[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;52950307]Which is a better Boom and Zoomer, Bf109 series, or FW190 series?[/QUOTE]
The 190's but the 109's can be still just nearly as good with decent maneuverability to back it up.
109s are energy fighters that can do surprising tricks of agility and turning with smart usage of your combat flaps. I like the 109s a ton, never really "got" the 190s but they're both good in their own ways
As somebody who's bypassed German planes almost entirely, I fear 190s more than 109s. The armament on 190s tend to fuck you up pretty quick, if I see an opportunity to take a 190 out of the match, I usually go for it.
The 109 is a bastard sword. It boasts a legendary roll rate with an excellent climb rate, and has enough balance of energy, agility, and armament to have a good chance against any opponent. Flown properly, it can press its strengths more often than having to cover for its weaknesses, but the airframe's performance suffers in the end from being an older design. Willy Messerschmitt's design may look "blocky" by modern standards, but when it was first designed the 109 was one of the fastest fighters in the world. The only problem that truly persisted throughout the war were landing accidents resulting from its narrow landing gear.
The 190 is a battle axe. It trades agility for armament, and rate of climb for energy retention, essentially doubling down as a pure boom and zoomer. Anything finding itself below a 190 will have plenty of reasons to fear what will happen next. It may have trouble keeping pace with lighter frames in agility, but once it gets to higher speeds it can be surprisingly nimble; a natural result on an airframe with aerodynamics at higher speeds being better understood. Kurt Tank even specified that he wanted to build a work horse rather than a race horse when designing the air frame; it was designed with a wide undercarriage for operation at frontline airfields, and a durable radial engine that opted reliability over raw power.
Once i fail to take an enemy out, don't I want to start climbing up in the 109?
[editline]6th December 2017[/editline]
And what is the difference between Energy Retention and Climb Rate?
[editline]6th December 2017[/editline]
I'm going to be using the Emil 1 after my loving use of the He100, but from what you guys said I might also buy a 190 simply because it might reward my play style more? I'm still not sure on the nuances between full on energy fighting and just plain boom and zoom.
[QUOTE=Lyonidis;52950953]The 109 is a bastard sword. It boasts a legendary roll rate[/QUOTE]
Most planes in the game can out-scissor the 109 and force an overshoot. the 109 had a really cramped cockpit IRL, and it was very difficult to put all of your strength into using the stick, or even look over your own shoulder properly. 109s had terrible lock-up issues at speed, and you can escape any of them quite simply with a twisting dive. The 190 was much better in regards to high speed
The 109's design philosophy can be summed up as stuffing as much engine into as little plane as possible. The chunky, square cockpit, non-retractable tail wheel, and lumpy gun bulges give the aircraft a terrible aerodynamic profile, but the engine is so overpowered and the rest of the plane so light that you still get respectable speed out of it. What this leads to is a plane that is good at producing energy through thrust, but also loses a lot of energy through drag, so energy retention is bad, because the poorly designed airframe takes away a lot of speed and limits how fast it can go, but it very quickly accelerates again because of its big engine.
Good acceleration leads to a good climb rate because you have a lot of excess energy to trade for altitude, poor energy retention means that it dives poorly and maneuvers inefficiently at high speeds.
The 190 is a much smoother, but much heavier design. Climbs worse, turns worse, handles better at speed, holds onto speed much better. People call it a poor dogfighter but the great climb rate on the Doras and the exceptional roll-rate let you make magic happen. Generally I would say that earlier 109s are better because you deal with much slower but more nimble aircraft, so the lock-up at speed is a lot less punishing, but as you move into tier iv, you need that high speed agility to bring your guns on target or you will just get memed on by Narvals and Mustangs. There are also lots of planes that start to compete with or just flat beat the 109's acceleration, like the Bearcat, Griffon Spitfire, La-7, etc
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;52951096]
And what is the difference between Energy Retention and Climb Rate?
[/QUOTE]
Energy retention is how well the plane retains its energy (speed usually), planes with good energy retention are able to maintain their speed gained in a dive for much longer compared to planes with poorer energy retention.
E.g. The FW-190 series have great energy retention, making them ideal for Boom and Zoom.
Climb rate is simply how fast a plane can climb altitude in m/s.
E.g. The Bf-109s have good climb rates.
[QUOTE=Doom14;52951193][t]https://static.warthunder.com/upload/image/!%202017%20NEWS/12%20December/sao40/somua_sau40_07_1280h720_ca18fdd928447c1ebb29483ae056f32f.jpg[/t]
I'm feeling [B]fat[/B] [I]and[/I] [U]sassy.[/U]
[URL]https://warthunder.com/en/news/5169/current[/URL][/QUOTE]
I like it :fap:
Looking forward to armored frogs a lot actually.
[QUOTE=Doom14;52951193][t]https://static.warthunder.com/upload/image/!%202017%20NEWS/12%20December/sao40/somua_sau40_07_1280h720_ca18fdd928447c1ebb29483ae056f32f.jpg[/t]
I'm feeling [B]fat[/B] [I]and[/I] [U]sassy.[/U]
[URL]https://warthunder.com/en/news/5169/current[/URL][/QUOTE]
I'm excited for having a tank as tall as a M3 but with no gun in the turret!
