Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: iron650 on May 24, 2011, 05:17:46 PM
-
The MiG was Russian. They served in the Eastern Front. They shot down several Luftwaffe planes. A few of the claimed kills were reconnassaince bombers. An ace claimed 53 kills (6 shared), despite it's problems.
Characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 27ft 1in
Wingspan: 33ft 5in
Height: 10ft 9 7/8in
Wing Area: 188ft squared
Empty weight: 5,965lbs
Loaded weight: 7,415lbs
Powerplant: 1 Mikulin AM-35A liquid-cooled 1,350 hp
Max Speed: 398mph at 25,600
Range: 510mi
Armament:
1 12.7 mm UBS machine gun
2 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns
2 100kg bombs or 6 82mm RS-82 rockets
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/MiG-3winter.jpg)
Apparently, there were complaints about how unreliable the gunsights. Also, they believed at low altitudes they were outclassed by the Yak-1 and Bf109. I think it might be a good addition though. And if it gets added can we get it in snow camo?
-
i'd fly it... :aok
-
+1 for any new russian aircraft.
-
i'd fly it... :aok
I'd fly it too. :salute
-
YES YES YES!! YES for the beaultifull plane. i would post a thred with this wish but i searched and saw it was made already, well good thing people didnt forget about it.
MIG3!! in the same update of bf109 f2, e7 and the he-111
-
"One hundred aircraft were equipped with a pair of UBS machine guns in lieu of the ShKAS weapons. Another 215 aircraft also had just the UBS machine guns but were fitted to carry six RS-82 rockets. A total of 72 aircraft mounted a pair of 20 mm ShVAK cannon. A wide variety of armaments were experimented with by various units at the requests of their pilots or to make up shortages"
-
and it was fast.
real fast.
-
It may be fast but with a pair of .30 cal MG's and a single .50 cal MG, it isn't going to knock much out of the sky. If HTC does introduce it, I hope they allow the later weapon upgrades. Also, didn't the MiG-3 have the turning radius of a battleship?
I'd be nice to get more Soviet aircraft into the game, no doubt. I think the Pe-2 or Tu-2 might be higher up the "importance" chart, though. ;)
-
:aok
более русские самолеты!
-
It may be fast but with a pair of .30 cal MG's and a single .50 cal MG, it isn't going to knock much out of the sky. If HTC does introduce it, I hope they allow the later weapon upgrades. Also, didn't the MiG-3 have the turning radius of a battleship?
I'd be nice to get more Soviet aircraft into the game, no doubt. I think the Pe-2 or Tu-2 might be higher up the "importance" chart, though. ;)
yes but think about early and midwar, what a great interceptor mainly with the 20mm guns.
-
With that bird and the yak 1 we could have a proper Stalingrad scenario or sec. Good choice :)
-
It may be fast but with a pair of .30 cal MG's and a single .50 cal MG, it isn't going to knock much out of the sky. ;)
I believe a modification increased the rounds of the .30s were 750 rpg. Plus, the plane is a high alt fighter. Yes, they called it a "cow" at low altitudes.
-
Something russian :aok
I have no idea how can you kill someone in this plane, since it has real weak guns and horrible turn rate/radius...
-
Something russian :aok
I have no idea how can you kill someone in this plane, since it has real weak guns and horrible turn rate/radius...
Use the weak guns and try to stick on their tail? Bring it vertical?
The on the deck speed was about 314mph. They made 2 12.7mm gun pods that slowed it down by 12mph. 72 got 20mm cannons.
-
I have no idea how can you kill someone in this plane, since it has real weak guns and horrible turn rate/radius...
sooo...you're saying a 7mm machine gun can't score a kill...
It may be fast but with a pair of .30 cal MG's and a single .50 cal MG, it isn't going to knock much out of the sky. If HTC does introduce it, I hope they allow the later weapon upgrades. Also, didn't the MiG-3 have the turning radius of a battleship?
this is just a quoted claim garnered from soviet pilots who flew the mig3 including one pilot who supposedly shot down 5 109e's...so who knows.
MiG-3s were slightly more manoeuvrable than Bf-109E on the vertical plane, even at low altitudes that were disadvantaging for the Soviet fighter. This technique was used by German themselves while combatting against Polish PZL-11 two years before: the slow and highly manoeuvrable Polish fighters took advantage to combat turning, until the Me-109s started to jump on them from above.
The combat on the horizontal plan was a natural choice for one using a slow and manoeuvrable aircraft as an I-16 or a biplane, and wasn't a guarantee against a diving Messerschmitt. To fly a MiG-3 as it was an I-16, turning on horizontal plan, was wrong against Bf-109E, that was able to turn with a 25% lower turning radius due to its lower wing load.
At higher altitudes, between 5,000 and 7,000 m, the MiG-3 was superior both on speed and manoeuvrability to the Bf-109E, and was comparable to the Bf-109F, but combat at such altitudes were rare on the Soviet-German front
-
Those 12.7 ubs are pretty hard hitting guns and were available with two in the cowl or the "5 guns" loadout that had 1 ubs 12.7 in the cowl, a 12.7 ub in each wing pod, and 2x7.62 also in the cowl.
-
I believe in the article they mentioned I believe the 109s they mentioned about outclassing them were F models. Also, in the article there was something about it and the navy.
-
Friedrichs were extremely limited during Barbarossa.
The MiG-1/3 was the worst modern (i.e. not the I-16 or I-153) fighter the VVS had at the beginning of the war, despite being liked personally by Pokryshkin. Whenever it's mentioned, it's used as the quintessential 'exception that proves the rule' that 'if it looks right, it is right'. That is to say, despite being one of the more beautiful aircraft of the war, it was a total dog. Despite having decent altitude performance, VVS doctrine was based around low-level work. Despite being quick, it lacked the firepower to really be effective as a hit-and-run plane (an ShKAS and a UBS can in no way be stretched to be considered 'decent firepower', the UBS in game is even worse than the M2). The LaGG-1/3 was not a whole lot better (but at least evolved into the La-5/7), but the Yak-1 was about on par with its Luftwaffe contemporaries- usually considered the best fighter that the USSR had at the beginning of the war. That's likely one of the reasons the Yak series was the most produced fighter series of the war.
For an early war VVS fighter on par with the Bf 109, the Yak-1 serves better than the MiG-1/3 for many reasons, and the LaGGs for several less... in any case, I should certainly think that the MiG is at the bottom of the three.
-
Friedrichs were extremely limited during Barbarossa.
The MiG-1/3 was the worst modern (i.e. not the I-16 or I-153) fighter the VVS had at the beginning of the war, despite being liked personally by Pokryshkin. Whenever it's mentioned, it's used as the quintessential 'exception that proves the rule' that 'if it looks right, it is right'. That is to say, despite being one of the more beautiful aircraft of the war, it was a total dog. Despite having decent altitude performance, VVS doctrine was based around low-level work. Despite being quick, it lacked the firepower to really be effective as a hit-and-run plane (an ShKAS and a UBS can in no way be stretched to be considered 'decent firepower', the UBS in game is even worse than the M2). The LaGG-1/3 was not a whole lot better (but at least evolved into the La-5/7), but the Yak-1 was about on par with its Luftwaffe contemporaries- usually considered the best fighter that the USSR had at the beginning of the war. That's likely one of the reasons the Yak series was the most produced fighter series of the war.
For an early war VVS fighter on par with the Bf 109, the Yak-1 serves better than the MiG-1/3 for many reasons, and the LaGGs for several less... in any case, I should certainly think that the MiG is at the bottom of the three.
This is a high altitude fighter that got into low altitude engagements against 109s. Also, they tried fixing the gun problem with 2 12.7mm gun pods. Also, we could get some scenario play on Stalingrad with the Yak-1 and the MiG. (We haven't had any Russian scenario as far as I can recall.) They were made to replace the I-16 monoplane, I-152, and I-153 biplanes.
-
This is a high altitude fighter that got into low altitude engagements against 109s. Also, they tried fixing the gun problem with 2 12.7mm gun pods. Also, we could get some scenario play on Stalingrad with the Yak-1 and the MiG. (We haven't had any Russian scenario as far as I can recall.) They were made to replace the I-16 monoplane, I-152, and I-153 biplanes.
The MiG-3 was better at high altitudes than low ones, but it was a dog any way you cut it compared to the Bf 109 or the Yak-1.
Further, 3x .50 cal machine guns and 2x .30 cal machine guns is still a light armament compared to the 20mm armed 109s, Yaks, LaGGs, etc., despite the weight that gun pods would have added.
The MiG was not a good aircraft, period. The Soviets had much better ones at the time.
-
The MiG-3 was better at high altitudes than low ones, but it was a dog any way you cut it compared to the Bf 109 or the Yak-1.
Why are dogs used in so many insults? :headscratch:
-
motherland thinks because it doesn't fit his standards...it was a dog. i guess it's a good thing the soviet pilots who were stuck with them weren't given the perogative to think the same way...it was a tool for them to use to the best of their ability.
considering the time the mig was put into service it served it's purpose...very much like the p-40b, hurricane 1, p-75, spitfire 1 and many others. a was proven by all of the countries involved prior to 1941, you don't need heavy guns to bring aircraft down...nor is turn n burn the only way to fight. the mig has all the grace of a tbm at low alt, but it was proven by the soviet pilots that it could be successful enough.
-
motherland thinks because it doesn't fit his standards...it was a dog. i guess it's a good thing the soviet pilots who were stuck with them weren't given the perogative to think the same way...it was a tool for them to use to the best of their ability.
considering the time the mig was put into service it served it's purpose...very much like the p-40b, hurricane 1, p-75, spitfire 1 and many others. a was proven by all of the countries involved prior to 1941, you don't need heavy guns to bring aircraft down...nor is turn n burn the only way to fight. the mig has all the grace of a tbm at low alt, but it was proven by the soviet pilots that it could be successful enough.
I don't know what 'my standards' are supposed to be, I'm was never a WWII fighter pilot and I've never even flown a sim which had the MiG-3. I can only tell you what I've read about the aircraft and its use and reception historically.
The MiG was only used because they needed aircraft. It, and the LaGG as well, to a lesser extent, was hated by the majority of its pilots (beside Pokryshkin, as noted, but he was also snubbed for taking a preference to American lend lease aircraft like the P-39)... they were given not-so-nice names like lacquered coffins etc..
It's not like the Spitfire MK.I, or the Hurricane MK.I, or even the I-16, which were pretty decent fighters compared to their contemporaries (the I-16 of course hailing back the whole way to the Spanish Civil War), and were phased out as better fighters came on line. The MiG was a contemporary of the LaGG-1 and the Yak-1, was much worse than either and was only used because the VVS needed everything it could get its hands on. Unlike the LaGG and the Yak, which were developed further into very successful aircraft (although the Yak did well from the beginning as previously noted), the MiG was so irredeemably awful that it was dropped altogether... even while it was in service, the VVS tried to get rid of MiGs as much as they could in favor of other types...
The MiG was literally famous for being a failure. Trying to argue that the MiG was actually a decent aircraft despite all is like trying to do the same with the BP Defiant... to a lesser extent.
There's nothing to do with my opinion here, history, the VVS, the Luftwaffe, everything you can possibly ask tells you point blank that the MiG was a terrible aircraft.
The numbers speak for themselves. ~20,000 La/GG-1/3/5/7s were built, 35,000 Yak-1/3/7/9s, but only ~3,200 MiG-1/3s.
-
i knew i could get you to do something besides spout.."it was a dog blah blah blah"...started sounding like krusty :D nice job sir...and agreed, it wasn't a top of the line fighter, mainly due to the maneuverability and short range...but just consider the timeline and the significance the mid, lagg and yak all played before 41...the soviets had them, they used them (extensively) and when they got better planes they used those.
-
sooo...you're saying a 7mm machine gun can't score a kill...
You have to hold your bullet stream on the enemy aircraft for a long time to couse damage. Its inpossible if youre BnZ-ing, you have to turn with the target (just guess a P-47 with one machine gun...)
Btw the soviets had a large variety of fighters being produced and used during the WW2, and we dont have ANY of their early designs, no mig-1/3, no lagg-1/3/5, no Jak-1 (also no Jak-3/7, but those are later models), also we have only one of the many soviet ground attack/light bomber planes... There are many possible, interesting scenarios on the eastern front. +1 to anything russian
-
and it was fast.
real fast.
Not at low altitudes where most of the combat in AH takes place.
-
+1 has to be the best looking fighter of ww2...and some had 2 x 20mm gunns some had 2 x .50cal guns,made in quantity,early to mid war fighter, OH YES!!!
-
You have to hold your bullet stream on the enemy aircraft for a long time to couse damage. Its inpossible if youre BnZ-ing, you have to turn with the target (just guess a P-47 with one machine gun...)
Btw the soviets had a large variety of fighters being produced and used during the WW2, and we dont have ANY of their early designs, no mig-1/3, no lagg-1/3/5, no Jak-1 (also no Jak-3/7, but those are later models), also we have only one of the many soviet ground attack/light bomber planes... There are many possible, interesting scenarios on the eastern front. +1 to anything russian
You're right about the EW models. Also, there were 2 gun pods with a single 12.7mm to make the firepower issue somewhat solved (just reduce 12mph.)
Not at low altitudes where most of the combat in AH takes place.
Short-range somewhat alt missions?
-
You're right about the EW models. Also, there were 2 gun pods with a single 12.7mm to make the firepower issue somewhat solved (just reduce 12mph.)
Short-range somewhat alt missions?
There were only 'EW' models, the aircraft was not developed into the 'mid' and 'late' war settings.
Further, you're reducing (at low altitudes) an already low speed, poor maneuverability, and poor climb rate with those gun pods.
-
:aok
более русские самолеты!
This :aok
-
In june 1941, there were twice as many mig3 in service as the yak1.
Compare the performance of the mig3, yak1, and lagg1 and produced by june 1941 and you find that the mig3 is pretty good in comparison and far better at high altitude.
WWII was being fought long before pearl harbor.....ask the finns who ran up huge scores shooting down russian planes.
Have to remember than late war main is not the only arena in aces high.
-
Compare the performance of the mig3, yak1, and lagg1 and produced by june 1941 and you find that the mig3 is pretty good in comparison and far better at high altitude.
Have to remember than late war main is not the only arena in aces high.
Thank you for again pointing out it's a high altitude plane. Also, you're right about the Late War. Although, it gets the most of the crowd on the LW there's more arenas.
-
Thank you for again pointing out it's a high altitude plane. Also, you're right about the Late War. Although, it gets the most of the crowd on the LW there's more arenas.
wich is a real shame because early war should be the best fun with a lot of people. i also have a lot of fun in mid war. the only thing that i find fun in LW is flying with the squad.
-
wich is a real shame because early war should be the best fun with a lot of people. i also have a lot of fun in mid war. the only thing that i find fun in LW is flying with the squad.
What about the WWI arena and AvA? It's really a shame when you can't get into a decent dogfight in the WWI arena. Anyway, the MiG-3 is a good fighter if it's flown right.
-
What about the WWI arena and AvA? It's really a shame when you can't get into a decent dogfight in the WWI arena. Anyway, the MiG-3 is a good fighter if it's flown right.
about the ww1. it has few planes and indeed it is fun for sometime but then it gets old at least for me. with that arena evoluting i sure would go there more.
the AvA i go when it is on a theme i like. im not a big fan of Japan vs US theme but still i went there once or twice to up some zeroes it was real fun, there were about 15-20 if i remember correctly
anyway MIG3!!!
-
the AvA i go when it is on a theme i like. im not a big fan of Japan vs US theme but still i went there once or twice to up some zeroes it was real fun, there were about 15-20 if i remember correctly
anyway MIG3!!!
The MiG-3 might change that. If the other planes get some sort of boost besides the US and Japan it could be useful.
-
i cant wait to see a barbarossa event. just saying :noid
-
I'm looking forward to Eastern Front scenarios.