PDA

View Full Version : More complete english translation of Major Kozhemyako



WWMaxGunz
10-04-2005, 09:16 AM
It is being done on SimHQ by Ian Boys who does speak Russian. Only one small correction
from Starshoy I have seen so far.

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....c,f=127,t=000855,p=1 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic,f=127,t=000855,p=1)

I had to hand type that link, the thread title is;

Yak pilot: Kozhemyako Interview translated.

Please note that Kozhemyako was very impressed with the 109's. We are looking now about
109G-2 and Yak-1B. That 109 could always dive away from that Yak when extending away from
the fight.

From my view, if the Yak starts showing an advantage, the 109 dives away. This is
not when the Yak is already on the 109's tail in firing range. More when on the other
side of the circle and the 109 is not closing. But read the text and decide from whole
descriptions. Leave the bits and pieces "text algebra" to people who are not interested
in actual combat.

crazyivan1970
10-04-2005, 09:27 AM
I translated the whole thing back in the day...was here in ORR. Maybe still around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Buzzsaw-
10-04-2005, 09:43 AM
Salute

I read the SimHQ thread with interest.

It is clear that Kozhemyako is saying the Yak is a more maneuverable plane in the horizontal plane, and that the 109's could not compete in that realm, and that the Germans used vertical tactics.

Nice translation by Ian Boys.

WWMaxGunz
10-04-2005, 10:05 AM
I'd like to get that full translation Ivan. This time to save to HD.
I know I've never gotten to read a lot of it, just parts.

That SimHQ thread, BTW, is from the archives dated Feb. 2005.

I'll PM yer Ivan and you can yell at me a bit?

Buzzsaw-
10-04-2005, 10:54 AM
Salute Max

Your link doesn't work, so I am going to post Ian Boys entire translation here.

>>>>>>>

PART 1

Interview with Ivan Ivanovich Kozhemyako

Translated by Ian Boys

Part 6 - Soviet and German Combat Tactics.

Q: Ivan Ivanovich, in our conversation the term "types of fighter combat tasks" often crops up. Can you expand on these different types and clarify, one by one, where the Messer was more effective and where the Yak?

A: In those days, during the war, fighters carried out the following combat tasks:
1. Free Hunt
2. Manoeuvre combat with fighter opponents
3. Fighter combat while escorting our attack aircraft
4. Attacks on enemy bombers.

Free Hunt was a hit and run attack. Whether with mg/cannon vs airborne targets or with bombs against ground targets didn't matter, the principle was the same: a single strike with the element of surprise then full speed away from the target.

Here the Messer was beyond all the competition, considerably better than the Yak. Its higher speed already makes it better.
I don't know exactly but I think the 109's metal construction must have meant it could carry a bigger bomb load. Also the later versions of the 109 had better cannon armament than the Yak.

Q: That is correct, the Messer could carry a 250kg bomb, 50kg more than the Yak.

A: There you are - that's why I'm saying the Messer is a much better aerial hunter than the Yak. If I flew just Free Hunt sorties I would choose the Messer every time. The ability to leave your opponent at high speed, to dive with high stability, to turn on boost simply - these are important qualities of a hunter-fighter.That's how hunter Messers could just fly away from Yaks - something a Yak couldn't do to a Messer.

Q: That's very clear. Now, how would a Yak-1 fare in manoeuvre combat with a Bf-109G, i.e. in a dogfight?

A: This kind of fight generally happened when we had to "clear the air" but weren't escorting our own aircraft. It sometimes happened when we encountered enemy hunters, but less often. In this kind of fight there were no limits to speed or manoeuvre and the Yak and Messer were roughly equal (if the pilots were of equal quality, of course). However there are still a couple of factors to consider:
1. The fight had to be under 4000m. Above that the Messer had the advantage with a better engine for the altitude. The Messer would start to gain a significant speed advantage, over 20 km/h.
2. If the fight took place under 4000m the Messers would also start with a slight advantage because at top speed it was better than the Yak in the vertical. A better climb rate allows you to gain altitude and thereby gain the initiative in the fight.
3. However if the combat drags on, speeds start to fall and the advantage moves to the Yak. At lowerspeeds there is less scope for vertical manoeuvre and horizontal turns are of greater value. In this way Yaks gradually get the upper hand because of their better horizontal turn. Therefore extended combats are poor tactics for the Messer.

Q: So by manoeure combat you mean an extended fighter-fighter engagement.

A: Yes. As opposed to Free Hunt, escorting or attacks on bombers.

Q: And is it better to have the advantage at the beginning or end of a fight?

A: Better at the beginning. If you enter the fight right you can get the advantage, hold the initiative and kill your opponent.Or, if the fght is going badly, holding the initiative allows you to end the fight and escape at any time.
And it did happen, the Messers that didn't get kills on us straight away just left the fight. They saw there was no point in continuing and left in the vertical, translating that into a dive, and there was no way the Yaks could catch them.

Q: So how far would speeds have to drop to allow Yaks to gain the advantage?

A: I couldn't tell you exactly. But I could feel the moment when he could no longer pull up and away - and I knew I could catch him. It was my turn! But you had to hurry - because the German also realised the situation pretty quickly and could end the battle by diving away and we would just have to watch them go.

Q: OK, let's talk about Yaks and Messers as escorts for strike aircraft. I take it by strike aircraft you meant IL-2's or Ju-87's - low altitude planes.

A: As escorts the Yak was far better than the Messer, no question.

Q: Why's that?

A: You see, a formation of bombers (or sturmoviks) limits your ability for vertical manoeuvre. The defensive fire makes it very difficult to break upwards after the attack, you can really only go to the sides.

Therefore an escorting fighter with good horizontal manoeuvrability is better, so the Yak is better than the Messer.

Q: But deoesn't the Messer's speed advantage have a role to play?

A: No, it's not much use when escorting bombers - you would lose them. Nor is it much use in chasing down attackers as you are not allowed to leave the bombers. In escort duties turning is the thing so the Yak is a good escort.

BTW as an air defence fighter, i.e. against enemy bombers and their escorts, the Yak is also better than the Messer as attacks to break up enemy formations also rely on horizontal turns. Vertical manoeuvrability isn't much use.

Speed isn't much use in attacking bombers either - the bombers can't attack their target at top speed or if they do they generally lose speed before firing [here he means strafing/rocket attacks]. If they attack at maximum speed they probably won't hit or if they do it will be with insufficient weight of fire to reliably destroy the target. And, as I said, they normally exit horizontally.

Q: Can we discuss an example then? Show how fighters cover attack aircraft? Ours and the Germans.

Let's say, six Yaks are covering 6 Il's and are attacked by 6 Messers. Is that a realistic ratio?

A: Yes, that's realistic - it happened several times. In the second half of the war the Yak to Il ratio was often 1 to 1, so 8 for 8, 6 for 6, 4 for 4 etc.

Part 2 - Escorting


Q: Can we discuss an example then? Show how fighters cover attack aircraft? Ours and the Germans.

Let's say, six Yaks are covering 6 Il's and are attacked by 6 Messers. Is that a realistic ratio?

A: Yes, that's realistic - it happened several times. In the second half of the war the Yak to Il ratio was often 1 to 1, so 8 for 8, 6 for 6, 4 for 4 etc.

