Can we use those planes from the BOM in BOS? And BOM is not fair once again.

[[RG]Flanker1985]

Can we use those planes from the BOM in BOS?

Think about it. The majority of the planes in BOM was also in service at the time of BOS, such as the Yak-1. Since the La-5 in BOM one of the very earlier variant, it is less capable than the LaGG-3 at the time. I really would like to use the MiG-3 with ShVAKs.

Also the BOS was hardly fair since we didn't even get the 35th series of LaGG-3. And the 8th series of La-5 is hardly the right opponent for the FW-190.

And this time it is even worse. Come one, think about it. Are you seriously thinking to ping the I-16 against Bf-109E7?? And the premium plane hardly worse the money. A P-40E?? That plane was largely obsoleted even before the production started. It has a lower climb rate than many contemporary fighters. Which the Axis players got the famous M.C 202. May I suggest the LaGG-3 series 11 or 4?

[LukeFF]

The majority of the planes in BOM was also in service at the time of BOS, such as the Yak-1.

 

The Yak-1 of 1941 was not the same Yak-1 currently modeled in the game and present in late 1942.

 

And the 8th series of La-5 is hardly the right opponent for the FW-190.

 

Both planes entered service in the East at practically the same time - September 1942.

 

Are you seriously thinking to ping the I-16 against Bf-109E7??

 

Why not? That's a historically valid matchup.

 

A P-40E?? That plane was largely obsoleted even before the production started. It has a lower climb rate than many contemporary fighters.

 

You've heard of Lend-Lease, right? 

Edited August 14, 2015 by LukeFF

[FuriousMeow]

QQ

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

"Fair..?"   

 

 

Edited August 14, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[III/JG2Gustav05]

go to play War thunder if it's not fair.

[Finkeren]

I wouldn't wanna fly for the VVS if it was fair

 

Historical accuracy goes before game balance in a sim, and reality was, that there was a technological gap in air power on the Eastern Front at least until 1943.

[Leaf]

To answer your question:

Yes, as far as I know, BoM planes can and no doubt will be used in BoS. The I16 and the Italian monstrosity is already available for you to fly in BoS, and all other BoM planes will follow suit.

 

The system is much like Rise of Flight in that respect, but yes, BoM planes can be flown in BoS.

[[RG]Flanker1985]

I wouldn't wanna fly for the VVS if it was fair

 

Historical accuracy goes before game balance in a sim, and reality was, that there was a technological gap in air power on the Eastern Front at least until 1943.

 

go to play War thunder if it's not fair.

I don't why every time when I post, there would be people deliberately twist my meaning.

We could have both fairness and realism at the same time. We can have earlier variants of LaGGs and Yaks as I HAVE ALREADY STATED in my original post.

 

Read before you post next time.

 

[[RG]Flanker1985]

To answer your question:

 

Yes, as far as I know, BoM planes can and no doubt will be used in BoS. The I16 and the Italian monstrosity is already available for you to fly in BoS, and all other BoM planes will follow suit.

 

The system is much like Rise of Flight in that respect, but yes, BoM planes can be flown in BoS.

 

The Yak-1 of 1941 was not the same Yak-1 currently modeled in the game and present in late 1942.

 

 

Both planes entered service in the East at practically the same time - September 1942.

 

 

Why not? That's a historically valid matchup.

 

 

You've heard of Lend-Lease, right? 

 

Thanks for the information.

And like I said, if we have the earlier variants of the Yak and LaGG, it would be more fair and in the same time, "a historically valid match up" as you called it.

 

Also, what does lend-lease has to do with fairness? Basically, P-40 isn't such a capable plane back then.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The six gun variant of the P-40 should be fine as long as it is flown to its strengths. Same is true of several aircraft in this sum. A hot fighter jock in a Kittyhawk will be no different that a hot fighter jock in a LaGG or Yak. Know your mount, know your enemy.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Thanks for the information.

And like I said, if we have the earlier variants of the Yak and LaGG, it would be more fair and in the same time, "a historically valid match up" as you called it.

Also, what does lend-lease has to do with fairness? Basically, P-40 isn't such a capable plane back then.

The goal with the premium planes is not to provide the highest performing type. Just an interesting plane for the warbird aficionado.

 

IMHO, the P-40E will punch well above its weight. It will probably be flown by a lot of P-40 specialists online who will know some of the winning tactics that you can use with it.

[LukeFF]

 

 

Also, what does lend-lease has to do with fairness? Basically, P-40 isn't such a capable plane back then.

 

You asked why it's being modeled, and I gave you the answer.  

