Jump to content

Finkeren

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    10706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Finkeren

  1. Wait a minute... You LIKED season 8??!?? As in "felt positive about it"? Yeez man, you're off the deep end.
  2. I've seen the first kind in the air from time to time, mostly flown by an opponent. I've only ever flown the second kind myself tho...
  3. A simple question with a complicated answer - or at least with several answers, most of which probably contributed to the downfall of the MiG-3. 1. The VVS was right in the middle of a massive transitioning to a new generation of aircraft, which would replace pretty much all types over the next couple of years. The result was, that pilot training was severely lacking. The MiG-3 was by far the most advanced aircraft fielded by the VVS at the time, and the pilot retraining program simply couldn't keep up. This meant, that there were always more MiGs available than there were pilots trained to fly them, and the pilots who were ready had very little experience with them. 2. The MiG we have in the sim is a late production variant, which solved a lot of the teething problems of the earlier production examples. It has reduced fuel load due to the deletion of the ventral tank, which caused stability issues when full. An added inert gas system reduces the risk of fuel tank fires. And the addition of slats significantly improves handling at or near stall. The MiG design team actually ironed out many of the issues with the design faster than the Yak- and especially the LaGG teams, but it still meant that more than half of all MiGs produced lacked one or more of these improvements. 3. The MiG was seldom flown in the clean, elegant configuration we are used to seeing. For one thing, at least half of the 1941-production MiGs were fitted with either the UB underving guns or (more commonly) rocket rails for RS-82s, both of which severely hampered performance. Unlike the German Rustsätze, these could not easily be removed when not needed, so pilots had to fly with them constantly. Issues with the canopy becoming stuck also led to many pilots flying with open canopies or simply removing the sliding part entirely (photos of MiGs with canopies removed are very common). Furthermore, there were problems with the tailwheel sometimes refusing to deploy for landing, so most MiGs had the tailwheel locked down permanently and some late production examples deleted the retractable tailwheel altogether. So if you want to fly a MiG in its historic configuration, always bring rockets and always fly with an open canopy. 4. The MiG was a highly specialized high-altitude interceptor (a role it was actually under-gunned for) but it was practically never used as such. It was pressed into service in all manner of roles, often at low altitude where the performance of its engine wasn't optimal. It was still fairly fast but didn't have anywhere near the edge it potentially could have at higher altitude. 5. In the end the MiG-3 just wasn't the right aircraft for the war that had materialized on the Eastern Front. It was a high-altitude interceptor that wasn't really very versatile, had trouble operating from rough airfields, was fairly expensive to produce and was a bit of a gas-guzzler (the AM-35 had one of the largest displacements of any fighter engine of WW2 - larger than the Napier Sabre, if you can believe it). Worse, its production held back production of AM-38 engines for the IL-2, which was deemed critical for the war effort, so it's easy to see, why production was ended in spring 1942. I hope this adds a little more nuance as to why the MiG-3 was never a succes. It's a lot more complicated than the simplistic (and wrong) assumption, that it was overall a poor design - it absolutely was not.
  4. If I can make a suggestion, give the MiG-3 a try. It is immensely satisfying to fly and has a lot of interesting quirks. Against it's 1941 contemporaries, it is VERY capable - only really outclassed by the Bf 109F4, has very nice view from the cockpit and very pleasant handling in the air. The ground handling is... ....intreresting. But if nothing else it provided an interesting challenge. Plus, it's the prettiest aircraft ever built.
  5. I-16 vs. Bf 109E7 P-38J vs. Bf 109G14 LaGG-3 vs. Bf 110G2
  6. Yeah, it's a bit of a bummer, but that's how sales work. Some people are just bound to have bought the stuff right before it goes on sale. But look at the bright side: This is arguably one of the best products to pay full price for. The devs are a small, independent team, and they need every penny.
  7. They most definitely produce recoil. You will feel the yawing motion very distinctly, if one of your wing guns is out of action and you fire the other.
  8. Aside from fuses settings, it is important to keep in mind, that bombs and explosive munitions in general were (and are) made to not go off, unless triggered by the right type of fuse. A bomb accidentally falling to the ground might be scary as hell, but something has to go very very wrong in order for it to be set off. If this was not the case, and bombs could go off simply by being bumped or having their shells damaged, then big bomber formations with planes flying close to one another ladden with tons of explosives would have been completely inviable. All it would take is for one bomber to take a hit in the bomb bay to destroy half the formation.
  9. Generally speaking parts would be interchangeable (though often not identical), but in reality it was not always the case. Production quality was rough and tolerances loose. Focus was on producing things that worked right out of the factor, and less attention was given to making sure that each factory produced to the exact same standards. A famous example of this is the PPSh-41 sub-machinegun. It had a 71-round drum magazine that was more or less copied from the Finnish KP-31 and proved notoriously problematic. It could be very reliable and work flawlessly, if it was paired with a gun that fit just right, otherwise it was prone to all sorts of failures. Collectors to this day sometimes meet up in groups to exchange drums and find one that is just right for their PPSh. In the end the Soviets ended up phasing out production of the drums and shift to simpler 35-round stick mags - and eventually move on to the PPS-43, which was even simpler, with even looser tolerancens and ended up as probably the best sub-gun of WW2.
  10. @OP: To me the Yak-9 is worth it, simply because of how important and iconic it is. A plane that was produced in those insane numbers, and served for such a long time pretty much unchanged, is a must-have.
  11. Well... Outwardly and performance-wise the two are very similar (largely coincidental), but in construction they differ quite a bit. The main reason both lines were kept in production, even as they converged was because re-tooling and restructuring the factories that were already producing one line to produce the other would have slowed down production significantly, something the USSR couldn't afford at the time. This was true for almost every aspect of Soviet war time production: Things were only really stadardized within the factory - not between factories. This is why for instance the T-34 tank was at one point being produced with 3 different types of turret, depending on where it was manufactured. Later the two lines of Yaks diverged again and ended up with two quite distinct fighters.
  12. Totally self-contradicting. You claim to want "total simulation", then demand one arcadish thing after another. Please do not for a minute imagine, that you are speaking on behalf of anyone but yourself. This is the one good point you make here: Player communication can indeed be improved, and the devs are well aware of it. Are you really though? Seems an odd way of offering your "help". Barge in on your very first post, clearly having not searched the forum, to see if there are any discussions of the points you are about to bring forth. Insulting the devs at every turn. Pretending to speak for everyone, when you have only been part of the community for mere minutes. This is not "helping", this is trolling.
  13. Wrong, around 3/4 of players never play online.
  14. No, it won't work like you say, because for a plane in flight, wind speed only affects ground speed, not air speed. Once you get a little above treetop altitude, wind generally blows rather uniformly and steadily from one direction. This means that any aircraft flying through the air is carried away by the wind, without the wind being felt by the plane at all. Effectively there is no wind blowing around an aircraft in flight - only as relates to ground speed. The same will go for any projectile fired from said aircraft. It is a bit easier to understand, if you have ever flown in a hot air ballon (an un-tethered one) . Once it takes off it is carried off by the wind, quickly matching the speed and direction of the wind, and suddenly the air around the balloon seems to become extremely calm, as if no wind is blowing at all, and often you can hear noises from the ground with almost unnatural clarity. If you were to fire a gun from a hot air balloon, the bullet would move as if there was no wind as viewed from the balloon. Since there is effectively no wind blowing, it can't affect the bullet and the balloon differently. The exact thing happens to an airplane, but since the plane is not just drifting with the wind but moving under its own power at several hundred mph through the air, the lack of wind is not really felt.
  15. For aerial gunnery (an aircraft shooting at another aircraft) wind has zero influence, because both aircraft are moving with the wind, essentially they are both inside a "block" of air that's moving pretty much uniformly relative to the ground. Therefore there is largely no wind around an aircraft in flight, and the only airflow is created by the aircraft movement through the "block" of air. Wind has a huge impact on air-to-ground gunnery though.
  16. Pretty much all aviators at the time carried a knife. Not as a weapon, but to cut themselves free, in case they became trapped in a wrecked aircraft. The knife he used looked like a standard issue German bayonet, which was a pretty versatile instrument that was easy to get hold of and came with a sheath (great for not accidentally cutting yourself during flight) To me it makes a lot of sense, that a WW1 pilot would carry such a knife.
  17. The British army was not racially segregated (at least not by the time of WW1, but I don't think it ever officially was). Though "colonial" regiments of purely African volunteers were a thing - and these were kept sharply segregated and were often treated with suspicion and disrespect - there was also the occasional Brit of African or Indian descent mixed in with the regular units. The black community in the UK in the 19th and early 20th century was a good deal larger than most people are aware of today. Almost all of them were of course descended from slaves, but by WW1 they were all British citizens and served in the army same as everyone else and were generally not subject to any special regulations. For the same reason, these POC soldiers are largely invisible in the historic scources, because the army did not register people by race, but they do show up in photographs from time to time. Btw: This is not to say that society back then wasn't grossly racist, and that race relations in Britain were rosy red - not at all. But it wasn't like the US and you would meet the occasional POC serving alongside his white comrades.
  18. In that case, it has to be a StuG. If it must be Allied I would say Churchill, just to mix thing up and have something that useful on both fronts.
  19. A StuG III would be the most obvious choice for the current setting. My personal favorite AFV the Su-76 also fits well, but would arguably be a whole lot less useful in our pure tank vs. tank environment than it was IRL. Moving into 1944, we'd obviously need the IS-2 and T-34/85 as well as a Panther A and maybe a Königstiger or Jagdpanther. As common as the Soviet light tanks were, I think they would be used so little, that they are a quite a bit further down my list. Light tanks would be whole lot more fun in a 1941 scenario, where we could have BTs and T-26s tangliing with Panzer IIs and 38(t)s.
  20. I would say go see it. It's no masterpiece, but it is solid throughout. Yeah, the plot is ultra-simple and a bit contrived but no more than, say, Saving Private Ryan. You need to watch it in a cinema though. Its main technically gimmick is quite impressive (if a bit exhausting to watch) on the big screen. Not sure it will translate as well to the small screen.
  21. I went and saw it last friday. A liked it a lot, and didn't mind the scene with the stabbing at all. I felt it was very clear, that the German acted in confused, agonized desperation - not really understanding, what was going on around him, so he just lashed out. This made the scene all the more tragic and poignant, because it was sooooooo unnecessary. In one second it transformed a moment of genuine humanity and kindness into even more tragedy and pain for no good reason at all. I thought it was quite powerful. What I did mind were the double chase scenes through the ruined town at night. Twice the protagonist is being chased down by a single German soldier, who repeatedly shoots at him from a distance of a few feet while running at full tilt, causing him to miss repeatedly. There is no indication, that these were meant as warning shots to get the protagonist to stop. If the German soldier had stopped for one second to aim properly, our hero would've been dead. The whole thing seemed rather contrived and felt like it was put there purely for dramatic purposes.
  22. I would not even call it a tactical succes, simply because it did not even achieve it's relatively unambitious goal of temporarilly disrupting Allied air supremacy. Even on the bare numbers it was a failure. Yes, the Luftwaffe might have destroyed double the number of Allied aircraft than they lost, but the German losses made up a far bigger percentage of the air force's total strength than the losses did for the Allies. Add to that the much higher number of largely irreplaceable pilots lost by the Luftwaffe, and this becomes a pretty substancial net loss for the Germans.
  23. There was nothing about this operation that says "masterstroke". It was ill conceived, poorly planned and ineptly executed - in that sense it was emblematic for the Luftwaffe's performance throughout most of WW2.
  24. Fictional: The Savoia S. 21 Real: The Tu-2s
×
×
  • Create New...