# Anglo-Americans VS Soviets in Dogfight?



## comiso90 (Feb 7, 2007)

Years ago, I read an account in which some P-38s were flying ground support for Russian troops around the Elbe. The "Front" shifted and apparently the American planes inadvertently attacked Russian troops.

YAKs were called in and a large dogfight ensued.

Has anyone else heard of this? I've worn out Google looking.

I'd like to read about other engagements when Yanks and Brits tangled with Ruskies in WW2. There has to be a few instances. It's not difficult to imagine that a western front combatant may not be familiar with eastern Front equipment.

Thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

We had a thread here that talked about that. I will have to see if I can try and find it.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 8, 2007)

thanks for the effort


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

I believe it was posted in this thread here. The title and most of the thread have to do with the RAF and VVS but it branches out and also talks about the subject you are interested in.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/vvs-vs-raf-1386.html


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 8, 2007)

Supposedly, Ivan Kozhedub shot down 2 P-51 Mustangs, but the evidence is scarce, and the so-called "gun camera" footage has in some circles, been branded unverifiable..

Copied from Pilots Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub.

During WWII, Ivan Kozhedub flew 326 combat missions, took part in 126 aerial combats, and achieved 62 kills (in them 22 FW 190 and 18 Ju 87). 
*Apart from these 62 victories, Ivan Kozhedub also was forced to shoot down two U.S. P-51 Mustangs that mistakenly attacked his La-7 on one occasion. *Both these P-51 losses have been verified by USAAF sources.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2007)

Agree with you the gun cams are sketchy. First one doesn't prove anything. Good shots of what looks to be a P51 turning followed by an explosion. Would need to see the shots after the explosion to confirm they are from the same film.

Second one shows a P51. Definitely. But it still has drop tanks. Never heard of a P51 going into a fight intentionally with drop tanks on. Heard of them getting jumped that way, but not going into a fight that way. One would think Ivan got jumped and downed the 51s in self defense. Secondly, I am not sure the aircraft is a P51 or an F51. Same aircraft but different time periods. In short, do not know when the shots were taken. The 51 looks like both a late WW2 and Korean war aircraft. Anybody want to chime in on this?

Lastly, I did not know the Russians carried gun films. Thought that did not happen until the Jet period. Again, Anybody know about that and can contribute?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 9, 2007)

One way to bring out detail is to adjust the levels and sharpen the pixels. It looks like it has a radial engine to me and the the wings look different.

I'm not familiar with that mustang variation..... LOL..

Bottom line is that there isn't much information to draw from but it doesn't look like a mustang in these shots... P-47?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2007)

It does look like a radial. Short nosed one at that. Something like a P-36 or Lagg 5.

Not enough detail to be sure about anything.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 9, 2007)

If i had to guess on the markings, I'd say American


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 9, 2007)

The first one certainly doesn't look like a P-51 or like a P-47 but the second series the aircraft is almost certainly a P-51.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 9, 2007)

cu of first series


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2007)

As i have always said since first seeing the photos a while ago...

I am with Tim regarding the first shots...besides showing a plane that can not be identified the film is meaningless.

The secong one not 100% isure if the thing is a Mustang though...but it´s either a P-51 B...razorback; does not look like P-51 D with the bubble canopy there but who knows...or another case of more soviet major prime bit time hand picked crap.

Has anyone noticed the "Zeiss" word on the film?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2007)

"Zeiss"? 

Definitely sounds like the comrades are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. More and more looking like Luftwaffe gun film (if even of American Aircraft).

"Zeiss"?! Jeez, that's just sloppy. From the Soviets, you'd expect it to be a little better.


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2007)

Silly question but I have never seen any gun camera film from a Russian WW2 fighter, does anyone know if they were fitted with them?


----------



## JoeB (Feb 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> As i have always said since first seeing the photos a while ago...
> 
> 
> Has anyone noticed the "Zeiss" word on the film?


Always funny as that film comes up on various fora, how long it takes for somebody to ask that.

Gun camera photo's are cool. However they have a big weakness: the "chain of custody" (as they'd say on the crime TV shows  ) is often uncertain (where did it really come from when was it really shot). The coolness sometimes causes people to overlook that issue. 

I would like to know according to what source Kozedhub *himself* claimed to have downed P-51's, a source I hope very close to an original one, like a combat report in Russian archives, before talking about gc films.

A possible explanation of that film IMHO is that Kozhedhub obtained a German film at some point right after the war, as a souvenir, never having himself claimed that it showed an a/c downed by him in a friendly fire incident (whether or not, as a separate issue, he really had such an incident). Then eventually somebody got it from his family and put it together with that story. Or perhaps the film has no relation to Kozhedhub at all. It certainly doesn't document anything by itself, looks cool though.

Joe


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2007)

As good an explanation as any.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 9, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Gun camera photo's are cool. However they have a big weakness: the the "chain of custody" (as they'd say on the crime TV shows  ) is often uncertain (where did it really come from when was it really shot). The coolness sometimes causes people to overlook that issue.



Also the "Generatinon Chain". We may be looking at a copy of a copy dubbed to VHS and then frames were exported, printed in a book and then scanned before being saved as a lossy jpeg!

Perhaps a nearly pristine version of the shots exist in an on-line archive.


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2007)

timshatz said:


> "Zeiss"?
> 
> Definitely sounds like the comrades are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. More and more looking like Luftwaffe gun film (if even of American Aircraft).
> 
> "Zeiss"?! Jeez, that's just sloppy. From the Soviets, you'd expect it to be a little better.



Timsh...i am afraid i did not quite understand what you meant with that...

Yes, Zeiss, shown upside down on the film...


----------



## timshatz (Feb 10, 2007)

Udet, was pointing to the "Zeiss" being German Equipment and the Soviets calling it a Russian Gun Cam. Yes, it is possible an odd camera landed in a Russian Ace's Lap (complete with film) and he used it on his aircraft. But it is more likely that the Soviets just captured some and called it one of their own and thought no-one would notice. The Soviets were famous for moving people in and out of historical pictures and monkeying with film. 

While I might be out on a limb on this thing, I do not give the Comrades the benefit of the doubt. Ever. Don't trust the SOBs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

I agree.


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 14, 2007)

the second set of pictures look similar to an me262


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 14, 2007)

Not really


----------



## Hermie (Feb 15, 2007)

Several years ago I read an account of this action in a book I had. It's been to long ago to give you the source but what you heard is pretty much what was in the book The P-38's were flying ground support and accidntly attacked the Russians who called in air support. A dogfight developed and at least one P-38 shot down a Russian. Supposedly the Russians wanted the American flight leader shot as they allegedly did theirs.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 16, 2007)

Hermie said:


> Several years ago I read an account of this action in a book I had. It's been to long ago to give you the source but what you heard is pretty much what was in the book The P-38's were flying ground support and accidntly attacked the Russians who called in air support. A dogfight developed and at least one P-38 shot down a Russian. Supposedly the Russians wanted the American flight leader shot as they allegedly did theirs.


That incident definitely happened, in contrast to the Khozedhub friendly fire incidents which are fuzzier AFAIK. An appendix in Seidl "Stalin's Eagles" reproduces the 82nd FG's action report of the mission, and draft of apology letter by the 15th AF which seems to reflect information from the Soviets about the incident. The P-38's attacked a Soviet column advancing in Yugoslavia, November 7, 1944, killing a Soviet Lt. Gen among other casualties and damage. Yak-9's came to the aid of the column. One P-38 was downed immediately and another after the Americans realized their mistake and were trying to withdraw. Meantime the P-38's had claimed 2 Yak-9's destroyed, 2 probable and 1 damaged; Seidl names two Soviet pilots killed in the incident and one who parachuted.

The draft says the 82nd's commander had been relieved of command, but there's a hand written comment, "NO!" in the margin next to it. The Soviet flight leader was their 8th leading ace of the war, AI Koldunov, 46 victories. He claimed three of the four P-38's the Soviets thought they shot down. He definitely wasn't shot for it. He eventually became the chief of the Soviet air defence service, the PVO, in the 1980's. Interestingly though his career ended over another East-West incident: he was forced into retirement after the Mathias Rust incident in 1987 (the young German who managed to land his Cessna 172 in Red Square).

