Jump to content

Tactical Air War


=LG=Kathon
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is ridiculous to read, with what great efforts the Air Force overcame such a formidable and powerful enemy and with what tension they pulled out victory at the last moment :)
Let's just compare which aircraft the Air Force won. Accurate official data. Who disagrees - officially disagree with the developers :)

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational-details/

FACTS
Map 1 - VVS jets June and September (!) 41 against LV 40 and useless MC200 without guns 42.
Map 2 - MiG3 July 41, but no F4 June 41, only weak F2 March 41
Map 3 and 4 - VVS May and September (!) 42 versus 1 aircraft 42 years old. Again no 190A3 from March 42.
Map 5 - VVS already has a plane April 43 versus March and May 42. Haha
Map 6 - P39 end 42, Yak 1b + 9 - 2 aircraft 43 against all the same May 42 and 1 aircraft 43. Again, no 190A5 since spring 43.
Map 7 and 8 - VVS 4 aircraft 43 vs 3 aircraft 43 at LV

FACTS - LV always uses outdated aircraft, VVS unreasonably has the best modifications and always has technical superiority.
A formidable and powerful enemy is VVS on this server with this planeset :) LV is the whipping boy. HAhaha

d1a009643f86be990ecda67cba86f1c8.jpg

Edited by JGr8_Leopard
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

It is ridiculous to read, with what great efforts the Air Force overcame such a formidable and powerful enemy and with what tension they pulled out victory at the last moment

 

Did this person visit the server "Berloga" at once? Just curious.

 

I can bet: this player is one of them who said that 109g2 is better than 109f4.

 

 

Edited by Norz
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=2ndSS=Lawyer1
14 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

VVS unreasonably has the best modifications and always has technical superiority

This is the funniest thing I've read here :rofl:

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSW_Rannisokol
4 hours ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

Map 3 and 4 - VVS May and September (!) 42 versus 1 aircraft 42 years old. Again no 190A3 from March 42.

This Is what game specifications say, right? But Yak-1 and LaGG-3 were in operational state from the start of the war. The Yak-1 ser.69 only means, that this is one of the production series and it is very similar to the first series, which were already in use in 1941. Same with LaGG-3, I would only see your complain reasonable, if we had LaGG-3 with slats and we don't have this version. So, try sometimes read some books, before only rewriting the game specs.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CSW_Rannisokol said:

But Yak-1 and LaGG-3 were in operational state from the start of the war. The Yak-1 ser.69 only means, that this is one of the production series and it is very similar to the first series, which were already in use in 1941.

You are wrong. Do you hear  about V-105 and V-105 PF engine diferences. Also laterJak or ŁaGG had less weight.

Edited by =L/R=Rafcio
No reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSW_Rannisokol
1 hour ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

You are wrong. Do you hear  about V-105 and V-105 PF engine diferences. Also laterJak or ŁaGG had less weight.

Yes, I said very similar, not same. Difference between M-105PA (fitted in early Yak-1) and M-105PF is 110hp. The model what we have, flies 582 km/h at 4000m. The early Yak-1 from 1940 was flying 569 km/h at 4950m. Also, our Yak is about 220 kg lighter. But I personally don´t think that these marginal differences are the reason, why not put Yak-1 to the map 3. Also, the FW-190 was introduced in September 1942 (at eastern front), not May, like the JGr8_Leopard said.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CSW_Rannisokol said:

 But I personally don´t think that these marginal differences are the reason, why not put Yak-1 to the map 3. 

Marginal differences you said. 

Yak-1 series 69

Empty weight: 2365 kg

Maximum power in Nominal mode (2550 RPM) at sea level: 1240 HP

110 HP more and 220 kg ligher you wrote.

Almost 10 percent.

Marginal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSW_Rannisokol
7 minutes ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

Marginal differences you said. 

Yak-1 series 69

Empty weight: 2365 kg

Maximum power in Nominal mode (2550 RPM) at sea level: 1240 HP

110 HP more and 220 kg ligher you wrote.

Almost 10 percent.

