Happy Christmas

Next year, there'll be a few more air combat-specific player profiles.

15 players sentenced to uninstall War Thunder

Self-sealing fuel tanks

The reason why Japanese planes are fireballs in the making:

Most of them don't have such fuel tanks.

 

Another display of team "quality"

15 players killed a collective 14 red tanks, losing 34 tanks in the process.

I've seen even worse statistics, but here's a particular appalling fact:

Those 15 players were fighting in the village on the Hürtgenwald map against a mere about 10 red players.

I was fighting all of the others at C in the south, alone!!!, and I had C for about half the time in my possession!

OF COURSE they talked shit on the chat when I called for reinforcements.

See? That's why I stopped playing tanks for a year:

The stupidity and cowardice of the players is even more evident in ground than in air battles.

Comparing fighters

I belatedly discovered to my surprise that the Japanese A7M1 (NK9H) fighter appears to be reasonably priced and is as low as BR 3.3 in AB.

This prompted me to compare it to the J2M2 (also BR 3.3, regular research tree), with which I had modest success only (330 : 42 kills on the A2A_only_project account) because of its supreme flammability.

That's a good opportunity to show how I compare planes ("reference" upgrade, no external stores) in test flight mode:

Flying with 100% power at 1000 +/-50 m

top speeds J2M2: 525 kph, A7M1: 488 kph 

Flying with WEP at 1000 +/-50 m, no flaps

360° turn (using keyboard for maximum elevator): J2M2 9 seconds, A7M1 10 seconds

Flying with WEP at 1000 +/-50 m, combat flaps

360° turn (using keyboard for maximum elevator): J2M2 10 seconds, A7M1 11 seconds

Flying with WEP at 1000 +/-50 m

360° roll: J2M2 2 seconds, A7M1 3 seconds

(All figures are a bit inaccurate due to the simple tests; top speed is about +/- 10 kph, turn speeds may be wrong by up to a second and roll rate is rounded).

They're both very fast at low altitude, the roll rates are very good and good, the turn rates qualify for dogfighting against most fighters. The A7M1 is marginally better armed and armoured.

I didn't test the roll rate at high speed (important for "boom and zoom").

The A7M is slightly slower, slightly less agile, slightly better armed, slightly better armoured and a substantially larger target (especially its fuel tanks).

The A7M may still be more robust if minimum (30 min) fuel load keeps some fuel tanks empty and if its fuel tanks are self-sealing (which historically they were).

Overall, it's not good enough for a purchase for my account, but I would fly it if it was a regular plane or a gifted premium plane.

Worst team start I've ever seen

15:0 at this point, and it didn't end well for them. They were overrun from the start.

Shooting with aircraft post-1.53

Me before Patch 1.53:

Me after Patch 1.53:

I swear they changed something, and so does everybody on the TS server I've spoken to about it. Even my Fw 190A-4 has now a hard time killing planes!

Tank Tactics in War Thunder - Part I

No work today, my client is upgrading ... spare time for writing.

I) Use of artillery

Artillery has become more powerful sometime during the last year. It's still advisable to focus the artillery fires on the points where they matter the most and on the most vulnerable targets.

Massed artillery fires (five or more fire missions on one spot) can be devastating to a group of red tanks, and such a bombardment is a great preparation for breaking a defensive position (such as the Southern hill on the Jungle map).

There's a different, much more smart use for artillery, though: It's fine concealment.

A tank in trouble (unable to move, under fire) can at times be saved by concealing it with a curtain of dirt thrown up by artillery. You my also get shot every time you drive around a corner before you can shoot at your opponent around the corner, 50+ metres distant. In this case you could call artillery between corner and opponent, angle your hull appropriately, aim roughly at the correct direction and when the curtain of dust is gone you'll stand an even chance.

II) Teamwork with planes in AB ground battles

As a fighter, your primary objective is either a red bomber or attacker or red interceptors. To shoot at open-topped vehicles is an icing on the cake. Players who dive to shoot at tanks with Spitfires et cetera while their team's bomber gets killed by red fighters are noobs.

You should not join with a fighter in three cases:

(1) you know that the attacker plane on this map is a Pe-3 or Beaufighter, the two least effective attackers

(2) you team will fly a bomber or attacker and no red fighters are queued

(3) you cannot hide your tank in a safe-enough spot in time

You don't need to when

(1) you know that the attacker plane on this map is a Il-2 without bombs or a I-153 (still not very effective)

(2) your tank is defending or supporting and would be dearly missed

(3) you know your team spawns a Wellington and two red fighters are queued already (Wellington gonna die anyway)

This explains why it's useful to announce to your team what attacker or bomber you got when you got one the first time. 

Fighters can support a bomber or attacker by flying ahead and engaging SPAAGs, but this is mostly relevant if the bomber approaches the battlefield from the "red" team's side and no red fighters interfered, distracting the blue fighters.

III) SPAAGs

The average SPAAG is near-worthless in AB ground battles. Go play RB is you want to play SPAAGs!

IV) Don't waste time

To waste time = cowardice. Go forward into a useful position ASAP! Players who begin to snipe at 1+ km distant targets from the spawn point are fools.

V) Spawn point

Choose your spawn point wisely. Some are better for killing, others are better for winning. Too many spawning in the spot for better killing will result in defeat, few research points and all-too often few kills.

VI) Hull angle

Some tanks such as the KV-1 have almost good-enough armor, which can be made impenetrable in a 1vs1 fight by proper positioning. A 45° angle between shell trajectory and armor plate increases effective armor thickness by approx. 50%. A 80 mm armor plate turns into a much more formidable 120 mm plate this way. Tanks with a strong side armor can exploit this. Position their hull in a 45° angle to the opponent, this will make the hull invulnerable in many cases. You can do the same with the turret if you'll take long till next shot is ready anyway.

VII: First shot

The first shot at a red tank should disarm him. This requires to hit the turret crew (or blow up its ammunition). A penetration slightly below the turret is usually a good choice if available. The second shot can then be aimed at the driver, ensuring a kill by knocking out enough of the crew, or at least stopping his retreat.

To disable the driver first would provoke a potentially catastrophic return fire by the red tank and one-shot kills are rarely a reliable option.

VIII: Know your opponent

Press the "N" key to see who's successful on the other team. Don't do anything needlessly risky when you meet one of those. An ordinary "team" usually has merely one to five effective players, with the others being really poor players or having a really poor match at least.

Know the opposing tank. Where can his armor withstand your gun, and where? Does he reload quicker or slower than you? Is his turret traverse painfully slow? Can he depress his gun as well as you can, better or worse? How many crew and where are they? Where is the ammunition? Can your armor withstand his gun?

IX: Predictability

Avoid appearing at the same spot (climbing a hill or driving around corner) again and again - some red player will notice this regularity and lie in wait to kill you. Do this to him.


Patching complete - see ya next time!

