Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Monostripezebra

The BEST fighter..

Recommended Posts

I don't know what to say... Oh, yes, it reminds me the War Thunder's IL-2 when it had the old FM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do remember that I used the Il-2 in the original 2001 game as a fighter, but this is just plain silly :o:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

reminds me of War Thunder arcade mode. Gosh i loved that plane back then. Best fighter in it's battlerank   :biggrin:

 

Warthunder and BoS .. are cousins or brothers?  :huh:   :biggrin: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warthunder and BoS .. are cousins or brothers?  :huh:   :biggrin:

I don't play it anymore for a long time, but i check some stuff about it here and there, and frankly, i haven't seen such weird behavior (like this IL2, or the Yak with flaps) in War Thunder since Premium Kingcobra days 2+ years ago.

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime I see an Fw in a slow speed angles fight I think the pilot should be sent to the infantry immediately. The Il2 has a thick high lift wing. It SHOULD be fairly effective at the lower end of a speed graph. There are some very good Il2 jockeys online who know how to drive that thing. Stay fast against her and you are almost untouchable in any German fighter.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Dr. Ive always enjoyed your videos from RoF, but this makes me realize you might be one of the best virtual pilots alive today lol.

I don't care how many takes that took-very impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herr Doctor's videos are an excellent medicine for any patient showing symptoms of taking flight sims too seriously.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry 5tuka, this is a take-off ;)

 

 

I used to live on RAF bases as a forces brat and watch these things take off for real. The only thing that came close in scariness was the Vulcan.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime I see an Fw in a slow speed angles fight I think the pilot should be sent to the infantry immediately. The Il2 has a thick high lift wing. It SHOULD be fairly effective at the lower end of a speed graph. There are some very good Il2 jockeys online who know how to drive that thing. Stay fast against her and you are almost untouchable in any German fighter.

Come on, that has nothing to do what this is all about. Or do you really think the Il2-41 is right how it is right now? Btw in the vertical at the beginning of the fight the Il2 should've already been done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything is, "right," but if you are engaging in a low speed angles fight in the Fw 190 you are playing into your enemy's hands. More so if you are engaging an aircraft with a high lift wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, watching that second video I'm failing to see the uberness of it all. The 190 pilots were flying extremely passively, at ridiculously slow speeds which favour the Il-2's performance envelope and at times even all flapped out, trying to point their noses at Dr. Zeebra through silly tight turns. As Mr. Muff said, the Il-2 has big, thick wings and this version was known to have a great roll-rate if compared to its 1942 successor. Even in the old Il-2 one could fly the 1941 version and merrily engage the opposition if they played stupid. Most of the kills happened when they either slowed down or tried to extend but were still in guns range.

 

This reminds me of those Lock On/DCS brawls where a smartass tries to bring their Su-27 or MiG-29 down to slow knife fights against the A-10 and leave wondering why did they get clobbered. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post #13 shows something is definitely not right. The plane can fly at extreme angles of attack and remain controllable at the same time. Sure, it's Zebra doing the piloting, and maybe not everybody will manage that, but still...

Edited by coconut
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, I never wanted to say "OP IL2, pls nerf!11!".. I nor is the Il2 ´41 a better fighter then the FW190. Off course the FW190 is better.. and yes, the pilots in the vid did make mistakes but to be fair: they are experienced pilots and where a bit confused beeing attacked by IL2s. In my judgement of what happend, there are 2 things: one is a psychological factor, as it was hard for them to judge the real performance and one thing is an FM thing. Without wanting to go into the depths of an FM discussion, the combination of different traits make the Il2 a bit weird. And off course, I optimised the loadout in the landing vid for high-alpha flying (200l fuel, no ammo gives a good CG for that)

 

In my oppinion, the "powerful" feel has several aspects:

 

1) damage implications. Other planes are seemingly suffering harsher consequences of damages then the IL2

2) the combination of  several flight charateristics: suprem low speed control and "unstallability" as well as the ability to raise the nose at very low speeds combined with high acceleration, high initial dive speed, excellent initial climb speed and very low energy loss.. makes it very hard for the FW to distance itself. A little bit like the YAK/109 trouble: diving away or climbing away is possible, but the distancing is very slow. Here the psychology comes into play, we actually had one enemy pilot on Teamspeak and he had difficulties to judge how far the Il2 actually climbs with him. To that comes the fact that you can almost instantly begin to climb again at low speeds in the Il2.. 

