Let's Play: IL-2 Sturmovik

[Warsaw]

You really shouldn't praise the in-game planes when only testing against the AI. Everybody knows the AI in the game is a joke and has to rely on cheats such as no overheat, zero Gs, and player inexperience in order to actually pose any threat at all. I mean, I could say "P-40; holy shit" because I bring down 109Fs, 190 A6s, and fancy new Italian planes with it all the time...but we all know that it's not the best plane to grace the war.

B&Z is the safer and smarter way to fight. You are at much less risk because you have both the speed and altitude advantages; that means you can decide when the fight begins and when it ends because your opponent can't hope to catch you unless you were at a serious technological disadvantage in the first place; a Yak-3 is NOT going to catch a 109 that has altitude advantage and is running away in a shallow dive. I never enter into turn battles. It's stupid. That's why I prefer the LA-series and MiG-3; they are much better suited to B&Z than the Yak...especially the LA with its dual 20mm. Drop in, quick shot to the wing or engine, and you are finished. That's also why I generally hate American fighters (fucking anemic .50s) and why I think the German mentality in the design of their planes is generally superior. Unfortunately for them, they also had a bad habit of engineering to a fault and Hitler's shitty choices prevented them from having the resources necessary to sustain their precision-engineered equipment.

Also...it's a 1944 aircraft versus a 1937 one...and if we want to "play fair" and call out earliest versions, it's still a 1941 design versus a 1935 one. The Yak is an admirable aircraft, but it doesn't really deserve "God Plane" status, which you seem to be really liberal in doling out.

[rossmum]

I'm not praising them based on AI test alone. The I-185 held up online just as well as it did against AI and I was downing 1943 and 44 G-model 109s with a 1942 experimental. I have claimed at least one P-51 in it, I think I got a 190 the other day, and since I started counting the I-185 alone has claimed 21 player-flown aircraft of all types, mostly single-engined fighters at or later than its own service period. The Spit... is the Spit, everyone knows it turns well and handles nicely. The La-5 and La-7 are popular in MP for a reason. The Yak-3 ingame will climb like a homesick angel. A player or an AI will not make a difference, it simply does not lose energy in the climb in any meaningful amount. Once I get a better feel for it, I will be taking it online, and I fully expect it to eat 190s for breakfast.

As it is, historically speaking, the Yak-3 swept all before it from the skies and in the opening stages of the Lvov offensive, it wiped the floor with 109s and 190s so badly the Luftwaffe in the evaluation squadron's sector was barely seen for the next several days. In one of the more impressive fights, 18 Yaks went up against a mixed group of 24 Luftwaffe fighters and tactical bombers, and ended up claiming 15 109s and 190s for 1 Yak down and another badly damaged. An order was issued forbidding German pilots, regardless of aircraft, from attacking Yak-3s below 5,000m/15,000ft. There is no doubt it was one of the best fighters of the war, and the French were stoked as all hell that the Normandie-Niemen pilots brought theirs back. 1,700HP in a 4,000lb aircraft... yeah.

B&Z:

You have the advantage as long as you are not seen. As soon as you are, the turn fighter will just throw himself around, forcing you to make repeated futile attacks or just give up. It's great as long as you have the element of surprise, sure, but I don't see much point after that.

The Yak will not catch the 109 (or most anything, for that matter) in a shallow dive, you're right. It's too light. The problem is that the 109 then has to either run, defeating the purpose of attacking in the first place, or resume his perch on high. The moment he starts climbing, if that Yak is anywhere nearby, he is boned.

Earliest version of the Yak is 1940 for service entry, earlier for development. 190 was late '41 or early '42 entry, can't remember which, and trying to use the 'oh a 109G is the same as a 109B' is ridiculous. A 1944 Yak-3 will beat a 1944 Bf109G-pick a variant or a 1944 Fw190A/F/D below 15,000 feet. Don't try and make out like the Yak has some kind of mystical advantage over the German planes beyond being far more agile, because it doesn't.

When it comes to 'god plane' status... I could (and in fact, will) say the same about German aircraft. They are severely overrated while Soviet aircraft are just assumed to be either junk or copies of German or American designs. Neither are true. The Yak-3 was a legitimately superb design and it is hard to argue with an order given out by the Luftwaffe itself - under 15,000ft it basically granted immediate air superiority just by virtue of the Germans knowing it was there, and the Soviets only needed air superiority at low level.

[Warsaw]

I'm not saying all German aircraft should be god planes. I'm not even calling anything a god-plane, or being blown away by the performance of anything; I would actually say that the Romanian IAR.80/81 series and Soviet I-16 don't get enough credit. I'm merely stating that the planes in the game all handle rather similarly within their introduction zone if you know what you're doing...except the P-51D, which will snap-roll every time you try do do anything remotely strenuous. Give me a P-47 please. I'm also not saying that the Yak-3 was crap, just that it's A.) not an entirely fair comparison and B.) that planes don't receive "god-plane" status simply because they have good characteristics that get proven in a simulator game where the simulation is only 94% accurate on a good day.

A.) The basic air-frame of the 109 is 1935, and it was designed to pre-war specifications based on experiences from the previous conflict. The 109K is just the final evolution; a refined version of the DB.600 series engine it got with the Emil (1938) some slightly cleaner lines on the engine cowling (kind of negated with the 13mm MG bulges), a taller tail, and a Motorkanone. And even still, the Yak-1 is a 1939-spec design; 1940 is when the I-26-I prototype first flew, not just a service entry date. That's still 4 years younger than the Bf.109, which incidentally was designed to a 1933 spec. No matter how you cut it, the Bf.109 is an older design and is more or less completely intact, the absolute largest change being the use of a different engine starting with the Emil...which consequently is the first war-time variant. Generally, I don't consider an engine swap to be the same aircraft any more because engine swaps usually result in major redesigns of the front and back ends of the plane, but since the Emil had that switch to the DB.600 series pre-war, it's a moot point.

B.) You are trying your hardest to tear down a fighter (sorry, fighters, because you're doing it to every single popular one...they are popular for a reason) that actually outperformed the one you are championing as far as war-time service is concerned but you aren't acknowledging any merits of the competition and you're being oblivious to the obvious. It receives "god-plane" status from so many because it was in use from the invasion of Poland to VE day in pretty much the same form, and miraculously the shape of the plane between the D and the E is also near-identical if you want to count planes between engine-type changes. There was nothing radically different between the Emil and the Kurfurst unless you want to start calling the use of 100-octane fuel (which wasn't even in regular supply) and a highly-tuned engine a major air-frame alteration, too. That would be like saying a an LT-1 and LT-4 engine are radically radically different and saying the LT-4 is not a Corvette because of that and because they added some rear fender flares.
Similar story goes for the Spitfire, plus the added glory of the Battle of Britain (which was actually heavy-lifted by the Hurricane). The P-51, because it enabled round-trip fighter cover for the day-time bombing raids which helped speed up Germany's demise. The B-17, because it actually carried out said raids. The P-47, because it was the USA's first good fighter and because it had a reputation for getting its pilots home alive. The Corsair, because it really was the best damn fighter over the Pacific even though it hardly saw any use (the F6F is the real hero) aboard carrier. The La-5 (and 7), because it bore the brunt of combat alongside the Yak but also because it closed the performance gap with Germany much better than the Yak did.

As for B&Z: what do I care if I lose the element of surprise when my objective is not to attack you (which is only going to happen in an online DM)? If my bombers are up here, you have to come to me. My job is done if I can keep you tied up long enough to let the bombers reach their target. If I'm supposed to be hitting a train or other ground target, I'm faster than you in a dive anyways and you can't catch me. I'll drop my payload and then zoom back home because I already have more momentum than you...and while you are trying to get at me the planes up above are going to be covering, so you have them to worry about, too. These are problems that the Soviets did in fact have to deal with. Germans were told not engage the Yaks because they knew they could get away with their mission better by blowing right past them...it was the La-5FN and La-7 that could actually catch the 109s and 190s that were performing hit-and-run raids against ground targets. Those Germans foolish or ignorant enough to attack said Yaks paid for it. And it doesn't matter if you don't bleed energy as much in a climb when you had less to begin with. That only matters if you are within the same horizontal plane (ha!) and he's trying to climb to get away...which is really stupid on his part when he has the superior dive and even more retarded if he let himself get forced low enough to the point where he can't dive. Besides, you herk and jerk enough and you bleed your energy. All I have to do is keep buzzing you until you get too low to keep doing that, or wait for you to move in just the right pattern that I can get my shot. Scissors won't help you, and if I see myself gaining too quickly I'm just going to pull up sooner so you can't get a shot at my tail.

No matter how you cut it, B&Z is superior and turning is retarded. Turning is a defensive measure that lets you go on the offensive, but only if your opponent decides to start turning with you. A fighter's job isn't to kill other fighters, it's to protect his own attack craft or take out enemy attack craft. All he has to do is prevent you from performing your interceptor role. Lose track of that objective, and you're meat.

[rossmum]

I would actually say that the Romanian IAR.80/81 series

Yes. Rad plane.

and Soviet I-16

Anyone who knows literally the first thing about aviation is well aware this is one of the greatest fighters of its era, so I don't know if I would call it underrated - at least not by people who count.

I'm merely stating that the planes in the game all handle rather similarly within their introduction zone if you know what you're doing...except the P-51D, which will snap-roll every time you try do do anything remotely strenuous. Give me a P-47 please.

Not true. The P-51 is actually nowhere near as bad as many of the other 'main' types, I find, and in particular the 190 becomes a fucking nightmare at any serious altitude.

I'm also not saying that the Yak-3 was crap, just that it's A.) not an entirely fair comparison and B.) that planes don't receive "god-plane" status simply because they have good characteristics that get proven in a simulator game where the simulation is only 94% accurate on a good day.

A) is patently false, I'll go into this more later. B) is also rather questionable, as it was historically a superb aircraft and historically raped anything stupid enough to come down and play. At any rate, both in the game and out of it, the Yak-3 is certainly one of the best fighters going.

*attempts to justify calling a 1944 Yak to 1944 109 comparison unfair*

How does this make any sense? There is no substantially different technology or construction method employed in the Yak series that the 109 either did not, or could not receive as it was upgraded. Implying that a 109K-4 is 'more or less' a 109B or E with some tiny changes is a load of shit, and just as ridiculous as calling a Spit Mk.22 the same plane as K5054. It's not. The most basic aspects of the airframe are the same, but the powerplant is totally different, armament is different, the wing is different, the tail is different, and in the case of the really late 109s, they don't even use the same fuel. Trying to argue that the 109's airframe itself somehow puts it at a disadvantage is ignorant. There was nothing stopping Willy Messerschmitt from building his plane as light as possible, but he didn't, and so the 109 is outperformed by the featherweight Yak-3. Most Yak types weren't even all-metal - in fact, very few Soviet fighters were. Arguing the Soviets had some kind of technical edge is pure horseshit, because almost universally during the war, their technology lagged severely behind the Germans. Technology and design philosophy are not interchangeable, by the way, so the Germans wanting to build light tanks at first and then fuckoff monsters at the end versus the Soviet medium tanks doesn't count - nor do differences in aircraft design.

The Bf109 was designed as an air superiority fighter and then got lumped with every other task the Germans wanted it to do. The Yak avoided the same because the Soviets realised doing that was really, really stupid. That is smart thinking, not an 'unfair advantage'. I would say comparing a 1944 Yak-3 to a 1942 or 43 109 is unfair. I would say comparing a 1945 Yak to a 1944 109 would be. Comparing two aircraft in the same role, from the same year, which have been developed more or less at a parallel rate, is perfectly fair and if you disagree I hesitate to ask whether you think comparing a Spit XIVc to a 190F is unfair, since the Spitfire is considerably older.

B.) You are trying your hardest to tear down a fighter (sorry, fighters, because you're doing it to every single popular one...they are popular for a reason) that actually outperformed the one you are championing as far as war-time service is concerned

Sorry? The figures I've seen suggest very differently. I also don't recall ever saying that German planes are 'crap', I just said that they were outclassed below 15,000 feet, which is demonstrably true since the Luftwaffe took measures to prevent their own pilots engaging below that altitude. I don't see why they would do that if their fighters were outperforming the Yak-3.

...but you aren't acknowledging any merits of the competition and you're being oblivious to the obvious. It receives "god-plane" status from so many because it was in use from the invasion of Poland to VE day in pretty much the same form

Not the same form at all. Same foundation, yes, but if you honestly believe even a 109E-4 is 'pretty much the same' mechanically and aerodynamically speaking, then welp. I certainly don't go around saying anything about the Spit going through the war in 'the same form' because I know that to be complete horseshit.

and miraculously the shape of the plane between the D and the E is also near-identical if you want to count planes between engine-type changes.

In what universe is maintaining a similar (I would not call it 'near-identical') silhouette somehow enough to balance out the entire power plant being changed on the 'same form' scale?

There was nothing radically different between the Emil and the Kurfurst unless you want to start calling the use of 100-octane fuel (which wasn't even in regular supply) and a highly-tuned engine a major air-frame alteration, too. That would be like saying a an LT-1 and LT-4 engine are radically radically different and saying the LT-4 is not a Corvette because of that and because they added some rear fender flares.

Load of shit. The entire front end of the aircraft was streamlined drastically, as was the tail. The wings were changed. The materials changed, towards the end, with wooden tails becoming a thing. That's a pretty fucking major airframe change. And yes, for the record, I would consider a hotrod engine running off of C3 fuel a major alteration.

Similar story goes for the Spitfire, plus the added glory of the Battle of Britain (which was actually heavy-lifted by the Hurricane).

The Spitfire that ended the war didn't even have the same elliptical wing, you know, that thing which defined the aircraft.

The P-51, because it enabled round-trip fighter cover for the day-time bombing raids which helped speed up Germany's demise. The B-17, because it actually carried out said raids. The P-47, because it was the USA's first good fighter and because it had a reputation for getting its pilots home alive. The Corsair, because it really was the best damn fighter over the Pacific even though it hardly saw any use (the F6F is the real hero) aboard carrier. The La-5 (and 7), because it bore the brunt of combat alongside the Yak but also because it closed the performance gap with Germany much better than the Yak did.

I don't recall calling any or all of those crap, and I have no idea why you are even bringing them up?

As for B&Z: what do I care if I lose the element of surprise when my objective is not to attack you (which is only going to happen in an online DM)? If my bombers are up here, you have to come to me.

Well that'd only work as a P-51 I guess, unless they add the He177 (and even then, lol at the thought)

My job is done if I can keep you tied up long enough to let the bombers reach their target. If I'm supposed to be hitting a train or other ground target, I'm faster than you in a dive anyways and you can't catch me. I'll drop my payload and then zoom back home because I already have more momentum than you...and while you are trying to get at me the planes up above are going to be covering, so you have them to worry about, too.

That's all perfectly reasonable, but get this: historically speaking and in terms of my usual MP behaviour as well, I could fill the Pacific Ocean with all the fucks I don't give about what you're doing up in that weird place above the clouds. I am happy to hang around down in the weeds and murder the shit out of anything stupid enough to come down and tangle with me, and in the highly unlikely event something scarier than me appears (impossible in a 1944-45 Eastern Front scenario, the Germans never brought up a solution to the Soviets' agility at low-level late in the war, and unlikely in MP unless it's another Yak, a Spit, or a Lavochkin) I can just dive into a valley and hide.

Sure, you can make tip-and-run adventures down into my realm, but if you stay any longer than it takes you to get off a quick burst or dump a bomb, you're in trouble.

These are problems that the Soviets did in fact have to deal with. Germans were told not engage the Yaks because they knew they could get away with their mission better by blowing right past them...it was the La-5FN and La-7 that could actually catch the 109s and 190s that were performing hit-and-run raids against ground targets. Those Germans foolish or ignorant enough to attack said Yaks paid for it. And it doesn't matter if you don't bleed energy as much in a climb when you had less to begin with. That only matters if you are within the same horizontal plane (ha!) and he's trying to climb to get away...which is really stupid on his part when he has the superior dive and even more retarded if he let himself get forced low enough to the point where he can't dive. Besides, you herk and jerk enough and you bleed your energy. All I have to do is keep buzzing you until you get too low to keep doing that, or wait for you to move in just the right pattern that I can get my shot. Scissors won't help you, and if I see myself gaining too quickly I'm just going to pull up sooner so you can't get a shot at my tail.

No matter how you cut it, B&Z is superior and turning is retarded. Turning is a defensive measure that lets you go on the offensive, but only if your opponent decides to start turning with you. A fighter's job isn't to kill other fighters, it's to protect his own attack craft or take out enemy attack craft. All he has to do is prevent you from performing your interceptor role. Lose track of that objective, and you're meat.

And yet the big scary B&Z Luftwaffe dared not descend below 15,000 feet to fuck with Yaks. Can't really disrupt enemy fighters if you're not allowed to even approach them.

Meanwhile, the only air superiority that actually matters worth a fuck in tactical terms - 15,000 and below - is free for the Soviets to fill with Il-2s. The German fighters were a lot better suited to the defence of German airspace than they were fucking with tactical stuff, because by 1943 they were no longer the biggest kids in the yard.

Call turning 'retarded' all you want, because if you get stuck in a situation where you need to turn, you're hosed. I've had considerable success online losing people by going to ground and flying like a madman, because pubbie B&Z types are fucking terrified of the ground and will leave me alone if I get far enough below the treeline. In the I-185 it meant I could go hunt somewhere else, but I can't wait to see what happens when I take the Yak on and climb right back up there whenever I feel like it.

In short, you're taking offence at things I never even said, you're implying things on my behalf which are either wrong or very far off, your argument about the Yak somehow being at an unfair advantage to the 109 is quite possibly the biggest load of wishful-thinking bollocks I have ever seen used to try and explain why it was outclassed, and B&Z is a fine tactic for being an annoyance and shooting down bombers but absolutely shit if your task is something like, oh I don't know, a fighter sweep. You know, pretty much the main offensive operation flown by fighters in WWII.

[rossmum]

Double post since that one got super long and spergy... I fully don't get why you're being so defensive. I am not shitting on German planes, nor anyone else's. I am stating the following:

• I don't like B&Z as a means of engaging other fighters. Personal opinion. I am bad at B&Z, so that is probably colouring my opinion of it somewhat, but I also don't really take to it on a theoretical level.
• I like the way the Yak-3 handles. It is easy to fly, and exceptionally agile. I find myself pulling moves I used to think were impossible in the heavier fighters, be they German, British, or American.
• The Yak-3 was superior to anything Germany could field at low level, which is where air superiority mattered in the east. Historical fact, supported not just by the kill/loss rates but also by the orders the OKL put out.

That's it. I'm treating the Yak-3 like a god plane because at low level, it basically was. I'm not saying anything negative about the German fighters, which I would not even think about stepping to above 15,000 feet, but below that magical demarcation line, they weren't the Scariest Thing any more.

No need to go off on tangents about development cycles or Mustangs or whatever the fuck, dude.

PS - for a truly underrated fighter, look no further than the P-39 and descendants.

[rossmum]