[Feathered_IV]

If fairness is a big concern, couldn't you just run a server where everybody flies just the one aircraft? Red vs Blue 190's or something?

[Finkeren]

I don't why every time when I post, there would be people deliberately twist my meaning.

We could have both fairness and realism at the same time. We can have earlier variants of LaGGs and Yaks as I HAVE ALREADY STATED in my original post.

 

Read before you post next time.

 

Ok, if having early Yaks and LaGGs added later as individual purchases (maybe together with a Ju87B?) then I'm all for it. Just fon't expect it to level the playing field, early Yaks and (especially) LaGGs will still be inferior to the two main German fighters.

[FuriousMeow]

WWI and WWII air combat, and all air battles between and since, have not been fair. It was always an answer to the aircraft the other side had. That was a huge complaint from Manfred von Richthofen, that they were stuck in the same Albatros DIIIs that they have had for the past several months and nothing new had come while the Allies had received several new airframes that were dominating them. That is why he pushed through the Dr1 because it was new, and it climbed better than the Albatros DIII they currently had.

 

All historical air warfare is an answer to the other side. There is never a time frame that either side has aircraft that match in every single category. Zeros that can turn quick and are faster than the more heavily armored aircraft that are a little slower and much less maneuverable? Let's retain the armor but make them faster. Still can't turn but they can go fast so they can work in teams and shoot down the slower less armored aircraft while absorbing damage because new pilots were being spit out quickly and tactics were constantly in evolution with the USN at that time. Aircraft that are almost the same in every way with a slight turn advantage to one, and a slight climb to the other? Let's get a plane with better acceleration and a faster roll rate plus way better hitting power, and with team work they will be able to down the slower accelerating, faster turning, slower rolling SpitVb.

 

It's always an answer to the other side, so fair simply never existed in air combat.

Edited August 15, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Cybermat47]

It's always an answer to the other side, so fair simply never existed in air combat.

If any war is fair, the leaders of both sides aren't doing their job properly.

[Y-29.Silky]

IMHO, the P-40E will punch well above its weight. It will probably be flown by a lot of P-40 specialists online who will know some of the winning tactics that you can use with it.

 

Agreed. I don't know why people say the P-40 was bad because of it's climb rate. Flown properly (Which is not BnZ), the P-40 was a serious threat to the 109's.

[StickMan]

Agreed. I don't know why people say the P-40 was bad because of it's climb rate. Flown properly (Which is not BnZ), the P-40 was a serious threat to the 109's.

Yes, I loved using the P-40 in the old 1946. Gave many 109 drivers a surprise. The only reasons I can think people dimiss it is that it doesn't have the hype the Mustang had and it sucks in War Blunder fighting against placeholder FMs. Edited August 16, 2015 by GeneralZod

[Finkeren]

The thing is: A fighter that has the advantage in acceleration, top speed and/or climb rate can make itself practically untouchable, can disengage at will and has the means to turn an energy disadvantage around. The Bf 109F4 holds a substantial advantage over the P-40E in all three areas (much bigger advantage than over the Yak-1), meaning that a skilled 109 pilot can completely dictate the fight in an equal energy situation.

 

Like with the LaGG it doesn't matter how much firepower you have or how well you roll or how sturdy your airframe is, when a 109 can run you down in seconds or climb almost twice as fast.

 

There is a reason why fighter development in WW2 went in the direction of higher speed, climb performance and acceleration in all air forces and not in the direction of higher maneuverability.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Finkeren

[Finkeren]

On paper the P-40E is quite a bit inferior to the LaGG-3 series 29 we have in BoS.

 

It's got about the same top speed, but its normal loaded weight is over 500kg heavier with engine power almost exactly the same as the LaGG. It's got higher wing loading, a much worse climb rate and a much lower service ceiling.

 

I get that the LaGG-3 has special design problems that limited its performance further, but it should be obvious, that the P-40E was not a strong performer by 1942 standards.

[Finkeren]

"But the P-40s maneuverability will save the day!"

 

Well, just for the heck of it: Let's see how it matches up to the most agile plane in BoS/BoM. I don't know if you'll claim the P-40 should outturn or outroll the I-16, maybe you will?

 

The I-16 has a significantly lower top speed than the P-40E (about 50km/h which is less than the difference between the Bf 109F4 and the P-40E, which I have been told won't matter) but apart from that, the I-16 wins out: It climbs way better, has much, much better P/W ratio (and therefore presumably better initial acceleration), it has a 25% lower wingloading and (this surprised me) it has an almost 1000m higher service ceiling than the P-40E.

