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

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

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).

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

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

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.

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

[Graham Boak]

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Soviet pilots' comments to the effect that the Spitfires Mk.V received in 1943 were considered semi-obsolescent, outdated and too fragile, which if a little biased do not seem too unreasonable, considering the times and alternatives.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.