Jump to content

Dogfight duo?


Recommended Posts

With all the hype surrounding the imminent release of the Hairy Khan, I wondered about what would make for a good balanced opponent to it in a classic Dogfight duo (Airfix iirc) sort of scenario. It seems like it's going to be out of it's depth with the 109's,190's & Macchi? And the VVS pilots reckoned it was between the I-16 & LaGG-3.

 

This all led me on to thinking about any and all good pair ups that can be had with any of the currently available aircraft set.

 

Anyone got any suggestions, or favorite sparring pairs?*

 

 

 

*(don't have to be from opposing sides, any combination that's well balanced will be of interest, thanks)

Edited by Pict
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, I need to fly both the Yak-7B & the G6 more often.

 

I think the Hurri vs. the I-16 would be fairly close. Especially after reading Terence Kelly's book "Hurricane over the Jungle: 120 Days Fighting the Japanese Onslaught in 1942" about Hurricane 2's dog-fighting Zero's and surviving even though outnumbered. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pict said:

And the VVS pilots reckoned it was between the I-16 & LaGG-3.

 

Most Soviet pilots considered the Hurricane worse than the I-16. In all honesty, it was disliked and relegated to secondary sections of the front.

 

We don't have Italian planes but I'd say an MC.200 or a Reggiane Re.2000 would be good match ups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime ago, Jade Monkee did some very nice SM that were Faux BoB that could be flown in a Spitfire or 109F ( or was it 'G"?) , 110G's and/or He-111's in separate missions . I can imagine them being converted to semi 1940 period aircraft using the new Hurricane,109E ,110E and/or the He-111or Ju-88A? Eventually Bob missions might be on the anticipated Normandy/Channel map as well?Such missions might give CloD a real run for their money comparisons?

 

6cb93ef3-93a6-4a97-91e8-69ad73cac846_zps9lp7vqsp.jpg

Edited by Blitzen
added screenshot
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Burdokva said:

 

Most Soviet pilots considered the Hurricane worse than the I-16. In all honesty, it was disliked and relegated to secondary sections of the front.

 

We don't have Italian planes but I'd say an MC.200 or a Reggiane Re.2000 would be good match ups.

 

That's probably more like it, especially considering the time-frame that they got them and the general state of repair they were in, old, well used and missing parts like cockpit gauges, at least from what I've read. Whereas on our virtual Eastern front we will have brand new factory fresh aircraft to fly. I'm still looking forward to comparing it to both the I-16 & the LaGG.

 

So you seem to have the same conclusion I have, that so far we don't really have a balanced opponent for the Hurricane II. That said, what would you consider a balanced opponent for the I-16 or LaGG-3, from what's currently available in the BOX hangar?

Edited by Pict
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burdokva said:

 

Most Soviet pilots considered the Hurricane worse than the I-16. In all honesty, it was disliked and relegated to secondary sections of the front.

 

We don't have Italian planes but I'd say an MC.200 or a Reggiane Re.2000 would be good match ups.

 

Finnish pilots thought Hurricanes were among the most easy to shoot down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, messsucher said:

 

Finnish pilots thought Hurricanes were among the most easy to shoot down.

 

I’m sure most Japanese pilots felt much the same, despite a Hurri pilots living to tell the tale later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, messsucher said:

 

Finnish pilots thought Hurricanes were among the most easy to shoot down.

Not quite the total story. They said they could keep up the speed and they met a great deal of well trained I 16 pilots in winterwar or early continious war. It is a pretty complex picture. 
As I read books about it, pilots did not really trust the hurri, RAF hurripilots did well in the short period they flew in Murmansk. No losses except from teo ground crew

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I’m sure most Japanese pilots felt much the same, despite a Hurri pilots living to tell the tale later.

 

"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames." -- Hans WInd

 

From: "Captain H. Wind's Lectures on Fighter Tactics were written in 1943 to be used in training of new pilots. Afterwards, the lecture series was used in the Finnish Air Force for several decades. The lectures have been transferred into digital format in as original and accurate a form as possible - the way they were written in 1943. The author, Hans Wind, was the second highest scoring Finnish pilot of World War II and our highest scoring Brewster ace."

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

 

Hans Wind being the second top scoring Finnish ace with 75 victories.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Wind

 

They did not teach BS in Finnish Flight School. They could not afford that.

