Ares Games

View Poll Results: Which one was the best Allied Fighter?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • SE5a

    56 70.00%
  • Sopwith Camel

    18 22.50%
  • SPAD XIII

    6 7.50%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 93

Thread: SE5a vs Sopwith Camel vs SPAD XIII: which one was the best?

  1. #1

    Default SE5a vs Sopwith Camel vs SPAD XIII: which one was the best?

    Fokker D.VII was the best German fighter.
    But which Allied fighter was the best among SE5a, Sopwith Camel or SPAD XIII?
    Please elaborate

  2. #2

    Default

    The Spad was faster, the SE5A easier to fly, but in the hands of a good pilot, the Camel was a more dangerous weapon with its tight turn to the right.

  3. #3

    Default

    I think that topic has been covered extensively in this forum, but let me give you a few observations: both the se5 and the spad were fast and robust in-line engined fighters with a good rate of climb and decent performance at high altitudes (not speaking of a higher ceiling than most rotary-engined fighters).

    They were comparably easy to fly (which goes a long way in extreme-situations), always had the option to escape, if the pilot had some altitude reserves and gave their pilots, due to their high speeds, often the initiative: you could decide to avoid a fight if the odds were against you or catching slower, outnumbered opponents

    In-line fighters were much more suiting for the late-war air combat than the camel, which has a legendary reputation (and a high kill rate of both pilots and opponents!), but was seriously outperformed already in spring 1918. Its role was mosty limited to lower-level patrols or ground-strafing/bombing, while the faster in-line planed did the cover patrolling on higher altitudes.

    Thats btw. a bit reflecting the dilemma the germans had until the D.VII arrived at the front. The Dr.1 squadrons, which you can roughly put into the same "class" as the camel, couldnt reach enemy 2-seaters due to their higher ceiling and speed.

    So in conclusion i think with an se5 or a spad you were in the better place when it comes to surviving.

  4. #4

    Thumbs up

    Yes by mid 1918 the Camel had reached its zenith hence the Snipe being designed.
    In my opinion the SE 5a was a better more agile Aircraft than the SPAD XIII.
    Look at all the top aces who loved it. McCudden, Mannock, Rhys Davids, Jones etc etc.

    It had the reputation of being a very stable Gun platform & the Vickers/Lewis combo gave it additional flexibility.When fitted with the Wolseley Viper it was an awesome Dive & Zoom aircraft.

  5. #5

    Default

    The Hanriot HD.1 was the best Allied fighter -- it may not have been best in any specific category, but every unit it came in second two in one aspect finished well behind it in at least one other (SPADs handled like bricks; SE5s weren't much better; Camels were slow).

    Also: Claiming the D.VII was "the best" is almost as bad as claiming the P-51 was the best -- it performed better; but by the time it showed up, the isue was no longer in doubt.

    And since the Camel's "fast right turn" has been thoroughgoingly Debunked....

    There -- I think I've stomped all over this thread sufficiently to put it out.... :)

  6. #6

    Default

    If you mean in game terms Ezekiel, and giving a personal preference, from the three options that you give, I prefer flying the Camel. It is more fun than just zoom and boom.

    If you mean in real life, I don't think that you can answer without taking into account the use to which the aircraft was detailed. It was a bit of Horses for courses, and as pilots of the time had a variety of reasons for picking a particular aspect of a machines performance it is a bit horses for courses but with how long is a piece of string thrown in for good measure.
    As Chris says, we can't even agree about the Camel's traits. Modern trials would suggest that all the expert pilots of the period were wrong. Then there are the factors about engine type, replacement, upgrades, quality of fuel, time of year, pilot fatigue, and availability of spare parts to take into account. How good are your riggers. Anyone who is an engineer knows that you can set up any two machines to text book settings, and they will still both have their own idiosyncrasies, that can sometimes never be solved, even with tinkering with the settings.
    All in all you must look at your source material and then make a best guess at what is the most rational outcome from your own perspective.
    I will just stick with the way that my Camel handles in games, and not try and tinker too much with a thousand variables. That way lies madness........... Oh! hang on, just a minute, in my case that don't matter, I have already achieved that status.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  7. #7

    Default

    The SPAD VII arrived on the front lines in 1916 and necessitated a entirely new style of tactics compared to the Nieuports and similar that it replaced. "Boom and Zoom" fighting was born and both of the two SPAD variants would go on to serve through the end of the war to good effect for all the Entente forces who flew them.

    There were about 14,500 SPADs built between the two variants versus around 10,600 for the Se5a and Camel combined....

    The Camel was credited with more kills, and the Se5a was more maneuverable and perhaps easier to fly - but neither transformed air combat the way the SPAD did. So it gets my vote!

    --
    Edit
    With that said, within the WGF game, the Se5a is absolutely an uber-plane. While it doesn't have three tight turns like the Camel, it has one each way, and it has all the speed of the SPAD XIII... plus an insane full card-length sideslip, A deck damage and 16 hit points. Not something to be trifled with!!
    Last edited by surfimp; 07-14-2014 at 10:37.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    If you mean in game terms Ezekiel, and giving a personal preference, from the three options that you give, I prefer flying the Camel. It is more fun than just zoom and boom.

    If you mean in real life, I don't think that you can answer without taking into account the use to which the aircraft was detailed. It was a bit of Horses for courses, and as pilots of the time had a variety of reasons for picking a particular aspect of a machines performance it is a bit horses for courses but with how long is a piece of string thrown in for good measure.
    As Chris says, we can't even agree about the Camel's traits. Modern trials would suggest that all the expert pilots of the period were wrong. Then there are the factors about engine type, replacement, upgrades, quality of fuel, time of year, pilot fatigue, and availability of spare parts to take into account. How good are your riggers. Anyone who is an engineer knows that you can set up any two machines to text book settings, and they will still both have their own idiosyncrasies, that can sometimes never be solved, even with tinkering with the settings.
    All in all you must look at your source material and then make a best guess at what is the most rational outcome from your own perspective.
    I will just stick with the way that my Camel handles in games, and not try and tinker too much with a thousand variables. That way lies madness........... Oh! hang on, just a minute, in my case that don't matter, I have already achieved that status.
    Rob.
    Thanks again, my friend. My day gets always better after reading you sensible and humorous post.

  9. #9

    Default

    thanks for your feed back
    I was meaning in real life

  10. #10

    Default

    In terms of length of service, the Bristol Fighter outlasted them all.

  11. #11

    Default

    In real terms, my preference for "the best" would be the SE5 for its speed, manoeuvrability, as has been said it was popular with a number of aces.

    Has that re-kindled the embers that Chris thought he had stomped out ?

  12. #12

    Default

    Does anyone have a link to a table comparing the various Entente fighters and the victories each type is credited with?

    The Camel's 1,294 stat is often quoted, but strangely I never have seen a listing of victories for the other types. Would be quite interesting to see, to be honest.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    In terms of length of service, the Bristol Fighter outlasted them all.
    Multi-purpose machines will always outlast dedicated ones.
    A-26 Intruders and Skyraiders fought in Vietnam war with great success.

  14. #14

    Default

    From the 1935 Jane's Fighters of the World

    (...) The Sopwith Camel was credited with the destruction of 1,294 enemy aircraft during World War I, thus claiming the unique distinction of obtaining more air-to-air victories than any other single type in that conflict.

    Developed from the Pup, the Camel was utterly conventional for its time, wings and fuselage comprising wire-braced wooden structures with fabric covering. Standard engine was the Clerget 130 h.p. unit, but some were equipped with 110-h.p. LeRhone powerplants. In large part, the engine accounted for the Camel's unusual manoeuvrability, for everything heavy—pilot, engine, fuel, armament--was in a compact area, which tended not to impede the sharp torque of the rotaries. Right-hand turns could thus be executed with extreme precision and rapidity. The Camel could be spun very quickly and the elevator was extremely sensitive. It was said some pilots, required to make a 90 degree left turn, preferred turning 270 degrees rightward ....which seemed faster! However, the Camel was thus a very tricky machine to handle, and could kill careless pilots in a hurry. German pilots were cautioned not to follow a right turn from a Camel and always try to escape left when facing this scout.

    Those who survived solo flights in Camels quickly became devotees, and learned to use the aircraft's eccentricities to initiate or escape situations as necessary. Cynics of the period suggested that, once a pilot had learned to handle this machine, it was difficult to fly a "normal" airplane.

    The Camel's nickname came from the fairing over the two Vickers guns, close mounted under the hump. These beltfed, late model Mk.I and II llmm guns had a high rate of fire for the time, and their tight mounting made them easier to aim.

    Various of the eccentricities of the Camel, especially compared to the relatively docile trainers of the period, prompted production of a two-seat, dual-control training version.

    The combat record of Sopwith's last major WWI fighter design is filled with extraordinary fights.

    Captain J.L. Trollope of Number 43 Squadron shot down six Germans in one day-two D.F.W. two-seaters, an Albatross Scout, and three other two-seaters just before afternoon tea.

    Captain H.W. Woollett of No. 209 Squadron equaled the feat a few days later, downing a Pfalz, a Fokker, and four other machines in a twenty-four hour span.

    The Camel had delivered Allied air superiority in the West by January of 1918, and from then until the end of the war, they never surrendered the advantage over any significant area, or for any major span of time.

    Major William Barker, who scored the majority of his air victories in a Camel said that the Camel's amazing right turn saved him many times from certain dead.

    On 21 April, 1918, the Camel was involved in the most famous and debated victory of the war. Captain A.R. Brown led Number 209 Squadron's eight Camel patrol near the Somme, and joined a dogfight between two Dr.I's and a pair of R.E.S's, in turn gaining the unwelcome attention of a mixed flight of fifteen Dr.I's and Albatros D.Va's. Brown tore off, diving after a red Fokker, pumping a quick burst into it. Some debate who actually downed or killed von Richthofen, but what is sure is that he died as a result of injuries sustained either in the fight or the landing, some eighty victories to his credit. The Germans had drawn considerable ground fire, and the battle was confused.

    Naval Camels also performed brilliantly during the war. Almost all R.N.A.S. Camels were powered by 150-h.p. Bentley rotary engines.

    The Camel was subject of many unusual mission and experiments, and accomplished many breakthroughs in aerial warfare technology...first night victory (a Gotha over East London, 1/25/18), first specialized carrier-gear equipped fighter, last Zeppelin shot down, but probably the first over the open sea, first extensive dive-bombing testing, and the first airship use of a "parasite" fighter. Even a specialized night fighter version was evolved and delivered, equipped usually with LeRhone engines, damped exhaust, lighted panel, etc.

    The 5,490 Camels built served in the British, Canadian, American, Belgian, Greek, and associated air forces during the war, and many others afterward. They served worldwide, the 2F.1 version seeing regular duty on ten capital ships and seventeen cruisers of the Royal Navy during the war, more from many countries after.

    The massive Camel program fully occupied the Sopwith firm and eight major subcontractors. (...)

    And... the debunk of the "Camel's "fast right turn" thoroughly Debunk....

    There -- I think I've unstomped sufficiently the stomp of this thread....

  15. #15

    Default

    Spad XIII numbers were around 8000.
    Both Camels and SE5a were built around 5000.
    But there are important facts to these numbers.
    Almost 2000 Camels were held in the UK form Home Defense.
    Around 500 Camels were lost to accidents - it was a wild horse.

    Even so, it was the aircraft type with more kills in the Great War and the one the Germans feared more.
    RFC crew used to joke that it offered the choice between "a wooden cross, the Red Cross, or a Victoria Cross".

  16. #16

    Default

    "Credited with 1,294" -- be interesting to see how that number stacks up to what the CP was willing to admit it lost (the "Billy Bishop Effect" >:) ).

    I'll take a Hanriot over any of the selections above any day.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    "Credited with 1,294" -- be interesting to see how that number stacks up to what the CP was willing to admit it lost (the "Billy Bishop Effect" > ).

    I'll take a Hanriot over any of the selections above any day.
    Conjectures takes us where we want to go, right?

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackronin View Post
    Conjectures takes us where we want to go, right?
    Well, between Bishop's demonstrated pathological lying, the complete botch made of the investigation into what happened to Richthofen, and on and on and on, it's amazing we don't have WW1 being won by Unicorn Cavalry....

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Well, between Bishop's demonstrated pathological lying, the complete botch made of the investigation into what happened to Richthofen, and on and on and on, it's amazing we don't have WW1 being won by Unicorn Cavalry....
    I've heard from a secure source that there weren't even Camels in WW1. They were a case of mass propaganda that achieves 110% effect, turning into believers even those that initiated the process. Although nobody ever piloted a Sopwith Camel (because they didn't exist) thousands of pilots swear by their mothers that they did pilot them. There was never a deliberate order to create the "amazing turn to the right" but someone in the office said it as a joke and it stood.

  20. #20

  21. #21

    Default

    Plenty of them in Palestine old bean. Seen the film, so there has to have been. Roll on Lawrence of Arabia. Oh and there were some aircraft too,in the film that is; don't know if they ever flew in WW1. Propaganda surely and pure poppycock. If god had intended man to fly and all that rot eh, what?

    Neil

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackronin View Post
    I've heard from a secure source that there weren't even Camels in WW1. They were a case of mass propaganda that achieves 110% effect, turning into believers even those that initiated the process. Although nobody ever piloted a Sopwith Camel (because they didn't exist) thousands of pilots swear by their mothers that they did pilot them. There was never a deliberate order to create the "amazing turn to the right" but someone in the office said it as a joke and it stood.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    Plenty of them in Palestine old bean.
    Yes -- they were mainly used to tow gliders around....

    >:)

  23. #23

    Default

    No.. No... Another mistake... Too slow to tow gliders. They used dozens od little desert rats to do that. The Camels were a decoy, I was told...

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackronin View Post
    No.. No... Another mistake... Too slow to tow gliders. They used dozens od little desert rats to do that. The Camels were a decoy, I was told...
    Now you're just being silly. Of course it could not have been rats - rats don't fly. All the real work done in the air was done by trained flocks of pigeons. The planes were just there to try to shoot down the pigeons. It must be true as there was a programme on telly all about it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6-LG5VpGk

  25. #25

    Default

    Oh... If there was a TV programme than it must be true...
    So.... the plot thickens... No Camels at all... Who would say...
    I must probably make a model of a flock of pigeons... Someone has a card for that? Hit points? What deck should we use? Weapons?

  26. #26

    Default

    The only reference to a 'camel' that I could find is a picture of a silly dog wearing a flying helmet and goggles sitting on his kennel roof with a balloon coming out of his mouth with words on it 'once more our hero steps into his camel'. So is this a codeword for a dog kennel?
    See you on the Dark Side......

  27. #27

    Default

    No, no, no... Neil.
    That's a very subtle and extended Illuminati message.
    It says: "Bring me two bottles of fine brandy and two peanuts. Be quick on that."
    It is of course code.
    Mmmm....

    I can't tell you what it means...

  28. #28

    Default

    The translated Illuminati message actually means "Ezekiel is being very understanding, putting up with all this banter on his serious thread".
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  29. #29

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackronin View Post
    No.. No... Another mistake... Too slow to tow gliders. They used dozens od little desert rats to do that. The Camels were a decoy, I was told...
    What -- you've never heard of "Camel Tow"? >:)

  31. #31

    Default

    I sure have, Chris.
    It's in Colorado!

  32. #32

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    What -- you've never heard of "Camel Tow"? >
    No but I have seen a Camel Toe!

  33. #33

    Default

    Name:  rp538c7af3.jpg
Views: 3557
Size:  22.0 KB
    Last edited by surfimp; 03-21-2017 at 06:44.

  34. #34

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post

  35. #35

    Default

    well this thread has gotten extremely silly wheres grahm chapman when you need him (is he still dead or just being difficult)
    AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT......

  36. #36

    Default

    I like the SE5 from my expierence from RoF.

  37. #37

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallo Rojo View Post
    Fokker D.VII was the best German fighter.
    But which Allied fighter was the best among SE5a, Sopwith Camel or SPAD XIII?
    Please elaborate
    I have delayed replying on this while others replied before me. Firstly… describing the Fokker DVII as 'the best' is a sweeping generalisation. 'One of the best' might be better. Remember that the Fokker DVIII, Pfalz DXII and Siemens-Shuckert DIII/DIV also had some popularity.

    With regard to describing the best Allied fighter from among the SE5a, Camel and SPAD XIII you are going to have problems as one of them has very different flying characteristics compared to the other two. Basically there were two types of fighter in WW1 - inline-engined 'power' fighters like the Albatros, SPADs, SE5 etc and the rotary-engined 'dogfighters' like most of the Sopwith series, the Fokker Triplane and the Nieuports.

    Generally the 'power' fighters could fly faster in a straight line and dive faster, the rotary dogfighters could - generally - turn better and sometimes climbed better. The turning ability of nearly all rotary-engined fighters was asymmetric (i.e. different radii to left and right) as this was caused by engine torque complicated by the fact that the entire engine revolved around a stationary prop shaft. All engines have some sort of torque, even my car suffers from it a little, but the Camel's was legendary due to design faults which made it very unstable to the right. It pulled down and tight to the right, somewhat wider and higher to the left.

    As the rotary engine was the 'state of the art' for naval aircraft in WW1 it is a matter of fact that aircraft carrier superstructures were built to the right in nearly every subsequent ship as early (rotary engine) pilots preferred to abort their landings to the left and exploit the high and wide left turn as being safer rather than pulling right while running with low power and possible cross winds. [See The Grand Fleet by D.K. Brown for confirmation of this. Aircraft carrier design was also one of the first thing ever tested in wind tunnels with smoke generators - to test for vortices around the superstructures].

    Many later aircraft also suffered from torque in WW2, it is not a myth. Often it was compensated for in WW2 by taking off or landing with a built-in rudder trimmer balancing the differential. The Bf 109 lacked a rudder trimmer and needed a whole bootful of differential rudder to land. The Bristol Beaufighter also had a substantial swing on takeoff. By contrast the P38 Lightning lacked this problem (as I recall) as it employed two different rotating engines both turning inwards. This balanced any tendency to torque swing.

    If you want to equate 'best' with combat success, the Camel claimed more enemy kills (allegedly) but it also claimed more trainee and experienced pilots as it was a lethal machine in training. Some statistics suggest that one in three or one in four pilot who trained in Camels also died on Camels in training. Remember also that the UK lost 14,000 pilots in WW1 but 8,000 of these died in (mostly training) accidents. Yes, it was actually SAFER at the front!

    If you want to equate 'best' with longevity then it was the SE5a and SPAD XIII with their water-cooled inline engines which showed the way to the future. The rotary soon disappeared from history and was replaced by the radial and the inline.

    My vote went to the SE5a but an almost equal argument could be made for the SPAD XIII. The Camel was a formidable type but it was an evolutionary dead end in terms of aircraft development.
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 09-20-2014 at 16:15.

  38. #38

    Default

    My vote goes for Camel since the question was not the bestr fighter at the end of the War. At the moment Camel was introduced it was really one of the best machines, even if difficult to fly.

  39. #39

    Jeremyb1984
    Guest


    Default

    Having been cheated by birth from ever flying active duty in any of the three choices in real life, I will rely on my limited experience in the next best thing: Wings of Glory (Sorry RoF buffs, not a "Player").
    Most of the gents in my flight club enjoy a dogfight, and when it comes to good ol'fashion Air Melee the ability for tight-turns tends to outweigh speed most of the time - also less accidental "fly-off's" too which, after a beer or two, occurs more then should be openly admitted. Having recently added the SE5a to our collection with limited success (though it is a sweet looking plane), I have to lean towards the Camel as my first model out of the box when going up against Dr.1's, DVa's and even D.VII's (assuming the Snipe is already taken)! Perhaps we rely too much on turning and not enough "Boom & Zoom", and we haven't quite progressed into altitude rules due to time restrictions on our games - try to jam at least 3 games into a 2-3hr period! - but that has been my limited experience...

  40. #40

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    I must read this thread later. Sounds very interesting

  41. #41

    Default

    Good thread, despite the silliness in the middle. Or, perhaps, because of said silliness.

    Regardless, it's a question we're not going to be able to answer definitively... especially considering the pilots of the day couldn't come to any agreement on the subject. And that's probably because most pilots didn't switch back and forth between the rides mentioned. Although you might upgrade as newer, better scouts became available, one rarely transitioned between the three types mentioned.

    The Camel excelled when used within the operational parameters which best fit its abilities (lower altitudes and "split-arsing" around with German scouts in swirling "dogfights"), as did both the SE5a and SPAD XIII (high speed, high altitude "boom and zoom" tactics). In that sense, they all served their purpose. Even the Nieuport 28 the Americans flew when they first arrived at the Front was well-regarded as it fit the demands of the mission profiles being flown.

    David's reference to the Bristol Fighter, although somewhat askew from that of the question initially posed, is dead-on however. Whereas each of the three kites mentioned in the OP had their strengths and flaws, believers and detractors, one rarely hears a bad word spoken about the Bristol Fighter. It was a horse of a different color (two-seater), to be sure, but it was respected and loved by most who flew it. And it filled a niche.