 

I say this not to thrash the P-40, it certainly has it's uses, but to claim that it will pose a serious threat to the Bf 109Fs and Gs it will be up against is nonsense.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Finkeren

[StickMan]

Well whatever it is on paper, it won't matter. You still will get kills with it online because guys will refuse to fly the 109 to it's strengths. They will then come to the forums and complain that the FM is borked or they can't push the stick past critical negative AoA and retain controlled flight. Who knows what the next excuse will be for pilot failure?

Edited August 16, 2015 by GeneralZod

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I'm interested how they would model the P-40E engine limits. Since in the RAF and RAAF, some squadrons overboosted the engine to run really high, sometimes up to 70"in for WEP compared to really conservative 44" from Allison at the start of the war, raised to 60" by late 1942, though to be fair, I don't know what the Soviets did.

Edited August 16, 2015 by RoflSeal

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Interesting the OP seems to miss out the Mig 3 which should out perform the F2 at high altitude. I think this will make for some great battles.

[Finkeren]

Well whatever it is on paper, it won't matter. You still will get kills with it online because guys will refuse to fly the 109 to it's strengths. They will then come to the forums and complain that the FM is borked or they can't push the stick past critical negative AoA and retain controlled flight. Who knows what the next excuse will be for pilot failure?

I can always find plenty of fodder for my I-16 on the 'fast food' servers, in the form of Bf 109 jockeys with a death wish in a low level furball.

 

Doesn't mean the I-16 is a superior fighter to the Bf 109.

[fjacobsen]

Energy fighting, as done in the BF-109, FW-190 and LA-5 will give You the initative, while slower, but more maneuvrable fighters will be better defending themself.

Beig a fighter pilot means that You shouldn´t be defending Yourslef, but rather be the attacker.

 

But energy fighting requires the utmost of skill to perform right. Most will end up in a turning fight and thus loose against a turning fighter.

 

A well flown Lagg-3 can be devasting against a poorly flown FW-190, despite any performance data proves the opposite.

Edited August 16, 2015 by fjacobsen

[Dakpilot]

I think they  had enough trouble keeping them  (p-40's) running reliably at standard boost, most Soviet pilots were used to being able to freely  use full/max throttle without limit (apart from Temp restrictions) in a short order many aircraft were underperforming due to excess wear due to 'enthusiastic use' and engine failures were then common, and a lack of spares exacerbated the issue, prompting the fitment of a number of P-40E's with less powerful Russian built engine as a stopgap way of keeping them serviceable

 

also think they needed higher octane fuel than was widely available, not sure about that, I know that the B-25's needed to run on imported  western sourced fuel

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[StickMan]

I can always find plenty of fodder for my I-16 on the 'fast food' servers, in the form of Bf 109 jockeys with a death wish in a low level furball.

 

Doesn't mean the I-16 is a superior fighter to the Bf 109.

Agreed. My point is that guys will dismiss it then think something is wrong with FM because they get killed by it. Seeing it's inferior on paper.

[Finkeren]

Agreed. My point is that guys will dismiss it then think something is wrong with FM because they get killed by it. Seeing it's inferior on paper.

Yeah, I could see that happen with the P-40 as well, especially since it will only take a very short burst from the 6x.50cal to send an unwary German to his grave.

 

Still, doesn't say much about the P-40 apart from the fact that it's well armed.

[fjacobsen]

As far as I know the fuel in soviet was of a lower grade than in the west.

 

Soviet fighter doctrone, was to fly at full (not mergency) power, thus keeping a high cruise speed, which made it more difficult for enemy flights to take them by surprice.

They also flew in disorder which made surprice attacks harder. It is not really known if this flying in disorder was on purpose or intentionally.

[=CFC=Conky]

"But the P-40s maneuverability will save the day!"

 

Well, just for the heck of it: Let's see how it matches up to the most agile plane in BoS/BoM. I don't know if you'll claim the P-40 should outturn or outroll the I-16, maybe you will?

 

The I-16 has a significantly lower top speed than the P-40E (about 50km/h which is less than the difference between the Bf 109F4 and the P-40E, which I have been told won't matter) but apart from that, the I-16 wins out: It climbs way better, has much, much better P/W ratio (and therefore presumably better initial acceleration), it has a 25% lower wingloading and (this surprised me) it has an almost 1000m higher service ceiling than the P-40E.

 

I say this not to thrash the P-40, it certainly has it's uses, but to claim that it will pose a serious threat to the Bf 109Fs and Gs it will be up against is nonsense.

