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

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

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.

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.

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".

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.

What Mark Gallay concern, I would say his opinion reflect the soviet fighter mentality but it is other story

I would rather say, a general Soviet mentality, that disallows any serious discussion. I note Soviet and not Russian.

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

Well, but it is not enough to consider his writing wrong.

The G-2 was faster and has better climbing rate.

Is that all? I would say it is not enough to discuss aircraft performance.

Maybe your source? I know, Franek, all soviet types was complete harmless and the all german losses was pilots suicide or technically failure.

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.

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

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).

[Evgeny Velichko]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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.

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.

[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.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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

But the number of Pawel Burchard says somethig else.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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

I undestand. Goering saw Mustangs and Hitler commit therefore suicide.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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.

Next time the russian will request poles assist

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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.

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

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

But the number of Pawel Burchard says somethig else.

I did not say Pawel's research but research of the team he was with.

I undestand. Goering saw Mustangs and Hitler commit therefore suicide.

Yes, just after he smelled Goering's pants.

Next time the russian will request poles assist

With pleasure.

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

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.

Originally Posted by kalender1973

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.

Why? P-51 could fly anywhere Germans appeared, it had the range. It would be harder to make tactical plans though.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

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.

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.

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.

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.

Even the main western front was a peripheral air front in the eyes of the Luftwaffe (until mid 1943).

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes.

Originally Posted by 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!).

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.

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.

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.

There was a very significant difference in performance between the two versions - as indeed there was between the Bf 109F and the G.

The question is, what is the difference.

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.

True!

Originally Posted by Pilot

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

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.

Originally Posted by kalender1973

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.

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.

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"

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.

The focusing of LW in the east give the west engineers time, develope and produce technically advanced planes.

Engineers do not fight. It was rather a matter of human potential and available resources, plus some wise decisions.

And for this, the soviet pilots pay there live... and died in technicaly not so fine planes...

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.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

BTW Some researchers claim Kursk was nothing particular from the German point of view, losses being about average.

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.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Yes, Mustang was a wunderwaffe.

It is your personally opinion, without any hard facts

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I would rather say, a general Soviet mentality, that disallows any serious discussion. I note Soviet and not Russian.

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

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Is that all? I would say it is not enough to discuss aircraft performance.

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.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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).

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