Marginal?

Yes, marginal. These improvements did 13 km/h difference in top speed and the turn performance wasn´t significantly changed (Yak-1 model 1941 did a turn in 19-20 s, while Yak-1b in 19 s). So I think that these improvements are not so great, in hard data. However, improvements between versions of Yak-1 were made not only to achieve better speed, but early Yak-1 had problems with cooling, and no, it couldn´t sustain max power all flight long. But this is theme for other discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CSW_Rannisokol said:

 However, improvements between versions of Yak-1 were made not only to achieve better speed, but early Yak-1 had problems with cooling, and no, it couldn´t sustain max power all flight long. But this is theme for other discussion.

Well, it had to be a well-designed plane, since such differences (almost 10 percent of the weight and engine power) gave only 13 km / h. Remember that we're handling game data here. In the real world therefore, Soviet pilots had to fly at reduced engine RPM and power, and the actual performance of the early (1941) Jak versions was significantly lower than that achieved by Jak in 1942. These problems about you wrote did not only concern the early versions of the Yak-1, but also the later ones, since a lot of time was spent on designing the Yak-1b to improve the cooling system. However, the JGr8_Leopard is right. In this planeset, greater protection was given to the Soviet side in the selection of aircraft and their equipment. But this is theme for other discussion. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=/Hospiz/=MetalHead
39 minutes ago, CSW_Rannisokol said:

Yes, marginal. These improvements did 13 km/h difference in top speed and the turn performance wasn´t significantly changed (Yak-1 model 1941 did a turn in 19-20 s, while Yak-1b in 19 s). So I think that these improvements are not so great, in hard data. However, improvements between versions of Yak-1 were made not only to achieve better speed, but early Yak-1 had problems with cooling, and no, it couldn´t sustain max power all flight long. But this is theme for other discussion.


Marginal? Haha.
Take your ordinary 109F4, full fuel, and combat power only - that's your basic plane, check it's performance.
Now take the same F4, 100 litres of fuel and this time use full engine power (turn off engine limitations in difficulty options, to fly it non-stop like a yak).
Marginal difference?
That is 300l fuel less (around 220 kg) and 150 hp more. Between 105PF and 105PA engines, there was actually a difference of 190 hp (1240, vs 1050). Remember that Yak lighter than a 109, and it's engine is weaker, so the relative change is even higher.

If you want Yak-1 on early maps, grill the game devs for an early variant, not us.

Edited by =/Hospiz/=Metalhead
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSW_Rannisokol

=L/R=Rafcio, it was a well designed plane and weight has very little effect on top speed. Top speed is mostly affected by power and drag, so yes, I can  imagine that 110HP more give you only 13 km/h. And if you want cooling problems and other production defects modelled, Devs would also need to chceck Luftwaffe production problems in 1945. And also, if Red side won´t have planes that are somewhat comparable to the Blue planes, most of the Red side will simply don´t play on TAW, because playing outnembered and in big technical disadvantage only to give some German easy kill is not very funny. I think that this planeset is good balanced and it gives chance both sides to score.

if you want 100 % historically correct planeset, what about historically correct flying? For example Stukas in 1943 and you covering them below the clouds🤨.

=/Hospiz/=Metalhead, I don´t want anything to change, I think that planeset is good as it is now. Also, your comparsion is absolutely nonsense, because 109 has better acceleration than Yak, and it improves with higher engine settings, but the M-105PF had only more power, I don´t know about any other improvements.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CSW_Rannisokol said:

 And also, if Red side won´t have planes that are somewhat comparable to the Blue planes, most of the Red side will simply don´t play on TAW, because playing outnembered and in big technical disadvantage only to give some German easy kill is not very funny. I think that this planeset is good balanced and it gives chance both sides to score.

