PDA

View Full Version : MiG-3 and ground attack?



okb001
10-05-2007, 11:50 AM
Hello,

I have been pondering if using the MiG-3 mostly for ground attack make any sense (instead of using the I-153 for example)? Since it was designed as an interceptor.

Does anyone know how often that plane was used for such tasks during the early days of the Barbarossa campaign?

Thanks in advance,

cheers.

Hydra454
10-05-2007, 11:57 AM
I think the Mig-3 was pressed into use as a ground attack aircraft in order to try to get the most use out of the aircraft.The Mig-3 never really did all that great as its performance down on the deck is god awful.That and it wasn't known for being all that rugged for ground attack duties.It should be said though that the Mig was viewed by many as an interim design til better aircraft could be developed,which would explain its relatively short production run (compare to say Yaks or La's).

I'm no expert though.Others may have something different to say http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cajun76
10-05-2007, 12:17 PM
IIRC,the main reason it wasn't continued were the continuing teething problems coupled with the fact that there were no high alt fights going on. It showed promise, but there was no niche for a high alt interceptor in the VVS. Additionally, the engine was very similar to that used in the IL2, and the IL2 was considered a higher priority, right up there with bread and water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

DKoor
10-05-2007, 01:34 PM
MiG-3 has sensitive engine and its elevator reminds me of one installed on 109. Also, apart from 2xUB and 2xShVAK versions, is a peashooter.
Soo...........that said........is unsuitable for anything but soft ground targets.

Its GP capabilities can be boosted with rockets, tho.
Bombs are good, but I prefer rockets.

How much it was used in ground pounding actions, I have no idea.
There are quite a few good books about subject outhere, but unfortunately I haven't read any of those.

okb001
10-05-2007, 02:21 PM
Thanks for the replies guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif My question was motivated by the wish to maximize survivability in the opening weeks of Barbarossa. Will flying a MiG-3 improve or lower the chance of fighting another day, than said the I-153 ...

VW-IceFire
10-05-2007, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by okb001:
Thanks for the replies guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif My question was motivated by the wish to maximize survivability in the opening weeks of Barbarossa. Will flying a MiG-3 improve or lower the chance of fighting another day, than said the I-153 ...
I'd rather be in the MiG-3 (historical reliability problems aside) in that at least you might be able to use your speed to get away from a fight should you need to.

msalama
10-05-2007, 03:59 PM
...right up there with bread and water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

...and as regards tactical ground attack for a bloody good reason too, mind you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But the MiG-3 as a ground attack plane? Be it game or history the answer is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif I'm afraid...

CzechTexan
10-05-2007, 09:46 PM
I have read in at least a couple different sources that at least in the first few months of the war that fighters were used in the ground attack role. I assume this includes MiGs too. The Russians were using anything to try and stop the onslaught on the ground.

I remember reading that sturmovik and bomber pilots were complaining and thinking it was foolish to use fighters in the ground attack role instead of using them as escorts. Bombers were getting shot down in huge numbers and one reason was that there were no fighter escorts to drive away the 109s. The fighters being used as ground-attackers were being shot down as well.

However, the Russians had so many planes that the 109s just couldn't get to all of them and this allowed the VVS planes to "slip through" the defences at times.

Perhaps this was the Russian leaders' reasoning for using fighters in the ground attack role. Use overwhelming numbers and surely some of your planes will be able to bomb and strafe the enemy.

Even later in the conflict there would be orders from Russian generals to "throw all available aircraft at the enemy." This happened especially when there was a big German attack at a critical time. All planes including fighters would be rigged to carry bombs or rockets.

Good tactics or not, I'm pretty sure MiGs were used in the ground-attack role.

okb001
10-06-2007, 11:59 AM
Thanks to all. I think I'll stick with the I-153, which seems to have a better survivability over the battlefield (flak) than the MiG.

Divine-Wind
10-06-2007, 12:32 PM
I'd imagine that when faced with a sudden attack over practically your entire border, you'd press anything you could into service...

okb001
10-06-2007, 11:11 PM
Anyone with "experience" in flying the MiG-3 in ground attack mission(s) would like to comment?

Grendel-B
10-07-2007, 06:37 AM
Soviet AF doctrine was of tactical support of ground forces. Any plane would be used for ground attacks. And in times of confusion, poor communications and lacking cooperation fighters were sent into ground attack missions even when they should have escorted actual attack aircraft. So, MiG-3s in ground attack was not nothing unusual, just the normal Soviet doctrine.

