 

Not too keen on the (over) emphasis on late-war aircraft (particularly as it's a bit of an Allied steam-roller...), and like the idea of mid-war scenarios being developed.

 

Oh, and I also prefer the aesthetics of the mid-war cockpit and canopy. :)

 

By bit of an Allied steam-roller you mean in real life because it is the opposite in the virtual world.

[Krupi]

By bit of an Allied steam-roller you mean in real life because it is the opposite in the virtual world.

 

Well if we wanted to make this real then the luftwaffe would have basically no fuel and when they did get enough fuel it would be loaded into Antons and Gustavs against hordes of Spitfire, P-47 and P-51 :megalol:

[klem]

Well if we wanted to make this real then the luftwaffe would have basically no fuel and when they did get enough fuel it would be loaded into Antons and Gustavs against hordes of Spitfire, P-47 and P-51 :megalol:

 

And 80% of the LW pilots would have to be novice dweebs. Oh.... wait........

 

:megalol:

[Solty]

Well if we wanted to make this real then the luftwaffe would have basically no fuel and when they did get enough fuel it would be loaded into Antons and Gustavs against hordes of Spitfire, P-47 and P-51 :megalol:

Don't forgett about the Typhoon, Tempest and P38 :P

 

Realy though, I agree. DCS depicts perfect Luftwaffe which was never possible in 1944. The matchup in itself favours the Germans, but the bigger issue is the human psychology that comes with it. People want to be on the wining side, so they buy only the German planes, which creates situations that there are few Allies and lots of Axis.

 

We will see, I hope the Spitfire will bring some interest into the allied side and we will start to see more equal (in numbers) fights.

[Buzzles]

Only reason I think they are giving us a 1943 Spitfire is that it can be used in a 1943/1944 scenario and VEAO's XIV (Type E Wing) will be the standard for 1944/1945

 

Or you know, the IX might simply be the one ED have a lot of infomation on, and can maybe get access to pilots/airframes etc...

 

Not everything is a conspiracy :P

[Krupi]

Or you know, the IX might simply be the one ED have a lot of infomation on, and can maybe get access to pilots/airframes etc...

 

Not everything is a conspiracy :P

 

That makes no sense as the Type C and E wings are very similar and would have a minimal impact to the aircraft performance as far as I recall.

[NeilWillis]

Just fly to the strengths of whatever airframe you have, and exploit the opponent's weaknesses

 

You don't need the best to win if you approach things the right way.

 

"The first time I saw a jet I shot it down" Chuck Jaeger.

[Krupi]

Just fly to the strengths of whatever airframe you have, and exploit the opponent's weaknesses

 

You don't need the best to win if you approach things the right way.

 

"The first time I saw a jet I shot it down" Chuck Jaeger.

 

Regardless of the wing Type the Mk IX will be not be the "best" given the opposition... ;)

 

Furthermore this is nothing to do with the "Best" aircraft (Which is highly subjective) and more to do with the choice of aircraft for the particular scenario i.e. Normandy!

[Solty]

Just fly to the strengths of whatever airframe you have, and exploit the opponent's weaknesses

 

You don't need the best to win if you approach things the right way.

 

"The first time I saw a jet I shot it down" Chuck Jaeger.

Firstly, the MkIXe would have almost 0 difference in performance. Same airplane with the same engine, just instead of 4x.303s it would have 2x .50cals and few little changes here and there. But if I understand Krupi correctely, it would just fit the 1944 period much better.

 

Secondly, Jeager shot down his first Me262 when it was very low and slow coming for a landing. It is not a good example. Much better would be tales of Il2 pilots shooting down 109F's or Polish P.11 Pilots shooting down 109E's in 1939.

 

It is never the pilot alone that matters. The airplane is just as important. Only big difference happens when the pilot skill level gap so big that it is between a rookie vs an ace. But with simillar skill levels it so happens that the airplane matters. A lot. That is why engineers try to build highest performing and easiest to fly airplanes, and some airplanes such as LaGG-3 get nicknamed " лакированный гарантированный гроб - guaranteed varnished coffin" While other are known as the "one of the best fighter aircraft of WW2".

 

You can be a great pilot, but if you are flying a Hurricane Mk1 against jets at 27 000ft, you are not going to be more than a burning wreck, soon enough.