[QUOTE=Riller;52951538]I'm excited for having a tank as tall as a M3 but with no gun in the turret![/QUOTE]
I am glad to see that I am not the only one who is genuinely excited.
[t]https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/336359049564127233/388051350321364993/unknown.png[/t]
That was painless. Thanks Obj 120. :v:
[QUOTE=Doom14;52951193][t]https://static.warthunder.com/upload/image/!%202017%20NEWS/12%20December/sao40/somua_sau40_07_1280h720_ca18fdd928447c1ebb29483ae056f32f.jpg[/t]
I'm feeling [B]fat[/B] [I]and[/I] [U]sassy.[/U]
[URL]https://warthunder.com/en/news/5169/current[/URL][/QUOTE]
[B]thicc[/B] (oh wait 40mm at the front)
[t]https://static.warthunder.com/upload/image/!%202017%20NEWS/12%20December/SOMUA%20S.35/s35_03_1280h720_a4e7a811a322927aa5c6cea08461ec4a.jpg[/t]
[url=https://warthunder.com/en/news/5175-development-somua-s-35-shield-of-the-republic-en]Best French tank confirmed![/url]
Its just occurred to me that the Hotchkiss isn't in the game despite it being such a significant tank.
Probably going to be a german premium after french are added I guess
french tanks remind me of metal slug tanks
I really hope they are working on the next rank of aircraft, a lot of us are basically at the end of the tree and have much of nothing to grind for if you know what I mean. I've basically unlocked every British jet after the Hunter's release without grinding for them at all. Got nothing less to research now. :v:
Ok so I'm at between rank 3 and 4, but this grind is getting unbearable. It really feels like I'm doing something wrong, since it takes me like ~70 games to unlock one plane.
[QUOTE=shadowboy303;52955531]I really hope they are working on the next rank of aircraft, a lot of us are basically at the end of the tree and have much of nothing to grind for if you know what I mean. I've basically unlocked every British jet after the Hunter's release without grinding for them at all. Got nothing less to research now. :v:[/QUOTE]
Give me Folland Gnat
also A-10A
also Hawker-Siddely Harrier
also Dornier/Dassault Alpha Jet
also MiG-19 and F-100 and EE Lightning
Suddenly war thunder becomes DCS Lite
I have a hard time seeing how War Thunder is gonna break into the age of guided air-to-air missiles and still remain a semblance of fun. Manually guided ATGMs are already pushing it somewhat.
the thing I currently hate the most about wt is the match-making system, no matter what vehicle or nation I play I always get uptierd fighting fantasy or post war vehicles
[QUOTE=Timezbrick;52958578]the thing I currently hate the most about wt is the match-making system, no matter what vehicle or nation I play I always get uptierd fighting fantasy or post war vehicles[/QUOTE]
You'll see this type of matchmaking often in games like this. Being put up against higher tier players makes you want to climb higher so you can match them, but in turn you're put up against even higher players and the whole process repeats till to match out a line.
[t]https://static.warthunder.com/upload/image/!%202017%20NEWS/12%20December/Lorraine40t/lorraine_40t_01_1280h720_34569d14a009dbf71f6af3f239723bbe.jpg[/t]
[url]https://warthunder.com/en/news/5181-development-lorraine-40t-sports-heavy-en[/url]
[quote] the tank’s drum-style autoloader holds 7 shells in a clip[/quote]
:O
[QUOTE=Riller;52958508]I have a hard time seeing how War Thunder is gonna break into the age of guided air-to-air missiles and still remain a semblance of fun. Manually guided ATGMs are already pushing it somewhat.[/QUOTE]
Gen 1 air to air missiles are rear aspect only with only a 30 degree field of view, while also being extra weight and drag that put you at a disadvantage in a fight. I reckon that most people will either not take them, or fire them off as soon as possible to force an enemy to break, rather than actually use them for kills
[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;52958603][t]https://static.warthunder.com/upload/image/!%202017%20NEWS/12%20December/Lorraine40t/lorraine_40t_01_1280h720_34569d14a009dbf71f6af3f239723bbe.jpg[/t]
[url]https://warthunder.com/en/news/5181-development-lorraine-40t-sports-heavy-en[/url]
:O[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]How will it fare against German Tigers and Soviet IS tanks?[/QUOTE]
More post war vehicles to fight :^(
[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;52958603][t]https://static.warthunder.com/upload/image/!%202017%20NEWS/12%20December/Lorraine40t/lorraine_40t_01_1280h720_34569d14a009dbf71f6af3f239723bbe.jpg[/t]
[url]https://warthunder.com/en/news/5181-development-lorraine-40t-sports-heavy-en[/url]
:O[/QUOTE]
Are those fuckin' truck tires? I don't even want to know how the damage mechanics are going to work on that.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;52958648]Are those fuckin' truck tires? I don't even want to know how the damage mechanics are going to work on that.[/QUOTE]
Going from actual vehicles with tires in War Thunder, they're not. Through some crazy logic, tanks can be detracked by sufficient application of .50 fire, but an armoured car like the Puma takes no damage at all to the tires, even from a 120mm APFSDS tearing right through it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
