michaelmaltby
Colonel
What's your point Stasoid ....
MM
MM
Brits loved the P-39!
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Hurricanes were in plentiful service with Soviet Aviation until early 1943. Hurricanes began to be phased out around mid/late 1942, as more powerful and better Soviet aircraft began to appear at the fronts. However, Hurricanes still served with Northern Fleet combat units around Karelia until early 1944, and served with training units for a little longer.
For example, the 78th IAP fought with Hurricanes between late 1941 and October 1943, after which they replaced the aircraft with P-40s. The 27th IAP still operated Hurricanes, along with other older types, into 1944.
Last edited:
What's your point Stasoid ....
MM
My point is that personal likes and dislikes dont always correlate with technical specs of an aircrafts. It sound like Hurricane's reputation on Eastern Front wasnt as good as it was on other theaters. On the other hand P-39 (see the title of this thread "Brits loved the P-39"
) first 200 lend-lease P-39s arrived to the USSR in Septenmber 1942 were British, came from England, used. Brits didnt like them so sent them to Russians.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"...Brits didnt like them so sent them to Russians..."
It was more that the Brits had no use for them -- didn't have the high altitude performance that they needed or the range. Whereas whatever the Soviets thought of the Hurricane, the machine did OK in the early deployment (around Murmansk) flow by RAF pilots who were also familiarizing the Soviet pilots on them. The Soviets didn't much like the Spitfire either (according to some sources) but that had as much to do with the fuel quality requirements of the Merlin + the narrow track landing gear as it did the Spit as a fighter. But the Soviets kept on using Spitfires into 1947-48 if I'm not mistaken and they never said "no" to receiving them.
Personally, I doubt if the Soviets would have much liked the Me-109 -) .
They LIKED the P-39 because they were the Bell Corporation's biggest customer and Bell istened to them.
MM
MM
It was more that the Brits had no use for them -- didn't have the high altitude performance that they needed or the range. Whereas whatever the Soviets thought of the Hurricane, the machine did OK in the early deployment (around Murmansk) flow by RAF pilots who were also familiarizing the Soviet pilots on them. The Soviets didn't much like the Spitfire either (according to some sources) but that had as much to do with the fuel quality requirements of the Merlin + the narrow track landing gear as it did the Spit as a fighter. But the Soviets kept on using Spitfires into 1947-48 if I'm not mistaken and they never said "no" to receiving them.
Personally, I doubt if the Soviets would have much liked the Me-109 -) .
They LIKED the P-39 because they were the Bell Corporation's biggest customer and Bell istened to them
.MM
MM
Says you. The 109 was very likely the most feared fighter over the eastern front from 1941-43, when Soviet fighters caught up. I have read more than once how the Russians admired its ability to fight in the vertical.
In my opinion, and I participated in 25 fights, best fighter of WWII was Me-109G2 - Mikhailovich Mukhmediarov, pilot of 14th GvIAP
In my opinion, and I participated in 25 fights, best fighter of WWII was Me-109G2 - Mikhailovich Mukhmediarov, pilot of 14th GvIAP
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Uhhhh, stasoid, the P47 was a pretty fair air to ground machine and had no cannon. The 50 BMG on that plane as well as others and on tanks and other AFVs was very effective against all but full grown tanks as well as light naval vessels.
The Soviet Tactical AF's (VVS) didn't think much of the Spitfire V, practically inferior to the P-39 as they saw it with both used in the same southern theater in 1943, given the main missions at hand. They found the Spitfire IX useful in air defense force (PVO) as interceptor due to its altitude capability, w/ the main potential target being high altitude recon a/c.The Soviets didn't much like the Spitfire either (according to some sources) but that had as much to do with the fuel quality requirements of the Merlin + the narrow track landing gear as it did the Spit as a fighter. But the Soviets kept on using Spitfires into 1947-48 if I'm not mistaken and they never said "no" to receiving them.
