Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Indeed, I recall another high ranked German ace who considered Cobra a good aircraft which changed situation on the Eastern Front, and he explained his points in some length. Also Soviet themselves were quite enthusiastic about the aircraft following tests at NIIVVS, and interestingly, Soviet opinions about Spitfire Vs following use of the type on Kuban were enthusiastic as well.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

Hi, Franek!

What do You mean enthusiastic?

As far as I know, Spit Vb and IXc were very unpopular among VVS pilots.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

By enthusiastic I mean enthusiastic. Mihail Bykov quoted some comments from 57 GvIAP documents filed just after or even during the Kuban battle, and I have somewhere an interview (from Suhoj forum?) of a pilot who flew Mk IXs in PVO (Shackij?), who has been just beloved in Spitfire. Soviet propaganda suggests, that pilots of all the world liked or loved Spitfires, but Soviets. Is not it ridiculous?

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

Franek, could you provide a link?

And may you can explain, how the plane that was delivered in relative few number(in compare with other types) could changed the situation? P-39 did not play any role in most important battles over Stalingrad and Kursk.
Only over Kuban brige use VVS this type intensive but e.g. Grislawsky mean Cobra was no more dangerous as other soviet type

And on the 1.7.1943 the VVS has only 183 Cobras on the from 3690 figthers total

Really? Some NIIVVS test pilots crash to death with P-39 due motor failure and tailspin. I would say enthusiasm was really limited.

Engineers standards, any technical solution, techology culture, that was really point of interest of soviet engineers and constructors.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

No, it is a paper copy of correspondence, and I am not sure where it is.
I understand those were land battles, were not they?
In March 1944 USAAF had only few Fighter Groups equipped with Mustangs, most of the remaining flying Thunderbolts. Nonetheless those were those few dosens of Mustangs flying over Berlin changing the course of the airwar in the west.
This was a very similar case with Cobras and Spitifres, and Valerij Romanenko underlined this in his books about Cobra.
That is the sad fate of test pilots - they die sometimes. They have died on Spitfires, Mustangs, Focke Wulfs, Messerschmitts and other aircraft considered state of the engineering art. So what? The 1942 NIIVVS report considered Airacobra is at some aspects superior to Me 109F. This is the key info.
Soviet engineers and constructors did not fly them into combat, did they?

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

I could not believe, that you don't know about air war during these periods. Therefore I would say, it was a joke from you.

Franek, congatulation! You write the new page in air war history. I thought always that thousends P-51 and P-47 lead to US success. And it was only "few dosens". As you would say "propoganda". But in this case not soviet and even not US... Maybe you can provide the source of this claim? Btw, on 25.02.1944 already 135 P-51 use as escort for Regensburg attack. And many germans pilots clams that P-47 was more dangerous and harder to shot down as P-51.
I can not believe that Mr. Romanenko can provide any serious argumets that prove his claims.
Exact Franek! In some aspect and Bf-109F KEY INFO!
And the same test pilot claims that Yak-1 and 7 with M-105PF engine was superior over Bf-109F. The answer come soon ant it's name was Bf-109G-2. And what is the value of the "some aspect"??
Sorry, I don't get a question.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

kalender, do you know how many a/c in an American fighter group?
There is 48 (3 sqd of 16 a/c).

135/48 = 2.8 groups. I would say that is a few groups.

As for the few dosens of Mustangs, don't take it so literally, besides the word is plural (the 's' on the end).

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

The fact there are some aircraft flying around does not constitute an air battle. It is my understanding that it was Kuban that was the major breakthrough in the air war on the Eastern Front, as well a major change in the concept of use of Soviet fighter aviation. This was nicely described by Ivanov, who wrote about Pokryshkin's briefing introducing speed, manouver, attack rule.
A few dosens indeed. Find me those thousands of P-51s if in the eve of Normandy's D-Day there were only 6 USAAF Groups, 1 RAF and 1 PAF Wing flying the type. Still, they gave the edge, giving Luftwaffe no airspace to fly safely.
BTW Mark Gallay once wrote about Thunderbolt - it is no fighter. How about this?
Kobry vstupayut v boj. Available on internet, I believe also in English. Romanenko clearly notes the impact of few Airacobras delivered to the Soviet Union in the early period.
Now, please tell me what was the difference between Me 109F and Me 109G. This is key issue to understand the problem of Airacobra. And Yak-1/7s were not considered any particularly dangerous opponents.
What does have copying of technical features to performance of the aircraft? Although it is worth to note that Soviets copied western aircraft but it was not the other way.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

Kutscha, and you will say, this few dosen(s) wipped out the germans from the sky? How many german planes claims the 4, 354,356 FG on 6.03.1944? 30-35? My point is that the key for air superiority for the west ally was also the numerical superiority and not a single plane type. That was german idea with a few planes reach victory in air war: Me-262. The result is well known.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

That show, you don't undestand the nature of tactical air war in the east where the air war was driven through ground battle.
It is long story, but from actual point of view, Kuban was nothing particular. It was some prove of concept for VVS high command but from the point of fighting and losses for both sides it can not be compared with Stalingrad or Kursk.

