PDA

View Full Version : Is the I-16 & I-153 way over powered? History proves them to be much weaker.



MichaelMar
07-04-2005, 04:56 PM
Hello,

I mainly play on early war maps, with realism high, and mostly fly the Fiat G.50. My death-to-kill ratio against these is about 3:1. This might seem good but according to real life historical events the I-16 and I-153 were much 'weaker' and was easy pickens for the Fiat G50.

For example in the book ' Finnish Aces of WWII' states " ...nine I-153s from 195 and 197.IAP attacked the observation craft. During the five minute battle eight G.50 downed ALL the I-153s , with with 2 falling to Puhakka in FA-1.

Also from the same book:'...durning '41 LeLv26 had downed 52 aircraft( many of which I add were the planes in question) with it's Fiat G50s without ANY losses."

Time and time again the reading shows evidence the the Fiat G50 was a much better plane then the I-16 and I-153. But in IL2 it is just the opposit...these Russian fighters own just about all early war planes!

So, what is it in IL2 that makes these planes SOOOO much better then they were in real life? The Fiat G.50 should own the skys against these planes but in game this is extremly hard to do.

And yes, I am pretty good at flying the fiat...been flying it for the last 7 months.

THX

JG53Frankyboy
07-04-2005, 05:09 PM
in real, these FAF combat reports, the pilotquality counts more than the plane - if the performance difference is not too big.

about power - the Polikarpows in game has all aroun 1000HP.
the FIAT has 840HP

p1ngu666
07-04-2005, 05:14 PM
could have been earlier i16 and i15x series aircraft
but yes, the g50 is cr@p ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-04-2005, 05:17 PM
It`s a big mistake to assume that an aircraft type is inaccurate because YOU can`t meet a kill ratio of pilots in R\L. Like JG53Frankyboy says, it`s about pilot quality. Are you saying that you`re easily as skilled as a R\L trained fighter pilot and therefore I16s are too strong cos you can`t shoot them down in droves?

Tut-tut-tut! You flatter yourself.

Reduce the I16 skill levels to easy then maybe you`ll meet your heroe`s quota.

LEXX_Luthor
07-04-2005, 05:43 PM
Ya, Finnish pilots were very small in number and equally high in training, skill, and most of all, motivation, defending their homeland.

Oleg_Maddox, posting about 1941 Eastern Front kill scores::
Luftwaffe pilots ten times better.
And, on average, the Finnish pilot was better than the Luftwaffe pilots. So, what makes Finnish G.50s so great is not modded in the game. That should answer your Question.

What you can do is talk to the Online dogfighters on those early maps. Ask if they will use artificially difficult joystick settings, fly with high Zoom in view and then disable the ability to change zoom, and other things that will make the most experienced of them simulate lesser trained or Newbie pilots.

Frequent_Flyer
07-04-2005, 06:13 PM
Somethig to consider, "claims" are insanely exaterrated vs. confirmed kills by all the combatants.Also There was not a uniform critera for "confirmed".

LEXX_Luthor
07-04-2005, 07:23 PM
Also, I think the Finns were more on the Defensive, like the Flying Tigers against the Japanese in China, so skilled pilots using proper tactics (that means tactics that work) can excel. The Finns also appeared to have a working alert system like the Flying Tigers used to ensure Advantage over the Japanese long before combat began.

Actually, the Soviet pilots were as skilled "pilots" as anybody, training many hours, but they lacked the combat training, field leadership, and tactical experience (most competent leaders were arrested by Stalin, some shot, and all had to be replaced). The few Finnish pilots had all the combat experience they could handle, and then some.

No, none of this is modded in the sim.

I don't know what mods of I-16 were used against Finland, but for pilots who knew how to fly it, the -18 and up were generally equal to or a tad superior to Bf-109 Email-4 in The Dogfight(tm) and in the right hands almost competitive with 109 Females. I-16s were very powerful little fighters. They did, after all, have Ussian Wright engines. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Is the I-16 & I-153 way over powered? History proves them to be much weaker.
Ya, just remembered the thread title. They had powerful engines, and very low weight. And, Wright Rules! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-04-2005, 07:53 PM
um...I-16 great at low altitude that is. Bf was always much better up high.

VW-IceFire
07-04-2005, 08:14 PM
Keep in mind that we have later versions of both the I-16 and the I-153. I did some reading about the both of them recently and I learned alot...the I-16s that we have represented the Russians considered near equal with the Bf109E. If you can believe that...and maybe I can.

But there were comments about the earlier Series 4 I-16s for instance which they considered very poor performers.

Some I-16s were also armed with ShKAS and UB machine guns instead of 20mm ShVAKs as well. Very interesting. Very varried history and set of armament and engines installed on these fighters.

Tooz_69GIAP
07-04-2005, 10:09 PM
Well, the type 18s we have are armed with 4x7.62mm MGs. Only the type 24s have cannon in the game.

VW-IceFire
07-04-2005, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Well, the type 18s we have are armed with 4x7.62mm MGs. Only the type 24s have cannon in the game.
Its my understanding there were many versions in between.

The Type 4s were **** apparently...the Type 18 and 24s were quite good.

And yes the 24s ingame have 20mm cannons. Apparently another version had 2 UB machine guns as well.

RAF74_Vostok
07-04-2005, 10:55 PM
The Finns took the Brewster Buffalo, the F2A, a plane which was shot down in large numbers in the Pacific and received such a bad reputation it was often taken off the front lines after one major battle, and achieved a fantastic kill/death ratio.

Although i'm not certain, i think there was a certain lack of urgency regarding the Finnish front - and the Soviets knew, even if they would never admit it, they had attacked Finland first and their military pretext was valid. The Finns also fought with extrodinary valour and ability, which made invading and conquering this relatively poor country extremely cost-ineffective.

This parallel respect/indifference is shown in how the Soviet Union prosecuted war against Finland - once Finland reached the pre-Winter War boundries it basically held off; and Russian offensives were generally half hearted. When Russia finally invaded in 1944 they were stopped by dogged resistance.

Of all the Axis allies that the Soviet Union defeated, only Finland was allowed to remain a free, if encumbered, state not directly controlled by the Soviet Communist agenda.

So what i'm saying is that the Finnish Airforce succeeded both because of their impressive skill and defensive nature, but also because the Soviet Union never really tried to demolish Finland either. These impressive kill totals were stretched out over several years, and for the Soviets, losing a few planes here and there to Finnish resistance probably never caused a blip on their 'radar'.

GerritJ9
07-05-2005, 02:22 AM
The mission "Hasse Wind" matches Finnish B-239s against Soviet Huricane IIBs and I-16s. I have found that I can usually get two or three Hurricanes per mission (maximum was five)........ but the I-16 is a different matter. I only get one I-16 occasionally, it is a tough opponent. Granted, the B-239 is modelled a bit too slow; it should be about 20 km/h faster at 5000 metres. However, even if this were modelled correctly I doubt if there would be a significant improvement in my I-16 kills.
The B-239, although slower, will easily outturn a Hurricane, but the I-16 is every bit as manoeuverable, and then some. It is a difficult target indeed.

LEXX_Luthor
07-05-2005, 02:57 AM
And its small, you have to hit it first.

Badsight.
07-05-2005, 04:03 AM
the G_50 is a fantastic TnB plane , be sure

but it has a nasty stall

players who are smooth will get excellent results in this plane

its not cr4p , its just not easy to push hard . under-estimate it at your peril

SeaFireLIV
07-05-2005, 04:13 AM
The B239 is the arch enemy of the I16. Fly it well and the I16`s in trouble, I know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-05-2005, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Well, the type 18s we have are armed with 4x7.62mm MGs. Only the type 24s have cannon in the game.
Its my understanding there were many versions in between.

The Type 4s were **** apparently...the Type 18 and 24s were quite good.

And yes the 24s ingame have 20mm cannons. Apparently another version had 2 UB machine guns as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the last version, Type 29 , had two SchKas and one UBS in the nose.

TacticalYak3
07-05-2005, 09:47 AM
Interesting discussion. Really enjoyed learning more about the Winter War and Continuation War, and especially how well the Finnish Airforce performed with the Brewster against Russia.

Actually SeaFireLIV, while we must never forget we are just virtual pilots, I do believe the community is far better trained for dogfights then the young, inexperienced, and often poorly trained lads that actually flew WWII planes. Something about that Refly button. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Obviously, this is just a game and they are the heroes we attempt to emulate mate.

Regards,
TactS!

triggerhappyfin
07-05-2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Also, I think the Finns were more on the Defensive, like the Flying Tigers against the Japanese in China, so skilled pilots using proper tactics (that means tactics that work) can excel. The Finns also appeared to have a working alert system like the Flying Tigers used to ensure Advantage over the Japanese long before combat began.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Actually, the Soviet pilots were as skilled "pilots" as anybody, training many hours, but they lacked the combat training, field leadership, and tactical experience (most competent leaders were arrested by Stalin, some shot, and all had to be replaced).</span> The few Finnish pilots had all the combat experience they could handle, and then some.

No, none of this is modded in the sim.

I don't know what mods of I-16 were used against Finland, but for pilots who knew how to fly it, the -18 and up were generally equal to or a tad superior to Bf-109 Email-4 in The Dogfight(tm) and in the right hands almost competitive with 109 Females. I-16s were very powerful little fighters. They did, after all, have Ussian Wright engines. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is the I-16 & I-153 way over powered? History proves them to be much weaker.
Ya, just remembered the thread title. They had powerful engines, and very low weight. And, Wright Rules! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Initially before the breakout of the war German intelligence service succeeded with a coup against red army. They managed to plant evidence on a planned military coup against Stalin. This made Stalin to wipe out most of red army top leadership and scared the rest of the officers from making any decisions of their owne, without approwal by party leaders. This prior to German attack on Russia. Goes without saying that this costed hundreds of thousends of Russian lives! No Red army leaders dared to step forward and tell Stalin something was wrong with tactics used! Russian pilots used obsolete and useless tactics such as the Spanish circle(not modeled eather), enabling the Finns to pick them with BnZ tactics one by one.
History books tells us about massive infantry attacks with heavy losses in human lives. This went on until Germans were beaten at Stalingrad.
By the half of the war had past.

LEXX_Luthor
07-05-2005, 12:52 PM
Stalin purged the Red Army officers long before 1941, long before 1939 even.

triggerhappyfin
07-05-2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Stalin purged the Red Army officers long before 1941, long before 1939 even.

Well, not so long actually. The coup I mentioned took place in 36/37. Heydrich used dokuments from the time after WW1 German military and pilots used to cooperate with Russians to be able to train with tanks and aeroplanes - all prohibited the Germans through the Versaille peace treaty.
These dokuments were used to compromise the Red army leaders in front of Stalin.
Heydrich succeeded beyond all imagination.

On the 11 june 1937 the Russian new sagency Tass anounced about a special trial against Marshall Tutchajevskij and 8 more high ranking generals where they was sentenced to death for cooperation with foreign military power.

This was the starting point of the slaughter of Red army leadership. In one year more tyhan 35 000 officers in Red army were assasinated: 90% of the Generals, 80% of the colonels.
Three Marshalls out of seven were shot. Thirteen out of fifteen army commanders. Of 85 army unit commanders 57 were shot.
Out of 195 divisional commanders 110 were killed.

This was a tremendeous blow against the Russian army. Red army was so crippled that it almost didnt cope with the task of occupying it´s part of the chocked and already by German army beaten Poland.

The most remarcable in this story is the Russian recovery to the state that made them beat the German army.

Blackdog5555
07-05-2005, 02:33 PM
I dont think tht they are overpowered but I think that the DM is off...Takes a lot of hits to knock out a 153..or I16..Its good for game play though.

O cours the Russians in their history will state that Finland was "spared" because of lack of motivation or whatever...but the the truth is still out there.

Napolian tried to invade Russia.. then Hitler both failed for the same reason that Stalin failed when he invaded Finland. Just look at the map of finland and you will understand. Finland is a Fortress which cant be penetrated in the winter or summer. Motivation was a major factor but I this Think Stalin knew that Finland was an impossible situation.

It was much like like King George and the British thinking that they could win a war against the US Revolutioary Army in 1776.. Hope you all had a happy forth

Lodovik
07-05-2005, 02:55 PM
Triggerhappyfin, usually I don´t bother bunking misinformation in the net, as that would be an exercise in futility. However, I haven´t got anything better to do right now, so here´s the good work of today.

Not wanting to sound patronising (I´ve let myself be fooled by that same piece of BS too, after all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ) but the German military intelligence plot you´re telling about is all fiction. It was originally invented by a low ranking officer of Abwehr after the war. The guy was looking for his fifteen minutes of fame and tried to make himself sound more interesting than he really was, so he let out about this super secret op he´d taken part in. Later he admitted it was a hoax.
In the end Stalin was paranoid and ruthless enough to pull off his psychotic and really stupid purges on all of his own, no coaxing needed.
So it´s just another urban legend doing it´s rounds in the net and badly researched history books. End of story, kids.

LEXX_Luthor
07-05-2005, 04:03 PM
Thanks Lodovik. Something sounded fishy about Germans "setting up" the Stalin Purge of Red Army. The wild contradictions in the real purge trials prove they didn't really care about information obtained anywhere anytime, but only the fast elimination of Old Bolsheviks and old Army officers from the top down, and just made up contradicting stories and accusations with no help from Germans needed. More basic, Stalin needed no motivational help from Germany to "suspect" and find Guilty the people he targeted for destruction.

Reading Yefim's book on I~16, and it turns out that Polikarpov and other designers were arrested and flung into Special Design Prison *not* for spying as charged, but because OGPU thought arrest, imprisonment, and threats would better motivate the flight sim developers -- I mean -- aircraft designers. Of course they couldn't say that, so they said "spies!"

triggerhappyfin
07-05-2005, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Lodovik:
Triggerhappyfin, usually I don´t bother bunking misinformation in the net, as that would be an exercise in futility. However, I haven´t got anything better to do right now, so here´s the good work of today.

Not wanting to sound patronising (I´ve let myself be fooled by that same piece of BS too, after all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ) but the German military intelligence plot you´re telling about is all fiction. It was originally invented by a low ranking officer of Abwehr after the war. The guy was looking for his fifteen minutes of fame and tried to make himself sound more interesting than he really was, so he let out about this super secret op he´d taken part in. Later he admitted it was a hoax.
In the end Stalin was paranoid and ruthless enough to pull off his psychotic and really stupid purges on all of his own, no coaxing needed.
So it´s just another urban legend doing it´s rounds in the net and badly researched history books. End of story, kids.

You sound pretty sure on it beeing an urban legend....mind to chare your sources of information?

I dont want to be missinformed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
07-05-2005, 05:32 PM
g50 might easily perform better at higher alts than the i16 and i153, but not at teh sea level dogfights so commen in onwhine FP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stalin didnt really favour many people, he would kill anyone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

g50 should be ok to fly, 1/3rd of lift comes for the fusealarge http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

horseback
07-05-2005, 06:03 PM
My take on the subject is twofold: at least before 4.01, the I-153 and I-16's pilots were for all intents and purposes, bulletproof, when they were the most vulnerable component in the RL aircraft.

I've had a few chances to face I-16s in my offline campaigns lately, and they, at least, are much easier to kill now, even with just the LMGs of the 109E. I must say that seeing them go into the fish flop indicating a PK is most satisfying after so many years (yes, years) of frustration at the hands of those little bastages. I suspect that the I-153 will be similarly easy meat now.

The other side of the equation is the skill of the Finnish pilots. Like the LW and US Naval Aviators (and unlike almost every other air force in the world at the time), they were trained with a heavy emphasis on shooting skills, and it showed. With the added motivation of fighting for home and loved ones one almost feels sorry for the Soviet pilots who faced them.

Even in the context of the game, it would be hard to develop comparable skills and obtain similar successes.

cheers

horseback

Tooz_69GIAP
07-05-2005, 09:26 PM
The mentality of the Finns in the air, I am pretty sure would be comparable to the mentality of the BoB RAF pilots. In the book Fighter Boys, there is a lot of narative about the demoralisation of the RAF in France as they were getting pasted, and became absolutely exhausted, but once they were removed back to the UK, and began fighting again, they were a lot more motivated, and morale was far higher, because if they were shot down, they'd be rescued reasonably quickly and be back at base flying soon after. Also, the fact was driven home that they were fighting for their families and homes, with many pilots flying and fighting actually in sight of their family home or schools, and at times parents would be watching dogfights in which their sons were fighting for their lives.

People will fight for their families with a ferocity that is astounding. It far outweighs patriotism.

WTE_Warg
07-06-2005, 04:02 AM
No opinion either way, but some things to consider. The Type 18 & 24 I-16's and the I-153's in this game are among the last of their line of Polikarpov models. If you research, you'll find that many of the I-16's used, were actually Type 5, 6, 10's or other lesser powered versions. As for the Polikarpov biplanes, I-5, I-15 and I-152 (I-15 bis) were frequently used. From the first I-16 series 4 to the last 27, there was an 18% increase in power. Compare this to the 109 over its life and you will see why the Messerschmitt was an all time great. Also, are the hasty methods used in wartime production reflected in the game? Re:History of the LaGG 3. Actually the Finns had a very high opinion of the I-16's they captured and tested. The quality of the Finnish airforce was exceptional and the Russians were rebuilding after the purges. Think its a number of cumulative factors.

Lodovik
07-06-2005, 10:52 AM
Triggerhappyfin, touché http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif As I´m veering OT here, I´ll give you the short answer. My source is PhD. Eero Kuparinen from university of Turku. If you wish to question him on the subject (or some other subject on the Third Reich since he´s a living ensyclopedia), you can find his contact information here. (http://www.hum.utu.fi/historia/yh/yhteys/henk.htm)

Blackdog5555
07-06-2005, 11:47 AM
for 2 more cents.. i just did some test flights with the I16 and I-152. They certainly sputter a lot more. Engines dies if your inverted, etc. dont have the energy they had in 3.05. feel very vulnerable in the things now. cant really comment on the DM. Still a great turner but AI wont Dogfight. They run away.

My understanding was that Russia was helping Germany build its air force prior to the war in violation of Versaille. They were psuedo allies reflected in the Ribbentrop Molotov agreement (Stalin Hitler Pact)..so Russian helping Germany prior to the war would have been probably ok with Stalin.

Seems Stalin hated anyone with an education or power in his own country more than anything from the outside. being more worried about a coup than invasion he evicerated his military of anyone capable of independant thought. Seems common knowledge now.

GerritJ9
07-06-2005, 01:36 PM
German-Soviet cooperation started in the 1920s, way before Hitler came to power. In 1922 Germany and Soviet Russia signed the Treaty of Rapallo. Both Germany and Soviet Russia were more or less outcasts, so they turned to one another for help. Germany needed, among other things, secret testing grounds for new weapons and tactics which Soviet Russia supplied at Lipetsk- far away from any Allied Control Commission which kept tabs on the German Army.
These arrangements were part of the secret protocols which were also signed at Rapallo, without, of course, the outside world knowing anything about them.

Blackdog5555
07-06-2005, 01:53 PM
Thats interesting about Rapallo Gerrit. I just heard from the History Channel that the Soviets were aiding the Germans to develop or manufacture fighter aircraft. very vague information. But, I think Stalin wanted to steal German aviation technology rather than help a fellow outcast. After all it was Germany who caused massive russian losses in WWI.

Of Course our US companies were eager to help Germany too. The US banks were happy to loan money to Germany to build its pocket Battleships which (in most views) was a clear violation of the versaille treaty. but where there is money, there is a way.

p1ngu666
07-06-2005, 02:00 PM
engine devlopment was much slower prewar, and the i16's design ment more power didnt make u go much faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
was a world beater in its day, and one of my favourite aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WTE_Warg
07-07-2005, 04:32 AM
Actually, the figure that I've seen quoted was a 12% increase in power over the life of the I-16. Anyway the engines, takeoff hp for each were, Type 4 M22 480hp, Type 5 M25 700hp, Type 6 M25A 730hp, Type 10 & 17 M25V 775hp, Type 18 & 27 M62 1000hp and for Type 24 & 29 M63 1100hp. Mind you the I-16's armament, weight and increased, which negated some of the potential performance gains from increased engine power. The Bf-109 apparently, had something like a 67% increase in power over the period of its development, which does say something about the adaptability of its airframe. Hope this all helps.