Can not find any evidence that MiG-15 pilots ever recieved G-Suits

[Joch]

Interesting discussion. I can see the argument to add the Russian G suit as “what if” equipment if it was theoretically available. Yefim Gordon is very good, I have some of his books on WW2 Russian planes.

But I would think the real question is whether the G suits were ever used in Korea. After Stalin’s death on march 5th, the new leadership decided to pull out all the remaining Russian/East European units which was done by the end of April leaving only North Korean/Chinese units to carry on for the rest of the war.

It is doubtful they would have issued G suits to the Russian units in Korea which were being withdrawn, much more likely that they would have received the G suits once they were based back in Russia. Given the general paranoia of Soviet leadership at the time, it is almost certain that they would not have supplied G suits to the North Korean/Chinese.

If you look at the photo of No Kum-Sok after he defected with his Mig-15 in September 1953, he is not wearing a G suit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Moolah

Edited August 2 by Joch

[JendaJND]

On 7/21/2026 at 7:40 PM, LukeFF said:

 

The source is from this book:



It was also first published long ago (1998) in this one:



Additionally, our researchers have spoken with the author of the Gordon book about the source of his information. He said that Arseniev's references, as well as his own, are based on tech bulletins about MiG-15 modifications (and no one knows where they are now...) which he also worked with long ago when he worked in the Mikoyan bureau archives - for some publication back then.

The same book also mentions that NO gsuits were used in korean war.

 

[Jaegermeister]

What stands out about this discussion most to me is that if there was even a vague possibility that Soviet pilots had g-suits for 1 day during the conflict, there would be a huge uproar if they were not included. 

It is way more practical to have them included at the start as an option that can be locked out than it would be to add them later to appease a very small group that won’t shut up about it.

I am not sure how the AI physics are modeled differently with or without g-suits so I can’t really comment on that part of it. It seems pretty even to me in a turn fight with a US jet vs. MiG 15.

[Dash,Polder]

Pretty sure some of those huge tree racks of rocket loads were just as uncommon, but we get those, so not going to complain.  I want them even faster pulling harder, it keeps me safer.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

57 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

What stands out about this discussion most to me is that if there was even a vague possibility that Soviet pilots had g-suits for 1 day during the conflict, there would be a huge uproar if they were not included. 

It is way more practical to have them included at the start as an option that can be locked out than it would be to add them later to appease a very small group that won’t shut up about it.

I am not sure how the AI physics are modeled differently with or without g-suits so I can’t really comment on that part of it. It seems pretty even to me in a turn fight with a US jet vs. MiG 15.

Plus they are useful for alternate history scenarios.

It's basically the same category as other "what-ifs," just like 150 octane fuel or the Ta-152 in GB (it didn't fly on any of the maps). I personally won't use any of them, but I don't see any reason to stop others from enjoying them, it that's their cup of tea. Don't want any MiGs with G-suits? Then simply don't play any missions or go to any servers that have them. Easy as that. Nobody's forcing you to do anything; I don't see why anyone would make a fuss over it.

[Uther]

As someone who flies offline these days, I'm quite happy to have the option of a G suit, and it should be up to me if I want to use it or not. 
I'm sure online a server mission maker can lock out stuff like that if they don't want it in their mission.

[harmless]

11 hours ago, JendaJND said:

The same book also mentions that NO gsuits were used in korean war.

 

Thats actually crazy. The only source that mentions them getting the suit says it wasnt in the conflict. 
It should definitely either be removed or explicitly listed as a ahistorical modification 

[harmless]

full context of the page posted by Jenda
@LukeFF Please share with the team

[FuriousMeow]

Dude, give it a rest. Its optional. 

Removed from the career totally, sure, fine, but otherwise you are complaining about something that is optional to mission creators/MP hosts. There's nothing further that needs to be done except remove it from the career and the bot pilots don't seem to be able to take advantage of it anyway. 

[ParaguaySteve]

3 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

Dude, give it a rest. Its optional. 

Removed from the career totally, sure, fine, but otherwise you are complaining about something that is optional to mission creators/MP hosts. There's nothing further that needs to be done except remove it from the career and the bot pilots don't seem to be able to take advantage of it anyway. 

I think it is healthy enough just to have it firmly established as an anachronistic modification. 
Let servers enable it as they like, but the UI at a minimum should let players know that it's a modification that was never used in theater. Even approaching it from the mentality that "it's just a game," having the G-suit absent is better from a gameplay perspective as it allows each jet to have specific strengths and weaknesses that eventually boil down to pilot skill with who wins in an engagement. 

[harmless]

The game prides its self on being a historical museum, i think its perfectly reasonable to want clarification on something's inclusion if it was never used in theater. I don't think you get to be the one that draws the arbitrary line which determines what is and isn't worth questioning.

Edited August 5 by harmless

[JendaJND]

1 hour ago, ParaguaySteve said:

I think it is healthy enough just to have it firmly established as an anachronistic modification. 
Let servers enable it as they like, but the UI at a minimum should let players know that it's a modification that was never used in theater. Even approaching it from the mentality that "it's just a game," having the G-suit absent is better from a gameplay perspective as it allows each jet to have specific strengths and weaknesses that eventually boil down to pilot skill with who wins in an engagement. 

I would like to add to this that this should apply to all planes then. 

"cough" gunval sabre mod "cough" (it was atleast used in korea)

[AEthelraedUnraed]

7 hours ago, harmless said:

Thats actually crazy. The only source that mentions them getting the suit says it wasnt in the conflict. 
It should definitely either be removed or explicitly listed as a ahistorical modification 

Did you read any of the posts above yours?

It is a period-correct modification, albeit not theatre-correct. It can be useful for alternate history scenarios. There is a long tradition in IL-2 for this kind of things, dating back all the way to IL-2 1946, and even in Korea there are other examples (US 150 octane fuel). IIRC, it has never explicitly mentioned such things.

