Banning Planes

[Marchochias]

The only aircraft that really annoys me online is the IL-2 and its variants. They're just stupidly tough: the 30mm cannon on the BF 109 G-6 destroys a Stuka in one hit, but literally overheated before it was able to kill an IL-2. I come up on the tail so many times, nailing it 5 times more than is necessary to kill any other plane, and yet it just keeps flying. And if it finally does crash, it doesn't count as your kill. Basically broken online.

And of course the rear gun is stupidly overpowered as always. Ironic that a 30 mm gun that would kill a heavy bomber in 2 hits is useless against a IL-2, yet the tiny 7.62mm machine gun in the back of the IL2 can take down a fighter almost instantly, on realistic and simulator. Ridiculous, and it makes strike and capture the airfield modes pointless to fly anything but an IL2 in.

[Pubestien13]

I find it hilarious how alot of player defend russian aircraft and their abilities, when everyone knows they're hardly worth fighting a war with; accept for the late model ones. Other than that the only reason why russian aircraft, like any other russian item of war, is that they're only good in numbers. And another thing that makes myself laugh, is that how people still claim that "boom and zoom" tactics are good in arcade. They may be perfect for realistic, hense the name "realistic", but they're useless a decent amount of the time unless the other player makes a mistake giving you the advantage.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Pubestien13

I find it hilarious how alot of player defend russian aircraft and their abilities, when everyone knows they're hardly worth fighting a war with; accept for the late model ones. Other than that the only reason why russian aircraft, like any other russian item of war, is that they're only good in numbers. And another thing that makes myself laugh, is that how people still claim that "boom and zoom" tactics are good in arcade. They may be perfect for realistic, hense the name "realistic", but they're useless a decent amount of the time unless the other player makes a mistake giving you the advantage.

I beg to differ. Soviet planes, alone or together. Early or late, did well against German 109s and 190s. They were light, fast, and maneuverable. At the hands of a good pilot, a Yak-1 or even a LaGG-3 was a worth foe. And if your having such a problem with them, why not just play in realistic, rather than Arcade? Then you'll have more of a chance at BnZ. Arcade (no offense to anyone who plays Arcade) but Arcade does not improve your flying skills for BoP. Realistic gives you the chance to start having the advantage of what your plane has, and Simulator. Well that gives you plenty of challenge, especially when looking for little I-16s or I-153.

So unless you know anything about the Soviet planes, then I would retract saying that they are not good unless in numbers. Because that statement if truly false. I'm sorry, but I've studied Soviet planes of all types for many years, and know from reports and books, that early Soviet planes were worth of a being a dangerous foe. It was just how the early Soviet flight training was done, that made the pilots not as skilled as they were in mid-1942 and beyond.

[mattmanB182]

But wait a minute here......Werent most of the top aces BF-109 pilots?


Yea there is a Russian near the top, but most were GERMAN.


Fairly...the best fighter of the war is not even in the game. F4U Corsair.

[RubberBoots]

Yeah, until they patch the scoring, people are going to keep crashing or bailing as soon as they get hit, so boom and zoom is still useless. For the time being, stick to other slow, quick turning fighters.

I disagree with the assessment that the I-16 isn't as good in realistic; it continues to be excellent in the hands of a skilled pilot on realistic because everyone keeps fighting below 500 meters, and just circling around each other--this for the reason I have mentioned: the maneuverable bastards will crash (often on purpose) to get a new plane while you zoom away and turn around.

Once that patch goes live, *I will get you, Dredloc!*

-Philosofrenzy

[Swagger7]

Originally Posted by mattmanB182

But wait a minute here......Werent most of the top aces BF-109 pilots?


Yea there is a Russian near the top, but most were GERMAN.


Fairly...the best fighter of the war is not even in the game. F4U Corsair.

There are a couple reasons why that was the case:
First of all, numbers. The Germans spent much of the war with something of a numerical disadvantage, which meant that top German pilots always had a surplus of targets. For example, a P-51 pilot could fly several missions without sighting an enemy fighter, but the Bf-109 pilot would see combat just about every time he took off.

Secondly, time in combat was a factor. Most of the Allied nations had limits on the time a pilot flew in combat. After a certain number of combat hours a pilot would be rotated into an instructor billet or a desk job. At least that's how it was in the US & I think Britain. I'm not sure about the Soviets, though. The Germans didn't do that. There were pilots who flew from the invasion of Poland to the war's end. Erich Hartmann (352 kills, top German ace) had 1404 combat missions, while Richard Bong (top US ace, 40 kills) had only 200. So on average, Bong got one kill every 5 missions, and Hartmann got one kill every 3.99 missions. So, there wasn't that much of a difference, other than time spent in combat. Here's the same breakdown for a few other aces: (Sorry about the weird lines, it wouldn't display properly otherwise.)

Ace________________Country_________Kills*____Comba t______Missions/
___________________________________________Mission s______Kill

Günther Rall_________Germany_________275_____621_________2 .26

Adolf Galland________Germany_________104_____705________ _6.78

Ilmari Juutilainen_____Finland___________94______437_____ ___4.65

Saburo Sakai________Japan____________64______200________3 .13

Ivan Kozhedub_______USSR____________62______330________ 5.32

*Source: Wikipedia & various articles. Many of the exact kill counts are disputed, so it's a little open to interpretation. Also, different sides used different standards for counting shared kills, etc, which I didn't take into effect.

Don't take this as me trying to say Ace X is better than Ace Y. There are way too many variables involved for that. It's just meant to show how some aces might have had much higher scores if they'd been able to fly more missions.

Sorry for not including any RAF pilots, but I had a hell of a time trying to find their numbers of combat missions flown. This whole subject was a very interesting thing to look into, so I might have to do some real research on this in the future.......

[mattd27]

I disagree about the Soviet planes. They are not worthless, yes they can be taken down, but my I-153 will take you down if you ever try to out turn it. If you come down on it with a faster plane though, it's easy prey.

Really, it's all a balance, all the planes have their advantages and disadvantages. It's about using those to your advantage.

[xX-SiLeNcE-Xx]

The Soviet planes are like tanks =P I can take multiple shots and still fly close to normally, but the spitfire on the other hand...

[Pubestien13]

I will never understand Soviet Ace's obsession with soviet aircraft. Stop being biest. In the European theater the kill ratios speak for themselves and they favor other planes more than russian. I'm not doubting that russia came up with some good fighters. And nobody can say that any peice of russian war equipment isn't good unless in numbers. I'm sorry but that's what they've done in the past and forever will do, that's just the way they think. Just look at their tanks and sheer amounts of AK's, but thats besides the point.

And I'm sure if there weren't rotation's of U.S. pilots their kill ratio's would be alot higher, but Swagger7 has a point on the target rich environment.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Pubestien13

I will never understand Soviet Ace's obsession with soviet aircraft. Stop being biest. In the European theater the kill ratios speak for themselves and they favor other planes more than russian. I'm not doubting that russia came up with some good fighters. And nobody can say that any peice of russian war equipment isn't good unless in numbers. I'm sorry but that's what they've done in the past and forever will do, that's just the way they think. Just look at their tanks and sheer amounts of AK's, but thats besides the point.

And I'm sure if there weren't rotation's of U.S. pilots their kill ratio's would be alot higher, but Swagger7 has a point on the target rich environment.

Well if you know anything about Soviet Planes. You'll know about a specific dogfight that was HUGE on the Eastern Front in 1944. A small squadron of Yak-3s were doing a small patrol (5 or 6 about) and were bounced by at least 10 or 12 190s. The dogfight gradually erupted into 18 190s against 12 Yak-3s and guess who won? Yak-3s. They lost two fights against the seven 190s they downed.

And the reason I'm interested in Soviet Planes is because to me, the Soviets built some of the best TnB fighters of the War. I'm naturally drawn to low-medium altitude fighters. And the Soviets provide me with that. I also enjoy many Japanese planes as well. Their light armor and fast pace, have always made me enjoy learning about them. So saying I am biased is way off. Enjoying one group of planes over another, is not being biased if you do accept that some planes can out do yours. But compared to German planes, many Soviet planes prevailed in low-medium altitudes better. And you do know that in 1941, when Russia was blitzed, that German planes (Me110s etc.) attacked the air fields first, and destroyed many Soviet planes before they could get off the ground. But by 1942, many Soviet pilot training groups had a complete overhaul, and many Soviet pilots began racking up the kills.

Take Stalingrad for example. Many of the pilots over Stalingrad were guess what? Women! That's right, most Soviet pilots flying over Stalingrad were women. And they racked up enough kills, even over their own loss numbers to have air superiority over the city. Leningrad was a standstill, and mostly because the LaGG and MiG factories were closer to Leningrad than say Stalingrad.

Me being biased, is nothing different than anyone else. Some on here favor the Spitfire (David603), and some enjoy the Hurricane (FOZ). They both always talk about the Spitfire or Hurricane any chance they get. Sorry to drag you both into this, but you understand what I mean.