 

It´s not that you can not win, but it maybe is a lot easier then it should be for the IL2 to trap a fighter into a dogfight with the extending beeing decidedly difficult. It

 

may main issue is the energy retention and the combination of good initial dive acceleration as well as little energy loss when going up... at the same time with the maneuverability. Simply put, it is almost impossible to optimise a real plane for both sides: dive accleration/zoom/level accleration and the low-wingloading turnfighters.. those goals physically contradict. And in my eyes, revising the ´41 FM would be benificial to gameplay as well as historical accuracy. The 42 model is much better, I think, even though it may or may not have too high energy retention, too. But you play it differently, because it is not as harsh as the ´41.

Edited by Dr_Zeebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least, devs should teach the FW190 AI how to fight the IL-2. It took me maybe 5 mins to win 2 1v1 in the IL-2, and in the FW190 it was a tie and a win after maybe 2x15min fights.

 

SP gameplay in the campaign is going to be weird if interceptors are the ones hunted by the attack planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is an old problem that the AI in energy fights in most sims does not act too smart.. but the dilema kinda is that too smart AI in energy fighting would for most games make the beginners entry very frustrating. It is good training on energy fighting to go against the maneuverable AI in a less maneuverable plane, though..

 

 

Anyway, here is Vades perspective from our 3-Il2 hunter flight, I think just the first 30 sec. into the game show how hard it may be to get seperation and energy fight, when the Il2 climbs up rapidly

 

i don´t know if JG4 Lebano recorded anything, but here is his channel anyways, he´s got some awesome stuff: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyZ_2j7wisPI6qELOvF8_bg

Edited by Dr_Zeebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is an old problem that the AI in energy fights in most sims does not act too smart.. but the dilema kinda is that too smart AI in energy fighting would for most games make the beginners entry very frustrating. It is good training on energy fighting to go against the maneuverable AI in a less maneuverable plane, though..

 

 

That is exactly what the problem is IMHO - in RoF the original AI made planes like the SE5a and SPAD try to extend and return rather than just place their lift line on the target and pull on the stick. So many people complained that the devs changed their AI so that they just try to turn all the time. :(

 

However this should only affect attack planes in SP if the IL2s are programmed to act like fighters and prioritize air targets, which they did not do in BoS SP campaign IIRC (although I only tangled with a very few). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a historical perspective this is not far off. Due to none existing escort , the sturmovik pilots started to fight back instead of being lame targets. The first versions of the Sturmvik was far better balanced and without armament it was a capable low speed dogfighter. Many IL 2 Sturmovik pilots became aces in this period. The engine was the best available at the time, witch was a policy threat the war. IL 2 Sturmoviks development suffered hugely by lack of Aluminium and instability after the gunner was added, this was corrected by the swept wing on the M model. But it was still too heavy, something the 41 model was not troubled with

I like the IL 2 41 mod, and its performance should not be a problem for a mid level pilot of Luftwaffe. 

Edited by EG14_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Many IL 2 Sturmovik pilots became aces in this period.
 

 

the sturmovik pilots started to fight back instead of being lame targets.
 

 

Can you give me a source on that, i'd love to read more about the topic!  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vade, see here, press Ctrl-F and type in Il-2: http://www.wio.ru/aces/ace2.htm

 

Valya Figichev is an exception (legendary guy by the way, one of the only three pilots who started the war at 55 IAP and lived to see the Great Victory, the other two being Pokryshkin and Kryukov, then transferred to fly Il-2s and finally back to fighters with the P-39 in 129 GIAP, where Evgeniy Mariinskiy, author of Red Star Airacobra, fought) since his kills were scored flying fighters, but the rest only flew the good old Shturmovik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were indeed an number of Sturmovik pilots with multiple victories. For unescorted Stukas, bombers, transports and artillery observation planes the Sturmovik was a dangerous opponent, because the German 7.92 mm MGs were almost useless against it. I've also read a number of Russian combat reports that mention claims of Messerschmitts by Sturmovik pilots. These were often scored when the fighters overshoot their target.

As a source see for example "Il-2 Shturmovik Guards Units of Wolrd War 2".

