PDA

View Full Version : I need a quick poll



claypidgon
09-09-2007, 09:53 AM
What is better for defensive work against Allied planes,P38's,P47'S ETC...

WarWolfe_1
09-09-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by claypidgon:
What is better for defensive work against Allied planes,P38's,P47'S ETC...

To fly with them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Monterey13
09-09-2007, 10:24 AM
Whichever is fastest, so you can turn tail and run home. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
09-09-2007, 10:25 AM
Since a fighter is an offensive weapon par excellence, the question is absurd.

Capt.LoneRanger
09-09-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Since a fighter is an offensive weapon par excellence, the question is absurd.

Is it?

249th_Maico
09-09-2007, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Since a fighter is an offensive weapon par excellence, the question is absurd.

If a bunch of bombers attack your airfield, dont you fly defensive?
I voted for the Fw since it has better armament and seems more survivable. I fly both and I guess my jury will allways be out on witch one I prefer....

Cajun76
09-09-2007, 11:23 AM
Defensive. Interceptor. <STRIKE>Possibly</STRIKE> Probably altitude disadvantage.

My choice would be the 109, it's purpose built. If you have enough time to set up and attack the enemy, that's offensive, and I'd choose the FW.

triad773
09-09-2007, 11:24 AM
Saw the title of this topic and couldn't help but think I'd heard that somewhere before http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But seriously, between the two I feel more comfortable in the 109. More maneuverable from my flying experience.

Either one is good IMHO, but I've more hours in a 109 so that's what I went with.

Cheers

Tom

Friendly_flyer
09-09-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
If a bunch of bombers attack your airfield, dont you fly defensive?

Sure, but he asked about defensive flying against fighters (P-38 and P-47).

DuxCorvan
09-09-2007, 11:43 AM
Taking a defensive attitude against enemy fighters with any of those two tactical-advantage-profiters just will lead you to the ground.

If you just want to survive to enemy fighters that are in huge tactical advantage, take the fastest thing you find, and run to the arms of mommy.

Xiolablu3
09-09-2007, 12:37 PM
For defensive work, the Bf109. It allows you good turning if you are being attacked on takeoff. It has good low speed turning ability, unlike the Fw190.

For the offensive, no doubt that the Fw190 is better. When you are diving down on a an enemy from 3000m at 600kph, there is no better plane.

Its just like the Spitfire or Tempest question. If your base is being attacked, the take up a SPit, as its such a good close in dogfighter, you can fight the minute you are in the air.

However if you have chance to get to height before you enter the fight, then the Tempest is the superior fighter.

Basically, Bf109 if you must do slow speed dogfighting (ala defending base right after take off), FW190 if you are on the attack, have height, and have a wingman/teamamates around.

However I LOVE the BF109F4 in 1941, no matter what the situation, its a beautiful plane. Oleg really has done a great job of modelling the best handling Bf109 of WW2. Give it me over the Spitfire MkV 1941 (the only real 1941 competition) every time.

AKA_TAGERT
09-09-2007, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by claypidgon:
What is better for defensive work against Allied planes,P38's,P47'S ETC... ctrl E

Monterey13
09-09-2007, 12:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Klemm.co
09-09-2007, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Since a fighter is an offensive weapon par excellence, the question is absurd.
Yeah, but the Bf-109 of FW-190 would still keep on flying with twice or thrice the amount of damage a Zero could sustain. So if you construct your fighters wiht purely offensive capabilitys like the Japanese you will end up with a lot less planes and pilots after a short while.
Offensive flying is only the half part of fighter combat, defensive is the other, really.

DKoor
09-09-2007, 02:07 PM
Probably 190.
But on deck it's 109 without any doubt.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2007, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by claypidgon:
What is better for defensive work against Allied planes,P38's,P47'S ETC...

Defensive? No. You shouldn't be defending against those planes, you should be aggressively engaging and destroying them, not reacting to their aggression and hopefully coming out even

TX-Gunslinger
09-09-2007, 03:42 PM
190 hands down, particularly if you can get 2 or more up.

More damage resistant than 109, more time on station, better all-around maneuverability, substantially more firepower. Combat flap effectiveness versus American fighters is significantly better also, this minor point is quite significant down low, in defense. Most folks miss this part because they don't check out the combat flap performance section. If I had a nickel for every P-51 I'd killed down low, who said to me "FW-190 out-turns P-51?" I'd probably be able to buy a new game.

