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

[Franek Grabowski]

Indeed, I recall another high ranked German ace who considered Cobra a good aircraft which changed situation on the Eastern Front, and he explained his points in some length. Also Soviet themselves were quite enthusiastic about the aircraft following tests at NIIVVS, and interestingly, Soviet opinions about Spitfire Vs following use of the type on Kuban were enthusiastic as well.

[Evgeny Velichko]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

..Soviet opinions about Spitfire Vs following use of the type on Kuban were enthusiastic as well.

Hi, Franek!

What do You mean enthusiastic?

As far as I know, Spit Vb and IXc were very unpopular among VVS pilots.

[Franek Grabowski]

By enthusiastic I mean enthusiastic. Mihail Bykov quoted some comments from 57 GvIAP documents filed just after or even during the Kuban battle, and I have somewhere an interview (from Suhoj forum?) of a pilot who flew Mk IXs in PVO (Shackij?), who has been just beloved in Spitfire. Soviet propaganda suggests, that pilots of all the world liked or loved Spitfires, but Soviets. Is not it ridiculous?

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Indeed, I recall another high ranked German ace who considered Cobra a good aircraft which changed situation on the Eastern Front, and he explained his points in some length.

Franek, could you provide a link?

And may you can explain, how the plane that was delivered in relative few number(in compare with other types) could changed the situation? P-39 did not play any role in most important battles over Stalingrad and Kursk.
Only over Kuban brige use VVS this type intensive but e.g. Grislawsky mean Cobra was no more dangerous as other soviet type

And on the 1.7.1943 the VVS has only 183 Cobras on the from 3690 figthers total

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Also Soviet themselves were quite enthusiastic about the aircraft following tests at NIIVVS, and interestingly, Soviet opinions about Spitfire Vs following use of the type on Kuban were enthusiastic as well.

Really? Some NIIVVS test pilots crash to death with P-39 due motor failure and tailspin. I would say enthusiasm was really limited.

Engineers standards, any technical solution, techology culture, that was really point of interest of soviet engineers and constructors.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

Franek, could you provide a link?

No, it is a paper copy of correspondence, and I am not sure where it is.

And may you can explain, how the plane that was delivered in relative few number(in compare with other types) could changed the situation? P-39 did not play any role in most important battles over Stalingrad and Kursk.

I understand those were land battles, were not they?

Only over Kuban brige use VVS this type intensive but e.g. Grislawsky mean Cobra was no more dangerous as other soviet type

And on the 1.7.1943 the VVS has only 183 Cobras on the from 3690 figthers total

In March 1944 USAAF had only few Fighter Groups equipped with Mustangs, most of the remaining flying Thunderbolts. Nonetheless those were those few dosens of Mustangs flying over Berlin changing the course of the airwar in the west.
This was a very similar case with Cobras and Spitifres, and Valerij Romanenko underlined this in his books about Cobra.

Really? Some NIIVVS test pilots crash to death with P-39 due motor failure and tailspin. I would say enthusiasm was really limited.

That is the sad fate of test pilots - they die sometimes. They have died on Spitfires, Mustangs, Focke Wulfs, Messerschmitts and other aircraft considered state of the engineering art. So what? The 1942 NIIVVS report considered Airacobra is at some aspects superior to Me 109F. This is the key info.

Engineers standards, any technical solution, techology culture, that was really point of interest of soviet engineers and constructors.

Soviet engineers and constructors did not fly them into combat, did they?

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I understand those were land battles, were not they?

I could not believe, that you don't know about air war during these periods. Therefore I would say, it was a joke from you.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

In March 1944 USAAF had only few Fighter Groups equipped with Mustangs, most of the remaining flying Thunderbolts. Nonetheless those were those few dosens of Mustangs flying over Berlin changing the course of the airwar in the west.

Franek, congatulation! You write the new page in air war history. I thought always that thousends P-51 and P-47 lead to US success. And it was only "few dosens". As you would say "propoganda". But in this case not soviet and even not US... Maybe you can provide the source of this claim? Btw, on 25.02.1944 already 135 P-51 use as escort for Regensburg attack. And many germans pilots clams that P-47 was more dangerous and harder to shot down as P-51.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

This was a very similar case with Cobras and Spitifres, and Valerij Romanenko underlined this in his books about Cobra.

I can not believe that Mr. Romanenko can provide any serious argumets that prove his claims.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

That is the sad fate of test pilots - they die sometimes. They have died on Spitfires, Mustangs, Focke Wulfs, Messerschmitts and other aircraft considered state of the engineering art. So what? The 1942 NIIVVS report considered Airacobra is at some aspects superior to Me 109F. This is the key info.

Exact Franek! In some aspect and Bf-109F KEY INFO!
And the same test pilot claims that Yak-1 and 7 with M-105PF engine was superior over Bf-109F. The answer come soon ant it's name was Bf-109G-2. And what is the value of the "some aspect"??

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Soviet engineers and constructors did not fly them into combat, did they?

Sorry, I don't get a question.

[Kutscha]

kalender, do you know how many a/c in an American fighter group?
There is 48 (3 sqd of 16 a/c).

135/48 = 2.8 groups. I would say that is a few groups.

As for the few dosens of Mustangs, don't take it so literally, besides the word is plural (the 's' on the end).

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

I could not believe, that you don't know about air war during these periods. Therefore I would say, it was a joke from you.

The fact there are some aircraft flying around does not constitute an air battle. It is my understanding that it was Kuban that was the major breakthrough in the air war on the Eastern Front, as well a major change in the concept of use of Soviet fighter aviation. This was nicely described by Ivanov, who wrote about Pokryshkin's briefing introducing speed, manouver, attack rule.

Franek, congatulation! You write the new page in air war history. I thought always that thousends P-51 and P-47 lead to US success. And it was only "few dosens". As you would say "propoganda". But in this case not soviet and even not US... Maybe you can provide the source of this claim? Btw, on 25.02.1944 already 135 P-51 use as escort for Regensburg attack. And many germans pilots clams that P-47 was more dangerous and harder to shot down as P-51.

A few dosens indeed. Find me those thousands of P-51s if in the eve of Normandy's D-Day there were only 6 USAAF Groups, 1 RAF and 1 PAF Wing flying the type. Still, they gave the edge, giving Luftwaffe no airspace to fly safely.
BTW Mark Gallay once wrote about Thunderbolt - it is no fighter. How about this?

I can not believe that Mr. Romanenko can provide any serious argumets that prove his claims.

Kobry vstupayut v boj. Available on internet, I believe also in English. Romanenko clearly notes the impact of few Airacobras delivered to the Soviet Union in the early period.

Exact Franek! In some aspect and Bf-109F KEY INFO!
And the same test pilot claims that Yak-1 and 7 with M-105PF engine was superior over Bf-109F. The answer come soon ant it's name was Bf-109G-2. And what is the value of the "some aspect"??

Now, please tell me what was the difference between Me 109F and Me 109G. This is key issue to understand the problem of Airacobra. And Yak-1/7s were not considered any particularly dangerous opponents.

Sorry, I don't get a question.

What does have copying of technical features to performance of the aircraft? Although it is worth to note that Soviets copied western aircraft but it was not the other way.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

kalender, do you know how many a/c in an American fighter group?
There is 48 (3 sqd of 16 a/c).

135/48 = 2.8 groups. I would say that is a few groups.

As for the few dosens of Mustangs, don't take it so literally, besides the word is plural (the 's' on the end).

Kutscha, and you will say, this few dosen(s) wipped out the germans from the sky? How many german planes claims the 4, 354,356 FG on 6.03.1944? 30-35? My point is that the key for air superiority for the west ally was also the numerical superiority and not a single plane type. That was german idea with a few planes reach victory in air war: Me-262. The result is well known.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

The fact there are some aircraft flying around does not constitute an air battle. It is my understanding that it was Kuban that was the major breakthrough in the air war on the Eastern Front, as well a major change in the concept of use of Soviet fighter aviation. This was nicely described by Ivanov, who wrote about Pokryshkin's briefing introducing speed, manouver, attack rule.

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.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

A few dosens indeed. Find me those thousands of P-51s if in the eve of Normandy's D-Day there were only 6 USAAF Groups, 1 RAF and 1 PAF Wing flying the type. Still, they gave the edge, giving Luftwaffe no airspace to fly safely.
BTW Mark Gallay once wrote about Thunderbolt - it is no fighter. How about this?

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

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Kobry vstupayut v boj. Available on internet, I believe also in English. Romanenko clearly notes the impact of few Airacobras delivered to the Soviet Union in the early period.

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

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Now, please tell me what was the difference between Me 109F and Me 109G. This is key issue to understand the problem of Airacobra.

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

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

And Yak-1/7s were not considered any particularly dangerous opponents.

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

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

What does have copying of technical features to performance of the aircraft? Although it is worth to note that Soviets copied western aircraft but it was not the other way.

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