Ok. IIRC on 12.05.44 8th air force was directed against german synthetic oil industry. It was some 1500 bombers and 1500 fighters(and additionally RAF figthers provide cover operation in France). And you would say, that the whole job was done by 300-400 P-51? Then we have new "wunderwaffe".
What Mark Gallay concern, I would say his opinion reflect the soviet fighter mentality but it is other story

I know the author from other forum, and after some discussion I preffer did not read his works.

The G-2 was faster and has better climbing rate.
Maybe your source? I know, Franek, all soviet types was complete harmless and the all german losses was pilots suicide or technically failure.

Really? Copy? What type, beside after war Tu-4(B-29)?

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

May 12 1944

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 353: 886 bombers and 735
fighters are dispatched to hit oil production facilities in Germany and Czechoslovakia

Escort is provided by 153 P-38s, 201 P-47s and 381 P-51s

Where did your other 1500 a/c come from?

P-47s could barely make to the German border which leaves only the P-51s, and P-38s, for the deep escort duty.
Also when it says 735 escorts not all escorts were with the bombers. Only a 1/4 to 1/3 would be with the others flying to or from the rendevous point.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

Hm, my number is from Prien JG1/11. It could be other mission or combined mission with 15th Air Force. Or my memory is not good :)
I can not verify your info about range of P47 but it was primary escort fighter until march/april and in this time the 8th Air force attack e.g. Eisenach, Marburg, Magdeburg,Schweinfurt, Stuttgart, Regensburg, all points deep in Germany. Who provide the escorts?

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

From the actual Luftwaffe's standpoint they were never massacred on the east, rather forced to remove unit by the unit due to increasing losses on the west. Nothing on the east can be compared to such a hectic period like Battle of Normandy (which was typical ground support battle).
BTW Some researchers claim Kursk was nothing particular from the German point of view, losses being about average.
Kutscha partially answered this. I may add that the number of Mustangs taking the pun could have been as low as ~40 aircraft, as the escort was provided on legs. The point is that those ~40 Mustangs were with the bombers all the time. Additionally, Mustangs on sweeps kept care that no Luftwaffe aircraft will take off safely. Yes, Mustang was a wunderwaffe.
I would rather say, a general Soviet mentality, that disallows any serious discussion. I note Soviet and not Russian.
Well, but it is not enough to consider his writing wrong.
Is that all? I would say it is not enough to discuss aircraft performance.
If you have bothered to read my other posts, you would easily find that I am very critical on German loss data. Nonetheless it is not the point. Victories were achieved on such obsolete aircraft like Fiat CR.42, Gladiator or I-15, but nobody will consider this a proof of their technical superiority. Yaks were never state of the art, and more, had several limitations, to mention poor armament, short range or not very good altitude performance as most important ones. Some people claim that Yak-3 was a most promising and nice Soviet fighter, but nobody takes in mind it had performance comparable with Spitfire V trop. It was enough to get a Me 109G in infavourable position, but it would be interesting to compare this 1944 aircraft with such ones like Meteor, Mustang, Spitfire XIV or Tempest.
It depends what you consider a copy. You can make direct one like Tu-4 but you can also copy aerodynamical or technological features, not to mention equipment or engines. Soviets copied for example BMWs, Jumos, RR Derwents and Nenes which allowed them to get into the jet age. There was a plan to copy a Me 262, but it was abandoned in favour of a very similar Su-9 fighter. I have had in my own hands several pieces of equipment that were direct copies of western one, eg. flight parameter recorder, which used (IIIRC) 1'3/4 inch film (not metric anyway).

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

As far as I know, Yak-3 will easily outclimb, outrun, outmaneuver each of them (exept JET - Meteor) on altitudes below at least 3-4k. The things will shange ABOVE.

Also, I think it is not good to compare low-level tacktical FRONT fighter as Yak-3 and Interceptor like Spits and Tempests or High-altitude longrange escort fighter like Mustang. Each of them were good in "theyr" role.

Poor armament? It had CENTRAL mounted 20mm cannon (wich is more accurant - and in that case deadly - compare with 2 wingmountaid Hispanos with Spit for example) and 1 or 2 12mm UB (with was the best highcaliber mashinegun of WW II). The lack of ammunition usually was reparated with very close range of fire - usually much less than 100 metres. At this range even short burst of 1x20+1x12 will destroy Bf109 or Fw190.

Short range - but was it so need to have LONG range on Ostfront? Main mistake of early WW II Soviet aircrafts was claim for "longrange" from VVS high command to aircraft developers, wich resulted to over heavying of MiG-3 and LaGG-3, making them "sitting ducks".

Altitude performance - as You know, VVS fighters were specialised on LOW altitudes, and from 42-43 most of VVS fighters were better (in some case - MUCH better) to accomplish MISSION TARGETS on lowaltitudes that Bf109's or Fw190's.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

It is not a point of our discussion, but e.g. the LW losses between 22.061941 and 04.07.1941 was over 800 planes: so many losses in such short time happened never before and never after.

It is easy to discuss with you. Some researchers... Name? And these some resarchers must take at least german officially loss stastistic and count it, if they can.
It is your personally opinion, without any hard facts

What is wrong with soviet mentality, explain please. Serious discussion need serious arguments. Unfortenatelly I can not acceppt argument "soviet propaganda" as serious.

The speed and climbing rate are two key performance indicator for the figher, especially for the soviet-german front. If the german improved these both, they have automatically advantage, what cause higher soviet and lower german losses.

Well and Aerocobra was a fantastic planes without these shortcomings?LOL!
It is true, soviet planes was not technically perfect. But the soviet industry was able to provide the planes which were at least equal to the germans. And this is with unbelievable limited ressources and under unbelievable severe condition. And with these planes the VVS was able to protect the ground forces and protect own attack planes. And why we must compare our planes with Mustang or Tempest that appears 2-3 years later under quite peaceful condition?
You wrote in your previous post "Soviets copied western aircraft". It look for me, that beside case of Tu-4, you can not prove your word. QED

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

I am afraid it would not be that easy, especially with Tempest.
I would say Tempest played exactly the same role as Yak-3, but there is no point in inventing a category to prove quality of Yak. It could have been a perfect toy as well.
We compare Yak with Tempest or Mustang, do not we? I agree that Mustang was a little bit weak on armament, but still 4 or 6x .50 was a good fire power. Add to this a gyro gunsight which was quickly becoming a standard in 1944. No, Yak stood no chance.
I do not think any of mentioned fighters was overloaded, still having superior range. And range is very important - Luftwaffe was wiped out just because of it. I do not mention famous story of Me 109 over London.
No, they were 'specialised' because Soviet industry was unable to provide high altitude engines. That is why Spitfires served long years after the war in Soviet Air Defence.
Compare it to number of sorties flown and number of enemies. Much more numerous Soviet aviation was within few months put on the knees, and Stalin begged for any aircraft from the west.
For example from the team, Paweł Burchardt worked with. I believe Niklaas Zetterling had similar conclusions.
Definetelly Mustangs over Berlin were soft facts. As soft as Goering's pants.
For example they will invent new categories of weapons just to prove they were successful while they were not. Something like Tsarpushka complex, but more sophisticated.
How do they change?
I do not care about conditions. It is not my problem. We compare aircraft and we compare Yak-3 with Tempest because both entered service in 1944, and would face each other in case of conflict.
OK, Aist (Storch), PS-84 (DC-3), GST (PBY), etc. It does not matter, some of them were under licence. It does matter the technology went to the Soviet Union and not the other way.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

But the number of Pawel Burchard says somethig else.
I undestand. Goering saw Mustangs and Hitler commit therefore suicide.

Next time the russian will request poles assist
Clear its not your problem. Your only problem is hatred against all sowiet and I would say russian. Therefore you lost a last bit of objectivity

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

The P-47 was used for the short/medium range escort.

At the end of July 1943, the P-47s got the leaky 200gal drop tanks. This allowed the P-47 to reach the German/Dutch border. In mid Jan 1944 the much better 150gal d/t was introduced. This allowed the P-47 to reach the Dummer Lake area.

On May 8 1944 the 56th FG claimed 6 enemy a/c while the 352cd FG claimed 27 enemy a/c out of the total of 44 enemy a/c claimed that day. The ascendancy of the P-51 is clearly shown.

Source of my data for May 12 1944
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

But without this short/medium escort the success of operation was not possible. Only with few P-51 the 8th air force only repeat the desaster of october 43 again and again.

Generally I am confidence, that LW in the west was not destroyed during strategic bomber operation in jan-may 1944. It suffers high losses but was still able to fight back. And only landing in the Normandy( and opening of 4rd major air front) bring LW to death. And in tactical air war was the role of P-51 no more significant as Spitfire or P-47

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

You certainly have a point if we consider the night battle. Not a little part of the strategic (bomber) offensive. The major factor in the shift of balance was the loss of France and its forward airspace.

Not sure if you have a point regarding the P-51 though. Although I tend to agree that its impact is sometimes overstated, it was nonetheless the increase in numbers of (strategic / long range) escort fighters that shifted the balance in the West during the day. This also allowed for a massive increase in tactical fighters, or fighter-bombers. Perhaps the increase in tactical air power was more significant in defeating the Germans in the West than the Strategic element etc.

The air war is unfortunately more complex in terms of events than for instance the U-boat offensive in the Atlantic, where May 1943 can be clearly pointed as a turning point. But even this event is the culmination of many factors, including numbers, type of, weapons and tactics used by the allied escorts.

In the air war we don't have this clear cut situation. Day vs Night, East vs West. Tactical vs Strategic etc.

Of course there is an abundance of figures, but even hard data is prone to interpretation that suits the argument.

A good example is how the early fighting in the West in 1940 is not taken into the Battle of Britain equation. Whereas the first of the few did include the French (or like some may argue Poles), we barely regard them as such.

Instead of growing for a strategic offensive against Britain, the Jagdwaffe barely managed to regain the number it started the war with (an error to repeated in 1941 against the Soviet Union). There wasn't any significant growth until it was already too late to turn the combined Allied tidal wave, culminating in the huge discrepancy in numbers by 1944.

The most significant early turning point was of course the day the Third Reich invaded the Soviet Union, spreading its Jagdwaffe to the point where it operated beyond its capacity to maintain an offensive on any front: the western front, the Atlantic, North Africa, the Mediterranean and Eastern Front. The Western Allies would of course profit most from this early phase since they could concentrate significant forces on the periphery whereas the Reich could not. Even the main western front was a peripheral air front in the eyes of the Luftwaffe (until mid 1943).

The role of the Soviet Union, or Russia, in absorbing the main fighting strength in the critical 1941-42 years, in the air, but most importantly on land and the industrial output that had to go with it, can't be overstated enough.

Without Barbarossa however the chances of Britain standing alone to widthstand a continued and concentrated German effort were IMHO bleak, let alone the chance of any offensive posture on the periphery.

In short the Third Reich, like the Luftwaffe, chewed off more than it could ever hope to swallow.

All IMHO, of course.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Copying is rarely seen as obviously as with the Tu-4. I don't see a lot of direct copying in the Soviet airframe industry - the abortive attempt at the Storch aside - but their engine industry was highly dependent on the development of licence-built and copied engines. The Klimov series was based on the Hispano-Suiza, and the large radials on the Cyclone. It was the Soviet parallel development of the Double Cyclone what made copying the Tu 4 feasible at all. There was perhaps some adoption of fresh concepts, such as the twin-engined monoplane fighter which became the Pe 2 was initially inspired by the Potez 63 and Bf 110, but the design was not a copy. Adopting fresh ideas, whatever the source, was hardly unique to Soviet industry.

Re the like/dislike of the Spitfire. My understanding is that the deliveries of Spitfire Mk.Vs to the Southern front were unpopular, because the aircraft was already outdated and not suited to the rough operations of the Soviet front line (although it seems to have coped well enough in the Western Desert, the Indian/Burmese jungles and Italian dirt strips!). Some of the early deliveries were also second-hand and somewhat well-worn, which didn't help. However the Mk.IXs were another matter, and retained for PVO units because of the failure of Soviet designs for the higher-altitude intercept role after the MiG 3.

It certainly is unfair to suggest that the Yak 3 was only equivalent to a Spitfire Mk.Vc Trop - the overweight dragmaster of the Spitfire series. A better comparison would be to the LF Mk.Vb, with the Merlin 55M. Although often dismissively referred to as "clipped cropped and clapped" this was the fastest climbing (and hence accelerating) fighter at low-level to see service in WW2, and had a roll rate equal to the best (the Fw 190), was faster at sea-level than most. There was a very significant difference in performance between the two versions - as indeed there was between the Bf 109F and the G. It is differences in performance between types that drives the choice of tactics and these should not be dismissively cast aside when discussing options in the air war.

I'm not sure just which recent (or indeed older) books on the Battle of Britain neglect the effects of previous struggles. Such throwaway comments have previously been directed at not allowing for German aircraft losses in this period: however British losses in this period (particularly of light bombers, Army co-operation aircraft and Hurricanes) were no less significant. The movement of German bombers into France and Norway, accompanied by their fighters, gave the Germans a massive tactical advantage for any airwar over the UK. Britain was no longer faced with unescorted bombers operating at fairly long range from a single direction. Much of the defences had be re-directed over a much greater front, and the value of two front-line types (Defiant and Blenheim fighter) severely downgraded. Or isn't that what you meant?

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

It is interesting to note that in most literature was not mention at all aerial combat during the Kursk operation. By the size and intensity that was one of the strongest aerial combat in WW2.

Also Soviet fighter proven excellent in some fight against West latest machines.

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

Ruy, I am fully agree with you. But it is not charackteristic of "wunderwaffe". Wunderwaffe is something, that allow you with limited ressources shift the situation to your advantage. Nuclear bomb is one. Mustang is only step forward in the right direction. Maybe big and important. But only one. The ally must process many another( and many painful) until they reach their goals. Btw, I try to remember, if I read from former LW member about overwhelming technically superiority of Mustang again german type. And can not found. But about numerically superiority very often. One of the (Reschke??) wrote something like: "..In the west we fight fighter again mass of fighter and in the east fighter again the fighter"

The focusing of LW in the east give the west engineers time, develope and produce technically advanced planes. The german also very limited ressources go for the bomber, transports etc, and avoid the buildup of effective day AD system in Germany. IMHO the roots of west air superiority and success lay anywhere between Moscau and Stalingrad.
And for this, the soviet pilots pay there live... and died in technicaly not so fine planes...

Re: The best USAAF fighter pilots have been the soviets
 

I did not say Pawel's research but research of the team he was with.
Yes, just after he smelled Goering's pants.
With pleasure.
Anti-Soviet and anti-communistic - always. I believe every man should be against crime. Anti-Russian - why? Nevertheless it is not relevant here. We discuss aircraft performance and it it figures and therefore maths. There is no politics involved.
Why? P-51 could fly anywhere Germans appeared, it had the range. It would be harder to make tactical plans though.
Indeed, it was just softened during the Big Week, but saying the role of P-51 was no more significant than Spitfire during the Battle of Normandy is just ridiculous. This would need a lengthier explanation, but in short P-51s patrolled over German airfields thus assuring no German aircraft could take off safely. I cannot say it was decisive, because Luftwaffe was in so sorry state, that the latter factor was indeed decisive at this stage.
I would say that in general everybody forgets the Polish Campaign and its influence on the war. The same with the Winter War or Finnish Campaign. It seems that for some war starts during the Battle of Britain, for some during Barbarossa, and finally for some at Pearl Harbor.
I would be very cautious using the term 'error'. Our knowledge on the background of those decisions is very limited, and it could have been necessity instead. This does not change the fact the Luftwaffe was not ready for a war it took part in.
I would not say so. They send the best aircraft to the west and maintained there as many units as they could. It is also worth to note that they were unable to prevent RAF attacks, a general failure of their air defence concepts.
Debatable. Britain just managed to start full production of Spitfires, pilots' training was increasing and there were enough of reserves. Another Battle of Britain in 1941 would be very costly for Germans.
Yes.
Your understanding is wrong because the airmen were quite fond of their Spitfires and requested more. There are documents confirming this, and it was only Soviet propaganda, that reduced Spitfire to a complete failure.
This is a fact. Yugoslavia did some tests of both Yak-3 and Spitfire VC trop, and it turned out that both aircraft were in the same league. IIRC it turned out that Spitfire has better climb performance (although Yak was better in vertical manouvers), amazing considering that it was a lazy cow with Vokes.
The question is, what is the difference.
True!
The only notable success was a victory of Kozhedub against P-51Ds, but US documents show this event in a different light. In the other squirmishes Soviets got beating. It even turned out that P-38 turns better than Yak.
I would not say flying to the east corner of Germany and back, being still capable to fight any German aircraft is not a wonder. Perhaps it is just ubelieveable.
Quite commonly repeated statement, but not confirmed by facts. Detailed analysis of a few days of Battle of Normandy clearly indicates that the largest Allied formations were Wings and Groups ~40 aircraft each, but much more common was Squadron formation of ~12 aircraft (and there were cases that outnumbered Allies did a severe beating to the Germans). Germans usually flew in formations of 30-40 aircraft, at least as long as they had enough of them. The same for bomber escorts. A total seems impressive, but actually it was a Group or two for a leg.
Engineers do not fight. It was rather a matter of human potential and available resources, plus some wise decisions.
Nice that you finally admit that. Soviet pilots often died just because flying in inferior planes, perhaps the best that Soviet Union could produce, but still inferior.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Not at at all. You have combat in 1944 when the US fughter from altitude attack Soviet fighters in the South Serbia. US have P-38 and no matter of the advantage they suffer heavy looses in combat against Yak-3. I could tryu to get more info in my papers if you are interesting.

Also early Yak version was dog fighted against allyed Spitfire IX and Spit lost! Pilot was Yugoslav aginst RAF as I know.

As I could remember in the book "Me262 combat diary" was testimony of one Me262 pilot who said also that they attack from height at pack of Yak fighter but "vigilant" Soviet pilot escape and turn agains jet fighter so they have to brake away.

In other hand Soviet try to collect every sample of the West material and I know that they transfer almost everything from Yugoslavia to Soviet Union [there was even two B-17]. They prefer technicaly West aircrafts. I have get some info that they are in some hand prepare for the war with West after the end of WW2.

I would like to ask something- is it true that Kingcobra was dedicated for the defence of Moskva [Moscow] after the war? Is it also true that their perfomance was so good that they get this task.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Hi Graham,
in this case I would say, the problem is on your side :-) IIRC the Britain has always production problem with Spitfire therefore you can not deliver the necessary number. What is 150 SpitV for VVS? It 3-4 week fights you need the new delivery. If you were able to deliver 2000-3000 planes in the middle of 1943, they were welcomed. Btw, the second hand SpitfireVB again new G-2 and G-4 was also not a wunderwaffe, therefore I don't beleive that pilots from 57 GIAP requested it intensive :-)
Maybe you already read about Spitfire over Kuban:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm
If you have question, Igor Zlobin maybe can help you.

What SpitfireIX concern, it delivery was elementary to late. The introducing of new plane type, especially foreign type, is not easy for VVS technical service and therefore if you have equal or even better own type, you will avoid the introducing. The test with IX show the advantage of La-7, Yak-9U, Yak-3 in low and middle attitude, therefore the Spitfire were not sent to the front line but delivered to Home AD and IIRC they shot down one german recce plane over Leningrad in 1945.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

I would say, not only soviet collect all but the west ally too. Me-262, He-162, V-1,2, all was transfered to UK and USA. And as we know not only the harware but some braincarrier :-)
No, it is not true. The fact is that most plane of Air defence was west planes. It was either the old planes as Hurricane and P-40, that could not longer used in the front line or it was the plane as P-47 or SpitfireIX, that has better altitude charachteristic and were better equipt with radio etc.
The opinion about Kingkobra from russian pilot was very decent. One, who flown Aerocobra since 1942 and Kingkobra after the war mean "Thank God, that the war was over and we don't need fight with the Kingkobra." In his opinion Kingkobra was step back from Aerocobra, was to heavy.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Thank you Igor :)

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

All of the aircraft had superior radio and navigational equipment, altitude performance and better range so needed in air defence duties. They were send there because Soviet industry was unable to provide any capable design.

EDIT:

Sorry, but I managed to screw up your original post by mistake. If you can somehow figure how it went, I'll correct it ASAP.

My apologies.

Ruy Horta

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Pilot
82nd FG lost two P-38s against 3 Yaks, so I am not sure your remark heavy losses is appropriate, not in this case of a dogfight over Nis airfield at least.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

I believe in this incident was P-38s vs Yak-1s

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Judging by Mikoyan's line of high altitude designs I'm less inclined to believe that statement. Industrial output was aimed at maximising the output of certain types of aircraft and engine to the detriment of all other designs. That other designs were capable or perhaps even superior didn't matter, the choice was made at the political level (often Stalin himself).

But even if such aircraft were produced, like the Mig-3 with superior high altitude performance, they were often limited to the same tactical doctrine as the more orthodox designs, low to medium altitude operation.

That Soviet industry could learn from other nations and did copy (adopt) foreign design is a fact, but that can easily be a universal statement for any industrial nation, but that they weren't capable of designing (or producing) their own solutions is IMHO incorrect.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Stalin was clear-thinking man and he know very good about the soviet industry posibility, therefore it was the only correct desicion in really bad situation in 1941. Threfore we never heard from USSR such story as from german Me-210 or He-177

Ruy it is a key point. And the best sample? Clear, P-51. Somebody would say: "Ok, the US engineers was not capable to design own luiquid cooling engine, therefore they steal(copy, adopt) the britain Merlin. Two leading industry nation were able to create suitable plane at the fall of 1943" But we all understand that it was correct decision and don't speak about inferior US human potential

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

I'm sure I could find more recently published Soviet pilots' comments to the effect that the Spitfires Mk.V received in 1943 were considered semi-obsolescent, outdated and too fragile, which if a little biased do not seem too unreasonable, considering the times and alternatives. I see no need to regard such comments as purely propaganda based. Any overall dismissal of the Spitfire would be another matter.

As for production problems with the Spitfire: given that it comfortably exceeded any other Allied fighter this seems harsh. Lack of deliveries to Russia might be more related to the RAF and Allied air forces need for such aircraft in the same period. More, if available, would have been very welcome in India! The problems of delivering them to Russia should also be taken into account: this was no small matter, particularly after the collapse of the Northern convoy route.

Sorry, but a handful of interesting prototypes using non-production engines, lacking decent radio and other equipment, does not equate to the ability to actually produce and operate a high-altitude fighter. Soviet industry may indeed have had the potential, but could not actually do so in the circumstances of the time. I don't criticise their priorities, but these do affect capabilities.

Although the Yak series could out-maneouvre a Spitfire at lowlevel - and the very best outperform too, at low-level - this does not seem terribly convincing as a reason for not employing the LF Mk.IX over the front. Not every Yak was a -3, and not every Lavochkin a -7. The Mk.IX's far superior altitude performance does seem a better reason for using it in the PVO. That they were "wasted" because no German bomber offensive ever returned is information gained from hindsight, not a legitimate planning assumption at the time.

You do have to be careful in making judgements from single pilot comments. If the Yugoslavs found the tropicalised Mk.V and the Yak 3 equal, except for the superior climb of the Spitfire, what do we make of comments that the Yak 9DDs of the Bari detachment could outmaneouvre the Spitfire Mk.IXs of adjacent Allied units? No-one would suggest that the 9DD was the most agile of Yaks, or the Mk.IX poorer performing than the Mk.V. The two results are incompatible: other factors must be involved. However, such comments are always fascinating. It would be very interesting to known "Jas" Storrer's comments on his "private" Yak 9 that he had in Italy. However, he didn't have to fight in it.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

No, neither of high altitude MiGs (I-220, I-221, I-222, I-223, I-224, I-230, I-231) turned out to be successful and this is the major reason they were not built. There was a political decision to built prototypes, as you would say, but it was a failure.
Well, what do we consider a high altitude aircraft? MiG-3 was optimised for higher altitudes indeed, but it still had a single stage supercharger and performance not comparable with later designs. The valid question is what was the actual performance of the aircraft as well, as it is often described as useless, but it must be noted it was not a doctrine nor political decision to cut the production, but a simple lack of engines, the whole production of the latter going for Il-2s.
Soviet Union became industrial nation in late 1920s/early 1930s, and in a little different way than remaining nations. This is the key issue, which leads to logical explanation of Soviet problems. In regard of copying, there must be some proportion considered, and you can hardly find Soviet designs that were copied elsewhere (but PR China).
Indeed, and we hear such stories like about MiG-3, Il-2 or Yak-9P, not to mention other minor or lesser known designs. Stalin could have been brightly thinking man but he was unable to change the reality.
It is a matter of fact that Americans were capable to built a reasonably good Allison engine but it is also well known that there was a little interest in them, radials being considered more effective and reliable. A matter of political choice you would say. When the need came, Allison lacked both resources and experience to built a Merlin-like engine in reasonable time.
BTW Packard build Merlins on clear British demand, and somewhat against American's will.
I am afraid you would not find too many accounts of flying Spitfires in 1943, but a well known book of Ivanov, quoted in most books. Even the latter is not so critical about Spitfires as it is portrayed. You must know that almost every book dealing with western equipment must have had a passage explaining the reader Soviet superiority in that aspect. Everyone quote few such passages, but overall, the book is full of appraisal to Spitfire.
One another important point, that escaped somewhere - the range. Spitfire was not a particular long runner, but still superior to Soviet lightweight designs. The latter were just unable to fulfill their missions during the 1945 offensive as they simply lacked the range to follow the frontline. Therefore quite often drop tanks were used at the cost of bombload, this being avoidable with Spitfire IX.
Well, it is not Spitfire's fault Britain was uncapable to reequip Soviets with Spitfires. This is also out of scope, as we discuss qualities of aircraft and not possibilities to fly them by particular air forces. You may complain that this sod Hitler did not provide Stalin with quantities of Focke Wulfs as well.
Soviet industry lacked technologies and and experienced personnel at all levels of designing, production and exploitation.
Spitfire Vs were removed of the front just because of the arrival of Ju 86P aircraft over Moscow. Actually, Spitfires were badly needed at the front because Soviet aircraft were flying unprotected from higher flying German aircraft. That is why Germans scored so unbelieveable scores, it was just because hit and run, while flying with relative safety above Soviets.
I am afraid that it is you who is making such a judgement. I am not awared of Bari mock-up dog fight, but there is a substantial difference between and ad hoc organised combat and several days of tests with various pilots involved as Yugoslavs did. Similarly, Soviets did similar tests of Kingcobra vs Yak-9P, and the results were in favour of US aircraft.
Jas Storrar's comments would be welcome, but I am afraid they would not be decisive, as there is a substantial difference between flying for fun and in combat.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