 

If your aproach would be true, nobody would leave the biplane fighters for new and innovative designes.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Solty

[klem]

...and although it is a moot point (we aren't getting them) the 50 cal was a much better weapon than the .303. In mass/weight terms alone one 50 cal projectile is roughly the equivalent of four .303's. Add the projectile options and capacity (explosive head etc) along with the longer range and you have a much better weapon that might have helped redress the balance between the a/c we have/will get.

[Krupi]

Firstly, the MkIXe would have almost 0 difference in performance. Same airplane with the same engine, just instead of 4x.303s it would have 2x .50cals and few little changes here and there. But if I understand Krupi correctely, it would just fit the 1944 period much better.

 

Secondly, Jeager shot down his first Me262 when it was very low and slow coming for a landing. It is not a good example. Much better would be tales of Il2 pilots shooting down 109F's or Polish P.11 Pilots shooting down 109E's in 1939.

 

It is never the pilot alone that matters. The airplane is just as important. Only big difference happens when the pilot skill level gap so big that it is between a rookie vs an ace. But with simillar skill levels it so happens that the airplane matters. A lot. That is why engineers try to build highest performing and easiest to fly airplanes, and some airplanes such as LaGG-3 get nicknamed " лакированный гарантированный гроб - guaranteed varnished coffin" While other are known as the "one of the best fighter aircraft of WW2".

 

You can be a great pilot, but if you are flying a Hurricane Mk1 against jets at 27 000ft, you are not going to be more than a burning wreck, soon enough.

 

If your aproach would be true, nobody would leave the biplane fighters for new and innovative designes.

 

...and although it is a moot point (we aren't getting them) the 50 cal was a much better weapon than the .303. In mass/weight terms alone one 50 cal projectile is roughly the equivalent of four .303's. Add the projectile options and capacity (explosive head etc) along with the longer range and you have a much better weapon that might have helped redress the balance between the a/c we have/will get.

 

Precisely :thumbup:

[Reflected]

Well said, Solty. And given that DCS is NOT the place where you encounter total rookie virtual pilots, the relative performance of planes probably matters more than it did in real life. The "airquake" scenarios make this even more pronounced.

[IronJockel]

 

Realy though, I agree. DCS depicts perfect Luftwaffe which was never possible in 1944. The matchup in itself favours the Germans, but the bigger issue is the human psychology that comes with it. People want to be on the wining side, so they buy only the German planes, which creates situations that there are few Allies and lots of Axis.

 

 

I don't know how much time you spend flying online on our server, but what i can tell from what I’ve seen that the allied side is sometimes is totally overcrowded as lots of people claim the axis side is. Certainly more than enough times I started in a 1o1 fight and it turned into a three Pony one Dora chase.

Human psychology here keeps telling you that only you guys are in the numerical disadvantage all the time, what is not true.

On average, this is probably pretty even.

The Spitfire will probably bring us a lot of new players on the axis and the allied side, as a lot of people are boared of "only" fighting the P51.

 

 

Well said, Solty. And given that DCS is NOT the place where you encounter total rookie virtual pilots, the relative performance of planes probably matters more than it did in real life. The "airquake" scenarios make this even more pronounced.

 

It would be boring if most of the fights would be done after one attack and i ensure you that as soon as we got appropiate units for WW2 battles we won't host airquake missions anymore.

[Solty]

I don't know how much time you spend flying online on our server, but what i can tell from what I’ve seen that the allied side is sometimes is totally overcrowded as lots of people claim the axis side is. Certainly more than enough times I started in a 1o1 fight and it turned into a three Pony one Dora chase.

Human psychology here keeps telling you that only you guys are in the numerical disadvantage all the time, what is not true.

On average, this is probably pretty even.

The Spitfire will probably bring us a lot of new players on the axis and the allied side, as a lot of people are boared of "only" fighting the P51.

 

 

 

 

It would be boring if most of the fights would be done after one attack and i ensure you that as soon as we got appropiate units for WW2 battles we won't host airquake missions anymore.

If I fly MP, I fly at ACG:thumbup:. Most of the time it is with Germans that have numerical advantage. But, sometimes it is equal and only once have I flown, there were substantially more P-51D's than Germans. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen a lot.