As usual a problem here is seeing the Spit and Hurricane through a special Brit-centric rose colored haze rather than their real records. The Hurricane was basically obsolete and not competitive with 109F and G as flown by typical German units of 1942, in Med just as much as Russia. We've discussed many times before the ups and downs (mainly downs) of the Hurricane v the Bf109E but it was consistently not competitive with the later 109 marks, so why would it be in Russia either? Similarly the Spit V, though certainly a higher performing plane than the Hurricane, had a mixed record in other theaters, and some of its other notable failures (eg. being dominated by Japanese fighters over Darwin i n 1943, didn't do as well as P-40's had in the same exact mission the year before against the same Japanese units) were also partly related to poor suitability to primitive conditions, a genuine drawback to a fighter if those were the conditions prevailing'. OTOH the Spit IX measured up better v its contemporaries than the V, and used in circumstances favorable to it was a very useful plane as the Soviets also found. Strip away the Hurri-Spit myth- legend and their records and reputations on East Front aren't particularly surprising or so far out of line with elsewhere.
Joe
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Brit-centric rose colored haze". I don't suffer from that and, am a longtime P-39 advocate .
Realistic post, JoeB.
MM
.Realistic post, JoeB.
MM
50 caliber on P-47 vs 7.7mm on Hurricane. P-47 was famous with its exceptionally rugged airframe + it had a radial engine vs liquid cooling on H. With over a 1000 kilos of bombs and 10 rockets P-47 can be compared to Il-2 rather Hurricane.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
The Hurricane was never the best fighter or ground attack aircraft, but I rather think you're underselling its usefulness stasoid. It did the job in late 1941 through to mid/late 1942, when it was needed.
The Soviets got a hodgepodge of Hurricane types in the Lend Lease deliveries: Mk Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, and IIc were all delivered in large numbers. 45 MK IID and 30 Mk IVs, fitted with 40 mm cannon, were also delivered in 1943/1944.
There was a mix of tropical and non-tropical fittings as well (in 2006 they dragged a Mk IIB trop out of lake near Murmansk). A lot of the early Hurricane deliveries to the Soviet Union were aircraft that had originally been earmarked for training units in Nth Africa, and were already painted in British desert camouflage. A little visible if you're fighting above the snow in St Petersburg or Pskov.
Many of the early Hurricanes supplied to the Soviet Union were older Mk Is that had been partially or wholly refitted as Mk IIs. Often the airframes and engines had been canned out in RAF service, and then given a minimal once over and put on a freighter bound for the Nth Sea. Unfortunately, this rather affected their performance.
Another aspect affecting Hurricane performance (and later Spitfire performance) was Russian fuel. I believe Russian aviation fuels had an octane rating of 94, lower than the 100 standard used in the RAF after mid 1940.
To pep up performance and improve their armament in Soviet service, Hurricanes were often refitted with Soviet weapons. Most common this took the form of 2 ShVAK cannon and two UB 12.7 mm HMGs, or four UBs. Some squadrons did this as standard and I've read that more than 1,200 were retrofitted with Soviet armament in some in some form or another.
Taking out the 12 .303s and replacing them with two cannon and two HMGs added about two thirds to the firepower of the aircraft, at the same time cutting the weight in the aircraft by close to 75kg. The only problem was a lack of ammunition. Only 100 12.7 mm/20 mm rounds would fit in the ammo bays (compared to 350 .303 rounds).
Other armament retrofits in Soviet service include two 20mm ShVAKS and two 7.62 mm ShKAS, four ShVAKS, and even four ShVAKS and two UBTs. Another common modification was to replace four .303s with two UBs, giving either 2 x 12.7 and 4 x .303 or 2 x 12.7 and 8 x .303.
Many Hurricanes in Soviet service were refitted with rocket rails (normally two in fighter units, six in sturmovik units). Bomb shackles were less common, but still used. At least 120 Hurricanes were refitted to handle 100 kg bombs and sent to light bomber units.
By mid-1942 it was decided that the Hurricane could not compete as a fighter, so the aircraft were reassigned to PVO, training and sturmovik units. Some quick googling reveals that Soviet OOBs record 495 Hurricanes in service with PVO units on 01-Jul-1943 and 711 with PVO units in June 1944
There are some odds and sods as well, like 20 Hurricanes converted to two seaters for artillery spotting, some with rear firing LMGs on a flexible mount.
So tell us, which US or USSR fighters were competitive with the Me109f/g in 1942? What was the alternative to the Hurricane as an air superiority fighter against the Luftwaffe? What US or USSR fighter was superior to the Spitfire V in 1942? Wasn't the USAAF flying the Spitfire V in 1942-43? I wonder why they were using UK built fighters?
So over Darwin the P40s were intercepting at exactly the same altitude as the Spitfires?
I really wish you would do just a bit of basic research before coming out with these kinds of completely incorrect statements.
But didn't they use Allison powered P-40 and Mustang?
Browsing german losses vs british/ soviet claims near Murmansk, i'm not sure that it was so OK. Probably no better results than in Malta against Munchenberg's JG 27, even i'm far from being persuaded about 100% reliability of german list losses.
What sources?The Soviets didn't much like the Spitfire either (according to some sources) but that had as much to do with the fuel quality requirements of the Merlin + the narrow track landing gear as it did the Spit as a fighter. But the Soviets kept on using Spitfires into 1947-48 if I'm not mistaken and they never said "no" to receiving them.
What soviets? I never heard about any disrespect from soviet side to that plane. Except maybe on very first variants in spain against I-16. At opposite even Pokrychkine that used one captured plane was very impressed by it's dynamic capabilities in it's official memories published at soviet union era.
They LIKED the P-39 because they were the Bell Corporation's biggest customer and Bell istened to them
Some good links
Interview with L.Kulakov
Spitfires over the Kuban
And the best
Conversations with N.Golodnikov
Not because it's an opinion between the others but because it's a very representative opinion for soviet trained pilots over Murmansk
Regards
Last edited:
Yak-1,7,9 M105 PF, La-5F at low alts. The last one being more than a match to the 109G under 3000 m. Why?
A Yak-1 with the Merlin XX engine: 665-670 km/h at rated alt. The 1934 th concieved Hurricane airframe was to big for it's power, just as the Fairey Battle. And if you turn the question other way? What soviet or US fighter was more competitive with the Me 109 than the Hurricane?
All of them at low alts from soviet tests. The Spit V might have been be the king of the hill over 4-5000m, but they didn' give damm' of that, with justified reasons. Some Soviet and Normandie pilots virtualy never used secund stage blower on their Yaks, except on trainings...
I don't know much about Darvin and JoeB and brit-centric roses, but his assertions about Spit's and Hurricane use in USSR are perfectly sustainted.
100% right. The soviet Spit V was not cometitive at low altitude against soviet Yak, La-5 or P-39's. The IX was very much appreciated in turn in PVO units.
Right.
Remember the LII-tests, canon armed Hurricane performed 412 km/h at SL, 496 at hight. This was less competitive than even old Polikarpov I-16 tip 18 variants, and even overhauled tip 5/10 were more appreciated by soviet pilots due to their superior manoeuvrability (the Hurricane was much slower and sluggish to control respunse and lost immediatly speed in verticals gaining less than 500m in a climbing turn for 700 to 1000 for I-16 variants, even if it was a good serial turner at horizontal plan).
Of course, there were a lot of I-152, I-153 fighters at time, and even if the I-16 tip -5 that had no equal to escape from the Me-109 gunsight, the question is what kind of planes was it able to hunting with 440 km/h speed at 2.7 km and less than 400 at 5 km, with two 7.62mm guns?
