Best German fighter for the Eastern Front

[riacrato]

Just adding this
VL Pyorremyrsky

Kris

From what little information there is available that aircraft (with only two hmgs) seems to be about as fast as a Bf 109 G-6 with the MG151 gondolas... doesn't seem like a good trade.

Always surprised me since it looks rather clean. Then again, it has about 15% more wing area...

 

[riacrato]

I think one has to be careful with the Fw190 on the Eastern Front. Many of those Fw190s were the 'F' model with SG units and these definitely would be under performers, tho there were several aces in the Fw190F.

There's an interview with a Russian pilot who said that after dropping their bombs the fighter-bomber FW 190s were just as dangerous as any FW 190. I don't quite remember all of it but the interviewer seems to have been referring to the FW 190F but to me it was unclear if the interviewee was aware of that or if he thought of FW 190As with bomb racks. In any case it will be hard to impossible for any attacker to discern between the two, a definitive advantage for the FW 190F. And at low level, the performance difference is not that great.

 

[Jenisch]

There's also the problem of the F's being flown by pilots from previous strike planes, and hence they had less skill than the fighter pilots.

 

[Civettone]

From what little information there is available that aircraft (with only two hmgs) seems to be about as fast as a Bf 109 G-6 with the MG151 gondolas... doesn't seem like a good trade.

Always surprised me since it looks rather clean. Then again, it has about 15% more wing area...

The wood also made it heavier. It would have gotten the same armament as the Bf 109G, so also with the MG 151. The MG 151 wing gondolas did not detract much from top speed, around 12 kmh IIRC. But handling must have been better, as well as climb and turn rate. Plus, it had a wide landing gear, which made it safer for TO/L.

Kris

 

[davebender]

problem of the F's being flown by pilots from previous strike planes, and hence they had less skill than the fighter pilots.

You don't encounter Fw-190Fs @ 25,000 feet. They will normally be below 4,000 meters. Low altitude experience in Hs.129s or Ju-87s should be a plus. Certainly more pertinent to Fw-190F pilot survival then previous experience flying Me-109G at high altitude.

 

[Civettone]

Would you guys say the Fw 190A was superior to the La-5FN? They seem very similar to me.


Kris

 

[DonL]

That is very difficult to say.

After testflights of german test pilots with the La-5FN, they had much respect for the La-5FN, but there were some things they critized. (partly heavily)

1. The La-5FN was very difficult to fly from the usability (engine management etc.), some german pilots stated, they must use or press so much buttons, that it was very difficult to concentrate to fly, especially at combat, here they gave the FW 190 A a huge advantage.
2. Also the FW 190 had an advantage at altitide above 4000m and was faster in a dive.
3. The La-5FN could better turn (FW 190 better role) was faster at very low altitudes (0-4000m) and could climb faster.

In summary the german testpilots stated it was equal to the FW 190A, but the FW 190A had advantages at high altitudes, diving and general a/c handling.

 

[Civettone]

Then it seems clear to me that, given the low altitude fights on the Eastern Front, the advantage lies with the Lavochkin ...


Kris

 

[Jenisch]

The plane tested by the Germans was worn out. The La-5FN was superior to Antons (perhaps with exception of the A-9). If the La had enough speed and altitude, it could force the 190 to vertical maneuvers, where it would lose.

 

[DonL]

The plane tested by the Germans was worn out. The La-5FN was superior to Antons (perhaps with exception of the A-9). If the La had enough speed and altitude, it could force the 190 to vertical maneuvers, where it would lose.

Source for this claim?
My sources says nothing for worn out. In summary they were equal, there is no special report by the whole LW at the east (other to special reports at the west to P51, P47, Spitfire), that the JG's had special problems to deal with the La-5FN. There were no big losses of FW 190A to the La-5FN till the end of the war.

 

[davebender]

WWII Soviet equipment had serious quality control problems. For example T-34/76 had a life of about 100 hours before the engine croaked.

With service life that short one could argue it arrived worn out from the factory.

 

[tyrodtom]

And yet they pulled a T34 out of a swamp in latvia a few years ago. It had been sumerged almost 70 years at the bottom since the Germans shoved it there at the end of the war. It was captured, used, and thrown away.
But they washed it off, changed fluids, and it ran. loose clearances on some internal engine parts may not make for the best efficiency, but it's not all bad.
Like the AK-47, tolerances sometimes so loose you can pick up some, shake it hard, and hear parts rattling, but it's hard to jamb.

 

[parsifal]

I doubt that is true. Sure, there were QA issues in Soviet armament, but saying the average service life of T-34/76 engines was "about 100 hours" across the board is not supported by the observable facts. It might be more accurate to say "some (ie a few) examples of T-34s, under certain conditions, or from certain sources were of indifferent quality".

T-34s, properly serviced put together and run correctly were extremely reliable. Tanks built at the end of the war were still operatiing 35 years later.

Compared to german equipment, T-34w were very reliable. How many Panthers at Kursk remained operational for more than a few days, breaking down rather than being knocked out. Out of the 200 or so committed, less than 40 made it from the rail head to the battle area. Does that mean we should say the panther was a low quality tank, or suffred relaibility issues.....of course not....just that initial batch had problems....

During the opening phases of Barbarossa, after only about 1500 miles per tank, what were the avergae servicibility rates of German tanks operating in the eastern Front conditions? Does that make German tanks unsuitable across the board to the East Front conditions....no there were spares issues in that firstr camapaign and engines were not protected from the extreme conditions (cold, dust and power demands mostly)....but I would not say the german tanks were unrelaible or unsuited. They just needed to be adapted a little to suit the conditions. Same deal with the T-34.

There were reasons for these equipment failures on the eastern front. And whilst Soviet QA was somewhat lacking, ther was nothing wrong with the design, and the QA issue was a minor factor in the short life spans of engines. Its just another examp0le of a beat up in this place to try and pedal an agenda I suggest

 

[altsym]

70 years underwater, changed the fluids and it ran. I call extreme BS on that one. The engine would be locked tighter then a Nuns a-hole.

 

[tyrodtom]

70 years underwater, changed the fluids and it ran. I call extreme BS on that one. The engine would be locked tighter then a Nuns a-hole.

I guess I let my memory run away from me on that one.
But if you'll just google T34 in swamp, you'll be surprized.
Rust is a chemical reaction, Latvia, submerged in a swamp, covered with thick muck, cut off from oxygen, and low temperatures, rust sleeps.

 

[Juha]

I guess I let my memory run away from me on that one.
But if you'll just google T34 in swamp, you'll be surprized.
Rust is a chemical reaction, Latvia, submerged in a swamp, covered with thick muck, cut off from oxygen, and low temperatures, rust sleeps.

Yes, that's true
a photo on a Valentine just pulled out from riverbed in Poland after some 67 years there

A Link to an article http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war...world-war-ii-found-in-polish-warta-river.html

 

[Civettone]

I doubt that is true. Sure, there were QA issues in Soviet armament, but saying the average service life of T-34/76 engines was "about 100 hours" across the board is not supported by the observable facts. It might be more accurate to say "some (ie a few) examples of T-34s, under certain conditions, or from certain sources were of indifferent quality".

T-34s, properly serviced put together and run correctly were extremely reliable. Tanks built at the end of the war were still operatiing 35 years later.

this is simply not true. Soviet tanks suffered from horrible reliability. I cannot even begin to count how many accounts I have read of Russian (and German) tankers. What is more, there are a lot of Soviet technical reports, from factories and test centres, which show that the quality of these machines was the bare minimum as they were not expected to have a long lifespan. You can check some of these reports out on the 'russian battlefield' website. Also, you will find accounts of Soviet tankers praising those British and American tanks for their superior quality (in operation).

You say that these Soviet tanks were still being used 35 years after the war. This is also not true. Most of the tanks which have survived for so long were either build after the war or brough up to the new standard. But during the war Soviet tanks and aircraft had serious quality deficiencies which were overlooked due to their expected low life expectancy. And that proved to be the correct way.

Pulling a tank out of a riverbed and making it work is impressive but is no evidence that these were extremely reliable vehicles. Rugged, yes
Kris

 

[tyrodtom]

I think the Russian view on it during the war was if the tank was likly only going to survive battle 1 month ( that's just a WAG) why spend all the extra production time on it to make the mechanicals outlast the hull.

 

[Juha]

Finns used their war-booty T-34s till 1961 and IIRC when US military examined the T-34 sent to them during WWII their noticed that while the exterior was rough critical components had numerous inspection stampson them and were in good quality. Very early T-34s were mechanically very unreliable, especially clutch and gearbox were failure-prone but very soon reliability improved. KVs were clearly more problematic than T-34s. Of a/c engines IIRC Klimovs M-105 family was fairly reliable in Finnish service but M-63s were were disappointing, lacked reliability and seldon produced procure power.

Addum: Finns also used war-booty T-26s till 1959-60 but thought that it was less reliable than Vickers 6ton tank, which Finns also had and of which T-26 was a licence production version. Especially the British engine was more reliable than the Soviet one.

 

[altsym]

@ Juha; I read the link, seen nothing about just 'changing the fluids and it ran'. Oxygen deprived or not, I know enough that theres no way the cam/rod/crank bearings survived that environment, and two dissimilar metals, like the valves valve seats, more then likely fused together, as would the piston to the cast iron cyl. wall.

Neat find though.