# Russian Fighters



## Salim (Jun 17, 2006)

So I was reading some stuff about World War 2 aircraft (once again, I might add) and started to wonder about the Russian fighters of the war, and in particular, the earlier versions (back in 1941, when the Germans attacked Russia). I know that the Russians had tons of obsolete aircraft (such as the I-16) and a few modern airplanes like the Yak-1 and Mig-3. I heard that the Mig-3 was, in many cases superior to the German BF-109 fighter. But of course the Germans, having better pilots and tactics, were often able to get the upper hand over their enemies.

So here's my questions.

1: What are your opinions on Russian fighters of World War 2? This goes for all time periods in the war, from the very beginning in 1939 to 1945, and of course, comparing them to other planes in use at the time.

2: If other Allies (America or the UK) had had planes like those flown by the Russians, what do you think the overall (tactical level) effect would have been? A complicated and unusual question, I know, but still...

3: OK, another weird question... do you folks believe that navalized versions of those planes would have been good to operate off aircraft carriers?


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 17, 2006)

why is the MiG-3 superior to the 109?
the VVS came from an average air force to one of the best, with planes like the La-5/7 and the Yak series
the carrier may get stuck in the ice in siberia


----------



## Jank (Jun 17, 2006)

*"If other Allies (America or the UK) had had planes like those flown by the Russians, what do you think the overall (tactical level) effect would have been?"*

The U.S. played offense, not defense. Offense requires you to field fighters with the ability to strike deep into the enemy. Defense requires you to field fighters over or near your own terrotory.

For the U.S., fielding Russian fighters would have hampered offensive operations due to the limited range the Russian planes had.


----------



## Soren (Jun 17, 2006)

The only Russian fighter up to Western standards was the Yak-3.

The MIG-3 was nothing compared to the Bf-109.


----------



## Salim (Jun 17, 2006)

> why is the MiG-3 superior to the 109?





> The MIG-3 was nothing compared to the Bf-109.



Check this link out http://www.chuckhawks.com/mig-3.htm



> The U.S. played offense, not defense. Offense requires you to field fighters with the ability to strike deep into the enemy. Defense requires you to field fighters over or near your own terrotory.
> 
> For the U.S., fielding Russian fighters would have hampered offensive operations due to the limited range the Russian planes had.



It's very true that if the US and the UK had Russian fighters they wouldn't have been able to send their fighters to attack targets far off or to escort heavy bombers into Germany, but I'm not talking about the strategic level of things (such as making sure that bombers get to their target and back and delivering their loads) but the tactical, and by which I mean, simply getting off the ground, flying a hundred or so kilometers and attacking targets there, or simply flying CAP missions and such.

Also in regards to my question about naval operations using Russian fighters. I'm not implying that the USSR would have had a carrier, but rather if it was employed in carrier-based squadrons like those found in the USN, RN, and IJN. The navalization I'm talking about, of course, includes folding wings and an arrestor hook and all.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 17, 2006)

> The 109F proved to be more maneuverable at low to medium speeds, particularly at low to medium altitude.


And this is how and where a majority of combat occured on the Russian Front... The website u posted is about the Mig, and as such, is biased towards it....

The Mig3 was in no way shape or form equal to the Bf 109F....


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> And this is how and where a majority of combat occured on the Russian Front... The website u posted is about the Mig, and as such, is biased towards it....
> 
> The Mig3 was in no way shape or form equal to the Bf 109F....



Totally agree. The Mig 3 had a high speed certainly but only at altitude, low down it was at best average. It was very heavy and had a very light armament. If the German had built a decent four engined heavy, or even deployed the He 177 in decent numbers, can imagine trying to shoot it down with 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG?

Its manouverabilty was poor and it had some nasty handling traits.

Nearly all the fighting was at low/medium altitude so it was the wrong plane at the wrong time.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 17, 2006)

Soren said:


> The MIG-3 was nothing compared to the Bf-109.


Aestetically there is no match, The Mig-3 is a beauty. 8)
Unfortunately it had some serious quirk, not related only with poor handling at low altitude.

Massimo Tessitori reported:
tendency to spin, longitudinal instability and high landing speed: 
sliding canopy difficult to open at speeds over 400 km/h, and this led pilots to usually fly with the canopy open, that reduced the speed by 30 km/h;
landing gear often failing to extend, and easy to be damaged during landing;
difficulty to repair damages to the carburettor duct after a belly landing; this could stop to the ground the aircraft for a long time for repair;
difficulty to repair internal structures of the rear fuselage, because the stabilizator was solidal to them and limited their accessibility;
unsatisfactory view, particularly during takeoff and landing, due to the long nose and strongly nose-up asset on the ground;
some splashing of oil on the windscreen reduced the visibility;
high cockpit temperature, due to the ventral cooler;
fumes and, eventually fuel vapors in the cockpit;
lack of a fuel flow indicator;
low range, particularly with canopy opened, that reduced its utility as a reconaissance plane;
the unsatisfactory engine acceleration that caused accidents;
the fall of oil pressure while diving with a negative g load.
The MiG-3 was conceived as an high altitude fighter, but its fuel pump was not suited for it, starving the engine even at 5,000 m altitude.

However many of the quirks were fixed during production. To improve handling at low speed, the orizontal tailplane was modified, and automatic slats were fitted. 
Even improving the armament was not impossible.
315 Mig-3 were equipped with two 12,7 mm UBS guns with 700 rounds each (enough for 42 seconds of fire at 800 rpm); of these, 215 examples were armed with two ZROB-82 underwing batteries with 3 ROS-82 rockets each. 
Studies for arming the MiG-3s with a 2 gun armament were made frome the end of 1940, and the 23 mm ShVAK gun was identified as the most apt. The last 52 examples, built in Kuibyshev and in Moscow, were armed with a couple of ShVAK.

These are probably among the last MIG-3 built, so they were equipped in such a way





http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html

Finally, it could have been a good aircraft, in another scenario.


----------



## Salim (Jun 18, 2006)

Hmm, I guess Russian fighters aren't as good as I thought they were...


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 18, 2006)

The Lavochkin La-5 / 7 surely were. Among the best in the war. Perfectly fitted for the eastern front.





www.afwing.com/ intro/Lavochkin.htm





http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/la5/la5.html


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 18, 2006)

from a book that I read, the 109 outperformed the spit V at high alt, so probably the MiG-3 at high alt over the UK might have suited it... but would get shot down if trying to intercept low-lvl 190 Jabos


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 18, 2006)

I remember having a discussion about the MiG-3's high-alt performance somewhere on this board before. Ill try and find it.


----------



## Salim (Jun 18, 2006)

Thanks.  

Anyway I do have some reasons for asking questions such as this, I guess I should probably reveal what they are soon.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 18, 2006)

Have to agree with Dogwalker.... The La-5FN/La-7 series were excellent combat aircraft and put up a good fight againt the Luftwaffe... Also, the latter Yak aircraft were also on par with the Luftwaffe, but the Mig3 was just the wrong plane in the wrong place, at the wrong altitude...


----------



## Henk (Jun 18, 2006)

Dagwalker I agree with you that the Lavochkin La-5 / 7 were in fact one of the best aircraft of the war, she was a beauty.

It just shows you Salim you should not believe everything you read on the net, rather get known books and go from there. The net is not always the truth and do not quote from them if you do not know anything about it.


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2006)

I don't agree about the La-7, it is a vastly overrated fighter, and definitely not highly regarded by the LW at all. The Yak-3 was a much bigger problem according to most LW pilots. (Although the order "not to engage them at low alt" is pure bollocks and was never issued)

The Fw-190D-9 was having a turkey shoot against the La-5FN's and La-7's over the eastern front during 44-45. And contrary to popular belief, the German fighters had no problem whatsoever out-running the Soviet fighter at low alt, and did it on a daily basis.


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2006)

I could repost a German test with an excellent condition La-5FN if it would interest you guys ??


----------



## Henk (Jun 18, 2006)

Yes, but only if it is in English please.


----------



## Salim (Jun 18, 2006)

> It just shows you Salim you should not believe everything you read on the net, rather get known books and go from there. The net is not always the truth and do not quote from them if you do not know anything about it.
> 
> 
> > I know that, which is why I try to look at as many sources as possible and get as many opinions, too.
> ...


----------



## Henk (Jun 18, 2006)

Salim since I have joined here I got a totally new look on WW2 aircraft. I have learned a lot and it has also been a great source for me.

So for the little I know I must thank ww2aircraft.net.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 19, 2006)

yup, you know that what u read is mostly correct here


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> I could repost a German test with an excellent condition La-5FN if it would interest you guys ??


Obviously.
But is that reported on wikipedia too? Thinking at the usual bias when a enemy aircraft was officially tested by a WWII air force, it dont' seems the La-5 to be so bad. It was described as pratically in pair with Bf 109G and FW 190 A8.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2006)

Russian aircraft developed better and better over the years during WW2 but if you look at there designs and performance you will see they were designed around a sole purpose. Until about 1943 they were pretty designed as defensive fighters (which is what they really really needed at the time), later they were deveoloped with more offensive in mind when they started to the push to Germany. They had many aircraft toward the end that were just as good but I would not go as far to say they had aircraft that were better than the Bf-109G, K, and Fw-190D.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 19, 2006)

If we look at armament of VVS-RKKA planes we note that generally, not universally, are lightly armed. The very heaviest had no more than 3 20 mms and most had only 1 or 2. These were fuselage mounted. Of course they were relatively maneveraable partly owing to their diminutive size. They were mostly wood with light or no armor and the slim wings precluded cannon mounting. 

The MiG-3 had but one 12.7 mm and a pair of 7.62s. The MiG-3 was not on par with Luftwaffe fighters and was relegated to hi-speed ([email protected],590 ft.)tactical reconnaisance and replaced by the Yak-1. VVS pilots found the MiG-1 and MiG-3 both relatively poor in the maneverability department. By 1943 it had disappeared from front line service altogether.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 19, 2006)

The USSR was also rebuilding their air force almost from scratch as they went, and unlike the United States, they lacked much of the technical expertise in the field of aerospace design and production. This would gradually improve, but they were at a marked disadvantage. 
Soviet fighters were built from the start with material and production factors in mind. They had to be easily assembled by largely unskilled labour, out of simple, readily available materials like wood. This held true for almost all Soviet production (simplicity), including tanks and machine guns, etc. Thats why you had such a variation in equipment. It would depend on the factory that produced it.

Soviet aircraft were mostly simple machines built to do a job, and they didn't always do it well, but sometimes they did. The Mig-3 was a pre-war design that was complicated by Russian standards, and not very easy to produce by a struggling wartime Soviet industry. Simpler designs like the Lavochkins and Yaks were much favoured, and did the job for the most part. You also have to remember that with a few exceptions like Kozhedub, Pokryshkin, Gulaev, and a few others, Soviet pilots were relatively unskilled too. The Soviets didn't have the same sort of set training standard that the western nations did (including Germany), and it was mostly left to the individual air regiments to develop their own tactics.


----------



## Wurger (Jun 19, 2006)

Good points NS.In addition ,I have to say that pre-war Russian aircrafts were designed for a concrete purpose but not as multipurpose ones.MiG-3 was designed as a high altitude fighter with its all consequences.But the war reality forced VVS to used the fighter plane for different tasks.The later Russian aircrafts were desiged as more universal ones.


----------



## Soren (Jun 19, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> Obviously.
> But is that reported on wikipedia too?



Wikipedia Dogwalker ? No, although you might rely on such places for your info I don't.

You can read the test in the book "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche, ISBN 0531037118.

Adler, Les, Erich, any of you mod's, I would really hate having to write the whole test down again as I'm on a pretty tight schedule at the moment, so if any of you could find the post where I wrote it last then that would be great.

I don't know if you mod's have some kind of searching tool, but if so then just write down "Hans Werner Lerche" and I'm sure it'll pop up.

Btw, for anyone interested I can provide the 'original' test document. 



Dogwalker said:


> Thinking at the usual bias when a enemy aircraft was officially tested by a WWII air force, it dont' seems the La-5 to be so bad. It was described as pratically in pair with Bf 109G and FW 190 A8.



No Dogwalker, it was found inferior to the Bf-109G in everything except roll rate, and against the Fw-190A-8 it was found inferior in everything except sustained turn rate and climb rate below 3km.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> Wikipedia Dogwalker ? No, although you might rely on such places for your info I don't.


Tanks for your kindness upon my fonts.
I didn't ask if You read it on wikipedia, but if it's the same report.
It is. 

This is your prevoius post.


Soren said:


> And according to extensive German testing of a La-5FN, it was found that it couldn't turn as well as a cleanly loaded Bf-109. (German 109 pilots attest to this fact as-well)
> 
> The following excerpts are taken from "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. His book includes a detailed wartime test report prepared by him, on the La5FN.
> 
> ...


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/why-allied-soviet-equipment-superior-3319-5.html

So, it seems that Hans Werner Lerche was capable to make the La-5 turn better, climb better and accelerate better, at low altitude (the altitude at wich the most part of the dogfights over the russian front took part), than one of the best fighter around in 1943.
It needs to remember that the maximum speed acheived by Lerche is superior to that achieved by FW 190A and Bf 109G in several tests.
It seems not so bad to me.


----------



## Soren (Jun 19, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> Tanks for your kindness upon my fonts.
> I didn't ask if You read it on wikipedia, but if it's the same report.
> It is.



Hey, its not like your post didn't sound just a bit insulting as-well !

Now where on Wikipedia is this report mentioned ? I'm asking because I can't seem to find it myself and I'd like to see what is actually written.



Dogwalker said:


> So, it seems that Hans Werner Lerche was capable to make the La-5 turn better, climb better and accelerate better, at low altitude (the altitude at wich the most part of the dogfights over the russian front took part), than one of the best fighter around in 1943.



Hey, wake up Dogwalker, that test was done in 1944(The summary is from 45), and the Fw-190 in question was an A-8, by no means a fighter variant. 



Dogwalker said:


> It needs to remember that the maximum speed acheived by Lerche is superior to that achieved by FW 190A and Bf 109G in several tests.
> It seems not so bad to me.



Really Dogwalker, care to document that ? I'm warning you though, I've got virtually all available Fw-190 test-flight reports and I've seen nothing which would indicate Lerche reached higher speeds, under similar conditions, than in other tests.

Btw, thanks for finding my post, saved me alot writing, so its appreciated.


----------



## PipsPriller (Jun 20, 2006)

A good summation of Russian fighters is best provided by a German. In the book 'The Russian Air Force In The Eyes Of The German Commanders", Walter Schwabedissen said

" whereas the latest Bf 109G and Fw 190 models were equal to any of the aforementioned Soviet aircraft [Yak 7 and 9, La 5/FN] in all respects, this cannot be said of the Yak 3, which made it's appearence at the Front in the late summer of 1944. This aeroplane was faster, more manoeuvrable and had better climbing capabilities than the Bf 109G and Fw 190, to which it was inferior only in armament."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2006)

At high alltitudes but not at low alltitudes, which is where most of the combat was flown at.


----------



## Udet (Jun 20, 2006)

Do not forget the Yak-3 was a "lightweight" contender. A negative consequence was the extremely light armor fitted to the model -pretty similar feature on all versions-. With a maximum loaded weight of 2550kg the Yak-3 was perhaps one of the lightest fighters of the war.

Keeping in mind the Luftwaffe was not present in numbers in the east during 1944, the Yaks got pressed into ground-attack missions alongside the shturmoviks. 

Large numbers of Yaks saw service attacking german ground positions where they suffered accordingly against German infantry fire, not to mention Flak positions firing heavier weapons against them. Any German gunner manning his MG42 could set a Yak-3 on fire.

The Yak-9T (a heavier version) and Yak-3 saw service in the ground attack mode, even though they were not designed to perform as such.

The Yaks -all variants- were extremely easy to shoot down; they were virtually uncapable of sustaining damage

While I have always acknowledged the clear improvement attained by soviet planes of the last year of the war when compared with the massive fleet of doomed material of the beginning, i am confident when affirming they never really got the best out of their models.

Hastily built machines, not of great quality, poorly equipped -i.e. no radios on most planes throughout the entire war- and manned by pilots who were likewise hastily trained and put into the cockpits.

Soviet designers and aircraft production facilities were subjected to brutal political pressure and harassment.

The Bf 190 G-2´s sent to the Finnish Air Force did not experience too much trouble in dealing with either Yaks or La´s. The G-6, G-10, G-14 and K-4 versions of the Bf 109 did not have too much trouble against them either.

No match against the Fw 190 D-9 and Ta-152.

However, the soviets had the "quality" of producing stuff in huge numbers and also had the aid of LL which relieved their industry of tremendouns pressure.

Another one of the many allied urban legends "Luftwaffe fighter units were issued orders to not engage the Yaks at low altitude..". Funny. A waste of time.

Finally, Soren´s comments on the over-inflated Lavochkins are correct.


----------



## PipsPriller (Jun 20, 2006)

Udet said:


> The Yak-9T (a heavier version) and Yak-3 saw service in the ground attack mode, even though they were not designed to perform as such. The Yaks -all variants- were extremely easy to shoot down; they were virtually uncapable of sustaining damage.



Such wild general statements are one of the reasons that contribute to the belief that Soviet aircraft were inferior to the Luftwaffe. For example the Yak 9T was a totally different aircraft to the Yak 3. In it's debut over Kurst Yak 9's claimed the destruction of 54 enemy aircraft for the loss of just 12 to all causes. And according to pilot reports the Yak 9 - in all variants (15 in total) was rated as the best in survivability next to the La 5FN.



Udet said:


> Hastily built machines, not of great quality, poorly equipped -i.e. no radios on most planes throughout the entire war- and manned by pilots who were likewise hastily trained and put into the cockpits.



Again several misconceptions. 
i) The machines were not hastily built from late 1942 onwards, when all had been moved east out of Luftwaffe bomber range. Yes quality was always a problem with Soviet aircraft, but the quality emproved enormously from late 1943 onwards - although never reaching German nor Allied levels.
ii) All aircraft off the production lines were fitted with radio's from December 1942 onwards (mostly just able to receive commands), only the flight leaders having the ability to transmit.
iii) Whilst the hasty training programme left much to be desired from June 1941 to early 1943, it improved dramatically from mid 1943 onwards. For example the average number of hours solo a pupil had in late 1941 was 16 hours. In 1942 it rose to 31 hours. In March 1943 it was 120 hours and by November 1943 it had risen to 190 hours. The standard from January 1944 onwards was 330 hours.




Udet said:


> No match against the Fw 190 D-9 and Ta-152.



What a silly claim. The numbers of these aircraft were so insignificant as to be utterly ignored.

However, the soviets had the "quality" of producing stuff in huge numbers and also had the aid of LL which relieved their industry of tremendouns pressure.[/QUOTE]

They managed to produced in huge numbers because of the development of a highly skilled workforce, a multitude of aircraft plants in safe locations and excellent management practices. It wasn't a miracle, but the outcome of a well planned and implemented programme. And they put produced the Germans in raw numbers.



Udet said:


> Another one of the many allied urban legends "Luftwaffe fighter units were issued orders to not engage the Yaks at low altitude..". Funny. A waste of time.



Yep, the origin of this claim is clouded in mystery.



Udet said:


> Finally, Soren´s comments on the over-inflated Lavochkins are correct.



Well for an aircraft that is supposedly over-inflated in importance it did well to lose just 115 aircraft to all causes in 8 months of combat. Perhaps you haven't read the many pilots reports who claim that the La 7 was the best of that family of aircraft, and proved the equal to anything in the Luftwaffe armoury. 

It's all well and good to focus on numbers and stastics for aircraft performance, but in the final analysis it's the pilots reports that count most.


----------



## Udet (Jun 20, 2006)

QUOTE #1:

"Such wild general statements are one of the reasons that contribute to the belief that Soviet aircraft were inferior to the Luftwaffe. For example the Yak 9T was a totally different aircraft to the Yak 3. In it's debut over Kurst Yak 9's claimed the destruction of 54 enemy aircraft for the loss of just 12 to all causes. And according to pilot reports the Yak 9 - in all variants (15 in total) was rated as the best in survivability next to the La 5FN."


Really? 

You call my words "such general wild statements". Frankly speaking is that i say to you i have no problem with that at all. Still, and as you might comprehend, i have certain things to type down here.

Now, let me illustrate it a bit further for you:

Try to read things before discharging your words: although not thoroughly detailed, i did state the Yak-9T is a different machine, note where i said "a heavier version", after having described the Yak-3 as a “light weight”.

I do know what the differences between the Yak-3 and the Yak-9T were. Sorry mister but i do not believe you can come along and tell me what the differences between both models were. 

I will put your "Kursk" reference in the dustbin -fast track-. Do you know how many planes the jagdwaffe destroyed in combat on July 5th only, mister -not including those lost to Flak and accidents-? Does not sound like you do.

Please note you suggest my comments of the late Focke Wulfs beating the Yaks “are silly”, while filing a funny claim of some sort of “superb” record of a Yak model during a battle where the VVS did very little besides losing thousands of pilots in just a few days. You need professional help and ought to inform someone.

Again, it´s funny you called my words "general" and "wild" while failing to see your own vagueness:

So the Yak-9T "claimed" the destruction of "54 planes" in "its debut battle"?

A claim counted as effectively destroyed?
54 planes? During Kursk? Shadowy data.
Are you acquainted with the soviet method to confirm victories to their pilots?


More of your stuff:

QUOTE # 2:
"Again several misconceptions. 
i) The machines were not hastily built from late 1942 onwards, when all had been moved east out of Luftwaffe bomber range. Yes quality was always a problem with Soviet aircraft, but the quality emproved enormously from late 1943 onwards - although never reaching German nor Allied levels."

 


QUOTE # 3:
"ii) All aircraft off the production lines were fitted with radio's from December 1942 onwards (mostly just able to receive commands), only the flight leaders having the ability to transmit."

Really? You ought to stop for you are clueless.


QUOTE # 4:
"iii) Whilst the hasty training programme left much to be desired from June 1941 to early 1943, it improved dramatically from mid 1943 onwards. For example the average number of hours solo a pupil had in late 1941 was 16 hours. In 1942 it rose to 31 hours. In March 1943 it was 120 hours and by November 1943 it had risen to 190 hours. The standard from January 1944 onwards was 330 hours."


  Laughable -and pointless-. It gives me a pretty accurate picture of your knowledge about soviet losses during 1943 , say, at Kursk and during the battle over the Kuban bridgehead which are battles highly boasted by the soviet propaganda. Same for the year of 1944.

My "misconceptions"? I appreciate your kindness and warm gesture; it tells me you are a noble man who tries to help people when you see their failures. Keep up the good work, there will come the day when planet earth is free of ignorant people such as myself. 

We have the same situation here mr. wisdom. Here are the questions to challenge your self-reliance:

(1) Have you talked to veterans of the VVS? If so, how many have you had the chance of meeting?

(2) Have you had the chance of meeting people who worked in airplane production facilities of the soviet union during the great patriotic war? If so, how many have you had the chance of meeting and where were such facilities located?


More from you:

QUOTE # 5:
"What a silly claim. The numbers of these aircraft were so insignificant as to be utterly ignored."


Not a claim mister; rather it´s a fact. In the scarce numbers it saw service the Ta-152s raided the soviet fighters losing zero of their own; the Fw 190 D-9 was produced in certainly higher numbers and just like its younger cousin, it owned the Yaks in combat.

You have problems in distinguishing between claims and facts.

This gentleman is really something. A "silly claim". Once more, read your vague assertion regarding the Kursk debut of the Yak-9. I already ignored it.


QUOTE # 6:
"They managed to produced in huge numbers because of the development of a highly skilled workforce, a multitude of aircraft plants in safe locations and excellent management practices. It wasn't a miracle, but the outcome of a well planned and implemented programme. And they put produced the Germans in raw numbers."


Really? This interesting. Did not know about this remarkable fact. Do not change my life in such a rude manner.   


Finally, to have a golden ending:

QUOTE # 7:
"Well for an aircraft that is supposedly over-inflated in importance it did well to lose just 115 aircraft to all causes in 8 months of combat. Perhaps you haven't read the many pilots reports who claim that the La 7 was the best of that family of aircraft, and proved the equal to anything in the Luftwaffe armoury. 

It's all well and good to focus on numbers and stastics for aircraft performance, but in the final analysis it's the pilots reports that count most.[/QUOTE]"


The first paragraph of this quote is a jewel, i´m keeping it for future debating; i promise i´ll practice intellectual honesty and will give credit to the man who coined the marvelous phrase.

In fact Priller i devoted too much time in responding to your silly, blanket and void posting. I promise i will ignore any future response you might deliver to my comments. 

cheers


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 20, 2006)

well ignore this Udet you are a pompous ******* and probably had the **** kicked out of you daily when you were a kid by other smaller kids


----------



## Henk (Jun 20, 2006)

Where is Les now? pbfoot to who did you wright that?


----------



## PipsPriller (Jun 21, 2006)

Your post Udet illustrates your inability to argue a case, it seems you are only capable (and poorly at that) of issuing insults.

I give specific's whilst you just blow hot air. Ho hum.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 21, 2006)

priller said:


> What a silly claim. The numbers of these aircraft were so insignificant as to be utterly ignored.


Ur going to sit there and state that u ignore the combat effectiveness of the 2 best prop jobs in the entire War???? Are u an idiot or just clinically retarded??? Talking with Willi Reschke many years ago solidified this that no Soviet fighter could come close to either aircraft at any altitude... 

Sounds like ur one of those pro-Soviet everything else sucked morons....


----------



## PipsPriller (Jun 21, 2006)

Well, well. Here's another who can only resort to insults.

For clarification it's pointless to mention the impact of two aircraft that saw such limited service. Yes they were outstanding aircraft, arguably the best piston aircraft of the war from any nation. However there were only around 670 Fw 190D-9's produced. And most saw service in the west. Of the Ta 152 only a handful served with JG301 (never more than 16 on hand at any one time) and even less with Erprobungskommando Ta152.

And with only the fiollowing victory claims it hardly made an impact against the V.V.S.

Ofw. Josef Keil, 1 P51 on the 1 march 1945??, 1 P47 on the 10 april 1945 and two Yak9s on 21 april 1945. Total victories 10. 

Ofw. Walter Loos, 2 Yak9s on 24 april 1945, 1 Yak9 on 30 april 1945. Total victories 3. 

Ofw. Willi Reschke, 1 Hawker Tempest on 14 april 1945, 2 Yak9s on 24april 1945. Total victories 27. 

(above claims from the book "Jagdgeschwader 301/302 "Wilde Sau" In defense of the Reich with the Bf109, Fw190 and Ta152" By Willi Reschke).


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2006)

PipsPriller said:


> Well, well. Here's another who can only resort to insults.



Pips, you pretty much asked for it with that silly remark of your's.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 21, 2006)

yup, Les' gonna give u a major slam


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 21, 2006)

Shut up looma..


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 21, 2006)

ok, I wont be on for the next 2 days anyways


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2006)

Wow Udet I can not believe that I am going to defend you here.....

Pips you need to learn something here, dont go around and start offending people and then question why other people offend you. Right now you are treading on a very thin line here and certain moderaters here are not as nice as I am and will end these shinanagens before you can open your damn mouth again...


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 21, 2006)

lol


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 21, 2006)

PipsPriller said:


> Well, well. Here's another who can only resort to insults.
> 
> For clarification it's pointless to mention the impact of two aircraft that saw such limited service. Yes they were outstanding aircraft, arguably the best piston aircraft of the war from any nation. However there were only around 670 Fw 190D-9's produced. And most saw service in the west. Of the Ta 152 only a handful served with JG301 (never more than 16 on hand at any one time) and even less with Erprobungskommando Ta152.
> 
> ...




Pips you seem to have some knowledge about aircraft, but you need to learn to express yourself better without offending people. There is many knowledgeable people here, we are all here to share our knowledge and experiences. You are a Junior member still, you need to spend alittle time here to learn how things work around here. 

I welcome you to our site, but you need to be careful how you address people here. Treat them with respect, respect their ideas and they will respect yours. Be humble. The men you are addressing here have more information then you can imagine. Several are Vets and some are pilots, all are very knowledgeable and all deserve your respect.

If you don't agree with someone's points then just offer straight facts to back up your points. Leave out the sarcasm or attitude and things will be fine.

I hope your stay will be a long one.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 22, 2006)

> Well, well. Here's another who can only resort to insults.


U really think so @sshole??? U think all 7,700 + posts I have are insults??? Do u see the moniker below my name??? Did u notice its written in red???? Did u know that a red name means I'm a Moderator??? Did u know that I take Meatballs like urself and either get them on the right page attitude-wise or kick ur @ss to the curb???

Heres the one piece of advice Ill offer up... Dont piss me off... Ur stay will be short and rather unpleasant....

I have Willi's book as well Mr Knowitall, and for "clarification", its not pointless to mention the Dora or the -152, whether or not they shot down alot of Russian aircraft or not, nor the impact that they had on the War.... Its about which aircraft were superior, and both the Dora and the -152 were far ahead of anything the VVS could put into the air.... And if u read Green Hearts, First in Combat with the Dora 9 by Axel Urbanke, u might be more informed...

Keep ur attitude at home with ur kids cause its not needed or welcome here noob... Many like urself have come here and spewed out their opinionated comments, and I have rid this message board of the shitstarters.... 

And for the record, I am very good at slingin insults, and if u continue to chaff my @ss, I'll personally make it my mission to rid this board of ur pathetic presence.... Get onboard or leave....


----------



## PipsPriller (Jun 22, 2006)

Well it seems lesofprimus that being a Moderator you like to abuse your power to throw insults at those who will dispute your 'supposedly' superior knowledge. And if they have the termerity to question you you threaten to ban them!

I'll save you the trouble. If you are typical of this board it's certainly not one that I would like to be associated with.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2006)

You see there you go, all you had to do was say, hey maybe I do have a problem and maybe I should listen to others. In the end it works out. Because of your rant there to another moderator. I will give you a warning.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2006)

Personally, I think they're both being pathetic. But Udet didn't help the situation ... just read his post everyone. There's no debating at all, it is all just "You don't have a clue" all the way through. At least, Pips has produced some modicum of 'evidence' to his case. As much as I disagree with Pips on his conclusions about the VVS vs. Luftwaffe at least he was willing to discuss it. 

I think it would be more suited for Soren (who as much as I argue, have great respect for his knowledge) and Pips to debate this subject. Rather than Udet's "Germany was ****in' awesome, dude, no one could match them. Shut up it's all propaganda" . 

Personally, I think both Pips and Udet are to blame for this. At least Udet said he'd ignore the posts from now on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2006)

That is true too aswell and Udet has been told numerous times that he needs to formulate better how he talks to people.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 22, 2006)

> Well it seems lesofprimus that being a Moderator you like to abuse your power to throw insults at those who will dispute your 'supposedly' superior knowledge.


Straight up pathetic.... I wasnt insulting u meatball, I was teaching u a lesson... U obviously dont learn very well.... It wasnt a dispute over whose knowledge is superior or not, it was about ur blind arrogance to the argument at hand concerning the quality of Russian aircraft...

I told u not to screw with me, but u didnt take the advice, which is fine, cause now u have a 50% warning on ur ***.... Ur halfway there pal, so keep up the attitude and u'll be gone before post #50....

Ya know, if u had done ur homework and studied this place and looked through the older threads, ud have seen how its Moderated and how attitudes such as the one u brought here arent tolerated....


----------



## davparlr (Jun 22, 2006)

Some interesting notes:

From a Russian web site comparing WWII aircraft, here the Me-109F.

"Alas, these recommendations did not reflect the true state of affairs. From German materials and test results obtained in Britain, it turned out that the Bf 109F with a DB 60IN engine had a maximum speed of 597-600 km/h16 at an altitude of 6000 meters, rather than at the 552 km/h registered at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute. It meant that the Messerschmitt surpassed all domestic fighters here, the series-produced MiG-3 included. But, it is quite clear why principal attention in the Soviet Union was paid to enemy fighter performance near the ground. It was just there where the main battles of the first phase of war took place and our aircraft designers were required urgently to improve the flight performance of domestic aircraft at low altitudes." 

Also of interest. The military channel just had a article on Russian fighters. They said that the Lag 5 got its start with the capture of a Fw190 and its engine technology. If so, then the Lag also traces its engine to the PW radials, which BMW built under license from PW. I wouldn't be surprised if the Jappanese radials also traced back to the PW or Wright radials.

These were amazing engines.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 22, 2006)

The Sakae engine used in the Zero was basically a Pratt Whitney double Wasp engine. The Japanese were license building PWs before the war. The Sakae 21 engine even had the PW eagle logo on it!

Noted by Cowin "Corky" Meyer:
"the Sakae 21 engine announced its Pratt Whitney ancestry by conscientiously displaying the Pratt Whitney logo with an eagle on it and the English term "Quality Reliability", along with the Nakajima name in Japanese."


----------



## Henk (Jun 22, 2006)

PipsPriller did you notice that under Les name there is the following: "Minister of Whoopass". Trust me do not try to give Les a hard time or try to get a insult in or two. You must either be stupid or not have any brains to come over here and put up a fight here about something that you do not have a clue about. 

Like Les said, drop the attitude and get your act together and you would have a nice stay here, but piss him off and it will be really short. You could have just pointed out your oppinion better and it would not have gotton so messy.

Enjoy the rest of your stay.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 22, 2006)

Soren said:


> I don't agree about the La-7, it is a vastly overrated fighter, and definitely not highly regarded by the LW at all. The Yak-3 was a much bigger problem according to most LW pilots. (Although the order "not to engage them at low alt" is pure bollocks and was never issued)
> 
> The Fw-190D-9 was having a turkey shoot against the La-5FN's and La-7's over the eastern front during 44-45. And contrary to popular belief, the German fighters had no problem whatsoever out-running the Soviet fighter at low alt, and did it on a daily basis.


 Do you have more imformation on the Fw 190 D-9 operating on the Eastern front? Can you suggest a book?


----------



## Dac (Jun 22, 2006)

A little off-topic here.

Does anyone know the availibilty rates of the Luftwaffe and Soviet fighters? 

From what I know the Soviet fighters were of a cruder design but were better suited to weather extremes and the rough conditions of frontal airfields. 

The German fighters on the other hand suffered some of the same problems that WW II German weapons in general had. They were very well designed but sometimes malfunctioned under the harsh conditions on the Eastern front.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2006)

Let me look through my OKW war diaries and see if it has anything in them.


----------



## Dac (Jun 23, 2006)

thanks Adler


----------

