A
proper flight modeling program would be useful. Unfortunately, a
proper flight sim model would sell less than 10 copies because, well, that is about how many pilots of Il-2 or P-51D would buy them. What is available it a game, one that is designed for game play, not accuracy. The fact that it doesn't even spell the name of the aircraft (it is
Shturmovik not Sturmovik when you translate it into English) is also interesting as well as an illustration of the "playability over accuracy" of any game.
As an example, how long does an Il-2 survive in one-on-one combat with any German fighter? If the time exceeds 60 seconds, it is inaccurate as a real sim. If it manages to shoot down the attacker in anything more than once in a hundred encounter it is unrealistic. While remarkably well armored from ground fire, the Shturmovik was quite vulnerable to fighter attack if the attacker came in from a high angle of attack and hit the crew compartment or the engine (there is also some evidence from post-war interrogation of German pilots that the plane was vulnerable to attack from below and behind due to its non-retractable oil cooler; Soviet veterans dispute this). For that matter how long does the rear seater survive in the game. In real combat, the Soviets actually came up with a spring that kept the rear gun in the up position so Luftwaffe pilots would not know when the killed the gunner since they died so often. A good number of the gunners were punishment troops. They were offered freedom if the made it through 10 flights as a gunner. Since Stalin was loath to let punishment troops earn freedom, I think the math is pretty clear (of course any of the poor souls who survived 9 missions were than transferred to mine clearance units for their last month of service; Stalin was not a good person).
I'll go even further. How difficult is it to take off in a P-51 in the game? Or land it? If it is anything less than the most difficult part of the game, it is unrealistic. How does the Mustang handle before you use up the 40 gallons of fuel in the tank behind the pilot? If it is anything other than a total pig, or if the game doesn't consider it, it isn't realistic. How difficult is it to adjust the propeller pitch? What about choke settings?
How does the La-7 handle at 31K compared to 25K? The same? Vastly different, with a pronounced problem in banking and a lot of sideslip while in level flight? How about throttle response at 31K? How much does the speed fall off? If it doesn't drop by at least 20% (more likely 30%) the sim isn't modeling actual performance.
Just the idea that you could hit a target a kilometer away with a 37mm cannon with anything other than blind luck is also instructive. Simply doesn't happen in real life unless you mange to settle in directly behind the target, and even then the turbulence from the bomber box is going to bounce you around by 10-12 feet until you get close to an individual aircraft. How much bucking does the sim model in when you are approaching a bomber box from behind? How often are you shot down by the gunners? IRL the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft in air-to-air combat with B-17s than any other type of aircraft flown by any of the Allies. If you aren't shot down as often as you are successful the sim is designed for enjoyment, not realism.
The B-29 flew at 25K in the PTO because going higher put it into the teeth of the Jet Stream over Japan, the Jet Stream was commonly at 110 MPH (sometimes up to 160mph), with it the B-29 would have ground speed of over 400 mph, against it, it would max out at about 200 knots, usually much less. The B-29 also didn't need to fly over 25K because most of the Japanese fighter were total pigs at that height or higher. Actually, for the most part, B-29s flew at 5,000-6,000 feet, the better to create firestorms. Nonetheless it was rate for and could hold 33K with reasonable performance and solid control, something that was lacking in most fighters at that height.
How long do you think it would take to reverse engineer the death traps that the Japanese flew? The IJA's best attack method against the B-29 was a Kamikaze attack. Tends to use up your airframes and pilots, but it was effective (see the recent book
Whirlwind for some useful information on this tactic). It is important to recall that the POD calls for a 1945 war, not 1947 or 48. The Red Air Force was going to have to play the hand available, not the hand it would have two years later. If one goes into that mode, the U.S. will have the potential for both B-45 and B-36 bombers and F-84 fighters while the USSR will not have the RR Nene that they got IOTL so no MiG-15 is on the horizon.
Good points.
There was Yak 9U that had a 37mm cannon which could hit a large target at 1km. Just one 37mm cannon round would bring down a B29.
As to the La 7 from what I'm reading it had a ceiling of 31168 ft. The B29 flew at 25000 of lower for maximum range and bombing height. Both the La 7 and the 9U could reach the required height I believe.
There was also the Yak 3R and La 7R. Both rather inexpensive rocket assisted fighters that may have made a difference.
If nothing else they had some captured KI 84 and KI 100 from Manchuria. Both of these models were more than capable of tearing apart a B29. Maybe a little reverse engineering. The also had some captured German TA 152s from what I understand.
My point being that I find it hard to believe that a nation that defeated the German army could not produce a fighter that could catch and shoot down a B29 if the need arose. It did for the Japanese and they made the afore mentioned KI-100.
Another weapon that they might have gotten their hands on was the Ruhrstahl X-4 wire guided missile. As modeled in IL2 Sturmovik 1946 it is devastating to bomber formations.
IMO I don't think that a nation as creative and focused on it's very survival couldn't find a solution to the problem in fairly short order.
"I would urgently suggest that the fact that a flight sim, designed around a specific Soviet aircraft and meant to be played by the average joe is a rather lousy way of determining the capacity of the respective air forces in question."
And I would disagree.
If properly modeled I can think of no better way to determine if something is possible than to model it on a computer if you can't recreate the actual machine. I hardly think that spouting a few numbers is a better way then using a computer model that hopefully takes into account all the variables which IL2 1946 does.
From wind buffeting to prop wash every relevant variable that I know of is simulated. On maximum settings this is not a game for the average joe.
I can't personally keep a plane in the air in a dogfight on maximum settings with having to remember when to hit the turbo charge or close or open the radiator or setting the trim while trying to aim while the wind and head shake is throwing your aim all off, while keeping an eye on the gauges to make sure you oil pressure and engine pressure are in the black, while experiencing black out because you turned too sharp etc.
Now if you show me that the flight model is wrong that's a different matter.
I'm just inquiring...are you familiar with IL2 1946 at all? Maybe you know something I don't about it's flight modeling. As far as I know it is very accurate but I maybe wrong.