Later, when AF slowly learned of the errors and got rid of the political commissars and their stupidities, they started using the resources more efficiently.

arrow80
10-07-2007, 08:01 AM
I recently read a book by A.I. Pokryshkin where he says that they used Mig-3 quite frequently in ground attack role armed with rockets but also with guns against soft targets in the beginning of the war. The situation was so desperate that at this time russians used every aircraft they had also in ground attack role.

PBNA-Boosher
10-07-2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by okb001:
Anyone with "experience" in flying the MiG-3 in ground attack mission(s) would like to comment?

To be perfectly honest: Don't get hit. The MiG is a rather fragile plane for ground attack. Now, did that mean it wasn't used, I doubt it. But as the war progressed I'd imagine that the MiG was pressed into CAP duties more often than ground attack. It just wasn't an effective use of the airplane.

DKoor
10-07-2007, 06:23 PM
I-153 or MiG-3 for ground pounding?
I don't know.

I'd probably choose I-153 because of my "feeling" that ac is slightly tougher than MiG-3.
But is demanding to fly nevertheless.

For anything else but ground pounding, offline, I'd choose MiG-3.
Simply is faster and better suited for WW2 overall than I-153.
Many times I've been in position to defend myself in desperation from high flying 109s......but simply, I couldn't outrun them and I've been forced to fight. Sometimes it goes in my favor sometimes I lose.

When in MiG-3 I usually pwn enemies in fighter vs fighter or fighter vs bomber combat with a little help from my computer controlled buddies offline.

Like I already said, if we're talking about online, I have little doubt - I'd choose I-153.
MiG-3 in game is still inferior plane to the 109Fs and does have practically no advantages over Friedrichs while I-153 can at least turn vs them and is probably(!dubious) more durable.

sdcruz
10-08-2007, 01:34 AM
Also the Mig 3 gets damaged very easily.

okb001
10-08-2007, 08:38 AM
Thanks guys. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

okb001
10-09-2007, 04:08 PM
So I did a bunch comparison flights with QMB (Crimea, 2 planes attacking an airbase) to see which one of the MiG-3, IL-2 (early 1940) and I-153 offered the most survival chances when performing ground attack (in all 3 examples I was just carrying RS-82 rockets). For the all three flights, I tried to reproduce as much as I could the same attack pattern, and here's the outcome:

* MiG3 : fuel tank set on fire during the first attack pass, plane exploded few seconds after.
* IL-3 : survived 2 low-level passes (firing rockets and guns on each), heavily damaged, pilot killed on the third pass
* I-153: survived 3 low-level passes (firing rockets and guns on each), heavily damaged (bullets hole ALL over), pilot wounded on the 2nd pass then pilot killed on the fourth pass

I think the reason I survived longer with the Tchaika is due to it's small size and good flight handling which allow some quick and easy altitude/attitude changes ... tricking the flak http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ... that been said, since I'm very low-average pilot, better and more experience "pilot" could have done better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Xiolablu3
10-09-2007, 04:20 PM
I am no Mig3 expert, but I certainly wouldnt recommend the plane for ground attack.

Its fragile, has poor low alt performance. Isnt very agile.

A few hits from flak and you will be down.


Better with a Yak1 and rockets or I would even prefer an i16. At least its radial engine can stand a few hits.

okb001
10-11-2007, 01:54 PM
Followed Xiolablu3 suggestion in a similar mission setting:

* I-16: survived 1 low-level pass but pilot wounded and elevator stuck leading to crash
* Yak-1: survived 2 low-level passes (firing rockets and guns on each), moderately damaged, pilot killed on the third pass

So the Yak-1 and the I-153 seems the best choice for ground attack duties during the opening weeks of Barbarossa (at least until the IL-2 is available in large numbers).

JtD
10-11-2007, 02:00 PM
I'd take the I-153 over the other VVS fighters early on. If caught down low by enemy fighters, it offers the best chances of survival. The newer planes, LaGG, Yak, MiG are all completely outclassed by F model 109's, while the I-16 and the I-153 at least enjoy some maneuvering advantages. Of the two, the I-153 carries more ground attack weapons and is the tougher plane.

I do a lot of ground pounding, but I used the MiG only a few times. It just sucks at ground attack.

Stiletto-
10-11-2007, 02:42 PM
How much better is the MiG-3 AM down low with the low altitude IL-2 engine? I'm wondering if thats more worthwhile for the low altitude combat offline and online.

May I also say that I think it's a pitty only 6 or 8 of the MiG-3 U's were ever made? Back in the original IL2 I used to fly that when it was available in '42 type settings, and it did pretty well, until more people realized it was slightly more than a prototype and it got the axe from historic based servers. Still I'd like to see it as a limited plane with a limit of like 4 or 6, in a 42 or 43 server.

Polyperhon
10-11-2007, 03:25 PM
As far as I know, they were not many Yak-1s available in the beggining of the barbarossa campaign, as were not many LaGG-3s. MiG-3s were more in number, but still very few compared with the I-153 and I-16.I have the impression that the I-16 was the fighter that was more heavily used as a ground attack plane, at least until the battle of kursk.It seems that LaGGs were used in ground attack more often than Yaks and MiGs too.I think a good idea is to try I-16s and early LaGGs and then tell us your impressions!

To Stiletto: AM-38 or not, I think that not much is changed in terms of ground attack performance.And i agree that MiG-3U is very good.I have a question here: Why nobody never thought of installing a M-82 radial into a IL-2?So the real question of WWII soviet avation is:Was La-5 clearly better than the MiG-3U?

okb001
10-11-2007, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
I think a good idea is to try I-16s and early LaGGs and then tell us your impressions!

oh I did, see previous page http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
10-11-2007, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by okb001:
Followed Xiolablu3 suggestion in a similar mission setting:

* I-16: survived 1 low-level pass but pilot wounded and elevator stuck leading to crash
* Yak-1: survived 2 low-level passes (firing rockets and guns on each), moderately damaged, pilot killed on the third pass

So the Yak-1 and the I-153 seems the best choice for ground attack duties during the opening weeks of Barbarossa (at least until the IL-2 is available in large numbers).

Hi mate,

Try and come in faster when attacking, and zoom away after the pass. You are perhaps flying too slow and therefore an easy target for the gunners.

Always take out the AAA first. Other targets can wait and are no threat.

Ukdedicated2 has some great early war Eatern front maps for practising ground attack. USually with the very plaeset you are listing, yak1, mig3, i16, i153. There may be an early il2 there as well, not sure.

Ukded2 is where I honed my ground attack capabilities. IU learned to always come in very fast so as not to be an easy target for the flak. The slower you are travelling the more hits you will take http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
10-12-2007, 11:10 AM
The MiG-3 AM38 has excellent flight performance down low. However, it still is poor for ground attack, it carries no decent weapons and is still too easy to damage. Also the heavy elevator make that plane a tricky ground attack aircraft, since you cannot pull out when going fast.


Why nobody never thought of installing a M-82 radial into a IL-2?So the real question of WWII soviet avation is:Was La-5 clearly better than the MiG-3U?

I don't think the M-82 would have done the Il-2 a lot of good. But I'm sure some guys thought of it back then. The La-5 was most certainly easier to manufacture than the MiG-3U. Probably easier to fly and to maintain as well. Unlike in computer games, these things count a lot when there is a war going on.

JG53Frankyboy
10-12-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
.....................I have a question here: Why nobody never thought of installing a M-82 radial into a IL-2?..............

well, IL2 M-82 ->
http://forum.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/p/149833#149833

avimimus
10-12-2007, 01:45 PM
The problem is that the Mig-3 is highly flammable in Il-2 (is this realistic?), otherwise I would prefer it for ground attack.

It is too bad that the AM-38 is missing most armament options.

Cajun76
10-13-2007, 01:42 AM
More effective loadout options for the AM-38 engine are listed under the IL-2 airframe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
10-13-2007, 03:36 AM
My problem with MiG-3 for ground attack is that it's too close to stall at low enough speeds
for effective target line up and strike. The hard turn envelope for dodging ground fire is
just not there at under 340kph unless stall and spin into crash could be called dodging.

I'd rather have the LaGG-3.

Philipscdrw
10-13-2007, 08:11 AM
The I-153P is brilliant for ground attack! It drifts along at about 3mph, and you can gradually catch up with a column of tanks and with a little bit of practice, drop a rocket into each one's commander's hatch on every pass. It's so agile it's hard to hit and dead easy to wheel it around and line up with the tank column time and time again.

I fly a racetrack pattern, like an airfield circuit, around my target, picking off the tanks one-by-one with the RS-82s. If you have a near-miss with the rockets, the splash damage cause the tahk to be an easy kill with the cannon.

Downsides: it's next to impossible to see the instrument panel, so on full-real servers you don't know where you're going. Speedbar helps a lot! And the iron sights obstruct the reflector sights. And if the -M62's guns are good for anything at all, I don't know what it is.