Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Uriah

Why the Lagg-3?

Recommended Posts

It's better than an I16. :biggrin:

It may actually prove the opposite in the game.

Although this would be nowhere near old Il-2 experience where I assure you most would choose I-16s over LaGG-3.

 

I'd take it over LaGG in this game too.

Because I want to make sure that the 109 is dead when i "jump" on him from above.

I can clearly see how that little I-16 could be more potent than "lakirovanny garantirovanny grob" in this new game.

Like Kwiatek already said, we should always look at the:

 

- speed

- roc rate of climb

- turn rate

 

If you have none over your enemy you are very likely to be dead in combat soon.

 

I-16 at least has turn rate in all situations.

So we may cry for this chubby after all :crazy: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we may cry for this chubby after all :crazy: .

 

 

Don't get me wrong, the I16 was the first aircraft I learned to fly in IL2 FB (my first sim) and I would love one in BOS and a TB3. You're are correct though it can used to great advantage by skilled pilots (not me though). It's not the plane that wins the fight, it's the pilot :salute:

 

'Mon the Crap Planes! :yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right.

 

That being said, I'd use LaGG for recon, ground attack and bomber interceptions.

I can easily see it being far better for anti bomber actions than Rata due to Rata's rather obsolete speed.

 

I suppose that I-16 Rata would be more suitable (read = survivable) in other situations.


Particularly those which involve tangling with enemy fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MP will be a La-5 parade, make no mistakes. It's the only one that has it's own clear advantage over ze Germans with a better armament, better turner and good climb.

 

I don't see why not, unless MP will feature Yaks & LaGGs "mandatory slots" for each setting.

 

I think you are vastly overestimating the La-5s performance, we're not getting the FN version, we are getting basically the very first serial produced version... which was balls...seriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon a dumb question: if the 109 was so superior, and German pilots were so experienced, how on earth Luftwaffe lost the (Air) Battle of Stalingrad?

 

My opinion is that both the whole LW and the Bf109 were ill suited for the task at hand: to maintain an air bridge in bad, often appalling, weather. Escorting Ju52 at low altitude, with low ceilings and bad visibility is far from ideal for a boom and zoom fighter. Being faster at 4 k altitude, or having a better climb rate don’t help that much when you fly below a 1000 feet ceiling.

 

To sum it up: if the tactical situation is represented in a realistic way, performances are of secondary importance. In my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right.

 

That being said, I'd use LaGG for recon, ground attack and bomber interceptions.

I can easily see it being far better for anti bomber actions than Rata due to Rata's rather obsolete speed.

 

I suppose that I-16 Rata would be more suitable (read = survivable) in other situations.

Particularly those which involve tangling with enemy fighters.

 

They did a study on I-16 operations in 1943 (!!) and concluded it survived air attack better than more modern planes and ground attack better than the IL-2. They put it down to the fact that pilots flying the rata were by then very experienced indeed whereas a Yak-1 pilot might only be on his first flight in that plane. I reckon it was more that the rata wasn't sent after the toughest targets by then but it is still and interesting conclusion. Plus it had gun/cannon armament equivalent to an early Il-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furio: You pretty much said it yourself.

 

I guess the misconception that "the Germans with their superior training and equipment really 'ought to' have won the war" stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of conflict. Wars in general are not won by destroying the enemy on the battlefield. In practically no conflict in history has one side ever come close to actually being wiped out in combat. Wars are won by denying the enemy the ability to carry on fighting. The destruction of the opposing forces always comes second.

 

It is interesting to note, that up until 1945 the Germans never really 'lost' a single battle on the Eastern Front in terms of pure numbers lost and lost only very few meassured in percentage lost. They simply couldn't afford their smaller losses.

 

Hence the quality of equipment is really secondary in a prolonged conflict compared to factors like production capabilities, the ability to replace losses and maintaining proper logistics. The Germans failed on all three counts.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus German training deteriorated a lot during the war whereas Russian training massively improved. And if you rely on Fw-190F's as your primary bomber then you don't want the enemy to have the La-7! Germany had superior training and equipment for a bit but didn't put their industry on a full war footing until 1944, which seems incredible to me! The Russians geared up for full war within months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furio: You pretty much said it yourself.

