PDA

View Full Version : Fast or slow?



b2spirita
06-22-2008, 04:00 AM
What do you believe to be the better choice for a CAS aircraft- heavily armoured and slow or fast and weak?

For example do you prefer the IL2 or the FW190? A modern analouge would be the A10 and te F/A18

b2spirita
06-22-2008, 04:00 AM
What do you believe to be the better choice for a CAS aircraft- heavily armoured and slow or fast and weak?

For example do you prefer the IL2 or the FW190? A modern analouge would be the A10 and te F/A18

JtD
06-22-2008, 05:38 AM
Can I have fast and well armored?

K_Freddie
06-22-2008, 07:58 AM
Not really compariable...
One is made for air superiority, the other ground attack - 2 different a/c completely.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
06-22-2008, 08:15 AM
The FW190 was fast AND well armoured.

Particularly in its destroyer models.

The airforces of the world tried to make a compromise between the two.

Wildnoob
06-22-2008, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Not really compariable...
One is made for air superiority, the other ground attack - 2 different a/c completely.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the FW-190 F8 was a FW-190 version design for ground attack.

in my view it's quiet comparable with the F/A-18.

VW-IceFire
06-22-2008, 09:01 AM
Depends actually...you need both types of aircraft to adequately deal with the range of targets.

Some targets are going to be mobile, fast moving, tanks and armored vehicles with light AAA support and you want something in the air that is slower and well armored so that hits that do connect aren't devastating.

Some other targets are going to be largely static tactical targets like an ammo dump that you don't want to put a heavy bomber on but you want something the lay waste to the area...only problem is allot of flak is present so you want to be fast and minimize time over target. Something like an A-20 is the best in this respect.

JtD
06-22-2008, 09:13 AM
Ice, I think the main aspect for consideration will be local air superiority. You have it, you can send in slow planes to work the battlefield. You don't, you need planes for hit and run.

Xiolablu3
06-22-2008, 09:17 AM
A two engined plane which can fly on one engine would be preferable too.

I would suggest the Mossie, but if its as vulnerable to enemy fire as it is in the game, then it wouldnt be very good at all.

If only British wood was as strong as Russian wood, as on the Lagg3, everything would be fine! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
06-22-2008, 10:01 AM
British wood is faster.

Metatron_123
06-22-2008, 12:58 PM
Beaufighter, F4U1C/D, Fw-190 F-8, Il-10. Best ground attack planes in the game. Maybe there are a couple more, but these are surely among the best.

Aaron_GT
06-22-2008, 01:08 PM
Do we have air superiority over the target area?

What level of attrition to/from the target is acceptable?

What type of targetting and recon is available?

If you have air superiority, but not much recon over the battle area or ill defined targets then slow but well armoured might be the better option.

Otherwise fast is better.

Some compromises were suggested in WW2, basically the use of steel monocoque construction in relatively high performance types, the idea being that 1mm steel being hit with rifle calibre rounds at acute angles might be more likely to bounce off.

The other factor is view. Various nations sugested or used very forward pilot positions, the idea being that with good forward view you'd only need one pass.

Aaron_GT
06-22-2008, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If only British wood was as strong as Russian wood, as on the Lagg3, everything would be fine! Big Grin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reality the Mosquito was pretty tough. The advantage of wood as a structural members is that you need a lot of it to provide the required strength so a bullet hole removes only a small fraction of it and you can keep going. The downside is that it is not malleable, and so in instances where a metal structure would bend (there are several photos of ground attack P47s coming back with bent wings in circumstances that would have dewinged a Mosquito) the wood will split and fail totally.

TX-Gunslinger
06-22-2008, 01:49 PM
Fast, fast, fast.... with moderate, not heavy damage resistance. (No Mustang)

F8 or A6-U17(really a G)
Tempest (Air-to-air killer after attack)
P-47D late
P-38L late
Pe-2 (110)
A-20

Slow and heavy will get you killed when there are enemy fighters.

Il2 aircraft were among the most shot down of any types IRL.

190 F8/U17's are more survivable under opposed conditions - 3 heavier ordnance drops(2x50,2x50,1x500Kg). Local air superiority can be a fleeting thing. Il2 Strength's, which are knocking off 1 tank at a time with guns, or a few with Ptabs or Cassettes - has to conduct serial attacks over the target area, ala Ju87G3.

For tank killing with active enemy defense - I much prefer the Pe-2 with full bombs. Speed versus payload.

F8 & U17 are competitive on the low deck as fighters, after bomb drop.

IRL although Il2 and G/F variants of FW-190 both achieved air-to-air kills, the attack versions of the 190 achieved orders-of-magnitude more aircraft kills than Il2 for obvious reasons.

S~

Gunny

K_Freddie
06-22-2008, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
the FW-190 F8 was a FW-190 version design for ground attack.

in my view it's quiet comparable with the F/A-18. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A FW190 (F18) cannot really go where an IL2 (A10) can go, they are just not made for that.

The modified FW190 (F18) are compromises and serve a mid-range purpose.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif