Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Squire on April 02, 2007, 07:14:16 PM
-
Its range is no worse than a Spit IX or a 109G on internal fuel.
Has a very good armament package for air combat vs fighters: 1 x 20mm SHVAK and 2 x 12.7 mm UBS, all nose mounted guns.
Its best alt is below 15k.
It has a very good climb rate.
Capable of 400mph + and is also manueverable. It was probably the best "dogfighter" the VVS used in WW2. It was greatly respected by the LW pilots that flew against it.
Great cockpit visibility with a single glass peice in front.
It saw action in quantity, and would be an awesome MA ride, not just a Scenario hanger queen.
Oh, ya, its not another bomber, or a 1945 a/c, which we dont need.
Vote Yak-3.
http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelGallery/Matusek/yak3_2.jpg
-
The biggest reason to vote for the Yak is that it is Russian. Russian planes are terribly underrepresented in AHII. It’s also a decent plane that will hold its own.
Of course, the P-39 can also play Russian or US and early war depending on the model. I hope it comes down to these two.
-
The Yak-3 was also a great Dora killer.
ack-ack
-
Hold on thats a little faster than LA-7... interesting... :noid
is it better than yak 9U? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Squire
Its range is no worse than a Spit IX or a 109G on internal fuel.
This is the only point I might disagree with.
Spit IX has 35 minutes on internal fuel (Soda)
109G2 and G6 each has 25 minutes on internal fuel (Soda)
Yak 9U has 28 minutes at full power (Soda)
Yak 3, IIRC, held less fuel than the Yak 9U to keep the plane light for maneuverability in it's air superiority role. Yak 3 was even smaller than the Yak9 (see below).
Range of the Yak 9D listed as 845 miles
Range of the Yak 3 Range: 405 miles to 559 miles (sources vary)
From these numbers, I'm estimating that a Yak 3 has enough fuel for a full power flight of 13 to 20 minutes, in-game arenas. It's short legs in the 2X fuel burn War Arenas are one of the biggest points against an otherwise great little dog-fighter.
YAK-9D
# Length: 28 ft 0 in (8.55 m)
# Wingspan: 31 ft 11 in (9.74 m)
# Height: 9 ft 10 in (3.00 m)
# Wing area: 185.1 ft² (17.2 m²)
# Empty weight: 5,170 lb (2,350 kg)
# Loaded weight: 6,858 lb (3,117 kg) (+ 1,688 lbs)
YAK-3
# Length: 27 ft 10 in (8.5 m)
# Wingspan: 30 ft 2 in (9.2 m)
# Height: 7 ft 11 in (2.39 m)
# Wing area: 159.8 ft² (14.85 m²)
# Empty weight: 4,640 lb (2,105 kg)
# Loaded weight: 5,864 lb (2,692 kg) (+ 1,224 lbs) ** 464 lbs difference from Yak9.
Still, I'd much rather see a Yak-3 than a B-25, but my vote is still for a second buff perk ride for the game.
AND NO, the Yak 3 is actually a little slower that the Yak 9U, which was an Interceptor to the Yak-3's Air Superiority role. Definitely slower than an La-7's top speed --- although, Yak-3 probably has better acceleration than the LaLa.
-
Yak 3 is 15mph slower then the 9U we have. It has marginally better wing loading and climbs about 300-400 ft/min better from what I've found. I think it will accelerate a bit faster as well. It rolls better and has a reputation as a T&Ber but it has small wing surface area....I dont think its sustained turn rate is going to be all that much better then the 9U we have. I'll take eithe the 39 or yak-3 and be happy....but in the end once we have both I think the 39 will be a better performer in the MA.
-
Well, the much vaunted LA-7 in the MA has a fuel supply of @ 22 minutes at full power, yet that doesnt seem to stop its "prolific" use.
The Yak-9T has about the same.
...no Russian fighter is going to be huge on range. No big surprise.
-
The Yak-3 is also going to be a great little DEFCAP plane.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Squire
Well, the much vaunted LA-7 in the MA has a fuel supply of @ 22 minutes at full power, yet that doesn't seem to stop its "prolific" use.
The Yak-9T has about the same.
...no Russian fighter is going to be huge on range. No big surprise.
Soda's site puts the La-7 at 28 minutes, and I was using his data for this, same as the Yak-9's. But 13 to 20 minutes? 1/2 to 2/3rds the time other Russian aircraft can stay in the air? That may prove a bit extreme.
-
The YakT, on cruise settings, can fly around for a nice little bit. I don't see why the Yak-3 wouldn't be able to do so as well. Not every plane in the game is setup to fly for long periods of time over tremendous ranges, yet they still see use in the game.
Plus, the plane and its model doesn't even exist yet, so it's probably a bit early to start discussing its shortcomings.
-
The range for a Yak-9 is 410 miles, and its 405 miles for a Yak-3, so I cant see there being a huge difference either.
The Yak-9T carries no more fuel than a Yak-9 does. We dont have the Yak-9D (long range version) in AH.
I make no bones about it being a short range fighter, it is. I would guess its endurance to be about what a Spit Vs is.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Oh, ya, its not another bomber, or a 1945 a/c, which we dont need.
1944 is a little close to 1945 don't you think? I would prefer the P-39 since it would be the only early war Russian plane besides the IL-2. The Yak-3 is in the same class as La-5/7 Yak-9 (late war plane).
-
Yak-3 is a good fighter, but it really doesn't bring much more to the table than the Yak-9U does. It should roll and turn somewhat better, but it will also be somewhat slower. Even though it is significantly lighter than the Yak-9U, it also has a much weaker engine. It is not going to be the magical combination of La-7 and Spit16 that some people are hoping for. Also, it won't be available in the mid war arena since it didn't see combat until 1944. It will probably just relegate the Yak-9U to the hanger since even though it is slower it will turn better, making it easier for less experienced players to use.
Additionally, if correctly modeled it should shed parts at high speed or G like the Ki-84 due to plywood construction.
IMO, the Soviet planeset would be much better off with a 1941-43 fighter, or even the P-39 with a Russian skin.
That being said, if it comes down to Yak-3 or A-26 I will vote Yak-3.
-
Has Soda updated his site?
-
"Additionally, if correctly modeled it should shed parts at high speed or G like the Ki-84 due to plywood construction."
Provide a source, I have never come across anything even remotely suggesting the above. Sounds like a "We Love The P-51 Cuz it Ruled" quote to me from the typical anti-Russian cuz its Russian crowd.
As for the Yak-3 being 1944, well, yes it was, but thats a far cry from the F8F Bearcat that saw no service at all, P-63, or the G55 which served in a few squadrons, or many of the other late war and few built suggestions I have seen here. So, Im perfectly happy with it. At least it was a significant fighter that actually saw real action, its not a "the Soviets built 120 in May of 1945 and flew three for trials" picks. Its not a B-29 with a nuke, or a Do335, or another freaking jet.
As for the P-39, its a close second on my list. I will be happy if it makes it too. ;)
-
2 sources I can name right now, and I've seen it a few other places too (though they may all be incorrect, who knows).
"One problem that manifested itself . . .,however, was a tendency for the wing skinning to peel away under the stresses of high-g maneuvers."
Famous Fighters of the Second World War , William Green
The Wikipedia article linked from the HTC homepage, "The two biggest drawbacks of the aircraft were its short range and the tendency of the glued-on plywood covering the top of the wings to tear away under high-G loads."
Off topic, but somewhat relevant, has anyone ever seen a source that says the Ki-84 loses tail control surfaces at 480mph in dives as it does in the game?
-
Voted the Yak3.
-
Cough cough ...
yak 3 is a late war ride ... that would (most likely) be perked ... hell most of them were built in '45 ,'46 trying to pass it off as "not a late war ride" is bs .
Rather have a B-25 or the p-39 At least they would fill out scenarios .
-
109G-14 will eat it alive with its incredible R.O.C. and acceleration.
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
Cough cough ...
yak 3 is a late war ride ... that would (most likely) be perked ... hell most of them were built in '45 ,'46 trying to pass it off as "not a late war ride" is bs .
Yak-3 was not as late as La-7. The La-7 AH variant with 3x 20mm cannons was March 1945.
-
Vote for this Russian Mustang:aok
(http://ar.geocities.com/machtress/yak3.jpg)
(http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/yak-3m.jpg)
(http://03stormchaser.com/images/wow/upload/Yak3.jpg)
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/books/cockpit/Yakovlev%20Yak-3.jpg)
-
My reference states the Yak-3 first saw combat at Kursk in June of 1943. Large scale deployment occured in the summer of 1944. Is that considered late war?
By the way- that scoop on the top of the fuselage in front of the cockpit on the pics above were added to the 1990's version of the Yak-3 (not present on WWII Yak-3s). What's it for?
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
Cough cough ...
yak 3 is a late war ride ... that would (most likely) be perked ... hell most of them were built in '45 ,'46 trying to pass it off as "not a late war ride" is bs .
Rather have a B-25 or the p-39 At least they would fill out scenarios .
Yak3 was at front line units 2 to 3 months before the Yak9U
-
Originally posted by Squire
"Additionally, if correctly modeled it should shed parts at high speed or G like the Ki-84 due to plywood construction."
Provide a source, I have never come across anything even remotely suggesting the above.
From red star publications (Gordon & Khazanov)
The air craft would run away in a dive to the extent that pilots had to hold it back, because its good aerodynamic qualities made it easy to exceed the IAS of 650km/h(404mph) which was dangerous due to insufficient structural strength.
...............
The two main plants producing Yak3's were Saratov and Tbilisi.
Saratov machines consistantly had problems gluing the under wing skinning to the spar ribs. This was investigated and found to be due to incorrect manufacturing procedures. 114 Yak3's were grounded until the variuos field mods could be iincorporated. Which seems to have taken up the last few months of 44.
Tbilisi produced Yak3's do not seem to have sufferred this. indeed they were heavier than the Saratov version by typically 25kg but faster by typically some 15km/h at level speed.
IMO the Yak3 would continue to accell in a dive and AH should not allow this to go on without penalty. I would expect to hear fuselage groans at 410 follwed by wing break up at approx 430> 450 depending upon G loading.
High speed pursuit is no what this ac was about...............its a furballer
-
"The Yak-3 is also going to be a great little DEFCAP plane."
Like Niki and LaLa. We certainly need one more of those. :p
But I guess that is why it is still in the game.
Boring IMO.
-C+
-
"Cough cough".
Actually 3911 Yak-3s were built during the war, of the 4848 produced total.
...and I dont recall stating it was a "mid war" fighter. It entered service at roughly the same time as the P-51D, Bf-109G-14, Fw190A-8, P-38L, Ki-84, Spit XVI, and P-47D-25. First production batches were sent out in May of 1944.
Regards.
-
WOOOT yak3
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Vote for this Russian Mustang:aok
We have the Russian Mustang. We're voting on the Russian Spit.
:)
-Sik
-
The Yak-3 is not going to be any better then the Yak-9U - in may ways the Yak-9U is much better then the Yak-3.
The only fighter plane on the voting list that would add anything to AH is the P-39 - and that will only happen if there are 3 variants - P-39D, P-39N and P-39Q (P-39Q-5 no gondolas - rated as the bets 'dog fighter' of the lot by many VVS P-39 pilots).
The P-39N and P-39Q are 'soviet planes' and much important to the VVS then the Yak-3. The Yak-3 is basically a gimmick plane - given the current plane set. If its not 'perked' then it will only see use in the LW arenas and in the long run it will spend a lot of time in the hangar.
The Yak-3 is a new aircraft (requires new model) not a 'new variant' but IMHO I'd rather see a Yak-1 or Yak-1B (this would be the base for the Yak-3 in the future). A new variant based off an existing model would be a Yak-9M - it could be converted from the 9T. A P-39, Yak-1 and Yak-9M would go along way to filling wholes in VVS plane set.
Even the B-25 will add more to the game then the Yak-3. It saw service everywhere including with the Soviets.
The A-26 - another gimmick plane...
-
Yak3 v Yak9U
It is very much the comparison of two variants. Like Spit VIII and a Spit IX
Flat turn
3 = 18.6 sec 9U=20 sec
Wing loading Gross
3= 179kg/m^2 9U= 186.8kg/m^2
power/weight
3= 0.47hp/kg 9U= 0.47hp/kg
3 will out turn the 9U
3 will out accelerate the 9U at any thing below higher speeds
3 will out climb the 9U at lower alts
3 has the best out of cockpit vision in the game.
The 9U comes into its own at 10 to 15K if I want air superiority at 10 to 15k I choose (of the two) the 9U. If I want to mix it below 10k I choose the 3.
Would the 3 cause the 9U to become a hanger queen........ well IMO maybe.
I agree that a Yak9M would be a variant little different from the Yak9T. It is a Yak9T with a 20mm gun. (cockpit still off set to the rear)
There is more work to model a Yak 3 variant from the long nosed Yaks we have now but it is a variant none the less.
-
Would the 3 cause the 9U to become a hanger queen...
But for a handful of pilots it already is...
-
If the P-39 dies this vote, I'll go Yak. I'm going to cling to the P-39 like grim death in the mean time.:)
-
Yak 3, all the way now:aok
-
1939-1941 = Early War
1942-1943 = Mid War
1944-1945 = Late War
Yak-3 is a Late War plane that does nothing to fill the ENORMOUS Early/Mid war gap in the plane set for the Russians. The P-39 fills the largest gap in planesets of all the planes still in the voting, including the very versatile B-25 and the incredibly important He-111 for BoB scenario's.
-
bring the Pe-2 to AH ! (Vote Yak3 for the time being)
-
Yak-3 is not a good choice... is the only 1!!!!
****PUT A VOTE FOR THE YAK-3... HE NEEDS YOU!!****
GO GO YAK!!!!
-
I see several reasons to choose the yak3 :
reason 1 (http://www.nnavirex.com/shot%20as/Marchi.jpg)
reason 2 (http://www.nnavirex.com/shot%20as/delfino.jpg)
reason 3 (http://www.nnavirex.com/shot%20as/Sauvage.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Vadjan-Sama
Yak-3 is not a good choice... is the only 1!!!!
****PUT A VOTE FOR THE YAK-3... HE NEEDS YOU!!****
GO GO YAK!!!!
If you're going to use the name of a real squadron as yours, you should at least get the squadron name correct. It's the 201st Sqd. FAEM "Aztec Eagles" not some anime cartoon name like Shinigami Special Forces.
ack-ack
-
Choose the Yak, and don't look back. :aok
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
If you're going to use the name of a real squadron as yours, you should at least get the squadron name correct. It's the 201st Sqd. FAEM "Aztec Eagles" not some anime cartoon name like Shinigami Special Forces.
ack-ack
Don't hold back ack ack, go for the jugular.:aok
-
Tilt, is the 9UT as simple as the 9M to model from the 9U we already have?
-
Well, if it was up to me (and clearly its not), I would be adding the Ki-43-II to the next update, but im trying to figure whats likely to get "voted" in, and sadly, the EW rides seem to just drop like flies, so, the trick is to keep some interest in the ones that a) Are likely to get voted on, and b) Are at least semi-usefull.
He-111? count me in, but it would never be included in a vote-off, we are going to have to wait for HTC to just decide to model it, like the Brewster and the others...He-111 has as much chance of being voted in by the players as a Pz.11 or a French 1940 plane, that is to say, next to no chance.
Its not a perfect world.
And Like I said, I like the P-39 as choice #2 if the Yak-3 doesnt pan out. If I was a betting man, my chips would be on the P-39 anyways, its a US fighter.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
If you're going to use the name of a real squadron as yours, you should at least get the squadron name correct. It's the 201st Sqd. FAEM "Aztec Eagles" not some anime cartoon name like Shinigami Special Forces.
ack-ack
LOL, well...
1.- I know is the " 201st Sqd. FAEM "Aztec Eagles" "
2.- I wanted to use this sqd. name mixing the real name and something with "more impact", so what? is a rule again that..? no..? well
Get a live
PD1 : ******GO GO GO YAK ******
PD2 : LONG LIVE TO THE 201 FAEM Sqd [Shinigami Special Forces]!!!!! (Copyright 2007)
-
No rules against it but IMO it's an insult to those that served in that unit by tacking on the name of a crappy Japanese anime.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No rules against it but IMO it's an insult to those that served in that unit by tacking on the name of a crappy Japanese anime.
ack-ack
Ahem, there is NO "Shinigami" anime i've heard.:noid
-
lmao...
If is that the thing.... is not a insult do a game to play with all these who server and died in all the WWII?
lol, you are really wrong man, go out and take some air.
Originally posted by 1K3
Ahem, there is NO "Shinigami" anime i've heard.:noid
No, but many use that within history :P
-
Originally posted by Vadjan-Sama
lmao...
If is that the thing.... is not a insult do a game to play with all these who server and died in all the WWII?
Okay what the **** did you just say there? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Vadjan-Sama
If is that the thing.... is not a insult do a game to play with all these who server and died in all the WWII?
What??????:confused: :rolleyes: :eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :eek:
-
lol...
It was an example, a bad one by the way, let's cut this and keep on the real topic.. ok?
-
Originally posted by 715
My reference states the Yak-3 first saw combat at Kursk in June of 1943. Large scale deployment occured in the summer of 1944. Is that considered late war?
By the way- that scoop on the top of the fuselage in front of the cockpit on the pics above were added to the 1990's version of the Yak-3 (not present on WWII Yak-3s). What's it for?
I believe the repro Yaks had to use an american Allison V-1710 engine, due to unavailibility of M-105's. Incidentally, in IL-2 Forgotten Battles, One of the P-40E's in that game is re-engined with a russian motor. I guess it was a popular field mod, when Allison's were in short supply. Seems that it bolted in with little modification.
-
Originally posted by moot
Tilt, is the 9UT as simple as the 9M to model from the 9U we already have?
The 9UT and the 9T were diferent ac.
We have the 9T and the 9M was simply the long nosed Yak9T with its big cannon replaced with a 20mm.
From your question you may have already known that. I just wanted to be clear.
the Yak9UT was indeed the Yak 9U as we know it with an armament initially comprising 1 x Ns37mm and 2 x B20.
Although elevator forces were said to be high (Cof G change?) the type was released for production in March 45 and 282 were made although its possible that they (some or all)were fitted with the NS23 instead of the 37. (23mm was an armourpeircing round)
However the big gun of the Yaks was the Yak 9K which was also a Yak9T but this time with a NS45 gun (29 rounds). A batch of 53 were produced in 44 and saw action by August 44.
-
Yes, I didn't phrase that clearly. I meant to ask if modeling a 9UT from our 9U would be as simple as modeling an M from our T.
I asked because I suspected the 9U would have its cockpit moved back to make a 9UT, which would complicate modeling it.
Considering the B25 is more work than a Yak3, do you think the additional work of making a UT and K would be feasible to include with the Yak3, if the latter is chosen in the vote?
It might seem strange for "new" planes to be introduced under a dated 3D model like the Yak9s', but it wouldn't nearly outweigh how great it would be to have those two extra planes with the Yak3 :)
I read about the 9UT in this thread:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26968
Maybe it has some info you haven't seen yet.
-
Both our present yaks are "long nosed yaks" with the cockpit moved back over that found on the Yak1's yak7's, Yak3's and yak9D's.
The Yak9T ,9K, 9M, 9U and late 9UT used the same fuselage shape although the 9U and 9UT had more alloy panels.
AH could offer any of the above 5 with little or no work re the 3d shape. ( the UT had a couple of small cannon bulges and the 9K had a huge muzzle brake)
I fear the UT would require a small perk as it was as rare as the 152.
-
Rarity is apparently not a perking reason (also, the 152 is no longer a perk). The idea of a 3 cannon yak (or a wide array of armament for them) is interesting.
-
When time comes for HTC to consider the yak Variants It would seem fairly easy to add armament or increase the number of variants to include the
9M,9T,9K,9U,9UT
However we would end up with only Long nosed Yaks that do not represent the range of variants.
The Yak1 was in production until early 44 when its plants were switched to the Yak3.
In 40 the Yak1 also begat a trainer which became the heavier Yak7 in 41which inturn went thru many incarnations before becoming the Yak 7D which begat the Yak9 in late 42 and the 9D, DD in mid 43 along with the long nosed Yak9T.
So you see long nose Yaks are 44/45 (excepting the 1943 Yak9t) and still omit the most famous Yak (Yak3) as well as the most numerous (the Yak1[1-b])
-
Goodbye Yak-3.
-
It will be back!
-
Bah, nothing worth voting for now :cry
-
yea i was a bit sad too.
Then i thought hey wait 14 x 50cal forward firing guns and 6000lbs of ord!
-
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/sick0004.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
...and then you realized there's no good use for a bomber sized target bristling with machine guns...
-
The U.S. noob horde beat us. They don't want a plane wich name doesn't start with P- or B-. They will get their their B25 and then whine it dosn't go 400Mph on the deck with a lancaster bomb bay, next step is hangar queen.
I really hope HTC will not keep on this stupid vote thing. Its more frustrating than anything else, and at the end we'll have every US plane with the latest models, while every other nation will have huge gaps in their planesets and still using AH1 models.
Who cares anyway ! Its not like AH was an international game (the use of ET time allover the site is a good exemple), and HTC is working to please the largest proportion of players possible wich are 3 quarters american (would be interresting to see the actual statistics).
the post may be the result of my anger, but the fact that AH is not international enough is true. Even the forum doesn't support extended characters set for the old european countries. Want to be big ? aim international
-
:cry :cry
-
The P-39 maybe an 'American design' but it was very much a 'Soviet' aircraft...
Folks might not like to admit that - and maybe the Ami 'Pearl Harbor - Military Channel watchers' don't realize that when they cast their votes - but it is a far more important aircraft to the Soviets then the Yak-3 ever was.
The B-25 had much international use as well - I have argued for years for a Pe-2 - but absent that the Boston / A-20C and a B-25 these fill a hole for the Soviets as well.
As ignorant as some may think the Ami 'voters' are there's an equal amount of ignorance on the part of those 'Internationale' who assume 'American made' equals for 'Americans only'.
The P-39 was by far the best choice on the list from the start. The B-25 was the next best and its good to see them move on. I don't understanding adding a plane like the A-26 - its completely useless in terms of filling gaps and improving game possibilities beyond the LW arena as a 'perk'. The only folks who would vote for such an aircraft would be motivated solely on emotional self interests rather then logic. This is a 'truer test' of player base maturity. Not whether its all 'Ami planes' or not.
-
Well said.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Well said.
Ditto
Bronk
-
I agree with the statement re> the P-39. If that plane wins, it should come default with Russian skin and export versions, and be placed in the Russian plane-set. They received over half the P-39's built, and nearly ALL of the P-63's. Airacobra made a much larger impact and contribution to Russia. Second highest scoring Allied Ace was a Russian in the P-39. Recognizes the Lend-Lease aspect of the war.
Some will cry about a move like that, but someone can skin the plane later for Guadalcanal's Cactus Air Force.
Originally posted by Bruno
I don't understanding adding a plane like the A-26 - its completely useless in terms of filling gaps and improving game possibilities beyond the LW arena as a 'perk'. The only folks who would vote for such an aircraft would be motivated solely on emotional self interests rather then logic. This is a 'truer test' of player base maturity.
Or acknowledging the fact that over 9/10ths of the player base can be found in the 2 Late War arenas, as compared to EW, MW, AvA, SEA, and TA combined? No, the Invader does not add much to special events outside of some LW events that could be done. Yes, the Invader adds a perk plane for buff drivers to spend their points on other than the Arado. Without a reason to spend those points, why not just "bomb-and-bail"? It adds a high performance medium bomber and attack plane that has a good chance to hold it's own against LW arenas filled with low-ENY Splixteens, Pony-D's, LaLas, C-Hogs, and Nikis.
While adding to the plane set in itself is worthwhile, long term, to keep the overall game going, and keep the majority of the player base coming back, you have to keep adding content to keep their interest. Adding EW planes tailored best for use in SEA and EW arenas will not result in significantly more players in those venues. "If You Build It, They Still Ain't Coming." It also does not add content to keep the majority interested in the game.
I wish adding planes across the board was a larger priority, as well as new and more maps. I'd like to see the Pe-2, He-177, Me 410, G.55, the Stuka with the twin 40 Anti-tank guns, Yak-3, Judy, FlaK36, and others added.
I'd like to see more targets for bombers and attack planes: anti-shipping operations, marshaling yards, more convoys and trains to hit, ammo dumps, communications centers, destroyable bridges.....
My vote is in what fills a game addition (perked buff) for the majority of players (or at least buff and attack plane drivers), among the choices presented, more than a particular historical "hole" in any plane set.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
My vote is in what fills a game addition (perked buff) for the majority of players (or at least buff and attack plane drivers), among the choices presented, more than a particular historical "hole" in any plane set.
Ermmm no.
Buff drivers are not the majority of players.
Bronk
-
"I don't understanding adding a plane like the A-26 - its completely useless in terms of filling gaps and improving game possibilities beyond the LW arena as a 'perk'. The only folks who would vote for such an aircraft would be motivated solely on emotional self interests rather then logic."
Agree whole heartedly.
P-39 or B-25 please.
I was glad to see the Yak at least make it some distance, but it was a long shot. In any case when the Yaks are redone, I will be lobbying for the Yak-3 over the Yak-9U, and an inclusion of a Yak-9 with a 20-23mm cannon, which most had.