It would be great to have some more information about the introduction dates and specific usage conditions, if applicable, for all of the modifications, but being period-correct, the G-suits are no special case compared to, let's say, the modified wings.

[Husar]

3 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Did you read any of the posts above yours?

It is a period-correct modification, albeit not theatre-correct. It can be useful for alternate history scenarios. There is a long tradition in IL-2 for this kind of things, dating back all the way to IL-2 1946, and even in Korea there are other examples (US 150 octane fuel). IIRC, it has never explicitly mentioned such things.

It would be great to have some more information about the introduction dates and specific usage conditions, if applicable, for all of the modifications, but being period-correct, the G-suits are no special case compared to, let's say, the modified wings.

Yes, in multiplayer g-suite it's blocked anyways, speaking about having period correct but not used in Korea theater planes, would be nice to have Mig-9 , Chinese had them in numbers  , this plane would  balance missions where there are no Sabres but only P80 and P84.

[harmless]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Did you read any of the posts above yours?

It is a period-correct modification, albeit not theatre-correct. It can be useful for alternate history scenarios. There is a long tradition in IL-2 for this kind of things, dating back all the way to IL-2 1946, and even in Korea there are other examples (US 150 octane fuel). IIRC, it has never explicitly mentioned such things.

It would be great to have some more information about the introduction dates and specific usage conditions, if applicable, for all of the modifications, but being period-correct, the G-suits are no special case compared to, let's say, the modified wings.

Except it is different. If F-51's were allowed to start using the 150 octane fuel at a certain point in the career would you think that's fine too?
What people do in multiplayer servers is up to them, I don't care about that. The career introducing them in April 1953 is the problem. I'm not sure what's confusing about that to you. 

Before asking if someone else has read the posts in the thread you should probably read them yourself first.

Edited August 5 by harmless

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, harmless said:

Except it is different. If F-51's were allowed to start using the 150 octane fuel at a certain point in the career would you think that's fine too?
What people do in multiplayer servers is up to them, I don't care about that. The career introducing them in April 1953 is the problem. I'm not sure what's confusing about that to you. 

Before asking if someone else has read the posts in the thread you should probably read them yourself first.

Except that you're literally arguing for the mod to be removed. I quote: "I'm of the opinion it shouldn't be available in-game". 

As long as it is never the default option and isn't automatically switched on for AI pilots, then yes, I think both G-suits and 150 octane fuel should be permissible in career. We're supposed to be experienced and likely highly-decorated squadron commanders after all; IMO it's plausible enough that after enough badgering our superiors and using our contacts up in Washington/Moscow, we'd get sent an experimental G-suit or a batch of 150 octane fuel.

[Avimimus]

15 hours ago, ParaguaySteve said:

I think it is healthy enough just to have it firmly established as an anachronistic modification. 

I definitely agree with this. It is good to know the history, but it is also nice to have options.

For what its worth, the Mig-17 was entering service in Europe during the Korean War - and it appears that even some early afterburning variants were reaching some units... so while the F-86F was being provided to the U.N. forces, the Soviets were essentially sending second-line Mig-15Bis and Chinese were sending Mig-15 units into Korea. They could've probably sent some Mig-17A if they had wanted to.

I don't think we should feel hard done by if we're given an option we don't have to use to represent the g-suites that were available in small numbers by 1952, even if there is no evidence they were deployed or should be in the campaign. This is doubly true if we get the F-86E or F-86F or F-86F-2 Gunval...

P.S. Within two years of the end of the war the Mig-19 was appearing...

[ParaguaySteve]

8 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I don't think we should feel hard done by if we're given an option we don't have to use to represent the g-suites that were available in small numbers by 1952, even if there is no evidence they were deployed or should be in the campaign. This is doubly true if we get the F-86E or F-86F or F-86F-2 Gunval...

P.S. Within two years of the end of the war the Mig-19 was appearing...

Even from the provided Yefim Gordon source text, the G-suits were an April '53 modification for units in the USSR proper, and weren't available in '52. The bulk of Sabres deployed to Korea were F models, outnumbering the total deployed A models 4:1, and appearing mid '52. 

Part of the reason that Korea is appealing is it's a very specific snapshot conflict with a very limited amount of vehicles available, each with their own respective strengths and weakness. Stuffing as many "what if" scenarios into the theater is fine on the odd multiplayer server advertising it as such, but not too healthy for the core game modes and server default settings. 

P.S. within one year of the end of the war the F-100A was appearing, and within five years the MiG-21F was appearing...

[JendaJND]

On 8/5/2026 at 8:30 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Did you read any of the posts above yours?

It is a period-correct modification, albeit not theatre-correct. It can be useful for alternate history scenarios. There is a long tradition in IL-2 for this kind of things, dating back all the way to IL-2 1946, and even in Korea there are other examples (US 150 octane fuel). IIRC, it has never explicitly mentioned such things.

It would be great to have some more information about the introduction dates and specific usage conditions, if applicable, for all of the modifications, but being period-correct, the G-suits are no special case compared to, let's say, the modified wings.

For gsuit, you need cockpit modifications and way to pressurize them. You also need system that delivers the pressure and correct pressure. Imho, replacing wing is easier in this case than doing gsuit modifications.

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, ParaguaySteve said:

Part of the reason that Korea is appealing is it's a very specific snapshot conflict with a very limited amount of vehicles available, each with their own respective strengths and weakness. Stuffing as many "what if" scenarios into the theater is fine on the odd multiplayer server advertising it as such, but not too healthy for the core game modes and server default settings.

I totally agree with this.

I also agree that we need the F-86F for the late war (I've always suspected that we'll get it).