 

I assure you, it won't be boring because mostly one attack was enough to shoot down an enemy plane and that makes people check six more, and those that fail to do it will pay dearly. Most pilots shot down didn't even see their enemy prior to getting hit. With the 6x.50cals and 20, 30mm cannons it will be a quick resolve. The only airplane that will be more resilient to attacks will be the P-47, as its structure is very rugged and that big turbocharger gives it armour from the back and the radial engine from the front :P

Also it will be possible to fight 1v4 and win, while with current DM it will most likely take too much shots to damage your enemies properly.:pilotfly:

[Krupi]

Most of the time there are more axis players until late in the evening and then the Americans arrive and the numbers swing in there favour.

[NeilWillis]

You can be a great pilot, but if you are flying a Hurricane Mk1 against jets at 27 000ft, you are not going to be more than a burning wreck, soon enough.

 

If your aproach would be true, nobody would leave the biplane fighters for new and innovative designes.

 

Not the best examples to use to justify the need for the best possible hardware to win a fight!

 

Of course you SHOULD be beaten every time by superior equipment, but the fact remains that Swordfish biplanes managed to cripple the world's most advanced battleship, so for every excuse there is an answer.

 

Also, do you seriously believe that no 1943 standard aircraft were around in 1944?

 

I also hate to add that the modules we get are released on far more important grounds than they were the fastest and bestest. We're getting what we're offered, and suggestions that they're undesirable because they were superceded would surely mean we'd never get a single module. After all, it's either old, or classified.

 

Enough said now? Or do you insist that we can't possibly win dogfights in an outclassed airframe? That just smacks of the old adage "a poor workman always blames his tools"!

[Solty]

Not the best examples to use to justify the need for the best possible hardware to win a fight!

 

Of course you SHOULD be beaten every time by superior equipment, but the fact remains that Swordfish biplanes managed to cripple the world's most advanced battleship, so for every excuse there is an answer.

 

Also, do you seriously believe that no 1943 standard aircraft were around in 1944?

 

I also hate to add that the modules we get are released on far more important grounds than they were the fastest and bestest. We're getting what we're offered, and suggestions that they're undesirable because they were superceded would surely mean we'd never get a single module. After all, it's either old, or classified.

 

Enough said now? Or do you insist that we can't possibly win dogfights in an outclassed airframe? That just smacks of the old adage "a poor workman always blames his tools"!

So all you do is base your argument on belief and an idiom? I suggest you read more. And I never said it is impossible to win. But it depends very much on skill level gap and luck. There is nothing classified about the IXe. Also, IXe was simulated before in other productions. If you think DCS is doing something new and never explored, then I suggest to play some more sims since 1990's.

 

Also, I see you acuse us of beeing bad at combat flying in DCS. I see someone who has so little experience, he is unable to correctly asses the situation and with ego that goes through the roof.

 

Will the Spitfire IXc be hopless? No, of course not. Will it have a distinct advantage? Yes, turn. Just be prepared, that if a 109K4 or 190D9 will not agree to fight you on your terms, you are pretty much only able to evade their attacks and keep on beeing defensive.

[NeilWillis]

Who exactly rattled your cage today? I didn't bring any personal comments to the debate, and if you check the rules, it is not the done thing old chap!

 

I accuse you of nothing, only suggest your comparisons are a little lopsided. As for idiom and belief, sorry to disappoint you, but you think your comments regarding Hurricanes in the jet age are any more realistic or appropriate? They were phased out of front line service before the end of the war! So who exactly needs to do a little reading here?

 

The adage (a proverb or truism) was, is, and always will be a generalisation, so if I were you, I'd grow a little thicker skin, and accept the nuances of language can be missed easily.

 

As always, a civilised debate descends into name calling, and offence taking. I suggest you might like to take a deep breath, and return to some kind of civility Solty. I'd expect far better from you of all people!

 

The facts remain the facts. we're getting the LF IXc in the form ED have chosen. Why is it neccessary to be dissattisfied with everything they do? Why is balanced fighting always such an issue with some folk when in reality, it is seldom if ever found in combat? Balance is just a gaming ploy, and has precious little to do with real world events.

