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

[Graham Boak]

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is that the deliveries of Spitfire Mk.Vs to the Southern front were unpopular, because the aircraft was already outdated and not suited to the rough operations of the Soviet front line (although it seems to have coped well enough in the Western Desert, the Indian/Burmese jungles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?