Lagg3 vs Bf109F-4

[TSK_Abfangjager]

Hello 

I was wondering something. How can fight Bf109F-4 fighting for LAgg3. Bf109F-4 is not too strong?

 

Becouse Lagg 3 Level 1 aircraft in War Thunder . Level 3 Bf109F-4.  Lagg3 a weak plane, right? I was so worried about it.  

 

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

 

Hello 

I was wondering something. How can fight Bf109F-4 fighting for LAgg3. Bf109F-4 is not too strong?

 

Becouse Lagg 3 Level 1 aircraft in War Thunder . Level 3 Bf109F-4.  Lagg3 a weak plane, right? I was so worried about it.  

 

 

The LaGG is a bit under-powered, and doesn't have the 109s harmonized handling. She has a rapid initial turn though. Fighting with it is a matter of finding her good sides and avoiding her bad sides.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Level 1 aircraft

[BeastyBaiter]

You shouldn't look at war thunder as an example of how capable planes are. I know how they are there, I've played it off and on for the past year. The LaGG-3 there is hilariously bad compared to the one here. That 109F4 here is still the better plane but the difference isn't large enough that team work can't reasonably compensate for it.

[Tektolnes]

In a 1v1 fight if the 109 driver is semi-competent and hasn't disadvantaged himself too much at the start of the fight then you're probably dead. Same as it was in reality. Fly the Yak-1 or La-5 if you want to be more competitive.

[TSK_Abfangjager]

This table 

 

[Finkeren]

You shouldn't look at war thunder as an example of how capable planes are.

^^

This. The fact alone that the game has tiers or levels of aircraft, should tell you, that it isn't too grounded in reality.

 

In answer to your question. The LaGG is inferior to the Bf 109 in all but firepower, durability and cockpit view, but that's only half of the story.

 

In WT and similar non-simulator flight games, the controls and handling of the aircraft is so simplistic, that even small advantages in turn rate, firepower, speed etc. more or less determine the outcome of any fight, making LaGG-3 vs. Bf 109F an extremely uneven fight. 

 

In an actual simulator, as BoS aspires to be, it matters so much more how you fly your plane and less which plane you fly. If you're straight out of WT, many BoS players could propably go up against you in a LaGG with half a wing missing and still blow your shiny 109 out of the sky. 

 

Getting the advantage early on, proper energy management and situational awareness determine the outcome more often than plane type. Only if all other things are equal is the Bf 109 the clearly superior fighter.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Finkeren

[TSK_Abfangjager]

THX for answer, ı am sharing  this topic link on the War Thunder forums. You said what I wanted to hear.

[bivalov]

lagg-3, ie s29 without slats and with shvak+ubs, i think could be not bad only in turns against 190 and 109G (in fact, besides 21/22-23 sec at 1000 m from reports and manual, in some sense this is confirmed by finnish pilots, but i not sure against F), in roll rate and good weapon in compare with 3 three-point 109f/g...

looks like it's all, at this moment...

how much good f-4, personally i dont know in fact, because i have only raw simple theory about his performance and especially, time of turn at 1000...

[TSK_Abfangjager]

Bf109F-4 engine Very powerfull . 

 

But Lagg 3 weak engine 

• Power output:
• 1,100 hp (820 kW) at 2,700 RPM for take-off, boost rated at 1.27 Atm (38.00 MP)
• 1,050 hp (782 kW) at 2,700 RPM at 13,123 ft (4,000 m), boost rated at 1.21 Atm (36.22 MP)
• 500 hp (372 kW) at 2,700 RPM at 31,168 ft (9,500 m)

 

 

 

Bf109F-4 1320 hp at 4000 meter

Lagg3 1050 hp at 4000 meter.

[Emgy]

The Lagg-3 variant in bos has the M-105PF engine.

[bivalov]

But Lagg 3 weak engine

• Power output:
• 1,100 hp (820 kW) at 2,700 RPM for take-off, boost rated at 1.27 Atm (38.00 MP)

1100 it's take-off/forsazh for m-105p/pa, s-29 have m-105pf with nominal power 1210 HP or PS at sl and with 2600-2700 revs (could be 1180 ie no single opinion about, maybe, this is exactly in HP), like nominal combat power for 601e...

 

and i remembered, maybe, use of flaps on lagg could be little easier, and effect could be little better...

Edited January 16, 2014 by MK.Bivalov

[Brano]

Nice to see the list of aerial vicories of top scoring Slovak ace ,Mr.Reznak   (13./JG52)

[=LD=Hethwill]

The Lagg might do better during the campaign as a Interdiction heavy fighter where the bf109, although capable as well, would be wasted for that purpose. Lagg is no Superiority fighter, we know that from history and as players we will adapt.

 

The game, given the full scenario with front lines and generated missions, etc, will not start or end with one dogfight, but the whole actions from the players anywhere and everywhere in the battlefield. You might have aerial superiority in one sector using strong 109 presence, but go faulty on another just because the Lagg armada devastated your airfields with ground attack hit and runs.

Edited January 16, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[Mewt]

THX for answer, ı am sharing  this topic link on the War Thunder forums. You said what I wanted to hear.

Fine, however let's please not turn this into a BOS vs WT match again. It's perfectly possible to like and play both games.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The Lagg might do better during the campaign as a Interdiction heavy fighter where the bf109, although capable as well, would be wasted for that purpose. Lagg is no Superiority fighter, we know that from history and as players we will adapt.

 

The game, given the full scenario with front lines and generated missions, etc, will not start or end with one dogfight, but the whole actions from the players anywhere and everywhere in the battlefield. You might have aerial superiority in one sector using strong 109 presence, but go faulty on another just because the Lagg armada devastated your airfields with ground attack hit and runs.

Agreed. The LaGG-3 is most certainly the inferior fighter purely by the numbers, but in a campaign situation its totally different. The positioning, pilots, mission, role, numbers of planes involved are going to all be much more significant factors. I can see the LaGG-3 being the better interceptor being tasked with taking out Stukas and Heinkels. The higher performing but less well protected and less well armed Yak-1 would be better off fighting the 109s.

[TheBlackPenguin]

I wouldn't underestimate the Lagg-3, I did that last Sunday and got shot down in my 109, although some of that was due to having spent most of the time practising and gaining confidence with ground attack. Still being shot down by a rookie Lagg-3 pilot made me really go

[Crow]

If you're looking at two aces one in the Bf-109F-4 and one in the Lagg-3 who have the same starting energy, there will be no contest the 109 will win every time. The devs know this and have said they want the aircraft to fly realistically and not change parameters to achieve gameplay balance. In certain scenarios the LaGG can win, but it will nearly always be a hard fought victory unless the 109 driver is a complete novice. The Yak and La-5 will be better matchups against the 109.

 

If you're looking for a competitive multiplayer experience, it will be up to the server hosts to create missions and set ground rules which give each side an even chance at winning.

[BeastyBaiter]

Agreed Crow.  But we shouldn't forget that there are 2 other VVS fighters coming in too. I see the LaGG-3's role in MP similar to that of what the Bf-110 will do once added. It might shoot down the occasional fighter, but the main role will be bomber interception and ground attack. The Yak-1 and La-5 will be the air superiority fighters. I think things will work out fairly evenly in the end. The Germans will probably retain an edge in air to air but the Russians will have a big advantage in air to ground. In an objective based MP server, that should even out nicely even if asymmetric.

 

In any case, I still think a well flown LaGG-3 flight can perform well against 109's. This isn't WT where everything is super easy to fly. It takes practice here and although a veteran 109 vs a veteran LaGG-3 won't end well for the LaGG, a novice 109 vs a veteran LaGG is a very different story.

[EdwardTheGreat]

This table 

 

 

Looks like he changed planes like in WT ;-)

 

Repair costs too high?

 

To be serious again... Are the types of planes (Biplanes etc.) at that time plausible?

And changing the planes so frequently?

[Mewt]

Looks like he changed planes like in WT ;-)

 

Repair costs too high?

 

To be serious again... Are the types of planes (Biplanes etc.) at that time plausible?

And changing the planes so frequently?

 

I don't understand how to read this table. Is he a Russian Pilot or a German one?

[Finkeren]

I don't understand how to read this table. Is he a Russian Pilot or a German one?

Neither. He's Slovak.

Looks like he changed planes like in WT ;-)

 

Repair costs too high?

 

To be serious again... Are the types of planes (Biplanes etc.) at that time plausible?

And changing the planes so frequently?

You do understand, that the first collumn are the planes he shot down, right?

 

As for changing between different Bf 109s, I think it's entirely plausible, especially for a small air force like the Slovakian, which propably didn't have too many spares of each type.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Finkeren

[Mewt]

Ahh ok ty.

 

Looks like he didn't like the G6 much

[=LD=Hethwill]

Modelling physics requires mathematics, not kill tables nor veteran stories. For each one pilot that made a model shine and look great, a hundred others did not and went down in flames.

[Finkeren]

Modelling physics requires mathematics, not kill tables nor veteran stories. For each one pilot that made a model shine and look great, a hundred others did not and went down in flames.

Yes, but the statistics of how many went down in flames contra how many shot down enemies, can tell us something useful - though ofc that should not take precedence over performance test numbers.

[DB605]

Ahh ok ty.

 

Looks like he didn't like the G6 much

I don't think you'll see wich planes he liked from this list. G6 was new model in '43 so they probably hadn't many available yet.

Edited January 17, 2014 by DB605

[Mewt]

Ya i was joking.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 A comment about G-2 vs G-6 from a Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila when had the honor talking to him a few years ago. He said the slight loss of performance G-6 had over G-2 was compensated by the increased hitting power with addition of the MG131's. He still felt the G-6 was a good performer and those 2 Bf109G-6's  that had a high altitude charger (from DB603) and propellor were quite popular among pilots too. The G-8 variants were basically G-6's with camera ports on fuselage.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Yes, but the statistics of how many went down in flames contra how many shot down enemies, can tell us something useful - though ofc that should not take precedence over performance test numbers.

 

I usually read the overall strategic necessity of any given model, rather than the technical intricacies of it. And while statistics display a very interesting approach to plane models ( best vs worst ) by no means they tell the whole story.

 

Perfect examples in other theatres, like BoB or even 8th/9th USAAF bombing campaigns.

 

Hope the BoS campaigns give a lot of victory options other than the air superiority. Every model must be useful.

[Brano]

As I wrote before,that list is of Jan Reznak,top scoring Slovak ace (Slovak Air Arms).Until 1944 we were german allies . Our pilots were part of famous JG52,forming its 13th Staffel (Slowakisches).There were several "tour of duties'' on eastern front with many pilots but only given amount of planes.It was common practise to share all flying planes inbetween different pilots.They did not have their personal aircraft,it was up to Staffel comander to decide who flies which machine.

[kongxinga]

Please no "balancing", I want planes to perform as they did historically, warts and all. Fidelity to the facts is what distinguishes good sims from arcade nonsense.

[TheBlackPenguin]

Talking about planeset for BoS.

 

To my knowledge VVS will have in the end:

 

Lagg3

Yak1

IL2

La-5 (no F and no FN I guess?)

 

Luftwaffe will have:

 

109F4

109G2

190A3

Stuka (Version?)

110 (version?)

 

Is that correct or am I mission something?

 

What about the Mig3? And the Ju88 + Pe2?

 

All your answers are on the main page

 

http://il2sturmovik.com/

 

No 110 yet, VVS get the Pe2 (87 and 110) and the Stuka is going to be version D-3.

Edited February 2, 2014 by TheBlackPenguin

[Volkoff]

Talking about planeset for BoS.

 

 

There will also be an I-16 add-on, sometime in 2014.  MJ

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Neither. He's Slovak.

You do understand, that the first collumn are the planes he shot down, right?

 

As for changing between different Bf 109s, I think it's entirely plausible, especially for a small air force like the Slovakian, which propably didn't have too many spares of each type.

It is also possible pilots were not assigned permanent aircraft, similar to the USN, in WWII. He probably flew which ever aircraft was available on the maintenance roster of the day.

 

Carrier pilots rotated aircraft frequently as I understand it. In WWII names on the sides of USN aircraft were for photo ops only. Pilot rosters and maintenance rosters were matched in flight briefings.