Another shit team

"Panzer Tactics"

In case you're interested in what using tanks was like in WW2:

http://www.farposst.ru/2015/11/16/Panzer_Tactics__German_Small_Unit_Armor_Tactics_in_World_War_II.html

(This is the English edition of a German book.)

also recommended:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/

 particularly

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer-profiles-1917-1945

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer-statistics.htm

Boom!

Obviously, I play more tanks than planes these days...

My team

Design analysis of a A6M3 Rei-sen

"Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp)"

Text by John Foster, Jr., Managing Editor, "Aviation"
Field sketches by Chester S. Ricker, Detroit Editor, "Aviation"

Design Analysis No. 12
Reprint from AVIATION

Shit team

15 tank players scored a spectacular 7 tank kills, losing 38 tanks and the match in the process!

It's the same as in air combat; "teams" are coined by their 1 to 6 useful players, with all others being little more than decoys that protect the useful players by distracting opponents and keeping them at a distance. The "team" with more of the few useful players wins. In this case it was a hopeless 1 vs. 3 matchup, with 15 and 13 decoys respectively.

This reminds me of a presentation a Blizzard employee (a developer) gave on a conference on massive multiplayer gaming years ago: He admitted that a few per cent of the players will dominate the rest, no matter how the devs balance the PvP.

This fits to the central idea of the Pareto principle, although in 1 vs 1 comparisons a much smaller percentage than 20% stands out as vastly superior in multiplayer gaming.

We all know this ...

A2A_only_project in the 1vs1 tournament (AB)

A2A_only_project participated in the "The way of the Ace" tournament stage three (1vs1, AB) after qualifying at the 2vs2 stage (with a small Golden Eagle profit) and achieved the goal of a top 100 place (rewards: "Duelist 1vs1" title and "Duelist" decal).

This was my first tournament,. I had passed on all earlier tournaments since I joined WT in 2014 ("Normandy Aces", "Wings of Glory" et cetera) because of travels and other real life reasons.

500 players (accounts) were qualified for the 3rd stage, and by my estimate about 300-350 of them were much, much, much, much, much!!! better than what you meet in most random AB matches. They made most random match players look like shoddily coded bots even more than before! There was hardly any tolerance for mistakes - even most tiny mistakes could not be survived.

There were some bugs in the tournament, but OMG, 190-200 fps! My system usually does no more than 50-70 fps in matches.

Here's a summary:

1st day: J2M2

I paid dearly trying to figure this mode out, learning much about what not to do before learning about what to do.

The J2M2 burns way too easily (same problem as in random matches), producing many rather random results.

My favourite air combat manoeuvre (ACM) was a tight loop (mostly upwards) after passing the opponent frontally. The results were inconsistent.

Finished the day in top 100.

2nd day: P-39N

Again, a day with many fires. The P-39N-0 isn't terribly prone to catch fire, but its American machinegun ammunition easily sets the target afire...
I got fixated on the occasional use of flaps in take-off setting for tighter turns, but overall the P-39 was no success either, finished the day in top 150 IIRC. Transition between steering by keyboard and steering by mouse aim for the shot was troublesome all too-often.

One interesting tactic was discovered, though:

I had stealth ammo for machineguns and used them for a surprise long range (opening fire at >1,200 m) head-on hits without firing the cannon. Switched to fire with all guns at 600-800 m only.

The cannon gives away its activity with tracers (unavoidable) and self destruct clouds (the HE shells explode after a certain distance producing a small black smoke cloud). Furthermore, the cannon makes the plane vibrate and thus the machinegun fire less accurate. This tactic worked a couple times, but didn't save the day.

Awfully many draws (both died, counted as defeat, but with hardly any rating change).

3rd day: Yak-1b

Finally admitted: I have a scissors problem. Cannot defeat anyone who's behind me in scissors, and rarely can break out of scissors by continued turning. Those who are next to me during scissors sometimes lose when I lower the landing gear, use landing flaps and reduce engine power to slow down.

Tested the Yak-1b in test flight to figure out turn times with different  flap settings after I had some unpleasant turnfights. Measured horizontal 360° turns at 1,100 m beginning with 400 kph were 32.7 seconds no flaps, 34.2 seconds combat flaps and 35.2 seconds takeoff flaps. I ceased to use flaps whenever I felt the dogfight would be about energy, not about dying in the next two seconds or not.

At the end of the day I felt somewhat confident I could end inside the top 100.

4th day: Bf 109F-4

I skipped this day, since I had no interest in the tactical problem of 'gun pods for head-on strength or no gun pods for better dogfighting?'.

5th day: Spitfire Mk.Vb/trop (the ugly Spitfire)

This Spitfire is known as a capable turnfighter, but by now I was so frustrated about my scissors problem (above rating 900) that I largely avoided dogfighting by killing (or dying or both) in the head-on phase.

Ammunition: "Stealth" 7 mm + "Air targets" 20 mm (which has no tracers, but a powerful punch), 800 m or no gun convergence at all.  I opened fire at greater ranges than ever before (often 1.5 km). Vibration during firing was a big issue. With 800 m gun convergence setting I attempted to first aim high and to the left or right of the target centre at first, then dead centre and below about 600 m low right or low left.

With "no" gun convergence setting I aimed  to the left or right of the centre at all times (also high then mid then low), but this was only good to train discipline in aiming to the left or right, which I often forgot when concentration was low.

I still didn't figure out why aiming low was the right thing to do (even according to lead indicator) below 800 m or so.
The many draws felt like 1/3 to 1/2 of all matches because of my head-on focus with the Spitfire. Climbing from about 900 to above 1,300 rating mostly with head-on victories sure was no display of great ACM mastery, but hey, it worked!
Obviously, many opponents were not good in head-on fights.

The "Duelist" decal doesn't look nearly as cool as the Gladiator decals do!

Guns were disabled at the beginning of every battle, so one had two choices:

(1) Fly towards enemy, avoid head-on fires and seek decision by air combat manoeuvre. I did this on the first days in about half of my matches.

(2) Avoid a contact with disabled guns by turning 90°, climb (30° dropping to 20°), then turn towards enemy.

I attempted to memorise opponent names, against whom I won or failed and how (in order to seek head-on with against more successful dogfighters and seek to avoid head-on against more successful snipers).

Head-on behaviour of opponents:

Some were able to snipe at very long range, dodge, shoot for a split second, dodge again, shoot for a split second again and kill that way; highly annoying, but not a consistent performance by any opponent.

Many of those who wanted a decision by ACM attempted to pass below me. It was valuable to remember this, so next time I could shoot at them with lead (deflection shooting) instead of expecting them to engage me directly (which required to aim at them without lead).

Best fight scene:

The head-on was non-lethal for both, some turning, suddenly he's 600 m above me and I'm almost stalling (probably used flaps too much). I decided to dive, reload, he follows almost 800 m behind while shooting with tracers. I dive behind a high cliff, use the Spitfire's landing flaps at low altitude, pull up. I didn't get killed because his 20 mm was emptied already, suddenly I feel an opportunity for an Immelmann, Immelmann succeeds, aim, kill.