 

Therefore, e.g. Jak -1 p.69 is in the planeset in 1941, where it should not be. We try to be consistent with the history, but when necessary, we do so that there is a balance. Wait for the new planeset for the Eastern Front that is already being prepared. Then we will discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats to Reds.  Sorry to Blue for my noobishness.  It felt like towards the end there was very good coordination between Reds and the airfields going down one after the other seemed to clinch it.  I'm very new and rubbish at flying but I felt like Blues had little communication between the dedicated groups and the pilots that aren't flying in groups (for whatever reason).  SRS was pointless, I just got sarcastic comments thrown at me.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Gustav_Hagel
54 minutes ago, CSW_Rannisokol said:

=L/R=Rafcio, it was a well designed plane and weight has very little effect on top speed. Top speed is mostly affected by power and drag, so yes, I can  imagine that 110HP more give you only 13 km/h. And if you want cooling problems and other production defects modelled, Devs would also need to chceck Luftwaffe production problems in 1945.

I would love if they implement 30mm jamming during high Gs, I'm not joking.

Edited by SCG_Gustav_Hagel
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=/Hospiz/=MetalHead
7 minutes ago, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

I would love if they implement 30mm jamming during high Gs, I'm not joking.


I would love such features too. Some pieces of equipment sacrificed reliability for performance and omitting that in game, creates image of a super weapon. Failures would emphasize that in combat, a little weaker, but much more reliable piece of equipment is actually better, and sometimes very little changes make huge difference. Prime examples are feeding jams in P-51 guns, later adressed in D model, or bigger wheels in G-4 model of 109, trading some performance for better ground handling. Little change, but it can make difference between life and death.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Fenris_Wolf

The fact that my favourite aircraft the A-3 is still a map late is a bummer. It should be in map#4. :cray:

 

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

@JGr8_Leopard you are mixing and matching the dates, since the dates in the specs aren't consistent, sometimes they list first action on the Eastern Front, other times first action on the Western Front. Also the first map is because people really liked the I-16 vs E-7 match up, without having the 109 F-2 and MiG-3 in the way, that otherwise should always be present.

We also have lack of variants to fill up the gaps between the expansions, for both sides:

There is no Ju 87 for Battle of Moscow since the D model is 1942 timeframe.
We don't have 109 F-4 blocked to 1.3 ata for 1941, the model we have is in 1942 configuration
The Fw 190A also had engine restrictions, which were cleared in late 1942.
Bf 109 G-4 and G-6 should really be blocked to 1.3 ata like the Bf 109 G-2 if you wanted to have them accurate for Battle of Kuban scenarios (banned/unbanned back and forth, finally cleared in October 1943).

We have no M-105PA Yak-1 / LaGG-3 with 910mmHg for Moscow, and no extra boost to 950 mmHg implemented in early 1942 before the PF engine came in
There is no bubble canopy La-5F
We don't have earlier P-39 variants like P-400 and P-39D-2 with 20mm cannon,
No P-40B/C Tomahawk that would be useful for Battle of Moscow.
etc etc.

So the planesets have to be a compromise, otherwise it would be just each planeset expansion per map with the relevant collector planes here and there, like a typical server mission.

 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=KG76=flyus747

The aim of this post is to bring about mechanic/features which will shift the culture and tendency of players (on both sides) in TAW towards that of cooperation and teamwork.

 

 

 

This post is broken into two parts.

A.   Short Term Issues (most immediate)

B.   Long Term Issues 

 

 

 

A.  Short Term Issues

These are issues that absolutely need to be addressed before the start of the next season. Most of them have already been covered by a few users. If you have not already done so, I highly recommend reading their posts (#1 and #2) in their entirety.  Many many critical points.

  1. xJammer’s post
  2. Mincer’s post
  3. Nuking Airfields is much harder to pull off.
    • On top of xJammer's points: "I would not make the supply runs directly repair the airfield. However do respawn full complement of the AAA and more than just 2-3 buildings (I'd say respawn at least half of them). Meantime indeed keep the "damage" percentage as it is now. This would make follow-up cleanup runs much more challenging."
    • Limit the amount of fuel planes have on the frontline. By restricting the operational range of planes in the frontline AFs, big targets like depots and AFs can only be attempted by use of long-range aircraft. In this regard, the maps can ‘feel larger’ if planes are restricted by range.
    • Complications: Because there is currently no way to limit the max amount of fuel players take without locking fuel quantity in the server options, this would only work by creating multiple versions of the same plane just with different fuel options (10%, 20%, 30% etc…). This would mean a much larger spawn screen (more scrolling).
  4. Bring back Technochat
    • The current implementation of “no-technochat” is half-baked. Not every function is animated in the cockpit or exterior. Which engine is selected? What’s my radiator setting? How many bombs did I drop? Which bomb came off first? If a feature is not complete, is it worth completely ruining the experiences of 20% of players if only for the minor benefit of the other 80%?
    • This server is known for its stance on remaining hardcore and authentic, but there are millions of other ways that can be achieved (i.e removing compass, see B. Long Term Issues) without needing to apply incomplete features from the developers in the name of “hardcore/realism”
    • It is my personal belief that it is always more preferable to keep out a function until it is fixed instead of throwing it in. Is this not the very reason RRR is still not in TAW? RRR is incomplete, just like no-technochat.

 

 

B.  Long Term Issues

TAW has remained more or less the same for the past two years. Aside from the layouts, each map is essentially the same and each map is always a new fresh start. Attack this, defend that, here are some Cities, defenses, depots, tanks etc… Is that all there is to an air war simulation? Is there not more?

 

The following is a list of suggestions which aim to make the TAW experience more…”fully realized & complete.”  Inspiration is taken from multiple sources like CLOD’s TWC Campaign or RTS genre games. 

 

The following recommendations has been listed in order in terms of priority/feasibility.

 

Table of Contents:

1.       Bombers

2.       Night Maps

3.       Airfields

4.       Scoring

5.       Registration, Hangar & Planeset

6.       Rebuilding the Targets/Objectives/Maps

 

 

1. Bombers

  1. Level Bombing
    • Bring back purpose for level bombing because it is practically useless when everything else does it faster and better. To add salt to the wound, the destruction of depots has such insignificant impact to the overall battle that they almost never get destroyed until the frontline gets pushed close enough for bombers to simply have another target to “farm kills"
    • Inversely, obstacles should be put in place (i.e radars) to heavily deter lone wolf deep strikes in the enemy heartland that it would be only therefore be feasible to level bomb these strategic targets en masse with cover.
    • See 6.4 for info on depot changes.
  2. Air Spawns
    • To replicate bombers flying into the map from bases far behind the frontlines. Spawns at 4-5k.
    • Mitigates the deterrence of having to spend 30 'boring' minutes to climb to altitude. <- a major reason why many don't "fly bombers"

 

 

2. Night Maps

DvOI3NchWz.png.cdb0361ffe17240c277f561a53d8ff5b.pngEK5r2NHlKK.thumb.png.e0192e10fec78df4799ed752199eac8b.png

I tested various night settings and the map does not get much darker than this. Ground targets very much still visible.

  • There has always been an argument against night maps because you cannot see, but I’d argue it’s not so much that but rather that servers do not warn players of the next map thus the ones who prefer to fly day would in effect, ‘feel ambushed’ and forced to fly night maps. There are also players that want to play at night because it’s a whole different experience and lets you conduct operations you otherwise could not in the light of day.
  • Suggestion: Night maps would either be an event that either occurred every 5 missions or so or acted as a “scheduled event” listed on the website so that players can be warned in advance and choose to avoid it (or not) depending on their preference. In effect, if someone wanted to exclusively fly night only, they now can and the same would be true for the opposite. During these missions, the time of day will always be night, but the weather can be randomized.

