So I guess the hellcat better go up in br then too eh?
It’s got more than capable guns according to you, and bombs. Super under br’d 😂
In GRB? Of course it could go up, if You want to discuss it make a topic about it and don’t destroy other topics
2 Likes
Vehicles must be judged by players who have reached their skillfloor/have obtained a minimum competence with them.
Self-disparagement:
Example of this is if you look at my ASB/GSB results in spitfires. I suck at them. I cannot control them effectively without dedicating like 75% of my attention to fighting the plane. You should ignore my performance when it comes to judging the effectiveness of spitfires.
Just because I suck at spitfire does not mean the spitfires aren’t effective aircraft.
Yes, in GRB/GSB it could. Same goes for 4B. Normal -4 is prolly fine at GSB at 5.3, but could go up in GRB.
Also Hellcat is another example of a plane with a high skill floor. It’s a pretty good dogfighter, just needs adaption and mindset to pull it off.
5 Likes
And how many of those are single engine fighters?
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You can cleary see the name of the topic “Yak-9 should be moved up to 5.7 in GRB” so talking about how other planes should go up too is just off topic.
Create a topic about other air units and we can discuss it there. If You don’t have anything more to say about Yak-9 there is no point in further discussion.
3 Likes
Here I’ll be blunt for you.
The YaK 9K shouldn’t be any higher than 5.0
There are far better planes at lower brs.
Happy now?
It should as it has great anti-ground potential while having good anti-air capabilities.
There isn’t a single plane at that B.R. with the same capabilities.
1 Like
So you think raising it to 5.7 will solve the problems? Too naive… I grinding soviet tree right now and I still using it at 6.3-6.7 and it somehow still perform well, the only way to solve the problem is take the APHE back
1 Like
Theoretically, at higher BRs its flight performance becomes bad enough that it becomes a dedicated A2G platform rather than a multi-role.
I regularly see F4U-4s in my 7.7 Conqueror. They make pretty good A2G platforms even up there as long as there’s no enemy A2A to kill them (and they lack air cover to their job). However, I don’t think anyone claims the F4U-4 that remains a terror to tanks can put up a genuine fight against korean jets.
However, I do agree that magic nuke APHE being gone would be a better option, then yak-9K could stay at 4.3 where it’s a competent air-to-air platform.
4 Likes
For air superiority I might just use yak-3 or I-183, the only reason I bring yak-9k is just for ground target
While I despise CAS in general, pure strike fighter that cannot as effectively defend itself and is vulnerable to SPAA is less of a problem than a multi-role aircraft that can and will.
1 Like
Played a bit of 5.3 recently and in downtiers while there were Yak-3s, there were also other CAS getting as many frags.
Though that’s not really relevant as that’s largely a skill citation.
Moving American planes up would be difficult. All but a select few are already outclassed by practically every nation in terms of low altitude dogfighting.
The only things American planes have going for them is very powerful A2G loadouts, which become almost entirely useless if there’s enemy planes.
2 Likes
It got moved up to 4.7 now (good change)
I think 5.0 or maybe 5.3 would be reasonable though.
Its flight performance starts to become an issue beyond that… and it’s definitely worse than the Yak-9UT, so it should be at least 0.7 BR lower in my opinion.
Yak-9UT is pretty reasonable at 6.0, though it could possibly go to 6.3.
F2G is spammed because it’s bad?
Or the F4u?
Actually, I’ve found the 12.7 mm on the Yak-9K to be excellent, I get a fire after two or three shots generally, it’s really good. And 10+ kill Yak-9Ks are not rare, it doesn’t take very much skill at all.
3 Likes
This would be the best option imo, especially as there is no proof of the APHE ever being operationally used (especially not on tanks lol, given that the Yak-9K was a bomber interceptor).
2 Likes
The idea behind the 45mm was indeed to take out a bomber in a single shot from long range and was developed specifically by Stalins request for such gun.
While the NS-37 was intended as a tank buster, which didn’t turn out very successful.
The gun was too powerful for the IL-2 to handle and on the Yak-9T the recoil probably made accurate follow up shots difficult. The IL-2 also suffered accuracy issues due to the uneven firing time of the guns.
For air combat the gun was too heavy and the RoF wasn’t ideal, hence the N-37.
But like the NS-37 the NS-45 was also tried on the IL-2 but of course the result was worse than the NS-37 so it wasn’t put into service.
But I think, putting it on the IL-2, the intend was there for the gun to also be used in a ground attack or tank busting role.
While an APCR round was developed, the NS-37 already could use the 37mm APCR developed for the 37mm AA gun.
However the APCR was apparently never used as ammunition for planes.
And the reason is probably that APCR limits your targets basically to tanks while the round is overkill for lighter armored vehicles.
Combined with the subpar accuracy, it was probably determined that it wasn’t worth using.
And since the IL-2 already could drop PTAB cluster bombs, the need for a large cannon to attack tanks was probably a low priority when you instead can have a fighter doing fighter things.
So even though AP rounds were developed, it seems unlikely that they were ever used with the Yak-9K.
While it makes perfect sense for all the aircraft that were designed as ground attack aircraft, where you can also have a mixed belt of AP and HE or just APCR for attacking tanks.
On the Su-8, four cannons would probably had the effect of increased accuracy and number of rounds in the air to be effective in this role.
So personally I think it makes the most sense:
- To remove all AP rounds from the Yak-9K
- Only have a 50:50 APHE:HE mix on other aircraft for ground attack
- Keep the pure APCR belt for ground attack aircraft
So the Yak-9K can be a fighter that specializes in attacking bombers, while the ground attack aircraft can attack ground targets with AP and APCR.
Even though at the moment APHE completely blows APCR out of the water in penetration and damage.
But maybe that wouldn’t even be necessary, if the recoil actually affected the plane in any way.
Right now there’s practically no noticable recoil that affects the plane in any way other than slowing it down like every other gun. It’s like shooting BBs.
That’s probably the main issue here. The recoil force is immense but it has no affect on the planes orientation, allowing rapid accurate shots even with Sim controls.
The NS-45 is in the ballpark of a 40mm Bofors, which is mounted to 8.5t or heavier trucks, which are still shook by the recoil.
But mounted in a 3.5t aircraft, the NS-45 seems to have no recoil at all.
Even if the muzzle break reduced the recoil by 30-50%, the weight difference would still mean a noticable effect.
2 Likes
No, just remove it’s dubiously historical APHE. It wasn’t an issue before, and it wouldn’t be an issue now if it just had AP.
That’s a great way to make a plane quite bad overall, since it isn’t stellar in air RB, and would now be bad in GRB.
It’s wild how it has less recoil than some smaller cannons. And don’t forget about it’s laser accuracy, which is better than some rank V 20mms.
3 Likes