This was the only time I recovered from some huge mistake. Other times I was able to recover from small mistakes at most, since in this tournament even a single small ACM mistake was most often decisive.

Lesson learned:

I need to get (much) better at scissors.

I need to learn some weird style of turning which I observed.

A 1vs1 tournament can be a pain in the ass if you know after most lost matches which of your (in)actions was the mistake that led to the defeat.

My mouse is not very good at tiny movements, which makes precise aiming in the head-on phase unreliable.

Use short breaks to recover from a string of defeats and draws!

The timing and nature of meals influences the concentration very much during long gaming sessions, especially when the soda drank in between is sugar-free.

Pilot skill appears to be rock-scissors-paper in WT AB air combat. Some players rated much lower than me were mostly able to beat me, but would have been rated much higher if they hadn't struggled against others of similar rating.

Holy moly, many "LEGA" players were encountered among the top 200. At least one of them has very poor manners (and flies way too straight in a head-on without being a good shot!), though. MAMBA and NATO were encountered much as well.

Conclusion:

I usually succeed as a tactician with sure aim who makes fights unfair in his favour before accepting them in random matches (BnZ). 

Fair 1vs1 matches were a very different situation and it took a while to adapt, and I grew in skill this way.

A top 100 position (78th) amongst millions of players (and ten thousands who participated in the 2vs2 qualifying stage) was most satisfying. This original goal was met. More (top 50, maybe even top 20) can be achieved in a future 1vs1 tournament if the scissors weakness can be overcome.

Don't panic!

Pointing the nose

Absolute beginners look around by turning around. Later on, they discover the key for looking around with the mouse while flying straight (it's "c" for me).

Nevertheless, players usually dive towards a target 3 km ahead and 1 km low instead of staying high right till they really engage, 1-1.5 km away from the target. It's subconscious and you really shouldn't do it. Losing energy is one disadvantage, going to a less favourable position in case the target is killed early is another reason. You also become more vulnerable and a more likely target for other reds below. Finally, you announce your intention, warn your prey. If you stay high, he might conclude you don't want to engage him and might engage some blue plane. If you dive, he'll likely be aware and attempt to survive your attack.

This thing about not announcing your intentions is important on domination maps as well; you can capture airfields much easier if you don't announce your intent early. Never approach a defended airfield by flying straight, low or maybe even slow with lowered landing gear, parallel to the runway. Instead, pretend to be in air combat and approach the runway from an atypical direction. Shoot a bit if you have tracers. Lower the landing gear as late as possible, slow down with landing flaps, retract landing flaps before touchdown to avoid most of the ground effect and then touch down, only seconds after beginning to announce your intention. These few seconds are often the difference between airfield neutralization or not, airfield capture or mere neutralization or survival after capture or no survival.

Dive bombers with a suitable landing gear (no A-36 or B7A2) and dive bomber-typical dive brakes are particularly well-suited for this; simply dive, then capture. Hardly anyone expects someone flying at 2 km altitude to capture the airfield within 10 seconds.

Value of ground targets and victory conditions

Bomber players most often attempt to bomb the minibases (or "depots"), for these are the easiest to hit and they're convinced they yield the most reward.

A good player intent to win wouldn't waste time like that, but go after ground targets instead.

Both teams begin a match with a certain" ticket count". This may be 2,800 tickets, for example.

The teams usually have quantity of ground units (including boats and ships) that's equal to tickets divided by 100.

2,800 tickets ~ 28 ground targets. You win on such maps (NOT on the domination maps) either by annihilation of the other team, by destroying all ground forces, by destroying the minibases and airfield or by destroying a mix of ground targets and minibases.

The quickest and thus safest path to victory up to approx. BR 4.7 maps is to go after the ground targets only.

28 ground targets could be killed by 16 players within 3-4 minutes without anyone reloading, but hardly anybody plays the objectives. Instead, the wish their team "gl" as if winning was about luck, not about actually doing it yourself.

You can look at the "N" screen to see the current ticket count, and there you can observe the value of destroyed targets. The values are as follows:

• Heavy cruiser: 200 tickets
• A minibase: Depending on BR about 180-200 tickets
• Any other ship: 100 tickets
• Patrol boat: 100 tickets
• Tanks: 100 tickets
• Artillery: 100 tickets
• Armoured cars when they are mission critical ("blinking"): 100 tickets
• AAA when they are objectives ("blinking", but not airfield defences): 100 tickets
• non-objective ground forces: zero tickets
• aircraft kills: zero tickets 
• damaged, not yet destroyed airfields: zero tickets
• destroyed airfield: All tickets, reduced over time

All three minibases are worth at most as much as six tanks. But tanks kill each other on many maps, so you can save a blue tank worth 100 tickets if you kill an opposing tank before they kill each other in ground combat. That tank kill is then worth 200 tickets advantage to your team usually.

In short, to destroy a minibase takes multiple passes by a bomber up to about BR 4.x, and destroys at most as many tickets as a single mediocre pass over a group of tanks or destroyers. That's why it's a waste of time almost every time.

This changes in some matches BR 4.7 or higher. That's when Do 217 bombers appear in groups, and they can drop 4x 1000 kg bombs when upgraded. They are furthermore fast and somewhat agile - more able to reach rear red targets than Yer-2, Wellington and most other earlier bombers with 4,000 lbs or more.

There was an event a couple months ago where players suddenly wanted to win - almost all of them. Some incentive was given. The result was that many rushed to victory with the old bomber rush tactic that led to the addition of minibases in order to make 'victory by airfield kill' slower. Back then the best way to win was to have a couple quick-climbing bomber destroyers, a squad of Do217E or more of them, a handful B7A2 Ryusei as escort fighters and additional base bombers and a handful of players who actually killed a few ground targets. The usual ground strike match in those days saw both airfields killed. The winner was the team which had the airfield earlier or compensated for being slower by having killed more ground forces. Those few days made visible how to win Era IV "Ground strike" maps the quickest.

On lower-level "Ground strike" maps you better focus on killing ground targets ASAP - mass destruction! You may have a squad member or two who prefer air combat; they should pay attention to the "N" screen and prioritize those red pilots who've killed 5+ ground forces already or fly the best planes for the job (Su-2, A-20G, B-25J and the like).

The fundamental tactical philosophy on Ground strike and Assault maps

The match is usually a race in deleting the other team's tickets. Victory by annihilation ("The other team has lost all vehicles") is rather rare, particularly in Era III-IV.

(I)

The planes with a quick bomb reload, a very large bomb (bombers, most attackers) and rocket load (P-47D) and the few well-known planes with good enough armour-piercing shells or bullets to kill tanks are the ones who cause almost all of this ticket destruction. The exception to this are the Era I-II maps with armoured cars and other rather soft targets as objectives.

(II)  

The fighters' job is to buy time, to enable the offensive part of the team to do its job at whatever is its (usually embarrassingly slow) speed. They need to defend against the other team's offensive players first and foremost.