 

 

3. Airfields

1978762001_Arifield2_0b28f35dcd3144ebd0616f2a1a636ee2.jpg.317b30ab88e61efe4f88c05ab9618c2f.jpgsUoSw973Sk.png.73d2f8934b68358c3993bc6670482ece.png

Left Image taken from a WT Dev Blog post, Right shows Bomb Craters Proof of Concept.

  • Modular Airfields
    • Hit the Fuel Depots and now this AF has no fuel supply. Bomb the Hangar means no bombers at this AF etc…
  • Bomb the Runways (because they were actually a thing)
    • Here is a Proof of Concept for bomb craters (theoretically possible because the server logs the coordinates of where each bomb lands on the map during a mission.) Using that data, it should be possible to create a script that spawns a “bomb crater” object the next mission that is ‘stuffed’ with sandbags (art_block) to make them appear ‘solid.’ The Spawn area of airfields would always be cleared of these craters to still give the players a chance to make it off the field albeit with much more difficulty.
    • The goal of this is to give players the ability to directly have input in closing runways like in real life.
    • The size of the bomb determines how likely the bomb crater will be repaired in subsequent missions. Craters would have a max life of around 2-5 missions. Supply runs can shorten that period.

 

 

4. Scoring

  • Redefine the scoring system. Reward bombers and transports who don’t often “kill something” as much as fighters or attackers.
    • Winning a map, killing an objective etc…all should reward additional points for taking part in that process.
    • Find a way to credit “Teamwork score” (if possible) and this would determine who gets access to new toys everybody wants like the Me262.
    • Increase points for bombers, transport and paradrops
    • Reward escorts for escorting (if possible)
  • The goal here is not so much to start handing points out like candy, but to incentivize players to participate in all forms of air operations, not simply just fighters/attackers.
  • It makes no sense that a transport player directly responsible for resupplying an Airfield from 50% to 30%, should be rewarded a meager amount of ~100 pts. Meanwhile a useless fighter free roaming around the map gets 300 points in one sortie for executing 3 planes. This is part of the ongoing reason why many people don't do transport missions unless they need CMs for their brand new "One oh NIINE": it’s not worth it, for them. Players would be far more inclined to help out their team if there is something in it for them.

 

 

5. Registration, Hangar & Planeset

  • Registration
    • Separate website display for the teams. Shows stats only for your team and the state of the current battle. Prevents players from “conducting research” on enemy players. The Top 5 fighters/ bombers etc… would remain but only show the top 5 in your team and then at the end of the campaign, combine both teams to one website like how it currently is.
  • Hangar
    • Redesign the hangar so that specialized pilots can fly more of what they want to fly. When players register, they will pick which “class” they want to be in. Bombers, fighters, or attackers (everyone will always get access to transport). Now what if you want to fly a different class? Easy,
  • Planeset
    • The total amount of planes a team has should be split into specific types. If the VVS commits 1000 planes to one map, it should really mean (for instance)

      • 120  IL2 1941s

      • 240  Yak1b

      • 400  A20Bs

      • etc…

      • = 1000 planes.

    • Rare planes should only be given to pilots who have a proven record of getting things done and bring the plane back

    • Make it so that the default skin for planes is White for Winter Maps and Green for Summer/Autumn, not always just the 1st skin.

 

 

