Yak-3 or Yak-9 or... something able to have a chance dogfighting vs the LW ?

[Turban]

And here is where we have one of the two sides of this argument. The one is that the sim should include aircraft that are historically relevant (in BoS case its major types from November 1942 to February 1943) and the other is in a multiplayer dogfight setup where the history matters less and its the absolute performance and overall competitive advantage between the types that matters most. On the Eastern front, especially into 1943, those two approaches come fairly close to each other.

 

The topic of this entire thread hilariously throws out history (and probably balance even) when mentioning the Yak-3...But yeah... the Yak-9 would be a nice addition to the series. It still won't really tip the balance by that much. I'm still hoping for a mid 1943 East Front scenario next. That would overlap nicely with what we have already.

 

We can have both side  I love both BoS and BoM it's just about not having the next "theater/planeset" be so one-sided

[ShamrockOneFive]

We can have both side  I love both BoS and BoM it's just about not having the next "theater/planeset" be so one-sided

 

Might be able to get closer... but, IMHO, they made the right choices with the aircraft types. And picking the Yak-1 Series 69 and La-5 was a pretty good nail on the head for both sides of the equation. The G-2 isn't even the full power version... So there's that.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Might be able to get closer... but, IMHO, they made the right choices with the aircraft types. And picking the Yak-1 Series 69 and La-5 was a pretty good nail on the head for both sides of the equation. The G-2 isn't even the full power version... So there's that.

 

Every German-Soviet encounter will look like BoS, balance-wise. If we stay historical, no matter if we take summer 43 with the Germans having 109G6/L(As) and 190A5 1.65 ata and the Russians La5F and Yak9T/D, spring 44 with the Russians having La5FN and the Germans 109-G10/14 or end war stuff with La7/Yak3, and the Germans having Kurfürst, Dora and/or - god forbid - the 262, the Germans will always have the faster, better climbing, more powerful fighters, and the Russians the more nimble ones "turnfighter", good on low alt. That's just how things were. If we want a complete level playing field (regarding fighter performance) we have to look elsewhere then eastern front. BoB, or something like an Italy 43/44 scenario

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Manu beat me to his performance post so I won't rehash it. It perfectly sums up the disparity that existed throughout the war. Then people will beg for the  prototypes before realizing the Ta series will keep pushing the piston powered envelope.

 

Bring in the Western Allied fighters if you want to have true parity in speed and altitude....................it will also get me into the Allied mounts and flying on the other side of the equation about 50/50.

 

Can't wait for the Pony drivers to complain at least as loudly as us Luftwhiners then BTW.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Every German-Soviet encounter will look like BoS, balance-wise. If we stay historical, no matter if we take summer 43 with the Germans having 109G6/L(As) and 190A5 1.65 ata and the Russians La5F and Yak9T/D, spring 44 with the Russians having La5FN and the Germans 109-G10/14 or end war stuff with La7/Yak3, and the Germans having Kurfürst, Dora and/or - god forbid - the 262, the Germans will always have the faster, better climbing, more powerful fighters, and the Russians the more nimble ones "turnfighter", good on low alt. That's just how things were. If we want a complete level playing field (regarding fighter performance) we have to look elsewhere then eastern front. BoB, or something like an Italy 43/44 scenario

 

True! Very true.... Although the performance gap does narrow considerably by the end (minus the Me262... oy that'd be a rough one) but it still does favour the Germans even at the end of the war. That's kind of how it will be.

 

There's always going to be a drive for "one better" than whatever we have right now.

Edited April 24, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

One of the things the Soviet Air Force had over the Luftwaffe after 1943 was acceleration. Namely as time went the Bf-109s got heavier while the Lavochkin and Yak became lighter, and the La-5 from the F variant onwards had unlimited boost to play with. Up to medium altitudes for example, the La-5F and particularly the La-5FN were very close to contemporary Bf-109Gs in maximum speed and climb performance while also being able to regain combat speed pretty quickly during tight manoeuvring. From the end of 1942 up to 1945, as everyone already said, all aircraft were very much toe to toe with each other while also having particular fields where they excel.

