Heavy Lend-Lease Bias in Eastern European Setups

[artik]

I had noticed a strong bias towards Lend-Lease fighters in Eastern European Setups.

For example:

FSO Last Battle of Kharkov (August 1943):

21   La-5FN
42   Yak-9T

26   P-39D
40   P-39Q

Soviet Total: 63  =~ 49%
Lend Lease Total:   66 =~ 51%


FSO Clash at Kursk frame 1 (Feb 1943)

30   Yak-9U
21   La-5FN

47   P-40N
30   P-39Q

Soviet Total: 51 =~ 43%
Lend Lease Total:   67 =~ 57%


FSO Battle of Crimea (1944):

La-5FN   20
Yak-9T   23

P-39Q   41
P-40N   40

Soviet Total: 43 =~ 35%
Lend Lease Total: 81 =~ 65%


Historical Data

According to the FSO (and actually many other events) the vast majority of VVS were US build lend-lease planes - which isn't historically correct.
Although they were important part of VVS, especially in the early period, they were never the majority but rather minor part of the VVS of between 10 to 20% depending on the period.

On the other hand, I-16 that were still operational are missing.

Although it isn't easy to find an accurate data, but for example this thread shows the data about Kursk:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,360662.msg4790020.html#msg4790020

From the table in the thread you can clearly see the situation.

Bottom Line

If I was flying at AH SEA and wasn't actually learned some history I'd thought that Soviets won the war using US equipment 

[Lusche]

According to the FSO (and actually many other events) the vast majority of VVS were US build lend-lease planes - which isn't historically correct.

I have never seen "FSO" making such a claim. All special events just try to make the most with the planeset available. There has also been heavy usage of "stand ins" in non VVS scenarios, many non existing 'western' planes were substituted by anything that came close to it's performance for example. We had Panzer IVs available to western allied forces when all we had in AH were the T-34/76, Panzer IV and Tiger I.

If I was flying at AH SEA and wasn't actually learned some history I'd thought that Soviets won the war using US equipment 

And probably you would also think that WW2 was fought by three alliances called Bishops, Knights and Rooks 

[Nefarious]

Lusche is right..we're just making do with what we have. You also left off Novembers Stalingrad event, which saw the first use of the Yak-7 in FSO. The next FSO is GPW as well and should be more Soviet than ever with the main Soviet fighter being the Yak-7.

[artik]

...You also left off Novembers Stalingrad event, which saw the first use of the Yak-7 in FSO...

Yes I see 1st frame stats,

Yak-7B   50
I-16   28
P-39D   26
P-40F   23

Soviet: 78 =~ 61%
Lend-Lease 49 =~ 39%


Indeed... 7B was missing. Hopefully we will see Yak-1 and LaGG-3 in some future.

[artik]

Skuzzy...

It wasn't about FSO... it was about SEA in general. Also it is clearly seen on FSO as there are many players and frequent Eastern setups.

As I mentioned before, the same problem in other events.

For example Stalingrad TDI WW2

Yak-7B   17
I-16   7
La-5   2
Total   26 Soviet

P-40   5
P-39   17
Hurri   24
Total:   46 Lend Lease


It is something in the "mood" of organizers and even more - players - and this with Yak-7

[captain1ma]

isnt it as much about fun as it is historical accuracy, and a balance thereof? substitute where necessary, use what you have to work with and fun shall be had by all?

[Karnak]

Probably boils down to American players preferring to fly American aircraft and given that American aircraft were available, picking them over the Soviet aircraft.

[artik]

isnt it as much about fun as it is historical accuracy, and a balance thereof?

Yes the balance is very important.

But today with the Yak-7b there is no reason to give a "high share" of P-39 and especially P-40s for the balance purpose.

Yak-7 is faster than P-40F and climbs much better. In comparison with P-39D they are quite close, while Yak-7b being slightly faster.Also Yak-7b is still little bit inferior to 109F and better that 109E.

I think Yak-7b is perfect for Eastern Setups significantly reducing a need of P-40s and P-39s.

So today in terms of balance I don't think we need to have "too many" lend-lease planes and keep them about 15% as they were historically. Before the Yak-7 was introduced, it was indeed a need of P-39s and P-40s.

Probably boils down to American players preferring to fly American aircraft and given that American aircraft were available, picking them over the Soviet aircraft.

I think it is one of the major factor as well especially when most of special events are played in US friendly time zone.

[Shifty]

Probably boils down to American players preferring to fly American aircraft and given that American aircraft were available, picking them over the Soviet aircraft.

I don't see that as being the case in FSOs. If it was you'd have a hard time filling the Axis side each month.

May's FSO will be a first where there are two actual Soviet fighters and two actual Soviet attack/bomber aircraft that I know of. It's happening because at long last there are that many Soviet types to choose from. Designers have had to make do for a long time using lend lease types to fill ETO setups. Things are getting better for them now and the results will start showing. Plus the P-40 is still a suitable sub for some of the early war LaGGs and Migs.

[Squire]

Im only speaking of FSO.

We use what we have.

As far as the total proportion of Lend-Lease to Domestic types that % was not a constant. In depended on the region of the Eastern Front and the time of the war. Lend Lease types were not some ultra rare aspect of Soviet military aviation in WW2.

[Bino]

The May FSO should see lots of Yak-7s flying.

[perdue3]

I believe that until we see a Yak-1, LaGG-3 or MiG-3 you will continue to see many lend lease. Once one of those 3 come, the ratioof American/British to Russian will start to considerably favor the Soviets.