------------

Many bomber players - especially those who fly crap bombers like the mostly worthless Wellingtons or PBYs - believe that it's the fighter players' job to defend them. But to defend them usually is impossible, at least without neglecting the defence. Bomber players should thus focus on using capable bombers, since the success of their offensive actions depends on themselves more than on anything else. Offensive success isn't about luck, and not the responsibility of fighters. It's the responsibility of bomber players, and they fail by default if they make a crappy choice on the aircraft selection screen.

There are also a few bomber players who don't think that offensive is their job, and then proceed to seek air kills. B-25J, Pe-2, Ju 87D-5, B7A2 and since the last patch also SB2C players are especially prone to this (there are also a few Blenheim and SB2M pilots with a weird interest in turnfighting).

I have sympathy for the B7A2s in this regard, since their bomb load (800 kg) is less important than their BnZ capability. B7A2s are excellent escort fighters with a secondary capability to knock out a couple pillboxes from high altitude.

Nevertheless, almost every bomber player who's chasing red bombers over the blue half of the map wastes his bombing capability and should have played a fighter instead.

There's one tiny exception; red bombers may fly high above blue territory and be able to win the battle soon by an airfield kill. A respawning player will then want to intercept them ASAP, but the only way to do this in time might be some plane starting at the bomber spawn point. That's when Pe-2s loaded with rockets, B-25Js or B7A2s may be a fine, match saving choice.

Ship killing

Preferable loads in AB for ship and boat kills (forget about torpedoes!):

• Heavy cruiser: Two 1,000 lb or 500 kg bombs
• Light cruiser: One 1,000 lb or 500 kg bomb
• Destroyer: Two 127 mm rockets or one 500 lb bomb or one 250 kg bomb
• Cargo ships, Landing ships: One 127 mm rocket or one 100 kg bomb 
• Patrol boats: Use of autocannons or heavy machineguns, horizontally
• Landing craft: Use of autocannons or heavy machineguns

A fine bomb-dropping technique is simply to aim with the aiming circle in "F4" view and to drop in a shallow dive (20-40°) at the bow, on the ship's centreline. The ship is moving forward, and will often be hit dead centre by the time the bomb arrives.

My rocket attacks are typically the required amount of rockets + sometimes one additional one, fired from low altitude (rather horizontally).

In either case, watch out! Destroyers have masts that must not be rammed. The bomb explosions can hit your plane if you fly too low as well.

Groups of four or five destroyers (as on the "Crater" map) have great AAA firepower. Avoid flying in a straight line or flying slowly. Reload your bombs behind a nearby mountain (particularly on the "Crater" map). Three destroyers can be hit with reasonable accuracy in one pass, turn a few seconds after this pass for a second pass if you have enough bombs.

The best ship killer aside from bombers and attackers with their quick bomb reload is the P-47D series: A P-47D can have up to 2x 1,000 lb bombs, 1x 500 lb bomb and 10x 127 mm (5") rockets. This can kill an amazing up to eight destroyers without a reload. An AD-2 carries more, but it's slower. A F6F comes close (2x 1,000 lb + 6x 127 mm ~ five destroyers).

This is enough for any group of ships other than on the "Merchant Fleet" map.

The "Merchant Fleet" map is a challenging one for ship killing, since the stationary convoy is right below the reds' fighter spawn point. I advise to use the P-47D with a good load (3x 500 lb + 10x rockets), climb and avoid the main fighter clash. When spawning in the south, climb westward. When spawning in the North, climb to South-West. Pretend you're a fighter, and in case a fighter intercepts you, signal your attention and accept a head-on fight. Once close to the fleet, dive and drop one bomb on a destroyer each, then turn around to deliver each one rocket to a cargo ship.

Avoidable head-on / frontal encounters

The head-on or frontal fight seems to be the preferred tactic of most players. They simply fly straight to some red red dot, do not need to aim with lead and seek to kill.

Most of the time this seems to be wasteful, and newbies often even do it with inferior armament.

It's quite outrageous that players even do it too often in matches such as squadron battles, where individual performance shouldn't matter.

Here's what I observe all too-often.

A single red fighter approaches two blue fighters, which both seek a head-on fight - result: One red and one blue down. 

What should have been done: The blue one who has the red's attention dodges or evades entirely (away from the 2nd blue fighter) and the blue fighter that's got no red attention kills. Result: Blue kills 1, red kills 0.

Another outrageous example is that a smoking, even a burning red fighter will all-too often still get a head-on fight as a gift - even with one or multiple blue fighters on his tail. There's no need to engage it whatsoever, but most players will voluntarily accept a head-on with this dying plane even though the risk of severe damage to or total loss of the own aircraft is very high. There's even a substantial risk of fratricide (unintentional teamkill) in such a situation!

Players should switch some "tactics" lever to "on" in their brain. All too often their behaviour is the behaviour of a simplistic bot that's been only coded to turn straight towards the nearest red dot and shoot at it.

Sadly, I've seen stupid air combat tactics even among players who were the best of the best in ground attack tactics.

The optimum climb rate

Beginners pitch up the nose and think they can climb like a rocket. The steeper, the faster.

There is actually an optimum angle for climbing - not too low, not too fast - and it varies by plane type, upgrade status and altitude.

I'll tell you two general rules of thumb here:

(1)

Save for jets and biplanes, the optimum climb rate for a fighter is at about 250-280 kph speed for most planes and at about 220-250 kph speed for turnfighters with low wing loading (weight divided by wing area) such as Ki-43, A6M or most Spitfires.

(2)

A much better rule of thumb is to look at the climb angle instead of the speed, since you may inititally be faster anyway. Switch to the "F4" view with the "F4" key. There you see a head up display as used in 1970's and newer military aircraft. It indicates your angle of climb, similar to an artificial horizon.

For good climbers (propeller monoplane fighters) such as fully upgraded P-63, Fw 190D-9, Spitfire LF Mk IX etc use this:

Initially climb at 25-30°, drop to about 20° at about 3,500-4,000 m and drop to 15° (or even later on 10°) at unusually high altitudes (fitting to rule (1)).

For most (propeller monoplane) fighters try to climb at 20° at first and drop to 15° at about 3,500 m.

Bombers (propeller) should usually climb at about 10°, some good climbers (Do 217, Il-4 etc) at 15° up to about 5,000 m at least. At very high altitudes (above 7,000 m) as little as 5° may be most useful.

Jets; climb at about 10-15°.

Remember; climbing slows you down, and slow planes are easy targets. Switch to level flight or even gain speed  by dropping about 300 m before you engage in combat with a fighter who's aware of your presence! Do this in time or you'll be shot down before you can make good use of your energy!

500 m ~ 1,500 ft  (accurately: 1,640 ft)

"Energy"

You probably heard about "energy" and "energy fighting" in War Thunder. The latter means a style in air combat with which the pilot strives to keep his energy high at all times, avoiding any large expense of energy. Good "energy fighters" are planes which by virtue of a low drag lose little energy at high speed (or are at least the least weak in energy fighting compared to turnfighting and boom and zoom tactics).

