Why no love for the Yak7b?

[Devil 505]

I'm curious as to why the Allies only saw the need to take 17 Yak-7's over the course of the month. In my opinion, the Yak was the best plane for the Allies, yet so few were used. I understand taking many C.2's in frame 1 when the cannons were allowed to be taken, but once that issue was solved for frames 2 and 3 the C.2 was still used in great numbers despite lacking firepower. Was this planned for by the CiC's or were Allied squads given freedom to choose their plane?

[Vulcan]

Nef promised me Yaks when 412th switched to Allied, I was very disappointed.

[whiteman]

Orders said minimum of 12 c205’s, each squad only allowed 2 plane types. Orders seemed to be followed to me.

Edit: our squad took Yaks first frame. We were trolling around as slow as we could to save fuel, by the time bombers showed up we were nearly empty. Wasn’t worth the trouble and we took P40’s the next 2 frames.

[Devil 505]

Orders said minimum of 12 c205’s, each squad only allowed 2 plane types. Orders seemed to be followed to me.

Yes, the rules were followed just fine. No worries there. I just want to better understand the Allied mindset when it came to plane selection.

Edit: our squad took Yaks first frame. We were trolling around as slow as we could to save fuel, by the time bombers showed up we were nearly empty. Wasn’t worth the trouble and we took P40’s the next 2 frames.
[/quote]

Ok. This is good info. Thanks.

I'm hoping the CiC's will chime in so I can get a sense of the grand scheme of things.

[nooby52]

Given the restrictions on the allied plane set this last FSO, the P40E served VF-17 very well for 2 frames. I actually felt a modicum of confidence in the aircraft.

[Dantoo]

Well I might have accidentally loaded up Yaks in the last frame despite being officially allocated something else. 

(None were allocated at all in the orders.  As a VVS squad this may have been too much to bear or it might have been caused by something else.  We'll never know.)   

We did ok.

The longer term problem remains the concept of shoe-horning western front battles and concepts in to the eastern front war.  The planes become misfits because they have to be used in ways that they weren't designed for.  Instead of short, fast, high speed turnaround, positioned at the front in support of a battle group; we use them in medium range escort duty. 

It's hard to make that work.  They don't carry the fuel or the gun loadout for that job.   Until the arrival of P47 and the P51 the Allies had the same problems in the West.

I continue to push for lower fuel burn rate in Eastern Front setups for as long as we continue to script these types of escorted bomber scenarios.  Sometimes the planes can quite easily be flown in a way to meet range and endurance issues, but since most players don't use these aircraft types anywhere but FSO they remain quite wary of them.   I've way too often seen escort fighters sitting on the ground at frame start because the squad that has VVS gear genuinely believe they won't make it there and back.  They will let their bombers go without escort simply because of fuel shortage perceptions.

That isn't a recipe for anybody's perception of a good time.

[LCADolby]

Not all that long ago ,I remember a particular VVS group going against CiC orders by not linking up their bombers with their escorts. Leaving their escorts to go on the planned direct mission route alone, while the VVS bomber group went on a dogleg banana super secret snake wiggle for reasons. Now I'm not saying it is, but it feels awfully pre-meditated for a discussion like this for reasons. 

[perdue3]

Well I might have accidentally loaded up Yaks in the last frame despite being officially allocated something else. 

(None were allocated at all in the orders.  As a VVS squad this may have been too much to bear or it might have been caused by something else.  We'll never know.)   

We did ok.

The longer term problem remains the concept of shoe-horning western front battles and concepts in to the eastern front war.  The planes become misfits because they have to be used in ways that they weren't designed for.  Instead of short, fast, high speed turnaround, positioned at the front in support of a battle group; we use them in medium range escort duty. 

It's hard to make that work.  They don't carry the fuel or the gun loadout for that job.   Until the arrival of P47 and the P51 the Allies had the same problems in the West.

I continue to push for lower fuel burn rate in Eastern Front setups for as long as we continue to script these types of escorted bomber scenarios.  Sometimes the planes can quite easily be flown in a way to meet range and endurance issues, but since most players don't use these aircraft types anywhere but FSO they remain quite wary of them.   I've way too often seen escort fighters sitting on the ground at frame start because the squad that has VVS gear genuinely believe they won't make it there and back.  They will let their bombers go without escort simply because of fuel shortage perceptions.

That isn't a recipe for anybody's perception of a good time.

We continue to strive to perfect designs, and I take on much of that responsibility as it is applied to the Eastern Front. I would love nothing more than to place the IL-2 at the center of an event to be accurate. The truth is, the pilots of FSO do not want to fly IL-2's, Stukas, SBD's, etc. So, I try to avoid having such a setup where this happens. Also, I hate using British and American aircraft in Russia. If we were to have an event where the short leg fighters are on the front, they would intercept the Axis bombers in little to no time. But, perhaps something good can come out of this idea. I want each and every event to be as accurate as we possibly can. Sometimes, we designers have to sacrifice certain things. In the East, it is almost always the ground element. We have no tanks to strafe as an object, thus the two premier tank killing aircraft are rendered just about useless. Not to mention the altitude they must be flown and just how easy they are to kill. I want accuracy, but I want people to have fun as well. It is a difficult line to straddle.

[Devil 505]

Well I might have accidentally loaded up Yaks in the last frame despite being officially allocated something else. 

(None were allocated at all in the orders.  As a VVS squad this may have been too much to bear or it might have been caused by something else.  We'll never know.)   

We did ok.

The longer term problem remains the concept of shoe-horning western front battles and concepts in to the eastern front war.  The planes become misfits because they have to be used in ways that they weren't designed for.  Instead of short, fast, high speed turnaround, positioned at the front in support of a battle group; we use them in medium range escort duty. 

It's hard to make that work.  They don't carry the fuel or the gun loadout for that job.   Until the arrival of P47 and the P51 the Allies had the same problems in the West.

I continue to push for lower fuel burn rate in Eastern Front setups for as long as we continue to script these types of escorted bomber scenarios.  Sometimes the planes can quite easily be flown in a way to meet range and endurance issues, but since most players don't use these aircraft types anywhere but FSO they remain quite wary of them.   I've way too often seen escort fighters sitting on the ground at frame start because the squad that has VVS gear genuinely believe they won't make it there and back.  They will let their bombers go without escort simply because of fuel shortage perceptions.

That isn't a recipe for anybody's perception of a good time.

Thanks for the input Dantoo.

The selection of targets and take off bases in this past event was intended to give that front line type action and to allow fighters multiple approach angles into the combat area without much deviation from direct routes from take-off fields.

The bomber bases were placed farther back so that they had enough space to climb out and position themselves for an ideal angle into the target area. But direct routes could be made with bombs out at T+40, give or take 5 minutes depending on target field. That includes time for climbing to the alt cap.

It does seem that the range of the Yak was a major consideration in it's usage. I really think the Allies had more flexibility in this regard than you/they realize. I can't really fault the CiC's for not wanting to deal with the Yak's shortcomings, but I can't help but think that they would have been better off trying to make good use out of their best overall fighter.

Regarding level bombers attacks, one issue Perd left out was the need to provide enough target aircraft for the defenders to engage. Bomber formations still provide this without issue. To make light attack plane missions work would require placing too many players in those planes. Now this does tie back into what Perd said in that it's risking having a many guys having a bad night when they get shot down by fighters. At least with level bombers, a guy needs to lose all 3 planes to be out of action.

[Dantoo]

Not all that long ago ,I remember a particular VVS group going against CiC orders by not linking up their bombers with their escorts. Leaving their escorts to go on the planned direct mission route alone, while the VVS bomber group went on a dogleg banana super secret snake wiggle for reasons. Now I'm not saying it is, but it feels awfully pre-meditated for a discussion like this for reasons. 

I genuinely have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Perhaps if you PM with your concern I can help. 

[Dantoo]

Thanks for the input Dantoo.

The selection of targets and take off bases in this past event was intended to give that front line type action and to allow fighters multiple approach angles into the combat area without much deviation from direct routes from take-off fields.

The bomber bases were placed farther back so that they had enough space to climb out and position themselves for an ideal angle into the target area. But direct routes could be made with bombs out at T+40, give or take 5 minutes depending on target field. That includes time for climbing to the alt cap.

It does seem that the range of the Yak was a major consideration in it's usage. I really think the Allies had more flexibility in this regard than you/they realize. I can't really fault the CiC's for not wanting to deal with the Yak's shortcomings, but I can't help but think that they would have been better off trying to make good use out of their best overall fighter.

Regarding level bombers attacks, one issue Perd left out was the need to provide enough target aircraft for the defenders to engage. Bomber formations still provide this without issue. To make light attack plane missions work would require placing too many players in those planes. Now this does tie back into what Perd said in that it's risking having a many guys having a bad night when they get shot down by fighters. At least with level bombers, a guy needs to lose all 3 planes to be out of action.

You know I do get it.  I understand.  The problem remains that there is a "perception" that the VVS planes are somehow inferior and should be avoided at all cost.  The usual concern put forward is one of range.  IF we have to task to involve the escorted level bomber flights then it is a very small step to change the fuel burn just a fraction to remove the perception that the plane is not up to the tasking being given.  Typically I find that is an overall shortfall in appreciation of the mid-war VVS planes simply because they remain hangar queens in the MA.  Their strengths are not understood and therefore not used.

[Shuffler]

I can't fly one anymore. I got tired of pulling all the post-its off my monitor after going back to my 38.