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is that the deliveries of Spitfire Mk.Vs to the Southern front were unpopular, because the aircraft was already outdated and not suited to the rough operations of the Soviet front line (although it seems to have coped well enough in the Western Desert, the Indian/Burmese jungles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

[Pilot]

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.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

.
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.

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"

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

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.

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...

[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.

[Pilot]

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.

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.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

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.

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.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Pilot

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 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 :-)

Originally Posted by Pilot

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.

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.

[Pilot]

Thank you Igor

[Franek Grabowski]

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

[Schenck]

Pilot

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

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.