Tips for flying and fighting in Soviet planes

[FlatSpinMan]

Sooner or later we'll be taking off to defend the Motherland, and, I don't know about you, but I don't know the first thing about Russian aircraft.

I can see that this may be problematic.

 

This thread is for people to post handy tips for flying and fighting in the types that we are likely to get. We don't know what'll be modeled in BoS yet, but there should be a lot of info that virtual pilots have picked up over the years and I'd like to hear it.

 

Depending on the response, we may need to create separate threads for different types , but for now, please share any info you have picked up here.

Please state the aircraft type at the start of the post.

I'm looking for info such as, how you fight in them, quirks, strengths, weaknesses.

 

Let's not turn this into a chart-fest flame war or I'll just lock and delete it. This is a chance to help out your fellow simmers. They may be flying on your wing so keep the advice succinct and practical.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Not knowing anything about how the Soviet planes characteristics are to be presented in BoS, we can only talk from our experience from original IL2.

 

I couldn't say exactly how to fly a "typical" Soviet airplane though,  because quite obviously they are all different beasts so to speak, and every situation demands different tactics; what plane is your opponent flying, do you have E advantage etc etc.

 

But the Mig3 is.. in IL2 original anyway, a fast creature.... so you should take advantage of that.. 
It will however be very interesting to see how the team will implement what test pilot Barsuk said about it's maneuverability... according to him it even surpassed the i16(?)

[FlatSpinMan]

Thanks Klunk.

If you have more tips for 'specific' planes that'd be really good.

And yes, lots of this will probably be based on our Il2 experience but there should be some crossover.

Hell, it'll help kill time if nothing else:)

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ok, most VVS fighter aircraft will need to be flown much like a P40 or P39, with the exception that in the Russian birds you will have to be much more careful about your dive speeds.

 

Also your Luftwaffe opposition will seriously out perform you in the climb and above 15,000ft. (4500 meters), and generally be faster at any altitude in this early part of the war.

 

The best you can hope for is to find a n00b and sucker him into a low altitude turn fight.  Of course there are so many very experienced sim pilots these days, so good luck with that.  We will have an advantage that the VVS at the time did not, lots of experience on our side as well.  And we all will have good "radios" (Teamspeak, etc...).  So team tactics will be very very important to those of us flying the lower performance Russian aircraft.  Because of this I expect "German" losses to be higher in the sim then they were in real life, as no one is just going to fly along in a Vic when they are attacked like so many novice VVS pilots did early on.

 

It's going to be very difficult for us VVS pilots, be sure.  The Germans will pretty much always outnumber us, as most online pilots play for the points and will pick the best machine, regardless of the national insignia on the side.  The Bf 109s will hold all the advantages that their superior speed and climb give them.  They will be able to disengage at will and simply fly away when really pressed.  So we will have to fly smart, fly to the strength of our aircraft, that is, our good maneuverability, and use strong team tactics.

 

Also we should have an advantage in that much of the ground we will be fighting over will be "ours".  So try to keep Jerry over our anti aircraft guns if possible.

 

Oh and make Stukas your prime target, they should be a much easier kill.

 

I realize this may sound bleak for us, and it is, but that is the historical fact of it.  We will need to hold out till some of the Lend Lease aircraft show up, and some of the better birds from the Glorious Motherland begin to arrive. 

 

Za Rodinu!!!

Edited March 15, 2013 by ElAurens

[JimmyGiro]

ShVAK... The fighter plane is a flying gun. Practice impossible shots, let the bullets do the flying. Each shot should be an extremely short burst, so as to gauge the precise deflections and timings for all angles, distances, and speeds of the target. Once confident with long range deflections, you can deliver longer 'kill' bursts.

 

Avoid flying according to 'formula', or playing to any strict plan, as this will make you predictable, and an easy target for somebody else. If somebody kills you, hunt them down; seek tough opponents.

 

Get angry... have a laugh... play.