I am afraid that it is you who is making such a judgement. I am not awared of Bari mock-up dog fight, but there is a substantial difference between and ad hoc organised combat and several days of tests with various pilots involved as Yugoslavs did. quote]

I do agree, though "several days of tests with various pilots" does not exactly imply great thoroughness. I thought that was much the point I was making, that looking at anecdotal or semi-anecdotal accounts, or even any single account, can be misleading, however genuine the participants. The only reliable source of data comes from organised series of tests done at the national flight test centres, and they rarely address direct comparisons. Even then they rarely are able to check "best current practice" on both sides but inevitably end up comparing their own national best versus the latest enemy that they could get their hands on. Always assuming the captured enemy can be made to work at optimum: the Russian test figures I've seen on the Bf 109F are clearly at fault above low altitudes, and the RAF initial figures on the Fw 190A have been criticised for not getting the maximum power from the engine. (Given that the early production BMW 801s were limited in power in German use, I'm not convinced that this was a genuine failing of the test.) There is a long and painful thread on this board(?) where one poster was clearly convinced that the performance gained from the British Bf 109G-6 was obviously affected by the retention of the gunpacks.

It would be interesting to know which engines were fitted to those Yugoslav Spitfires: there's no doubt on simple power/weight comparisons that the Yak 3 would climb away from a standard Mk.V - an M rated engine could be another matter. I'm not familiar with Yugoslav use of the Yak 3, thinking of them as Yak 9 users.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Both Yugoslav Spitfire vs Yak and Soviet Kingcobra vs Yak were on official tests on demand of respective commands, and both forces were operators of both types, so they knew perfectly how to fly those aircraft.
Those test do not qualify in this comparison.
Ordinary Mk VC trops. Yugoslavs used both Yak-3s and 9s. It seems they were testing for possible combats against Greek Spitfires.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

But what was the production standard of an "ordinary" Tropicalised Mk.Vc by 1945? Despite the appearance of 4-bladed props and individual exhausts on Seafires and some RAF Mk.Vs, the low-rated engines did not need either of these fittings.

However good the Yugoslavs in these trials, Newton's laws still would have applied to them. With engines of similar power, the lighter Yak 3 should have comfortably exceeded the Mk.V in a climb. So either the Yak had lower-power engines for some reason, or the Spitfire had higher.

I presume we are talking about steady climbs, not zoom climbs. Which fuels were used in the trials? Do you have access to a report or are you relying upon anecdotal comments?

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

Graham
As standard as Mk VC trop could be. It is indeed surprising after reading so many performance figures, but I would say it was just reality. Soviet propaganda for years worked to prove the world the Soviet Union is a leading country in all respects. It was so unrefined that some people here laughed that within few years Yaks will break the sound barrier.
Trials were described in a Yugoslav booklet about Spitfire. I was unable to obtain a copy of the report, but I would hardly call it anecdotal. Climb - I presume steady climb, please note that superior climb was already noted by 57 GvIAP in 1943. One possible explanation is that Spitfire was not loaded to achieve gross weight. The fuel does not matter, as Spitfire needed 100, so any deviation would be unfavourable for the aircraft.

Re: Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...
 

All I can say is that Finns didn't think that Soviets built poor aircraft, at least not after the beginning of Winter War. From battle reports one get impression that Finnish fighter pilots were impressed by the manoeuvrability of Yaks even if in real world La-5(FN) was more dangerous opponent to FAF 109Gs.

Juha