 

Ok, but I'll state the obvious; irl most aircraft that get shot down are unaware they are under attack until it's too late. If you go 1v1 P-40 vs 109F-4, of course the F4 will be at an advantage if pilot skill is roughly equal and both are ware of each other's presence. It may not always win but the advantage will be there. An earlier post mentions the need to fly the P-40 properly and that doesn't mean BnZ. In this game, flying the P-40 properly will probably mean avoiding dogfighting. Sneak up on an unsuspecting opponent in any way possible then gun them down. Teamwork will be a real asset, especially if you are spotted early enough to spoil your firing pass.

 

Good hunting,

Conky

Edited August 16, 2015 by CFC_Conky

[Finkeren]

Ok, but I'll state the obvious; irl most aircraft that get shot down are unaware they are under attack until it's too late. If you go 1v1 P-40 vs 109F-4, of course the F4 will be at an advantage if pilot skill is roughly equal and both are ware of each other's presence. It may not always win but the advantage will be there. An earlier post mentions the need to fly the P-40 properly and that doesn't mean BnZ. In this game, flying the P-40 properly will probably mean avoiding dogfighting. Sneak up on an unsuspecting opponent in any way possible then gun them down. Teamwork will be a real asset, especially if you are spotted early enough to spoil your firing pass.

 

Good hunting,

Conky

 

All that is true of course, but none of it changes the assessment of the P-40 as a fighter. If you get the jump on an unsuspecting opponent, then the IL-2 is a really good fighter too (2x23mm packs a helluvalot more punch than 6x12.7mm) I commented about the P-40 specifically because someone made a point about it meaning 'trouble' for the 109s, which I find absurd because the P-40E actually has inferior performance to the LaGG-3 in several key areas.

 

The thing is: With lower top speed, inferior climb rate and lower service ceiling the P-40 is more likely to get jumped by a Bf 109 than vice versa.

[=CFC=Conky]

All that is true of course, but none of it changes the assessment of the P-40 as a fighter. If you get the jump on an unsuspecting opponent, then the IL-2 is a really good fighter too (2x23mm packs a helluvalot more punch than 6x12.7mm) I commented about the P-40 specifically because someone made a point about it meaning 'trouble' for the 109s, which I find absurd because the P-40E actually has inferior performance to the LaGG-3 in several key areas.

 

The thing is: With lower top speed, inferior climb rate and lower service ceiling the P-40 is more likely to get jumped by a Bf 109 than vice versa.

 

Maybe they'll give the P-40 the same flaps as the Yak-1...

 

Pip, pip,

Conky

[Skoop]

That is one way to kill my buz on the p-40, you are probaly telling the sobering truth. The one thing that has me intrigued is the 6 50cals, being such a spray and pray awful gunner, the 6 50s may help my cause when I actually get someone in my sites.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Skoop

[StickMan]

That is one way to kill my buz on the p-40, you are probaly telling the sobering truth. The one thing that has me intrigued is the 6 50cals, being such a spray and pray awful gunner, the 6 50s may help my cause when I actually get someone in my sites.

Just make sure they are in convergence range. Convergence hasn't really been much of a factor thus far, the fighters we have now all have nose mounts.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I can always find plenty of fodder for my I-16 on the 'fast food' servers, in the form of Bf 109 jockeys with a death wish in a low level furball.

 

Doesn't mean the I-16 is a superior fighter to the Bf 109.

 

This is true... but the I-16 does have the odd key advantage that puts it in a spot where it has the potential to do very well. The P-40 is going to be similar I suspect. It has a decent dive rate, good roll rate, and the .50cals should make it a fairly hard hitter. It will in no way be superior or even equal to the 109s that it will be fighting (109E-7 maybe excepted) but it will surprise the unwary. And, as I said before, it will punch above its own weight thanks to both the dismissive attitude of some aggressor pilots to it and it will probably be flown by at least some pretty talented folks that will get as much as they can out of it.

[Finkeren]

That is one way to kill my buz on the p-40, you are probaly telling the sobering truth. The one thing that has me intrigued is the 6 50cals, being such a spray and pray awful gunner, the 6 50s may help my cause when I actually get someone in my sites.

 

There is no need to lose the buzz over the P-40. Even if its performance doesn't allow it to dictate the fight, it'll still be an awesome ambush plane and fearsome bomber killer with its great dive characteristics and heavy armament.

 

Its armament combined with sturdiness, a high payload and pleasant handling should also make it a pretty fun ground attack aircraft (an area where we know it performed quite well)

Edited August 17, 2015 by Finkeren