6. Rebuilding/Redefining the Targets/Objectives/Maps

  1. Recon targets
    • At start of every map, it is an empty map, planes will need to fly into enemy territory to recon targets. This means it is possible for a team to go an entire map without ever knowing where the enemy’s fuel depot is.
  2. Interconnected Economy
    • Interconnect objectives on the map so that the loss of a seemingly insignificant city can mean the loss of a certain loadout or plane across the team.
    • Cities serve no other purpose in TAW other than to act as buffer zone protection for Airfields. Inspiration can be taken from RTS games like Company of Heroes where the capture of certain zones increases the rate of production of tanks or planes, or trucks etc… for the team.
  3. Every Map is Unique
    • Ships for Kuban.
    • Stalingrad has no fighting over actual city of Stalingrad itself.
    • Half of Kuban is water. Another large portion is mountains. What other server would implement gameplay in these regions if not a dynamic war campaign?
  4. Depots
    • Different types of depots for each team and map. Fuel depots, supply depots, plane depots etc… Soviet depot are different from German depots.
    • Instead of 2 large depots, have ~4 specialized and smaller depots. One for Fuel, another for Tanks, another for Modifications/Loadouts etc…
    • More impacts (both immediate and long term) to the team. Incentivizes the depots as a target to defend/attack.
    • Hitting a depot in the beginning of the campaign may not leave much impact but successively hitting them throughout the campaign means that towards the latter half of the campaign, the team who’s depots suffered the most damage will increasingly begin to feel its effects.
    • The impact of damaging/killing depots should be expanded to always give players reason to attack (aside from being something for bombers to chew on)
    • Two Suggestions

      1. Accumulated target. Depot strikes have no immediate effect on the first maps but by latter half, you will begin to feel the effects. Team will start each map with correspondingly fewer and fewer resources depending on the extent of damage done to their depots in the previous maps.

      2. Immediate effects and Long Term Effects. Remove the requirement that impact is not felt unless all depots are dead. If one depot is 20% damaged then the enemy should already begin to feel something.

  5. Timed Unique/Rare Opportunities
    • Kill a High-Ranking General last spotted in the vicinity of Grid 0234. Successful completion of task means enemy production reduced by X.
  6. Persistent World
    • No more “New Map, New Start” If you were defeated last map, expect to feel some of the effects in the next map.
Edited by =KG76=flyus747
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./ZG1_HeTzeR

I agree with most, but leave the Technochat OFF! 

 

You can see how your Radiators are set, you can see pretty much everything. What you cant see is WHAT was damaged and how that might play out for you if you keep on flying.

 

All you have to do is to know your Airframe and where to look at.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, hello!

TAW is over, but the LG is not dead yet :P

We opened recruitment session in december for our Sturm / JABO / bombing section.

 

We mostly speak native Polish but cooperate in English as well

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

Cześć wszystkim!

 

LG zaprasza wszystkich zainteresowanych do aplikowania do naszej sekcji rekrutów, szczegółowe info w wątku na polskim forum, bądź poprzez priv / TeamSpeak.

 

Do usłyszenia !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=RedS=-Str1ke

Thx for campaing!

Thx admins for server, thx pilots for action!

 

And

About U-2, it is very useless plane. Like a reconnaissance aircraft it's useless because drop zone of Fallschirmjäger you can see when you choose wrong side (ofcourse not specially).

as supply ok, but no one supply on it... you can go on pe-2 2-3 times and bring 8-12% off supply, but on u-2 u can bring 7% in 2-3 tmes longer. Maybe slow supply planes must bring more cargo?

 

Maybe create new task for U-2? Saboteur delivery for example or propaganda leaflets drops on enemy defens lines to decrease defense or another smth special...

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, -=RedS=-Str1ke said:

Maybe create new task for U-2? 

The U-2 was mainly used as a training plane. Maybe a team that lost three times as many lives as the next team in this category could use it to learn to fly.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

The U-2 was mainly used as a training plane. Maybe a team that lost three times as many lives as the next team in this category could use it to learn to fly.


It is always nice to receive some solid advice. Previously we were instructed here to learn to "shoot good", now to fly. What will be next? 😄

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mincer said:


It is always nice to receive some solid advice. Previously we were instructed here to learn to "shoot good", now to fly. What will be next? 😄

Always ready to help. 😀

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

Maybe a team that lost three times as many lives as the next team in this category could use it to learn to fly.

 

Sad... Can you check the numbers below? What can you see?