[JtD]

I'm expecting to have Soviet fighters of slightly inferior capability when compared to the contemporary German one, which would be the 109G-2 for the most part. I also take it for granted that the 109 will have the advantage of high altitude, even against the best performing high altitude fighter the Soviets have, the MiG-3.

On the other hand, most of the action will be at low or medium level, a necessity for tactical support of ground troops, which was a key element in the air actions around Stalingrad. At these altitudes, at least the most modern Soviet types such as the Yak-9 or La-5 should be competitive with the 109, in most aspects of performance, except for dives.

My tips for flying and fighting in Soviet fighters would be the same as for all other nations fighters - fly high, stay fast, get a wingman and keep checking for enemies. If you enter the fight with an advantage, the chances are very good you come out alive, and possibly with a kill, if you enter at a disadvantage, the chances are the same, but for the other guy.

Yak's do have a pretty good roll rate, possibly superior to the 109 at medium speeds, make use of it, for instance by flying scissors. The Yak-9 and Yak-1b with the M-105PF engines will be fairly competitive below 4000m, probably slightly better in a sustained turn than the 109.

La-5's have their best relative performance below 2000m, so make sure to take the fight there. The biggest advantages are speed and firepower.

I-16's can make tight turns, it's probably your best defence.

MiG-3's are very competitive at 7000m and above, if you get the choice, stay there for the fight.

LaGG-3's are pretty hopeless cases, no match in vertical or horizontal manoeuvres, or speed. Best used against bombers, because it is a bit tougher than the Yak's, though not as tough as radial engined fighters.

[AX2]

A difficult question,

Today the 90% pilots in IL2  and CloD are very experienced sim pilots.

 

In Il2 German planes had big problems.

They taught the whole community, Dont do a dogfight and never turn.

If you fly to  BF 109 or FW 190, never turn more than 30 degrees, only dive , Shot and climb.. and bye bye , like if you fly to P51 against japaneses planes.

Ofcourse Ju87 and Ju88 must fly at least 4000 or 4500 meters.

Respecting this, you can beat a group of La 5 FN.

 

On the other side.

If you fly a russian Fighter You must wait for the enemy novice pilots.. maybe the are at low altitude in crazy dogfight against strike planes.

Go for this pilots and Surely you will get many kills...You will become a ace very fast.

Other things depend on the flight model, and the controls input.

In ROF the Fokker Dr 1, was a disaster for my but I took a week adjusting the response curves in the controls section and it was like getting a new aicraft.

Close..It was like having two aircraft with different flight models, but is the same planes.

I think we can expect many surprises and how you handle the response curves in controls panel, it will define more things than you can believe...maybe..

 

 

[FlatSpinMan]

Good lord. This sounds grimmer than I expected!

 

Truly, it'll take pilots of real grit, determination and intelligence to triumph against the Axis foe (for whom I am now seriously considering flying). I wish you luck. I'm outta here! J/k.

 

There have been some great, frankly heart-tugging points made so far (when we remember that people did this for keeps in our grandparents' generation).

 

I'd love to read more, especially if you can relate it to a particular plane type.

[JtD]

A low altitude split-S was a popular manoeuvre among VVS pilots, knowing that it was difficult for Luftwaffe aircraft to follow. The Luftwaffe aircraft tended to have a higher stalling speed, which increased the turn radius, so they wouldn't be able to pull out in time. This will probably work in the Stalingrad setup, too, for most fighters, La-5 and LaGG-3 likely excluded. It's purely defensive, though.

[CUJO_1970]

If an experienced German crew shows up and flies with discipline and teamwork, it's going to be very difficult.

 

I like the Yak-9. It's a great balance of speed, maneuverabiltiy and most important - roll rate.

 

1. Don't buy into the "stay low" nonesense. Fly fast and fly high as you can. Even in Soviet fighters energy tactics will serve you well. Resort to TnB only in emergency.

2. Learn your best sustained climb speed and angle, learn how to use that to your advantage.

3. Learn how to push your aircraft to the very edge in a dive. Understand how fast you can dive before parts start to fly off. How fast can you dive and still fire your weapons?

4. Use teamwork when attacking. Attack in pairs if you can. Even better? Have top cover during your attack.

5. Conserve ammo as if it is precious, fire at close range and when you are sure of making hits.

6. Use the proper bait. Send Il2 and Laggs to attack bombers, transports and ground forces. Force the enemy to defend and attack fighters trying to defend.

7. Try to have fun, it's only a game.

[sturmkraehe]

Not knowing anything about how the Soviet planes characteristics are to be presented in BoS, we can only talk from our experience from original IL2.

 

I couldn't say exactly how to fly a "typical" Soviet airplane though,  because quite obviously they are all different beasts so to speak, and every situation demands different tactics; what plane is your opponent flying, do you have E advantage etc etc.

 

But the Mig3 is.. in IL2 original anyway, a fast creature.... so you should take advantage of that.. 

It will however be very interesting to see how the team will implement what test pilot Barsuk said about it's maneuverability... according to him it even surpassed the i16(?)

Of course the Mig3 was more maneuverable - it was simply faster and had problably better acceleration which provides you with more energy to burn in maneuvers. Maneuverability however does not equate automatically to tighter turn RADIUS. Perhaps Barsuk refered to turn RATE or roll rate or both. But it is highly unlikely that he referred to turn radius. A fast plane cannot turn tighter than a slow plane without by far exceeding g-loads. Even if the plane structure could take on these high g-loads when forcing a fast plane into a tight turn the pilot most likely would have passed out well before. 

 

I am basically 100% sure that if they modelled the mig to turn tighter than the i16 that they would have got something completely wrong in their physical engine.

Edited March 16, 2013 by sturmkraehe

[JtD]

I think his main point was that the MiG is easier to control at low speeds than the I-16 and that this would practically allow the MiG to fly the tighter turn, and achieve the better turn rate. Of course, we do not know how representative the rebuilt versions are for the 1942 standard, but the I-16 did have a reputation for a rather difficult to control aircraft even back then, to the point where P-39's were welcome because they were so easy to control. We also don't know what extra risk we can take in game, or which risks were taken in combat, risks you wouldn't take in real life during a just for fun flight in a historical aircraft.

 

Anyway, that's just my interpretation of the interviews.

[sturmkraehe]

Yes, perhaps that's what he referred to. I believe to remember that the Mig hat wing leading edge extensions just like the 109 which might have been the reason for better slow speed handling (like the 109 too)

 

BTW: I for my part never had the impression that both in IL2 and Clod the slats had really a significant effect on turn radius (which it should have had also on the 109). Well, at least the 109 burnt so much energy anyhow in any turn that turning was the way to certain death. Only the 190 was worse in this respect.

[JtD]

Yes, the MiG they were flying had leading edge slats, and this certainly is a major factor.

 

In Il-2, aircraft with leading edge slats generally had higher maximum lift coefficients than the aircraft without, and the flight models gave the aircraft pretty gentle stall and spin characteristics. Both the Lavochkins and the 109's had a reputation for being beginner friendly aircraft. I still hope the flight models in BoS will be a bit more sophisticated.

[Caudron431]

 Both the Lavochkins and the 109's had a reputation for being beginner friendly aircraft. I still hope the flight models in BoS will be a bit more sophisticated.

Agree, and hope flight models will be more sophisticated. Both aircraft you mention were beginner friendly aircraft, true, but only once in flight (for the 109)! I really hope the new 109 will have its landing and take off characteristics far better modelled, i really hope one will have to be really careful during these two phases of flight.

Edited March 16, 2013 by RegRag1977

[hiro]

I think its too early to go into this, since the game isn't out . . . 

 

that said,

 

 

I remember in il-2 1946  the I-16 was a fun plane to fly, and it was pretty stable, and that crazy maneuverability it had. I remember it had great stall characteristics and I could press the stall envelope.  But the dev's interview video states it was unstable (and maneuverable). 

 

 

It was fun drawing in a 109 or 190 into a turn fight and pulling on the inside and tearing a new one in it. Or when they BnZ, a trick was to do a hard turn, dodge their fire, then get a quick snapshot on the tail as they passed. It was just a joy to see the smoke trail emit from them, and leave the area. But the I-16 would good for BnZ too. Surprise some people . . . 

 

 

 

the I-15 / 152 were fun to fly, hard to kill but they couldn't kill anything in return. I never got a kill in these things. I get hits, but that was it. I remember the only way someone could really shoot me down is if I flew straight, but if I was turning and moving around (especially close to the ground), no one could get a good hit to bring me down. I liked to go in the hill / mountain areas and eventually someone trying to get a shot on me would put their plane down on the hillside. I flew these low. Mainly, because it took a long time to get altitude . . .

 

But if it is that the future game's I-16 is worse than the cobra . . . man my go to early vvs plane is going to take getting used to. The cobra was maneuverable but even if the the stall envelope's border was touched, it'd get into that several angels loss before recovery . . . I remember that cannon though. The 37 mm. There was Yak that had it too (a 45mm or something bigger than 37), but the Yak was just a tad slower / less maneuverable than the cobra, but it was more stable and you could press the envelope. 

 

I had to get close to nail them, like prop in their tail close, but it was great watching planes come apart in one hit. I was not an expert and maybe 1 out 4 shots would work, but it was just a great feeling. Also the cobra could be a good BnZ platform, but I had to modify where I had get behind / in line the other a/c. the main cannon was hard to hit on ships coming across the cross hairs, but the mguns would lick them every time.

 

 

Most of my experience in IL-2 1946 and the VVS planes were all good, and had the best blasters / turbo lasers in the business, save for the 30mm of the 262 or the Ki-84. Some of my best BnZ kills were in VVS fighters because their guns were just awesome. 

 

The MiG's Yaks, Laggs I flew the same way, either TnB or BnZ. Usually against spits I'd forgo TnB and go BnZ on them, Germans got TnB, US mustang I'd BnZ, the Jug I'd TnB. Japanese planes I'd BnZ. If the a/c were late war and I had mid war, I'd BnZ and pick my fights carefully.

 

 

 

I remember the Il-2 could even bring down a 109 that got sucked down low in the weeds and trying to TnB and it was better than the Stuka in most respects. Of course the Stuka got close maneuverability wise if you flew low over the ground and stripped off the wheels. 

 

I remember the il-2's blasters and turbo lasers worked better on tanks than the twin 37 mm stuka tank buster. 

 

I wonder if this game they'll be as good (like uber plane good) as they were in 46m FM / DM / weapons wise. Hopefully they are aiming for something more realistic, which will be more fun, as the quirks of each plane will be interesting. It's like when I belonged to a flight club. There was this one cessna that was too responsive. The owner had tweaked its systems and alot of teachers didn't like it, plus it seemed like it was from 1970's and they just kept sending it back to get refurbished. But my teacher was used to it, so I always had a planes because the others wanted the newer ones. 

Edited March 16, 2013 by hiro

[Sim]

Excellent documentary on the subject:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tFuLcqn3Y

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I suppose the IL2 will have to fly like its historical counterpart: Fly low, go in fast, make a single pass expending all rockets and bombs, and get the hell out before the 109s show up. If possible, coordinate the group so that you come in over the target from several different directions. Do not get tempted to go in for a second pass unless you have taken out all the flack in the first round, and even then staying in one area for any length of time is a bad idea. I suppose the Stuka pilots will do best following a similar approach.

 

Remember, the IL2 is as important to the army as air and bread. The only point with fighters is to allow the IL2s to do their job, fighters in themselves of very limited importance.

 

Dallying about in high energy fighters is something I leave to people who are so inclined.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Friendly_flyer

[JtD]

Il-2 tactics will also depend on the presence of a rear gunner. At this time, I'm not expecting to see one. So the Il-2 is extra vulnerable to enemy fighters. It will therefore be a very good idea to learn self defence teamwork with a couple of wingmen. The aircraft is armed with the formidable YVa-23 cannon, which can make short work of any 109 in front of it. The tricky thing is to get it in front of you, and that works best if the wingman attacks the 109 that focussed on another target. At that point, a good manoeuvre to fall back quickly and this way gain position on the 109 is to cut power and fly a high yo-yo. This teamwork needs a bit of practice to be effective, but it is well worth it.

It will be interesting to see which ground attack weapons we'll have available for the Il-2's, maybe then we can add on the good advice Friendly_flyer gave.

Edited March 17, 2013 by JtD

[FlatSpinMan]

This is great stuff. I love the idea about IL2's yoyoing in cover of each other. I'm really getting some good ideas. I'm also real using how half-arsed a flier I am compared to some.

[sturmkraehe]

I wonder why Germany delivered a good bf109 to the Soviet Union when it had in mind to go on war with the SU. That is a bit strange. It's not what seems smart. Now likely they have manipulated the engine so that it delivered less power (what I would have done if I had to deliver it to a country that will be a future enemy very soon). But even though one gives away a lot of secrets in terms of how to construct and mass produce a performing plane and engine ... (not that the Russians wouldn't have known how to do mass production but there are always some small hidden ideas everywhere that can improve the process significantly)

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

The classical IL2 defense is a "defensive circle". I don't know if it will work against an experienced opponent though.

[Sven]

I read about the 'defensive circle' RAF pilots deployed in the North-Africa war, in short, the Germans loved it.

[JtD]

The defensive circle really is a two edged sword (btw., what's so bad about a two edged sword?!? I mean it's a sword, with two edges!).

During the the later phases of the Pacific war, the Japanese would also form large defensive circles on occasion. The USN aircraft would circle above them, until one by one the Japanese had to return to base because they ran out of fuel, and were easy pickings for the US fighters. IIrc, this also happened during the Battle for the Marianas and was one reason the battle got its nickname the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. However, it does have its merits and in particular with the Il-2's, it does a lot for mutual cover. These planes can take a bit of a hit and run attack, and their guns and slow speed turning capacity makes it inadvisable to cut into the circle, sticking to one Il-2's six. Next one behind is going to ruin your day. However, just like the Japanese noticed over the Pacific, turning in circles isn't going to get you anywhere.

Edited March 17, 2013 by JtD

[Sim]

I wonder why Germany delivered a good bf109 to the Soviet Union when it had in mind to go on war with the SU.

 

I am not exactly sure.. but in the video it was mentioned they delivered it in 1940 as per agreement. And Germany started planning Operation Barbarossa in late 1940. So that could have been just a bad timing. Then again, what Russians got was a Bf-109 E model (Emil), but at the start of the war they were facing F model (Friedrich)..

[Bearcat]

Yes, the MiG they were flying had leading edge slats, and this certainly is a major factor.

 

In Il-2, aircraft with leading edge slats generally had higher maximum lift coefficients than the aircraft without, and the flight models gave the aircraft pretty gentle stall and spin characteristics. Both the Lavochkins and the 109's had a reputation for being beginner friendly aircraft. I still hope the flight models in BoS will be a bit more sophisticated.

I just hope they are historically accurate regardless to the outcme. I am curious to see what will happen if the Russian planes are similar to the way they were in IL2.

[sturmkraehe]

Perhaps someone can help out but I thought that quite a few squadrons were still using the 109E (later versions) when operation Barbarrosa started. Anyhow, the plan was always to bring down the Soviet Union from the start. afaik the Western campaign in the 40' was just to avoid a two front war by taking out the Western allies first before turning East which was the real objective of Hitler and co. So it strictly does not make much sense to provide a future enemy with a weapon that would teach the enemy what they will be up to imho.

 

BTW Stalin and his generals were not stupid. I really do believe that they knew that they would be going to war with Germany eventually (I doubt that their secret service missed out the anti communist propaganda that raged in Germany back then or that they did not read that infamous pile of sh*t written by Hitler in the 20's just to know what Hitler's ideology was). they were likely just surprised when it came so early in 1941. 

 

Now my guess is that German generals did not expect Stalin and his generals to ignore the lessons from examining the 109.

[Volkoff]

I wonder why Germany delivered a good bf109 to the Soviet Union when it had in mind to go on war with the SU. That is a bit strange. It's not what seems smart. Now likely they have manipulated the engine so that it delivered less power (what I would have done if I had to deliver it to a country that will be a future enemy very soon). But even though one gives away a lot of secrets in terms of how to construct and mass produce a performing plane and engine ... (not that the Russians wouldn't have known how to do mass production but there are always some small hidden ideas everywhere that can improve the process significantly)

 

Business, business, business...Why did Japanese planes flying over Pearl Harbor have Goodyear tires? Why were many, if not most, factories in Nazi Germany owned by American and British industrialists? Why did Texaco sell oil to a neutral country knowing full well that Nazi Germany would then get the oil and use it to wage war? Why was the Soviet Union a major hub for Axis logistics, just prior to invasion? Why were some German fighters using Rolls Royce engines, in the Battle of Britain? Global business and Global financiers care about m...o...n...e...y and everything else is sentimental nonsense, to help give the poor and naive as sense of place, purpose, and importance. Do American Fortune 500 companies send US jobs to China because the American executives are great US patriots? They do it to make more money.So long as they make money, screw the US. It is all about the buck. The manufacturer of the BF 109 wanted to sell as many of these machines as possible, to as many nations as possible, to make as much money as possible. The World, back then, was not unlike the World today. Today, as back then, you are an Internationalist, looking out for your best interests, or you are a useful idiot of a national financial and political elite, an elite willing to sell you out, to  throw you before a machine gun, or into destitution, just so they can have a little bit more.  

Edited March 17, 2013 by MishaJames

[falstaff]

Well that's that settled then

[sturmkraehe]

@Misha,

 

maybe many or most German facturies were indeed owned by US and UK firm (I have some doubts about factories of strategic values to the Nazi regime) or maybe not. I do not know.

 

However, Nazi Germany was NO free market economy. It actually was quite the opposite and shared quite a few characteristics with socialist Soviet Union as it was globally state driven or at least the state had a big say in what German factories did. Well, after war started my guess is that even in the UK and so a lesser extend in the US, the state became an important player in setting the objectives for factories - even those privately owned. This is just by pure necessity. 

 

But now we are really OT so perhaps continue this discussion in a separate thread.

Edited March 17, 2013 by sturmkraehe

[Volkoff]

@Misha,

 

maybe many or most German facturies were indeed owned by US and UK firm (I have some doubts about factories of strategic values to the Nazi regime) or maybe not. I do not know.

 

However, Nazi Germany was NO free market economy. It actually was quite the opposite and shared quite a few characteristics with socialist Soviet Union as it was globally state driven or at least the state had a big say in what German factories did. Well, after war started my guess is that even in the UK and so a lesser extend in the US, the state became an important player in setting the objectives for factories - even those privately owned. This is just by pure necessity. 

 

But now we are really OT so perhaps continue this discussion in a separate thread.

 

 

Nazi Germany had a State directed capitalist market system, open to foreign direct investment, not unlike the P.R.C. has, at this moment. That Germany had a unique market system from the Soviet Union does not negate the obvious similarities between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, though. Since Classical Socialism is so intimately tied to Command economics, Command economics is often seem as equivocal to Socialism, though, as you clearly understand, the two are not mutually interdependent. Nazi Germany was certainly a darling of Globalist investment. American and British companies and American and British  banks went out of their way to make money off developing Nazi Germany, while they left their own respective fellow citizens jobless. Still, as you point out, we are getting way off topic, so let's get back to the fun stuff....planes!

 

Edited March 17, 2013 by MishaJames

[AndyJWest]

Note that Misha has provided no evidence to back up his claim that " were many, if not most, factories in Nazi Germany owned by American and British industrialists".

 

DELETED SNIPPY LITTLE ZINGER.

[Volkoff]

Note that Misha has provided no evidence to back up his claim that " were many, if not most, factories in Nazi Germany owned by American and British industrialists". Unsurprisingly, since this isn't true...

 

Many of the factories in Nazi Germany were not owned by Americans and the British? Be willfully ignorant if you must, but do not ask that others provide your education for you. If you are under the impression that Nazi Germany developed itself, without foreign direct investment, without the financing of the elite of the US and the elite of the UK, than you are really in for a big surprise, I should think. Please,  Sturmkraehe is correct, we are way off topic and I am not going to continue this silly discussion with you, since you are woefully ignorant of reality. I suppose that I am making up what I wrote about Texaco, as well, yes?  No, Andy, I am right, whether you accept what I point out or you hide your head under the Stars and Stripes or a Union Jack, makes no difference. Please do your research and find out all the various ways that US and British companies,  US and Britich banks, and US and British private investors, found to make money off of building up Nazi Germany, DELETED SNIPPY LITTLE ZINGER.

Edited March 18, 2013 by FlatSpinMan

[AndyJWest]

Misha, provide the evidence to back up your claims. Or find another forum for your drivel...

[Volkoff]

Misha, provide the evidence to back up your claims. Or find another forum for your drivel.

 

 

Andy,

 You may wish to begin your research with the, so called, Harriman papers in the US Library of Congress, in D.C. You may also find the Harriman Papers  in the National Archives, at the University of Maryland. The Harriam papers detail a fine example of how US financiers and political bigshots played a significant role in financing Nazi Germany. Consider that the Harriman papers cover investment activities at a time when Americans were not supposed to invest in or do business in Nazi Germany, by law. Once you read those papers, maybe you will be able to accept  the actuality of US investment activities, before the war, then look at what was done during the war. You may start to look at these matters more objectively. As I pointed out, you are woefully ignorant of these matters, and you are only making yourself look like a fool, by suggesting that I am pulling a fast one. Please do not take up more of this thread accusing me of being deceitful, because I will not suffer to sit here and teach you of each and every case of US or UK  involvement in building up the industry of Nazi Germany, before the war, or because I will not point out every case of US and UK financial elite collaboration with Nazi Germany, during the war. The facts are out there. Go find the facts for yourself. You can pick your own perspective Andy, but you can't pick your facts. Go find the facts, Andy. The rest of us want to get back to Soviet air tactics tips.

Edited March 17, 2013 by MishaJames

[FlatSpinMan]

Wrong thread, wrong forum.

[AndyJWest]

Ok - Misha DELETED SNIPPY LITTLE ZINGER is off-topic anyway.

[Volkoff]

Are there any Mig-3 specialists on this thread? I am thinking about taking the Mig-3 to extremely high altitudes and using it as a high speed diving ambush machine. How difficut are extension maneuvers? It is my understanding that the Mig- 3 is not exceptionally fast  at low altitudes, but very fast when way up high. What do the Mig-3 buffs have to say about using the Mig-3? Do any of the Mig-3 specialists use it as a high altitude diving ambush machine? How do the Mig-3 specialists find using the Mig-3 in this manner?

 

Edited March 17, 2013 by MishaJames

[AndyJWest]

We'd have to start by finding out for sure whether MiG-3's were even involved. Nobody seems to have provided evidence yet that they were: http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/26-what-planes-were-in-this-conflict/page-2?hl=mig-3

[Volkoff]

Ok - Misha DELETED SNIPPY LITTLE ZINGER is off-topic anyway.

Sorry Flatspinman, but this FELLOW FLIGHT-SIM ENTHUSIAST asked for it... SO I IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THE OFFENDING POST TO THE MODS, WHOSE TASK IT IS TO MAINTAIN ORDER, THEN WENT ABOUT MY BUSINESS.

 

MR. WEST - I DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSERTION IN THE STRONGEST TERMS AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASCERTAIN THE VERACITY OF PREVIOUS POSTS TO YOUR OWN SATISFACTION BY VIEWING THE WORK MENTIONED IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LOCATED IN THE FINE CITY OF WASHINGTON, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Edited March 18, 2013 by FlatSpinMan