please participate in poll

[[KWN]T-oddball]

Next Fighter for BoS

 

S!

[[KWN]T-oddball]

i16

 

 

the cockpit is already done for that

[Yakdriver]

Yak1B or LaGG3 S4 / S35 / S66 missing from the list...

 

Basically: instead of injecting new blood, give us more of "the same", with the accuracy and the intricate detail you showed so far.

 

'specially the 1B - the French guys are hellbent to get their hands on That piece of Kit.

at least two Squadrons of 40 people in total waiting to get into Normandie-Niemen gear and start activities on BoS.
 

Edited December 28, 2014 by Yakdriver

[Willy__]

I would rather have new planes than "more of the same", imho.

[Y-29.Silky]

Very dangerous thread!

I-15/I-16 - Never flew over Stalingrad for a the sole fact that they were slaughtered in 1941 and for good reason that they were complete garbage.

BF110 - Very good choice! But I think this should be second to the P-40 just for balance reasons. Having the 110 and  40 released at the same time, is just too good to be true.

 

Yak-7B - Also a good choice but come on, we already have a Yak.

P-40 -

The intensity of the aerial combat here was so fierce that even the experienced and well-trained regiment was burned up like a match in this hell in just a week. It was not so bad at first - on 29 August the pilots shot down a Bf-109, Ju-88, and FW-189 at the cost of a single P-40E; on 30 August-5 Bf-109Fs and 5 He-111s with the loss of 3 P-40Es; on the 31st-10 Bf-109Fs, 1 He-111, and 1 Ju-87 for 2 destroyed and 2 damaged P-40Es. But the crossover came on 5 September - it cost 4 Kittyhawks (two destroyed in combat and two in a mid-air collision) for 2 Bf-109Fs and 1 Ju-88. The regiment commander, Major V. M. Naydenko, was shot down and seriously wounded on this day.

The regiment flew a total of 194 aircraft sorties by 13 September 1942, all of which (rare occasion!) were combat sorties that involved engagement with the enemy. The greater share (163 combat sorties) was to escort Il-2 Shturmoviks. The pilots of 126 IAP conducted 29 group and 24 individual aerial engagements in which 36 enemy aircraft were destroyed (23 Bf-109F, 6 He-111, 3 Ju-88, 1 Bf-110, 1 Ju-87, 1 Hs-123, and 1 FW-189). The regiment lost 13 aircraft, 7 pilots did not return from combat missions, and 5 were wounded

Re-post: Lets be a little more historically accurate.. Russia needs something to counter the BF-109's.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Silky

[Feathered_IV]

Much rather a flyable Ju-52 or Storch.  They would open up whole new areas of gameplay, and not just more pew-pew with a different shaped aircraft that brings nothing new to the table.

[Brano]

Very dangerous thread!

 

I-15/I-16 - Never flew over Stalingrad for a the sole fact that they were slaughtered in 1941 and for good reason that they were complete garbage.

Very misleading statement.And dangerous as such

[BlitzPig_EL]

Indeed Brano...

 

As I recall there were 29 aces on the I-16 during the first 5 or 6 months of the war, one of which had 25 kills.

[[KWN]T-oddball]

Yak1B or LaGG3 S4 / S35 / S66 missing from the list...

 

Basically: instead of injecting new blood, give us more of "the same", with the accuracy and the intricate detail you showed so far.

 

'specially the 1B - the French guys are hellbent to get their hands on That piece of Kit.

at least two Squadrons of 40 people in total waiting to get into Normandie-Niemen gear and start activities on BoS.

 

 

 

 

 

In case this has not already been posted here it is (I16 cockpit), click on the link and hang your mouse over the image, plus you will find the il-4 in there as well

 

https://www.elance.com/samples/-il2-battle-stalingrad-3d-modelling-texturing/120269997/

[Danziger]

I thought that those I-16 and Il-4 models were made for the abandoned Battle of Moscow project? I don't think they were made to be able to work in this engine?

[[KWN]T-oddball]

I thought that those I-16 and Il-4 models were made for the abandoned Battle of Moscow project? I don't think they were made to be able to work in this engine?

 

if you hold your mouse over the image is says IL2 battle of Stalingrad.

 

p.s that same team is doing stuff for DCS as well

 

 

Hello, we are a hi skilled outsorce team specializing in creating 3d content for simulators. We are working in this field for 8 years, our partners were Ubisoft, 1C, Gaijin, Eagle Dinamics. We participated in the development of 3D content for products: IL2 shturmovik, IL2 Battle for Stalingrad, Digital Combat Simulator, DCS WWII.

Edited December 28, 2014 by T-oddball

[Danziger]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2163259&postcount=9

 

 

It would be awesome if they could get these into BoS. It would be a shame for all of that work to go to waste.

 

There is a Yak-9 in there also.

Edited December 28, 2014 by possumkiller

[Lusekofte]

Very dangerous thread!

 

I-15/I-16 - Never flew over Stalingrad for a the sole fact that they were slaughtered in 1941 and for good reason that they were complete garbage.

 

Actually not true, the I-16 did good when flown by experienced pilots. Those units refitted with LAGG did not do better. It is a poll, all tho you might think it is of no interest. Many might think the opposite .

My opinion is a P-40 will not help against uber 109´s , so a P-39 would do much more for the Russians with its ground pounding capabilities. And a YAK 3 would do much more for fighting the 109 on equal bases. YAK -7 was for longer range and are worse suited than 3 to do this. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ah, the myth that the P39 was used for ground pounding still is out there I see.  The Airacobra was used by the VVS as fighter, not a ground attack aircraft.

 

The Yak 3 is a late war aircraft and has no place in the game currently, while the Yak 7B certainly does, as it was used at Stalingrad, and is the precursor to the Yak 9.

The only "light Yak" that fits the time period would be the 1b.  The 1 series Yaks are the ancestors of the Yak 3.

 

BTW, here is the progression of the Yak fighter aircraft.

 

Yak 1/Yak1b

Yak 7UTI/Yak 7B

Yak 9

Yak 3

Edited December 28, 2014 by BlitzPig_EL

[Yakdriver]

 

 

Yak-7B - Also a good choice but come on, we already have a Yak.

109F and G2.
same plane besides engine.

argument very very questionable.

[Willy__]

109F and G2. same plane besides engine. argument very very questionable.

 

Yeah, if you see from that perspective yes, but look at the luftwaffle, they had only different versions of the 109/190, while the russians had the I15, I16, Yak's, Laggs, La's, MiGs, P40's, P39's and so on. The point is that you dont have much of choice when talking about the germans, its either the 109 or the 190 in different versions.

Edited December 28, 2014 by istruba

[Yakdriver]

 

 

Yeah, if you see from that perspective yes, but look at the luftwaffle, they had only different versions of the 109/190, while the russians had the I15, I16, Yak's, Laggs, La's, MiGs, P40's, P39's and so on. The point is that you dont have much of choice when talking about the germans, its either the 109 or the 190 in different versions.

You said there already is a Yak.

 

you bring in "friendly" planes on the russian side, putting the allied arsenal against the "lonely" 109 and 190.

Iar80/81 Mc200/202, Re-2000 copy by the hungarians, finish hurricanes and so on.

Both sides used a neverending list of Planes.

 

you tell me "only one Yak", i tell you "only one messerschmitt".

just playing your game.

sorry you fell over your own shoelaces.

 

cookie?

anyway - this Poll should be titled:

 

This is the list of Fighters that The devs must choose from, and it is ME who draws up that list.

I want to control what the Devteam's options are.

 

 

And i dare not comment on such a poll to be honest.

i mean like what the firetruck.

[Nonolem]

Why not a Yak 9?

 

An early version flew over Stalingrad.

[Feathered_IV]

if you hold your mouse over the image is says IL2 battle of Stalingrad.

 

p.s that same team is doing stuff for DCS as well

Psy06, one of the members of the team, posted on militarymeshes.com a while ago and said that the team is no longer associated with dcs in any way and are currently looking for work.