 

=> 11588/585=19,80

 

Air kills 652
Air kills streak 17
Ground vehicles destroyed 11588
Ground kills streak 384
Deaths 585
Total flight time 1730h 37m

  

=>23,1

 

Air kills 96
Air kills streak 5
Ground vehicles destroyed 3696
Ground kills streak 573
Deaths 160
Total flight time 734h 32m

 

=>20,32

 

Air kills 293
Air kills streak 20
Ground vehicles destroyed 3333
Ground kills streak 296
Deaths 164
Total flight time

1248h 7m

 

=> 31,57

 

Air kills 303
Air kills streak 113
Ground vehicles destroyed 3126
Ground kills streak 302
Deaths 99
Total flight time 765h 36m

 

=> 25

 

Air kills 141
Air kills streak 9
Ground vehicles destroyed 3005
Ground kills streak 144
Deaths 118
Total flight time 616h 59m
Edited by Norz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=2ndSS=Lawyer1
1 hour ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

The U-2 was mainly used as a training plane.

I thought you were pretty well versed in the history of WWII aviation. The U-2 was actively used by VVS in combat as a light bomber, as a communications aircraft, in rescue operations and for dropping saboteurs

Edited by =2ndSS=Lawyer1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

I thought you were pretty well versed in the history of WWII aviation. The U-2 was actively used by VVS in combat as a light bomber, as a communications aircraft, in rescue operations and for dropping saboteurs

 

1 hour ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

The U-2 was mainly used as a training plane. Maybe a team that lost three times as many lives as the next team in this category could use it to learn to fly.

Mainly i wrote.

 

30 minutes ago, Norz said:

 

Sad... Can you check the numbers below? What can you see?

 

What do you see in the tables, how did you fall in battle? Take a look at your homeland and compare it to Germany. There, millions of surviving German soldiers rebuilt their country, and in your country, millions of those who lost their lives in senseless attacks such as on Berlin in 1945, very similar to the behavior of your team during the last campaign, were unable to do so.

Edited by =L/R=Rafcio
No reason
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

What do you see in the tables, how did you fall in battle? Take a look at your homeland and compare it to Germany. There, millions of surviving German soldiers rebuilt their country, and in your country, millions of those who lost their lives in senseless attacks such as on Berlin in 1945, very similar to the behavior of your team during the last campaign, were unable to do so.

 

Can someone stop him? The person cannot work with the numbers. Please do not use his skills for the next east campaign.

Edited by Norz
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mincer said:


It is always nice to receive some solid advice. Previously we were instructed here to learn to "shoot good", now to fly. What will be next? 😄

 

2 hours ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

Always ready to help. 😀

 

 

3 minutes ago, mincer said:

Next module in IL-2 Great Battles series: 

IL-2: Battle of The Forum

We could just exchage smiles, but if someone wants to prove something to someone in the tables, go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  2 hours ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

Maybe a team that lost three times as many lives as the next team in this category could use it to learn to fly.

You mentioned this category. You mentioned "3 times". If you do not understand what should be compared... Sad for us.

Edited by Norz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITAF_Airone1989
8 minutes ago, mincer said:

Next module in IL-2 Great Battles series: 

IL-2: Battle of The Forum


Reds will have an advantage due to the Cyrillic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Norz said:
 
  2 hours ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

Maybe a team that lost three times as many lives as the next team in this category could use it to learn to fly.

You mentioned this category. You mentioned "3 times". If you do not understand what should be compared... Sad for us.

This category means - "team deaths". 

If you got it differently then I'm sorry. Multi-page translation is not always good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

This was mainly before the war began

I do not think so. I think it was still a basic training plane. I know there were different UTIs, but the first flights probably continued to be on Po-2, as we should actually call this plane to celebrate N.N. Polikarpov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

This category means - "team deaths". 

If you got it differently then I'm sorry. Multi-page translation is not always good.

 

Let us check your personal stats: 9 deaths. Is it a lot or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BlackSix locked and unpinned this topic
  • BlackSix unlocked this topic
  • BlackSix pinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...