- Thread starter
- #321
cheddar cheese
Major General
Hmmmmmm.Russian Fighters? There hasnt been an awful lot of discussion on Russian Fighters.
Best Fighter
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I unfortunatly dont know much about them. I have speant most of my time reading and learning about German, American and British. They are the ones that fascinate me the most.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i like the looks of the I-16.............
- Thread starter
- #324
cheddar cheese
Major General
And me. Did the Sukhoi Su-5 see service in WW2? If so, did it have much success?
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I love Russian fighters.... Shows u how an piece of inferior crap can combat the superior German Luftwaffe....
- Thread starter
- #326
cheddar cheese
Major General
Yup...I think that was mainly down to the Russian pilots though, cos they made the P-39 Airacobra seem incredible...
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Some of them did.. Most of them ended up as black smears on the Russian steppes.....
- Thread starter
- #328
cheddar cheese
Major General
Did the Russians ever use the P-39 developments; such as the P-63 Kingcobra?
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Not that Im aware of.....
- Thread starter
- #330
cheddar cheese
Major General
Why did Bell think having a mid-mounted engine would have advantages? Im surprised they even got off the ground...
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Well if u think about it, it does have some advantages, one of which is engine damage from groundfire....
As far as getting it off the ground, its all a question of center of gravity....
As far as getting it off the ground, its all a question of center of gravity....
- Thread starter
- #332
cheddar cheese
Major General
The worst thing was that it had tricycle undercarraige...which isnt terribly good with a mid mounted engine 
On Pacific fighters flying the P-39 is a nightmare, i could get more kills flying a Komet
On Pacific fighters flying the P-39 is a nightmare, i could get more kills flying a Komet
Nonskimmer
Captain
cheddar cheese said:
I think they used the P-63 very briefly in the far east against the Japanese, in the closing days of the war.
- Thread starter
- #334
cheddar cheese
Major General
Ok, thanks 8)
The soviets made very good planes during the war.
The La-5F and the final La-7 (La stands for "Lavochkin") could more than deal with any plane of the war at low altitude, you name them: Spitfire, P-51, P-38, P-47, Bf109 G´s K´s and the Fw-190. The same can be affirmed about the latest Yak series.
The La-7 carried poweful cannon armament (a few hundreds were fitted with 3-20mm ShVak cannons); the ugly part of the tale was that as altitude went up, the performance of most soviet fighters dropped dramatically. Yet, most of the aircombat in the eatern front took place at medium/low altitude.
However, as a whole the VVS had a vey mediocre performance throughout the "great patriotic war". It made the job with what they had available and with the style of putting their hardware into action.
The ugliest part of the tale :losing 11,000 planes (+/-) to all causes, in 1945 only (Jan 1st-May8th, 1945) tells a lot of things about the performance of the VVS. (hastily trained/under trained pilots and a small but efficient Luftwaffe interceptor force). Such number was provided to me by a russian colonel of the air force in Moscow.
I do think the answer of what the best fighter of WWII was has no answer.
Each plane could do things the model opposite the lines could not do...and viceversa.
The La-5F and the final La-7 (La stands for "Lavochkin") could more than deal with any plane of the war at low altitude, you name them: Spitfire, P-51, P-38, P-47, Bf109 G´s K´s and the Fw-190. The same can be affirmed about the latest Yak series.
The La-7 carried poweful cannon armament (a few hundreds were fitted with 3-20mm ShVak cannons); the ugly part of the tale was that as altitude went up, the performance of most soviet fighters dropped dramatically. Yet, most of the aircombat in the eatern front took place at medium/low altitude.
However, as a whole the VVS had a vey mediocre performance throughout the "great patriotic war". It made the job with what they had available and with the style of putting their hardware into action.
The ugliest part of the tale :losing 11,000 planes (+/-) to all causes, in 1945 only (Jan 1st-May8th, 1945) tells a lot of things about the performance of the VVS. (hastily trained/under trained pilots and a small but efficient Luftwaffe interceptor force). Such number was provided to me by a russian colonel of the air force in Moscow.
I do think the answer of what the best fighter of WWII was has no answer.
Each plane could do things the model opposite the lines could not do...and viceversa.
- Thread starter
- #336
cheddar cheese
Major General
Welcome to the site 8)
Im not sure that it was a case of the planes being being amazing (they werent bad but they could have been a lot better) but more down to the pilots. Russian pilots were able to effectively utilise even the most hopeless equipment.
Im not sure that it was a case of the planes being being amazing (they werent bad but they could have been a lot better) but more down to the pilots. Russian pilots were able to effectively utilise even the most hopeless equipment.
The Russians had a reason to fight too, they were saving there home land. I dont really think the German soldiers and pilots wanted to be there and fighting against an enemy that has a real reason to fight vastly puts you at a disadvantage.
- Thread starter
- #338
cheddar cheese
Major General
Great point! 8)
Thankyou I try! Just kidding.
Thanks for the welcome!
Well, I had to begin somewhere as a member of this forum. 8)
I am firmly convinced history of WWII, as it has been written, is full of misconceptions, preconceived ideas, biases, manipulations and lies.
Many think the soviets produced only crappy aircraft and it was not like that. Their pilots, with a few exceptions, were poorly trained and took off by the thousands to never return throughout the entire conflict, but they made excellent planes (not the IL-2 though, which happened to be precisely a piece of crap).
The P-51, for instance, provides a clear example of what I am trying to say here.
See it in dozens of webpages, books and magazines: "the P-51 wholly outclassed the Bf109". Are they serious?
The issue is depicted in such dramatic fashion, readers can really get the vision a Bf109 stood no chance, at all, against the P-51.
There is no doubt the P-51 made one of the greatest planes of WWII -and aviation history-, but to affirm it was vastly superior to anything the Germans fielded against it is misleading.
Let´s talk a bit about Erich Hartmann. That he was a pilot perhaps of a different breed, yes.
Still, skilfulness has its limits -same thing for that random thing known as "luck"-. Hartmann, an eastern front based pilot during the whole conflict, shot down 7 P-51´s over Romania, all in a Bf109G (IIRC, it was a G-10).
All the skill, courage and luck of a pilot can certainly mean nothing when complete inadequacy of his plane is part of the equation.
And that was just Hartmann. Many pilots in Bf109G´s and K´s sent P-51´s to bit the ground.
I digress: the P-51 was a great plane, but as any other plane in the conflict, it was excellent at some things and not so good at others.
Do an intense web search and if you find any site where the cons of the P-51 are detailed, then I will bow down and will give you anything.
Why?
Because, so far, I have never ever read on any cons about the P-51. It was "perfect".
However, veterans have enlightened me: it had its ugly things, which showed in the skies of Europe.
I stick to my conclusion: I could never tell which fighter was the best of WWII.
Cheers!
Well, I had to begin somewhere as a member of this forum. 8)
I am firmly convinced history of WWII, as it has been written, is full of misconceptions, preconceived ideas, biases, manipulations and lies.
Many think the soviets produced only crappy aircraft and it was not like that. Their pilots, with a few exceptions, were poorly trained and took off by the thousands to never return throughout the entire conflict, but they made excellent planes (not the IL-2 though, which happened to be precisely a piece of crap).
The P-51, for instance, provides a clear example of what I am trying to say here.
See it in dozens of webpages, books and magazines: "the P-51 wholly outclassed the Bf109". Are they serious?
The issue is depicted in such dramatic fashion, readers can really get the vision a Bf109 stood no chance, at all, against the P-51.
There is no doubt the P-51 made one of the greatest planes of WWII -and aviation history-, but to affirm it was vastly superior to anything the Germans fielded against it is misleading.
Let´s talk a bit about Erich Hartmann. That he was a pilot perhaps of a different breed, yes.
Still, skilfulness has its limits -same thing for that random thing known as "luck"-. Hartmann, an eastern front based pilot during the whole conflict, shot down 7 P-51´s over Romania, all in a Bf109G (IIRC, it was a G-10).
All the skill, courage and luck of a pilot can certainly mean nothing when complete inadequacy of his plane is part of the equation.
And that was just Hartmann. Many pilots in Bf109G´s and K´s sent P-51´s to bit the ground.
I digress: the P-51 was a great plane, but as any other plane in the conflict, it was excellent at some things and not so good at others.
Do an intense web search and if you find any site where the cons of the P-51 are detailed, then I will bow down and will give you anything.
Why?
Because, so far, I have never ever read on any cons about the P-51. It was "perfect".
However, veterans have enlightened me: it had its ugly things, which showed in the skies of Europe.
I stick to my conclusion: I could never tell which fighter was the best of WWII.
Cheers!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Locked