Here's an interesting quote:

Demonstration dogfights with various fighter types - Soviet Yak-7bs and Yak-1s and captured Bf 109E/Fs - proved that the IL-2 could out-turn these aircraft, even if the Ilyushin was less agile in a full turn. If the Il-2 decelerated sharply, a Messerschmitt attacking from behind would always overshoot and be vulnerable to the Shturmovik's guns. 'Scissors' manoeuvres were also found to be an effective way for a group of Il-2s to counter enemy fighters. By side-slipping with a 20-degree bank, pilots could prevent opposing fighters getting the Soviet attack aircraft into their sights. A flattened 'V'-shaped formation was also considered effective for a group of six to eight Il-2s. While flying in pairs, they were to maintain a distance of 100-150 m between aircraft.
It was also recommended that Il-2s should repulse enemy fighters over hostile territory through a combination of head-on attacks and level manoeuvres, while still maintaining the general formation and direction of flight. Over friendly territory, forming a defensive circle was the best tactic, and this meant that Il-2 pilots would always turn towards the enemy when assuming their places in the circle. At the same time, the inside pairs would turn, dropping behind each other, while the outside pairs or wingmen stayed beside their leaders until the circle was closed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a source see for example "Il-2 Shturmovik Guards Units of Wolrd War 2".

 

Thats´s interesting, the page in question is on google books: https://books.google.de/books?id=2IsQZWOMnZ8C&pg=PA13&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

 check the rest of that page, 14 for amazement!

 

And while I know that Il2 where used to attack transport planes that flew supplies into stalingrad, i had not heard about them combating fighters. Nor had I heard about a lone guy attacking up to 8 fighters in it... I have no problem believing that things like scoring an overshot fighter must have happened (with many plane types on many sides, too) but the anektdote there that a Pilot did that twice in row is just amazing.

 

The Il2 is a great plane design.. no doubt, but I wonder a bit interpretation of that quote above.

Looking at "IL-2 could out-turn these aircraft, even if the Ilyushin was less agile in a full turn" it is clear that the plane which can fly slower, has a tighter turning radius.. so I think that is what he ment, it could turn tighter (that is phyiscally logical) but how to interpret the "less agile" part? I think it may have had less roll rate and turn reversal must have been slower which would also seem logical. But "decelerating sharply" in a plane, especially a mass rich one, just don´t happen instantly in any plane and it sounds a bit dangerous, close to the ground.  But while losing energy in a fight with a fighter at altitude is a death sentence, I can see why deceleration is a bit different low to the ground, where the problem off pulling out of a dive in time must have kept some fighters from diving down attacks.

 

So the fact, that a plane is difficult to spot from above and a bit dangerous to do high speed dives on when it flies right on the deck worked clearly to the Il2s favour.. and that makes those "overshoot" victories" very plausible.. especially as (according to the same book) literally thousends of Il2s with had been shot down in the beginning... so getting overconfidently low and slow behind one and then overshooting while at low speed difference must have happend to some pilots who had not encountered much resistance before. In such a situation doing scissors in a group seems logical, too... as it is a way to get shots on the fighters. I can also see why "defensive circles over friendly teritory" where there was a chance for possible AAA support and chances of own fighters were recomended, that makes sense, despite the fact that those "lufberry circles" had proven desasterous at altitude elsewhere. 

 

The "head-on attacks and level manoeuvres, while still maintaining the general formation and direction of flight" sounds a bit daunting, though. I kind of interpret it as turning all towards the attackers, if detected in time and then flying in a lose formation with a bit of scissoring while facing the enemy as much as possible.

 

Sideslipping is also a know method that I think was used on all sides to try to mess up someones aim, the german bombers did that, too... albeit it was not very effective against experienced pilots.

 

But all these things are comon sense low level tactics valid and useful for a lot of slower but still somewhat maneuverable plane types, when facing superior fighters. They do not indicate or need a superior plane maneuverability in any regard other then the speedrelated turning circle and mainly rely on the absence of diving attacks and much maneuvering in the vertical which can be hazardous in real aircraft at high speed near the earth.. but since they are very well documented doable for more experienced pilots the move towards the reargunners for all Il2 (making the plane less maneuverable and slower but better defendable) rather then going for maneuverability makes very much sense. Also, all the tactics like "overshoots" that rely on the enemy missing your plane have a very obvious flaw, if the enemy just won´t comply with the "missing the shots" bit...

 

Also, my main objection to how the Il2 ´41 handles is exactly there where the historic counterpart never maneuvered much: the vertical! bear that in mind when imaginig an Il2 "Superfighter". Historically, Il2s have shot down 109s, i have no doubt about that, but those victories where based in tactics and the enemies unawareness of those tactics much much more then on airframe qualities.

Edited by Dr_Zeebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice stories, but they don't change the fact that the Il2-1941's FM we currently have in game is ludicrous 

 

 

This verdict fell far to easy , and it have been used against about every soviet aircraft since this game produced planes that outperformed the LAGG. 

It is a cheap shot and simply not tolerable in any other sites.

