Yak-9T - Whoa!

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Yep that's what my friend was struggling with. Didn't realize that the fire rate is rather high for a 37mm cannon. Soon as I demonstrated, his kill count with it went up drastically.

 

According to a Yak book I have, the 9T averaged 1 kill claim per 31 shots fired. Which sounds pretty good, all things considered (like Russian gun sight quality).

 

Normally, you wouldn't take that figure at face value; but in the case of the 37mm, probably anything that was hit did fail to return to base in one piece, one way or another.

 

Assuming you have halfway decent gunnery skills, 10x3 round bursts should be almost guaranteed death to at least one target per sortie. The silly thing about trying to single shot snipe, is that you ultimately waste just as much ammo trying to land that 'perfect' shot, while simultaneously keeping the probability of hitting the target just as low for each shot. This is especially true while firing in a tight turn, usually blind over your nose. There are some days when I can nail a target in my first shot, other days where I can miss 10 single shots in a row. Better to just burst fire and be done with it.

 

2 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Because it was a Spit 14. And I just got butchered.  That’s mostly my stupidity, I’m sure of that, but seems a bit obsolete in a world of P-51Ds and late model 109s, doesn’t it?

 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

Just because the Russians flew the 9 until war's end, doesn't mean it was ideal. The Germans were a depleted force, and the Russians could afford to throw obsolescent equipment at them.

 

Performance wise, the Yak-9's top speed of roughly 370 MPH places it squarely in the 1942-43 tech era of the war. Flying it in '44 or '45 is akin to flying an A6M5 Zero in the same time period. You can do well with it, in theory. But 95% of the time, you won't.

 

It's one of the reasons the game needs Yak-3s desperately. That extra ~30 MPH would bring it up to the same performance levels as the rest of the late war planes already released. At low altitudes, anyway. A Yak-9U and La-7 are also necessary for the same reasons. And maybe the 9U could have its own 37mm mod to boot (because the 9U already had the 'long nose', it was more easily adaptable to different gun configurations).

[CountZero]

20 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

According to a Yak book I have, the 9T averaged 1 kill claim per 31 shots fired. Which sounds pretty good, all things considered (like Russian gun sight quality).

 

Normally, you wouldn't take that figure at face value; but in the case of the 37mm, probably anything that was hit did fail to return to base in one piece, one way or another.

 

Assuming you have halfway decent gunnery skills, 10x3 round bursts should be almost guaranteed death to at least one target per sortie. The silly thing about trying to single shot snipe, is that you ultimately waste just as much ammo trying to land that 'perfect' shot, while simultaneously keeping the probability of hitting the target just as low for each shot. This is especially true while firing in a tight turn, usually blind over your nose. There are some days when I can nail a target in my first shot, other days where I can miss 10 single shots in a row. Better to just burst fire and be done with it.

 

 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

Just because the Russians flew the 9 until war's end, doesn't mean it was ideal. The Germans were a depleted force, and the Russians could afford to throw obsolescent equipment at them.

 

Performance wise, the Yak-9's top speed of roughly 370 MPH places it squarely in the 1942-43 tech era of the war. Flying it in '44 or '45 is akin to flying an A6M5 Zero in the same time period. You can do well with it, in theory. But 95% of the time, you won't.

 

It's one of the reasons the game needs Yak-3s desperately. That extra ~30 MPH would bring it up to the same performance levels as the rest of the late war planes already released. At low altitudes, anyway. A Yak-9U and La-7 are also necessary for the same reasons. And maybe the 9U could have its own 37mm mod to boot (because the 9U already had the 'long nose', it was more easily adaptable to different gun configurations).

In real war they didnt need Yak-3s, Yak-9Us or La-7s to win war vs low numbers of LW, thats why they were in low numbers compared to older versions of Yak-9s or La-5s. While in game where axis have unrealistic situation with unlimited numbers and resorces, player needs top airplanes for allied side.

Its same in tank version of game, panther or tiger vs overwhelming numbers of t-34s is in truble, but in game where you dont have numbers advantages its just axis fantasy when you give one side thouse tanks and have no limitations. Thats not battle of Prokhorovka, its just some "what if" scenario where axis had no problems and same numbers of super tanks vs normal tanks on allied side.

Thats why TC in MP is just player vs AI all the time. Yu can not make situation like historical where you see benefit of going t-34 vs panther/tiger/ferdinand. If allieds dont get tanks that can 1v1 tigers i dont see TC MP be anything els then what is now, boring axis tank fantasy, players just hunting static ai targets and avoiding tank battles.

Edited September 18, 2021 by CountZero

[BlitzPig_EL]

CountZero, your latest posts in this thread are spot on.  In late war scenarios the Luftwaffe should have lots of brand new fighter aircraft, all tucked away under camo netting and hidden in forests, because they had little fuel to actually fly them, and when they did get some off the ground you should have one or two good human pilots on the map, and the rest should be AIs set to the absolute lowest setting, with half fuel loads, if you wanted an accurate simulation of the actual war.

 

On the tank side, it's currently impossible to even think about a true simulation of the real thing.  With everybody and his brother in a Tiger or Panther there is no reason anyone would pick a T34 or Sherman in multiplayer.  Note, this is not the fault of the sim itself, but rather of the mission makers.

[oc2209]

17 hours ago, CountZero said:

In real war they didnt need Yak-3s, Yak-9Us or La-7s to win war vs low numbers of LW, thats why they were in low numbers compared to older versions of Yak-9s or La-5s.

 

Well, yes and no.

 

The Russians would've produced faster Yaks earlier in the war if they could have; but engine problems prevented it. They had to know they were well behind in the overall aeronautical engineering race. Which is why the Yak-3 had to be made so light, to compensate for the stagnation of engine advancements. The 9U was never going to be fully operational in large numbers, nor could it pour on emergency power without burning out the engine every 3 hours. Its top speed on 'safe' settings would probably not exceed the Yak-3's by much.

 

Even the La-5/7 with a more powerful engine, still needed to be up-gunned by war's end. Interestingly, according to Russian accounts, the Germans would routinely attack Russian fighters head-on (especially in the Fw-190, mentioned by the Russians in this case both for its durability and armament) until the arrival of the Yak-9T, which was the first Russian plane to break that habit.

 

All told, I'm sure the Russians put the best planes, with the best pilots, in the areas of their offensives which were most critical to breaking the German line. While the rest were simply 'filler' in less contested areas of the front. In other words, the Germans would've been able to blunt the Russian offensives a little better, had Yaks and Lavochkins still been strictly limited to 1943 performance levels.

 

17 hours ago, CountZero said:

Its same in tank version of game, panther or tiger vs overwhelming numbers of t-34s is in truble, but in game where you dont have numbers advantages its just axis fantasy when you give one side thouse tanks and have no limitations. Thats not battle of Prokhorovka, its just some "what if" scenario where axis had no problems and same numbers of super tanks vs normal tanks on allied side.

Thats why TC in MP is just player vs AI all the time. Yu can not make situation like historical where you see benefit of going t-34 vs panther/tiger/ferdinand. If allieds dont get tanks that can 1v1 tigers i dont see TC MP be anything els then what is now, boring axis tank fantasy, players just hunting static ai targets and avoiding tank battles.

 

Well, there's a lot of reasons why German tanks would do better in a multiplayer game. And most of it's historically accurate.

 

There's no way for a game, after all, to fully replicate the flaws that kept the T-34 from realizing its full engineering potentials. The Russians generally had poor radio communication and coordination for one thing. Another major impediment would be the total lack of ease-of-use functionality in Russian tanks; the very same things that made German tanks into perfect 'campers' in gaming parlance. Anything from the quality of the commander's optics to turret rotation features (turret baskets); to say nothing of crew training and reloading efficiency, the latter of which is largely impacted by basic design (Russian turrets were notoriously cramped--you pay a steep price for having a smaller profile). By contrast, there's nothing cramped about a Tiger's fighting compartment. The Panther, meanwhile, is just a complete ripoff of the T-34, but with all the advantages of said user-friendly German engineering.

 

Pound for pound, tank for tank, Germans in a multiplayer scenario should have all the advantages. They were designed to be used defensively, from ambush, and attack at extreme distances; with armor and damage output placed in higher priority than mobility. All things that make them ideal in a game. Where real life differed was in tank-killing infantry squads (where German immobility was catastrophic, like in the Ferdinand and Jagdtiger's case) and overwhelming air support to destroy or disable large numbers of German armor. If those factors aren't included in TC, then yeah, the Germans can and should dominate with mathematical predictability; even if outnumbered, say, 2 to 1. In reality, they were often outnumbered 5 to 1 (across the front, anyway, if not in local engagements), above and beyond the normal Allied advantages in air support.

 

In short, there isn't an Allied tank that should be able to comfortably 1v1 a Tiger (or God forbid, a Tiger II). The Sherman Firefly can penetrate its armor at a safe distance, but the Tiger can just as easily knock it out; so it's a matter of who spots who first. The Russian IS-2 was a capable contender as well, but suffered from the same inherent drawbacks as the T-34.

Edited September 19, 2021 by oc2209

[ShamrockOneFive]

We just need an IS-2 then ?

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

We just need an IS-2 then ?

 

Without having played it, I can't say; but since TC does include the SU-122 and -152, those guns do at least have the power to damage Tigers and Panthers at range. Even if accuracy issues would make things difficult for the Russians.

 

Everything else in the TC lineup for the Allies is pretty much obsolete by the Prokhorovka timeline. I just read an Osprey Duel book on the T-34 vs the Panther (in Kursk specifically), and though the author clearly (and repeatedly) states his objection to the Panther being called one of the greatest tanks of WWII--because of its insoluble engineering flaws from being severely overweight, like most other German tanks of the period--he still must admit that it had a good gun and a tough frontal turret. Which is why, according to him, the Panther accounted for approximately 500 T-34s at and after Kursk (July-Dec '43), for the loss of maybe 25-35 Panthers (in combat, not breakdowns) in the same period. So while the German 'wonder tanks' lack of mobility/serviceability made their attempted breakthroughs at Kursk rather laughable in hindsight, there was nothing funny about the damage they inflicted during and after the ill-conceived attack.

Edited September 19, 2021 by oc2209

[Guest deleted@83466]

Go Panthers !  I thought this thread was about the Yak-9T ?

Edited September 19, 2021 by SeaSerpent

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

Something worth noting is that the Yak-9 and Yak-9T that we have are the very worst iterations of the type available, the really early series. Subsequent models were progressively stronger and with lighter airframes, although admittedly the addition of extra fuel tanks was unhelpful, and the Yak-9Ms produced after about October 1944 were fitted with the same VK-105PF2 as the Yak-3, which added another 200-300hp and as far as I'm aware retained the usual idiotproof properties of the M-105 series. When you look at units equipped with "Yak-9" in 1945 they are, by and large, not flying the aircraft that we're flying.

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

Something worth noting is that the Yak-9 and Yak-9T that we have are the very worst iterations of the type available, the really early series. Subsequent models were progressively stronger and with lighter airframes, although admittedly the addition of extra fuel tanks was unhelpful, and the Yak-9Ms produced after about October 1944 were fitted with the same VK-105PF2 as the Yak-3, which added another 200-300hp and as far as I'm aware retained the usual idiotproof properties of the M-105 series. When you look at units equipped with "Yak-9" in 1945 they are, by and large, not flying the aircraft that we're flying.

 

That is a really good point. We have the Series 1 of both types and development did not cease when they came out.

 

A Yak-9M could be a contender for a hypothetical add-on at some point although a Yak-9U would be high on my list too.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm sure that if later Eastern Front scenarios are visited by the series, that the team will supply appropriate aircraft.

 

I'll take a P39Q, thank you please.

[oc2209]

20 hours ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

Something worth noting is that the Yak-9 and Yak-9T that we have are the very worst iterations of the type available, the really early series. Subsequent models were progressively stronger and with lighter airframes, although admittedly the addition of extra fuel tanks was unhelpful, and the Yak-9Ms produced after about October 1944 were fitted with the same VK-105PF2 as the Yak-3, which added another 200-300hp and as far as I'm aware retained the usual idiotproof properties of the M-105 series. When you look at units equipped with "Yak-9" in 1945 they are, by and large, not flying the aircraft that we're flying.

 

Your horsepower numbers are pretty far off.

 

The -9M weighed almost 1,000 pounds (all up weight) more than the Yak-3. The 9 series wasn't reworked to the extent that it would shave that much weight off during its production run.

 

According to December '44 trials, the -9M with the VK-105PF (1,180 hp) attained a speed of 356 MPH at altitude, 322 on the deck. The VK-105PF2 only uprated the engine to 1240-1290 hp.

 

The reason the Yak-3 is so much faster is that it's so much lighter. A Yak-9M with an extra ~60-100* hp isn't going to gain nearly as much performance.

 

I also have a list of improvements made to the 9 series throughout '44, and they are of a relatively minor nature.

 

This specific example is given regarding -9Ts through '44:

 

From batch 11, 4 fuel tanks were standardized.

From batch 13, a two-way radio was fitted to every plane instead of every other plane.

From batch 14, a push button control was added for the radio, on the throttle lever.

From batch 14, rear fuselage ballast was removed; wing design standardized between -9D and -9T.

From batch 15, an emergency canopy jettison system was added, as well as dust filters.

From batch 16, the wingtip shape was changed. A pneumatic starter was added. 

 

Etc, etc.

 

I see no evidence of full airframe redesigns or substantial weight savings measures. 

 

*Edit: I have another book that lists the -105PF2's hp as 1280, so I don't know which of the higher numbers to trust.

 

*Second edit: I checked the game stats, and we're given a max power of 1260 hp for all Yaks. Interestingly, despite the engines all having the same designations (M-105PF) and the same top output, only the Yak-7 (in the sim) has the 1180 hp figure as its lowest output. It would appear as though we already have some slightly boosted engines.

 

According to Wikipedia, ("VK-105PF2 & PF3 - (1,300 to 1,360 horsepower (970 to 1,015 kW)) Further increase in power output, which was believed to have exhausted the potential of the M-105 design for greater performance.") somewhere in the 1300-1360 range should be our top output possible in the Yak-3.

Edited September 20, 2021 by oc2209

[QB.Gregor-]

Love the 9T, very fun to fly! Had to make a video for it:

 

[Burdokva]

On 9/18/2021 at 10:17 PM, oc2209 said:

 

Well, yes and no.

 

The Russians would've produced faster Yaks earlier in the war if they could have; but engine problems prevented it. They had to know they were well behind in the overall aeronautical engineering race. Which is why the Yak-3 had to be made so light, to compensate for the stagnation of engine advancements. The 9U was never going to be fully operational in large numbers, nor could it pour on emergency power without burning out the engine every 3 hours. Its top speed on 'safe' settings would probably not exceed the Yak-3's by much.

 

The Yak-3 could do 640km/h and the postwar all-metal Yak-9P (that was overall heavier due to a lot of added fueal, equipment and, ironically, had worse aerodynamics due to poorer surface finish quality than the mixed wood/metal -9U) with a derated M-107A engine could do 660km/h. I need to check the specific altitudes given but for the Yak-9P that's at 3000RPM.

 

The wartime Yak-9U was regarded as the fastest Soviet piston engined fighter and, in the rare cases the engine operated fine, could pull more than 700km/h at 3200RPM. I think the officially rated speed was 680km/h.

 

The Yak-3 was significantly slower than the Yak-9U but its main advantage was tremendous acceleration. I've translated an interview with a Soviet ace and posted it here a while back, he was quite aware that flat out most late war piston engined fighter could outpace the Yak-3, even at low altitudes. But he mentioned they needed time to accelerate to that speed while between 300km/h to almost 600km/h nothing could out-accelerate the lightweight Yak; so, in practice, one couldn't benefit from greater top speed and escape.

 

The Yak-9U, based on everything I've read, not only had greater speed but also the same awesome acceleration. But it seems it was nose heavy and quite more difficult to fly compared to the M-105 engined Yaks, even though official Soviet sources always claim the transition was seamless for pilots.

 

IIRC there were 1200 Yak-9Us produced and delivered to the VVS prior to VE day, with over 700 on service on May 7th in various units, and over 200 lost.

 

I keep seeing comments that the Yak-9U was some ultra-rare bird when in reality, more Yak-9Us saw wartime service than Bf 109 K4s, and therr were more -9Us in service in the VVS then P-39Qs in early 1945.

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

The wartime Yak-9U was regarded as the fastest Soviet piston engined fighter and, in the rare cases the engine operated fine, could pull more than 700km/h at 3200RPM. I think the officially rated speed was 680km/h.

 

I can't find an example given of a tested 9U that hit 700 KPH beyond the initial prototype. Prototypes always performed best because of the quality of their surface finishing and joint sealing. Most tests done on production models are between 650-680 KPH. Up until 1946, the recommendation was to not exceed 3000 RPM; after '46, the areas of the intakes/coolers were increased so that the engine could finally, safely be run at 3200 RPM. However, the increased drag from the larger intakes meant that even as late as 1946, a tested Yak-9U only reached 680/580 KPH for its second and first rated altitudes, respectively.

 

Secondly, regarding my statement that it was never going to be fully operational--I stand by that claim. The 9U was put into production before and during the usual testing phase. Its engine problems were never rectified before the war's end (i.e, the only time period pertinent for this sim). So it can safely be said to have only been partially operational for all realistic purposes.

 

Beyond the frequency of engine burn out that would make field maintenance a nightmare (in one test series comprising 45 total flights, the engine needed to be replaced 4 times in that span), the cockpit was also excessively hot, and stick forces were reported as being too high.

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the game because of its low operational reliability. It absolutely deserves to be in the game. The question is how to accurately, realistically, represent its engine flaws. If we get a production model that hits 700 KPH, that won't be accurate.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Why not do it the way that lack of fuel, trained pilots, and slave labor build quality are dealt with for the Luftwaffe late war?   

 

Oh, wait...

Edited October 6, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[Burdokva]

9 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I can't find an example given of a tested 9U that hit 700 KPH beyond the initial prototype. Prototypes always performed best because of the quality of their surface finishing and joint sealing. Most tests done on production models are between 650-680 KPH. Up until 1946, the recommendation was to not exceed 3000 RPM; after '46, the areas of the intakes/coolers were increased so that the engine could finally, safely be run at 3200 RPM. However, the increased drag from the larger intakes meant that even as late as 1946, a tested Yak-9U only reached 680/580 KPH for its second and first rated altitudes, respectively.

 

You have the engine limitations the other way round, they ran unrestricted during wartime.

 

The limiter info on the M-107A is based, as are lot of the myths about the wartime VVS, on shoddy research by late Soviet aviation historians. There's an excellent article by Dmitri Khazanov (who has been repeatedly translated in English) called "The long road of the Yak-9U to the frontline" that debunks a lot of these.

 

The engine 3000RPM limit was recommended based on VVS tests frontline acceptance in September 1944. As usual, these were ran in parallel or after some combat units had already received the Yak-9U and were flying them since August 1944.

 

The batch of aircraft that was submitted for testing came from a factory that had consistently delayed production and quality was very, very poor. In fact, the machines were sent to another factory to be rebuilt before testing resumed (not quoting factory numbers as I don't have the sources on hand).

 

The new radiator design was finalized in October 1944 and every Yak-9U produced in November 1944 and later had them; these did alleviate the overheating issues, although not the short engine lifespans.

 

Whether the limiter was removed or not after the new radiator was implemented is a point of some debate even in Russian sources but in any case, it was not mechanically enforced so any pilot could, in theory, push to full WEP at 3200RPM.

 

Based on the pilot accounts I've collected over time, that was likely the case.

 

Again, the 3000RPM limiter was enforced post war as a way to extend service life of the M-107A engine. I have a 1947 pilot's manual of the Yak-9P and the engine is limited to 3000RPM max. Yak-9U production ceased in 1945.

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

Yak-9U production ceased in 1945.

 

The Yak-9U test I mentioned where it reached 680/580 KPH was from October '45. However, it was listed as the "1946 production standard", so I erroneously said the test was done in '46. Point being, even after the war was long over, it was still unable to attain the prototype's performance levels, because the redesigned intakes limited the top speed.

 

7 hours ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

The limiter info on the M-107A is based, as are lot of the myths about the wartime VVS, on shoddy research by late Soviet aviation historians. There's an excellent article by Dmitri Khazanov (who has been repeatedly translated in English) called "The long road of the Yak-9U to the frontline" that debunks a lot of these.

 

My source is Yakovlev Fighters of WWII, by Yefim Gordon, Sergey and Dmitriy Komissarov.

 

They explicitly state that as late as April '45, the revisions made up to that point (i.e, after the November '44 alterations you mentioned) did not fully solve the overheating problems. They mention a 9U (c/n 39-083) from plant 166, tested in January '45, as still having overheating oil. A 9U (c/n 06-16) from plant 82 was tested in February '45 with the same results. Another 9U (c/n 10-10), also from plant 82, was tested in April '45. All the book says about that last one is, "again, the list of deficiencies noted was long."

 

So, while they don't explicitly say the 3000 RPM limitation was strictly adhered to after late '44, they do explicitly say that the heating problems were not fully solved until well after the war's end.

 

Here's an exact quote regarding a March '45 test series:

 

"NII VVS specialists noted the advantages of the alternative armament options and the improved external finish. At the same time they stated that only some of the Yak-9U's shortcomings had been eliminated. For example, the installation of a bigger oil cooler with greater frontal area and introduction of an additional oil pump led to better engine operation at nominal revs only at higher altitudes. As before, considerable oil spill from the breather occurred at maximum power."

 

The absolute best speed I've seen from wartime, that isn't also a prototype, is from the above Feb-March '45 tests where a 9U reached 690 KPH. However, this would still be with the inferior oil/water coolers. And, this particular plane had better than average finishing.

 

In testing from September-October '45, a 9U with modified (but still inadequate) oil and water coolers attained a speed of 658 KPH.

 

The subsequent "Production standard for 1946" was further modified in October of '45 with new oil and water coolers. These were "installed to permit engine running at 3200 RPM."

 

It is with these new oil and water coolers that the speed I referenced before, 680/580 KPH, was recorded in a test.