was that Yak any better than bf-109?

[NoelGallagher]

i'm personally bf-109 fanatic ?

 

but only before i discover how soviet aircraft handles so much better than german ones 

 

it's smoother to fly and very responsive ETC

 

the reason why i never touch the russian fighter inside the game even though i play this game since il-2 original came out was because of their reputaion

 

you know german fighters literally annihilating soviet fighters 

 

so i thought it's because their aircraft was lacking in ability 

 

but it was not even close to truth

 

soviet aircraft was absolute blast

 

heck now i start to blame the uncle joe

 

because it means there were no proper training for the pilots 

 

and i already know how many great soviet officers wiped out by his execution force for the political reason...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[oc2209]

It's my understanding that the original Yak series (1 and 7) were promising but not great. The 109 F and G still held considerable advantages.

 

With the advent of the Yak-9, it could be argued that the Yak achieved overall parity (some aspects superior/inferior) with the 109G series, up to the G-6. 

 

The relationship between the two airplanes changed once the Yak-3 displayed nearly total superiority at low to mid altitudes.

 

It's also worth considering that not only did Soviet air tactics improve, but so too did construction quality, as the war progressed. So even though the Yak's engine power doesn't increase much (barring the 9U), refinements to the design and its construction managed to increase performance anyway.

[NoelGallagher]

39 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

It's my understanding that the original Yak series (1 and 7) were promising but not great. The 109 F and G still held considerable advantages.

 

With the advent of the Yak-9, it could be argued that the Yak achieved overall parity (some aspects superior/inferior) with the 109G series, up to the G-6. 

 

The relationship between the two airplanes changed once the Yak-3 displayed nearly total superiority at low to mid altitudes.

 

It's also worth considering that not only did Soviet air tactics improve, but so too did construction quality, as the war progressed. So even though the Yak's engine power doesn't increase much (barring the 9U), refinements to the design and its construction managed to increase performance anyway.

thx for sharing your knowledge 

but i found out that even yak-1b has some serious advantage over bf-109 F&G series 

the only downside i found in comparison to bf was it's climb rate 

but other than that ii does all the things bf can do quite well

BTW i was big ww2 fan but not so much about aircraft until now 

so if you don't mind can i ask your opinon about spitfire?

i mean i try to avoid popular belief of anything involved with ww2 in general

because as i study ww2 history i found out there are so many lies especially british propaganda(yeah napoleon was short hahahha)

and i found myself having doubt about spifires real ability apart from popular knowledge

i found some article about spitfires exaggerated ability of it's turn rate 

Edited June 22, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, NoelGallagher said:

thx for sharing your knowledge 

but i found out that even yak-1b has some serious advantage over bf-109 F&G series 

the only downside i found in comparison to bf was it's climb rate 

but other than that ii does all the things bf can do quite well

BTW i was big ww2 fan but not so much about aircraft until now 

so if you don't mind can i ask your opinon about spitfire?

i mean i try to avoid popular belief of anything involved with ww2 in general

because as i study ww2 history i found out there are so many lies especially british propaganda(yeah napoleon was short hahahha)

and i found myself having doubt about spifires real ability apart from popular knowledge

i found some article about spitfires exaggerated ability of it's turn rate 

 

The 1b is nice, but I like the 9 series 1 more. It turns tighter and is generally more agile. The 9T handles almost as well as the 1b, but has the giant cannon.

 

This is the Yak I'd want the most:

 

 

Post-war, unfortunately. All metal. Yak-9P.

 

As for the Spitfire, I think it really did turn well. Mainly because of the wing design and the relative lightness of the overall design. As far as I know, only the Zero and some versions of the Yak could turn equally or better.

 

Older planes, of course, like the Hurricane could turn as well as the Spit; but very few planes made after 1940 were designed with turning as a primary consideration. I know that mid-late war Japanese planes generally turned better than their American counterparts, but were still probably inferior to the Spit IX, for instance.

 

I know that some German pilots claimed to out-turn the Spit during the Battle of Britain (and probably the F series could out-turn the Spit V in some instances), but overall it was considered a bad idea to turn with a Spit for long. Especially if you weren't a physically strong pilot; the 109 demanded considerable strength and endurance to get the most out of it, which is very likely why every pilot who flew it didn't have an equally high opinion of it.

[Robli]

2 hours ago, NoelGallagher said:

but i found out that even yak-1b has some serious advantage over bf-109 F&G series 

the only downside i found in comparison to bf was it's climb rate 

 

I don't see any serious advantage for Yak-1b over Bf-109F/G. They seem quite equal in general. Yak turns better, but top speeds are quite close.

However, there are a couple of clear advantages for Bf-109. One is the climb rate that you mentioned and the other is the max dive speed. It means that Bf-109 is able to disengage from the fight by diving away / climbing away. 

[the_emperor]

In comparison the Yak could stay competitive because with the duration of the war it could focus on its primary role as a pure fighter. The germans had to addapt theirs to be used in the fighter, ground attack, anti bomber (heavy four engine bombers) roles.

Thus the Yak became a lighter (reduced armour and armament 1x20mm cannon and 1x12.7mm gun with low ammo count) while its german counterparts became heavier and the soviet did some smart design choices the germans did not.

It was also able to stay competetive because the soviet pilot training improved and the germans deterioted.

 

In game it as favoured by the overperfomance of the 12.7mm gun (as is the german 13mm) and the fact the late 109s G are restricted to a strict 1 minute use of emergency power.

and the nature of combat on the eastern front which takes place below 4000m. The Klimov full throttle hight without ram is 2700m and in the Yak-9 its 4300m in  level flight.

The German DB605 has a rated full throttle height of the 5800m without ram and 6600m in level flight.

 

The Yak-9 and late Bf109 G6 and their engine  in comparison:

                                                                                        

Yak-9 

Engine:  Klimov M-105 PF                                               
                35.1 litres displacement                                        

                1210HP at 0m without ram                                  

               1260HPmax at 700m without ram                                                                           

Weight: 2,870kg                                                                      

Armament:   20mm Cannon with 120 rounds                          

                     12.7mm HMG with 200 rounds                            

 

 

late Bf 109 G6   

Engine: Daimler Benz DB605              

35.7 litres Displacement   

1475HP at 0m without ram 

1550HPmax at 2100m without ram   

Weight: 3,196kg

Armament: 20mm cannon with 200 rounds

                   2x 13mm HMGs with 600 rounds

 

 

for comparison I did add engine and level speed flight charts (109 with Notleistung)

 

In short:

The Yak can outturn the 109 and has a fantastic vision and situational awareness due to its bubble canopy.

The 109 G6 can outclimb and out dive the Yak due to its better Power to weight ratio and above 4300m the Yak should avoid any confrontation due severe engine limitations at altitude.

 

Cheers

 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by the_emperor

[Mollotin]

yak is by no means bad plane.

 

why germans did so well early in the war is because they had better air combat tactics and soviets had lots of I-16s and Lagg3s and other planes that did not perform as well as yaks.

 

in the game most yaks turn better than 109s, that makes them more forgiving in low alt low speed fights. Most fights in this game happen low alt and quite low speeds.

While turn rate is not most important aspect of a plane it plays a role in many engagements.

 

also in this game 109s compress at high speed way more than yaks, so yaks actually have some advantages in high speed fights too. 650kph dive a 109 can pull like 6g while a yak can pull like 8g. This is based on a test performed by me.

 

109s are superior at high alt, like 5000meters and up but there is no point to fight that high cause every objective is on the ground.

 

these are just my opinions based on my experience playing this game.

 

 

[NoelGallagher]

wow thx for the so many knowledge guys 

i'm very new to airplane world 

and i'm learning a lot of things in this forum 

thx ?

[SYN_Ricky]

24 minutes ago, Mollotin said:

yak is by no means bad plane.

 

why germans did so well early in the war is because they had better air combat tactics and soviets had lots of I-16s and Lagg3s and other planes that did not perform as well as yaks.

 

Also early in the war, and up until quite later on (somewhere in '43???) most russian fghters only had a radio receiver, so that wingmen couldn't talk to their leader, only receive orders. This combined to the rigid doctrines made that the russian pilots were often at a tactical disadvantage in fights. One of the things russian pilots liked in lend-lease planes was the good radios they had.

[Trooper117]

It's all down to the individual skills of the pilot regardless... be sure!

[AEthelraedUnraed]

I always like to think of the Bf-109 as a good all-rounder. It's good at everything but excells at nothing, except perhaps climb speed. Which means it gives the pilot great flexibility in how to approach a certain situation and adjust tactics to whatever is necessary. Against most opponents, there are one or two performance characteristics where it has the upper hand, although which characteristics these are differs from opponent to opponent.

 

This as opposed to the Yak, which as a general rule is slightly slower but slightly more manoeuverable than its opponents, and therefore not as flexible in the tactics you choose.

 

Of course, this also has to do with the wide range of situations and opponents the Bf-109 had to deal with. It had to compete against both the high-flying, fast aircraft of the Western front, and the lower, slower yet more agile Russian fighters.

[Burdokva]

Short answer: no, the Yak series fighter was not better then the Messerschmitt 109 series. In fact, it was generally worse. But performance was close enough that it was competitive.

 

Every version of the Yak up to the Yak-9U and Yak-3 had a slower acceleration, Vmax and rate of climb then the current generation 109, though they were equal to or outperformed the previous 109 generation. For example, the early series (1 to 68) Yak-1 was inferior to the Bf-109F but was equal to, or better, than the Bf-109E.

 

There's a wealth of information if one can tap into the Russian sources (or acquire rather expensive research volumes in English) but the main causes of the Yak's inferiority were:

 

1. Insufficient power of the M-105 engime - the frame was simply underpowered; never fully resolved, as the supposed successors (M-106, M-107) either did not go into mass production due to numerous issues (former) or arrived too late and were generally unreliable (latter);

 

2. Numerous minor defects - production or design issues that lead to low quality or failing subsystems, such as poor radio sets (RSI-3 and RSI-4), weak undercarriage and wing spars (Yak-1), peeling surface coatings, canopy quickly loosing transparency, etc. Generally but not fully resolved from mid-1944 onwards.

 

3. Low quality fuel - Soviet aviation fuel ranged from 86 to 95 octanes for the post-1940 plane engines but those ratings were achieved with various additives, and the fuel quality remained poor and inconsistent throughout the war.

 

I've read numerous accounts where Soviet pilots would state that, had they had good quality 100 octane fuel, good construction and finishing quality of their planes, and the fight was below 4500 meters (which the vast majority of fights in the East were) they could have gotten on an equal footing with the 109 despite the low output of the M-105.

 

I also can't agree that the Yak was a "pure" fighter. Yak units consistently were involved with close-in escort for Shturmoviks or CAPs and only rarely got pure fighter assignments such as offensive CAPs or "free hunting" - those were generally reserved for the better performing but quite more difficult to fly and master La- series fighters.

 

I'll loosely quote another Soviet pilot whose memoirs I recently read - the Yak was "good enough". It did not posess any outstanding quality but neither any particular vices; it wasn't a top performer but had good overall performance, was easy to fly and master, was reliable and easy to maintain, and easy to produce (work hours dropped from 8500+ on early Yak-1s to less than 4500 on later Yaks).

 

Now, the Yak-3 and Yak-9U were equals or even superior to their 109 contemporaries but they had their set of limitations.

 

The Yak-3 was fast, with phenomenal acceleration, great rate of climb, very easy on the controls. It was also very short ranged, had low ammo load, and was decidedly a pure low-mid altitudes tactical fighter with limited application.

 

The Yak-9U had even better overall performance and could keep up to mid-high altitudes (the VK-107A retained 1350hp up to 6500 meters, if I am not mistaking) but became more nose heavy and difficult to fly, and had a lot of issues with engine reliability and servicing.

 

8 hours ago, oc2209 said:

This is the Yak I'd want the most:

 

 

Post-war, unfortunately. All metal. Yak-9P.

 

Why would you want the postwar Yak-9P when its only advantage was an all-metal construction? It was heavier (due to a lot of additional equipment, even if the construction was lighter), slower (poor surface finishing quality induced more drag) and the M-107A was derated after the war and limited to 3000RPM.

 

The Yak-9U with its mixed construction had better performance. It was lighter overall (especially loaded), had better surface finish quality, the engine was (mostly) unrestricted to full 3200RPM .

Edited June 22, 2021 by ACG_Burdokva
typos

[the_emperor]

12 minutes ago, ACG_Burdokva said:

I also can't agree that the Yak was a "pure" fighter. Yak units consistently were involved with close-in escort for Shturmoviks or CAPs and only rarely got pure fighter assignments such as offensive CAPs or "free hunting" - those were generally reserved for the better performing but quite more difficult to fly and master La- series fighters.

 

Yes, you are right. "pure fighter" is not the right term here.

But compared to the 109 its versatility seems to be mostly limited to the engagement of fighter up the medium german bomers.

Of course the guns can be used to engange ground targets but

They lack the ability to add additional armament to engage heavy viermots or bombload to engage ground targets and compared to all other fighters it does have the weakest standard armament, with the lowest ammo count.

What I would like to know, if any one does have access to primary sources:

does the weight for the Yak-9 include 100kg for the Pilot as German and Western Allies manuel do?

 

Cheers

[PatrickAWlson]

Whether through doctrine or flight characteristics, the 109 was generally going to start from an advantageous energy position.  From that position it would never lose that advantage except through pilot error - getting into a low altitude fur ball with a bunch of Yaks.  So the German pilot could always do the OODA loop thing: make a pass, get to safety, reevaluate, attack again or break off.  The poor Russian in his Yak was limited to waiting for the German to make a mistake.

 

There was a huge doctrinal difference - one where each side probably made the best choice for them.  The Germans fighters were there to destroy planes.  They had to reduce the ability of the Russians to impact their ground troops.  The Russian fighters were there to provide cover for their ground attackers.  They couldn't care less about German fighters except to the extent that they were shooting down IL2s.  So you could get a combat where the Germans shoot down five Yaks for no losses and both sides view it as a success.  The Germans think they did great because they got a 5-0 kill ratio.  The Russians think they did great because the IL2s got through and they're going to replace the Yaks and their pilots tomorrow anyway.  In the end the Russians were more right than the Germans.

[Denum]

49 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

There was a huge doctrinal difference - one where each side probably made the best choice for them.  The Germans fighters were there to destroy planes.  They had to reduce the ability of the Russians to impact their ground troops.  The Russian fighters were there to provide cover for their ground attackers.  They couldn't care less about German fighters except to the extent that they were shooting down IL2s.  So you could get a combat where the Germans shoot down five Yaks for no losses and both sides view it as a success.  The Germans think they did great because they got a 5-0 kill ratio.  The Russians think they did great because the IL2s got through and they're going to replace the Yaks and their pilots tomorrow anyway.  In the end the Russians were more right than the Germans.

 

Exactly this.

 

In terms of straight combat. I'd put my money in the Yaks. No engine limits and they are wild fast. Very maneuverable.

 

The only down fall in game is that because AP is incredibly underwhelming (does very little damage compared to HE) the Yak 1s will sometimes struggle to get a kill. Those 80AP round in that belt make it very difficult!

 

 

Late war the Russian aircraft got really good. 

 

The La-7 would really upset the 109 drivers here because WOW what a plane!  

 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Denum

[Dragon1-1]

On the other hand, the game also favors the Yak by making such a fuss about engine limits. Also, there's a peculiarity when it comes to German planes. The peak performer among the 109s, when it comes to raw speed, was the F-4, at least before MW50 came around. That one was very much superior to Yak-1 and -7. The G series, however, were much less aerodynamically clean, and despite more powerful engines, could not outrun the Yak-1b at low altitude, and they couldn't really turn with it, either. Arguably, those were inferior fighters to the Yak (especially the early G-6, with ugly blisters all over), and even if starting with an energy advantage, all the Yak pilot had to do was to spoil the initial shot. Sheriff's videos on the 109 variants highlight this decline, there are very few things that the Gs that we have offer over F-4.

[PatrickAWlson]

46 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

Exactly this.

 

In terms of straight combat. I'd put my money in the Yaks. No engine limits and they are wild fast. Very maneuverable.

 

The only down fall in game is that because AP is incredibly underwhelming (does very little damage compared to HE) the Yak 1s will sometimes struggle to get a kill. Those 80AP round in that belt make it very difficult!

 

 

Late war the Russian aircraft got really good. 

 

The La-7 would really upset the 109 drivers here because WOW what a plane!  

 

 

 

Not really sure I agree 100%.  Like so many things, Russian planes are better on paper than they were in actual use. 

 

The Las, for instance, might be incredible performers when tricked out just so, but doing so required that you got a good engine, a high quality airframe, and that you had a half dozen knobs and levers in just the right position.  The Germans put an automated system in their planes.  It added weight and probably resulted in less than perfect performance, but it worked extremely well and allowed the pilot to focus on fighting.  That doesn't show up on paper, or if it does, it actually makes the plane look bad because the numbers pop as nicely.  

 

Great video on the T34 vs the MK III.  The T34 had a more powerful gun, better armor, and better off road mobility.  Overwhelmingly better tank, right?  Not really.  In real life the commander was overworked, with command, loading, and sometimes radio duties.  The ability to communicate was poor. the crew was more blind than even other tanks, which were already mostly blind.  The armor was often poor quality, meaning it did not hold up as well as it should have on paper.  The ergonomics were awful, resulting in poor rate of fire.  SO the T34 was a terrible tank?  No, it was not.  It did it's job and played a huge role in the Soviet victory.  But it was nowhere near as good in the field as it was on paper.

[Denum]

11 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Not really sure I agree 100%.  Like so many things, Russian planes are better on paper than they were in actual use. 

 

The Las, for instance, might be incredible performers when tricked out just so, but doing so required that you got a good engine, a high quality airframe, and that you had a half dozen knobs and levers in just the right position.  The Germans put an automated system in their planes.  It added weight and probably resulted in less than perfect performance, but it worked extremely well and allowed the pilot to focus on fighting.  That doesn't show up on paper, or if it does, it actually makes the plane look bad because the numbers pop as nicely.  

 

Great video on the T34 vs the MK III.  The T34 had a more powerful gun, better armor, and better off road mobility.  Overwhelmingly better tank, right?  Not really.  In real life the commander was overworked, with command, loading, and sometimes radio duties.  The ability to communicate was poor. the crew was more blind than even other tanks, which were already mostly blind.  The armor was often poor quality, meaning it did not hold up as well as it should have on paper.  The ergonomics were awful, resulting in poor rate of fire.  SO the T34 was a terrible tank?  No, it was not.  It did it's job and played a huge role in the Soviet victory.  But it was nowhere near as good in the field as it was on paper.

I was refering to in game, by the time the La-7 was flown in significant numbers the Germans were in full retreat with all kinds of logistical nightmares. 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

La-5FN was liked by Soviet pilots, and its capabilities show in the sim. Yes, automation was lacking, but it was issued to experienced pilots for a reason. It is a bit non-obvious, and has a lot of levers and cranks to fiddle with, but once you get a hang of it, it's a fast, well armed machine that could match anything Germans could throw at it in its time.

 

Automation is nice, but in combat, you don't really have to think about most of those levers very much. Mixture to rich, RPM to max, boost on. Supercharger gear 1, because if you're in second gear, you're too high to do well in a La-5, anyway. All you have to fiddle with are throttle and radiators. It's still a lot for a rookie, but that's why rookies were given Yaks if possible.

[SirFlappy]

Regarding Noels mention of "Uncle Joes" HR Department methods I suppose it provided motivation lol!!

  QUOTE-

"In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance."

Joseph Stalin

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, ACG_Burdokva said:

Why would you want the postwar Yak-9P when its only advantage was an all-metal construction? It was heavier (due to a lot of additional equipment, even if the construction was lighter), slower (poor surface finishing quality induced more drag) and the M-107A was derated after the war and limited to 3000RPM.

 

The Yak-9U with its mixed construction had better performance. It was lighter overall (especially loaded), had better surface finish quality, the engine was (mostly) unrestricted to full 3200RPM .

 

I should have elaborated.

 

The Yak-3 is probably the most fun Yak to fly because of its balance of power and agility; that's the one I want most in flight terms. I want the 9P strictly for looks.

 

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 The Germans think they did great because they got a 5-0 kill ratio. 

 

So, in other words, the Germans were the first gamers.

[Burdokva]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

I should have elaborated.

 

The Yak-3 is probably the most fun Yak to fly because of its balance of power and agility; that's the one I want most in flight terms. I want the 9P strictly for looks.

 

Oh, that is true! I find the Yak-9U/P to be some of the most graceful propeller fighters built.

 

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Automation is nice, but in combat, you don't really have to think about most of those levers very much. Mixture to rich, RPM to max, boost on. Supercharger gear 1, because if you're in second gear, you're too high to do well in a La-5, anyway. All you have to fiddle with are throttle and radiators. It's still a lot for a rookie, but that's why rookies were given Yaks if possible.

 

Can't agree here. It might not be an issue in the comfort of one's home sitting on a gaming chair in front of a computer but when in actual combat, fighting for one's life, under severe physical and psychical stress, it does matter - one might not have the strength or coordination to control four different levers and two flywheels while under constant 3g to 6g load, tired and weighted down by a pilot's suit. The German Kommandogerat was envied by foreign pilots, including Soviet ones. There's a reason why late war Yak models (-9M, -9U and -3) introduced automated water radiators, why La-5FNs and later had automated mixture controls, etc. The more a pilot was able to concentrate on combat itself, the better his chances.

 

This was actually noted in Dmitry Khazanov's Osprey Duel "Yak-1/7 vs Bf-109E/F, 1941-42" title - there were reports of Yak-1s over Stalingrad with poor performance. Experienced Soviet test pilots were sent to investigate and found out that the main cause (aside from rapidly deteriorated surface finishing due to poor production quality and the nature of the cloth/wood construction) was that frontline pilots would fully open the oil and water radiators, keeping the engine cool, and not adjust them throughout the fight. The result were lower combat speeds of 15 to 25km/h. The test pilots, on the other hand, continiuosly worked the radiators, keeping the water just below boiling (around 95C) and could consistently attain higher speeds. Findings were that the average pilot couldn't cope with the workload in combat.

[Dragon1-1]

17 minutes ago, ACG_Burdokva said:

Findings were that the average pilot couldn't cope with the workload in combat.

That's why they didn't put average pilots in the La-5s. Yes, the radiators on the Yak were a problem, and to some extent on the La-5, as well (though the oil radiator is the only one you really need to watch), but you don't actually need to touch anything else. An "average" Soviet pilot of the time was trained quickly and rushed into combat, and hence the whole thing with radiators would be explained little better than it is in Il-2's excuse for training materials, not helped by the U-2, the most common trainer, not having most of those controls. It wasn't a problem for test pilots, because by nature, they'd be some of the best ones available. That's not to say fewer levers isn't better, but to a skilled pilot, having less automation would not be a huge disadvantage. Case in a point, note that the US pilots had much fewer issues with this, despite their early fighters being nearly as lever-heavy as the Soviet ones.

[Lusekofte]

Simply answered, YES

 

 

 

And No

[PatrickAWlson]

43 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Case in a point, note that the US pilots had much fewer issues with this, despite their early fighters being nearly as lever-heavy as the Soviet ones.

 

That is not what reports from the front indicated.  The workload of the P-38 was considered heavy enough that it is believed that many pilots were lost simply because they could not get their planes battle ready before they were shot down.  Knobs, levers, sometimes not conveniently located, a freezing cockpit, equipment that could not be continuously left on, all contributed.  It was an issue.  I think the P-51 was much less labor intensive.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Indeed, you are correct Patrick.  The P38 in the sim is far easier to manage than the real thing.  If I could use one term to describe the cockpit layout of the P38, I think steampunk fits the bill better than any.  Poorly laid out, and overly complex.  It would have been fine for an airliner, but for a fighter plane, not so much.  Just one of the many reasons why the P38 was dumped like yesterday's garbage at the end of the war.

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[ShamrockOneFive]

The sooner the reputation that Russian fighters are inherently bad is killed off, the better. It's, in my mind, nearly indisputable that the Bf109F series and early G series during the early part of the war is the king of the castle with performance attributes superior to its opponents. It has speed, the best climb rate, good firepower and good handling. It's extremely well balanced.

 

In the face of that, the Yak-1 series is not quite as good but not by much. The Yak-1 Series 69 that we have had the improved M-105PF engine with high horsepower and better tuning for medium and low altitude speed. That's where the Yak needed to fight the 109 and it comes extremely close on several performance attributes. Close enough that in a close in battle things are not all that one sided but instead determined by tactics and piloting. The Yak-1B Series 129 is a significant improvement and at those medium and low altitudes the Yak is able to fight the 109 on par. That's impressive performance and it does it with better visibility than any other fighter available to us except for the comparably equipped Yak-9 and 9T. And of course we have the Yak-7B, Yak-9 and 9T and all of these are a good match to fight the 109 at low altitudes with the 7B being the sleeper of the bunch thanks to the slightly awkward looks. People underestimate it all the time.

[Robli]

On 6/22/2021 at 9:46 PM, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

the poor training of luftwaffe fighter pilots and the continued focus on bombers is widely documented

 

That is quite interesting claim and the Wikipedia link does not really show wide documenting of such a thing. As far as I have read before, there were actually programs converting bomber pilots to fighter pilots, instead of continued focus on bombers. Also, if during 1939-1942 more bombers were produced than fighters, then after that the fighter production numbers surpassed bomber production numbers by a wide margin. Total production in 1942: 5358 fighters vs 6211 bombers, total production in 1944: 24981 fighters vs 3672 bombers. It is kind of hard to believe that that continued focus on bombers existed during Defence of the Reich.

 

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

3 hours ago, Robli said:

 

That is quite interesting claim and the Wikipedia link does not really show wide documenting of such a thing. As far as I have read before, there were actually programs converting bomber pilots to fighter pilots, instead of continued focus on bombers. Also, if during 1939-1942 more bombers were produced than fighters, then after that the fighter production numbers surpassed bomber production numbers by a wide margin. Total production in 1942: 5358 fighters vs 6211 bombers, total production in 1944: 24981 fighters vs 3672 bombers. It is kind of hard to believe that that continued focus on bombers existed during Defence of the Reich.

 

Right, I see how my statements are confusing: I'll rephrase.

 

The reason why fighter production ramped up massively in 1944 is because the Luftwaffe had to find a stopgap to an issue that were caused by problems in their infrastructure: They are playing catch up to the problems that were there since 1941 and went almost unaddressed up until that point. I talked about the Jägerstab program and the usage of forced labour from holocaust victims (as well as the problems that caused) above for that reason: The massive ramp-up in fighter production was a hasty, ideology-over-practicality project that delivered poor quality planes at best and sabotaged planes at worst. So yes, the continued focus on bombers did not exist during  Defence of the Reich, but it did exist before that and that focus meant a general decline in Luftwaffe training and production quality where those of their enemies improved throughout the war. The Windhund program, the conversion of bomber to fighter pilots points towards the same issue: You shouldn't need to convert your bomber pilots to fighter pilots to begin with! According to this webpage, those ex-bomber pilots received about 20 hours of training in fighters. That's... bad.

 

Incidentally it turns out that the book that Wikipedia uses as a source for the argumentation is readable in google books. I should go read that in full!

 

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[percydanvers]

I can't weigh in on the technical matters to nearly the same extent as everyone else here but I can say from the numerous Luftwaffe memoirs I've read that the German pilots respected the Yaks very much. Walter Schuck said that the Yak 7 was every bit the equal of the 109G, and that its appearance on the Artic front heralded the end of German air superiority there.

As to better or worse, it seems to have historically been in the margin of pilot skill and tactical circumstance. A "red banner" Yak squadron could probably make short work of a bunch of late war 109 pilots with barely any flying time in the same manner that Luftwaffe "experten" flying the 109 could simply devour Yak formations.

[RyanR]

One of the great takeaways in the sim is how Soviet fighters got much better through the war. And how German fighters got.... heavier.

 

Flight models are great, and the AI uses the same model, so you can really appreciate what was happening in the air.

 

-Ryan