[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Evgeny Velichko

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.

I am afraid it would not be that easy, especially with Tempest.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by kalender1973

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.

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.

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.

For example from the team, Paweł Burchardt worked with. I believe Niklaas Zetterling had similar conclusions.

It is your personally opinion, without any hard facts

Definetelly Mustangs over Berlin were soft facts. As soft as Goering's pants.

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

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.

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.

How do they change?

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?

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.

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

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.