Energy is not something spiritual here; it's about physics.

Potential energy is the energy of altitude:

mass * local gravitational field * altitude difference = potential energy

Higher is better.

Kinetic energy is the energy of speed:

0.5 * mass * velocity * velocity = kinetic energy

Again, usually more is better. 

You see velocity twice (or squared) in the kinetic energy formula, but only once in the potential energy formula. This is important for the comparison between fast and slow fighters.

The kinetic energy difference between 800 kph and 900 kph is much greater than between 200 kph and 300 kph even though the speed difference is the same.

900^2 - 800^2 = 170,000

300^2 - 200^2 = 50,000

Meanwhile, the potential energy difference betwen 8,000 m and 9,000 m is the very same as between 2,000 m and 3,000 m. The faster you are, the more potential energy gain (altitude gain) can you get by sacrificing some (such as 100 kph) of your speed.

At battle rating 2.0-5.0 you can assume to be safe if all reds are either far away or a least 2.5 km below yourself. At battle rating 6.0-9.0 you can assume such only if all reds are either *really* far away or at least 4 km below yourself. 

The increased speed of the red fighters flying below you enables them to climb up to you within seconds.

Now about energy retention and building up energy:

The drag caused by movign a plane through a fluid (the air) approximately grows squared with its speed: The drag is quadrupled if you double your speed.

You need engine power to make up for this drag, and only what little engine power is left after maintaining your speed this way can be used to gather altitude (potential energy). To maintain a high kinetic energy thus requries a lot of constant effort by your engine.

Meanwhile, maintaining a high altitude is about as easy as maintaining a low altitude. Your engine power drops at higher altitudes and the drag drops in thinner air as well, but as a rule of thumb to maintain a certain high potential energy is as easy as to maintain a certain low potential energy.

The path towards energy superiority over your adversary at the beginning of air combat is thus not to accelerate to a high speed (built up kinetic energy), but to climb (build up potential energy).

Be aware: You're losing energy whenever you are flying faster than the top speed your plane can maintain at that altitude. The very high drag at that high speed bleeds your energy.

For reasons of manoeuvrability you should stop the climbing well before engaging a red fighter at about equal or lower altitude, though; build up speed again (even by dropping by 200-300 m) in time, for your plane is less manoueuvrable at its optimum climb speed (measured as IAS) than at a moderately higher speed.

One last note: Kinetic energy depends on your indicated air speed (the IAS). The other method of measuring speed measures the speed over ground and is useful only for navigational purposes ("how far did I fly in the last ten minutes?").

The turnfighter's fate

Turnfighter planes such as Ki-43, Yak-1B, A6M, I-153 or early Spitfires can be used to great effect by skilled players, and make it much easier to score some kills than boom and zoomer or energy fighters. All you need to do for *some* success is to fly into the red furball, turn towards some red plane, exploit your plane's turning rate to keep the sights ahead of the red plane('s lead indicator) and keep pressing the trigger.

Combined with a little skill this is an easy method for scoring more kills than planes lost; most players are stupid enough to join such furballs or fighters even with planes unsuitable for turnfighting - and end up as easy fodder.

There is a fairly low glass ceiling concerning the kill/death ratio with turnfighting, though: While occasionally one may end up even with a 15:0 kills match, I myself never succeeded to exceed a k/d ratio of about 6:1 with turnfighters (A6M, Ki-43-III) by much unless they were suitable for BnZ (Sptifire IX) as well. The reason is the turnfighter's fate:

To turnfight means to bleed energy. A warship that turns by 90° loses half its speed, and then sustains this low speed even during further circling. It's quite the same with aircraft; one ends up typically at 200-280 kph in propeller planes during sustained turns (in AB), and likely even loses altitude until there's none left to spend. A turnfighter in such a position is despite his (predictable) turning an easy target for new red fighters who join the fray with superior energy. Maybe the first one does only slight damage, the second probably misses - but sooner or later the turnfighter will be shot down by new opponents in such a situation. Once locked in a turnfight with more than one enemy a turnfighter cannot break off and run, climb, enter a fight at his own conditions again. He's locked into the fight as long as not all reds are dead or blues outnumber the reds, absorbing their attention.

It's thus quite easy to reach a good kill ratio with a turnfighter and turnfighting skill, but exceedingly hard to reach really high kill ratios. I doubt anyone in War Thunder has a kill ratio in excess of 10:1 in any specialized turnfighter plane spanning more than ten matches. That's reserved for fine BnZ or energy fighting planes (and exceptions such as the B7A2).

The foundations of a really high kill:death ratio

I know some guys who are really good at head-on-head (frontal) clashes; they can kill a plane this way, seconds later another, yet another, yet another and then after killing the fifth they burn out.

That's an impressive streak, but it's still "only" a kill/death ratio of 5:1.

Can you imagine players to average more than this in head-on-head fights?

6:1?

8:1?

10:1?

I cannot. In fact, those impressive players I just wrote about have an average of 2:1 or 3:1 in head-on engagements.

Such a tactic doesn't seem to be very helpful if you strive for a really high kill ratio of maybe 10:1 or 15:1. Even an impressive five-kill streak at the expense of a single plane would be a setback in the quest for such high kill ratios.

This is no bashing of head-on engagements; it was an example for a fundamental, even mathematical, insight: 

(I) Avoid engagements and tactics that yield a worse kill ratio than the one you're aspiring to reach.

It's even more troublesome than this sounded whenever you're trying to reach a very high kill ratio.

Imagine a player with a kill ratio of 50:1. This player wants to improve his kill ratio to 100:1*.

Now imagine how much a lost aircraft means to him, and how much one more kill means to him.

One more kill is near-meaningless to him compared to the loss of a single plane!

Even worse, every match with a single lost plane is a bad match for him, since he's not going to score 100 or even only 50 kills in that match as a compensation.

(II) The quest for really high kill ratios is not about being great at killing planes. It's about being great at survival.

This is what makes very high kill ratios so difficult to achieve and difficult to maintain: It requires A LOT of ambition, focus on the goal, self-discipline and patience.

One golden rule exists that embodies all this: The Golden rule of the least risky target.

Imagine yourself flying at superior altitude, looking at red planes below yourself. Do you attack? Which one do you attack?

You should most likely kill one that pursues the objective if you want to win, but if your ambition is to maximize kill/death ratio, you better obey a simple rule:

(III) ALWAYS attack the least risky target only. Wait instead of attacking if you estimate the odds to be worse than the kill ratio you're trying to achieve.

*: I actually only reached these heights for a single aircraft type, ever - I had a score of 165:1 with the Ki-45ko once.

Book: Spitfire vs Bf 109

There are plenty of Osprey's book series uploaded at Scribd. The topics of the various books series include fighter aces, aircraft and tanks among many other topics. It's a treasure trove.

Book: Kawasaki Ki-45 "Toryu"

A book about this classic aircraft.