 

I guess the misconception that "the Germans with their superior training and equipment really 'ought to' have won the war" stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of conflict. Wars in general are not won by destroying the enemy on the battlefield. In practically no conflict in history has one side ever come close to actually being wiped out in combat. Wars are won by denying the enemy the ability to carry on fighting. The destruction of the opposing forces always comes second.

 

It is interesting to note, that up until 1945 the Germans never really 'lost' a single battle on the Eastern Front in terms of pure numbers lost and lost only very few meassured in percentage lost. They simply couldn't afford their smaller losses.

 

Hence the quality of equipment is really secondary in a prolonged conflict compared to factors like production capabilities, the ability to replace losses and maintaining proper logistics. The Germans failed on all three counts.

I agree with you, Fin.

My dumb question was more specific to the battle, and can be reformulated in a more precise way: how and why Luftwaffe lost air superiority over Stalingrad?

To say again it to myself: because the mission, the strategic goal and the tactical situation outweighed the clear technical superiority of Bf109. The bottom line is: at Stalingrad, LaGG3 accomplished their mission, Bf109 didn’t. Hard to say the Lavochkin was an underdog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Fin.

My dumb question was more specific to the battle, and can be reformulated in a more precise way: how and why Luftwaffe lost air superiority over Stalingrad?

To say again it to myself: because the mission, the strategic goal and the tactical situation outweighed the clear technical superiority of Bf109. The bottom line is: at Stalingrad, LaGG3 accomplished their mission, Bf109 didn’t. Hard to say the Lavochkin was an underdog.

As I see it the German defeat in the air at Stalingrad came in three stages:

 

1. While Luftflotte 4 generally achieved great successes during most of Fall Blau, their bomber force failed to make a deciding impact in the assault on Stalingrad. The initial area bombing actually ended up helping the defenders by keeping tanks and other heavy equipment out of the fight inside the city and later the bombers failed to sufficiently disrupt the flow of supplies across the Volga.

 

2. The Luftwaffe failed to replace most of the losses sustained during the campaign. The VVS force was repeatedly worn almost completely down and then rebuilt and reinforced. The relatively few serviceable German aircraft became severely overworked resulting in even more breakdowns (The impact of weather conditions are generally overestimated IMHO. The low temperatures and muddy fields hit the VVS almost as hard as the Luftwaffe).

 

3. With the airlift after the encirclement of 6th Army, Luftflotte 4 set out on a task it was neither equipped for nor strong enough to undertake. Given the numbers, the airlift was doomed from the start, it simply could not have succeeded. As a general rule, military operations that are very unlikely to be able to achieve its goals often lead to excessive losses due to the forces being overstretched, undersupplied and/or outnumbered. Stalingrad was no exception.

 

That is my take on it anyways.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what I know and understand, you summed up pretty well the whole story of Stalingrad.

However, the snow covered fields tell us that we’ll be fighting in the closing stage of the battle, when – to use your words – the Luftwaffe was “severely overworked”, and was simply losing air superiority.

 

Add the awful weather and the foolish task to protect the airlift, and we are at the core of the situation: Bf109’s pilots will have to perform the hardest missions, while the LaGG’s pilots will lead the dances, inferior performances notwithstanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Furio.

 

BUT: This supposes, that the campaign (and MP) accurately portrays that situation, which is still up in the air.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are asking for the I16? If the Lagg's twitchy imagine what the I16 will be like...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched the video, and unless I missed something, it said precisely the opposite: That the LaGG was clumsy, sluggish and difficult to handle, its only real advantage being durability. The only episode the guy recalls from flying in the LaGG is how he nearly got shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as others have noted, it may not be the most effective model in the game fr the ruskies, but it was certainly prevelant on the feild. Probably a poor choice to implement when you consider the dogfighting scenarios for sure. BUT with that said, it should prove a fun bomber hunter. Can't wait to start bagging stuka's and he-111's in it.

 

I may make a macro that triggers each time i kill a bomber in it:

 

"lolz, you got shot down by a lagg, usobad"  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this pilot, The Lagg-3 held it's own against the German aircraft.

A lot depended on the pilot.

This would still be true today I  believe. :)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJdTH8I6ub8

 

Hehe that guy could do fine flying broomstick vs 109s.

 

You gotta find some novice or mediocre guy that usually falls down in flames after one hard fight versus German fighters.

 

I agree, it's usually pilot and not the plane that really matters, but in all honesty good or great performing plane helps.

To at least save your head when things go grim, survive, collect experience and next time perform better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Fin.

My dumb question was more specific to the battle, and can be reformulated in a more precise way: how and why Luftwaffe lost air superiority over Stalingrad?

To say again it to myself: because the mission, the strategic goal and the tactical situation outweighed the clear technical superiority of Bf109. The bottom line is: at Stalingrad, LaGG3 accomplished their mission, Bf109 didn’t. Hard to say the Lavochkin was an underdog.

 

I don't think it mattered.  Even if they had air superiority, the Luftwaffe didn't have the practical lifting capacity to keep the 6th Army supplied, delivering only ~1/5th of what was promised or needed on average.  Bad weather, training problems in dealing with the cold conditions by the crews moved from Africa, logistics problems if getting needed supplies to the airfields to be delivered made it harder. Once they started losing airfields in the pocket to deliver supplies to.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Bergstrom's book on Stalingrad, there are accounts from German pilots that state the Ju 52s simply started flying their missions unescorted, because the bad weather reduced the operating altitude to such low levels, that it was more of a hazard having the 109s around (collisions, troubles with maintaining formation, etc):

 

As far as I can judge, the Ju 52 pilots didn't want to have anything to do with us as far as fighter escort was concerned. The Ju 52 was very slow and the guys who flew them at Stalingrad really knew how to fly. They could use the aircraft's slow speed to carry out evasive turns. But in the main, they relied on their relative invisibility. They flew so low that they almost crept close above the ground. Only in the vicinity of the front line did they climb to around 1000 meters in order to avoid small-arms fire from below. Moreover, they never used the same flight routes. In this way, they hoped to reach Stalingrad without drawing the attention of the Russian fighters. I feel that the Ju 52 crews really did not trust the efficiency of the fighter escort.

 

 

(Bolded for emphasis)

 

-Uffz. Hans Ellendt, II./JG 52

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the guys who flew them at Stalingrad really knew how to fly.

If I am not mistaken, many Ju52 and their crews came from blind-flying schools and were manned by the very experienced instructors - so it would seem reasonable that they had high confidence in their flying skills.

 

Of course the drawback of using these crews was that every crew lost at stalingrad further hampered the training program for future bomber and transportation crews.

 

 

 

edit: or maybe I am mixing this up with Kreta... or perhaps they did this on both occasions.

Edited by ImPeRaToR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: or maybe I am mixing this up with Kreta... or perhaps they did this on both occasions.

 

No, you're right: many of the Ju 52s and their pilots employed at Stalingrad had to be pulled out of flight training schools, which as you wrote had detrimental effects on the Luftwaffe pilot training program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Wonder how the campaign will be? I recall they said there'll be several stages of the battle, so presumably they have ideas on how to recreate some of the events mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Wonder how the campaign will be? I recall they said there'll be several stages of the battle, so presumably they have ideas on how to recreate some of the events mentioned above.

For such a short campaign (we're talking a maximum of 90 days) in a single geographical area it might make sense to spice it up with some different stages and other historical factors to increase immersion and sense of progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, why speculate when I can actually just read the info from the Devs!

Parts 20 and 21

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=7273

 

Also our mission generator pays attention to the phase you're playing - i.e. stage of the battle. For instance, Luftwaffe bombers fly more supply missions than bombing raids during the aerial bridge period, while Soviet fighters try to intercept them more often. Such a situation is drastically different from what happened in the air during earlier stages of the battle. Thus, the variety of mission types allows you to see the operation from all points of view.
 
Weather is taken into account as well. We've preset certain rules for weather in every phase. For instance, some periods will have pretty bad weather simply because that's how it was in real life according to history. Wind speed and direction is taken into account as well. The time when the mission starts will be set depending on the specific regiment you're playing for and the period of the phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to original question...

1. It uses the engine management to the full, no automatics - pilot of real thing needed to fiddle with six levers in flight. It makes good testbed for CEM mechanics and natural first plane to be fully developed alongside CEM. And once it's developed, why not release it?

2. So does the La-5, but it's not availiable to everyone.

Edited by Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more than posible. Against novice AI, I now win more often than not in the LaGG against 109.

 

AI is one thing though, and the Bf 109 obviously is the superior plane, which will become quite apparent in MP dogfight servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night in my LaGG I had a sortie where I downed 2 109's, damaged a third before I landed. 

 

Now, if the rearm function was implemented I could have had at least a 3 kill sortie in the LaGG.

 

ymmv

Edited by [JG2]Surf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more time I spend with the LaGG-3 Series 29, the more I like the plane. Granted, I don't see it as a duelist dream ride or a plane that can reliably hold its own in an environment where there are equal or greater numbers of BF-109s. Still, the LaGG-3 may have some advantages over the Yak-1. Compared to the Yak-1, the LaGG-3 may prove to be far more durable and far less likely to go on fire. I have noticed that the LaGG-3 can really take a beating from a BF-109, survive, and sometimes even land in one piece. I doubt that the Yak-1 will prove so resiliant. In terms of armament, the LaGG-3 will come with optional 23 mm canon or 37 mm canon. So long as LaGG-3s have numerical supremacy over the BF-109 on a multiplayer map, I think that the match up is pretty fair, especially if highly experienced sim pilots take an interest in the LaGG-3 and don't just pile in the BF-109.

 

I don't think that any of us are LaGG-3 experts yet, but if we put in the effort, we can become LaGG-3 experts. I think that LaGG-3 experts, working in large numbers, in highly cohesive and effective teams, will be able to hold their own against BF-109 experts, when the BF-109 is in the minority. Frankly, if a BF-109 gets hit by the 23 mm canon or 37 mm canon, I cannot see any future for that BF-109, other than it being reduced to a Revi gun sight, spinning in the air momentarily, before heading to the Earth. If maps have BF-109s in relatively greater numbers or in equal numbers, I think even LaGG-3 experts will be up the creek, since the BF-109 is a flat out better plane. Sure, I can see the great utility in a Yak-1 and in an La-5, but I think there is room for multiplayer maps where the only unlimited Soviet fighter is the LaGG-3. I think the development team made a great decision adding the LaGG-3, as it will present a great number of challenges that should prove highly rewarding to many sim pilots.

 

:salute: MJ

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember flying the Nieuport 17 on the hq server together with Matt and Peter prior to the FM revisions -when it was basically just a target drone - purely for the point of having a very nice challenge, it was huge fun :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember flying the Nieuport 17 on the hq server together with Matt and Peter prior to the FM revisions -when it was basically just a target drone - purely for the point of having a very nice challenge, it was huge fun :)

Yes, the old Nieuport 17 is not what she is today, but the flight sim pros were still able to take out noobs using the old N17. I should know, the player SAS shot my Mercedes DVII down using a N17, when I played my first ever flight sim multiplayer match. I can't remember the first person I shot down, but I can always remember that the only reason I was not sim killed in my first match is because another player got SAS off me, so I could ditch.  For you, Matt, and Peter, the old N17 was a target drone. For me, as a super noob, it was an F-22 Raptor, at least when in the hands of someone like SAS.  :happy:

 

:salute: MJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember flying the Nieuport 17 on the hq server together with Matt and Peter prior to the FM revisions -when it was basically just a target drone - purely for the point of having a very nice challenge, it was huge fun :)

It was more fun to fly before the FM revision. :P

Same for some other planes.

 

Anyway, i don't plan to fly the LaGG-3 that much. Yes, it will probably be sturdier than the Yak-1 (which might annoy the 109 pilot on your tail, which you can't get away from), but i doubt it will be a big advantage or outweight any of the advantages the Yak will have over the LaGG. Not sure if the DM is final (i doubt it, but who knows), but it's not like the LaGG will just keep going after being shredded by 20mm shells like nothing happened.

 

Also i already flew the LaGG longer in early access, than maybe 90% of the planes of the original IL-2 or RoF. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that if we stick to the Stalingrad / Fall Blau scenario, it seems that the Bf 109F-2s had no real play in it.

 

Thanks for all the interest data.

True, but as I record, aren't there more 35 series than 29 series on the Soviet side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, the LaGG-3 may have some advantages over the Yak-1. Compared to the Yak-1, the LaGG-3 may prove to be far more durable and far less likely to go on fire. I have noticed that the LaGG-3 can really take a beating from a BF-109, survive, and sometimes even land in one piece. I doubt that the Yak-1 will prove so resiliant.

 

 

I agree with most of your post, but this one I'm not so sure is correct.

 

While it's true, that the early Yaks had something of a reputation for catching fire easily, it was actually a very sturdy design with an extremely strong structure which could take a lot of punishment, though the wooden skin did tend to come off in fast power dives. That is part of the reason why Yaks achieved success with the underpowered Klimov engines. The structural design was so strong, that it could be lightened a lot and still retain its integrity. The pinnacle of that development was of course the Yak-3 which was incredibly light weight, but still by no means flimsy.

 

Now in BoS we are (initially) getting a late production Yak-1 which has less armour than the Yak-7 but otherwise is just as strong. While it might be easier to set the fuel tank alight than on the LaGG, the structure should be as strong or stronger.

 

I think part of the reason, why we think of the Yak as a less durable aircraft, is because it fits the image of a tiny, maneuverable but delicate aircraft as opposed to the heavy, harder hitting and sturdier LaGG, but the truth might be more complicated than that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of your post, but this one I'm not so sure is correct.

 

While it's true, that the early Yaks had something of a reputation for catching fire easily, it was actually a very sturdy design with an extremely strong structure which could take a lot of punishment, though the wooden skin did tend to come off in fast power dives. That is part of the reason why Yaks achieved success with the underpowered Klimov engines. The structural design was so strong, that it could be lightened a lot and still retain its integrity. The pinnacle of that development was of course the Yak-3 which was incredibly light weight, but still by no means flimsy.

 

Now in BoS we are (initially) getting a late production Yak-1 which has less armour than the Yak-7 but otherwise is just as strong. While it might be easier to set the fuel tank alight than on the LaGG, the structure should be as strong or stronger.

 

I think part of the reason, why we think of the Yak as a less durable aircraft, is because it fits the image of a tiny, maneuverable but delicate aircraft as opposed to the heavy, harder hitting and sturdier LaGG, but the truth might be more complicated than that.

 

Frankly, I think you are far more expert on these matters than I am, so I must defer to your judgment, Finkeren. I am really glad to hear that about the Yak structure. I sure wish the Yak-1 was not more fire prone, but I will just have to take the good with the bad and roll with the punches. I definitely want to make great use of the YaK-1 in multiplayer matches. I don't see any reason not to make use of all of the great rides created by the dev team. Still, I hope that the team and/ or multiplayer mission builders can find ways to create coop missions where the VVS has numerical fighter supremacy, but must depend on the LaGG-3 as their primary fighter or only fighter, while the Axis, though vastly inferior in number,  get the superior performing BF-109 F-4s, BF-109 G-2s, and maybe even a few FW 190's. Such missions may prove to be challenging and fun for both sides, not to mention force both sides to use great judgment, teamwork, etc.  :salute: MJ

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just info on the Yak wings - it wasn't that the design was wrong but that unknown to Yakovlev the factory couldn't get the right green paint and used paint meant for tractors which weaken the wing covering.

 

Stalin called Yakovlev to a meeting at the Kremlin and laid wing covering on the table and said that pilots were dying because their wings were stripping and told Yakovlev to sort it out ASAP. Needless to say it was sorted in short order.


for clarity - it was sorted in time for the Yak-9M, the Yak-1's were affected .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...