Q: What formations, speed and spacing did the Il's and the covering Yaks use?

A: The Il's fly in an arrowhead at 1000 - 2000m alt. The six Yaks fly in pairs, to the left, to the right and above the Il's. The pairs out to the side are about 3-400m out and a little higher, maybe 100m. Those above are 500m higher. If the Il's turn right, for example, then the left hand pair stay with the leading Il and the right hand pair cover the trailing Il. Of course, the Yaks have to fly in zigzags, always checking the surrounding airspace. The Il's are doing 300-350, the Yaks 400-450.

At the target, if there are no enemy fighters, the Il's set up a circular pattern and "work over" the target in multiple passes. Our Ivans don't like carrying ammunition home. We go 500m above and 500m to the side and zigzag around, checking for bandits. After the attack is finished we form up as I said before.

Q: Right, let's say that six Bf-109G spot you on the way to the target. How do they attack? And did they generally attack as you approached the target or as you headed home?

A: Mostly on the approach, sometimes on the way home.
The Germans were very calculating and careful and didn't lose their heads in an attack. Generally they flew 500m above the top Yaks and set up a wide circle in and out of the clouds (if present), waiting for a good moment to attack. When that moment came, the attack was normally by a single Messer at full speed - a sharp dive at 600-620 km/h. Mostly he came out the sun and was aimed at the trailing Il. He aimed to strike at top speed, kill the Il, turn away and race back up to altitude.
A variation on this was an attack from below. The German dived well below the Messer and skimmed the ground at high speed and then attacked the Il in the belly before breaking away to the side and upwards.
Before the attack other Messers might simulate an attack to disorient us, causing us to miss the real attack. Still, sometimes they didn't and the attacker just relied on surprise.

Q: Let's say you are leading the pair covering the rear Il when you see a Messer beginning his attack. What do you do?

A: The pair head right for the attacking Messerschmitt on an interception course, climbing if he is above or diving if he is below. We fire barrier fire [acoss his nose]. Chances are, I won't hit him, because the chances of a hit are low (though they did happen) but I can force him away from him planned attack path. After passing him I do a tight turn (important: keeping the Messer in sight) and fire after him.I can't catch him - I'll be doing 450 or so and he 600-620 but I will mess up him aim. Aiming is tricky with tracers racing past your cockpit. Of course there's always the chance I will hit him, even with just 1-2 rounds).
If the bandit went low and I have enough room sometimes I don't head for him but let him past as though I haven't spotted him and then I do a tight turn and drop right on his tail. In general, it's a question of distance.
In addition the Germans are facing fire from the defensive heavy MG's on the Il's, which isn't much fun either.

Q: And what does the Messer do?

A: Well the German pilot has 2 choices:
1) He can ignore me and the gunners on the Il, slow down and fire accurately at the Il. If he gets it right he has a good chance of a kill. This option is dangerous, though, and I could catch him (I'm at full power, picking up speed while he is slowing down). The Il gunners also have a much greater chance of hitting him.
2) He can mount a full speed attack. The risks are lower but the chances of killing an Il are small indeed (though it happened). The Il is manoeuvering, the difference in speed between the Il and Messer is great. The German cn only shoot at the Il, no chance at all of aiming at the cockpit or the oil cooler. Therefore with this method the German will either miss completely or just put a couple of rounds on the target, just one of which is explosive, ardly fatal for the armoured Il.

Q: Which option did the Germans normally choose?

A: The second, of course! The Germans never slowed down! Full speed strike and up into the vertical. If he slows down I'll catch him. Germans didn't like risks. The first option was only used when they had 100% surprise, when the German sees there is no opposition at all. Only then would he slow down.

Part 3

Q: What did the German pilots do after the attack?

A: He would pull away to the side of the Il€s and go past them then up into the vertical. My pair would, while the enemy is climbing away, move back into position. I wouldn€t chase after the Messer, also because to leave the Sturmoviks was categorically forbidden.

Q: Would there be more attacks?

A: Normally no. Why? Well, for a start, they don€t have a numerical advantage. Secondly, if my pair drove off the attacking Messers they would have understood that they are up against experienced pilots, not rookies. It€s dangerous flying against experieced pilots €" you can get killed. Thirdly €" during the first attack the German pilot could count on surprise €" there€s no question of that in a second attack. Attacking with no surprise and equal numbers was a risk that, in German eyes, wasn€t worth taking.
So single attack if they are outnumbered, multiple attacks only if they outnumber us. In that case they will try to split us away from the Il€s. In this case they really make an effort and it is very hard to drive the enemy off. That kind of fight can go on a long time.
Here you have to know about another small nuance: if the Germans outnumbered us and we lost an Il we were escorting we would just be €œtold off€. But if they were less than us and they killed an Il then the escorting fighter pilos could expect a court martial. In any case €" we put up a good show irrespective of enemy numbers but at least there were no courts martial for losing Il€s when I was in charge, though there had been before me.

Q: Were they prosecuting less or were you becoming more reliable escorts?

A: We were more reliable.

Q: Did it sometimes happen that the German pilot, after attacking, would overshoot the formation of Il€s, either above or below?

A: No. The Il would be behind him and the Il€s fixed guns (and they were very powerful) could tear him into tiny pieces. No, they went to the side of the Il then up into the vertical.

Q: And would the Germans attack during the Il€s ground attack, while they were circling?

A: No, they wouldn€t drop into the anti-aircraft gunfire nor would they try and take on Il€s in a circle. Circling Il€s are almost impossible to break up. The Messers just wait until the Il€s head home and break the circle.

Q: If they attack you on the way home, did the German tactics change?

A: No, it was the same. It was harder for us though because the formation of Il€s was spread out.

Q: Did the Germans ever attack with more than one aircraft at a time, in a pair or group?

A: No, I can€t remember any such cases. Always singly.

Q: How do you explain that?

A: Well, you€d have to ask the Germans.

Q: And what would you have done if they had?

A: We would have counter-attacked head on with a group. This option had also been foreseen and considered.

Q: And did the Germans sometimes circle around you then decide not to attack?

A: No. It might just have been a single attack by one aircraft but they would always try it, whether from below or from above, at high speed.

Q: Did the Germans sometimes attack you instead of the Il€s? What did you do then?

A: Yes, sometimes they did. I countered this the same way I would counter an attack on the Il€s €" a head-on counter-attack and then a turn onto the bandits tail in the blind spot below and behind him so that he loses sight of me. If he [slows down/turns] even a little I€ll hit him.

Q: As far as I understand it, him attacking and you driving him off wasn€t counted as air combat?

A: No, air combat is the €œcarousel€, when both sides are trying to achieve their tasks through manoeuvre combat. And €œapproached, was driven off€ was just an engagement.

Q: The principle of your escorts if clear, above and to the right and left. But did this change when you had more fighters?

A: No, let€s say there were 12 Il€s, then they would be covered by a flight of four left and right, a pair 500m above and another pair 1000m above. The principles didn€t change.
If we have a lot of fighters we might send 4 to 6 out to meet the enemy fighters to try to drive them off or tie them down in a fight. But te Germans outnumbered this group they were very happy and would forget about the Il€s altogether and threw themselves on these guys. But the Germans wouldn€t enter manoeuvre combat if they were outnumbered.
But we could never throw all our own fighters into the battle. Even if some of us were engaged with the German fighters, the rest had to stay in close escort with the sturmoviks and didn€t enter the fight.

