Best fighter in Eastern Front, 1943. (1 Viewer)

What was the best fighter in East Front in 1943? Please give reason!


  • Total voters
    54

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hello Juha,
you are right. there is no way to get reliable records from the russians, even in 1943!
LW claims did not include claims from other axis countries. my figures for 1944 show
the Germans shot down 7000 e/a. 1030 less then what you posted. confusing indeed! :D

Hello P-40
IMHO we don't know how many Soviet planes Jagdfliegern shot down, we only know how many they claimed
My figures incl.only the more modern fighter types, of which a/c of Axis powers shot down say 2100-2300, AAA shot down probably 800-1000, some were lost in accidents, because of technical problems, pilot errors etc during combats ops etc. In known accidents 1979 new type fighters were lost and 2619 were stuck of charge because of weariness after long service. Of older type fighters some 125 LaGG-3s, Hurricanes and I-153s were lost in combat ops as were some 730 bombers and some 3700 Il-2s. All these in 1944.

Juha
 
Last edited:
All I would say with regard to loss claims is that for the eastern front it is very difficult to pin down accurate numbers. Russian sources are politically doctored, and LW claims are also notoriously innaccurate, because they are based on estimated losses. Claimed losses have been shown to be out by a factor of 6 or 8 to 1 on occasion...in the muggy weather conditions of the Russian winter, spring and autumn, this may well be made even worse....

I can produce creditable sources that claim German losses equalled or even exceeded Soviet losses in some of the major campaigns. I can produce other source material, just as creditable that goes the other way. Each person interested in this subject will have to settle on figurs they think are the most accurate or plausible for them.

Having spent some time myself thinking about this issue, I concluded that it is most likley that the loss ratio favours the germans, but not by 80:1. Perhaps 3:1 or so, though this is just a figure, an estimate. But then, after some further thought, and further reading, I realized that the primary mission of the VVS was not the destruction of the enemy air force. They never set out to achieve air supriority by shooting down the LW. Their primary mission was always battlefield support....the mission of their fighters was firstly; to provide enough protection to their Sturmoviks to get the job done....if the Sturmovik survived long enough to do that, the russians were happy. In the second instance, the Russians aimed to flood the airspace over the battle with so many fighters as to make German counterstrikes a nearly impossible task. A stuka pilot might be in an eminently survivable machine, but if he is being monstered by 6 or 8 fighters, dodging 20mm cannon fire and generally under intense harrassment the whole mission, he is not going to deliver effective countermeasure to the ground offensive.

If you look at the Soviet Air force in the terms that it was designed and used for, it was an eminently successful weapon. It is harder to be that dogmatic about the Germans. In the end they lost, but was this just because they were outnumbered, or was their doctrine somewhat flawed. German strategy in the defensive stage of the war was to inflict crippling losses on the Russians....the germans placed greater emphasis on counterair operations....shooting down Russian aircraft.....but was this a mistake? In chalking up these big aircraft tallies, did the germans not miss the point as to why they were there. They were meant to be part of a machine, part of an integrated defence plan. I cannot help thinking that the LW was more interested in the tally sheets, than stopping the offensive, if so, the impressive scores came at a disastrous price.
 
It is not just western design bias that must be overcome, western strategy and tactical bias must also be overcome. One thing to always keep in mind when thinking about Russian strategy and tactics is that Russia was under the Mongol yoke for a long time. The Mongol military mindset is still a strong influence. Showers of projectiles from fast pursuit vehicles (fighter aircraft or horses) to harass and infuriate the enemy into ineffectiveness or misstep until your heavy ground seizing weapons (armored lancers or T-34s) seize the battlefield is something the Russians have long known to be effective.
 
I think the fighter aspect of the Luftwaffe was following the FAT MAN's ever so clear orders.
" shoot down everything, and fly till you die " in reality the pilots later in the war started to
govern themslves. BUT defending Germany was always the #1 priority, to the death.

numbers are what they are.. just numbers. WWII spawned some of the bravest/dedicated
pilots in history..... on both sides.
 
".... numbers are what they are.. just numbers. WWII spawned some of the bravest/dedicated
pilots in history..... on both sides."

Absolutely true. Thanks. :)

MM
 
Yes, Satan does live in the details.

I said "I would note that the Spitfire carried as much armament in ONE wing as many 109s or Russian aircraft did in the entire airplane."

I did not say all, or most or even a majority. details? ;)

How many 109Fs and Gs were were built with a single cannon and two 7.9mm MGs?

Many. But point is, they could mount three cannon. Anytime. Its question of need. Wing cannon - 15 minutes to mount by weapons mechanic. About.

Hispano fires a heavier shell at a higher velocity than the MG 151, granted it has less explosive but depending on projectile and year it can penetrate a fair amount of armor and THEN explode behind it. details ;)

Explosive shell do not penetrate armor.. not much. 2-4mm at best, the shell is too weak. Pilot armor is generally more, so it is not practical question IMHO, most plane is unarmored, and where armor - ineffective, both. Mine shell of course explodes on target armor plate surface, but will penetrate structure. That is point of mine shell, gases do damage in structure.

And where it explodes - question of fuse really, like artilerria shell. Short fuse - fragment, long fuse - destruction shell, very short fuse - shrapnel. It can be selected for target.

Yes ir fires a bit slower but the higher velocity and shorter time of flight make defection shooting just a bit easier. details ;)

There is no doubts. ;)

Hmmm, Spitfire 2560 grams per second (not counting the four .303s) 109 fires 3404 grams per second (not counting two synchronized 7.9). Not quite the 37 to 20 ratio in fire power you imply. a 32% increase instead of 85%, not counting machineguns. details.

Guns installed in wing are inaccurate but guns installed in pods under wing are???

Yes, weight of fire is one measure to count firepower. But planes do not crash because they got too heavy from bullets they are hit with. For example, 37 20mm rounds of Mauser carry 666 gram (definiete proof of Satan and details! :D ) explosive, 20 Hispano rounds - 50 gram explosives, plus 50 gram fire starting material.

Reality of course different because belt arrangements different - Hispano 50% HEI, Mauser 60% HE-MG. But simplify example - it will do.

While the fighters listed are 1942-43 fighters the Spitfire Vb is a 1941 era plane, about 1 year behind the G-2. What boost are the figures for the Vb using and is the 109G-2 using GM-1?.

Figures are for service rating of G-2 in 1942 most of 1943. There is no GM-1. GM-1 can be recognize by saw characteristics of line, above nominal altitude, always. Performance GM-1 - higher at altitude. With his G-1/R2, pilot R. Klein achieved 660 km/h (420 mph) at 12,000 m (39,370 ft), and a ceiling of 13,800 m (45,275 ft). Wiki source.

I do not know Spitfire rating - they look at +9 boost.

You are right about unfair - Spitfire was 1941, 109G 1942. But, this subject is on realities - Eastern front had these planes in 1943, unfair or not. Mark V was LL suuply 1943.. Pilots flew this planes, and this is subject of thread. War is not about fair. ;)

I can see Jakovlev's wisdom. He only had about 1260hp to work with at best and then at lower altitudes than many western engines.

If you read Jakovlev book - he was by start against using bigger engines. Probably also of neccessity, but this was his idea from early designs, too. He strong criticized even fascist designs like Bf or Fw, describing - more powerful, heavier engines, plane heavier, so descrease in manouver, so neeed for even bigger engine. One can think that Jakovlev was even more extreme in weight saving than Messerschmitt - and he was already very extreme.

I understand you point about however of larger airframe - more adaptability, more room etc. However I think Jakovlev and Messerschmitt designs also show that this is not only route, and small very high effiency airframe can do the same. As big airframe is not only ability to carry more engine, more fuel, but also neccessity for same performance. I think extreme opposites of side shown on Soviet graph I post - 109 and 47 - and their performance are great examples. Really you have similiar performance on these, range, speed at altitude, while 109 more manouverable, best climber - 47 has some other advantages, but weights 2x.
 
Hello Tante Ju
one might argue that Spit LF V was not a bad choice for eastern front, like later Yaks optimised to low level, in fact faster than 109G-1 with Kampf and Steig power up to 8000ft and probably climbed better at low level but definitely run out of steam over 3000m. In fact LF Vs didn't do so badly when introduced to combat over Southern part of the Eastern Front but didn't suit well to rough front airfields, needed rare 100oct fuel to be combatable and were shot at by both sides, so Soviets decided to allocate 100oct fuel to Airacobra units and gave Spits to PVO which at least operated from permanent airbases even if LF V was not optimal for rear area interceptions.

If we compare P-47D-10 and 109G-1 using US and German respectively tests, P-47D-10 was faster at all altitudes than G-1 at 1.3 ata (Kampf and Steig) but with 1.42 ata (Start und Not) practically equally fast up to 9000ft /3000m after that D-10 was slightly faster up to 21000ft/6700m after which the advantage of D-10 progressively increased. G-1 climbed better at least before "paddle propeller" for D, turned better but at least at high speed D-10 rolled better and had better initial acceleration in dive.

Juha
 
Last edited:
Hi Juha!

I believe normal Mark V was supplied to Eastern Front. Certain it was tested by VVS (see chart I post). Main concern as you say - not suited for front airfields. Yakovlevs were preferred - wide track gear. Also Yakovlev 9 is very similiar to Spitfire V in performance. P-47D-10 and 109G-2 - my chart shows equal performance, actually "Gustav" a bit better up to 8000 meters. At very near ground, P-47 is little faster, but. You are right about roll. Soviet understanding was consider P-47 like light bomber charachteristic - certainly as heavy as Soviet light bomber, and not very manouverable! Turn - 27-28 seconds. Compare Javovlev or Spitfire - 16-18 seconds, 109F/G, 20 seconds..
 
Hi Juha!

I believe normal Mark V was supplied to Eastern Front. Certain it was tested by VVS (see chart I post). Main concern as you say - not suited for front airfields. Yakovlevs were preferred - wide track gear. Also Yakovlev 9 is very similiar to Spitfire V in performance...

Hello
You are right I mixed up with Mk IXs, vast majority of those tranferred to VVS were LF IXs but Mk Vs were Vbs, so Vb had almost same speed than G-1 at 1.3ata from 4000ft to 12500ft but was slower lower down and progressively more and more slower higher up, very clery so from 17000ft up, especially those with Merlin 45 engine, 46 was better at higher altitudes.

P-47D-10 and 109G-2 - my chart shows equal performance, actually "Gustav" a bit better up to 8000 meters. At very near ground, P-47 is little faster, but. You are right about roll. Soviet understanding was consider P-47 like light bomber charachteristic - certainly as heavy as Soviet light bomber, and not very manouverable! Turn - 27-28 seconds. Compare Javovlev or Spitfire - 16-18 seconds, 109F/G, 20 seconds..

As I wrote I used USAAF test info for D-10, maybe soviets didn't use water injection or for some other reason their figures were slightly lower than those of USAAF's Material Command.

Juha
 
at high speed D-10 rolled better and had better initial acceleration in dive.

Juha

and not very manouverable! Turn - 27-28 seconds. Compare Javovlev or Spitfire - 16-18 seconds, 109F/G, 20 seconds..

Hello
maybe soviets didn't use water injection or for some other reason their figures were slightly lower than those of USAAF's Material Command.

Juha

Considering the numerous accounts of pilots using the roll and dive characteristics of the "not very manouvrable" P-47 to evade and attack small, light, fast climbing, fast diving, fast flying, maneuverable, fighters of the type the Bf109, super Yaks, and ultra Lavochkins were; it is amazing they were so successful using those terribly heavy for power, low powered compared to German and Russian super cannon, .50 caliber M2s. Successful as in a bunch of rookies going up against the best of the Luftwaffe over western europe in 1943 and kicking ass and taking names to form a line for an ass kicking. Not successful as in a bunch of very superiorly trained and experienced jadgfliegers going up against poorly trained, inconsistently equipped, and too short lived to gain experience Russian rookies in 1941-42.

Some how I don't think anyone in Russia or Germany for that matter ever understood how to fly a P-47, which says a lot about their lack of knowledge as fighter pilots. Being shot down by a P-47 lead sled must have been a shocking and confusing experience for jagdfliegers.

You ME-109 guys are almost as bad as he P-51 guys.:lol:
 
Hi Guys, Niece thread,

I voted for the P-39. According to Nikolay Golodnikov, the VVS pilots respected the Fw-190 but not as much as the Bf.109. They considered the 190's weakest point to be its acceleration. They considered the 190 to be most dangerous from the frontal attack where its heavy armament was involved. The 109 was respected more overall because of its ability to fight well in the vertical plane as well as the horizontal. The P-39N/Q models were better performers in both planes compared to the Fw-190A. The VVS pilots considered their Yak-19s, La-5FN, La-7 and P-39N/Qs more dynamic in their performance than the Fw-190.
The P-39N capabilities according to USAAF tests and Ray Wagner were: Engine: V-1710-85/1,420hp. Speed: 338mph/S.L. 399mph/9,700ft. Climb: 4,175fpm/S.L. 4,425fpm/8,000ft. 15,000ft/3.8min. (3947fpm avg.). at a weight of 7,396 lbs. These figures are for a USAAF equipped aircraft. VVS pilots often removed all the wing guns and various other equipment that thay deemed superfluous for their needs. This lightened the VVS P-39 about 500 lbs. This coupled with the fact that they quite often overboosted the V-1710-85 to over 57". The lightened Airacobra was faster, more maneuverable and quicker climbing than the standard US model. I haven't seen any exact VVS figures for the P-39N but I read somewhere that they were getting over 382mph out of their P-39Ds.
 
"... This coupled with the fact that they quite often overboosted the V-1710-85 to over 57""

..... and a steady supply of Allisons thanks to the US .... 40 hours max per engine ... I don't know whether thats good or bad for AC engines ...but I'm guessing the Soviets used 'boost' as if it was over-drive :).

MM
 
40 hours is absolutely terrible for a Western aircraft engine. In the CBI theater in 1944 they were getting up to 300hrs on Allisons in P-38s.

Short life can be caused by sand or dirt ingestion. Low quality oil and/or gas. While over-boosting can lead to a number of different failures the more important ones to the pilot are the ones that lead to detonation which can lead to things like rods through the side of the block. not good even if you are within gliding distance of your airfield :)

The Soviets sometimes had different ideas on what was squadron maintenance and what was higher echelon maintenance. Things that might be repaired at the squadron or group level in US or British service without an overhaul might be handled by an engine swap and a rebuild at a central facility in Russian service. This was true with jets, I don't know if it was true during WW II.
While not every American was a born mechanic (just like not every American in a born shooter) the Americans had a much larger percentage of their troops at least familiar with motor vehicles and engines than any other army.
 
The Soviets certainly did well with the P-39, and the later P-63. It first rose to prominence over the Kuban, an all air camapign just after Stalingrad. It was the first time really that the VVS claims to have been able to conduct operations more opr less on an equal footing with the LW. It was a camapign where the whos who of Soviet Aces first began to shine. And they nearly all flew the P-39 as their first mount.

Ive never particularly liked the P-39....much prefer the P-40, but credit needs to be acknowledged for the Soviet use of this fighter. I think they managed to get the very best out of it, and generally liked it a lot.
 
".... I think they managed to get the very best out of it, and generally liked it a lot."

Everybody: Canadians, Brits, Russians, Americans (obviously :)) were/are impressed at how well-built American aircraft were [B-25's, Bostons, P-47's, 50's and 47's, Canso's, Lib's etc.).

The P-39 with the Bell support system (USAAF Lend Lease, etc. ) behind the effort was better than Hawker, Curtis or Supermarine could imagine, and forget Yak, Lag and Mig :). Roll 'em out. Quota-style. :). We'll change em when we decide to change 'em. :)

I agree, Parsifal :).

MM
 
"... 40 hours is absolutely terrible for a Western aircraft engine. " The Soviets claimed that they were promised 50 hours, :). Let's face it, you're based 25 miles from the front. vectored by USA-supplied field radar and good old USA radios. The action is under 11,000 feet. You don't 'cruise' into the fight. You scream in and tangle close. The Soviets would go into boost - and stay there. 40 hours - 50 hours ...? What were Merlins giving in the BoB September, 1940 ...? :)

MM
 
For those who voted the split is close....for German types 8 votes, for Soviet/LL 8 votes

The poll graph is not an accurate reflection of opinion. In post #4 I admitted to impulsively voting the day before for the Fw190 and with further thought and research agreed the La-5FN was the superior pure fighter. That puts the Soviet types ahead in the actual opinions provided.
 
Nikolay Golodnikov readily admits that they overboosted their P-39s. He said it was standard procedure to replace the early Allisons every 50 hrs. He continued by adding that the later Allisons would last 100 hrs.
 
The poll graph is not an accurate reflection of opinion. In post #4 I admitted to impulsively voting the day before for the Fw190 and with further thought and research agreed the La-5FN was the superior pure fighter. That puts the Soviet types ahead in the actual opinions provided.

Naw I just voted for the 190 to even it up...:lol:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back