  42. #42

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    You are right Chris. It is a bit silly in the middle. But personaly I voted SE5a. I don't have any new facts in the subject only what I have read and heard. The Camel was outdated in the last mounths of the war so IMHO it can't be the best. The SPAD and SE5a lasted. Maybe the Snipe could have taken the crown if it had reached the front earlier
    I WoG, the Bristol rules! My son love it. My bonus son does to. I like a challenge otherwise I would have used it every time to

  43. #43

    Default

    In the game I would go for the Spad because it has the prettiest paint job (like the Albatros). In reality I think the Se5 because it was reported to be the easiest to fly and a good gun platform.

  44. #44

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Voted the SE5a in this poll and pleased to have landed with the majority of voters.

    As I embark on my WGF Playing Career I am pleased to think that I have gleaned this level of knowledge so far on something other than Airco DH.4s.

    Albatros ... Halberstadt ... Fokker: So what? I still have to down the b****y things!

  45. #45

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    Maybe the Snipe could have taken the crown if it had reached the front earlier )
    The Snipe was, basically, a Mark II Camel with the worst of the bugs ironed out. The Camel was swiftly dropped after the war but the Snipe continued until 1926 in RAF service. By contrast the SE5a was withdrawn from RAF service soon after the Armistice was signed.
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 02-11-2016 at 15:36. Reason: error

  46. #46

    Default

    I voted for the S.E.5a as well... it strikes me as no coincidence that many (I think most, but don't have numbers in front of me) of the top British and Commonwealth aces flew this kite, nor that it was referred to as the "mount of aces. "

    Fast, robust, forgiving (easy to fly), stable in a dive, quick to altitude and effective once there, a respectable service ceiling, and a steady gun platform.

    Though it was removed from service before the Snipe, I believe more S.E.5 originals/reproductions are currently flying.
    Last edited by fast.git; 02-11-2016 at 16:17.

  47. #47

    Default

    In terms of debunking I'm going with a German Pilot I read who said that they feared the Camel most because it was less predictable. The SE5 and Spad flew so well they felt it was easier to second guess the allied pilot's next move. With the Camel they felt that even the pilot couldn't always second guess his own next move!!

  48. #48

    Default

    At this point, I feel this thread needs a spin-off: "How to beef up a SPAD?" (which was one of the best WW1 scouts in real life but a lame-boring one in game terms)

  49. #49

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonx View Post
    Albatros ... Halberstadt ... Fokker: So what? I still have to down the b****y things!
    You are so right

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallo Rojo View Post
    At this point, I feel this thread needs a spin-off: "How to beef up a SPAD?" (which was one of the best WW1 scouts in real life but a lame-boring one in game terms)
    Now I think you're just trolling

    I've already made my case above for why I think the real life SPAD VII and SPAD XIII were the most important Entente fighters of WWI (their speed, climb and stability redefined what was possible in terms of air combat tactics), so I won't reiterate that here. Although it should be noted that the SE5 was completely unremarkable until given the SPAD's engine and transformed into the SE5a - and even then, it still couldn't dive as well as the SPAD. 'Nuff said...

    In-game, these same tactics apply and the SPAD XIII especially can be absolutely dominant - so long as the play area is big enough to support its speed. Two Ares mats side-by-side butted on the long edges is good, three is even better. With room to run, the SPAD XIII outpaces all Central fighters and absolutely crushes turnfight specialists like the Dr. 1 (just as in real life). Playing with altitude rules only makes the case stronger.

    As in real life, if you try to fly the SPAD as a turnfighter, you will die. If you play to the plane's strengths, and are able to play on a suitably sized play area, you can and should dominate - as in real life.

    Disclaimer: I am a SPAD fanatic. Take my comments with the appropriate grains of salt.

    P.S. - Here's a lovely shot of a SPAD XIII about to wreck a Fokker D.VII from the game Rise of Flight... with Wings of Glory font for fun



    P.P.S. - Here is a visualization of what happens when the "Kaboom" card is drawn:



    (You'll see the dead pilot slump down in his seat in the slo-mo replay ;-) )
    Last edited by surfimp; 02-12-2016 at 08:32.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. SPAD XIII
    By Gallo Rojo in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-20-2011, 12:43
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 06:16
  3. Sopwith Camel Vs SE5a
    By batesyboy in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-28-2011, 09:47
  4. Baracca Spad XIII
    By STICK in forum Sale/Trade/Wanted Classifieds
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-08-2011, 12:42
  5. Wings of War SPAD XIII vs. Reveresco SPAD XIII
    By sucklingpig in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-08-2010, 00:51

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •