Cybermat47 Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 A thoroughly interesting topic. For those that were on the front lines and many who were behind them, the chances of servival in the war were never good but the realism of this title really seems to bring that home. I think it will be interesting to see if after having played the game for a while we are able to learn the tactics that will help us survive. It would be great to see the variation in AI as well to reflect new pilots into a squadron or even new rear gunners. Welcome to the forums! Judging from where you live and your avatar, I'm assuming that you're a member of the ADF. Thanks for keeping me and the rest of the country safe Cold War propaganda. Can you cite sources?
SYN_Ricky Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Poor tactics during the first years and also not so good escort performed by fighter units might also have played a role in the heavy losses sustained by Il-2 units. Despite it's armour it needed to operate in an area where the VVS controlled the sky to be effective. The USAAF experienced the same with its heavy bombers, despite all their defensive armament they couldn't operate with no escort without sustaining heavy losses. Same with the Battles during the fall of France, when they were sent into the Luftwaffe's and flak's gang without protection. So I won't say the Il-2 was a failure, probably it had often to operate in conditions that where not ideal. 1
Finkeren Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Can you cite sources? The claim about the IL-2 rear gunners coming from penal batallions stems from Victor Suvurov. "Victor Suvurov" is the pen name of Vladimir Rezun, a former Soviet Spetnaz and GRU officer who defected to the UK in 1978 and has since made a name for himself writing colorful describtions of just how much the Soviet military sucks. He's not a credible source on anything, least of all things that happened during WW2, since the guy was born in 1947.
unreasonable Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 What you seem to have done is calculating a kind of LD50 for IL-2 crews. I did the calculations different. I started with a "population" of 100 aircraft, and made the assumption, that losses are replaced regularly (as was the case) so that the population remains largely constant. Now to get an average life span of 26 missions, it would mean, that the losses should amount to 100 aircraft within this timeframe. Remember that the losses are replaced, so the population is always 100 aircraft. To lose 100 aircraft in 26 missions would require an average loss rate of little less than 4%, we don't need a calculator for that. I think this calculation gives a more precise picture, because it takes into account that losses are replaced gradually. I completely understand what you did, I was simply pointing out why Tatarenko's implication that I do not know any maths is wide of the mark. What you do need a calculator for is to understand the implications of a x% loss rate per sortie for any individual pilot's life expectancy, (unless you can calculate percentages to high powers in your head, in which case ) which is of considerable concern to the pilots! After all, with a 4% loss rate 50% of the original pilots would be dead after only 17 missions. So it is not that one calculation or the other is more precise, they are equally precise but address different statistics. Where the precision is required is in what is being discussed, which I think was ambiguous in the original "26 missions" quote, hence the talking at cross purposes.
Blackcloud Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Welcome to the forums! Judging from where you live and your avatar, I'm assuming that you're a member of the ADF. Thanks for keeping me and the rest of the country safe Thanks for the welcome. It is good to be here.
Georgio Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Yep agreed though remember that your chances on the ground as a foot slogger were probably even worse and you didn't get to sleep in relative comfort like the IL-2 crews. Personally I would have preferred to have taken my chances piloting an IL-2 than wondering if the blocking regiment behind me were going to get me if the Germans didn't... A thoroughly interesting topic. For those that were on the front lines and many who were behind them, the chances of servival in the war were never good but the realism of this title really seems to bring that home. I think it will be interesting to see if after having played the game for a while we are able to learn the tactics that will help us survive. It would be great to see the variation in AI as well to reflect new pilots into a squadron or even new rear gunners. Also it's all well and good judging your survival rate after so many missions, but didn't the Russian (and German) pilots just keep going with no limit on their missions? So if you managed to survive the war as a pilot you were one in a million as it were... Edited February 19, 2014 by Georgio
Blackcloud Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Yep agreed though remember that your chances on the ground as a foot slogger were probably even worse and you didn't get to sleep in relative comfort like the IL-2 crews. Personally I would have preferred to have taken my chances piloting an IL-2 than wondering if the blocking regiment behind me were going to get me if the Germans didn't... Also it's all well and good judging your survival rate after so many missions, but didn't the Russian (and German) pilots just keep going with no limit on their missions? So if you managed to survive the war as a pilot you were one in a million as it were... Spot on mate. I read something about Rudel saying that there were periods of the war where he flew 8 missions in a day. A Day. The fact that any made it through at all is amazing.
Georgio Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Spot on mate. I read something about Rudel saying that there were periods of the war where he flew 8 missions in a day. A Day. The fact that any made it through at all is amazing. Yep and that in an 'outdated' Stuka as well. I just don't understand how he did it for so long. Maybe because he was flying so slow and low he just wasn't noticed by the fly-boys, but then you'd think he would have got chewed up by ground fire. Either way a remarkable achievement.
Finkeren Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 8 missions in a day? Pfffshhh.... Nadia Popova once did 18 in one night. And that was in a Po-2 cropduster.
Dormouse Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 8 missions in a day? Pfffshhh.... Nadia Popova once did 18 in one night. And that was in a Po-2 cropduster. I wouldn't expect exaggerated words of praise for her or any of the Witches on this forum. Call it a hunch.
=38=Tatarenko Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 I don't know why you think that - I have immense respect for her and her unit. They made it to Guards status, flew huge numbers of missions, often without a parachute, helped supply isolated units (Malaya Zemlya etc) and deserve all the praise they got.
Dormouse Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 I don't know why you think that - I have immense respect for her and her unit. They made it to Guards status, flew huge numbers of missions, often without a parachute, helped supply isolated units (Malaya Zemlya etc) and deserve all the praise they got. I'm glad to be proven wrong
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now