 

Oh and I started flight "sims" on the ZX81, so yeah, I do know one or two other sims. Again, don't make things personal, when no one else has. What DCS World is doing IS new, but I shouldn't have to point that out to you, and nor should you widen the debate in order to try and prove a point.

 

The fact remains that unequal combat is inevitable, like it or not.

[eekz]

Will it have a distinct advantage? Yes, turn.

 

Don't forget climb :)

[Reflected]

Don't forget climb :)

 

Climb? Against the K-4? I really doubt it, although I don't have the exact figures.

[Kurfürst]

...and although it is a moot point (we aren't getting them) the 50 cal was a much better weapon than the .303. In mass/weight terms alone one 50 cal projectile is roughly the equivalent of four .303's. Add the projectile options and capacity (explosive head etc) along with the longer range and you have a much better weapon that might have helped redress the balance between the a/c we have/will get.

 

The only practical advantage the .50 has over the .303 is its better armor piercing capacities and perhaps better ballistics. Otherwise they just do tiny holes in thin metal sheets, with a meager incendiary effect because of the tiny charges.

 

I'd rather have the .303s anyway on the Spit. Its 3 times the ammunition and 3 times the RoF. Once proper damage model is there, I would rather have a higher chance of fuel and radiator leaks than praying for some destruction effect of a slightly larger bullet.

 

Apart from that, .50s are just too American on a British plane for my taste.

[Tomsk]

Will the Spitfire IXc be hopless? No, of course not. Will it have a distinct advantage? Yes, turn. Just be prepared, that if a 109K4 or 190D9 will not agree to fight you on your terms, you are pretty much only able to evade their attacks and keep on beeing defensive.

 

So I believe the outcome of air combat depends on pilot skill, luck and who has what advantages. For most scenarios between WWII planes the most important of these is pilot skill, for an expert pilot will generally defeat a rookie even if the rookie has all sorts of advantages. Having a faster, better climbing, better rolling plane are all advantages and if I was taking a Bf190K4 or a FW190D9 against a Spitfire Mk LF MkIX I would generally reckon I had a somewhat better plane. However, it wouldn’t be as important as other advantages such as speed, altitude and surprise.

 

And that’s just 1-v-1, which most combat actually isn’t. Many-vs-many is far more complex and depends on so many things. That’s why air combat is interesting.

[Solty]

Who exactly rattled your cage today? I didn't bring any personal comments to the debate, and if you check the rules, it is not the done thing old chap!

 

I accuse you of nothing, only suggest your comparisons are a little lopsided. As for idiom and belief, sorry to disappoint you, but you think your comments regarding Hurricanes in the jet age are any more realistic or appropriate? They were phased out of front line service before the end of the war! So who exactly needs to do a little reading here?

 

The adage (a proverb or truism) was, is, and always will be a generalisation, so if I were you, I'd grow a little thicker skin, and accept the nuances of language can be missed easily.

 

As always, a civilised debate descends into name calling, and offence taking. I suggest you might like to take a deep breath, and return to some kind of civility Solty. I'd expect far better from you of all people!

 

 

If that is not personal, then I do not know what standards you have.

"Or do you insist that we can't possibly win dogfights in an outclassed airframe? That just smacks of the old adage "a poor workman always blames his tools!"

[klem]

The only practical advantage the .50 has over the .303 is its better armor piercing capacities and perhaps better ballistics. Otherwise they just do tiny holes in thin metal sheets, with a meager incendiary effect because of the tiny charges.

 

I'd rather have the .303s anyway on the Spit. Its 3 times the ammunition and 3 times the RoF. Once proper damage model is there, I would rather have a higher chance of fuel and radiator leaks than praying for some destruction effect of a slightly larger bullet.

 

Apart from that, .50s are just too American on a British plane for my taste.

 

Well, I'd rather have a more effective projectile and better range. Having a higher firing rate and more ammo is no help if you can't hit the target and if you can hit it the 50s will do more damage. Behind those thin metal sheets are structures, equipment and a pilot and the 50s have a better chance of getting at and damaging them than the 303s.

 

Too American? Yes, it's a shame.... 50 cals, Mustangs, Bostons, Liberators, Tanks. Lend lease. We really should have said no.