 

Something for the curious: report from last Friday Night Bomber Flights. Technical difficulties had our flight of six take off in pairs from three different airfields in what looked like generalised mayhem. Nonetheless, we persevered. Group 1 took off from Zety and headed over to Gromoslavka where Group 2 was taking off, and then started the long trip to the rear areas. Meanwhile, Group 3 took off from Karpovka and proceeded to target alone through a different route. Near the target, Group 1-2 met a pair of Ju-87s and Group 1 peeled off to intercept. The leader of the pair was shot down, the wingman aborted the mission. Group 2 destroyed a bridge (406) in one pass, and flew over to the bridge at 408 to cover Group 1. Both aircraft of Group 1 make a pass and the bridge is as gone as ever. At this time, Group 3 showed up. Both main targets were done for but there was a lot in terms of opportunity lying around. We decided to attack shipping nearby. Group 1 drew the flak, Group 2 covered and Group 3 bombed. After two passes in this arrangement, one ship was heavily damaged and a second one sank, covered in flames. A train and some trucks were spotted nearby too, and we took a pattern in pairs: one draws flak, second attacks, third covers. After that, one covers, second draws flak, third attacks. Then one attacks, second covers, third draws flak, and so on.

 

Lots of destruction later the group (minus unfortunate me who hit a tree - sheer incompetence, strafed at too low of an altitude at too shallow of an angle) went home together.

 

[Monostripezebra]

Tonight on WoL :

 

(..) Getting rid of the performance difference is something this game will absolutely need to survive. 

 

Fighting against the odds all the time is fine but it gets old sometimes. Very, very old.  Having competitive planes of both sides also allows for the flying technique to show, since the difference between the planes would be smaller. Right now even someone with lower skills but in a 109 can toast a good pilot in a russian  plane. The russian planes sometimes just can't do it. They can't follow the speed, the maneuvers, both combined, etc.

 

I think you have not understood the game. THere will allways be a performance difference of sorts in a historically oriented game. Just yesterday I was also on the russian team on WoL and last mission after some initial difficulties we absolutly waxed the germans in the southern areas.. no flightsim is gonna die because of that.

 

While a planes speed and climb are the most important qualities in a ww2 fighter, it´s logistics, postion and tactics that win fights on the larger scale...not plane quality. You can find that lesson time and time again in history.

 

 

also: the diversity of planes of the russian side is a real asset. Use high migs to draw 109s into a fight and have laggs or yaks to back them up and it gets a lot harder to play "superior"

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Add some La-5s at 3000m to mow down everyone down low, and I-16s at 1500m to dispatch the careless and slow enemies.

On a side note, the La-5 and P-39 could climb very close with the Bf-109 at medium and particularly low altitudes.

 

EDIT: But really, you don't need 'superior' aircraft to pull a number on the enemy. If you know that they fly at 3000m (which is more or less the standard enemy fighter altitude on most public servers), split a flight in pairs. Pair one sits at 3500m, pair two at 4500m. Should the enemy come at 3000m, pair one attacks with an altitude advantage while pair two covers. If they come at 3500m-4000m, pair one engages and pair two sorts them out from a diving position. The point is, by flying like this you create a box with a concrete ceiling and floor. The enemy cannot climb because of your pair higher up, and if it tries to dive away they will never regain a good position. Instead it is forced to fight an ugly horizontal fight while being constantly hit from above.

Edited April 24, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[Turban]

I think you have not understood the game. THere will allways be a performance difference of sorts in a historically oriented game. Just yesterday I was also on the russian team on WoL and last mission after some initial difficulties we absolutly waxed the germans in the southern areas.. no flightsim is gonna die because of that.

 

While a planes speed and climb are the most important qualities in a ww2 fighter, it´s logistics, postion and tactics that win fights on the larger scale...not plane quality. You can find that lesson time and time again in history.

 

 

also: the diversity of planes of the russian side is a real asset. Use high migs to draw 109s into a fight and have laggs or yaks to back them up and it gets a lot harder to play "superior"

 

Nah, my understanding of the game is fine.

 

It's not about strategy or whatever. I'm well aware of them. .And I see the value in the BoS/BoM planesets. It's an interesting one. 

 

Still. It is very one sided when it comes to aerial combat..  But I just realized some people will disagree because it's cool to pretend it's not one sided and that it's not a problem, and that there is nothing to gain from a more leveled and yet historical planeset. So there is no point even trying to debate.

 

We'll see what the devs bring next, time will tell.There were plenty of fronts, theaters, time periods, with planesets that were less one sided when it comes to fighters, and I think it'd be a good things if the devs would go that way, it's as simple as that.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Turban

[ShamrockOneFive]

Nah, my understanding of the game is fine.