Q: And if you just had one zveno, four fighters, what did you do?

A: Much the same. One pair covered the trailing Il and the other flew above.

Q: I understand that you covered Pe-2€s as well. Did that make a difference to how you escorted them?

A: Yes. For a start we flew at altitude. The Peshki were at 3000m and we were still higher. Secondly, the side pair/four flew 400-500m higher than the bombers and the central pair/four 600-1000m higher. Thirdly, the bombers flew faster, especially after the target. I didn€t like covering Pe-2€s €" they were harder to cover the Il€s. For a start because of their high speed they were easy to lose and you [turn and] drive off one attack and they€ve almost disappeared.
Secondly €" because they fly faster, further and higher than the Il€s, our fuel consumption is much higher. Therefore on such flights we often had external tanks.
Thirdly €" It was hard to check the airspace below us. The Pe-2€s were high, we were still higher and it was easy, therefore, for the Messers to attack from below. It€s true that the Pe€s lower hemisphere was covered by a gunner who could help drive off an attack but the fact remains, it was harder to escort Peshki.
That€s where Il€s were better €" on the way home they would often drop to 150-200m so couldn€t be attacked from below. Nor could they be attacked in a steep dive €" it€s practically impossible at 600km/h.

Q: OK, let€s turn things around now. Six Messers are escorting six Ju-87 and have to drive off an attack by six Yaks. How did the Germans escort their bombers?

A: Completely differently to us.
The Junkers flew at about 2000m in an arrowhead and the Messers would zigzag a thousand metres higher. On the approach to the target the 109€s would leave the bombers behind and race forward to engage our fighters that were covering the target area. Before their attack they would try to gain altitude so as to attack our fighters at maximum speed.
While the Messers are engaged, the Junkers form a circle and bomb undisturbed. They make one attack each, unlike our Il€s (the Germans didn€t enjoy their attacks) then headed home at top speed. Then the Messers disengage.
That€s how the Messers covered all their bombers €" Ju-87€s, Ju-88€s, He-111. But the latter two wouldn€t form a circle before bombing though €" they bombed in their usual nines.

Q: Which method, ours or the Germans, led to less losses among the bombers?

A: I€d say losses were similar.

Q: What was stopping us from doing what the Germans did, leaping ahead and engaging the enemy fighters at high speed?

A: Well you see, both tactics have their advantages and disadvantages. We considered that the disadvantages of the German tactic outweighed the advantages.

Q: Can you list the advantages and disadvantages of the two tactics? Let€s start with ours [the Russian method].

A: OK, first the disadvantages of our method:
1) The fighters operate at low speed which means they can€t effectively follow[?] the bandit.
2) The combat is conducted defensively €" the enemy has the initiative.
3) Our method relies on close cooperation btween the pairs of fighters and between the fighters and sturmoviks.
4) Higher exposure of our fighters to AA fire. We stayed with the sturmoviks even through the target AA €" of course we didn€t go right into the worst of it but sometimes we still go hit. If they were firing at the Sturmoviks it meant they were firing at us too.
5) I€m not even sure if this is a disadvantage €¦. Low effectiveness. With our method it was very hard to get a kill. Almost all our attacks were on interception courses from the front, hard to get hits. We didn€t shoot them down, we drove them off.

Advantages of our method:
1) The attack of the sturmoviks (or bombers) came as a complete surprise to the enemy [at the target].
2) Our tactics helped protect the formation of bombers because:
a) It was effective when our fighters were outnumbered.
b) Our tactic prevents any enemy fighter that does break through from shooting down several bombers one after the other.
3) The combat is conducted in the horizontal, which is better for our aircraft.

Advantages of the German method:

1. The fighters start the fight at high speed and often with an altitude advantage and therefore hold the initiative right from the start of the fight.
2. The combat is conducted offensively with a high degree of surprise [against the enemy fighters] and you force the opponent to react to what you are doing rather than vice versa. It€s also quite effective in terms of kills as you€d expect with surprise attacks.
3. The combat is conducted in the vertical, at least at first, where the Messer is particularly good.
4. Their fighters took next to no AA losses. They didn€t enter the AA fire zone.

Disadvantages of the German tactics:
1. The lose surprise in the ground attack. The appearance of fighters before the arrival of the bombers means that all the air defence systems in the target area are on maximum alert and all the other units can take cover. The effectiveness of the bombing attack is thereby reduced, sometimes quite considerably.
2. The German defence is one-sided. They engage only those of our fighters that they can manage to tie down. By leaving their bombers, even briefly, they leave them very vulnerable to attack from other directions where there are no German fighters.
If even a single pair of our fighters appears at the right moment, in fact even a single plane, the German bombers have had it. Even just one attacking pair, without scoring kills, can break up a bomber formation and therefore break up the bombing attack.
3. The German tactic is ineffective if carried out by a smaller number of fighters than the enemy has or if they cannot seize the initiative (the defending fighters have prepared by gaining speed and/or altitude.)

Q: I€m not sure I understand how our tactics can work when the enemy outnumbered our fighters.

A: Well, when the sturmoviks or bombers are in a good formation the avenues of attack are quite limited. An example €" nobody is oing to attack head on, so wy put cover there? That is to say, the job of the escorting fighters is to cover the enemy€s approaches to the bombers. If they can do that then a pair or two can effictively drive off a greater number. It should be said though, that not all pilots are capable of this. Under the German system, you have to secure all the approaches to the bombers, not just the attack routes, and in all directions. You can€t do that if outnumbered, it€s simply physically impossible.

Death of a 262

You know some guys in our Regiment shot down a Messer-262 jet? Let me tell you what happened. The first time I saw this messer I was in the alert pair and he flew over our base. At that time we were 25km from Berlin. He flew over our base and literally in front of our eyes started shooting up the Breslau-Berlin autobahn, which was packed with vehicles during the build-up for the attack on Berlin. He made a terrible mess - smoke, fire, exploding ammunition. After that there'd always be a Messer jet attacking that autobahn, 2 or 3 times a day, completely ignoring both our base and our fighters. As well as that, the same German flew propaganda missions - dropping leaflets with a message from Hitler to the encircled defenders of Breslau and Spandau, which at this time were deep in our lines. They translated the text for us and it ran something like this:"Heroes of Great Germany - do not give in, hold on! In a very short time I will deploy our newset weapons and we will smash the Bolshevik hordes! As a guarantee ofmy words - this modern aircraft! Soon we will have thousands of them! Hold on - victory is close!" They did hold on too - they were fully beseiged yet their trams were running, their factories were working.
Our side were so fed up with this jet that the commander of our air army ordered that it be brought down by any means necessary, including ramming. Easy to say, but you try it when he's doing over 800 km/h. We called the jet the "vulture". As soon as anyone said "vulture" [an otherwise common name for enemy planes] everyone knew which plane he meant.
They shot him down by chance, one could say.The German simply made a mistake. He was so contemptuous of our aircraft that it did for him in the end. He had the habit after attacking (and he preferred fuel convoys) of doing a circle so he could admire his handiwork. This circle was carried out at about 400 km/h. Anyway, he shot up a column as usual then started his "traditional" circle, banking his plane so that he didn't spot six Yaks taking off from our base under squadron commander Kuznetsov. Those six Yaks were meant to be escorting six Sturmoviks but as the German was clearly visible from our base the Regimental commander got on the radio and ordered the Yaks that were taking off:" Lads! Get that vulture over the autobahn!"


They attacked him in a pincer [?], by the book, correctly, and started pouring it on from all sides. The German saw them but too late. He tried to escape and almost made it. It looked like he was pulling away towards Czechoslovakia and our guys thought, that's it, we won't catch him now. But then they saw the Messer drop down and land on its belly. That meant they had hit him. They flew back to base and reported that they had killed a Messer jet, but as to who exactly had shot it down they couldn't say. They all fired and the old hands had the same chance as the rookies (the flight included experienced and inexperienced pilots, one was just on his second combat mission). The Regimental commander reported it to the division, the division to the army and the army to Moscow. From Moscow the order came back immediately - send the Regiment's engineering officer and as many trucks as necessary together with a security detachment and get as much as possible out of that Messer. They took two trucks, machinegunners, the necessary technical personnel and went to the crash site. There they found the aircraft and, a small distance away, the body of the pilot.It became clear that the Messer had taken a round to the cabin that had obviously seriously wounded the pilot. He had just had strength to somehow get a few hundred metres to a small stream and there, it seemed, he had lost consciousness and did of blood loss. On his body they found documents that showed that he was a factory test pilot for the Messerschmitt company. There was a jet fighter factory in Bratislava and this dead Messer had flown from the factory's field. Our guys worked on the Messer day and night and took everything, including the engines in their housings. Then a couple of Li-2's arrived and took it all back to Moscow. Well, soon our troops entered Bratislava and captured some brand new jets right at the Messerschmitt factory.

<<<<<

Note: Me262's were actually captured at Assembly plant at Ceske Budejovice (Budweis), not Bratislava.

Kurfurst__
10-05-2005, 03:56 AM
Here`s Ivan`s translation :

Just a few quotes from the interview with veteran of 107 GIAP Major Kozhemyako ( I.K.) ... i find it rather interesting and pretty honest..

A.S. - Author
I.K. - major Kozhemyako

**********************************************
A.S What do you think about German fighter planes Messerschmitt BF-109G?

I.K. I think of them with a lot of respect.
BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.

A.S. What was so specific for BF-109G, anything you can point out?

I.K. I have to tell you, that Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
A.S. Well, i guess 90% of success in all altitudes belongs to its engine€¦

I.K. I wouldn`t doubt it.

A.S. But if you look at this from another perspective, this uniqueness of BF109 could have played fatal role when it encountered aicraft that was specialized and optimized for combat on certain altitudes. You already know that Barkhorn on the question about best fighter of WW2 answered: On high altitudes P-51 and low altitudes Yak-9, Surprized?

I.K. Yes, Very Surprized. But, I guess if I was fighting in Me109 I would have look at Yak-9 differently, who knows.

A.S. How would you grade weapons on BF109G comparing to Yak1?

I.K. Yaks weapons were more powerful. maybe that`s why german fighters were trying to avoid head to head attacks.

A.S. I can`t agree with you. Yak can`t have more powerful weaponry because it has only 1 12.7mm MG (UBS) while BF109G has 2 13mm MG-13s.

I.K. German high caliber machine guns were rather weak, just a name "high caliber". They couldn`t even penetrate armored plate behind pilot, needed armor piercing bullet for that, and even then from close distance. But if german pilot would open fire from 200-300m with regular bullets and under sharp angle, it couldn`t even penetrate block of M105, could only bust thru the cowling covers.. Same for armored glass, couldnt penetrate it. My opinion on 13mm MG, they could only be effective from close distances, shooting at point blank ranges could bring you some success. I think 1 UBS in combat was more effective in combat then 2 MG13s combined.
20mm german cannon was excellent, unlike MG`s. Very powerful, not worse then out SHVAK.

A.S. I am surprised that you think that Me109 was capable in the turning combat. There is general opinion that BF109 was rather average when it comes to combat with many manuevers. It`s very common opinion that BF109G with its technical and tactical characteristics was rather "hunter" then turnfighter..

I.K. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation.
No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?

A.S. Yes.

I.K. Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was.

Kurfurst__
10-05-2005, 04:00 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5271037462/p/2

Originial : http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/kozhemjako/

***
A.S. Did you ever encounter FW-190 in combat? If yes, what`s your take on the capabilities of this plane as a fighter?
I.K. I have only met FW190 once, at the end of the war. We were escorting 6 Sturmoviks to Berlin. Us €" 4 Yak-9s. Flight of 6 Fockers intercepted us on the approach to the target. I can say that they were not really aggressive. They started approaching, but all 4 our Yak`s turned towards them. They imitated attack, fired few rounds from long distance and flew away. We tried to chase them, but who are we kidding€¦ bottom line, they didn`t engage us.
Well, what can I say based on one encounter? Not whole a lot. Looks like speed wise FW is similar to BF109 (we could not catch them) but by far better weapons. Fokker had such impressive weapons that when it fired all of them, it turned into fireball up front€¦ almost to the tips of the wings. I would get in the front of it. In Horizontal maneuvers Yak would probably better then FW, not sure about vertical.
***



A.S. So the M-105 was very reliable and tough...but what about Yakovlev fighter planes in general, were they durable?

I.K. It really depence where it hits you, anything outside of engine and cockpit, you could bring home 10 or more holes. Quiet often myself was "bringing" home 8-10 holes from bullets and cannon rounds (6-8 from MG and couple of 20mm armor peircing ones...

But if high-explosive projectile was hitting Yak...it was a problem. Plywood would be flying in all directions and distruction would be major, even if plane didn`t catch fire, still have to jump out, can`t fly much with surfaces missing. BF109 in that regard was tougher, full metal construction.

A.S. Did germans use armor peircing round often?

I.K. Quiet often. I have an impression that every 3rd or 4th round was armor peircing. Which is understandable, they had to attack IL-2s, without armor penetrating ammo there is no effect, HE rounds were bounching right of their armor.

WWMaxGunz
10-05-2005, 06:40 AM
Even all that is in this thread is not the complete dialog.

A killed thread at SimHQ has more on specific parts of tactics and rated suitabilities
of different planes in things like "combat turn" and "combat climb". So I've tried to
get someone to get those parts and now I'm going to ask a moderator to get just that
post. I'm pretty sure that the translator is Finnish, I think Jurinko knows him as
Jurinko also posted in the discussion. I just wish my short term memory was as good
as it used to be... I don't like to say exactly yes unless I am exactly sure.

Buzzsaw-
10-05-2005, 08:00 AM
Salute

Just so Kurfurst's out of context quotes don't confuse:

From interview:

>>>>>>>

Q: So by MANEUVER COMBAT you mean an extended fighter-fighter engagement.

A: Yes. As opposed to Free Hunt, escorting or attacks on bombers.

Q: Now, how would a Yak-1 fare in manoeuvre combat with a Bf-109G, i.e. in a dogfight?

A: This kind of fight generally happened when we had to "clear the air" but weren't escorting our own aircraft. It sometimes happened when we encountered enemy hunters, but less often. In this kind of fight there were no limits to speed or manoeuvre and the Yak and Messer were roughly equal (if the pilots were of equal quality, of course). However there are still a couple of factors to consider:

1. The fight had to be under 4000m. Above that the Messer had the advantage with a better engine for the altitude. The Messer would start to gain a significant SPEED advantage, over 20 km/h.

2. If the fight took place under 4000m the Messers would also start with a slight advantage because at top speed it was better than the Yak in the VERTICAL. A better climb rate allows you to gain altitude and thereby gain the initiative in the fight.

3. However if the combat drags on, speeds start to fall and the advantage moves to the Yak. At lowerspeeds there is less scope for vertical manoeuvre and horizontal turns are of greater value. In this way Yaks gradually get the upper hand BECAUSE OF THEIR BETTER HORIZONTAL TURN. Therefore extended combats are poor tactics for the Messer.

<<<<<<

It is clear that when Kozhemyako makes mention of "maneuver", or "maneuverable", he is referring to maneuver in both the vertical and horizontal planes, or any combat that includes more than one attack. By "maneuverable", he is not referring specifically to horizontal turning ability, an ability which he clearly notes the 109G2 is inferior to the Yak-1b. He does note that at higher speeds, the 109's have a better climb and are superior in the vertical, an aspect of his definition of "maneuverable". And that they had significant speed advantages.

But Kurfurst's assertion, that Kozhemyako's interview implies the 109 was a wonderplane, and superior in both the vertical AND the horizontal maneuver planes is just fantasy.

Kurfurst__
10-05-2005, 08:04 AM
What do you mean?

DaimonSyrius
10-05-2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Just so Kurfurst's out of context quotes don't confuse:
(...)
But Kurfurst's assertion, that Kozhemyako's interview implies the 109 was a wonderplane, and superior in both the vertical AND the horizontal maneuver planes is just fantasy.

Ehhm... I don't know much about this, but I don't think that your view can be argued strongly in this particular case, Buzzsaw, if you are referring to Kurfurst's sig quote from Kozhemyako.

If that quote has to be put into its context, this is the relevant bit (sig quote in bold):


A.S. I am surprised that you think that Me109 was capable in the turning combat. There is general opinion that BF109 was rather average when it comes to combat with many manuevers. It`s very common opinion that BF109G with its technical and tactical characteristics was rather "hunter" then turnfighter..

I.K. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation.
No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?

A.S. Yes.

I.K. Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was..
As I see it, I have no doubt that Kozhemkayo came to truly respect and even love his main enemy. He all but states that in several places. I'm no expert in anything, but in the little reading I've done of ace memories bits, this appraisal of the enemy sounds familiar to me, made by pilots from all sides.

It seems clear to me, from those transcriptions/translations, that Kozhemkayo was convinced the 109s were able, and that the german pilots just seemed to prefer not to turn when they could choose. The last line by I.K. says it all.

S.

DaimonSyrius
10-05-2005, 08:53 AM
As a sidenote, I would like to point out that when Khozemkayo says "But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why" and "I don`t know what was stopping them [from turn-fighting]", I read this as an expresion, a way of talking. Reading the whole interview fragments (can fragments be 'whole'?), he seems to make clear that he knows very bl00dy well why the germans wouldn't turn: because when turning, even being able turnfighters, the 190s had to give away some speed, and then Khozemkayo got them and killed them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S.

Buzzsaw-
10-05-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:

"A. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(ESPECIALLY IN VERTICAL) and extremely dynamic."

It seems clear to me, from those transcriptions/translations, that Kozhemkayo was convinced the 109s were able, and that the german pilots just seemed to prefer not to turn when they could choose.



Your implication, (same as Kurfurst) that the 109's could turn with the Yaks IF they chose is incorrect, and clearly contradicted by Kozhemyakos later detailed clarification of how combat went with the 109's, ie:

"...if the combat drags on, speeds start to fall and the advantage moves to the Yak. At lowerspeeds there is less scope for vertical manoeuvre (which is where Kozhemyako says the 109's have a superiority) and horizontal turns are of greater value. In this way Yaks gradually get the upper hand BECAUSE OF THEIR BETTER HORIZONTAL TURN."

Kurfurst has grabbed onto a single quote by a Soviet pilot using a term which means something else to him than is being suggested by Kurfurst. By the comment: "Me109 was exceptional in turning combat..." Kozhemyako is using the term "turning combat" to refer to both vertical turns and horizontal turns. And it is only later where he clarifies and details how combats typically went, that he make the difference in the abilities of the two aircraft clear.

Buzzsaw-
10-05-2005, 09:34 AM
Salute

The other issue of course, is that Kozhemyako's comments are anecdotal and and based on personal observations during combat, not scientifically measuerd appraisals.

All of the available scientifically measured tests comparing 109's horizontal turning abilities with the better turning allied aircraft such as the Yak or Spitfire note the definite inferiority of the German plane in this area.

noace
10-05-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

The other issue of course, is that Kozhemyako's comments are anecdotal and and based on personal observations during combat, not scientifically measuerd appraisals.

Could you pls also mention this if somebody posts "personal observations" regarding p51, p47 and other war winning miracles http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


All of the available scientifically measured tests comparing 109's horizontal turning abilities with the better turning allied aircraft such as the Yak or Spitfire note the definite inferiority of the German plane in this area.

As far as I know even Kurfurst does not disput the quality of the Yaks in the horizontal. But the Messer has some advantages in the vertical which can be used to gain the upper hand. Nothing more, nothing less. This is also mentioned in the phrase quoted in Kurfurst's sig.

So whats your problem?

noace

Kwiatos
10-05-2005, 10:15 AM
Unfortunately in our game PF 4.01 ver. Bf 109 expecially G-2 (but not only) could turn with Yak 1B and YAk3 with no problem even at slow speed. Bf 109 from PF is surly overmodelled in turn, in stall speed and in stall chatacteristic (the same like LA series, LAgg and Migs - all slots planes) If these wont change Bf 109 will be for me uberplane like others with slots.

luftluuver
10-05-2005, 10:16 AM
American fighters were not to get into turning battles with LW a/c. If they could not make the 'kill' in the first 1/2 of the turn, they were to break off and climb for another attack. Iirc, this was stated in 'Long Reach'.

DaimonSyrius
10-05-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Your implication, (same as Kurfurst) (...)
Salute Buzzsaw,

Please read me correctly, particularly my sidenote just right above your post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wasn't implying anything at all, just recalling a bit more of the context, as you were advising it should be done.

I was just suggesting that, from a strictly argumentative point of view, your 'case' was not very solid, just looking at how the argument was constructed. That aside, it was all Khozemskayo's words (as posted from a translation of a transcription of an interview).

Of course it's an anecdotal recollection, and we all can make our own opinions and inferences about what relevance those anecdotes actually have. My own view and implications about Khozemskayo's excerpts and what I make out of them as a whole/fragmentary collection of recollections is rather more present in the next post, right above yours.

To abound on this, my understanding is that Khozemskayo knew very well his enemy, and he's very clear in other places that, albeit the 109 wasn't crippled in turning (and here's where he stresses his surprise at learning that the modern view is that the 109 was crippled in turnig), the Yaks had clearly the upper hand when the fight slowed a bit and came to turning. He's overflowing confidence that he only needed to wait for the 109s to slow just that little bit, and then he could (turn)fight them with advantage.

Khozemskayo's comments about "just don't know why they wouldn't turn" look to me like made with a big grin in his face http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif of course he knew, as I said earlier: his Yak was still better at turning, even if the 109 could actually be good at turning; and they (Yaks) would get the upper hand at turnfight. I won't go back and look for the quote, but I believe he leaves no doubt about this when they are reviewing the advantages and disadvantages for each aircraft.

And we can say anecdotal, etc, but who would actually dare to put down his opinions and competence in the subject in his face? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
10-06-2005, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Unfortunately in our game PF 4.01 ver. Bf 109 expecially G-2 (but not only) could turn with Yak 1B and YAk3 with no problem even at slow speed. not true
if the Yak user can avoid stalling , those 2 Yaks have a slightly better turn rate at lower speeds
(sub 350 Km/H)

Bf-109 is by far easier to fly *at the limit* than Yaks now tho

WWMaxGunz
10-06-2005, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
American fighters were not to get into turning battles with LW a/c. If they could not make the 'kill' in the first 1/2 of the turn, they were to break off and climb for another attack. Iirc, this was stated in 'Long Reach'.

It depends on the speed and altitude. When Bud Anderson's four group was bounced by 109's
while on escort duty but moving freely they first turned into the attack and then all the
planes wound up in a left turning circle. After going around twice, Anderson in front of
his group shot and killed the rear 109 with at least two good bursts. One of the other
109's went high while the other two kept on. Two P-51's went up and eventually got the
109 that went high. The lead two P-51's followed the other two 109's. One 109 dove out
of the fight and the other stayed and fought hard. In a close fight with advantage being
swapped, Anderson ended up being the winner though he came close to being the meat. If
the 109 he was after had not done a reversal turn to get behind him the first time maybe
as hard as it did, then perhaps that extra speed would have enabled it to get the shot or
maybe it would not have been able to get in trail to make any shot at all.

Those were not any half circles and the combat occurred at a good net loss in altitude
just given the final follow-down chase, a few 1000 feet overall even with the zoom climbs
as they dropped after each one.

By keeping the speed high, the P-51's were able to stay in a region where they were not
disadvantaged in turn or climb. That is the same way that 109's kept the initiative vs
Kozhemyako and his Yaks, by not letting the fight get into where the Yak has advantage.

Read the whole texts and leave the little pieces say it all BS attitude alone. A little
piece does not say it all. Two kinds of people will show a snip of this and that then
expect it to support more. One kind are the unknowing and the other are the dishonest.

If you don't include speed and altitude, you deviate from the reality and lose the basis
of the real tactics.

I have a reply from SimHQ moderator BA_Dart who is looking to get yet more translated post
from the original interview. From what I think I understand, not all of the interview was
even posted in the Russian text. It is the Finns who had the interview and posted original
and a Finn who posted that extra part. Jurinko also posted knowing the source of the text
and the one who posted the translation. So I'm waiting, Kozhemyako put numbers on the
maneuvers the same as grades like in school and spoke more of tactical bits. Till then, I
hope the translated material is not lost.

Kurfurst__
10-06-2005, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by noace:
So whats your problem?

noace

His problem is that someone dared to say something good about the 109 which he hates.

He and Maxgunz was frothing in the mouth in my 109 roll rate thread where I provided some historical roll rate tests and asked the community how do they compare to the in-game data.

Buzzsaw and Maxgunz came along and immidiately turned the whole thread into a flamewar with accusations, one of them being that "manipulated" the Soviet vets words, even though my sig merely tells that he though like other that the Bf 109 was an exceptional combat machine in turning combat. You shouldn`t really read the thread, considering what a miserable clown show was displayed by them. Neither of them can bear to hear anything good on that plane, so they launched this thread to 'expose' this 'conspiracy' from me regarding the qoute (yeah, really an earth-moving issue), only to bounce back from the wall and emberassed.

Now they come up excuses to make it even more painful. Nobody here came up with any comparision with the Yakovlevs, it was made up by Buzzsaw and MaxGlunz. It's called a strawmen arguement, trying to disprove someone by putting words into his mouth and then disprove those statements, not what he said.

That`s what this whole thread is about, but imho if you ignore the two clowns, Kozsemako`s interview is a really interesting piece, and exceptionally objective and broad-visioned imho.

F19_Ob
10-06-2005, 05:59 AM
I also posted the equally interesting interview with Golodnikov here in orr.

I link to it here so u dont miss it.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1761065463
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DaimonSyrius
10-06-2005, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
American fighters were not to get into turning battles with LW a/c. If they could not make the 'kill' in the first 1/2 of the turn, they were to break off and climb for another attack. Iirc, this was stated in 'Long Reach'.

It depends on the speed and altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's true, and I'd put the stress on the 'it depends' part, as a general rule for putting more sense into simplifying statements (which is not always a must, OTH). 'It depends' is generally a wiser answer than 'Yes/No', since reality isn't binary very often (and I can hear you saying to that 'well man... it depends' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and it's true too). Let's just say that one can hope that 'it depends' may be expanded on to contain more information than 'Yes, that's it.' or 'No, not at all.' Wheteher the additional information will be useful, that's another matter, and that may be crucial too (as in some situations, having to deal with too much information can be a handicap).

The line 'American fighters were not to get into turning battles with LW a/c' line is a simplifying statement in that sense. With no disrespect to lufltluver, I'm not saying it's silly or useless. As I see it, this is just a rule-of-thumb statement, a simple general guideline that maybe was repeated to training pilots like in telling them "when you're out of ideas (or chances), remember this simple advice", and simple advices are worth remembering on occasions. Even if it was a standing order written on high command headed paper and shouted at pilots everyday by non-flying commanders, everyone knew that generally in life, and particularly during war time in a combat situation, anything can happen, including loads of expected and unexpected sh1t. So maybe the advice/order/rule was standing, but I have no doubt that there must have been heaps of exceptions to the rules.

A similar view can be applied to what Kozhemyako says in that interview about the 109s being able turners but not wanting to engage into turnfight (or viceversa), leaving a fight in a dive "if the combat drags on". Whether it was a standing order or just the trick the german vets had learned, Kozhemyako pictures it as some sort of general rule. Then he goes on to wonder how the h3ck can the 'modern' view be that 109's didn't turn well, but he's not saying "I never ever saw a 109 turning, no Sir, never, I swear". I have no doubt that he saw turning 109s dozens or hundreds of times, or why would he be so assertive otherwise? And most likely he at some time saw those 109s turning to threaten his tail and his life, is anyone really in doubt about this? But since he managed to live and talk about it, the more complete picture that seems to emerge (seems to me, anyway) from Kozhemyako's recollections is that both he and the germans, both the VVS and the Luftwaffe actually, came to learn quite well what each other could do better, with a specific and detailed attention to at what speeds at altitudes and formations are we talking about, as MaxGunz just illustrated. They learned from the 'it-depends' situations they went through and managed to get out of. And from how and why others didn't manage, too, friendly and enemy.

To the question of 'Which was the better turner?' (simplified question), 'it depends' will be the best short answer, and speed, altitude, and numbers are what it depends on. Mostly. Or generally. Well, maybe. It depends... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

luftluuver
10-06-2005, 06:22 AM
The line 'American fighters were not to get into turning battles with LW a/c' line is a simplifying statement in that sense. With no disrespect to lufltluver, I'm not saying it's silly or useless. As I see it, this is just a rule-of-thumb statement, a simple general guideline that maybe was repeated to training pilots like in telling them "when you're out of ideas (or chances), remember this simple advice", and simple advices are worth remembering on occasions. Even if it was a standing order written on high command headed paper and shouted at pilots everyday by non-flying commanders, everyone knew that generally in life, and particularly during war time in a combat situation, anything can happen, including loads of expected and unexpected sh1t. So maybe the advice/order/rule was standing, but I have no doubt that there must have been heaps of exceptions to the rules.

Yes Daimon, some just read to much into a simple general advice statement.

DaimonSyrius
10-06-2005, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noace:
So whats your problem?

noace

He and Maxgunz was frothing in the mouth in my 109 roll rate thread where I provided some historical roll rate tests and asked the community how do they compare to the in-game data.

Buzzsaw and Maxgunz came along and immidiately turned the whole thread into a flamewar
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heh, Kurfurst, I must say I find this is a uhmm... peculiar way of summing up what happened in that recent two-thread/two-lock saga, particularly when considering how it all started with an 'oracular' anticipation of flames and 'frothing' brought to everyone from Delphi by the thread starter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


You shouldn`t really read the thread, considering what a miserable clown show was displayed by them.
How blatant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the other hand, considering that there was some interesting aviation stuff mentioned while the sideshow went on, by all means do read it. You may get also a, let's say more complete view on how it went, in case anyone is interested in that.

S.

WWMaxGunz
10-06-2005, 04:46 PM
S! Daimon!

You were perhaps a Delphi FSF member? Those were some days for me! Good community!

I think that in what Kozhemyako wrote about escorting and intercepting there is much
about conditions affecting each plane and about the tactics employed by each side to
take the best advantages they had. Not saying that other wasn't possible but he even
got into some of the exceptions and why they were not used much.

Above 4 km, that Yak was double or worse inferior to that 109 I note. The 109 also
has a higher ceiling. With enough seperation or greater speed the 109 could always
climb out as a choice of extension or exit while the Yak could not. The Yak could
not dive to catch the 109 yet with enough seperation it could dive away. That speaks
to me of no great super advantage in 109 dive but still a definite advantage and not
needing as much seperation to accomplish the same escape.

I'm still waiting on Dart to ressurect that post where Kozhemyako graded the maneuvers
for each plane. On a grade scale of 1 to 5 (F to A in the US... no grade E, F is fail)
he gave the two planes 4, 4+ and 5 on all the important traits with 109 overall a higher
score just by my reading. No I don't try the strict average because first I would have
to weight the traits, a 5 in one may count more than another so all I did was read. I
still kick myself not saving the page and thinking it will be there later.
maxgunz@telerama.com

LEXX_Luthor
10-06-2005, 05:21 PM
Buzzsaw....Yak pilot::
In this way Yaks gradually get the upper hand BECAUSE OF THEIR BETTER HORIZONTAL TURN."
Kurfurst::
What do you mean?
Buzzsaw....Yak pilot::
In this way Yaks gradually get the upper hand BECAUSE OF THEIR BETTER HORIZONTAL TURN."
This is funny.

Buzzsaw is correct. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kurfurst's SiG is also technically correct, especially the "especially" part. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-06-2005, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noace:
So whats your problem?

noace

His problem is that someone dared to say something good about the 109 which he hates. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is an example of Kurfy at work. It's not in his opinion but rather a must be fact.


He and Maxgunz was frothing in the mouth in my 109 roll rate thread where I provided some historical roll rate tests and asked the community how do they compare to the in-game data.

I saw no froth except from you Kurfy. And you still are at it.

As I pointed out several times before you got the hint, the data that you labelled as
real life was extrapolated. I don't care that it was extrapolated, I do care that you
labelled it as real life. Characterize that as you will, distract as you can, it changes
nothing about what you for several pages kept trying to do even though on page ONE I did
point that out.


Buzzsaw and Maxgunz came along and immidiately turned the whole thread into a flamewar with accusations, one of them being that "manipulated" the Soviet vets words, even though my sig merely tells that he though like other that the Bf 109 was an exceptional combat machine in turning combat. You shouldn`t really read the thread, considering what a miserable clown show was displayed by them. Neither of them can bear to hear anything good on that plane, so they launched this thread to 'expose' this 'conspiracy' from me regarding the qoute (yeah, really an earth-moving issue), only to bounce back from the wall and emberassed.

And you did nothing to earn any of it. Oh the shame! One little lie and some offending
remarks and then people aren't nice and ready to kiss your butt clean. How can they be
such meanies? Awwwwwww.

And gee, I'm accused of hating the 109s. Am I in league with Buzzsaw? How is this
possible when just the other week I'm all over Buzzsaw for once again using a bad stall
speed test to try and show the 109G-6 has too low a stall speed by a large margin that
IMO does not exist?

If not for your extremely slanted and personal view you would understand that all I'm
against is people using wrong methods to advance their agendas to force changes to the
sim and influence forum readers with untruths.

I pointed out your error and yes I don't believe it was made in any innocence at all.
Since then you attack and attack and magnify everything except about that. You were
wrong and you posted in your usual throw a fit manner that you did know what the label
EXTRAPOLIERT meant and how stupid I was for not knowing that you did. Fine. You knew
that and YET you posted the extrapolated data in your table and labelled it as REAL.
As I pointed out before; when anyone else does that you have a name for them and right
there it applies to you. Kurfurst shoes fit for Kurfurst, made by Kurfurst, size is a
four letter word begins with L and ends with R.

Why does your little summary not mention any of that? You misdirect and misinform again.

Your sig is just another example of your usual methods, misdirect and misinform.


Now they come up excuses to make it even more painful. Nobody here came up with any comparision with the Yakovlevs, it was made up by Buzzsaw and MaxGlunz. It's called a strawmen arguement, trying to disprove someone by putting words into his mouth and then disprove those statements, not what he said.

That`s what this whole thread is about, but imho if you ignore the two clowns, Kozsemako`s interview is a really interesting piece, and exceptionally objective and broad-visioned imho.

No more strawman than your sig, but let's not dwell on that.

Funny but ***I*** did not make up that interview and ***I*** did not post what I did
solely for your benefit or discomfort. There has been recently enough discussion on
109 turns and maneuvers, this is good information on that subject. When I posted about
that in the other thread you came back and actually accused me of making it up, of
making up the existence of what I noted and too bad here is some and soon enough with
cooperation of a moderator at SimHQ I may have the rest. You did call me a liar.

Believe it or not Kurfy, my world does not revolve around you. You are not important
to me. Maybe that bothers you. Maybe that is why you invent a conspiracy between me
and Buzzsaw or perhaps you just automatic lump people together who disagree with you.

================================================== =======================================

For sane forum members; this thread is about a view of the Yak-1B and 109G-2 as remembered
by a Soviet Ace including tactics, doctrines and results that goes well into detail.

The sim is not that far off from it. Knowledge is its own value. Salute!

LEXX_Luthor
10-06-2005, 05:34 PM
I don't understand why Kurfurst is so attracted to turning and burning. I thought the Blue side likes booming and zooming. Weird. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-06-2005, 05:37 PM
Well it is getting time for asking a moderator to lock the thread and watch it sink.
Information such as Kozhemyako presented and has been translated must obviously be
controlled and only selected parts seen, over and over in sig lines.

Too bad. If some part is actually incorrect I would like to see that pointed out
but it appears that lacking that, personal issues are going to be used.

Ivan -- is there any way that the interviews themselves be put into a sticky with
perhaps the Golodnikov interviews and that thread be locked except for you can add
other such material? A clean, available thread with no extra opinions, just info?

LEXX_Luthor
10-06-2005, 06:00 PM
After a little re-thinking on my part, Kurfurst's SiG stands on its own merit, and is NOT taken out of context.

If Kurfurst had Deleted the "especially" then yes the SiG would be wildly deceptive.

I fully understand the "especially" part. If others don't, so be it. Most interesting, when crazyivan first posted this quotation long ago, he too didn't want to talk about the "especially" part either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaimonSyrius
10-06-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
S! Daimon!

You were perhaps a Delphi FSF member? Those were some days for me! Good community!

S' MaxGunz,

No, I was actually referring to the legendary Oracle at Delphi in Greece, Kurfurst was talking about it and about his 'predictive powers' in his recent threads on 109's roll rate, now extinct.

Although I've felt an attraction towards flight simulators for some time (my first was MS Flight Simulator II for the Commodore 64), I tended to find rather cumbersome the several versions of it I kept trying without really getting into it, until more recently, with FS9 (or FS2004), it started to take off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Then I heard a couple of times that IL-2 was "the GPL of flight simulators", and that was high praise indeed where I heard it (http://forum.rscnet.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36) (GPL is a 'historic' Formula-1 racing simulator that is akin to IL-2 spirit in that it models and simulates the 1967 season: Lotus, Brabham, Ferrari... Jim Clark, Graham Hill... all circuits and races; it's a 1998 program, and it's alive&kicking today, reputedly still running (one of) the best physics in town and greatly improved by the community /Spam Off).
Then I landed in the WWII aerial warfare world and saw IL-2 in its glory, and enjoying it since http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Back to topic, I find the overall picture that comes up from the interviews to Kozhemyako and Golodnikov very instructive, in that it conveys very well a view on the evolution of the situation, how the factors relevant to air combat (the planes, the tactics, the numbers, the quality of pilots) transitioned from the intial stages to the later, and how and why the turning point was reached. Golodnikov makes a good account of that. He doesn't bite his tongue, either! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I find myself having to remind me that the Great Patriotic War didn't actually start in 1939 as elsewhere in Europe, a bit like for the USA. Barbarossa was in 1941 before Pearl Harbour, wasn't it? I found amazing how quickly the soviets did adapt after the initial onslaught, according to what Kozhemyako and Golodnikov explained.

S.

DaimonSyrius
10-06-2005, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
After a little re-thinking on my part, Kurfurst's SiG stands on its own merit, and is NOT taken out of context.
That's the message I was trying to get across to Buzzsaw earlier, going against the quote when the quote is technically correct, would be like trying to attack his plane from the wrong angle, no advantage can be gained from that. Of course the quote has been extracted from the text, but that's just what quotes are, as long as the words and meanings are not grossly distorted or otherwise edited. The whole meaning can only be obtained by reading the whole text... and supposedly, quotes should stimulate towards that. They do sometimes, I can assure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

Kurfurst__
10-07-2005, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You were wrong and you posted in your usual throw a fit manner that you did know what the label EXTRAPOLIERT meant and how stupid I was for not knowing that you did. Fine. You knew that and YET you posted the extrapolated data in your table and labelled it as REAL.

That`s your story. Here it`s how it was posted :

"Testing of Bf 109F-2 roll rate by DVL (German equivalent of NACA/NASA) in 1944, roll rate vs. airspeed in radians. Though it should be noted the tests were done on Bf 109F-2, so wing torsion effects should be stronger (ie. decreasing roll rate more at high speed) than with the 109G/K wings, which had reinforced main spar, ribs and skin, in brief, stiffer wings :"

Nobody 'posted the extrapolated data in your table and labelled it as REAL'.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1127891041_r1.jpg

Sorry, you can`t blame others for your own lack of competence, lack of foreign language 'skills' like to realize "extrapoliert" means "extrapolated". I am not even a technical guy, never been, still I know what extrapolation is, and how it`s called on two different foreign language... and I guess most others, except you, know. The legend was there, any sane man could read what means what. Only you couldn`t. Now you loudly blame it on others, and make up stories. Miserable, really. The only one who gets emberassed is yourself.

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You were wrong

That`s your story. Here it`s how it was posted :
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I suggest that we keep this thread on topic and talk about soviet aces' memories, instead of turning it into a meta-thread about how that other thread went? That 'other thread' is just there for everyone to read it, no need to expand it on here. IMO.

S.

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2005, 10:38 AM
From Kurfy's first post in that thread:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max roll rate of Bf 109F-2, at 30kg/66lbs stickforce:

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)
300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)
400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)
480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit
500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)
600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value
700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)
800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)

Considering the aircraft reaches it's peak roll rate at rather high speed of 600kph, the stories about the set in cement, ineffective ailerons are really reaching.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I have to apologize. You did not =label= the numbers as real life data....

You just tried your best to pass them off as real and go on to conclude about stickforces
that any stories about set in cement are really reaching.

Congratulations. Do you really think you got any of that past the forum?
Should anyone believe that if they had been -able- to get 15 degrees deflection they would
not have? Oh yeah, the plane was destroyed during testing. Must have happened during the
roll tests or perhaps they saved the maximum effort part for later. Yeah, that's it, that's
the ticket, they ahhh, saveditforlater, yeahhhh. And no way did they lose that F2 because
of say, losing a wingtip (how was it Buzzsaw says that happens?) and crashing.

BTW, I really get a kick out of your sig line part that says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-WWMaxGunz, after finally realizing on Page8 that the graph on Page1 has a legend that says some of the data is extrapolated. He reveals the dark plot, and takes oath to be the watchful eye over the Community, against such dark conspiracies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) you still keep that in your sig even though I posted about extrapoliert on Page 1 just
below your own attempt to pass off your BS and BS-based conclusion.
2) conspiracies? Is there more than one of you? Are you a split personality perhaps?
No-no-no, it's just you and no dark plot, just your usual gotta have more than there was
effort to slide yet another one over and push for people to ask for changes to the sim
all the while knowing the data is not real.
Just so you know, a conspiracy takes more than one person. I don't think you need help to
come up with these theories of yours or to pass them off as if they are real.

Go on, change your sig to add the apology. But don't fix your own error and don't admit it.
I expect nothing less from you.

================================================== =========================================

Are you finished now trying to distract attention away from the translated interviews?

In Kozhemyako's experience, the Yak-1B outturned the 109G-2 in the horizontal. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

In Kozhemyako's experience the tactics used on the East Front bore that out, both sides.

In the sim, the 109G-2 should not flat-turn as well as the Yak-1B at combat speeds.
That gives us a standard of comparison that is usable but not perfect.

Enforcer572005
10-07-2005, 07:41 PM
arguments over ac performance aside, this interview gives alot of great info about tactics taht will be very useful in cmpn building, especially my current ongoing VVS project.

the escort tactics comparison was very illuminatiing, and these tactics can be duplicated in the FMB.