FM discussions should be restricted to answers that proving their accusation. I am pretty sure this FM is as accurate as you get it in the game physics we have to work with.

I think the thermic simulation, or the environment we fly our planes in makes it feel we are in a world of wind resisting , difference of weight and power. This is the main difference on this game and COD. But this make some odd behavior on all the planes. If you read about the early models IL 2 , It pretty much do what you expect it to do. If you fly it in a historical manner, (The reason I do not fly much on public servers, hardly anyone acting historical)  It is still not a fast plane. It is more aerodynamic than later models and lighter. 

It is no airplane in this game that is like the real thing. This game have a helium effect that is not connected to the FM of the plane

 

My source are from countless of articles in the magazine Flypast. And Russian documentary with English speech . No German pilot want to meet a flying tank head on. And many had to. Flying the IL 2 was really bad odds of survival. Many units was almost decimated and had to leave the frontlines with only 2 to 3 planes left. The Attack aircraft was commanded by another branch than the fighters, getting a escort and actually find them when they got it was seldom.  

Edited by EG14_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Attack aircraft was commanded by another branch than the fighters, getting a escort and actually find them when they got it was seldom.

Short correction, this was the case of the Bomber Aviation in 1941, not the Attack (Shturmovaya) Aviation. In general in the early days of 1941 much of the air-to-ground work was done by the fighter regiments instead. You can imagine how grim it was to send MiG-3s and I-16s against heavily defended columns that would have made an Il-2 break a sweat, but someone had to do it and the pilots were eager to get the job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, my main objection to how the Il2 ´41 handles is exactly there where the historic counterpart never maneuvered much: the vertical! bear that in mind when imaginig an Il2 "Superfighter". Historically, Il2s have shot down 109s, i have no doubt about that, but those victories where based in tactics and the enemies unawareness of those tactics much much more then on airframe qualities.

 

Also as I think you mentioned sheer mistakes by the LW pilot. I managed to shoot down a Fw190 in a IL2 in one of my rare MP outings - he took a run at me, did less damage than he could have, and not only overshot but turned across my front rather than away. With enough speed to get the nose up onto him, a short burst and he was gone.

 

Similarly I recall from IL-2 1946 SP, attacking IL2s in a 109, overshooting and being horrified to find an IL2 on my six blazing away. 

 

As to the vertical - I am not sure how much you can argue against an FM interpretation based on history if you use a plane in a way that would never have occurred to the original pilots. I very much doubt that many WW2 IL-2 pilots had ever even done a sharp vertical maneouvre in training, why would they? And when the cost of a mistake is death, they are unlikely to experiment. So while your video stunts are often very funny, is it possible to draw any conclusions from them?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to pull it off into a FM discussion, but I agree it can pull too high alphas for too long. Judging from my test it's mainly due to too efficient prop wash. If you throttle down to idle you can only shortly pull crazy like that before stalling.

 

I've only seen once an airplane doing such a stunt and that was frankly a Morane with flaps. Don't think those can be compared in any reasonably matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, You can see the same kind of effect on the HE 111 . I think we need to see beyond the FM. I think it is the legacy of being a WW 1 sim originally. Some of the planes got peculiar tendencies in extreme maneuvers. Messing with the FM only make things worse. 

I never fly this way, if you fly normally, this plane actually is as expected.

I did not say this was normal

 

 

 

Short correction, this was the case of the Bomber Aviation in 1941, not the Attack (Shturmovaya) Aviation.
 

 

Pretty sure they had 3 different commands by the start of the war, but that is quoted from documentaries so I might stand corrected

Edited by EG14_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I know which documentary you're talking about :)

 

The organisation in the areas attacked in 1941 were more or less as follows:

  • Fighter, attack and light bomber regiments: Military District > Air Force of the Military District > Air Division > Regiment
  • Long-range bomber regiments: Long Range Bomber Aviation of the Supreme Command > LRB Corps > LRB Aviation Division > Regiment

While the local Air Force commanders had control over the first, the latter acted on orders from the high command, so mostly strategic operations. The problem of course is that even though you are hitting the right target, without escort you won't get too far, and that's how soon enough there were only 60 SBs left.

 

You can read reports in Aleksandr Pokryshkin's memoirs of his regiment escorting Su-2s (main element of many Attack, Bomber and Reconnaissance squadrons in 1941) to and from target areas even in the second day of the war, and these were coordinated. Lack of fighter escort was of course a problem, mainly because fighter assets were busy with a) intercept and cover duties, b) ground attack missions and c) reconnaissance of fast-moving enemy infantry and mechanised groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...