[Lusekofte]

It is actually a myth they was not used as ground pounders, I was however not talking about historical perspective. I was talking about playability in the current game. The P-39 was used with success as a fighter because of the altitude the fights in east was played out, so don´t be [Edited]. Currently I think a YAK 3 would be the only plane capable to 

fight the 109 on equal bases, and I would love to fly P-39 with capabilities to carry 250 bombs , witch they did after Stalingrad in many occasions 

 

Edited by Bearcat 12/29/2014 1728 EST

 

Please refrain from name calling.

[BlitzPig_EL]

 so don´t be [Edited].

 

Wow, people skills, I suggest you learn them.  Anyway...

 

The P39's primary role in the VVS was as a day fighter, not as a ground attack aircraft. 

 

The Yak 3 has no place in this sim until we get to much later in the war.

 

From wiki..

 

The new fighter, designated the Yak-3 entered service in 1944

 

The Yak 9 would offer a much better performance than anything currently in the sim on the Russian side, and would be correct for the time period.

 

 

Edited by Bearcat 12/29/2014 1730 EST

[FlatSpinMan]

I voted for the 110, though it was hard not to choose the P40.

Anyway, can we stop the sniping over people's opinions please? Vote for what you want for whatever reason you want.

 

About the il4, I think I read something from Jason saying that wasn't going to be in, or not the one from that team. I may be wrong about that of course.

[Yakdriver]

Yak1B or LaGG3 S4 / S35 / S66 missing from the list...

 

Basically: instead of injecting new blood, give us more of "the same", with the accuracy and the intricate detail you showed so far.

 

'specially the 1B - the French guys are hellbent to get their hands on That piece of Kit.

at least two Squadrons of 40 people in total waiting to get into Normandie-Niemen gear and start activities on BoS.

 

Make that 3 squadrons - the NN, the NNFFL, and the LAL.

but bewides these, i "suspect " that another galic menhir-throwing group of people might be interested in a 1B...

It is actually a myth they was not used as ground pounders, I was however not talking about historical perspective. I was talking about playability in the current game. The P-39 was used with success as a fighter because of the altitude the fights in east was played out, so don´t be a smart ass. Currently I think a YAK 3 would be the only plane capable to 

fight the 109 on equal bases, and I would love to fly P-39 with capabilities to carry 250 bombs , witch they did after Stalingrad in many occasions 

that Kapitalist evil Cannon of 37mm Diameter Bullets in the service of the Glorious Communist Army... is a reason too, to use her as an air-to-ground asset.

and the two ton Armour plate that they called an engine... is very welcome to all of the pilots participating in this epic Struggle for the defense of the Motherland.!

[IIN8II]

1: MiG 3

2: MiG 3

3: MiG 3

4: Yak-1b

[J2_Trupobaw]

Kukuruznik! Pleasure of flying, night bombing missions, can be used as trainer by vsquadrons by puting instructor in observer seat... why don't we have one yet? 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I voted for the 110, though it was hard not to choose the P40.

Anyway, can we stop the sniping over people's opinions please? Vote for what you want for whatever reason you want.

 

About the il4, I think I read something from Jason saying that wasn't going to be in, or not the one from that team. I may be wrong about that of course.

 

I voted for the P40 and it was really hard not to vote for the 110.

 

Gahhh... The 110 will be friggin' sweet if it ever makes it in.

 

I really do need something worth fighting to shoot down though so I had to pitch my vote in favor of a well-rounded VVS fighter. (<-- Won't fly it, though.  )

Edited December 29, 2014 by FalkeEins

[LukeFF]

Indeed Brano...

 

As I recall there were 29 aces on the I-16 during the first 5 or 6 months of the war, one of which had 25 kills.

 

Knowing how the Soviets inflated their victory claims, I highly doubt any single pilot scored 25 victories in the I-16.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Always with the negative waves Luke...

 

Here's a clue for you, every airforce inflated their claims, even the holier than thou Luftwaffe.