 

It's not about strategy or whatever. I'm well aware of them. .And I see the value in the BoS/BoM planesets. It's an interesting one. 

 

Still. It is very one sided when it comes to aerial combat..  But I just realized some people will disagree because it's cool to pretend it's not one sided and that it's not a problem, and that there is nothing to gain from a more leveled and yet historical planeset. So there is no point even trying to debate.

 

We'll see what the devs bring next, time will tell.There were plenty of fronts, theaters, time periods, with planesets that were less one sided when it comes to fighters, and I think it'd be a good things if the devs would go that way, it's as simple as that.

 

Thing is... The folks who are interested in the historical bend will always be happy and you'll always be unhappy. The sets will never 100% match-up. Air combat games aren't like a competitive MLG first person shooter. It'll always be a give and take between slightly asymmetric planesets and it will always be unfair. And really, with something as complex as air combat, it will balance on a pinhead. One minor improvement will pull the edge over the other guy making it that much easier so even if we went a-historical for a moment it will never be what you want.

 

As a bit of a Yak enthusiast and specialist over the years I've always had the pleasure of flying it. Historical match to match most of the time a Yak is slightly less potent than the Bf109 or FW190 that I'm fighting but I took pleasure in hopefully being in the position where I knew my plane better than he knew his plane. I'm not there yet in BoS/BoM but I'm getting there.

[Turban]

Thing is... The folks who are interested in the historical bend will always be happy and you'll always be unhappy. The sets will never 100% match-up. Air combat games aren't like a competitive MLG first person shooter. It'll always be a give and take between slightly asymmetric planesets and it will always be unfair. And really, with something as complex as air combat, it will balance on a pinhead. One minor improvement will pull the edge over the other guy making it that much easier so even if we went a-historical for a moment it will never be what you want.

 

As a bit of a Yak enthusiast and specialist over the years I've always had the pleasure of flying it. Historical match to match most of the time a Yak is slightly less potent than the Bf109 or FW190 that I'm fighting but I took pleasure in hopefully being in the position where I knew my plane better than he knew his plane. I'm not there yet in BoS/BoM but I'm getting there.

 

 

Not true. One minor improvement won't pull the edge over the other guy. That's just not true. The LW's plane were never completely outclassed so how could "the edge be pulled over them" ?... The fact is, early eastern front is one of the front with the biggest differences in performance between fighters. Why deny it ?

 

Anyway.......

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Interception report - 16 GIAP, 17th July 1944.

 

Pay attention to how fluid the attacks are. The group attacks from multiple directions and each aircraft is making attacks from different sides. The pilots constantly shift from attacking the escorts and bombers, meaning the enemy escorts barely have time to focus on one aircraft when another one shows up to engage them. This forces them to reply or get shot down, and the initial aircraft proceeds to attack the bombers.

 

Fast manoeuvrability - not talking about rolling all over the place or pulling the stick to the belly, but manoeuvre in its traditional form, the dislocation of a military group - and constant attacks mean that the enemy will feel like they are in the middle of a furball, surrounded by aircraft. To your group however, you are fighting a flowing fight while the enemy is boxed up and helpless.

 

[Monostripezebra]

Nah, my understanding of the game is fine.

 

It's not about strategy or whatever.

 

..and there is your problem. Once you have the basics down, success in aircombat is simply put around 2% about your plane, 38% about the situation you´re in with that plane... and maybe 60% about what you´re numberous teammates are knowing and doing compared to what the enemy does and knows and in what numbers he comes. 

 

unless you don´t understand at least the position part, you could drive the autoaim-mercedes-caddillac-of-the-skies-sturmovik and you would still not be the Mr. Überace Hartmann-Pokryshev you´d think you should be. It´s as simple as that.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI566bUgxa4

 

 

 

also absolute relevant in any aircombat discussion:

Edited April 24, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Zeebra, you are hereby commended to the Order of Überness for your über actions and über bravery.

 

General Polbyn once led his Pe-2s through the middle of two enemy formations with escort. Once the fight was done the Pe-2s were still bloodthirsty so they went on the deck and strafed a German airfield with loads of aircraft on the ground and trying to take-off.

[wtornado]

I don't know the more I fly everything the more I find it is easier to down everything with the Russian planes.

