New Planes Vs Same Old Planes

[leonid]

kier,
Remember pilot quality had a lot to do with the overall poor performance of the VVS in the early years.

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[-kier-]

I know, but the equipment was lacking qualitatively as well. The early LaGG and MiG fighters were relatively fast, but were otherwise handily outperformed by contemporary Luftwaffe hardware (109 E's, F's, and G's, and FW190 A's?). The weight of their engines also kept them very undergunned. No doubt about it, you would have to have hair on your chest (and other places) to be able to fly early VVS aircraft in our MA. Now if you talked Scenario, that would be another story... to a point.  

[Rojo]

For what it's worth, I would like to stick with aircraft that made a reasonable impact to the course of the war, just as AH is doing now. My main reason for this is Scenarios.  It's my favorite part of WWII on-line flight sims.  Even when it's just my Squadron running a Squad-nite mission, we try to recreate historical missions.

I like the way AH is building the current plane set up. A core set of classics with a sprinkling of less-well known (and simulated) but still historically significant types like the Macchi and George.

I for one am looking forward to some early war stuff, but it may make more sense to start with the current set of late-war craft and work sequentially backwards in time.

------------------
Rojo (S-2, The Buccaneers)

[Jochen]

 

Remember, even the Brewster Buffalo was used effectively against the Soviets early in the war!

and

 

Remember pilot quality had a lot to do with the overall poor performance of the VVS in the early years.

Yep, Brewsters were used in US Marine Corps during Midway where they suffered heavy losses against Japanese planes and they were quickly moved to training purposes.

Finns, on the other hand, were scoring pretty impressive kills with Brewster against VVS while VVS had better planes for sure for most of the time.

Why the difference in performance? Pilot quality. Japanese pilots were good and USMC pilots decent too. VVS pilots were not (any?) good and Finns were pretty damn good. To be truthfull, VVS had also some bad tactical ideas and some of its equipment was poor quality, some planes didn't even have gunsights other than cross painted on the windscreen  

------------------
jochen
Geschwaderkommodore
Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (Warbirds)

If you ever get across the sea to England,
Then maybe at the closing of the day
The bars will all be serving German lager
Which means we won the war - hip hip hooray!

[Karnak]

How about the Lancaster, Wellington or Blenheim.  RAF Bomber Command never gets the credit it is due.  I think that the Lanc would be a good addition, its different than the B-17, it carries more bombs but compensates by having weaker defensive armament.  Like the B-17 it had a reputation for being durable.
On tge other side how about an Emily for the Japanese and a He-177 Grief for the Germans, or the He-277.
Lets have each nationality get a Heavy Bomber.

Sisu

[Hollywood]

I second the idea of a 1946 planeset esp. with the German superweapons, Natter anyone?
When HTC runs out of things to do they could take the jets right up to the Korean conflict.  Early jet guns only fights are lots of fun.

------------------
It's a good day for flying!

    General Chuck Yeager

[LLv34_Snefens]

Yes, scenarios is what I am looking for too. I loose the feel for the "real" thing when I shoot/get shot down by George's and Fw190 in my 109.

But remember this is a BETA!

Wait with the fantasy wishing and let enough "standard" planes get to make the scenario-worlds games possibly before starting to talk about uber-super-experimtental planes. I would like to try them too, but under controlled circumstances.

Flame me what you want now ;-)

------------------
LLv34 Snefens
RO, Lentolaivue 34


[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 12-04-1999).]