Edited by messsucher
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

for the most part all that matters in IL2 multi-player scene is the stall characteristics of the airplane as the up close and personal dog fights always end up with who stays the slowest and in control.

 

E7 shines at it.

LAGG and I-16 are both second, but they get veeery twitchy at low speeds

Mc202 is somewhere between LAGG and IL2, extremely twitchy but learnable. 😄

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I’m sure most Japanese pilots felt much the same, despite a Hurri pilots living to tell the tale later.

 

This might perhaps be too anecdotal but here is a short quote from Shores' Burma air war volume 3

Despite the apparent superiority of the Ki 43-I over the heavier Hurricane IIb, the Japanese pilots considered the latter to be a dangerous opponent. Commented Sgt Yoshito Yasuda of the 64th Sentai:

“The Hurricane was a unique plane with twelve 7.7mm (0.303in) machine guns which caused deadly damage if we were shot from behind. Its diving speed was much faster than the 01 Fighter (Ki 43). Therefore, when we fought with Hurricanes we attempted to counter its fire power with the better manoeuvrability of the 01 and tried to hit its radiator, bringing the engine to a stop. Even with the poor fire power (two 12.7mm guns) of the 01, Hurricanes could be shot down merely by a hole in the radiator.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, messsucher said:

The lectures have been transferred into digital format in as original and accurate a form as possible - the way they were written in 1943


I think the timeframe is important - by 1942 a Hurri was going to struggle against a well-flown 109.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


I think the timeframe is important - by 1942 a Hurri was going to struggle against a well-flown 109.

 

Well sure thing, if your plane is worse in turning and high speed, then you have not many cards left. Magic does not exist in real world. But Hurri had guns, like mentioned in the post above you. IL-2 had serious guns too, both naturally are dangerous IF they can shoot at you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, messsucher said:

But Hurri had guns, like mentioned in the post above you. IL-2 had serious guns too, both naturally are dangerous IF they can shoot at you.


Err, so did most aircraft operating in the combat zone. I am not sure of your point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, messsucher said:

The author, Hans Wind, was the second highest scoring Finnish pilot of World War II and our highest scoring Brewster ace.

 

I've always found it interesting how some fighters performed exceedingly well in some theaters, yet abysmally in others. Hans Wind would almost certainly preferred the Brewster over the Hurricane in the Baltic, but would he have wanted the Buffalo in Singapore if he had the option of a Hurricane, which were also present?

 

Similarly we could ask the question of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, would he have liked the Kobra as much if he had flown in it in PTO with the USAAC? Or George Beurling how he would have fancied flying the Spitfire V over the Kuban?...and many others.

 

As @216th_LuseKofte rightly said above, with regards to real world fighters, "It is a pretty complex picture". For us in the sim we have factory fresh equipment every time we get in the cockpit, so I suppose my question about balanced pairs of fighters is hard to answer unless we take that into account.

 

I really like to avoid having this thread merged into the Hurricane thread, like a few others have been, as this whole thread wasn't intended to be about the Hurricane only, but about what others thought were a balanced pair of fighters chosen from what we have currently available. I understand the hype and excitement as I pre-ordered it too and look forward to it, but it's not the only toy we have in the box, in fact it's not in the box yet :) 

 

So with all that in mind I'm still interested to hear about what you think are a well balanced Dogfight duo from what we have currently available?

 

For the Hurricane I  opened a little poll to see what people think about a balanced adversary here 

 

 

Edited by Pict
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


Err, so did most aircraft operating in the combat zone. I am not sure of your point. 

 

What was so hard in that? It is so very simple thing. If you have in all ways superior aircraft you don't give the enemy a chance to shoot at you. By then they only get a chance to shoot at you if you give them that chance, they can't get it any other way. Hurricane "magic" does not help you in real life. It only exists in your head.

44 minutes ago, Pict said:

I've always found it interesting how some fighters performed exceedingly well in some theaters, yet abysmally in others. Hans Wind would almost certainly preferred the Brewster over the Hurricane in the Baltic, but would he have wanted the Buffalo in Singapore if he had the option of a Hurricane, which were also present?

 

Finland modified their Buffalo's and the conditions were said to be better in Finland for Buffalo.

 

"After delivery of the B-239E, the Finnish Air Force added armored backrests, metric flight instruments, the Väisälä T.h.m.40 gunsight, and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. The top speed of the Finnish B-239s, as modified, was 297 mph (478 km/h) at 15,675 ft (4,750 m), and their loaded weight was 5,820 lb (2,640 kg)."

 

"This was in part due to the efforts of the Finnish mechanics, who solved a problem that plagued the Wright Cyclone engine by inverting one of the piston rings in each cylinder, which had a positive effect on reliability.[citation needed] The cooler weather of Finland also helped, because the engine was prone to overheating as noted in tropical Pacific use. The Brewster Buffalo earned a reputation in Finnish Air Force service as one of their more successful fighter aircraft, with the Fiat G.50, that scored an unprecedented kill/loss ratio of 33/1."

 

"The B-239E was also "de-navalized" before shipment: equipment such as tailhooks and life raft containers were removed.[27] The upgraded engine and slightly reduced net weight (i.e. from the omitted armor and de-navalization) resulted in an improved power-to-weight ratio and better general performance."

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

Edited by messsucher
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, messsucher said:

Finland modified their Buffalo's and the conditions were said to be better in Finland for Buffalo.

 

That's what I've also come to understand. The RAF Buffalo's didn't have the same attention given to them by any measure. This is difficult to reflect in the sim, without some form of reliability feature, which was my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

That's what I've also come to understand. The RAF Buffalo's didn't have the same attention given to them by any measure. This is difficult to reflect in the sim, without some form of reliability feature, which was my point.

 

Yeah, well, not that hard. They could change the overheating curves a bit in Finnish version. And I think the game already take into account temperature of air?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

What was so hard in that? It is so very simple thing. If you have in all ways superior aircraft you don't give the enemy a chance to shoot at you. By then they only get a chance to shoot at you if you give them that chance, they can't get it any other way. Hurricane "magic" does not help you in real life. It only exists in your head.

 

 

I know. That was what I said. What is this 'magic' to which you keep referring? The Hurricanes used in Russia were by 1942 relatively old designs, ex-RAF, flown by relatively poorly trained VVS crews and facing much better trained Finnish and German pilots in more modern aircraft. I am still mystified as to your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

I know. That was what I said. What is this 'magic' to which you keep referring? The Hurricanes used in Russia were by 1942 relatively old designs, ex-RAF, flown by relatively poorly trained VVS crews and facing much better trained Finnish and German pilots in more modern aircraft. I am still mystified as to your point.

 

The point was that someone said Japanese said Hurri had good guns. So did IL-2 have good guns, but nobody thought IL-2 to be particularly threatening in dogfight.

 

15 minutes ago, Pict said:

True. Lets hope we see a Baltic map at some point so that we can fly Finish hot-rods like the Brewster and the Mörkö-Morane 

 

Yeah, in original IL-2 Finnish version of Brewster was nice, a very good view from cockpit and generally balanced to fly. But of course under powered when compared to high performance mid and late war aircraft.

Edited by messsucher
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pict said:

I really like to avoid having this thread merged into the Hurricane thread

Yes I agree but my point was. Most expirienced pilots in vvs early war had their expirience from I 16 and the two deckers. 
When they transfered to Migs Lagg or Hurries. Their performance did rather decline not given a boost. On top of that new pilots was assigned to these planes. 
So I just tried to point out real historical points do not apply to this topic. It brings in organization logistics and far too much complexity. 
A plane performance in history is far too much based on logistics , how it is used. 
leaders, doctrine  and pilots skills. What we are talking about is a game

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pict said:

I really like to avoid having this thread merged into the Hurricane thread, like a few others have been, as this whole thread wasn't intended to be about the Hurricane only, but about what others thought were a balanced pair of fighters chosen from what we have currently available. I understand the hype and excitement as I pre-ordered it too and look forward to it, but it's not the only toy we have in the box, in fact it's not in the box yet :) 

 

So with all that in mind I'm still interested to hear about what you think are a well balanced Dogfight duo from what we have currently available?

 

For the Hurricane I  opened a little poll to see what people think about a balanced adversary here 

 

 

 

Oh, I am not excited about the Hurricane at all and one of the planes I am shamelessly skipping as I doubt I would ever fly it. I was initially under the assumption this was a Hurricane vs X rather than a general 'Duel' like Osprey's book series discussion. In such case, good note to drop the conversation - leaving this Golodnikov's memoirs for anyone interested - interview with a Russian ace who flew most Lend Lease planes and compares them.

 

Onto the subject - we already have several 'classic' duels present or soon to be. For Western folks, Spitfire and Mustang vs 109s.

 

I would add Bf 109E/F/G/K vs Yak-1/7/9, hopefully to be rounded up someday by the G-10, Yak-3, Yak-9U, and the early Yak-1/7 series with M-105PA engines. Those were the most produced fighter planes of all time and they continuously fought for nearly four years. Overall the Yaks were just a bit inferior but it's a close matchup and some of the later Yaks are actually superior to the 109s. An absolute classic and always exciting matchup.

 

I would say similar for FW-190 vs La-5, although on the Soviet side the choices are rather limited. The bubbletop La-5F is missing even though a substantial number of those were built and went i to combat, and of course we don't have the La-7. Very close performance that over time shifts from the German to the Soviet side but remains a tight matchup. Again, classic duel in terms of the prolonged timeframe and amount of combat between these types.

 

The MC.202 vs Spitfire Mk. V for me, possibly extending to MC. 205 vs Spitfire Mk. VIII/IX if we ever get an Italian expansion. Very close performance, signature fighters for the RA and RAF respectively, saw plenty of combat against one another.

 

Outside of those, potential duels would either be limited in timeframe, scale (amount of combat against one another) or simply being obscure.

 

Bf 109E vs Dewoitine D.520C in a potential Phoney War and Battle of France scenario. The D. 520 was a very good fighter even a bit finicky to fly and underpowered compared to the 109 it was, much like the Yaks, close enough in performance to be competitive so it's a close matchup. Incidentally, it's again the same engine lineage (HS 12Y vs DB 601) as with the 109 vs Yaks. Bit short on the timeframe but still...

 

The Spitfire Mk. V vs A6-M3 Zero over Darwin. This is probably quite famous, close performance for both planes. Maybe not not huge in scale but a fair amount of combat encounters.

 

Onto the more obscure matchups...

 

I-16 vs A5M and Ki-27 over China / vs Bf-109C/D over Spain. Lots of combat encounters, close performance. I've always wanted to read up on this in more detail but I don't know neither Chinese nor Japanese to tap into original sources, and doesn't seem to get much attention in English.

 

Ki-44 Shoki vs Spitfire and P-51A Mustang? Didn't they fighter over Burma and China? It's unfortunately a theater that I am not very familiar with.

 

Out of personal interest, I'd love seeing the D.520 vs P-38 simulating the clashes between VnVV (Royal Bulgarian Airforce) and USAAF but that's just daydreaming for a niche theater in an already niche genre.

 

Edited by Burdokva
typos
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Burdokva said:

leaving this Golodnikov's memoirs for anyone interested - interview with a Russian ace who flew most Lend Lease planes and compares them.

 

Thanks for the reply, all interesting stuff. The link you left is also interesting, from what little I have already read. I will slowly read and digest it,  thanks for that :good:

 

48 minutes ago, Burdokva said:

Incidentally, it's again the same engine lineage (HS 12Y vs DB 601) as with the 109 vs Yaks.

 

Indeed, as was the M.S. 406/410, then the Mörkö-Morane having the Soviet development of the HS 12Y logically transplanted in by the Finns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, messsucher said:

The point was that someone said Japanese said Hurri had good guns. So did IL-2 have good guns, but nobody thought IL-2 to be particularly threatening in dogfight.


‘Threatening’ is relative; a lot of dead 109s in 1940 would suggest that the Hurri was not a bad dogfighter but it did have a performance gap to the opposing fighters which grew over time. By 1942 its relatively lower speed and climb were a liability. 8 x .303s was strong for 1940 but not by 1942. However, given the relatively poor protection on a Ki-43, I can understand Japanese pilots being wary.


Back to the topic, the E-7 to F-4 line is probably the best match-up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


‘Threatening’ is relative; a lot of dead 109s in 1940 would suggest that the Hurri was not a bad dogfighter but it did have a performance gap to the opposing fighters which grew over time. By 1942 its relatively lower speed and climb were a liability. 8 x .303s was strong for 1940 but not by 1942. However, given the relatively poor protection on a Ki-43, I can understand Japanese pilots being wary.


Back to the topic, the E-7 to F-4 line is probably the best match-up.

 

 

I think British tactical flying played a part in that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

I think British tactical flying played a part in that too.


OK, I’m really not sure where you are going eith this. It achieved far better success in 1940 when many RAF squadrons were still using pre-war formations than it did in 1942 when almost all had switched to sections of 2 / 4. Concurrently its performance deficit grew markedly over the same timeframe.
 

In the East, in 1942, the Fins met an old aircraft - possibly 2nd hand - flown by VVS pilots with limited hours. Am not surprised that Finnish pilots found it a relatively easy opponent.
 

At base the issue was primarily one of relative performance vs. opposing fighters. It could handle the 109 E models, starts to struggle with the F series and is totally outclassed by the G-2.

 

What you keep on pushing on this is really baffling me. As a match-up, the E-7 is most accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


OK, I’m really not sure where you are going eith this. It achieved far better success in 1940 when many RAF squadrons were still using pre-war formations than it did in 1942 when almost all had switched to sections of 2 / 4. Concurrently its performance deficit grew markedly over the same timeframe.
 

In the East, in 1942, the Fins met an old aircraft - possibly 2nd hand - flown by VVS pilots with limited hours. Am not surprised that Finnish pilots found it a relatively easy opponent.
 

At base the issue was primarily one of relative performance vs. opposing fighters. It could handle the 109 E models, starts to struggle with the F series and is totally outclassed by the G-2.

 

What you keep on pushing on this is really baffling me. As a match-up, the E-7 is most accurate.

 

FYI, Finland got 16 new bf 109-G2 at march 1943 14 second hand bf 109-G2 at May 1943. G6 Finland got a year later, March 1944. Finland fought against Russia with dated fighters all the time, and also had only very limited numbers of those dated aircraft. Remember that all those same "limited hours" Russians flew with various other aircraft, so If Finnish pilots agreed Hurri is the most easy to shoot down, then it was so. Period. I understand this is very very "baffling" for you since you want to wishfully think Hurri was "magical" and have absolutely no fucking real knowledge of history, just another ignorant forum warrior.

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.
 
14 days ban on entry

Edited by BlackSix
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

FYI, Finland got 16 new bf 109-G2 at march 1943 14 second hand bf 109-G2 at May 1943. G6 Finland got a year later, March 1944. Finland fought against Russia with dated fighters all the time, and also had only very limited numbers of those dated aircraft. Remember that all those same "limited hours" Russians flew with various other aircraft, so If Finnish pilots agreed Hurri is the most easy to shoot down, then it was so. Period. I understand this is very very "baffling" for you since you want to wishfully think Hurri was "magical" and have absolutely no fucking real knowledge of history, just another ignorant forum warrior.

 

 

 

Well:

 

a) watch your language

b) I know a lot more about this subject than you, having worked in defence  aerospace for 15 years, having an MA in military history and being an ex-reserve officer.

c) You brought up 'magic', no one else. This is your storm in a tea-cup and nothing I have said has been prejudiced, untrue or illogical.

 

Am done speaking with an echo chamber. Hopefully your childish post gets deleted and you get a warning. Apologies to the OP.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Well:

 

a) watch your language

b) I know a lot more about this subject than you, having worked in defence  aerospace for 15 years, having an MA in military history and being an ex-reserve officer.

c) You brought up 'magic', no one else. This is your storm in a tea-cup and nothing I have said has been prejudiced, untrue or illogical.

 

Am done speaking with an echo chamber. Hopefully your childish post gets deleted and you get a warning. Apologies to the OP.

 

Oi! We have a victim here calling daddy. "Breaking news."

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

Oi! We have a victim here calling daddy. "Breaking news."

 

Dude, you're just looking increasingly silly. Little that you have said makes much sense and you lose your temper over what I tried to keep a good-natured exchange.

 

Have fun playing by yourself - no point continuing any dialogue with you.

Edited by EAF19_Marsh
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Dude, you're just looking increasingly silly. Little that you have said makes much sense and you loose your temper over what I tried to keep a good-natured exchange.

 

Have fun playing by yourself - not point continuing any dialogue with you.

 

How it was "good natured" by you when I wanted to talk about tactics British had, without going with the meme "they had vic formation, they were all bad"? You become "baffled" of that? There is much more to fighter tactics than vic/finger four formations. I asked a question, and you begat passive aggressively ridicule me. That was not good natured, and you know it.

 

Edit: Who is silly, you saying with all your "master's degrees" on history Finland had it easy? That is just not silly, it is plain ignorant. You go fight against overwhelming enemy with dated fighters you have only in very limited numbers, then tell me how easy it was. Most people find that far too hard even in computer games.

Edited by messsucher
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

In the East, in 1942, the Fins met an old aircraft - possibly 2nd hand - flown by VVS pilots with limited hours. Am not surprised that Finnish pilots found it a relatively easy opponent.

 

According to the link that Burdokova kindly left above (see below for ease) the VVS had both old and new Hurricanes issued to them, the pilot mentioned Hurricanes arriving in creates with desert camouflage on them. His observations on the aircraft he flew are really interesting and worth a read. It's no small interveiw and I'm just slowly enjoying bit by bit.

 

13 hours ago, Burdokva said:

leaving this Golodnikov's memoirs for anyone interested - interview with a Russian ace who flew most Lend Lease planes and compares them.

 

=====================

 

Just a funny thing I wanted to add, I got the Airfix thing wrong, it was Dogfight Double, not Duo as I said and guess what they paired up the Hurricane MK.IIB with....(drum-roll).... :)

 

Spoiler

HurricaneIIb_duo.jpg.a2dd2768c32bc4e742193cb923cfc2bc.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, messsucher said:

How it was "good natured" by you when I wanted to talk about tactics British had, without going with the meme "they had vic formation, they were all bad"? You become "baffled" of that? There is much more to fighter tactics than vic/finger four formations. I asked a question, and you begat passive aggressively ridicule me. That was not good natured, and you know it.

 

Debate in a calm and pleasant manner and I am happy to exchange. Continue in an adolescent manner, including the use of language proscribed in the forum, and I will not.

 

I fail to see what RAF 'tactics' over the UK in 1940 have to do with Russian-flown fighters over AGN in 1942.  The entire situation is so fundamentally different as to be border-line irrelevant. You seem to be focused primarily on the activities and opinion of Finnish 109 pilots in the Leningrad region in 1942. Fine. At that stage the Hurricane had become more-or-less obsolete. What was roughly competitive in 1940 was - by 2 years later - become a decidedly inferior fighter versus the competition. My point was that flying in tight formations of 3 in 1940, Hurricane's should have been less competitive then when flying in a loose spread of 4 in 1942, but the reality is precisely the opposite. That would suggest that improvements in tactical handling of formations did not offset a steadily worsening comparative performance. Wider operational factors also play a part, but the major problem is the Hurricane's 1934 - and fairly conservative - design became steadily less capable in competition with likely opposition

 

What 'baffles' me is your insistence on arguing against this view - do you disagree with anything in the paragraph above? - and your reference to 'magic'. No aircraft is magic. The Hurricane was solid in the first 2 years of the war and increasingly less so after that. If Finnish pilots felt it to be an easy target then fine, I am sure they had good reason for this. It does not bother me personally. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Debate in a calm and pleasant manner and I am happy to exchange. Continue in an adolescent manner, including the use of language proscribed in the forum, and I will not.

 

I fail to see what RAF 'tactics' over the UK in 1940 have to do with Russian-flown fighters over AGN in 1942.  The entire situation is so fundamentally different as to be border-line irrelevant. You seem to be focused primarily on the activities and opinion of Finnish 109 pilots in the Leningrad region in 1942. Fine. At that stage the Hurricane had become more-or-less obsolete. What was roughly competitive in 1940 was - by 2 years later - become a decidedly inferior fighter versus the competition. My point was that flying in tight formations of 3 in 1940, Hurricane's should have been less competitive then when flying in a loose spread of 4 in 1942, but the reality is precisely the opposite. That would suggest that improvements in tactical handling of formations did not offset a steadily worsening comparative performance. Wider operational factors also play a part, but the major problem is the Hurricane's 1934 - and fairly conservative - design became steadily less capable in competition with likely opposition

 

What 'baffles' me is your insistence on arguing against this view - do you disagree with anything in the paragraph above? - and your reference to 'magic'. No aircraft is magic. The Hurricane was solid in the first 2 years of the war and increasingly less so after that. If Finnish pilots felt it to be an easy target then fine, I am sure they had good reason for this. It does not bother me personally. 

 

There was talk that Hurricane was good in Battle of Britain, the tactics British used play a major role in it, and it can't be denied populist by saying that they had vic formation so tactics were bad. But maybe I best just find a book about it.

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
×
×
  • Create New...