 

I don't do as well in a German planes the power,climb,speed and acceleration just is not there to break free or outturn.

 

When I fly fighters now it is strictly Russian it is easier.And it is fun to be in a superiour aircraft.

[Turban]

 

..and there is your problem. Once you have the basics down, success in aircombat is simply put around 2% about your plane, 38% about the situation you´re in with that plane... and maybe 60% about what you´re numberous teammates are knowing and doing compared to what the enemy does and knows and in what numbers he comes. 

 

unless you don´t understand at least the position part, you could drive the autoaim-mercedes-caddillac-of-the-skies-sturmovik and you would still not be the Mr. Überace Hartmann-Pokryshev you´d think you should be. It´s as simple as that.

 

 

Oh my god... some people will just take every single opportunity to come and give a lecture !

 

I didn't say strategy wasn't important !

 

I mean, wow , how did you come up with that ?!

 

Dude, in 4 sorties last night, you lost all 4 aircraft ! Do you really think you're gonna impress me ? Really ?

 

And the fight is only 2% airplane ?????? lol. That is cute. Well I guess that's the most important 2% in the history of the universe !

 

 

 

If you get tired of flying allied why not fly Axis for a change?

But if you were finally able to match a 109 in 'everything', what's the issue?

 

Well, I am considering it

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry I came back to this thread. I realise people just see an opportunity to look smart and bad ass. So I'll let it go.

 

I know a lot of people (especially the ones who fly the game more than  they write on the forums) would love to see a less one sided planeset. And I hope it happens. That's it for me.

 

 

 

Ps: I suggest you all should start a thread about how great you all are with russian planes and how you rule the skies, you seem to have a need to talk about it !

Edited April 24, 2016 by Turban

[ShamrockOneFive]

Not true. One minor improvement won't pull the edge over the other guy. That's just not true. The LW's plane were never completely outclassed so how could "the edge be pulled over them" ?... The fact is, early eastern front is one of the front with the biggest differences in performance between fighters. Why deny it ?

 

Anyway.......

 

This is easy. Bf109F-2 vs La-5FN... a-historical but that was the point I was making.

 

The East Front is not the theater with the biggest differences in relative performance. The Pacific is.

Edited April 24, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[Turban]

I don't know the more I fly everything the more I find it is easier to down everything with the Russian planes.

 

I don't do as well in a German planes the power,climb,speed and acceleration just is not there to break free or outturn.

 

When I fly fighters now it is strictly Russian it is easier.And it is fun to be in a superiour aircraft.

Nice bluff , too bad it's easy to call 

This is easy. Bf109F-2 vs La-5FN... a-historical but that was the point I was making.

 

The East Front is not the theater with the biggest differences in relative performance. The Pacific is.

 

Why would you have 109  F2 vs  LA5 FN ??? That makes no sense , that's not what I would wish, and that's not the point of this thread !!! So why make this all so twisted and complicated ???

 

What part of the Pacific Theater ?

 

 

Ahh forget about it. I'm done here. 

[JtD]

Yay!

[Turban]

Forum warriors will always win... on forums... 

 

Enjoy your victory then. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by Turban

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Sorry JtD, it seems I exceeded my quota of positive votes for the day, but imagine a white 1 over a green background right there

 

I don't know the more I fly everything the more I find it is easier to down everything with the Russian planes.

 

I don't do as well in a German planes the power,climb,speed and acceleration just is not there to break free or outturn.

 

When I fly fighters now it is strictly Russian it is easier.And it is fun to be in a superiour aircraft.

 

I can relate. Last time I tried the Bf-109 for fun (mainly because ZG26 and friends were flying Red on DED and there was nobody on the Blue side to say hi to them ) I was so out of my depth. Couldn't see much, couldn't trim, the aircraft did not react to harsh inputs as well as the Lavochkins where you can roll very fast then slightly pull the stick and *poof* you're out of danger, and the main problem, Vade was there to make short work of my Messer.

 

Factually speaking with any of the aircraft currently simulated here the pilot who is well-verse in tactics, knows the aircraft better and is aware of the strengths and shortcomings of the enemy will win. Zeebra's Pe-2 attack is a clear example of that.

 

Another good example are our buddies across all the squadrons of ZG 1 and ZG 26. The Bf-110 is only faster than the I-16 and that by a very small margin, its roll rate is terrible compared to its opposition and while it boasts decent turn behaviour for an aircraft of that size it is nothing to write home about. Yet, every time those pirates are in the air you can count on both objectives destroyed and aircraft shot down. It's all tactical prowess and teamwork. If maximum aircraft performance was an excuse for defeat you wouldn't have had the 9th Guards Fighter Aviation Division flying P-39s up until the end of the war making short work of whatever Luftwaffe opposition that appeared.

Edited April 24, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[Holtzauge]

To update the useful discussion that goes one here, I am pleased to announce that I have finally found a document containing both wartime and post-war writings on fighter aviation tactics by Aleksandr Pokryshkin, including very detailed entries on the tactical schemes that initiated this discussion. The material in question is a book Pokryshkin worked on until his death in 1985 called "Fighter Aviation Tactics". It was intended to be a guide all fighter pilots could go by, and was majorly based on his experiences flying all kinds of aircraft from the I-16 to the MiG-17. While he never saw the work published, his wife Maria Pokryshkina managed to compile his manuscripts, supplied combat notebooks and other relevant data, and with the help of the Pokryshkin Foundation "Fighter Aviation Tactics" was published in Novosibirsk, 1999.

 

The book is obviously in Russian, but you can take a look at the material here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/167340654362361856/171415735879335937/-_-_1999.djvu

 

There are 392 pages of gold right there. While my time is limited I will translate these from beginning to end and publish them, chapter by chapter, with links here.

Too right! 392 pages of gold from one of the aces of the time. Many thanks for posting this Lucas and I look forward to the translations.

 

[NN_Elanion]

Eager to read it.
thank you in advance

[Monostripezebra]

 

a)I mean, wow , how did you come up with that ?!

 

b)Dude, in 4 sorties last night, you lost all 4 aircraft ! Do you really think you're gonna impress me ? Really ?

 

 

a) I quoted that exact bit.

 

b) I´m not flying to impress you or others, I just have fun..  That does involve picking fights slightly unsuitable for medium bomber. Why would I even want to impress you? I was just trying to be helpful in understanding some things, take it or leave it.

But since you asked, when you really care about bomber people to bring their planes back, you might want to consider contributing to that as a fighter pilot. On those 4 missions I met 16 different 109 pilots 2 Stukas, 2 FW190s one 88 but only 2 other VVS over the back targets. Those other two where Pe2, too.

 

But I had great fun, some impressions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npndRxflrLY

Edited April 24, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[ShamrockOneFive]

Nice bluff , too bad it's easy to call 

 

Why would you have 109  F2 vs  LA5 FN ??? That makes no sense , that's not what I would wish, and that's not the point of this thread !!! So why make this all so twisted and complicated ???

 

What part of the Pacific Theater ?

 

 

Ahh forget about it. I'm done here. 

 

I thought you said that before? Either way its cool...

 

Of course it makes no sense but that's effectively what you're asking for despite you saying that you're not. That does make it twisted and complicated

 

The Japanese have some degree of supremacy early on but by mid-1943 the technological/performance battle was shifting towards the Americans. The A6M3 and A6M5 don't keep up very well with the F6F and F4U and the Ki-43 and small numbers of Ki-61 don't keep up terribly well with the P-38F/J and P-47D.

[bzc3lk]

..and there is your problem. Once you have the basics down, success in aircombat is simply put around 2% about your plane, 38% about the situation you´re in with that plane... and maybe 60% about what you´re numberous teammates are knowing and doing compared to what the enemy does and knows and in what numbers he comes. 

 

 

   Very good food for thought there.

Edited April 25, 2016 by bzc3lk

[EAF19_Swoop]

I won't interject as I mainly fly a Spit in Clod (SOW server) and haven't flown BoS online, but did many years online in the old il2. I was always interested in the tactics, (Shaw), especially as many of the online campaigns were early events, flying i16s, Laggs and Yaks against the "better" 109. I learn't wingmen were essential and got better in the art of the reverse shooting as the 109 went back up. But even then the importance of height was key and even remember BnZing a 109 from 6k in an i16, just to get a quick shot in and using the energy to climb back for a few more attacks before eventually I headed away, but it made me the attacker for a change. 

 

So I'd just like to thanks 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell for sharing his really interesting info from Aleksandr Pokryshkin and the hand drawn diagrams. Cheers and S!

   

[KoN_]

Every German-Soviet encounter will look like BoS, balance-wise. If we stay historical, no matter if we take summer 43 with the Germans having 109G6/L(As) and 190A5 1.65 ata and the Russians La5F and Yak9T/D, spring 44 with the Russians having La5FN and the Germans 109-G10/14 or end war stuff with La7/Yak3, and the Germans having Kurfürst, Dora and/or - god forbid - the 262, the Germans will always have the faster, better climbing, more powerful fighters, and the Russians the more nimble ones "turnfighter", good on low alt. That's just how things were. If we want a complete level playing field (regarding fighter performance) we have to look elsewhere then eastern front. BoB, or something like an Italy 43/44 scenario

Well said . 

Every engagement is different .

Fly with wing man .  

Use tactics .

 

Prove is in the pudding.

 

looking at the stats page WOL the VVS have won most missions ` again ` so who has the better fighters and bombers ...???

And  looking at the stats again `  all is equal its the pilot and team work that makes the change .

Edited April 25, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[Y-29.Silky]

looking at the stats page WOL the VVS have won most missions ` again ` so who has the better fighters and bombers ...???

And  looking at the stats again `  all is equal its the pilot and team work that makes the change .

 

The VVS wins because they fly more bombers as they're faster, more effective.

The Luftwaffe loses because 90% of the Germans fly the 109 as they're faster, more effective. 

[JtD]

So the VVS shoots down more enemy aircraft while flying more bombers and the Luftwaffe kills more ground targets while flying 90% fighters?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Likely. This is clearly Dr. Zeebra's fault, killing Bf-109s with his Pe-2   

[JtD]

Edited April 25, 2016 by JtD

[BlitzPig_EL]

The 109s are all off role playing Eric Hartman while the VVS players are actually paying attention to the mission goals.

 

Pretty much always been like this, all the way back to the release of the original title.

 

Even in the Pacific, it was like this.  I have fond memories of flying the D3A over New Guinea on Zekes vs. Wildcats, while all the virtual "aces" were jousting above me, and little old me in my slow, poorly armed Val would almost single handedly win the map because I paid attention to the actual win conditions in the briefing.

 

Good times.

[216th_Jordan]

So the VVS shoots down more enemy aircraft while flying more bombers and the Luftwaffe kills more ground targets while flying 90% fighters?

Well, maximum VVS payload is still 2x500kg :0

[Venturi]

No excuse now with the Ju-88.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The VVS wins because they fly more bombers as they're faster, more effective.

The Luftwaffe loses because 90% of the Germans fly the 109 as they're faster, more effective. 

 

It's funny because over in another thread there was this huge argument about how the Pe-2 isn't enough. Clearly its other attributes help it win the day even if its per plane payload is lower.

[Gump]

i fly the la5 a lot, always trying to figure out how to actually be somewhat of a 'threat' in a dogfight. i am convinced it just wont happen (unless im ONLY facing the current rev 190). i sure would like to get an La5FN (hey, at least i can ask).

.

i am on the majority's side, in saying the german side has better fighters and, as a result, flying a VVS fighter is a much more difficult position to find success in. IMHO, the yak1 is 'almost' as good as the 109, but lacks in a couple MAJOR areas that ARE the quintessential advantages, ie: climb and speed. turning is at least as good and, given that players use the elevator trim coupled to elevator, sometimes better - ive watched while a 109 zoomed in on me (flying yak) at a much higher rate of speed while i was doing a sharp break turn (but maintain speed), only to overshoot, but quickly turn back in behind me (much tighter turn that i was doing going slower) and got on my 6.

.

pardon me, but say that winning is just a matter of pilot skill and correct maneuvers is BS. saying that losing is just because of pilot mistake is BS. plane capability has a lot to do with success. any arms race confirms this. WWII is full of continual adversarial one-upsmanship of fighter plane capabilities. i never hear a documentary quote with a pilot saying "we didn't believe in having a better fighter, and we didn't worry about the adversary having a better fighter, because we understood that such doesn't matter - it's all about pilot skill." pfffft.

.

and historical accuracy is really only a partial consideration in a game. historical accuracy is lacking in a variety of other ways, which all factor in to make a "historically accurate" experience. the pilot numbers, the assigned missions, the assigned planes, comms, wingman/flight familiarity and expectations, flight sizes, exhausting schedules, 24/7 attention, sleep deprivation, etc, etc, etc.

.

IMHO, it is obvious, and heard in TS conversations, that the LW has a notable fighter advantage. and not only that, but it results in making VVS fighter victory difficult. one can say "that's just the way it is" and be correct, and just bite-the-bullet and play the game for what it is, but it really does get discouraging sometimes. i don't think it would hurt the game to include some more VVS planes that raise the VVS fighter capability bar a little. if strict historical accuracy is desired, all servers/missions don't have to include them all. maybe raising the La5 to an FN, maybe adding a p-47, maybe improving the p-40 FM (but i/some don't have the BoM planes)?

.

anyways, just putting in my vote.

[BraveSirRobin]

pardon me, but say that winning is just a matter of pilot skill and correct maneuvers is BS. 

 

The guy saying that is usually the same guy who is in the superior fighter.

[ShamrockOneFive]

i fly the la5 a lot, always trying to figure out how to actually be somewhat of a 'threat' in a dogfight. i am convinced it just wont happen (unless im ONLY facing the current rev 190). i sure would like to get an La5FN (hey, at least i can ask).

.

i am on the majority's side, in saying the german side has better fighters and, as a result, flying a VVS fighter is a much more difficult position to find success in. IMHO, the yak1 is 'almost' as good as the 109, but lacks in a couple MAJOR areas that ARE the quintessential advantages, ie: climb and speed. turning is at least as good and, given that players use the elevator trim coupled to elevator, sometimes better - ive watched while a 109 zoomed in on me (flying yak) at a much higher rate of speed while i was doing a sharp break turn (but maintain speed), only to overshoot, but quickly turn back in behind me (much tighter turn that i was doing going slower) and got on my 6.

.

pardon me, but say that winning is just a matter of pilot skill and correct maneuvers is BS. saying that losing is just because of pilot mistake is BS. plane capability has a lot to do with success. any arms race confirms this. WWII is full of continual adversarial one-upsmanship of fighter plane capabilities. i never hear a documentary quote with a pilot saying "we didn't believe in having a better fighter, and we didn't worry about the adversary having a better fighter, because we understood that such doesn't matter - it's all about pilot skill." pfffft.

.

and historical accuracy is really only a partial consideration in a game. historical accuracy is lacking in a variety of other ways, which all factor in to make a "historically accurate" experience. the pilot numbers, the assigned missions, the assigned planes, comms, wingman/flight familiarity and expectations, flight sizes, exhausting schedules, 24/7 attention, sleep deprivation, etc, etc, etc.

.

IMHO, it is obvious, and heard in TS conversations, that the LW has a notable fighter advantage. and not only that, but it results in making VVS fighter victory difficult. one can say "that's just the way it is" and be correct, and just bite-the-bullet and play the game for what it is, but it really does get discouraging sometimes. i don't think it would hurt the game to include some more VVS planes that raise the VVS fighter capability bar a little. if strict historical accuracy is desired, all servers/missions don't have to include them all. maybe raising the La5 to an FN, maybe adding a p-47, maybe improving the p-40 FM (but i/some don't have the BoM planes)?

.

anyways, just putting in my vote.

 

I definitely get the technological leaps back and forth. You always want to have the better trained pilots AND the better aircraft from which to fight from. Anything else is probably something akin to insanity, however, there are plenty of cases where inferior equipment was the only thing available and pilots not only made due with what they had but managed to best their opponents significantly. The best example of that I can think of is the Finnish pilots who achieved a 26:1 kill ratio flying mostly second rate fighters such as the Brewster Buffalo (later they got Bf109s).

 

In the absence of the best fighter on the block... I'd settle for being the better pilot. Pilot skill and tactics do matter an awful lot. Get a newbie out there in the best fighter around and he'll go down pretty quickly. All things being equal, however, and I'd say go for the best fighter too

 

Definitely love the La-5 (that radial engine has a great look to it) and I don't spend nearly enough time with it to be good. Glad to hear there are folks like you specializing to some degree on it. A La-5F or FN would be a nice addition someday!

Edited April 26, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[DeafBee]

The VVS wins because they fly more bombers as they're faster, more effective.

The Luftwaffe loses because 90% of the Germans fly the 109 as they're faster, more effective. 

 

I agree with Silky on this one.