[[KWN]T-oddball]

Knowing how the Soviets inflated their victory claims, I highly doubt any single pilot scored 25 victories in the I-16.

 

but that does not change the fact that amost 9000 were produced and they fought in spain,russia and china....excellant plane to have from a mission makers standpoint.

[LukeFF]

Always with the negative waves Luke... Here's a clue for you, every airforce inflated their claims, even the holier than thou Luftwaffe.

 

Here's a clue for you: I've never held the Luftwaffe up on a pedestal and never will. 

 

The fact remains the Soviets, of all the nations with an air force in Europe, overclaimed their kills far more than anyone else. For one, they claimed more Finnish planes shot down than Finland ever actually had during the war! 

 

Show us a list of victories claimed by any WWII I-16 ace, and it could probably be cut down by 75%.

Edited December 29, 2014 by LukeFF

[Y-29.Silky]

Here's a clue for you: I've never held the Luftwaffe up on a pedestal and never will.

 

The fact remains the Soviets, of all the nations with an air force in Europe, overclaimed their kills far more than anyone else. For one, they claimed more Finnish planes shot down than Finland ever actually had during the war!

 

Show us a list of victories claimed by any WWII I-16 ace, and it could probably be cut down by 75%.

This is a good point, and many of them got victories in Spain. If a pilot were to become an ace during the early months of Barbarossa (when Russia was desperate for even the slightest of good news) while only flying the I-16, it was shooting down the vulnerable aircraft like Stukas, Bf-110's, Storches, etc.. for the most part.

 

If there's one reason why the general of the Russian air force was staright up executed in those 5-6 months, was because the I-16 was being slaughtered, as it was the backbone of VVS.

 

Other countries inflated their claims to the point of 'probables' because intelligence was vital, but Russia took things overboard back then.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Silky

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Here's a clue for you: I've never held the Luftwaffe up on a pedestal and never will. 

 

The fact remains the Soviets, of all the nations with an air force in Europe, overclaimed their kills far more than anyone else. For one, they claimed more Finnish planes shot down than Finland ever actually had during the war! 

 

Show us a list of victories claimed by any WWII I-16 ace, and it could probably be cut down by 75%.

 

 

 

Yup, the Soviets lied their rear ends off about pretty much everything. You bloody well would too if Stalin was breathing down your neck. That dude murdered millions, would not have wanted him pissed at you.

 

 

So, you lie for the life of your entire family.

 

 

Soviet Russia was mean.

Edited December 30, 2014 by CDN-SMOKEJUMPER

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

This is a good point, and many of them got victories in Spain.

 

-snip-

 

Oh, come on now... Don't go all "GunnyHighway" on us now. 

 

I joke. 

 

Fact of the matter is this (and it has already been stated in this thread) - all of the air forces that participated in the war overclaimed. The Luftwaffe likely did it to improve moral and to inflate the "legacy" of their Jagdflieger culture... The VVS likely did it for moral and political reasons because their losses were so insurmountably high and it undermined the effectiveness of their "war effort" as described by the various politburos... The US likely did so because of the number of "probable" kills they were scoring from 1944-1945...

 

Unternehmen Bodenplatz was entirely about nullifying the Allied airforces before they were even able to leave the ground... It didn't work out so well but it was considered the only hope of the Fighter Command to regain any form of air superiority... Most of the 262's ever produced on order of the RLM were destroyed taking off or while stationary on the ground by the American air forces...

 

Vulching was a reality of the war. We are not playing a "war simulator" per se (and I don't even want to go there so don't bother replying if that's the direction it will take), but it is most definitely a valid tactic. It was used by every air force in the Second World War... Even dating back to WW1 vulching being practiced on the landing approach is well documented... as was strafing trenches.

 

It is what it is and it is difficult to argue that it shouldn't be practiced in the game because it was certainly well practiced in reality.

[Y-29.Silky]

Vulching was a reality of the war. We are not playing a "war simulator" per se but it is most definitely a valid tactic. It was used by every air force in the Second World War... Even dating back to WW1 vulching being practiced on the landing approach is well documented... as was strafing trenches.

 

It is what it is and it is difficult to argue that it shouldn't be practiced in the game because it was certainly well practiced in reality.

Uh oh! You just had to go there

 

It is a valid tactic in real life due to logistics. You shoot up an enemy aircraft, that aircraft has to be repaired which requires parts shipped all the way from their home country, etc.

 

But in a "war simulator", you instantly respawn with a -brand new- aircraft straight out of the factory and the only gain that happens, is the person who shot up the aircraft on the ground, now thinks he's good because he's racking his stats while most likely ignoring his friendly bomber who has 3 enemies on him.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Silky

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Uh oh! You just had to go there

 

It is a valid tactic in real life due to logistics. You shoot up an enemy aircraft, that aircraft has to be repaired which requires parts shipped all the way from their home country, etc.

 

But in a "war simulator", you instantly respawn with a -brand new- aircraft straight out of the factory and the only gain that happens, is the person who shot up the aircraft on the ground, now thinks he's good because he's racking his stats while most likely ignoring his friendly bomber who has 3 enemies on him.

 

I can agree with that to an extent, but "aircraft attrition" on objective based servers like the SYN and LD guys run can supplement the lack of convincing logistic based objectives that currently aren't possible in the scope of the gameplay options or the game engine.

 

I think that we can all agree that we like the "Air Bridge" style missions where things like strafing airfields, landing transports and departing transports should play a large part in who is successful in those types of missions. That supply packed He111 is a valid target whether he's on the ground or in the sky.

 

No doubt in my mind that a lot of guys likely use it to "game the game" and rack up stats. For me personally, that is the defining difference between flying for your own reasons (stats, ego, etc.) compared to strafing a landing aircraft to help the team achieve victory through attrition.

 

On that subject, please take note that I am not in support of people "camping" around airfields and really "vulching" as opposed to playing with a strategic interest... Gaming the game ruins the MP experience for a lot of people... But in the COD days (NOT IN A FLAME INCITING WAY - I am just using an example of my previous CFS experiences...) some of my most intense MP experiences were trying to get a cold-started Hurri off the ground while 110's are buzzing targets and other players all around me... So depending on the motives it can really reinforce the OH **** experience as well.

 

Point taken. 

[Willy__]

 

 

No doubt in my mind that a lot of guys likely use it to "game the game" and rack up stats. For me personally, that is the defining difference between flying for your own reasons (stats, ego, etc.) compared to strafing a landing aircraft to help the team achieve victory through attrition.

 

 

I guess thats exactly the point we're all talking about. I think pretty much all of us dont mind people doing jabo runs, bomb an airfield or even strafe a target of opportunity, but whats happening is that instead of doing that, people are just spawn camping.

[=AVG=Zombie]

I voted p40, Ive only met a few who can turn and burn in the axix aircraft, the yak can hang in that dept. the p40 will hang with them in the b & z dept and also turn and burn, great scenario.

[Lusekofte]

People think because they read one article it is true, if you read the material available you will find use of the I-16 a lot of times after 1941, they where phased out as soon Stalin approved it. Mostly with LAGGs but those fortune enough got yak´s and lend lease aircraft.

As for ground pounding, no one here can say for certain what was not or where used as such, because sooner or later they all was used as such.

But the LAGG , P-39, and a few sub versions of other fighters could carry bombs and did. 

If We strictly should follow what actually flew over Stalingrad , We need to remove the FW-190 as a starter and only use LA-5 when the city is encircled . 

I think we only miss the JU-88 and maybe some Fiat G-50 

[LukeFF]

If We strictly should follow what actually flew over Stalingrad , We need to remove the FW-190 as a starter and only use LA-5 when the city is encircled . 

 

Huh? The La-5 was in use at Stalingrad long before the Germans were encircled.

[[KWN]T-oddball]

Huh? The La-5 was in use at Stalingrad long before the Germans were encircled.

 

Source?

3 days and 325 votes and the P-40 and 110 are neck and neck.