 
In WT the Ki-45ko is no doubt the best for air combat, but it has the horrible weakness of nothing in front of the pilot (no armour plate, no armour glass, no engine - nothing!) makes it a poor choice against everything able to return fire.

The Ki-45 tei version in WT is a strange, yet important plane. It has two 250 kg bombs and quick reload for those. This is very useful for the Japanese, since they lack proper light bombers. Ki-49 and G4M attract immediately lethal attention, whereas Ki-45 is a quite quick plane (I was once chased in my P-38 by a Ki-45 and it did not fall back!). Its 37 mm gun creates quite a marksmanship challenge and its 20 mm Schräge Musik weapon is almost never useful. The few successes with the 20 mm against unsuspecting bombers are hilarious, though.

The other Ki-45 versions are not worthwhile in WT unless you insist on upgrading all planes to the maximum due to some kind of collector's zeal.

Website: Secret Projects forum

Secret Projects Forum is a great forum for the discussion of historical aircraft, tank, space, missile and ship programs. I think it's the best address for information about quite obscure versions, prototypes and types in general. You'll find obscure aircraft types of unknown-to-you developers in there. Check it out whenever you want to learn about the historical example of some unknown aircraft or tank you spot on WT!

Book: Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering

A classic popular book about air combat tactics in general.

 

There are many copies uploaded on Scribd: link 

 

LastDingo: Winning matches in eras I-IV

Unlike the previously presented players, LastDingo isn't a specialized low level player exploiting the special conditions of era I only. LastDingo played eras I-IV, stopping short of the long grind for jets. A few hundred tank battles were included, but the obvious display of stupidity and cowardice in tank battles was a turn-off.

His obsession was the maximization of the victories/battles ratio, yielding a top 100 rating in this category after months of playing. LastDingo flew about half of the matches in squads, including hundreds with INIT2WINIT and hundreds with TFD players. The most extreme results were during the winter 2014/2015 with "last month" victories/battle at about 95%. His record was a 118 match victory streak with American BR 3.0 and 3.3 planes in late 2014.

LastDingo won 2,944 matches out of 3,675 (80.1%).

B-25J, a fantastic and versatile bomber

Aircraft types favoured by LastDingo:

A-20G: A fantastic light bomber

B-25J-1/-20: Very good bombers all-round, albeit with unpleasantly small bombload

B7A2: Fantastic escort fighter, also killing pillboxes from high altitude. Best B7A2 tactic is to dive on climbing red fighters.

 

Beaufighter VIc: Most satisfying firepower.

Bf 109G-10: A bomber destroyer with 3 30 mm guns. Capable of stopping heavy bomber rushes almost on his own. Capable of chasing G8Ns at high altitude - two G8N kills above 8 km altitude were scored. The downside of the 109 is that apparently everyone attacks it, expecting an easy kill.

Boston/Havoc: Weaker than even an A-20G, but together with DB-7 and maybe the TBF the only really worthwhile British propeller bombers.

Do 217E-2/-4: First really powerful bombers, a squad of which can turn the base & airfield bombing tactic into a winning tactic.

F6F-3: Very good fighter-bomber, with good turnfighter qualities.

Fw190A-8: Most satisfying firepower.

Fw190D-9: No love for it until a domination match with 19 kills in it - bloodlust!

Il-4: A fantastic Russian bomber for high altitudes. Can kill pillboxes and bases from above 7 km with near-immunity, then dive and kill tanks with its three heavy bombs.

 

Ki-43-II: Ridiculously good low level fighter. Can kill many armoured cars with ease.

P-38G-1: First really good bomber destroyer in the American line, albeit with a tendency to die in flames.

P-47D-25/-28: Most powerful fighter-bombers, capable of destroying eight destroyers with a single load of bombs and rockets. Even the new AD-1 Skyraider isn't really better.

Pe-2 (early ones): Effective Russian light bombers, good tank/pillbox/destroyer killers.

Yak-9K: Almost the same as Yak-9T, but with 45 mm gun.

Yak-9T: Very good Soviet fighter with much-feared 37 mm. AP ammunition enables this gun to kill medium tanks. The hate against all Yak-9 (because of their one-shot-kill guns) is so strong that they appear to receive extra attention by red fighters.

The best mix was a BR 3.0 setup with P-38, B-25, A-20G, both P-47 and the F6F. It was powerful in ground strike due to 2 good bombers and 3 best fighter-bombers and powerful in air combat with 4 good fighters and 2 tough bombers with many fixed machineguns. This mix yielded approx. 80% victory rate flying solo.

A summary of LastDingo's principles:

determination to win (many THINK they want to win, but actually they do what they feel like at the moment instead of what's needed for a win!)

avoid undue attention (climb high and to the sides, avoid field of view, keep distance, avoid initial or respawn fighter waves)

never trust the blue randoms

choose good plane lineup, including BR considerations (2 bombers or 1 bomber + 1-2 fighter bombers, preferably 1 bomber interceptor like Bf109G-10/F4U-1c/ 4 cannon Brits/Yak-9, all else: fighters for domination map air duels)

focus on objectives and keeping the others from accomplishing them (kill bombers, defeat airfield capture efforts)

choose ONE path to victory (in ground strike: airfield kill OR bases/tanks/pillboxes kill)

readiness to adapt to the situation (let off from airfield to kill tanks if need be)

keep an eye on ticket counts

prioritisation of important aircraft (bombers with more bomb load, ignoring fighters)

do not engage an aircraft that's already being chased unless it really needs to die ASAP

partially fly in squads with TS3

stay at key airfield and low during domination battles if ground forces are irrelevant on the map or at the moment

some skill at aiming guns

some skill at aiming bombs (one 500 lbs/250 kg per moving tank, 3-4 tank kills in one pass)

speed capture of airfields (instructor off)

surprise/dive capture of airfields (pretending to not land, then suddenly land)

knowing the own aircraft

knowing the hostile aircraft

knowing the maps

knowing typical random player behaviour

look at 'n' list to identify new red bombers and unusually successful red players

chat communication to motivate at least a few players to do the right thing

stealth ammunition for fixed guns except in tier I

basic evasive manoeuvres

basic offensive manoeuvres

look at 'm' map to plan ground forces destruction

assignment of vectors for bomber destroyers (left high or right high), threats (individual bombers) and ground targets (left or right) in teamspeak

engaging 'suitable' targets (big gun fighters prefer large target planes, agile bombers bomb troops flying low)

some high altitude bombing with first climbing to altitude during sideways climb instead of impatiently flying straight towards the reds

playing at eras I-IV to have fun in the full diversity

stop playing for hours after a defeat streak of four

share tactics, tricks and target info with squad mates

drop bomber's bombs for quicker climbing

announce incoming bombers to team to improve bomber interception

LastDingo was the founder of a quasi-secret quasi-invite-only chat channel into which the top 100 players of the leaderboard in victories/battles were invited. About 50 players joined it, and the channel was successful in getting top players to know each other. It's largely defunct now because it disappeared due to a bug (or feature?) of the seemingly still buggy WT chat system.

