Author Topic: Was The La7 Really That Good???? (Read 2109 times)

28sweep · « **on:** November 13, 2001, 08:42:00 AM »

It seems to me that the La7 is the best non-perk fighter in the game (just an opinion). Is it modeled right?? Was it really that good?? I took a lot of electives in college like –WWII history, History of Warfare etc. and all of the Profs. hardly mentioned the Russian planes in their lectures. When they did, they basically said that their planes where just “average” or even below average in some cases. They all seem to emphasize British, U.S., and German planes. These guys had Phd’s and studied that stuff for a living. Who’s right and who’s wrong????? Also, all of the general reading material I pick up and read seems to reinforce this idea. Many of these books hardly mention any of the Russian planes (they are almost always published here in the U.S.). Is their an unfair bias in the U.S. against the Russian contribution to the air war in WWII or is it (La7) modeled wrong (or am I wrong and it isn’t that good).

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** November 13, 2001, 08:45:00 AM »

It used to make FW190 pilots crap in their flight suits. The LA7 in AH is very good, and makes an avg. pilot that much better due to its speed under 20k, where most fights occur.

"Anytime you can engage, and disengage the enemy at will, you have won 1/2 the fight.."

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]

Tac · « **Reply #2 on:** November 13, 2001, 09:29:00 AM »

You may also take into consideration that in the war the dogfights usually started above 25k...where the La-7 is not really that good. But once its below 15k, the la7 becomes a monster.

Your profs. may also be excluding them because they may not have been exposed to it much. USSR lost a LOT of planes vs the Luftwaffe... heck, I think saying a LOT is too little. They lost HORDES. Maybe they were telling you about statistics? I dunno.

You just wait till HTC makes the damage model to DAMAGE parts instead of them being a-ok or ripped out and the la7 will lose half of its power. Right now an la7 takes more bullets to kill than a b17.

Frost · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2001, 10:11:00 AM »

A couple people now have said how tough the La7 is to kill. I have flown it quite a bit and have found it to be an average (maybe less than average) aircraft in terms of toughness. I can take way more damage in F6Fs and F4Us than in an La7. They also go down pretty easy for me when I am firing on them.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2001, 10:25:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frost:
I can take way more damage in F6Fs and F4Us than in an La7.

I tend to agree with this.

Urchin · « **Reply #5 on:** November 13, 2001, 10:38:00 AM »

I'd agree that the F6F is hard to damage, F4U's go down pretty easy in my opinion.

Oh, and yes, apparently the La7 WAS that good. Most Westerners have never heard of it probably because of the Cold War, and the emphasis on the ground war on the Eastern Front.

Dowding · « **Reply #6 on:** November 13, 2001, 11:05:00 AM »

Hell, the La-5FN was as good as its LW contemporaries. The La-7 was pretty phenomenal.

The early war VVS planes were all pretty poor, however.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #7 on:** November 13, 2001, 11:16:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding:
Hell, the La-5FN was as good as its LW contemporaries. The La-7 was pretty phenomenal.

The early war VVS planes were all pretty poor, however.

And its quite amazing how good the LA-5 is here too, yet few fly it. Granted, it can't run with the big dogs, but if the big dogs turn and fight, the LA-5 is a great plane!

28sweep · « **Reply #8 on:** November 13, 2001, 11:45:00 AM »

I agree that we are victims of cold war propaganda to some extent. Even our schools seem to be neglecting the Russian contribution in the air war. I mean it just seems like nobody-even “educated” people in the West give the Russians their due credit.

Kratzer · « **Reply #9 on:** November 13, 2001, 12:37:00 PM »

Training plays a huge role in this equation as well - early war, especially, Russian fighter training wasn't too hot. The La7 is a complete badass - combine that with AH pilots with thousands of combat hours, and it is a real pain in my ass!

Kratzer · « **Reply #10 on:** November 13, 2001, 12:38:00 PM »

Oh, and they are damned small, which makes them hard to hit!

28sweep · « **Reply #11 on:** November 13, 2001, 12:56:00 PM »

You know I remember telling my Profs. about how I admired some the L.W. pilots for racking up such large kill numbers on the Eastern front. He laughed and said look at the Russian Junk they were up against!!!! No credit man-non at all…….

funkedup · « **Reply #12 on:** November 13, 2001, 01:02:00 PM »

Quote

in the war the dogfights usually started above 25k

Tac, that's false, and especially false on the Eastern Front.

I think only P-38 weenies had dogfights up that high.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Wotan · « **Reply #13 on:** November 13, 2001, 01:10:00 PM »

tac eastern front was lo air battles. Hell even the stukas came in lo.

Tac · « **Reply #14 on:** November 13, 2001, 01:30:00 PM »

thats why I said "in the war" meaning all theaters. His profs. may be comparing Pac and Euro theater fights as their comparison guides. How high do you think the 109's were when they jumped the la7? *G*

I disagree with the toughness on the la7. The F6F IS a damn bloated flying tank, and that plane WAS extremely rugged. The F4U is very easy to kill. Every time I fly the La7 in AH it takes either a HO or a boatload of cannon to even HURT me. Last tour I even talked with a 190 pilot that had fired ...and fired...and fired on me (along with a n1k and 50cal/20mm spit) and hit me a lot in mindanao near A3. He was using the 4 20mm loadouts. Now, how an la7 eats THAT much cannon from a 190, 20mm's from a n1k and 50cal and 20mm from a spit and only losing a flap (and this fight lasted nearly 10 minutes with them on my 6 the whole time)... is beyond me.