Why I dislike IL-2 games..

[FOZ_1983]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

Strong are these two... screw it, I'll just go on my rant now... saves time and stuff.

1. Both the Spitfire and P-51D could be out turned by a La-7. Reason behind that, is because of a little thing called wing loading and roll... that's why Russian planes have the guns in the nose; because when you load up your wings with guns and ammo, you're not going to be able to turn and roll as easy or as fast as a plane without guns and ammo in the wings.

2. The P-51D is only recognized as the WESTERN Power's best WW2 fighter, while the Yak-3 is recognized as Russia (Eastern) Power's best WW2 fighter. And like Winy said, German, Romanian, Hungarian, etc. pilots were told not to do combat against Yak-3s any lower than 5,000 feet or they'd be chewed up and spit out... which was said because of a little air battle that took place between 9 Yak-3s and 60 German planes (including some Ju-87s.) The ensuing fight ended up with only one Yak-3 being forced down because of engine problems, and twenty+ confirmed and more probables of German 109s, 190s, and all Ju-87s being downed. (You won't find any sort of situation like that on the Western Front.)

3. Considering that La's and Yak's were made out of light materials, and had somewhat loose fittings (for flexibility and stress factors) they could take more Gs at lower altitudes (which they're made to dogfight under, unlike the high altitude P-51, and medium-high altitude Spitfire.)

4. I'm not sure what you're settings are at, but unless it's something like Arcade, I'm not sure how you could be out turned by an Il-4 that would have to stall out and drop out of the sky, by doing too tight of a turn or doing combat with a fighter at all.

5. Russian planes are FAR superior, than any German, British, American, or Italian fighter planes at low altitudes. The Japanese, are the closest country during WW2 to get near how well the Russian planes were at maneuvering. And even by just looking at some of their planes, a Japanese Zero A6M2-21 or A6M3 could easily combat a Yak-3 in combat and probably take it out without much problem... except for the larger wings, those'd probably give the Zero some trouble... not much though.

6. HI GUYS!!!!

EDIT: Also, play some '46. The planes on there are highly accurate, and I've played countless times against Japanese planes in Russian planes. I usually break 50/50, so that should tell you something about Japanese planes, while other nation planes, I usually clobber them.

And their you have it!!

1 - Agree
2 - Debatable (some argue for the P51 as the greatest fighter, others the Spit)

3 - Agree
4 - Definately agree
5 - Would be a nice fight to see, cant comment though because i have not flown a zero

6 - Alright mate!!

7 - Lagg, Yak, Shitfire, Zero, P-Shitty1, All inferior to the Hurricane.

8 - Maybe 7 is a lie.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by FOZ_1983

And their you have it!!

1 - Agree
2 - Debatable (some argue for the P51 as the greatest fighter, others the Spit)

3 - Agree
4 - Definately agree
5 - Would be a nice fight to see, cant comment though because i have not flown a zero

6 - Alright mate!!

7 - Lagg, Yak, Shitfire, Zero, P-Shitty1, All inferior to the Hurricane.

8 - Maybe 7 is a lie.

You know, realistically, a Hawker Hurricane Mk II against a LaGG-3 Series 4 or Series 35, probably wouldn't be that bad of a match up. Both have obvious faults, that would be equal to each other, and their HP is about the same, along with some other things by just looking at their stats. So that would make for an interesting dogfight... I'll have to try that on '46 and see how the outcome is.

[FOZ_1983]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

You know, realistically, a Hawker Hurricane Mk II against a LaGG-3 Series 4 or Series 35, probably wouldn't be that bad of a match up. Both have obvious faults, that would be equal to each other, and their HP is about the same, along with some other things by just looking at their stats. So that would make for an interesting dogfight... I'll have to try that on '46 and see how the outcome is.

Would be good one one of those "dogfight" kind of programmes.

Hurricane is a big target (for a fighter) and slower than most. But packs a punch, has a good turn radius.

LaGG is much the same, just a smaller target!!

Would like to see that fight!!

I think number 5. Just about explains it all, AT LOW ALTITUDE, I have never seen any dogfights on IL-2 that take place at about more that 5000ft. But why is also the Spitfire so Spinny? Maybe the Western planes are not as good but they certainly knocked down their performance a bit, I have the same problem with 1946, Get the flight 1 P-51 for FSX (Thats how a pony Handles!) Then fly the one on 46'.
Until you do that you will not see I am getting at, and don't call the Flight 1 addons Innacurate, they had access to two Real FLYING P-51's, that I had the fortune to sit in...
Regards,

Jack

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Jack Morris

I think number 5. Just about explains it all, AT LOW ALTITUDE, I have never seen any dogfights on IL-2 that take place at about more that 5000ft. But why is also the Spitfire so Spinny? Maybe the Western planes are not as good but they certainly knocked down their performance a bit, I have the same problem with 1946, Get the flight 1 P-51 for FSX (Thats how a pony Handles!) Then fly the one on 46'.
Until you do that you will not see I am getting at, and don't call the Flight 1 addons Innacurate, they had access to two Real FLYING P-51's, that I had the fortune to sit in...
Regards,

Jack

It's already known that in BoP, the P-51s and other planes are screwed up, but it seems you're following more of the legend and myth of the P-51 than actual statistics. In reality, the P-51 was not a low altitude fighter, and wasn't all the hype that it's given like on the History Channel and in books. If you fly it at high altitudes in 1946, you'll see that it handles like a gem and terrible slug at lower altitudes. I've never had any problems with '46 and the P-51s capabilities at high altitudes.

In the past, when I've played online, the people do seem to know at what altitudes their planes fly; and if they don't they get chewed up by everyone else. Specially since on '46, you do realize how bad your plane handles at the wrong altitudes.

And if you really have a problem with Russian planes, you should just do like you're supposed to do in a P-51, and that is to boom and zoom. Hit and Run tactics, are what make up the P-51s high kill rate. Turning and Burning, are what make up Russian tactics and fighters.

And for the matter of sitting in planes. I've had the honor at the last Planes of Fame Air Show to sit in both a P-47D, P-51D, Yak-3 (which was AWESOME!) and plenty of other planes. So it's not a matter of sitting in a plane, to suddenly understand how it handles. You have to read deep into the planes.

[SEE]

Soviet Ace, Whats your user name on 1946? I will keep an eye out for you.....

[Balderz002]

I dont want to get burned here, but would I be right in saying one area the Western Allies had an advantage over Russian a/c were the radio comms in the cockpits (early war anyways)?

[bobbysocks]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

And if you really have a problem with Russian planes, you should just do like you're supposed to do in a P-51, and that is to boom and zoom. Hit and Run tactics, are what make up the P-51s high kill rate. Turning and Burning, are what make up Russian tactics and fighters.

in a word..NO! P 51s were not zoom and boomers. they were never designed as such but as long range bomber escorts and down and dirty dogfighters. how do i know this? 2 sources. #1 my father flew one in the war. have the films, have the combat reports, have the stories. none of his 7.5 victories were zoom and boom. #2 this link...all 51 jocks reports..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-reports.html

read through these and tell me how many were Z&B? very, very few. latching onto targets of opportunity...a 190/109 crossing in front of them at the right moment...hell yes. but i would guarantee the same situation was available to russian and LW pilots in the heat of battle. hit and run was used by every country for the initial attack. to ambush...use the element surprise was everyone's tactic....it was after that where the real fighting began. some dove way, some mixed it up. LW pilots adopted this tactic because their main objective was the bombers....fighters werent going to wreak havoc on the motherland...why waste time or risk lives on them?
i will not dispute anything you say about soviet ac but this i will challenge you on and back it up by pilot accounts. the 51 was a mid/high long range altitude bomber escort. but was on par with just about everything at lower levels....again read those reports. the main strategy of LW pilots ( if they didnt bail) was to dive for the deck. a vast number of dogfights ended up well below 5k feet ( actually well below 1k). they might have started at 25 or 30k where the bombers were....but i would say more than half ended up in lower altitudes. the 51 held its own at the lower levels. as for turning....the 51 and all allied pilots knew and were schooled which turn to get the lw ac in. 109s sucked in a left hand turns...probably due to engine torgue, etc. so they tried to coax them into that kind of battle. you will see the term "luftberry"...that is a turning battle where ac are lined up like spokes on a wheel...you will also read where the 51 pilots closed the gap in turning battles with in 1 or 2 cycles. they did this dropping 10 degrees of flaps or slamming the elevator trim wheel to get the edge or flying the ac to the point of a stall. it was stated here where lw pilots were told never to dogfight with yaks below 5k... 'stang pilots were never told not to engage lw ac at any altitude. it was go and get'em... and they did to great success. 51s influence spread across continents as they flew missions from england to land in russia. did any yaks or soviet ac go from the the ussr to england? no, why? the eastern airwar and the western airwar were 2 complete different animals and you can not begin to equate the two. had germany adopted a high altitude ( 25k and above) bomber tactic/strategy russian planes and tactics would have evolved much differently. the ussr was able to use the P 39 to great success where in the western airwar it would have never been a real factor in battle. i will never say the 51 was the best fighter of ww2....i will say for the specific role it played it was. every plane designed had a specific task and arena in which it was intended to compete. its all apple and oranges...the roles of ac...the types of battles...and never shall the twaint meet. nor should they. yaks were yaks and 'stangs were 'stangs and the both did what they were designed to.....

[winny]

I'm not a Russian-o-phile by any means (that's Sov Ace's job!)

My favourite aircraft of that era is the Spit (boring choice I know!)

However I'm happy to accept that the P51-D was the best WWII fighter. The weight of evidence seems to be overwhelming. It was also a very effective fighter bomber in Korea (51-H)

It was half a generation in front of the rest of the WWII aircraft (except at the end when the jets arrived) and it showed.

Will someone hurry up and invent time travel so we can go and get the aces and thier mounts and settle this once and for all!

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Balderz002

I dont want to get burned here, but would I be right in saying one area the Western Allies had an advantage over Russian a/c were the radio comms in the cockpits (early war anyways)?

Most Russian planes through out WW2 didn't have radios. Just like the Japanese didn't. Why? Because they added weight as well, and they wanted to be as maneuverable as possible down at low levels.

Originally Posted by bobbysocks

in a word..NO! P 51s were not zoom and boomers. they were never designed as such but as long range bomber escorts and down and dirty dogfighters. how do i know this? 2 sources. #1 my father flew one in the war. have the films, have the combat reports, have the stories. none of his 7.5 victories were zoom and boom. #2 this link...all 51 jocks reports..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-reports.html

read through these and tell me how many were Z&B? very, very few. latching onto targets of opportunity...a 190/109 crossing in front of them at the right moment...hell yes. but i would guarantee the same situation was available to russian and LW pilots in the heat of battle. hit and run was used by every country for the initial attack. to ambush...use the element surprise was everyone's tactic....it was after that where the real fighting began. some dove way, some mixed it up. LW pilots adopted this tactic because their main objective was the bombers....fighters werent going to wreak havoc on the motherland...why waste time or risk lives on them?
i will not dispute anything you say about soviet ac but this i will challenge you on and back it up by pilot accounts. the 51 was a mid/high long range altitude bomber escort. but was on par with just about everything at lower levels....again read those reports. the main strategy of LW pilots ( if they didnt bail) was to dive for the deck. a vast number of dogfights ended up well below 5k feet ( actually well below 1k). they might have started at 25 or 30k where the bombers were....but i would say more than half ended up in lower altitudes. the 51 held its own at the lower levels. as for turning....the 51 and all allied pilots knew and were schooled which turn to get the lw ac in. 109s sucked in a left hand turns...probably due to engine torgue, etc. so they tried to coax them into that kind of battle. you will see the term "luftberry"...that is a turning battle where ac are lined up like spokes on a wheel...you will also read where the 51 pilots closed the gap in turning battles with in 1 or 2 cycles. they did this dropping 10 degrees of flaps or slamming the elevator trim wheel to get the edge or flying the ac to the point of a stall. it was stated here where lw pilots were told never to dogfight with yaks below 5k... 'stang pilots were never told not to engage lw ac at any altitude. it was go and get'em... and they did to great success. 51s influence spread across continents as they flew missions from england to land in russia. did any yaks or soviet ac go from the the ussr to england? no, why? the eastern airwar and the western airwar were 2 complete different animals and you can not begin to equate the two. had germany adopted a high altitude ( 25k and above) bomber tactic/strategy russian planes and tactics would have evolved much differently. the ussr was able to use the P 39 to great success where in the western airwar it would have never been a real factor in battle. i will never say the 51 was the best fighter of ww2....i will say for the specific role it played it was. every plane designed had a specific task and arena in which it was intended to compete. its all apple and oranges...the roles of ac...the types of battles...and never shall the twaint meet. nor should they. yaks were yaks and 'stangs were 'stangs and the both did what they were designed to.....

You are absolutely correct for the most part, but I merely meant that against low altitude fighters like a Yak or La, the P-51 would be a hit and run plane because there's no way a plane like the P-51 could turn or roll with a Yak or La at their altitudes. There was no way a Mustang could dogfight a Yak or La at low altitudes, and there's not way a Yak or La could dogfight a Mustang at high altitudes. That's all I meant. Up high where the bombers were, yes the P-51 was a turn and burn fighter, but would have to use hit and run tactics against lower level fighters because they couldn't turn as sharp or roll as well as the lower level fighters. A P-51 against a FW-190A or a 109 would have a much better chance against the FW or 109 at lower altitudes because none of those planes are meant for low altitude combat; except for the 190As which early version were quite good against Yaks and La's. And it's not all just about rolling and turning, but also speed. The Yak and La were slower than the P-51; not by much actualy, but they were. They were also lighter than the Mustang, so at lower altitudes, the Mustang would be chewed up by a Yak or La if it didn't do a hit and run tactic. Same goes for the 109s, and that's why German and Axis powers on the Eastern front were told in later '44, not to combat Russian planes under 5-9,000 feet because their planes were so good at the lower altitudes.

Originally Posted by Zeroptimus

Soviet Ace, you do know that they've recently started producing Yak-3's with Allison engines for commercial sale, right? You know, just so you know...there's an air museum in Seattle about to purchase one, and I've been contemplating selling any firstborns I have for one.

Yeah, they've been producing Allison powered Yak-3 for awhile now actually. The one I sat in at Chino this year was Allison powered. But besides the engine, everything looked to be authentic. It's because Yak-11s are really just Yak-3s with a radial engine, and some people grabbed the Yak-11s and started putting Allison engines in them. Also, the reason why they're Allison engines, is because Klimov hasn't built a VK-105PF-2 engine since 1953! Also, don't just sell those firstborns for the plane, I'll help you contact Klimov in Russia, and we'll have them dig out the old VK-105 blueprints and build us one. It'd sound so sweet.