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

[-TBC-AeroAce]

it's very true that both plane sets are competitive if used correctly but come on axis planes such as 109f4 need much less of a learning curve and are more forgiving due to better performance hence are initially much easier to win with.

 

If u put a noob in a f4 and another in a yak or lagg the f4 will likely win.

Was I chatting rubbish or truths with this. I guess u all are veteran now so u cant comprehend it

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

it's very true that both plane sets are competitive if used correctly but come on axis planes such as 109f4 need much less of a learning curve and are more forgiving due to better performance hence are initially much easier to win with.

 

If u put a noob in a f4 and another in a yak or lagg the f4 will likely win.

Rubbish. Noobs turn and burn at low level. because it's their first instinct. And that's when the Yak wins, because it's simpler to fly. 

The Vets  don't turn, and if they do, nobody wins. 

Edited March 5, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Well all I can say is that if I fly axis I can be untouchable and get many kills.

 

But if I fly alied I need help from wingmen.

 

The above is the clear dynamic!!! Hence what I'm saying is that its blatantly easier as A noob to ride Axis.

 

Ps don't just say Rubbish. This is quite complex and what u and I are trying to say both have weight..... Please have a bit more respect

 

 

Pssss iv just got in to flames of war, miniature gaming. Its fun PM me if u like that shizel

Edited March 6, 2016 by AeroACE

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I can translate the notes later, the concept isn't fully to scale and you won't catch up with the enemy of course, but if you have speed you can definitely hit them while they overshoot since they won't be going away that easily. This works particularly well in aircraft like the MiG-3 and P-39 since they regain speed quickly and can perform nice sharp climbs, and they were the aircraft Pokryshkin flew on when he devised these tactics. The man hated the Yak-1 for his flying style, though. The LaGG-3 can roll nicely so you can evade the enemy attack without losing too much speed then pick them off as they run away. The La-5 can do the same, and it has a lot more power to catch up with any assailants.

 

EDIT: My major point with this is, make active evasive that allows you to remain dangerous rather than the old slit-S into oblivion until Mother Earth gets in the way.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well all I can say is that if I fly axis I can be untouchable and get many kills.

 

But if I fly alied I need help from wingmen.

 

The above is the clear dynamic!!! Hence what I'm saying is that its blatantly easier as A noob to ride Axis.

 

Ps don't just say Rubbish. This is quite complex and what u and I are trying to say both have weight..... Please have a bit more respect

 

 

Pssss iv just got in to flames of war, miniature gaming. Its fun PM me if u like that shizel

It's banter, hyperbole, derailment through simplification. Don't take me too serious on what I say, but what I mean, I seperate the two quite clearly most of the time. 

When it's noob v noob, the VVS guy is better of with his Yak.

On DED-Expert or WoL the Newb is better off in his Axis Aircraft. I wasn't certain what we were talking about. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The simple truth is, in the right hands and conditions the Yak is very competitive.

 

It is up to the pilot to create the conditions for success. The Yak is only slightly inferior in most respects to the 109......BUT, if you are in the envelope and can convince the 109 jockey to dance with you outside of HIS envelope it will be a very dynamic fight. If you can't, it may be a short or very drawn out fight and the advantage will remains with a good Luftie pilot throughout.

 

Choose your fight when you can and choose your tactics well. Otherwise perish.............only to respawn at the forward airbase without energy or altitude. As a Luftie I always come in with altitude to spare and pick my fight. I never understand guys who race in at 1000m. The Soviet side seems to do it far more than the other guys. If you start at altitude it gives you so many more options to engage/disengage/make decisions. Or, just keep the stick in your lap and wonder why it goes your way so infrequently. I play for a solid KD much more than points or outright wins. Maybe it's an outdated philosophy though.

Edited March 6, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[GP*]

These are, as noted, to be used only when you have enough speed to boot. Also, if you defeat the enemy's shot and gain some altitude in the process while retaining competitive speed you avoid getting chewed up and eaten down low.

 

 

But you never defined what "enough speed" is. What if I'm going 500 kmh and the bandit is going 500 as well? I can easily climb but so can the bandit. What if I'm going 500 and he's going 350? Should I still climb? It depends on the range back but I still wouldn't climb as depicted in those drawings -- such an aggressive climb will allow the bandit to close range, even if he is slower than you. The blanket advice you're offering is going to get a lot of people killed. 

 

That's why I said you need to have exclusive use of the vertical, meaning you can go "over the top" or "uphill" while the bandit can't. Or, if you're going to climb and the bandit can climb as well, you better be well outside of the range of his guns before doing so. 

 

You seem to look down upon people executing a split S or something similar in a defensive situation. Perhaps the advice you should offer is "don't constantly fly around at 1000m so one or two downhill maneuvers brings you right to the deck" rather than telling people to climb when defensive. 

I can translate the notes later, the concept isn't fully to scale and you won't catch up with the enemy of course, but if you have speed you can definitely hit them while they overshoot since they won't be going away that easily. This works particularly well in aircraft like the MiG-3 and P-39 since they regain speed quickly and can perform nice sharp climbs, and they were the aircraft Pokryshkin flew on when he devised these tactics. The man hated the Yak-1 for his flying style, though. The LaGG-3 can roll nicely so you can evade the enemy attack without losing too much speed then pick them off as they run away. The La-5 can do the same, and it has a lot more power to catch up with any assailants.

 

EDIT: My major point with this is, make active evasive that allows you to remain dangerous rather than the old slit-S into oblivion until Mother Earth gets in the way.

 

 

Who exactly have you been fighting that has led you to this conclusion? 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I never understand guys who race in at 1000m. The Soviet side seems to do it far more than the other guys.

Though my preferred altitude is 2500-3300, I sometimes come in fast at 1000m or lower. The reason is simple - got them bombs to deliver to Hans, Adolf, Fritz and Wilhelm. If you are playing at 3500-5000m, you will likely not see a single contact darting down the road at 450km/h, so it becomes easier to drop the eggs unharmed. After that it depends on the situation - sometimes it's safer to exit at max. speed in the weeds, other times (most of them) I climb out and go peacefully with altitude and speed to boot. Also, if you are looking for intruders coming in at 100m, you need to be closer to them.

 

Insofar I've been trying to play the more mundane and less rewarding roles nobody else goes for - CAP, ground attack, recce and escort. Everyone else is too busy free hunting, it seems. I love defending an area and sending an enemy fights running without firing one bullet. Though they live to fight another day, I effectively bothered them enough to make disengaging more appealing.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Pre:

 

To be fair, if you are going 500 and your opponent is doing 350 you either aren't, or won't be for very long, defensive. I agree with the major points though.

 

I always think it's funny to zoom down, level off at 600 plus and find someone who thinks they are going to flap hang on me. They fail to realize the E discrepancy fairly often just because we are co-alt. If I was  a better shot I could exploit it better. Half the time I just scare the hell out of us both.

 

I usually blow through head-ons and watch what my opponent does for exactly this reason. If he pulls really hard or loops I chandelle and engage. If he does a chandelle I extend and fight another day.

Edited March 6, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

But you never defined what "enough speed" is. What if I'm going 500 kmh and the bandit is going 500 as well? I can easily climb but so can the bandit. What if I'm going 500 and he's going 350? Should I still climb? It depends on the range back but I still wouldn't climb as depicted in those drawings -- such an aggressive climb will allow the bandit to close range, even if he is slower than you. The blanket advice you're offering is going to get a lot of people killed.

 

That's why I said you need to have exclusive use of the vertical, meaning you can go "over the top" or "uphill" while the bandit can't. Or, if you're going to climb and the bandit can climb as well, you better be well outside of the range of his guns before doing so.

 

You seem to look down upon people executing a split S or something similar in a defensive situation. Perhaps the advice you should offer is "don't constantly fly around at 1000m so one or two downhill maneuvers brings you right to the deck" rather than telling people to climb when defensive.

 

Too late over here to translate everything but to elaborate briefly, these manoeuvres show what you do after you defeat the shot. That explains the confusion then.

 

Enemy comes at you, you move out of the way using your run of the mill defence of choice (situational), then pitch up and either fire at the climbing enemy or gain some altitude. These are all overshoot diagrams.

[JG13_opcode]

Seems to me from reading this thread is we need a collection of videos/tracks of people being successful in the Yak so that others can learn.

 

Online only. Offline doesn't count since the AI are trash pilots.

Edited March 6, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Maybe you could post your videos and others can dissect your tactics for training purposes? Win/Win.

[wtornado]

 

 

Huh?

 

Ya I should of looked it up it my magazines my memory is getting old like me

it should of been october to mid december.

 

The counteroffensive Operation Uranus was from the 19th of november to the 2nd of february

 

The -30C cold grounded a lot of a/c.

 

The Luftwaffe had 500 transport planes trying to supply Stalingrad from the

20th of november to the 2nd of february and they lost 488 a/c ,266 of them were JU-52's

 

They only delivered 8350 tons of supplies during that period..

 

The Russian Air Army lost 706 a/c all combined a lot were bombers too

 

With the modern fighters(YAK-9) arriving and at the end of december and challenging<-----------(YAK-9!!!)

the Luftwaffe for air dominance of the skies for the first time in months

and really hurting the German transport planes..

 

With the Russians displacing that many men to just start that offensive was amazing.

The ground war of the whole counteroffensive and pincer maneuver and re-reading

it was spectacular.

[GP*]

Too late over here to translate everything but to elaborate briefly, these manoeuvres show what you do after you defeat the shot. That explains the confusion then.

 

Enemy comes at you, you move out of the way using your run of the mill defence of choice (situational), then pitch up and either fire at the climbing enemy or gain some altitude. These are all overshoot diagrams.

 

Again, I'm not confused. I understand what an overshoot is. 

 

Regardless of whether it's in the vertical (up or down), horizontal, or oblique, an overshoot requires that the bandit doesn't control his closure due to either too much speed or going for a gunshot at a high aspect angle...which itself leads to lots of closure even if both fighters have similar airspeeds. So your advice to climb when someone is behind you just because you "have enough speed" is still rubbish. 

 

Are you sure YOU aren't confused? 

[JG13_opcode]

Maybe you could post your videos and others can dissect your tactics for training purposes? Win/Win.

I'd love to but I don't have any.  My PC is not powerful enough to record video at good frame rates.

 

Also I flew Axis for most of Forgotten Battles so I am not a Yak expert (merely a devotee).  I find it much much easier to get kills in the 109 than the Yak.

Edited March 6, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

As it should be historically but the Yak is no dog either.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Sorry but if my memory is good, the La-5 was given for an aerage 648 Km/h top speed, the Fw-190 was given for an average 690 Km/h top speed .

 

I could experiment that the Yak wings can easily break when diving behind any LW fighters before than the Lw fighter suffer any problem about a too high speed.

Yes, Yak accelerate better but with a lower top speed, Yes it seems to climb worse so... it can't escape.

 

As you know, at low speed a fighter is an easy target as soon as its opponent have more energy .

 

 

 

Well... anywayn,  i think we go out of topic - The debate was not "what plane is better or not."

The initial question was "Will we have chance to see Yak-3 and 9"... It seems that could be "May be" a Yak-9 on day

and we don't know for the Yak-3

 

 

Best regards

obviously you memory is not correct.  Try it by yourself in this game , Fw190's max speed (550kph)can only sustain 3 mins. after that La5 can overtake it easily. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Again, I'm not confused. I understand what an overshoot is. 

 

Regardless of whether it's in the vertical (up or down), horizontal, or oblique, an overshoot requires that the bandit doesn't control his closure due to either too much speed or going for a gunshot at a high aspect angle...which itself leads to lots of closure even if both fighters have similar airspeeds. So your advice to climb when someone is behind you just because you "have enough speed" is still rubbish. 

 

Are you sure YOU aren't confused? 

 

The problem is you are still assuming that one should climb with the enemy right on your tail in a situation where they can keep up. That's not the case, look at the diagrams again and have a look at the angles and closure involved. Let's have a look this example:

 

 

I agree to disagree but by all means, if a Bf-109 is coming down at you at 550km/h en piqué while you are on a shallow dive at 400-450km/h, there are only so many angles the enemy can pull without over-stressing the airframe. In this diagram here you see that the Soviet fighter, flying a very shallow dive, abruptly breaks upwards. Given human reaction time, if you break unexpectedly while the enemy has a high closure rate they are likely to swoosh past you, still going down for a brief but important moment. While the German collects their wits and promptly enters a zoom climb in response, because you forced them to shoot past you and go up they lost a little bit of energy spent burned by pulling the stick to the belly trying to regain that 'easy target' they were coming down on. If you flew that climb smoothly and the enemy fell for the trap, you should come out of the manoeuvre with similar energy states.

 

You are more than welcome not to use these manoeuvres if you don't find them useful. They have done the trick for me, and they did the trick for 16 GIAP fighting the same aircraft we fight now, but it's all down to the pilot.

[Brano]

Questioning combat maneuvers of one of the most successful allied pilot...always amusing to read such "analysis" of local armchair experten

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Again, I'm not confused. I understand what an overshoot is. 

 

Regardless of whether it's in the vertical (up or down), horizontal, or oblique, an overshoot requires that the bandit doesn't control his closure due to either too much speed or going for a gunshot at a high aspect angle...which itself leads to lots of closure even if both fighters have similar airspeeds. So your advice to climb when someone is behind you just because you "have enough speed" is still rubbish. 

 

Are you sure YOU aren't confused? 

 

Forcing the overshoot is a well known term. Lucas has the right idea here in fighting against an energy fighter. A split S is suicide and should only be used in dire emergencies i.e. you're going to run. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Questioning combat maneuvers of one of the most successful allied pilot...always amusing to read such "analysis" of local armchair experten

 

On the man's birthday nonetheless.

[JG13_opcode]

As it should be historically but the Yak is no dog either.

 

I believe you when you say it's no dog, but not everyone else does, which is why I think we need tracks and videos showing it.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

We actually experimented mixing the etazhorka with the scissors escort pattern last FNBF.

 

Results:

 

As escort pilots, a great success. When we did it properly, no bombers fell under attack and all went home safely.

 

On fighter-fighter combat, one sortie had two fighters shot down, one landing at a forward base and one returning to the home base. Second sortie had three pilots killed and one ditching safely in friendly lines.

 

The considerations though: Because we flew escort, the top cover pair was the one to engage first while the lower pair stuck with the bombers unless imperative to break away. I launched the top pair into the attack too early, breaking the structure somewhat, and failed to regain position after the initial attack. We were also outnumbered, which didn't help. Lastly, since our bombers had to perform a landing in the middle of the hot zone, we had to kind of force the furball so that the enemy was pinned down and engaged, allowing the bombers to land.

 

All in all the mission was a success, since only 1 out of 6 bombers in total were shot down (speed miscalculation on my part, preventable). I am confident that applying the techniques with these lessons in mind would have had even better results.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Etazherka, misspelled it, my bad

 

This is the larger version of it:

 

[JG13_opcode]

Neat.  Any more info about it?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

What information are you after?

[JG13_opcode]

I dunno, first I've ever heard of it.  I just like reading the stories involved, like the Thach Weave, etc.   The way you brought it up ("we tried mixing a scissors with the etazherka") was as though it's something people ought to have heard of.

Edited March 6, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Got it Let me translate a couple of paragraphs here that tell the story better than I do, I'll edit this post in a few minutes.

 

 

The kubanskaya etazherka ('Kuban shelves') were a fighter group tactical arrangement initially used by the VVS in the battles around the Blue Line and the North Caucasus. Most people attribute its creation to Aleksandr Pokryshkin, but Pokryshkin himself never said he invented it in any of his memoirs or interviews. Judging by the way 16 GIAP sometime came up with new tactics (post-flight debriefing in the dugout which pilots affectionately named the "Tactical Academy")

 

The idea was to have pairs or flights stacked at different altitudes for mutual protection. If the enemy went for the lower aircraft, they could drag them up for the top aircraft to chew up. If the enemy went for the top aircraft, they could drag it down for the lower aircraft to attack.

 

Here is what he wrote about it:

 

"In this first sortie I applied everything that had been in our minds and thoughts for many days and nights. The structure of our group was unlike any other we had used so far. It was a "bookshelf" of pairs, with the sun behind us, with the separation between pairs within the group being of hundreds of meters.

 

"During one of the first combat applications of this formation, Dzusov [ibrahim Magometovich, Hero of the Soviet Union, commanded 100 GIAP, 216 SAD, 9 GIAD and 6 IAK) called it the "Bookshelf". The formation consisted of "steps", with pairs echeloned by height and with horizontal separation wide enough in the front of the formation accommodating a large group of aircraft. Each step of the "bookshelf" fulfilled its own specific role. Generally speaking this combat formation of Soviet fighters was a formidable enemy to engage with. If the enemy aircraft managed to evade an attack from one of the "steps", it immediately fell under murderous fire from the other, and then a third one."

 

Also, the "scissors" I mentioned were another of his inventions, created initially to escort slow bombers like the Su-2 or the SB. The fighters in this case keep a higher speed, but fly a weaving pattern from side to side right above the bombers. That way they don't overtake the bombers, but keep a high speed allowing them to a) engage the enemy fighters effectively before they get too close and b) not be sitting ducks, flying at the same speed as the bombers. The problem this FNBF was that we applied that but forgot that the bombers were unloaded Pe-2s, a far cry from the SB or Su-2. So one minute en route and we lose contact with them, just to find out they were thundering down at nearly 450km/h while we were lazily weaving at 400km/h. We fixed that during the second sortie, with better results.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Outdated in the sense that it is historically accurate, and the Germans lost

 

Seriously though, IMO ground pounding and closely supporting attackers the way the Soviets did really does not set fighters up for success unless they can implement the vertically stacked formations that the VVS used.

I believe most pilots IRL would consider self preservation over forcing bad positions. This doesn't always translate to online play.

 

The Germans lost as much to weight of material and manpower as much as tactics. In fact, they were soundly beaten when all of the other nations began adopting their tactics. Nonetheless, I play for KD in all combat games, A2A, FPS, ground or air. 

 

As Chuck Yeager told me when I met him at a book signing and told him I enjoyed his flight sim; "Well, I'm not that fond of it really. During the war you really only got to get killed once." (I can't remember if he said "fond," though, as it was twenty-plus years ago but you get the jist.)

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Operational needs and pilot mentality as well. Most memoirs, interviews and etc. you read with Soviet military personnel and civilians involved in the war effort show one thing: though everyone wanted to live, they were not afraid to die, and above all they were not afraid to die for their nation, their families, their friends and so on.

 

Sometimes one's death would be a good price to pay to stop the enemy advance for example. Leningrad only stood as it did during the war because in 1941 the Air Force there threw everything it had into the fray to slow down the Wermacht's advance and it worked. In the process, the Northern Front VVS was basically obliterated.

 

For the Luftwaffe things worked differently. As Bodenplatte showed, the Luftwaffe could never really afford to lose so many pilots, which is why it was forced to be overly conservative.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[GP*]

Forcing the overshoot is a well known term. Lucas has the right idea here in fighting against an energy fighter. A split S is suicide and should only be used in dire emergencies i.e. you're going to run.

I'd call someone directly at your six, in a gun WEZ, a "dire emergency." Running isn't the only option after a vertical jink.

 

If the bandit isn't threatening you, of course you don't have to go downhill. But that's not what we're talking about.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I'd call someone directly at your six, in a gun WEZ, a "dire emergency." Running isn't the only option after a vertical jink.

 

If the bandit isn't threatening you, of course you don't have to go downhill. But that's not what we're talking about.

 

Why is he directly at your six?

[GP*]

The problem is you are still assuming that one should climb with the enemy right on your tail in a situation where they can keep up. That's not the case, look at the diagrams again and have a look at the angles and closure involved. Let's have a look this example:

 

 

I agree to disagree but by all means, if a Bf-109 is coming down at you at 550km/h en piqué while you are on a shallow dive at 400-450km/h, there are only so many angles the enemy can pull without over-stressing the airframe. In this diagram here you see that the Soviet fighter, flying a very shallow dive, abruptly breaks upwards. Given human reaction time, if you break unexpectedly while the enemy has a high closure rate they are likely to swoosh past you, still going down for a brief but important moment. While the German collects their wits and promptly enters a zoom climb in response, because you forced them to shoot past you and go up they lost a little bit of energy spent burned by pulling the stick to the belly trying to regain that 'easy target' they were coming down on. If you flew that climb smoothly and the enemy fell for the trap, you should come out of the manoeuvre with similar energy states.

 

You are more than welcome not to use these manoeuvres if you don't find them useful. They have done the trick for me, and they did the trick for 16 GIAP fighting the same aircraft we fight now, but it's all down to the pilot.

My assumptions aren't the problem, it's the fact that you aren't being specific with your advice to the masses and you're posting very ambiguous drawings.

 

Again, when exactly has this worked for you? Do you have a track? Can you at least provide a narrative that has more detail? What aircraft types were involved, what altitudes, what was the range back to the bandit when you initiated the maneuver, how hard did you pull, was the bandit's energy state equal, greater, or less than yours, etc. Until then, it remains a concept that sounds nice and sophisticated in theory but is going to end up getting new players tracked (shot) often if followed. Again, to clarify, I'm not saying you should split S at the first sign of an enemy, but climbing with an enemy at or near a guns solution is one of the last things you want to do.

 

Would you like to know the easiest gunshot in real life during BFM? It's when the other guy tries to go "over the top" but misasseses your energy state and thinks you can't follow. Then he's up there, 70...80...90 degrees nose high, unable to do anything but fly a predictable flight path as you gun his brains out with range and closure perfectly under control. They've always been the easiest gunshots I've ever taken.

 

I'm currently deployed, but if you or anyone else would like to teach me as to why climbing is such a great idea with an enemy behind you, approaching a gun solution once I get home, I'd love to learn.

Why is he directly at your six?

Look at the images posted by Lucas. Better yet, actually read the thread before trying to jump in.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I invite you to look at the picture in that quote and find the enemy that's straight behind you (hint: the enemy is diving, not trailing) and where they advise you to climb with someone glued to your six. I think the drawings are clear enough and so are the explanations, as they were 75 years ago, but if you disagree or continue to misinterpret them simply leave it be and don't do it, there are people who have benefited from these tips and understood when to apply them correctly. It's simple really, force them to overshoot without burning a lot of energy, then climb to gain some altitude instead of playing sitting duck.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[JG13_opcode]

I invite you to look at the picture in that quote and find the enemy that's straight behind you (hint: the enemy is diving, not trailing) and where they advise you to climb with someone glued to your six. I think the drawings are clear enough and so are the explanations, as they were 75 years ago, but if you disagree or continue to misinterpret them simply leave it be and don't do it, there are people who have benefited from these tips and understood when to apply them correctly. It's simple really, force them to overshoot without burning a lot of energy, then climb to gain some altitude instead of playing sitting duck.

I think Go_Pre's point is that it's often difficult to force an overshoot unless the enemy is at a significant energy advantage.

 

Do you have tracks/videos of this technique?

[GP*]

I invite you to look at the picture in that quote and find the enemy that's straight behind you (hint: the enemy is diving, not trailing) and where they advise you to climb with someone glued to your six. I think the drawings are clear enough and so are the explanations, as they were 75 years ago, but if you disagree or continue to misinterpret them simply leave it be and don't do it, there are people who have benefited from these tips and understood when to apply them correctly. It's simple really, force them to overshoot without burning a lot of energy, then climb to gain some altitude instead of playing sitting duck.

The ~30 degrees of angle off tail drawn there is a very controllable position. Again I'm taking the drawing literally because you are too.

 

If all you're advising is that people climb after the enemy has overshot (for whatever reason), of course I agree with that. Why would you split S when the bandit isn't immediately threatening you? But you have to survive until the overshoot and honor a gun WEZ. Climbing with an enemy pressing the attack isn't the best way to do that.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I am advocating for the pilot to chase the enemy up after the overshoot

 

There are a lot of nuances to these schemes though. Some of them do say break hard up and surprise the enemy, which is a useful idea in cases that allow that. Others advocate that you let them pass you by (by whatever means) then chase them up. This, in my opinion, is the best defence against the average Bf-109 pilot since they will nearly mandatorily be coming down from above, with speed, wings leveled. Most VVS pilots go down to avoid fire, which is a waste of energy and only bails you out of the first onslaught while setting you up for the next. In the cases where you need to force an overshoot, you need to move out of the way while keeping an attitude that allows you to go up right away. In cases when the enemy is coming in fast, since most Soviet fighters have great elevator authority within combat speeds and instantaneous turn rates, you can safely pull hard, gun the engine and let the angles do the job.

 

I don't have any tracks because I don't record my flights since my rig is subpar and the performance hits aren't worth it.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

My guess is you take the drawing too literal and that it depicts a very different situation than it's being put here.

 

In reality pulling the stick is without doubt the easiest reaction a pilot can execute. A pilot can pull substanntial higher forces than push which provides tactical advantages.

If we translate the very same picture into the game with the situation being that the neemy has a speed advantage of min 100km/h and is just out of shooting range the chased pilot had the following options:

 

1. Push the stick or execute a split S to gain speed and / or evade the chasers flight path in a steeper dive.

2. Pull the aircraft into a sharp turn the chaser can't follow due to too high speed and force him to overshoot.

3. Pull up sharply so the chase can not gain a shooting solution because of too high airspeed leaving him unable to follow.

 

1. Is obviously not very wise unless you're facing multiple attackers and have to get out of the fight at all cost. Your enemy will retain or even gain more advantage on you due to energy loss and the prozedure will repeat in his second attack.

 

2. Is actually very common in MP. Many feel the need to drag their chasers into a turn fight even if their aircraft have inferiour turn characteristics. It may force the enemy to overshoot and get you into a favourable position but without any chance to reach up on him unless he decides to enter the turnfight.

 

3. Is actually quite reasonable since you convert your energy to altitude quicker than the enemy, whos desperately trying to pull behind you. Doing that he burns a lot of his energy and at optimal circumstances ends up in a less favourable attack position. The defender may be able to attempt a stallfight or use his higher energy to engage the chaser in a turnfight.

 

We also have to consider real pilots had very different reactions than we have ingame. There are a lot of influrences that effect a pilot's actions during flight and limits to his abilities. The way fighting can be executed in flight sims has likely not so much to do with what real pilots did.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Wulf]

Well Lucas, I've attempted to follow the sketch in question and the written interpretation but I must confess I'm really struggling.

 

If I have understood you correctly, in the case of the sketch under discussion, you're in a shallow climb, (perhaps a shallow zoom climb) when you discover you have a bandit closing on your tail with an altitude/speed advantage (he's above and behind).  The bandit will kill you unless you do something fast.  You hold your nerve and maintain your climb until the last moment then implement a sharp upward change in AOA in order to throw his aim and force an overshoot.  You then climb above him and then attack him with what appears to be a sort of extreme yo yo maneuver.    

 

Aside from the fact that, in all probability, you'll end up dead long before you get the chance to force the overshoot,  I don't understand why the enemy appears to bleed his energy during this maneuver but you don't (after all, didn't the bandit have a much higher energy state than you before the overshoot?)  I don't understand how you come from this  low energy state (relative to the attacking bandit) but somehow manage to be in a strong attacking position seconds after the overshoot even though you had to pull a rapid change in AOA in order to force the overshoot in the first instance.

 

I can understand, if you are caught low and slow relative to your attacker, that you might attempt to force an overshoot in a desperate situation.  However, if you have enough altitude to begin with, I think a Split S makes much more sense than making yourself a target in a slow climb and just hoping the bandit turns out to be a lousy shot.    Not only does the Split S  put you below his line of fire (by putting your aircraft under his line of sight)  but the bandit's higher energy state and your sudden change in direction (effectively, you have reversed your direction) make it almost impossible for him to follow and press his attack.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Wulf

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Situation no. 3 is the one being described in the majority of these schemes. Though virtual pilots fly differently from real pilots, I've come to find that in Il-2 real-life tactics are far more effective than in the old Il-2. I don't know what's the fine line that divides this, but anyhow it's interesting. I presume it's in the details.

 

If you can put up with either Google Translate, or you can read Spanish, Pokryshkin himself describes a few engagements against Bf-109s in the MiG-3 where he uses a few of these techniques first-hand: http://www.rkka.es/Otros_articulos/16_Pokryshkin/000.htm

 

Wulf, from the get-go, the aircraft there are all depicted as either level or on a shallow dive, not climb.