View Single Post
  #42  
Old 04-07-2012, 12:07 PM
6S.Manu 6S.Manu is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Venice - Italy
Posts: 585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor View Post
Here I disagree. The VVS paid a high price for its enormous growth in 1943 and that price was the insanely low training it gave its aircrew. The number of soviet veteran aircrew, while always rather small in comparison to the size of any force, was considerably lower than in other air forces - even at the end of the war. A fresh american or british pilot had more flight hours than a soviet pilot with a few weeks of frontline experience ... and therefor more routine in handling his aircraft.
I agree on the training of these pilots but I think we have to remember that many Western pilots actually didn't see combat over Germany: so they learned the theories of fighting, but could not practice aerial engagements (above all in a "many vs many" environment).

Ok, IL2 it's a game, but I think it can be useful to understand that some types of plane need time to be flown correctly: take Spitfire vs 190 and how a Blue pilot's skill has to evolve to be successful in that fight. If both the pilots have the same low experience who's in advantage there? The pilot in the unforgiving plane has to be patient and unexperienced pilot are not patient at all.

Now translate all with the La-7/Yak3 - P51/P47.
I just can see the guys who attacked Ivan Kozhedub: they had the energy advantage, the positional one and probably could ambush the russian...
__________________

A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
Reply With Quote