Statistics of LastDingo:

sorted by sorties

sorted by air kills

sorted by ground kills

tank battles, sorted by sorties

Book: Fighter Combat Study, No.1 - The Curtiss P-40C Tomahawk vs. the Mitsubishi A6M2 Model 21 Zero-Sen

This is an old (1970's) study comparing the P-40 and A6M2. 

Long story short: The differences were much, much smaller than in WT AB, RB or SB modes. Even the low speed turn ability difference was rather subtle. We should keep in mind that experienced, talented pilots who know the limits of their fighter well can usually outmanoeuvre a slightly more agile fighter flown by a rookie pilot. German Bf109E expert pilots actually believed that the Spitfire was slightly less manoeuvrable in turnfights than a Bf109E, since this was their experience against most Spitfire opponents!

alternative links to the study (just in case one goes dead):

link 1

link 2

link 3

Book: F6F-5 vs J2M3

This is an old (1989) book doing a comparison and computer-supported analysis of the F6F-5 and the J2M3.

www.scribd.com/doc/252875888/F6F-5-vs-J2M3#fullscreen=1

Long story short; the F6F-5 was burdened with carrier gear and fuel capacity for greater range and despite its advantage in fuel quality the J2M3 ended up having a margin of superiority in most situations. According to the analysis.

In WT the J2M3 has a much higher battle rating, and it's well-deserved. Even the J2M2 is a much better fighter - much more capable of boom 'n zoom tactics. The F6F is in WT nevertheless a very capable fighter at its battle rating. Avoid diving fighters, avoid numerical inferiority, avoid head-on attacks by well-armed fighters and avoid turnfights with Ki-43, A6M or Spitfires and you'll do fine in it. It's also one of the very best fighter-bombers with two 1,000 lbs bombs and six 127 mm rockets. That's enough to kill five destroyers in AB!

(I'm not sure how well Scribd and Scribd embedded works for the readers. They changed their business model and may now require a sub for viewing.)

"Air_Force_of_One": Winning matches in low tier planes

"Air_Force_of_One" attempted to maximize the victories/battles ratio and reach the top, being No.1 in the Leaderboard for that category. The attempt was successful, albeit he dropped to No.5 later on. Exclusively Soviet planes were flown, mostly to exploit the power of the BB-1/Su-2 family of attackers on low level "Ground Strike - light vehicles" maps.

Schwanzus Longus flew three missions in a squad of two (one of these three was lost), all others solo. No crews were aced. No gold was purchased. He flew at about patch 1.48, at BR 1.0-2.3.

"Air Force of One" is mocking the old U.S.Army's slogan "Army of One".

"Air_Force_of_One" won 196 of 207 battles (94.7%).

The conclusion was that this is very close to what an individual can achieve flying solo. Red teams with three good players with 15+ ground kills each could not be overcome without a 2nd good player in the blue team.

A BB-1 attacker in action

The BB-1/Su-2 family combines a good light machinegun armament with quick-reloading light bombs. Six 100 kg bombs was the preferred load because the twelve 50 kg bombs load degrades the flying characteristics of the plane too much. The Su-2 TSS-1 is actually the weakest of the bunch since is has a mere two forward-firing fixed light machineguns and thus takes longer and spends more % of its rounds for an armoured car kill.

The MiG 3-15 was a fantastic high speed fighter at BR 1.7, the 20 mm cannon-armed LaGG 3-11 and Yak-1 were powerful on a domination map. The LaGG series has some irritating handling issue when yanked around with mouse aim, though.

The (gifted) premium plane "Zhukovsky's I-153-M62" is a fantastic dogfighter at low altitude on a domination map. The I-16 type 5 was a disappointment - it seemed to excel at nothing but rolling.

The tactics weren't much different from those described by Schwanzus Longus, but the techniques differed. The better guns allowed for much more effective air combat kills particularly on the Krymsk map, with less effort on guarding the runway. The six 100 kg bombs of a Su-2 or BB-1 allowed for more ground troops kills per minute, and their defensive gunner alerted of trailing red fighters. Dodging the bullets of pursuing red fighters became the standard survival technique, while tight 360° turns or high speed were no promising option for these attackers. The MiG-3-15 and to a lesser degree the LaGG 3-11 and Yak-1 were able to outrun many reds, but the latter ones were used in air combat (on Krymsk) exclusively.

The bomb-throwing technique was simple; mark target to see the range, zoom in, aim at about 20-50 m ahead of the target vehicle in its path. Some light vehicles attempt to dodge attacks, but this hardly ever works against 100 kg bombs. Bombs were almost never expended on artillery or AAA of any kind: Only the slightly tougher armoured cars were bombed. Sometimes one bomb was left and would be dropped at the end of a pass in order to reload six new bombs earlier. The 100 kg bombs were always set for instant detonation on impact.

Overall Air_Force_of_One was a very special pilot who tested the limits of what's possible for a solo player. A new War Thunder player might come to the conclusion that about 25% of the blue teams are too stupid to be saved by a single player, Air_Force_of_One showed that the limiting problem is rather that about 3-5% of the red teams are too stacked with the usually very few good players (three of them, whereas average is less than one) to be defeated by a solo player supported by an average (inept) team only.

Statistics of Air_Force_of_One:

Video: Ki-10 is Helicopter

Video: "Acrobatics" 1943 USAAF Pilot Training Film

"Schwanzus Longus": Winning matches in low level planes

"Schwanzus Longus" is a fun account created for but one purpose: To fly Italian fighters and win. Nothing else was flown in it, not even a He 51. The premium CR.42 was purchased prior to first match to avoid the non-Italian He 51.

"Schwanzus Longus" is the German translation for "Biggus Dickus". It felt like the most appropriate quasi-Italian name since many others were taken already.
Schwanzus Longus flew all missions solo, none in a squad. No crews were aced. He flew at about patch 1.48.

128 of 144 of battles were won by Schwanzus Longus (88.9%).

the fast Macchi M.C.202

Most Italian fighters have no fearsome reputation, but at the same time they're all good enough for great results if flown well. Schwanzus Longus used:

M.C.202 (fastest, two 12 mm + two 7 mm guns, some pilot armour, no turnfighter at all)

M.C. 200 series 7 (two 12 mm guns, combat flaps)

M.C. 200 serie 3 (two 12 mm guns, combat flaps)

G.50 Freccia series 7AS (two 12 mm guns, two 50 kg bombs)

G.50 Freccia series 2 (two 12 mm guns)

Marcolin's CR.42CN (two 12 mm guns, fixed landing gear, agile, premium plane bonus) 

CR.42 Falco (two 12 mm guns, fixed landing gear, agile)

The most powerful Italian fighter is no doubt the M.C.202, which by virtue of its high speed is very difficult to kill and at the same time possesses the best armament of all Italian fighters in WT today (1.51.x). The only worthy BR 1.7 opponents to a M.C.202 were the similar MiG 3-15 and the much more agile Ki-43-II. The Ki-43-II is a superior dogfighter regardless of relative starting positions if the M.C.202 has no large initial energy or surprise advantage. Nowadays (patch 1.51.x) the recently upgunned F2A-1's may be superior to the M.C.202 in battle even though they are BR 1.3 planes.