This is all in the context of P-38's, P-51's and P-47's.

Add P-39's, Spits and/or Tempests (Damn I love that aircraft) to the mix and you'll need the 109's as well. In fact, the truth is that the 190 and 109 (of any era) complement each other well.

Also depends on the specifics of the attack, i.e. map, target, configuration of attacking aircraft.

For example - A P-47 late, with just bombs, diving in from altitude, pickleing of all bombs at a group of targets in one pass and zooming back up to altitude is a huge challenge. Of course, most P-47 (and P-38) pilots don't operate that way. You'll see them "load up" with bombs and rockets, attempting to make multiple passes on the target. This is where they die and then whine about performance.

In a one-pass, from altitude - then extend to go home, approach these A/C are an enormous challenge to defend against, unless you have enough of a defensive force to put flights at low, med and med-high alt.

Map's make a huge difference also. On most Il2 maps, visibility of enemy A/C from the ground up is pretty much on par with visibility from altitude to the ground.

However on some of the newer maps, New Guinea and to a greater extent the "Mini-me Italy" map this is not true.

The very beautifully rendered "tree texture" areas on the Italy map are notorious hiding spots for all aircraft. Many flyers call these the "cabbage" areas. You simply cannot (no matter what graphics tricks you pull) spot low flying aircraft from any kind of altitude over the "cabbage". What this means is that everything you've been taught goes out the window on those maps when fighting over the "cabbage". Normally, I love altitude, except on these maps, in which case I'll crawl around at 5 meters over the "cabbage" awaiting enemy aircraft coming in to attack, or if Ground Pounding I'll transit in and out of the combat area at 5-10 meters off the deck. My flight path in that case is planned to skip from one "cabbage patch" to the next with minimal time spend in the normal terrain. Try it sometime if you have not, it really works.

Lastly, for all those hammering the guy who started this thread - he was using the word "Defensive" in the Operational, not Tactical context.

S~

Gunny

skarden
09-09-2007, 03:58 PM
LOL He needs a quick poll ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Soz couldnt help myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2007, 04:00 PM
I ain't hammering anybody. I also feel the OP can speak for himself

R_Target
09-09-2007, 04:04 PM
For scramble: 109

For CAP: 190

TX-Gunslinger
09-09-2007, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
I ain't hammering anybody. I also feel the OP can speak for himself

The question speaks for itself and the ensuing discussion.

I admit hammer is too strong a word - I apologize.

I'm left wondering however if you truly understood the point (operational/tactical) I was making. I did not mean to insult you.

S~

Gunny

Agt_Homer
09-09-2007, 09:35 PM
I imagine by "defensive" he means better at defending Germnay, as opposed to offensive which would mean attacking into enemy territory. In that case it would be the 190 if you had the time to prepare but the 109 in the scamble as someone pointed out. However, I'll withhold by vote untill the OP clarifies what exactly he meant by the question.

claypidgon
09-10-2007, 10:53 AM
What I ment is "defensive" aganist incoming Allied planes,P51's,P47's,P38's and Spits..

leitmotiv
09-10-2007, 12:45 PM
No fighter pilot in his right mind thinks defensively. You NEVER surrender the initiative by flying defensively. Even if you have six I-153s against 12 109Fs, you attack them. The only problem which remans is to choose the best position from which to attack. If the question had been posed correctly, i.e., which of those two German fighters had the best offensive characteristics to take the war to the Allied fighters, the answer would have been easy, and was already correctly answered by the Luftwaffe during the war: the 109G-6/AS which they used as high altitude escort for their bomber-destroyer 190As. Because the 190A was a pig at high altitude, the 109G-6/AS was the machine to attack Allied fighters (as were all the later AS engine aircraft: G-14/AS, G-10, and K-4). Of course, given the option to chose the 190D or Ta 152H, they were superior to the 109s, and were the optimum choice.

claypidgon
09-10-2007, 04:00 PM
Thank you all very much poll is closed....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bremspropeller
09-10-2007, 04:16 PM
Fw 190 any day.

Manu-6S
09-11-2007, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
For scramble: 109

For CAP: 190

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif