# Soviet use of Hurricane and Spitfire



## Nightwitch (Mar 3, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Nightwitch *The Soviets didn't change much else about the plane, and they really seem to have disliked it. There were very few Soviet Hurricane aces ...*
> 
> ... Now you're on another topic that deserves its own thread: *what explains why the Soviets liked or disliked various LendLease aircraft?* The Soviets didn't like Hurricanes - didn't especially like Spitfires although Spits did them proud in the Kaban campaign - didn't much like P-40 KittyHawks - but really connected with P-39 Airacobras.
> 
> ...



Hey Michael -

To my understanding, the Soviets generally disliked the Hurricane's performance. Its turn rate wasn't anything to write home about, its speed was less than the German fighters of the day, its armament was lacking in their view, and they just never hit it off with the airplane. They much preferred both the P-40 and the P-39, though again, the P-40 wasn't that well-liked either.

I think the simple answer to the question of the Hurricane vis-a-vis the P-39 is that the P-39 was a better aircraft. It was faster, it had a better rate of climb, it had a more powerful armament (especially the later models with the 37mm which the Soviets loved), and it turned very well also. The Hurricane could operate at heights far above what the P-39 could do, thanks to its blower, but the Russian front had much lower altitudes, so it didn't matter so much.

To address the P-39 more specifically, I think it is a much-maligned aircraft that actually, when looking at the pilots' thoughts on the plane, wasn't nearly so bad as everyone believes. The quote that opens up George Mellinger's book on the Airacobra was from Chuck Yeager who said, "I had about 500 hours in the P-39, and thought it was about the best airplane I ever flew." 

Lt. Col Boyd "Buzz" Wagner said, "Comparatively speaking, in performance the P-39 is believed to be about ten percent better in every respect than the P-40, except in maneuverability, in which case the P-40 is slightly better."

Taking this statement at face value, we can see why the Russians loved their Kobrushkas. They were replacing Hurricanes, Tomahawks, and Kittyhawks in the Murmansk theater of operations, and elsewhere they replaced undesirable or obsolescent planes like the LaGG-3 or the I-16 respectively. In comparison to the other aircraft available, the P-39 must have seemed quite good indeed. But it's not just a question of superiority over what else was out there. From what I've read, it seems that the P-39 was an excellent fighter aircraft below about 18,000 feet. Since most combat on the Russian front was below that altitude, the P-39 was probably a beautiful little dogfighter.

As to the Spitfire, that is a much tougher nut to crack. All the British pilots seemed to love the Spitfire, from what I've read of them (which admittedly isn't as much as what I've read on Soviet stuff). The Soviets didn't like them at all. In fact, the units equipped with the Spitfire didn't do at all well on the frontlines, and were quickly withdrawn to the rearguard operations under the PVO.

Contrary to what you said, the Spitfire didn't serve the Soviets well in the Kuban. The 821 IAP which operated over the Blue Line only flew the Spitfires for about 2 months, and during that time they didn't really accomplish anything with them. They had inherited their Spitfires from 57 GIAP on the North Caucasus front which, again, hadn't had any success with them.

Mellinger, in his book on Soviet lend-lease aces attributes this in part to the strength of the German opposition and in part to Soviet lack of familiarity with the type. But I think this is a bit of a cop-out. The 9 GIAD fought against some of the best German opposition around, and they were still quite successful in their P-39s. Why wouldn't the Spitfires perform as well, especially in the hands of a Guards regiment?

I think the Spitfire was simply unsuited to the Eastern front. One of the things the Russians hated about it was the narrow track landing gear which made it difficult to operate from the hastily constructed airstrips the Russians used. The Russians were probably running it on lower octane fuel than what was the standard for the British, and I think it probably didn't tolerate that very well. In addition, the altitude was far different from the Western front. I'm reminded of an anecdote from Clostermann's "The Big Show" in which he describes running from Fw-190s by climbing, and how he was just waiting until he could get to 16,000 feet so the supercharger would kick in and he could get away from them. If that's indicative of the Spitfire's performance envelope, then it gives you a pretty good idea of why it was unsuited to the Eastern front. Most combat took place at 15,000 feet or lower. I've seen a lot of Finnish and German accounts where the pilots cruised along at 3,000 meters - much lower than what you would expect for Northern Europe.

So, was the relationship with the supplier the reason for the Soviet love of the P-39? Probably not. I think it might have been the other way around. The Soviets had and maintained a good relationship with Bell because they loved the fighter and wanted more of them. As I said in the other thread, I believe Bell did listen to the Soviet input for the design of the P-63, though I haven't seen any evidence that specific P-39 models were created with the Soviets in mind. Still, it does make for a fascinating subject. Probably the most hated American plane became a Hero of the Soviet Union while the darling of Great Britain was quietly shipped back to rearguard duty.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2009)

The Airacobra might just be the best fighter in Soviet inventory until they've received the Jug (200 pieces) and Kingcobra. 

The 1st Soviet planes that could do better then P-39 were La-5FN and Yak-3 IMO. And that's 1944 when those two were deployed.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Mar 4, 2009)

The P-39 is one of my pet favorites, so I love this post. But I also wonder if the Airacobra was liked so much because of the Russians' apparent desire for cowling mounted weapons? Most of thier fighters had only a few guns, and most were also cowling mounted also, yes? That in conjunction with its fine low altitude performance could make the P-39 the plane of choice because of thier familiarity with centrally mounted weapons.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 4, 2009)

Nightwitch - I stand corrected on Spitfire performance in the Kazan region.

I too share the view that the Airacobra was maligned. It certainly suffered from a lack to supercharger but I think the reason the Soviet pilots got results with it was the firepower in the nose and the willingness to get in really close.

If you are a fan of YouTube - do a search on P-39 Airacobra. There's a 3-4 minute British newsreel from the time the RAF received their P-39's (they called them Caribou's). It's funny because they claim they LOVE the new plane -- and we all know how long that lasted.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2009)

Nightwitch said:


> Hey Michael -
> 
> To my understanding, the Soviets generally disliked the Hurricane's performance. Its turn rate wasn't anything to write home about, its speed was less than the German fighters of the day, its armament was lacking in their view, and they just never hit it off with the airplane. created with the Soviets in mind. Still, it does make for a fascinating



In the summer of 1941, the Soviets were still using the I-15 bipane vs. the Germans, the Hurricane was a hell of alot better than that. 



> ... Now you're on another topic that deserves its own thread: *what explains why the Soviets liked or disliked various LendLease aircraft?* The Soviets didn't like Hurricanes - didn't especially like Spitfires although Spits did them proud in the Kaban campaign - didn't much like P-40 KittyHawks - but really connected with P-39 Airacobras.
> 
> I have a theory: the Soviets liked Bell P-39's because their designers (Bell's) and President - Larry Bell - paid ATTENTION to the Russians - listened to the Russians - wanted to PLEASE the Russians.



Remember that the Soviets complained about almost everything, the only solution was to keep sending more. The complained about the Grant tank {coffin for 7 brothers} etc etc. 

Considering that unlike the Americans who had equipment to spare, every British tank aircraft was one less to be used by British troops, the Soviets were damn lucky to get anything.



> With the US planes came US gasoline + octane boost additives.



Actually the Soviets mostly got British Avgas from Abadan, Persia. 8) {at least for the first couple years of the war.}

It was easier to send American gas to the UK, and ship the British gas directly by rail from the refinery to the Soviets


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2009)

Nightwitch said:


> I think the simple answer to the question of the Hurricane vis-a-vis the P-39 is that the P-39 was a better aircraft. It was faster, it had a better rate of climb, it had a more powerful armament (especially the later models with the 37mm which the Soviets loved), and it turned very well also. The Hurricane could operate at heights far above what the P-39 could do, thanks to its blower, but the Russian front had much lower altitudes, so it didn't matter so much.



Does his book say whether the Soviets were satisfied with the first batch of P-39D's? {The ones rejected in the UK}

I know the P-39 later models were well liked, but perhaps the Soviets were able to use the D's down low, while using them at altitude in the UK was considered suicide....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 4, 2009)

Freebird - I don't know the overall reaction to the P-39D's - they were the ones with a 20mm instead of a 37mm through the spinner. They - like everyone else - complained that the 37mm Olds cannon was prone to jamming. My guess is that the 20mm selected by the RAF would be more reliable - but wouldn't have quite the punch.


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 4, 2009)

freebird said:


> Does his book say whether the Soviets were satisfied with the first batch of P-39D's? {The ones rejected in the UK}
> 
> I know the P-39 later models were well liked, but perhaps the Soviets were able to use the D's down low, while using them at altitude in the UK was considered suicide....



The Airacobra I, to use the British designation, or the P-400, to use the American designation, were the first Kobras to show up in the Soviet Union. They're the ones that were rejected in the UK. They quickly became highly prized in the Murmansk theater of operations and were much preferred over Hurricanes, Tomahawks, and Kittyhawks.


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 4, 2009)

freebird said:


> In the summer of 1941, the Soviets were still using the I-15 bipane vs. the Germans, the Hurricane was a hell of alot better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is quite a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda. The Soviets never used the I-15 against the Germans. They used the I-153. There are reports of some models of the I-15bis still being in service, but it was hardly widespread. Besides, this gives an implication of Soviet ineptitude. That they desperately needed the Hurricane. What were the British using at Malta? Gladiators. What did they use to sink the Bismarck? The Swordfish. What did the British and the Italians fly against one another in Operation Compass? The Gladiator and the Fiat Cr.42. The Germans even used the Henschel 126 in the early part of the GPW. It's certainly a lower performance machine than an I-153.

The fact is, the primary Soviet frontline fighter at the time was the I-16, and it was in the process of being replaced by the MiG-3 and the Yak-1 even before the war started. The I-16, performance-wise, is not all that different from a Hurricane. The main difference is the I-16's performance curve is all down at lower altitude while the Hurricane's is higher up. The top speed difference between the two is only about 16mph, but the Hurricane needs to get up to 21,000 feet to do that, the I-16 only needs to be at about 9,000. So, for Eastern front purposes, the I-16 might well have been the superior airplane. Just as fast at low altitude (maybe faster, I don't have the Hurricane performance curve), turns incredibly well, and has heavier-hitting guns. The idea that the Soviets desperately needed the Hurricane, when viewed in that fashion, is completely wrong.

I think the real "need" for lend-lease from the Soviets came about not because the lend-lease equipment was better, but because it was a ready supply of weapons to replace heavy losses sustained at the beginning of the war while Soviet industry was still gearing up for full-scale production. So, the Hurricane helped cover some losses, but it wasn't a fantastic performer that did better in theater than any of the native designs. Quite a few Soviet pilots who were aces against the Germans in the I-16 ended up scoring only 1 or 2 kills in the Hurricane. And that's not to mention the MiG-3, LaGG-3, and Yak-1.

Were the Soviets "damn lucky" to get the Hurricane? Maybe. They were certainly much luckier to get the P-400 and the P-39. Hell, the Kittyhawk was even better respected than the Hurricane.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 4, 2009)

the soviets deployed ~140 fighter regiment, ~50% of this with biplane but only ~20% with biplane alone (my elaboration of niehorster site data)


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2009)

Nightwitch said:


> This is quite a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda.



Umm, no it's just my opinion, based on what I know about the relationship between the allies. If you've read the Soviet accounts from the early '40's they certainly didn't consider us to be their "allies" in the same sense the UK US did. If the positions were reversed, do you think they would have been so generous to the British?



Nightwitch said:


> The Soviets never used the I-15 against the Germans. They used the I-153. There are reports of some models of the I-15bis still being in service, but it was hardly widespread. Besides, this gives an implication of Soviet ineptitude.



No it doesn't give any implication of ineptitude, it does show that they were poorly equipped to fight the Germans.




Nightwitch said:


> I think the real "need" for lend-lease from the Soviets came about not because the lend-lease equipment was better, but because it was a ready supply of weapons to replace heavy losses sustained at the beginning of the war while Soviet industry was still gearing up for full-scale production. So, the Hurricane helped cover some losses, but it wasn't a fantastic performer that did better in theater than any of the native designs.



Yes, I would agree with that. I certainly didn't mean to give that impression that the Hurricane was some fantastic aircraft. It was what was available at the time, and it filled a need.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 4, 2009)

The Hurricane in general tends to be a 'sentimental favorite' of those who liked or like it, generally as a result of the Battle of Britain, especially as remembered from the British side. Air arms with no sentimentality about the Hurricane, not only the Soviets but the Finns, the Dutch in the Far East etc. tended to have a lower opinion of it; especially ca. 1941-42 v 1939-40. A/c tech was moving rapidly, and had passed the Hurricane by. Same goes for the Hurricane's combat record counting by actual enemy losses in the '41-42 period: generally poor, atrocious v the Japanese in 1941-42.

It's no surprise the Soviets preferred the P-39, a later and better all around fighter plane than the Hurricane, except possibly in situations emphasizing high altitude operations, but that wasn't common for the Soviets.

Among the reasons the Spitfire V was not considered successful by the Soviets was friendly fire incidents when mistaken for Bf109, and poor servicability and high landing accident rate at rough forward fields. And the Spit V wasn't a greatly superior plane to P-39/40 again if high altitude wasn't emphasized. These were the reasons some VVS, ie. tactical af, units handed in Spits for P-39's in the Kuban region, but it's actually pretty similar again to experience in the Far East. Flying in primitive conditions in northern Australia, Spit V's were less successful against Japanese fighters than P-40's, a plane unsentimentally considered about equal below 15k ft in that theater. Those operations did favor a superior high altitude plane like the Spit, but again poor servicability and high operational loss rate in rough conditions was a big drawback. Again the Soviet experience was not unique.

The Spitfire IX was respected by the Soviets for its capabilities as high altitude interceptor, as v. German recon planes, so in that case the Spitfire's strengths were more the reason for its use in PVO, ie air defense, units than its weaknesses a reason not to use it in VVS units.

The positive Soviet opinion of the P-39 does go back to the first ones delivered, ex RAF Airacobra I's. One benefit was a direct result of British dislike of the plane: they'd hardly been flown. Whereas, some other British transfers (Hurricanes and Tomahawks) had more wear on them. However the Soviets definitely preferred the 37mm to 20mm. When P-39D-2's (20mm) were used alongside P-39K's (37mm) both delivered through Abadan, more senior pilots were assigned the preferred 37mm a/c. By then, apparently, the cartridge case ejection chute jamming problem had been addressed, since that complaint seems virtually non-existent in Soviet accounts of the P-39.

Joe


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2009)

freebird said:


> ....
> 
> No it doesn't give any implication of ineptitude, it does show that they[Soviets] were poorly equipped to fight the Germans.
> ....



Don't want to be picky, but...
Wasn't it the other way around? Russkies did have a lot of hardware, most of it being comparable or better then German have had. It was idiotic strategy that put 10 000* planes (and other stuff) at silver plate for Germans. Russkies have lost 75% of their military hardware in 1941, so anything they could get was seen a blessing. 

*out of some 15 thousands in the inventory.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 4, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Wasn't it the other way around?
> 
> Russkies did have a lot of hardware, most of it being comparable or better then German have had.
> 
> It was idiotic strategy that put 10 000* planes (and other stuff) at silver plate for Germans. Russkies have lost 75% of their military hardware in 1941, so anything they could get was seen a blessing


Really, in what way?

What hardware are we talking about here?

Idiot strategy = ineptitude?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Really, in what way?
> 
> *Russians did have more armament, and decent one; the fact directly connected with term 'equipped'.*
> 
> ...


.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Mar 4, 2009)

I read a story once about I think USAAF pilots deliberatly sabotaging their own P-39s to be re-equipped with P-40s, that's how much they thought of them. I'll try to dig it up.

Opinions differ.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> I read a story once about I think USAAF pilots deliberatly sabotaging their own P-39s to be re-equipped with P-40s, that's how much they thought of them.


I'd like to see that one but straight out I think its BS.


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 4, 2009)

Yeah, I read that US pilots actually considered the P-39 better in most respects than the P-40. The only thing it didn't do as well (other than the P-40 having a very slight turn edge) was dive.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Mar 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'd like to see that one but straight out I think its BS.



Could very well be, it was on this forum .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> Could very well be, it was on this forum .


Now I'd really like to see that!


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Don't want to be picky, but...
> Wasn't it the other way around? Russkies did have a lot of hardware, most of it being comparable or better then German have had. It was idiotic strategy that put 10 000* planes (and other stuff) at silver plate for Germans. Russkies have lost 75% of their military hardware in 1941, so anything they could get was seen a blessing.
> 
> *out of some 15 thousands in the inventory.



Well, both in some ways. As far as tanks they did have good equipment {KV's, T-34's} but didn't know how to use it. 

As far as aircraft, due to ineptitude unpreparedness they lost a big chunk of their aircraft on the ground. The further mounting losses of aircraft meant that they were short of modern fighters. None of the newest Soviet fighters at the outset of war {Lagg3's Yak 1's Mig 3's) were as good as the Me109, at least not in Soviet hands. {Not that the Hurricane was great either, but enough inferior aircraft can still bring down better ones.}

I don't know how many of you have been in former Soviet countries, but I've been told straight to my face that the British sat around drinking tea, and the Americans chewing bubble gum while the Soviets did all the fighting. Also told that the UK US sent *nothing* to the USSR until 1944, when we already knew they would win.

This is the kind of BS that was taught in their schools. Gets my hackles up, considering that Mum's uncle was KIA in the war, and he escorted Murmansk convoys in 1941.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> Could very well be, it was on this forum .





FLYBOYJ said:


> Now I'd really like to see that!




And check who is writing. Posts from fly boy are *not quite* as authoritative as FLYBOYJ


----------



## KrazyKraut (Mar 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now I'd really like to see that!



I just found it, but it's on the German wikipedia page, so apologies to the forum.

"Der Unterschied in der Bewertung der Piloten könnte nicht größer sein: die Amerikaner nannten die Maschine „iron dog“ und versuchten, sie loszuwerden; es gab Fälle von mutwilliger Zerstörung von Airacobras durch die eigenen Piloten."

Which roughly translates into:

"the difference in evaluation by the pilots couldn't be bigger: the americans called the machine "iron dog" and tried to get rid of it; there were cases of deliberate destruction by own pilots."

The article has a few sources, but the statement in question doesn't list any reference.


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 4, 2009)

freebird said:


> I don't know how many of you have been in former Soviet countries, but I've been told straight to my face that the British sat around drinking tea, and the Americans chewing bubble gum while the Soviets did all the fighting. Also told that the UK US sent *nothing* to the USSR until 1944, when we already knew they would win.
> 
> This is the kind of BS that was taught in their schools. Gets my hackles up, considering that Mum's uncle was KIA in the war, and he escorted Murmansk convoys in 1941.



I was taking pictures of the I-16 at an air museum and was told by a couple of older American guys that the Americans won the air war and that the Russians didn't do anything at all and that "we" did all the work for them. Kind of gets my hackles up considering I've met some Soviet pilots who were wounded in the line of duty, some of whom also had their families killed by the Germans. So, it's a two-way street.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2009)

freebird said:


> And check who is writing. Posts from fly boy are *not quite* as authoritative as FLYBOYJ


*"NOT QUITE" * Make that clear!


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2009)

Nightwitch said:


> I was taking pictures of the I-16 at an air museum and was told by a couple of older American guys that the Americans won the air war and that the Russians didn't do anything at all and that "we" did all the work for them. Kind of gets my hackles up considering I've met some Soviet pilots who were wounded in the line of duty, some of whom also had their families killed by the Germans. So, it's a two-way street.



Agreed. My wife relatives are Russian, so I understand quite well the sacrifices they made, as did the UK US as well



FLYBOYJ said:


> *"NOT QUITE" * Make that clear!



    

Yep, hopefully people will notice the difference  


No sources on Wikipedia, gosh that's a surprise....


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 4, 2009)

Nightwitch said:


> I was taking pictures of the I-16 at an air museum and was told by a couple of older American guys that the Americans won the air war and that the Russians didn't do anything at all and that "we" did all the work for them. Kind of gets my hackles up considering I've met some Soviet pilots who were wounded in the line of duty, some of whom also had their families killed by the Germans. So, it's a two-way street.


The Russians certainly did a great deal but then again the were they not a little at fault for the diasaster they faced , they invaded Poland and the Baltic nations tried having a go at Finland and signed the non Agression Pact with the Germans


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 4, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> The Russians certainly did a great deal but then again the were they not a little at fault for the diasaster they faced , they invaded Poland and the Baltic nations tried having a go at Finland and signed the non Agression Pact with the Germans



Yes, and the British and the French "had it coming" because they appeased the Germans, let them reoccupy the Sudetenland and the Rhineland, and annex several small central European countries...


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 4, 2009)

Nightwitch said:


> Yes, and the British and the French "had it coming" because they appeased the Germans, let them reoccupy the Sudetenland and the Rhineland, and annex several small central European countries...


The Soviet Union of that era was a nasty piece of work remember they were no better then the Nazis maybe worse as they even starved how many of their own people in the Ukraine 6 7 8 million . God forbid we remember Katyn


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 4, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> The Soviet Union of that era was a nasty piece of work remember they were no better then the Nazis maybe worse as they even starved how many of their own people in the Ukraine 6 7 8 million . God forbid we remember Katyn



They were better than the Nazis. They weren't good, but I'm sick of people trying to equate a famine in the Soviet Union with systematic murder. Even the GULAG system paled in comparison to Nazi concentration camps. Moreover, this discussion is about Soviet planes and pilots. Many of the planes were designed by men who were themselves imprisoned by the state, and were victims of the state. The pilots themselves had nothing whatsoever to do with the NKVD or the political hierarchy in place in the Soviet Union. So, to say that the people we're discussing deserved it because their government sucked is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 4, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> I read a story once about I think USAAF pilots deliberatly sabotaging their own P-39s to be re-equipped with P-40s,...
> 
> Opinions differ.


Yeah doubtful especially since I don't recall any units first equipped with P-39's then P-40's... Opinions did differ, and the P-40 was the more popular in USAAF in general, no question about that.

One solidly statistically based reason was much higher fatal accident rate in the P-39; and that's also backed by many first hand accounts of how much trickier the P-39 could be wrt to stall/spin. That probably mattered less to certain pilots more skilled in basic stick and rudder piloting. It might be like USN pilots who preferred the SB2C to the SBD: there were some, but they tended to be ones who could fly especially well or were experienced. Otherwise the more dangerous flying characteristics of the SB2C tended to outweigh any other advantage.

As mentioned above, the problem with 37mm casing chute which caused jams was apparently fixed by the time significant numbers of 37mm P-39's served with them, since the Soviets don't seem to have complained about i

But the P-39 and P-40 were not so different, and the combat results in actually similar units fighting against similar opposition were not so different.

Joe


----------



## Amsel (Mar 4, 2009)

The stall was something to do with the balance in the a/c with the prop shaft running through the a/c and the engine behind the pilot. It was a great training a/c except for the unrecoverable stall.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The stall was something to do with the balance in the a/c with the prop shaft running through the a/c and the engine behind the pilot. It was a great training a/c except for the unrecoverable stall.



The P-39 was very sensitive around its c/g and actually had 2 cg envelopes. Somewhere on the archives I have this posted.


----------



## Amsel (Mar 4, 2009)

I'll have to look for it. Thanks.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 5, 2009)

If it wasn't for the Soviets there could not have been a Luftwaffe, thus no aggression from Germany at all.

*stands back and waits*


----------



## glennasher (Mar 5, 2009)

Waynos said:


> If it wasn't for the Soviets there could not have been a Luftwaffe, thus no aggression from Germany at all.
> 
> *stands back and waits*






ZING , accurate, too....................


----------



## Glider (Mar 5, 2009)

If I remember correctly the first Spitfires that were sent to Russia were second hand aircraft which had already seen service with the RAF. Assuming this is the case I cannot say I blame the Russians for beng less than impressed with what they were sent, plus of course the Spit V was not effective against the 109G and Fw190.
I know that later deliveries were new aircraft but once anything has a poor reputation, it takes a lot to change that reputation


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 5, 2009)

Waynos said:


> If it wasn't for the Soviets there could not have been a Luftwaffe, thus no aggression from Germany at all.
> 
> *stands back and waits*



Why does everyone have to find excuses for Nazi aggression, trying to blame it on anyone other than those directly responsible? It's really ing the amount of Nazi apologetics that get thrown about on forums like these. And make no mistake, Waynos, that's what your statement is - Nazi apologetics.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2009)

Nightwitch - I don't even understand what: "If it wasn't for the Soviets there could not have been a Luftwaffe, thus no aggression from Germany at all.", actually means - much less whether it's apologetics. Maybe I'm dense but, like HoHuns graphs, I'd like clarity and understanding. 

Please, what is Waynos trying to convey in his butchered logic...? 

And is your mutual relationship with him permanently damaged, or do you still have mutual interests?

Michael


----------



## MacArther (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm not entirely possitive on this, but didn't Soviet P-39's have a lighter overall weight due to stripping off what was seen as non-essential? Also, didn't Soviet P-39s also usually have the Soviet 23mm gun in lieu of the 37mm?


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 5, 2009)

MacArther said:


> I'm not entirely possitive on this, but didn't Soviet P-39's have a lighter overall weight due to stripping off what was seen as non-essential? Also, didn't Soviet P-39s also usually have the Soviet 23mm gun in lieu of the 37mm?



The Soviets used the 20mm gun on early models of the P-39 and the 37mm gun on the later models.


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 5, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Nightwitch - I don't even understand what: "If it wasn't for the Soviets there could not have been a Luftwaffe, thus no aggression from Germany at all.", actually means - much less whether it's apologetics. Maybe I'm dense but, like HoHuns graphs, I'd like clarity and understanding.
> 
> Please, what is Waynos trying to convey in his butchered logic...?
> 
> ...



I can only presume he's referring to the secret Luftwaffe training schools in the USSR in the 20s and 30s, most notably the combat school at Lipetsk started in 1925 and running until 1933, when it was shut down by the new Nazi government. However, it's not really clear how much the Luftwaffe actually benefited from this training school. And certainly the supposition that the Luftwaffe couldn't have existed without it is fallacious in the extreme. Once the Nazi party was in power, the plug was pulled on the Lipetsk training operation and the Luftwaffe began training in Germany proper, in flagrant violation of the treaty of Versailles. Moreover, the German involvement in the Spanish Civil War was more of a crucible for German planes, training, and tactics than Lipetsk ever was, and that was several years later still. The indisputable fact is that the Nazi party, the very party directly responsible for Germany's aggression in WWII was the very same party that killed the joint training operation at Lipetsk. So to draw a link between Nazi aggression and the training that went on there is, in my opinion, spurious.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2009)

Nightwitch - I wouldn't have read that degree of nuance into Wayno's comments. I can't speak for Wayno nor does he need anyone to, but, if what you are referring to previously - the co-operation between the German state and the Soviet leadership - is what Wayno is getting at: a. The schools that the Germans financed in Russia for training are simply matters of historical fact, the armoured schools were far more important in the scheme of things than the air schools and both Russians and Germans had similar instincts about using armour [Zhukov - summer 1939 - Kolkin Gol [sp]' and b. The Stalin officer purges pretty much eliminated the benefits that the Soviet leadership might have derived from joint training with the German high command.

I'd like to hear from Wayno on what he intended, but from your various posts and your "handle" Nightwitch, I think you have lots of insight and knowledge about the Soviet side - amongst other topics.

So - riddle me this Nightwitch (and this is way off topic) - how come Zhukov did so well in the June September timeframe with serious supply lines, and yet the Soviets got chewed up by the Finns 3 months later?

Personally - the don't see too much difference between the Nazis and the Communist leadership - both are dillusional, both are fanatical, both are racist and both are prime examples of personality cults.

Roosevelt was unrealistic about Stalin. Churchill was realistic about Stalin.
I expect you will want to take issue with these views and that's fine -- but don't ever suggest that the Communists were LESS EVIL than the Nazis -- because if your saying that your either drinking Liberal coolaide, or your a sentimental neo-soviet.

I don't see conducting tribal purges on the Estos and Balts any different than doing it to the Children of Israel or Gypies. Being worked to death in Siberia or in a V-2 plant is really just a difference in hue - not morality...............

Still - like your posts, Nightwitch


----------



## Venganza (Mar 5, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> ...but don't ever suggest that the Communists were LESS EVIL than the Nazis -- because if your saying that your either drinking Liberal coolaide, or your a sentimental neo-soviet.
> 
> I don't see conducting tribal purges on the Estos and Balts any different than doing it to the Children of Israel or Gypies. Being worked to death in Siberia or in a V-2 plant is really just a difference in hue - not morality...............



I guess I'm drinking Liberal Koolaide and/or I'm a sentimental neo-Soviet because I definitely do believe the Communists were much less evil than the Nazis. For one thing, Communism was not founded on racism, indeed in theory it was anti-racist and pro-feminist (even if it failed this in practice). Nazism was founded on race hatred, pure and simple - read Mein Kampf. Stalinism was a horrible system, brutal, corrupt and repressive. It still doesn't hold a candle to the horror that was Nazism. Stalin killed a lot of people, millions, but it wasn't for racial reasons - he killed those who opposed him (or he thought they opposed him). This is very different from the naked genocide of the Nazis. They wanted to kill all the Jews and all the Roma (Gypsies) regardless of whether or not they really posed a threat to him. In addition, the Nazis planned an artifical famine in the European part of the Soviet Union that would have made the Ukrainian famine pale in comparison. The Communist labor camps were terrible places where millions may have died but they were not the deliberate murder factories that places like Birkenau were. And please don't accuse people of being Soviet sympathizers unless you wish to be called a neo-Nazi.

Venganza


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2009)

Folks, this thread started off real good, please get it back on track before I close it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2009)

Make a choice Vengaza - will it be Liberal Kool aide or sentimental neo-Stalinist? 
I condemmed BOTH Nazis and Communist systems in my previous post - that doesn't make me a Neo-Anything. If you see a moral difference between the two systems you're welcome to it.

"Communism was not founded on racism, indeed in theory it was anti-racist and pro-feminist (even if it failed this in practice)" you say. 

Actually - the credo of communism at the leadership level was and still is "do as we say, not as we do".

Internationalism, feminism ... just words. In practise, the Soviets waged war (class, political, economic war, who cares) against ANY group, race or tribe that dared to resist their centrally planned soviet enforced destiny -- unless of course you buy the images in Frank Kapra's "Soviet Ally - Why We Fight" film -- dancing Kulaks and tribemen.

Most liberals I know that sympathize with Soviet communism over Nazism do so because the sheer incompetence associated with Communism endeavors humanizes Communism for them - as opposed to steely-eyed robotic storm troopers. Incompetence however doesn't lessen the moral accountability of actions. There's only a difference between murder and manslaughter in court.

I repeat, both camps are tarred with the same sickness: dillusional, immoral and worshipping the cult of the Kool aid. You want lime or cherry, Vengaza?

Michael


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2009)

Closed - the next time I'll just start banning.


----------