Era ("tier") I and II battles of Schwanzus Longus with BR 1.3-1.7 AB/air ranged from BR 1.0 to 2.7 and were "Ground Strike - light vehicles" maps or the "Krymsk" domination map. The toughest Ground Strike map at this level as of patch 1.51.x is "Alpine Meadows", particularly so with many low clouds.

Winning on ground strike - light vehicles maps

The path to victory in Ground Strike - light vehicles is simple:

(1) Kill ground troops (armored cars, artillery, anti-air artillery)

(2) Interfere with those who do (1) the best on the red team.

The choice of ammunition is "ground targets" for the 12 mm (actually 12.7 mm) and "stealth" for the 7 mm (actually 7.7 mm) guns. The idea is to use the tracers for improved accuracy against ground targets without being misled by the weaker 7 mm gun's tracers.

Light vehicles are easier prey for machineguns with tracers than without. You should aim a bit low when strafing. Few 12 mm AP hits suffice to kill an armored car, while most inexperienced pilots have trouble killing armored cars with 7 mm guns..

The attack on ground vehicles is little more than about surviving red fighters, air/ground marksmanship and determination. The determination to kill as many ground troops as possible is the most important ingredient. Most players will claim to play to win, but few actually do so. It is possible to bomb airfields on ground strike maps, and any player who does so earlier than at battle rating 4.3 (when the blue team may have multiple Do 217Es) is playing for the defeat of his team by wasting his player slot. Low tier battles are almost never won by airfield destruction. The airfield bombers' diversionary effect on red fighters is their only really relevant benefit to their team. All types of bombers could destroy a disproportionate quantity of red tickets by attacking ground troops instead.

The M.C.202 should be flown differently from all other Italian fighters as it's best if always kept at high speed. It can be used to race from one side of the map to the other, taking shots at ground troops al the time before reloading and turning back for another pass. Often times two or three red fighters would pursue it and thus be neutralized. Its speed is also fine for killing the red rear ground troops, particularly on the "Alpine Meadows" map. Many players who attempt to reach and kill those fail in slower planes, and a good plane such as M.C.202 can and often should deal with the high-hanging fruits. Its lethality of "Ground Strike - light vehicles" maps is such that hardly any red plane is dangerous enough to justify a fine M.C.202's attention there. Only BB-1 and Su-2 pilots are at times more dangerous and were killed by Schwanzus Longus on light vehicles maps without offering themselves by crossing his sights, but their players usually have several more near-identical planes in their setup.

The old style "Spain - light vehicles" map included a couple pillboxes and light tanks that but one Italian fighter could take on: The "Fiat G.50 series 7 AS" with its two wing-mounted 50 kg bombs. The best attack procedure was to dive on the target knowing which bomb would release next and score a direct hit. A near miss was ineffective (unlike with light vehicles). The limitation to two 50 kg bombs per such plane made it extraordinarily difficult to win on these maps if the blue team was not helping against the hard targets, and about half of Schwanzus Longus' few recorded defeats happened on this old version of the Spain-light vehicles map. A much better victories/battles balance would be possible under current (patch 1.51x) conditions.

Winning on the Krymsk map is different, and actually the opposite:

The ground troops rarely if ever reach the airfield before the end of the match and are thus largely unimportant. Their ticket value (100 tickets per vehicle) is low compared to overall ticket count, and their anti-air firepower is an unimportant contribution to the match as well. Only one thing matters a lot: Airfield possession.

This is why the CR.42 is actually a good plane on the Krymsk map. It has effective heavy machineguns, the agility to fight within one kilometre of the airfield at low altitude guarding it against touchdown attempts and it has a fixed landing gear. The fixed landing gear makes unintentional contact with the ground much less troublesome and it allows for near-instant touchdown on the airfield. The airfield can  be captured longitudinally only for want of clear paths crosswise. It is possible to neutralize or capture this airfield while rolling parallel to the runway instead of on the runway. This attracts a little bit less attention.

The CR.42s are not fantastic biplanes in WT (the CR.42 was likely the best multi-wing fighter historically), but it's clearly very capable if flown well. Schwanzus Longus' kill balance in both CR.42s was tainted by ground attack and dozens of airfield touchdowns. A 100% air combat focus would have yielded much better kill balances.

The best choice for first aircraft on this map was nevertheless the M.C.202, and probably so among all aircraft in WT. The M.C.202 has an incredible dive speed in AB - it easily accelerated past 700 kph on the Krymsk map starting at the fighter spawn point. It spawns high enough over ground on other maps to reach 820 kph or more in a dive, only a few seconds after the match began.

A roughly 45° dive followed by contour flight to the airfield, lowered landing gear, quick braking with landing flaps and flying S-lines horizontally followed by a quick touchdown for capturing the airfield is a great first move in the match. The chance of capturing the airfield AND surviving without crippling damage was about 1/3. Many red teams lose interest in capturing the airfield and thus in winning if the airfield is defended well afterwards.

The player needs to disable the instructor to capture an airfield at high speed. Go in the hangar to "Menu" - "Controls" - "Instructor" and set all three to "no". The instructor would intervene at high speed close to the ground, and the competition between the player's efforts to touchdown and the instructor's efforts to pull away from the ground leads to crashes.

On Krymsk it makes sense to use stealth ammunition for the 12 mm because it is about air combat, though it's not much better than other choices (except "default") in the M.C.202. The slower planes may stay on the 6 of red fighters for a while and keep hitting them. Tracers are treacherous in such a situation. A M.C.202 should rather boom and zoom, so the attack will be over before the red player could possibly react to tracers.

A look at the match statistics reveals which red players were the most successful ones. One may then prefer them as prey, particularly if one is flying the M.C.202 and has by virtue of its speed the ability to pick fights. The most dangerous red pilots are usually those who attempt to capture the airfield, though. The great plane killers and Yak-1s are even more important if airfield possession changes a  lot and the match might be decided by decimating the other team to the point where it cannot compete at the airfield any more.

One more note: The M.C.202 had a higher era (II) than the other Italian fighters when Schwanzus Longus was still active. This was almost perfectly irrelevant - it only meant it might face era III planes, but very few of those were encountered in battle by Schwanzus Longus since very few of them were at BR 2.7 or 3.0. The M.C.202 never entered the beginner map "Foggy Albion", though.

Overall Schwanzus Longus was a very special War Thunder pilot with a most likely unique restriction on the choice of aircraft. We can point at Schwanzus Longus whenever anyone comments badly on the usefulness of Italian fighters in War Thunder. He will rise again when mid-war Italian fighters (G.55, M.C.205, G.56) will be available.

Statistics of Schwanzus Longus: