If you were going to fight for the Russians

[HagarTheHorrible]

Bookmarking this thread - and putting Finkerens' 4th passage in his first post on a T-shirt ....

 

Went back and re-read Finkeren's post and yes the fourth paragraph is good.  He does however say the 109 is the pinnacle in the game and gives two reasons, speed and climb. Interestingly one of the criticisms of the real aircraft was is relatively slow cruise speed, one assumes, making it more susceptible to being bounced.  By comparison one of the aspects praised in the Hawker Tempest was it's high cruise speed.

 

Games are games and real life is different.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Games are games and real life is different.

 

Quote of the year.

 

Be sure.

[Finkeren]

Went back and re-read Finkeren's post and yes the fourth paragraph is good. He does however say the 109 is the pinnacle in the game and gives two reasons, speed and climb. Interestingly one of the criticisms of the real aircraft was is relatively slow cruise speed, one assumes, making it more susceptible to being bounced. By comparison one of the aspects praised in the Hawker Tempest was it's high cruise speed.

 

Games are games and real life is different.

You are right, but obviously I'm talking about the 109 as it is modeled and used within the sim. Especially in MP the 109 is hardly ever flown at cruise speed with normal engine settings.

 

That's also another point in favor of the Fw 190, since its speed at continous power is quite high.

[ACG_KaiLae]

P-40: My Favourite once you get used to it. The Firepower is devastating and High Speed Handling is very Good. You have to learn to compensate for the Lack of Power with absolute Aggression and Smart Energy Management. She will go very Fast in a Dive and Kill anything in Convergence Range in Milliseconds. And at low Speeds she actually handles quite nicely. 

 

Your experience with this aircraft at slow speed I would say is the opposite of my own and everyone else I have talked to. The aircraft acts oddly below 200 MPH, with an odd mushiness to the controls that is usually associated with pre stall behavior. 

 

As for the I-16, many german pilots discount it and try to climb away from it, not realizing that it has a better climb rate than an E-7 and this is like a fat pitch down the middle of the plate. 

[Finkeren]

Part of what makes the I-16 so dangerous is also its amazingly fast initial accelleration due to having the best power-to-weight ratio of any fighter in the sim. It accelerates like a bullet down the barrel up to about 375 km/h, after which the acceleration tapers off to its pitiful top speed. This means, that if the I-16 is lucky enough to catch a 109 in a slow turn fight (which a 109 really shouldn't be doing but which is a common sight in MP) it will actually be able to run down the 109 for the first few seconds and get within range of its hailstorm of bullets.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Your experience with this aircraft at slow speed I would say is the opposite of my own and everyone else I have talked to. The aircraft acts oddly below 200 MPH, with an odd mushiness to the controls that is usually associated with pre stall behavior. 

 

As for the I-16, many german pilots discount it and try to climb away from it, not realizing that it has a better climb rate than an E-7 and this is like a fat pitch down the middle of the plate. 

I fly with 330 Litres which makes it more Nose Heavy and Stable, and at low Speeds it needs 100% Yaw Trim to the Left. 

[Lusekofte]

I wonder if we will be able to reflect the success of the P 39 . I am very keen to see how it will perform in this game

Edited May 5, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Tag777]

I wonder if we will be able to reflect the success of the P 39 . I am very keen to see how it will perform in this game

I wonder the same myself    

[Riderocket]

Everyone here is forgetting the most crucial element in a dogfight, it doesn't come down to, who ever has the best plane will win, or whoever has the best advantage will win.

 

But its all about the pilot.

 

Put a new pilot in any situation where he has a better plane with an advantage, and I assure you, a good pilot will come out on top.

[Wulf]

Everyone here is forgetting the most crucial element in a dogfight, it doesn't come down to, who ever has the best plane will win, or whoever has the best advantage will win.

 

But its all about the pilot.

 

Put a new pilot in any situation where he has a better plane with an advantage, and I assure you, a good pilot will come out on top.

 

 

Sure, but what about two reasonably experienced pilots?  In most instances that contest will probably go to the pilot with the more effective aircraft.

[Finkeren]

I'd say it generally works like this:

 

Tactics > numerical superiority > pilot skill > aircraft performance

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Regarding the i-16, I think 4x SHKAS firing at nearly 2000rpm each is really putting out a tremendous quantity of projectiles down the range at high velocity and you only need 1 to hit a water cooler or jam a control surface if you're lucky. Probably a similar effect to the 8 .303 guns of a Hurricane or Spitfire - still not enough kinetic energy to punch a plane out of action immediately mind you.

 

I've had a few such instances of having control surfaces jammed when coming down on a Ju87 at tremendous speed from the MG81 twin-rear gun. That thing is also a good example of the benefits from a ferocious rate of fire. A combined 3600rpm coming down the range at you from that 1 rear gun.

Edited May 6, 2017 by B0SS

[Monostripezebra]

Pe2 because whoever attacked you would be shot down by your gunners and/or killed immediately.

 

Plus, with Stalinwood you have a great chance of getting home.

 

Von Tom

 

 

ps. It's not that I've had bad experiences against Pe2s you understand...

 

there is your problem.. fly more Pe2 yourself! ;=)

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_s36s40WEY

[Guest deleted@30725]

Games are games and real life is different.

 

Welcome to the matrix neo.

Edited May 6, 2017 by deleted@30725

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

THE Pe2 Problem is only on WoL where the gunners are set to ace..

Pe2 and vvs on WoL is very much Easy street.
Ace gunners,
LW aaa set to low skill
LW Targets to bomb all together so 500KG hits many
VVS only have to bomb 10-15 objects to kill objective but LW need 80-100 on same objective

Facts of the server - not my opinions, easy to see load mission in mission maker ** Massive russian bias on WOL **

so please dont judge game or pe2 Bias based on observation from playing on WoL Server

Edited May 7, 2017 by =R4T=Sshadow14

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Yep, play single player and you will see -

this is not the game or DEVS fault but just Russian WOL server bias.

 

They can't accept reality and thus change server skill pe2 gunners to snipers, as an attempt to honour their VVS ancestors with plentiful victories.

 

I can understand having different requirements for numbers of destroyed targets with the enormous payload advantage of the German airframes, but setting the server gunner skills to snipers is nothing but patriotic Russian Vasily Zaytsev silliness.

Edited May 7, 2017 by B0SS

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Thats why i say in current state

True Even teams on WoL would be 50 LW Versus 34 VVS
(and even then a few mission IMPOSSIBLE for LW to win)
 

[Monostripezebra]

Guys you are claiming a lot of "facts" here...  care to back that up with evidence?

 

 

THE Pe2 Problem is only on WoL where the gunners are set to ace..

Pe2 and vvs on WoL is very much Easy street.
Ace gunners,
LW aaa set to low skill
LW Targets to bomb all together so 500KG hits many
VVS only have to bomb 10-15 objects to kill objective but LW need 80-100 on same objective

Facts of the server - not my opinions, easy to see load mission in mission maker ** Massive russian bias on WOL **

so please dont judge game or pe2 Bias based on observation from playing on WoL Server

 

 

Yep, play single player and you will see -
this is not the game or DEVS fault but just Russian WOL server bias.

They can't accept reality and thus change server skill pe2 gunners to snipers, as an attempt to honour their VVS ancestors with plentiful victories.

I can understand having different requirements for numbers of destroyed targets with the enormous payload advantage of the German airframes, but setting the server gunner skills to snipers is nothing but patriotic Russian Vasily Zaytsev silliness.

 

 

Thats why i say in current state

True Even teams on WoL would be 50 LW Versus 34 VVS
(and even then a few mission IMPOSSIBLE for LW to win)
 

 

I´ve actually seen outnumbered blue teams win.. all you need to do is to destroy targets and blue has superior bombers and fighterbombers (While red has superior ground attack planes)

I think you´re just spreading false rumors.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

"Guys you are claiming a lot of "facts" here...  care to back that up with evidence?"

 

(Load mission of your choice from WoL in mission maker check how its setup.)

 

"I´ve actually seen outnumbered blue teams win.. all you need to do is to destroy targets and blue has superior bombers and fighterbombers (While red has superior ground attack planes)"

 

(Rarely does this happen, and VVS lack of 1t bomb is made up by the fact pe2 is super fast and also carries massive very versatile loadouts, Also superior bombers mean little when fighters all hiding at 6K)

 

 

"I think you´re just spreading false rumors."

 

(Well no because i love this server as proven by the fact I AM the LW most Active Highest ranked DEDICATED bomber on WoL for last 3.5 months in a row (100 days around 17,500 Ground kills (avg 80 per hour) all in 111,110,88

Being Very conservative I do about 60-65% of THE TOTAL!! Bombing done by LW in WoL - Only possible dive bombing)

 

(The server is great but given the clear Mission Advantages given to VVS The LW must learn to work together and even then some missions Cannot be won anywhere near easily. Eg, mission with forts to destroy (forgot name) VVS can clear forts in 40-60 Gkills over 3 forts

We did over 120Gkills in 2 x 111 and a 110 and did not clear a single fort FACT!!)

[mb339pan]

Thats why i say in current state

 

True Even teams on WoL would be 50 LW Versus 34 VVS

(and even then a few mission IMPOSSIBLE for LW to win)

 

 

To break down a Russian plane they want a vomiting of bullets, to kill a 109 just sprinkle him on a bit of wodka

[HagarTheHorrible]

.....and so, once again, mortally wounded, the first tongues of flame starting to lick across the rapidly blistering paint work, the thread begins to wing over before spiralling down to it's inevitable doom !!!

[ITAF_Cymao]

THE Pe2 Problem is only on WoL where the gunners are set to ace.

It isnt true, only Ju88 and 110 G2 are set to normal ( and I dont understand why? ), all the other bombers (russians and germans) are set ace!

Then in the game not in the server Pe2's snipergunners are too precise and lethal compared to all other gunners...

 

 

 

 

Guys you are claiming a lot of "facts" here... care to back that up with evidence?

You can open all WoL maps and you can see that in many maps Ju88 and 110 are set to normal (only these 2 aircrafts). After you have done it you will tell if it is true or false...

 

S!

Edited May 7, 2017 by ITAF_Cymao

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

They aren't we tested Ace level 111 gunners on another server and you can straffe ground targets in single pass with nose 20mm and AI firing it.. Nothing is left behind. i straffed a column of 5 trucks and Ai go all 5 in 1 pass single clip (that is not possible in WOL)

But on WOL they gunners have a less than 1% Accuracy.
Look at my march stats for 111 accuracy
65 hours 0.7% AI Gunner Accuracy 15 kills.

Pe2's avg around 45-65% Accuracy (65% if they only let AI fire, 45% if they use nose guns themself and miss a lot)

I was going to take a screenshot in mission maker of gunner settings for he-111 and pe2
in mission storm42-wl-208-01.msnbin but my editor gets to 90% then i get "this program stopped responding"
was ok yesterday!!

Edited May 7, 2017 by =R4T=Sshadow14

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Congratulations on hijacking another thread with one of your wild, off topic, conspiracy theories. This OP has nothing to do with the Pe or server settings. If you have a beef with that server, there are threads and individuals to address that to. Can we get back to tactics and aircraft capabilities now? Maybe give this guy the actual help he is seeking.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Congratulations on hijacking another thread with one of your wild, off topic, conspiracy theories. This OP has nothing to do with the Pe or server settings. If you have a beef with that server, there are threads and individuals to address that to. Can we get back to tactics and aircraft capabilities now? Maybe give this guy the actual help he is seeking.

 

Well said.

 

Getting us back on to topic... I wanted to ask what altitudes folks flying Russian aircraft are typically operating at. In my head I've kind of looked at the typical performance maximums and kind of stuck with 3000 meters as a decent middle ground. You're still 2000 meters below the Bf109s but if you can convince them to stay at that level then you have a chance of fighting them. This may not be the best option although I know some IAPs did tend to operate at that level.

 

What are some of you doing?

 

I haven't flown the MiG-3 online very much but I'd consider altering tactics for that type given its high altitude predilections over virtually all of the other Russian fighters. 

[216th_Jordan]

I'm usually flying between 4.5 and 5k in the Yaks while flying above 5k in the Mig-3.

 

4.5 k Still gives the ability to view towards the ground but gives a situation that is often at least neutral to german fighters. The Yak starts to get too slow above that, the Mig just gets better up to 7.5k.

 

The best is of course to have high flying Migs, Yaks at 3k and La-5s at ground level

[senseispcc]

I did read and I am still reading a lot of (real) pilots combats accounts of air combats they survived.

And very, really very rarely read that they used their flaps in air battle (dogfights) as players do?!

Maybe because the flaps are very fragile and once damaged open the drag factor is great and means losing the engagement?

Of the manuals of any WW2 airplane I also did read, only 10 most of them fighters of British and US construction, none did mention the use of flaps in combat, some even strongly advise against it!

Why do players use them I ask many time myself?! Because they can without risk for themselves?!   

Edited May 8, 2017 by senseispcc

[JaffaCake]

I did read and I am still reading a lot of (real) pilots combats accounts of air combats they survived.

And very, really very rarely read that they used their flaps in air battle (dogfights) as players do?!

Maybe because the flaps are very fragile and once damaged open the drag factor is great and means losing the engagement?

Of the manuals of any WW2 airplane I also did read, only 10 most of them fighters of British and US construction, none did mention the use of flaps in combat, some even strongly advise against it!

Why do players use them I ask many time myself?! Because they can without risk for themselves?!   

 

 

Don't have data to back myself up here - but I believe flap induced drag is not that high in level flight at low speeds - such as landing. If you however use flaps in a tight high speed turn you would burn a lot of energy very fast - they work like air brakes and in a turn you are exposing even more of the cross section of the flap. However it does not feel like that in this game - you can drop the flaps on a yak, do a 90 degree turn pull them up and not loose too much energy.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I suspect flaps were often a desperate last resort, when used in combat, rather than a normal recommended procedure and when mentioned in post combat anecdotes should be viewed in that vein. There must have been some reason why most fighter designs of the period didn't have fancy get out of jail, press a button, combat flaps. If only they'd known, designers must have been thick or something. Potential damage to the flaps themselves or hydrolic mechanisms coupled with additional pilot workload was probably reason enough, but being caught in a situation with your pants/flaps down was probably not an overly endearing factor especially if you still faced the prospect of a return flight over enemy held territory and probably death or internment if unsuccessful.

[gnomechompsky]

I'm usually flying between 4.5 and 5k in the Yaks while flying above 5k in the Mig-3.

 

4.5 k Still gives the ability to view towards the ground but gives a situation that is often at least neutral to german fighters. The Yak starts to get too slow above that, the Mig just gets better up to 7.5k.

 

The best is of course to have high flying Migs, Yaks at 3k and La-5s at ground level

I don't disagree if you are escorting bombers, but if you are pure dogfighting higher is always better no matter the plane.

 

Even if a yak performs better relatively speaking at 4.5k, it's better to start at 6k, plus at 4.5k you are going to be cannon fodder for the large number of LW pilots that fly at 6k, especially on the summer maps where it is hard to pick out planes that are above you but easy if they are below.

Edited May 8, 2017 by gnomechompsky

[A_radek]

If there is a heavy cloudcover at around 3k alt I find it helps the VVS crates considerably. Even in a lagg I feel much safer patrolling right underneath that cover. Your difficult to bounce from above and 109/180's tend to come visit down low more often, minimizing energy/performance advantage.

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

Well said.

 

Getting us back on to topic... I wanted to ask what altitudes folks flying Russian aircraft are typically operating at. In my head I've kind of looked at the typical performance maximums and kind of stuck with 3000 meters as a decent middle ground. You're still 2000 meters below the Bf109s but if you can convince them to stay at that level then you have a chance of fighting them. This may not be the best option although I know some IAPs did tend to operate at that level.

 

What are some of you doing?

 

I haven't flown the MiG-3 online very much but I'd consider altering tactics for that type given its high altitude predilections over virtually all of the other Russian fighters.

 

LaGG/Yak-1/La-5 we stick around 3-3.5km altitude. Also depends on cloud cover.

 

We wait and bait...and it usually works. Once a German or two engage, 1-2 members just climb while keeping an eye on the guys who are defensive and then reengage with more energy.

 

If we are outnumbered, we hit the deck and run.

 

Flying the MiG-3 I like to stick around 5-6km for a good 109/190 hunt.

 

Escorting changes all this entirely and is dependent on what the bombers/attackers plan on doing.

 

More often than not, we're escorting in some manner.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Some good commentary on that. Thanks guys! My combat altitude is probably my single biggest preoccupation right now and me trying to figure out what the best altitude is in any given situation.

[Inkophile]

Well said.

 

Getting us back on to topic... I wanted to ask what altitudes folks flying Russian aircraft are typically operating at. In my head I've kind of looked at the typical performance maximums and kind of stuck with 3000 meters as a decent middle ground. You're still 2000 meters below the Bf109s but if you can convince them to stay at that level then you have a chance of fighting them. This may not be the best option although I know some IAPs did tend to operate at that level.

 

The performance in Russian planes indeed tend to peak at 1,5-2 km (or in the case of Forsash (WEP) on the La-5 at nearly ground level). Second stage on the supercharger usually peaks at 3-5km depending on engine. HOWEVER, basically all Russian fighters have their top speed at ~5 km (MiG-3 of course significantly higher, at 7-7,5 km), thus it isn't really any harm in staying high. Sure, the 109s may be faster, but one should try to use the planes to the best of their ability.

 

If you fly at 4,5-5 km you probably won't have all the Germans below you, but you have a pretty good chance of being above them, and although they produce more power at that altitude you can still BnZ if you are careful with your energy. If that goes bad you can always pull them down into your maximum power envelope.

 

Like others have said 4,5 km is a pretty good altitude, and it tends to work fine for me in the Yak and La-5, and that's despite for example the M-105PF (Yak-1 engine) only producing a power of 1000 PS at 4,5 km.

[ACG_KaiLae]

Don't have data to back myself up here - but I believe flap induced drag is not that high in level flight at low speeds - such as landing. If you however use flaps in a tight high speed turn you would burn a lot of energy very fast - they work like air brakes and in a turn you are exposing even more of the cross section of the flap. However it does not feel like that in this game - you can drop the flaps on a yak, do a 90 degree turn pull them up and not loose too much energy.

Disagree. Yak flaps are like speed brakes if left down for any period of time. Don't believe me? Take off with them down, and see what the max speed of the plane is, vs up. Major difference.

 

Only 2 planes irl that I'm aware of used combat flaps - the KI-43 and the P-38, which not coincidentally used the same fowler flap type design.

[JaffaCake]

Disagree. Yak flaps are like speed brakes if left down for any period of time. Don't believe me? Take off with them down, and see what the max speed of the plane is, vs up. Major difference.

 

Only 2 planes irl that I'm aware of used combat flaps - the KI-43 and the P-38, which not coincidentally used the same fowler flap type design.

 

Flaps appear to be modelled ok for straight flight - they do not appear to slow you down nearly as much as you'd expect in a tight turn, feels almost like the additional cross section of the flaps in a turn is not modelled. I'd also test the critical angle of attack with flaps down...

Edited May 10, 2017 by JaffaCake

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Maybe you see this effect because you are a bit too fast for the flaps to fully deploy? If you drop them at high speed, they will barely come down. While the plane gets slower they will gradually come down until reaching full extension at around 250 km/h..

 

This is around 300 km/h, similar to what "combat flaps" would be I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JaffaCake]

Maybe you see this effect because you are a bit too fast for the flaps to fully deploy? If you drop them at high speed, they will barely come down. While the plane gets slower they will gradually come down until reaching full extension at around 250 km/h..

 

This is around 300 km/h, similar to what "combat flaps" would be I guess.

 

Yup, the rest of the wing after that flap extension is already turbulent. In simplest terms one could think that flaps work by deflecting part of the laminar flow over the wing in a vectored jet fashion - you loose a lot of energy, but you gain temporary increase in lift.

 

This basically required digging into the performance curves that devs put in. Not something I can do. Just doesn't feel right the way its done right now, and doesn't correspond well to the historical use of the aircraft - again my impressions here, cannot support this statement. Even Japanese were mostly commending the flaps for shortening vertical part of the loop, where you are the slowest. The way the flaps are prominently used in this game is odd...

 

Anyhow, not something I can support without thoroughly digging through supporting documents.

Edited May 10, 2017 by JaffaCake

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Maybe a higher speed penalty would be needed for these small flap extensions. Something about this is mentioned in the La-5 manual that @Inkompetent has been translating for some days, if you can post some of that detailed info here it would be great! (I know it isn't the same plane... but maybe could serve as a comparison).

Edited May 10, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Tag777]

 

 

Even Japanese were mostly commending the flaps for shortening vertical part of the loop, where you are the slowest.

 

Well, about that point, by the end of the war, the Japanese put into service the N1K2 Shiden-kai, and one of its features was an automatic flap system, that was deployed in combat when necessary. So the flap use in real combat was not so unlikely in WW2 as one may suppose.