Joe


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 16, 2007)

JoeB said:


> That incident definitely happened, in contrast to the Khozedhub friendly fire incidents which are fuzzier AFAIK. An appendix in Seidl "Stalin's Eagles" reproduces the 82nd FG's action report of the mission, and draft of apology letter by the 15th AF which seems to reflect information from the Soviets about the incident. The P-38's attacked a Soviet column advancing in Yugoslavia, November 7, 1944, killing a Soviet Lt. Gen among other casualties and damage. Yak-9's came to the aid of the column. One P-38 was downed immediately and another after the Americans realized their mistake and were trying to withdraw. Meantime the P-38's had claimed 2 Yak-9's destroyed, 2 probable and 1 damaged; Seidl names two Soviet pilots killed in the incident and one who parachuted.
> 
> The draft says the 82nd's commander had been relieved of command, but there's a hand written comment, "NO!" in the margin next to it. The Soviet flight leader was their 8th leading ace of the war, AI Koldunov, 46 victories. He claimed three of the four P-38's the Soviets thought they shot down. He definitely wasn't shot for it. He eventually became the chief of the Soviet air defence service, the PVO, in the 1980's. Interestingly though his career ended over another East-West incident: he was forced into retirement after the Mathias Rust incident in 1987 (the young German who managed to land his Cessna 172 in Red Square).
> 
> Joe




Cool... Thanks..
I'd like to see this on "Dogfights"


----------



## timshatz (Feb 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Cool... Thanks..
> I'd like to see this on "Dogfights"



Yeah, that would be pretty cool.


----------



## Hermie (Feb 16, 2007)

That makes more sense but as I said I read it quite a while ago. It would make a great Dogfights show. The one tonight is hardly about dogfights. The attack on Japanese fleet units was hardly a dogfight.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 16, 2007)

Hermie said:


> That makes more sense but as I said I read it quite a while ago. It would make a great Dogfights show. The one tonight is hardly about dogfights. The attack on Japanese fleet units was hardly a dogfight.



yeah... what are they doing? .. the last one was on the Bismark. They are looseing their focus. The writers need to consult this site!


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 16, 2007)

I have to agree fellas, Im alittle let down by this show.... There are so very many well documented dogfights throughout WW2 and theyre talking about sinking ships...

They also use the same digital scene of a certain plane numerous times...

I still like watching it tho...


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 16, 2007)

U gotta love the camera shakes and sfx... I'll buy the DVD set when available. 
... as long as they lay off the naval engagements.. 

There should be a "sticky thread" dedicated to the show.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 17, 2007)

Good points about Dogfights. Tivo material. Agree they should stick to air battles and leave the sea battles to another show. Sea battles are very cool to watch, given the graphics work they do. But Les hit it on the head, they need to get back to the dogfights. Would love to see them do McCambell over the Phillipine Sea or Sept. 15th, 1940 over London. Now those would be cool. Or the raid on Schwienfort (SP).

Another show on great sea battles would be a great idea.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 17, 2007)

Agreed 100% Tim...


----------



## krieghund (Feb 17, 2007)

Erich Hartman in the "Blonde Knight of Germany" describes a mission where he and his wingman spotted two formations of allied fighters, one higher than the other (P-51 higher - Yaks lower) and both where probally eyeballing each other when Erich and wingy in tow dove through them firing. He pressed to the deck and as he was egressing the locale he observed both formations mixing it up and he got clean away.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 30, 2013)

(Talking about the gun cam) The first one looks more like a Hellcat than a Mustang...


----------



## pattle (May 30, 2013)

I haven't heard of any dogfights between the RAF and the Red Air Force but have heard of a small number of clashes between the Red Air Force and the USAAF over Czechoslavakia where apparently the Russian's would harass American planes even when recognised as friendlies. Also I have heard of the USAAF shooting down friendly RAF planes down by mistake, I am not having a go at the Americans for this but they still have a reputation for doing this in the U.K. In the Jeff Ethell P38 book there is also an account of P38's being attacked by a lone P51, The P38 Pilots on this occasion shot down the P51 which was believed to have been operated by a German unit operating captured Allied aircraft, the P51 was as a matter of interest still wearing it's American Markings. The Luftwaffe is said to have used American aircraft in American marking's to infiltrate bomber formations.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 30, 2013)

Blue on Blue ( or even Dark Blue on Light Blue) happened to everybody. The British shot down the C-54 carrying 200 sets of dive flaps for P-38s already in England thinking it was a Fw 200.


----------



## mhuxt (May 30, 2013)

I've read a first-hand account in which an RAF Mosquito on a run to the USSR (ferrying diplomatic papers back and forth, IIRC) was intercepted by Russian fighters and had to out-run them.


----------



## altsym (May 31, 2013)

pattle said:


> The Luftwaffe is said to have used American aircraft in American marking's to infiltrate bomber formations.


I doubt that very much. IIRC the 332nd Fighter Group shot down a P-51(D?) with Luftwaffe markings. Anyways, Italians used a captured P-38 with
the original USAAF markings to 'tail' allied bomber formations. Bubi Hartmann witnessed P-51's LA-7's dishing it out.


----------



## pattle (May 31, 2013)

altsym said:


> I doubt that very much. IIRC the 332nd Fighter Group shot down a P-51(D?) with Luftwaffe markings. Anyways, Italians used a captured P-38 with
> the original USAAF markings to 'tail' allied bomber formations. Bubi Hartmann witnessed P-51's LA-7's dishing it out.



I think it was supposed to have been KG200 that used captured B17's to shadow American formations, but I have no idea of the truth behind this story or even whether it was likely to have happened or not. Perhaps it was something that was tried as an experiment or that a captured B17 just happened to be in the air near an American formation, I really don't know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2013)

From Wiki;

_The unit also carried out a variety of special missions, like parachuting spies behind enemy lines, operating radar-jamming aircraft, carrying out long-range transport flights to Japan, clandestine bombing missions and infiltrating American bomber formations with captured aircraft in an attempt to spread confusion. However, most of the information concerning these missions comes from a single POW and is doubted by several aviation history researchers. On 1 December 1943 a B-17 was sighted with the letters "D" above another identification letter "B". It also had a square marking, that of the 303rd Bomb Group. This was the identity of B-17F-111-BO 42-30604 Badger Beauty V, actually from the 350th Bomb Group of the "Bloody Century" 100 BG, which used the "square-D" tail marking in service. This machine was captured but it was never repaired or used by the Luftwaffe. When re-captured the B-17 was preserved in Boeing's museum, but is not known to still be in existence in the 21st century. On the same day, a lone B-24 joined a bomber formation from the 44th Bomb Group. It was reported to have been a machine carrying the markings of a 392nd Bomb Group aircraft. However this unit did not become operational until 9 December.

During one of those missions, on 27 June 1944, a B-17 of KG 200, with Luftwaffe Geschwaderkennung code A3+FB, landed in Manises airport (Valencia) and was interned by the Spanish government._


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 31, 2013)

comiso90 said:


> One way to bring out detail is to adjust the levels and sharpen the pixels. It looks like it has a radial engine to me and the the wings look different.
> 
> I'm not familiar with that mustang variation..... LOL..
> 
> Bottom line is that there isn't much information to draw from but it doesn't look like a mustang in these shots... P-47?


 How about a Finn Curtiss P-36 (Hawk-75?)

Sorry Timshatz, didn't see your prior post with the same suggestion.


----------



## Hottie (Feb 19, 2015)

The book about Erich Hartmann by Tolliver (American Colonel), reports of at least 2 instances where russian yaks were shot down and in heavy dogfights with american mustangs. The Ruskies and Americans never trusted each other. Interesting also, was the 17 british Spitfires who were shot down over time by Israeli pilots during the arab israeli war in 1947.



comiso90 said:


> Years ago, I read an account in which some P-38s were flying ground support for Russian troops around the Elbe. The "Front" shifted and apparently the American planes inadvertently attacked Russian troops.
> 
> YAKs were called in and a large dogfight ensued.
> 
> ...


----------

