1941: top 3 Allied fighters

no radio, ratzii

Thanks, Vincenzo

in italian the reply to thanks is prego

Vincenzo said:

in italian the reply to thanks is prego

Click to expand...

Learned that one in 2006 when my very pregnant wife and I went to Italy.

We were wondering why every one kept saying Prego....

For not italian speaking, the prego in the courtesy reply is not linked with the prego 1st person singular present tense of the verb pregare (to prey)

how did the french ac fair against the ac in those charts? i had hear the D520 ( ?) and the MS401(?) were decent but i never did any research on them... i think in 41 the us was way behind the 8 ball and i am not too convinced the vvs wasnt as well. the uk probably had the monopoly on the best ac as they had been fighting for 2 years and had to adapt to what the lw was fielding. reliability had to be a big factor....charts of performance are one thing but if the chart topper is broke down on the ground its not doing any good.

In 1941 the French were not part of the Allies. See Syria, Madagascar, Operation Torch etc for proof. And besides the MS.401 is just too damned ugly to be a contender.

I think you're right that only the UK can really be considered here, or an honourable mention to the P-40. By all accounts the Soviet fighters were either obsolete, or not reliable or usable enough yet. Sure they were all evolved into very good fighters over the following couple of years, but in 1941 they had little to offer.

yeah...duh! it was over for them by that time...

MS.406 was the plane and was not in the top 3 allies fighter also in 1940, the D.520 would be a challenger for 1940

And no service French fighter was sufficiently advanced in 1940 to be anywhere near the top of the heap in 1941. Of course no 109E or Spitfire MK I or Hurricane MK I was at the top of the heap either in 1941.

The 1941 VVS fighters suffered from low build quality, pilots not experienced on type/s, and lower powered engines than the 1942 versions. The Mig was cut from production because while fast, it couldn't do the job required.

The Soviet fighter produced before shooting started were of decent quality, though not flawless, of course. The pre-war production standards were not matched by 1943?
One more MiG-3 produced meant one less Il-2 produced, since they used the engines from the same factory. That was the problem. The MiG-3 was also tested with AM-38 engine, top speed of 585-595 at 3.4 km. Unfortunately, it was the fighter arm of VVS that could not done the job in 1st half of 1941, whenever the LW fighters appeared in strength - the VVS lacked radars, usable command centers, trained pilots indeed, experience, many times the radios in their fighters, etc.

bobbysocks said:

how did the french ac fair against the ac in those charts? i had hear the D520 ( ?) and the MS401(?) were decent but i never did any research on them... i think in 41 the us was way behind the 8 ball and i am not too convinced the vvs wasnt as well. the uk probably had the monopoly on the best ac as they had been fighting for 2 years and had to adapt to what the lw was fielding. reliability had to be a big factor....charts of performance are one thing but if the chart topper is broke down on the ground its not doing any good.

Click to expand...

The D.520 received some refinements (6 exhausts per side, relocation of oil cooler, modified cooler housing), starting in late 1941, that brought the high speed to 575 km/h. The MS.410 was to be a refinement of the MS.406, but not all the changes planed were also realized; anyway the speed was to be barely above 500 km/h with all the changes (fixed radiator, exhaust stacks, new wing).

KiwiBiggles said:

In 1941 the French were not part of the Allies. See Syria, Madagascar, Operation Torch etc for proof. And besides the MS.401 is just too damned ugly to be a contender.

I think you're right that only the UK can really be considered here, or an honourable mention to the P-40. By all accounts the Soviet fighters were either obsolete, or not reliable or usable enough yet. Sure they were all evolved into very good fighters over the following couple of years, but in 1941 they had little to offer.

Click to expand...

What the SU was producing in 1941 was surely comparable with Spitfires produced in 1941, and better than the Hurricane by a land mile.

If you are looking to find the best 3 then you have to consider how well they could substitute for each other. How well would the VVS fighters have substituted for British fighters in the west? Or in NA? How well would British fighters (or the P-40) have worked for the Russians in large numbers? You can't blow off the Lagg-3 and Yak-1s lack of altitude performance compared to the Spitfire and Hurricane by saying it wasn't needed on the eastern front IF you are trying to claim they were as good as the Spitfire or Hurricane. The altitude performance wasn't needed as much on the eastern front but give the British 500-1000 Lagg-3s or Yak-1s in late 1941 to fly across the English channel and think about what would have happened.

With the Russian fighters you have the problem of how good the design was vs how good the actual aircraft were, not just "build quality" as regard to fit and finish of the airframe but lack of radios, lack of some basic instruments, poor quality canopy transparency ( another reason they often flew with canopies open, robbing them of "book" speed) and poor quality "systems" that lead to frequent landing collapses and other problems.
A "western" Lagg or Yak might come a lot closer to the designers intentions.

How well would British fighters (or the P-40) have worked for the Russians in large numbers?

Click to expand...

What the Soviets needed in 1941-42 was the integrated air defense network, far more better trained pilots, proper tactics (and strategy?). Basically, the things where the RAF or/and LW excelled. Failing that, LW would've gained upper hand even if all of the VVS fighter arm consisted from Spitfires, let alone the Hurricanes or P-40s.

If you are looking to find the best 3 then you have to consider how well they could substitute for each other. How well would the VVS fighters have substituted for British fighters in the west? Or in NA?

Click to expand...

The MiG-3 would've have no more problems than Spitfire V in 1941 in the West. The Yak-1 and LaGG-3 would've struggled there.
In NA, all of the 3 would've been at least as good as P-40s and Hurricanes there.

You can't blow off the Lagg-3 and Yak-1s lack of altitude performance compared to the Spitfire and Hurricane by saying it wasn't needed on the eastern front IF you are trying to claim they were as good as the Spitfire or Hurricane.

Click to expand...

Maybe not really my words - I've never claimed that Yak and LaGG were as good as Spit V (Spit V was better) or as Hurricane II (IMO worse than Yak and MiG, about equal as Lagg).
I've also never used the needs of the Easter front as an excuse for cherry picking a suitable combat altitude and performance there.
The high alt performance of the Hurri IIa was ~315 mph at 25000 ft, vs. ~310 mph for the LaGG, ~330 mph of the Yak-1 (war production, 1941; the pre-war examples were 10-15 mph faster than that). The MiG-3 and Spit V were in another league all together.

With the Russian fighters you have the problem of how good the design was vs how good the actual aircraft were, not just "build quality" as regard to fit and finish of the airframe but lack of radios, lack of some basic instruments, poor quality canopy transparency ( another reason they often flew with canopies open, robbing them of "book" speed) and poor quality "systems" that lead to frequent landing collapses and other problems.
A "western" Lagg or Yak might come a lot closer to the designers intentions.

Click to expand...

Good points.

tomo pauk said:

What the Soviets needed in 1941-42 was the integrated air defense network, far more better trained pilots, proper tactics (and strategy?). Basically, the things where the RAF or/and LW excelled. Failing that, LW would've gained upper hand even if all of the VVS fighter arm consisted from Spitfires, let alone the Hurricanes or P-40s.

Click to expand...

it seems the SU's main strategy was to overwhelm by numbers. the stalingrad strategy but in the air. the lw accounts i have read basically reported that the germans were successful but when they shot down 20 vvs ac...they were replaced with 50. quality and experience was better than at the beginning of the war but i would like to see how it compared to us, and uk training and workmanship. it was attrition that took a bigger toll on the lw. the vvs had men galore they could train...an area far from the reach of the lw to do it...and factories that didnt have to worry about being bombed everyday. german output was the highest at the end of the war but what would it have been if the alled bombers couldnt reach them?

tomo pauk said:

What the Soviets needed in 1941-42 was the integrated air defense network, far more better trained pilots, proper tactics (and strategy?). Basically, the things where the RAF or/and LW excelled. Failing that, LW would've gained upper hand even if all of the VVS fighter arm consisted from Spitfires, let alone the Hurricanes or P-40s.

Click to expand...

Well, failing better trained pilots, planes that were easier to fly would have been nice, which the Mig-3 was not. The Russians also needed larger quantities of domestic fighters than comparable western types because they had many quality issues that not only affected performance but serviceability/durability. Many of the pre-war planes were little better in this regard than early war-time planes. Fit and finish might have been better from some factories but (but not all) and many mechanical issues were being sorted out on early production batches.

The early Lagg-3 fighters were pretty much dogs. Best level speed being 341mph with the radiator shutter fully closed, unfortunately both the Lagg and the Yak had cooling troubles and could not run at full power for more than few minutes (less than 5 ?) with the shutters closed. With the shutters open the Lagg-3s speed fell to 535kph (333mph) at 5,000 meters and 457kph (284mph) at sea level. Climb to 5,000 meters fell from the prototypes 5.85 minutes to 8.6 minutes. A Hurricane II could be 3600ft higher in the same amount of time or beat the Lagg with 2 full minutes to spare to 5000 meters. Service ceiling was around 30,000ft depending on exact production batch, armament fit and fit and finish, not any better than a P-40. There were also handling problems with the early service models, like an unpredictable stall.
The Lagg-3 had about the worst quality of construction of any combat aircraft anywhere in it's early production life (before the shooting started).
Things actually improved by October/November of 1941 despite the war.

The Mig-3 was a difficult plane to fly, one comment was that it wasn't difficult for I-16 pilots to transfer to, but that has to be looked at hard because the I-16s had a number of vices and were not considered easy to fly. The AM-35A engine had a shorter life than the M-105 engine (and that is saying something right there) and while the plane had straight line speed it had little else going for it except altitude performance was up to par, and one questions altitude performance of pilots after 20-30 minutes of flight in open cockpit at 20,000ft and above. Poor turn and poor armament.

Yak-1 was the best of the bunch and could match the Mig 3 pretty close at the lower altitudes which was one reason the Mig was allowed to fade away. The MIg had few, if any advantages, under 5,000 meters and had a lighter armament, a short life engine and was more difficult to fly than the Yak.

Now figure if the Yak was close to western fighters.

I think the Hurricane is being far too lightly dismissed, here. By mid 1941 the IIC was a very capable platform, with few vices, reasonable if not sparkling performance, and the best armament of any fighter in the world. And as the Hurricane was giving good service as a pure day fighter against the Japanese above Arakan in 1943, it must be considered reasonable for 1941. When you also consider its ground attack (2 x 500 lb) and carrier capabilities (I know these were excluded from the initial premise, but...) then I think the Hurricane would be a more useful addition to ones fleet in 1941, compared to the Soviet types.

by George on All About Warfare II
LaGG-3 1st serie 498 km/h S.L., 575 km/h at 4.86 km, time to 5 km 6.8'
LaGG-3 11th serie 466 km/h S.L., 539 km/h at 5 km, time to 5 km 7.1'
Yak-1 0406 480 km/h S.L., 577 km/h at 4.95, time to 5 km 5.7'
Yak-1 3855 441 km/h S.L., 533 km/h at 5.3 km, time to 5 km 5.9'

Hurricane IIB (from RAE Chart by Williams&Stirling page)
433 km/h S.L., 550 km/h at 6.7 km, time to 17,000 ft (5.18 km) 6.7'

Figures I gave were from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1: Single-Engined Fighters" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov.

i don't remember the sources indicated from George however i think some test, because of serial number.
(LaGG-3 serial is 31211-2 for the 1st serie, serial is not indicated for the 11th serie, but the 3121855 of 8th serie with rocket and bomb racks did 462 km/h S.L., 554 km/h 4.85, climb to 5 km in 9.1')

that test, Hurrcane is just running on 9lb boost so i don't think that will show the top speed or climb of a Hurrcane running 12lb boost
all need to do is fined a test of Hurrcane mkII running at 12lb boost,anyone seen one?