If less suited for dogfights, the Hurricane could at least catch bombers and make heavy damage, especially with 4 ShVAK canons.
Regards
Last edited:
The former in the Med because it was better than the Hurricane and Spits were reserved for "use in the UK only" at that time. The Allison powered Mustangs were used for tactical recon IIRC.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
For your own part
you might want to learn some basic courtesy before coming out with these kind of completely unnecessary statements
Glider
Captain
I don't think that anyone would pretend that the Hurriacne was an equal match for the 109 in any version. Howeverto pretend that the Spit V wasn't a match for the 109F or russian fighters does fly in the face of the evidence. The Spit V didn't fail in the desert, Europe or in the Far East.
Certainly it had a problem with the Zero's over Darwin which I would agree was a failure but even here the Spit V put a stop to the recce missions the Japanese had been undertaking at will. In Europe the Spit V was outclassed by the Fw 190 without a doubt, but not the 109F. I have never read of any concern of any RAF pilot going up against the 109 even the G which did have an advantage the difference wasn't significant.
This brings us back to the comparrison with the Russian Fighters. To compare the Spit V against the Lag 5 is a little unfair as the Lag 5 was brand new and entered service in the later part of 1942 as did the Spit IX. So if you want to compare the Lg 5 against a Spit choose the Spit IX.
The following are some quotes from Spitfires Over Kuban which I suggest everyone reads.
Captain Sapozhnikov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, flew the Spitfire, and Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin, commander of 1st Squadron, 16th GIAP, flew the Airacobra. A factory test pilot flew the LaGG. Here is how Pokryshkin describes this aerial combat in his memoirs:
The conditions for the battle were complicated: our "enemies" were to fly toward Sapozhnikov and me on unknown azimuths. Thus, even before the start of the fight in high-speed turns, they had favorable positions. But the bosses had decided, and we did not argue with them. We had to find a way out in the course of the fight.
The leadership arrived. I flew in the first pair. I gained the established altitude and by rocking my wings gave the command to initiate the fight in horizontal maneuvers. I energetically put my aircraft into a turning climb and, allowing the LaGG to approach to a dangerous distance, executed a sudden roll with decrease in altitude. The LaGG-3 passed by above me and I immediately set up on his tail and got him in my sight. No matter what way the LaGG turned, I kept him in my sight. Several minutes went by and the result was obvious.
Then we examined how the LaGG would handle itself in vertical maneuvers. I threw my aircraft into a steep dive and, having gained velocity, departed into a zoom. At the apex I placed my airplane on its wing. The LaGG was making a combat turn below me. It was relatively easy for me to catch him in the tail and fix him in my sight, parrying all attempts of this 'enemy' to avoid my attack.
Sapozhnikov also won his fight in turning and climbing, but fought to a draw in vertical maneuvers. After coming out of a dive, the LaGG-3 stayed close to me in a high-speed pass over the airfield, but the Spitfire, which had weaker diving capabilities, fell significantly behind us.
In other words the P39 and the SPit could take on in a dogfight, the Lagg 3 which was just entering service. Had this been at Altitude I have no doubt that the Spit V would have bested both the P39 and the Lagg 3.
Here it should be noted that an encounter with the British aircraft was unexpected not only for the pilots of the neighboring regiment but also for the Luftwaffe pilots. They were quite familiar with this aircraft type, but none of them had expected to see it on the Eastern front. Here is how Gunther Rall recalls this episode.
I wrote a summary of the battle, in which I noted the appearance of the Spitfires on the Eastern front. My group commander asked me for the time being not to discuss what had happened. 'Perhaps you were mistaken, Rall? All this will only alarm your comrades.' I responded that it was more likely that tomorrow we would encounter a large number of Spitfires in our sector of the front.
Here the Germans are certainly concerned that they are going to be facing Spitfires
Certainly it had a problem with the Zero's over Darwin which I would agree was a failure but even here the Spit V put a stop to the recce missions the Japanese had been undertaking at will. In Europe the Spit V was outclassed by the Fw 190 without a doubt, but not the 109F. I have never read of any concern of any RAF pilot going up against the 109 even the G which did have an advantage the difference wasn't significant.
This brings us back to the comparrison with the Russian Fighters. To compare the Spit V against the Lag 5 is a little unfair as the Lag 5 was brand new and entered service in the later part of 1942 as did the Spit IX. So if you want to compare the Lg 5 against a Spit choose the Spit IX.
The following are some quotes from Spitfires Over Kuban which I suggest everyone reads.
Captain Sapozhnikov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, flew the Spitfire, and Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin, commander of 1st Squadron, 16th GIAP, flew the Airacobra. A factory test pilot flew the LaGG. Here is how Pokryshkin describes this aerial combat in his memoirs:
The conditions for the battle were complicated: our "enemies" were to fly toward Sapozhnikov and me on unknown azimuths. Thus, even before the start of the fight in high-speed turns, they had favorable positions. But the bosses had decided, and we did not argue with them. We had to find a way out in the course of the fight.
The leadership arrived. I flew in the first pair. I gained the established altitude and by rocking my wings gave the command to initiate the fight in horizontal maneuvers. I energetically put my aircraft into a turning climb and, allowing the LaGG to approach to a dangerous distance, executed a sudden roll with decrease in altitude. The LaGG-3 passed by above me and I immediately set up on his tail and got him in my sight. No matter what way the LaGG turned, I kept him in my sight. Several minutes went by and the result was obvious.
Then we examined how the LaGG would handle itself in vertical maneuvers. I threw my aircraft into a steep dive and, having gained velocity, departed into a zoom. At the apex I placed my airplane on its wing. The LaGG was making a combat turn below me. It was relatively easy for me to catch him in the tail and fix him in my sight, parrying all attempts of this 'enemy' to avoid my attack.
Sapozhnikov also won his fight in turning and climbing, but fought to a draw in vertical maneuvers. After coming out of a dive, the LaGG-3 stayed close to me in a high-speed pass over the airfield, but the Spitfire, which had weaker diving capabilities, fell significantly behind us.
In other words the P39 and the SPit could take on in a dogfight, the Lagg 3 which was just entering service. Had this been at Altitude I have no doubt that the Spit V would have bested both the P39 and the Lagg 3.
Here it should be noted that an encounter with the British aircraft was unexpected not only for the pilots of the neighboring regiment but also for the Luftwaffe pilots. They were quite familiar with this aircraft type, but none of them had expected to see it on the Eastern front. Here is how Gunther Rall recalls this episode.
I wrote a summary of the battle, in which I noted the appearance of the Spitfires on the Eastern front. My group commander asked me for the time being not to discuss what had happened. 'Perhaps you were mistaken, Rall? All this will only alarm your comrades.' I responded that it was more likely that tomorrow we would encounter a large number of Spitfires in our sector of the front.
Here the Germans are certainly concerned that they are going to be facing Spitfires
Admitedly, the Germans were always concerned about facing Spitfires, such was the reputation of the plane. Kind of similar to Allied tank driver concerns that they might face Pz-VI's behind every bush. There was more than one situation, documented in books like Shores' coverage of the Med battlefields of "Spitfire snobbery" whereby German pilots downed by Hurricanes would insist that it must have been a Spit that brought them down. It was also interesting to note the German pilot reaction after the Spitfire began regularily deploying to the airfields of Malta. While extremely nervous at first, after a few combats the Germans settled down, realizing that, while more formidable a machine, the Spit could also be shot down just like any other plane. Psychology of the battlefield.
While i do agree that the Hurricane was outclassed by the mature varients of the Bf-109, one can never seperate the tactical/operational setup and the quality of the pilot training and pipeline from the equation. Under better situations, the Hurricane could be competetive. It even "won" one of it's Theater based matchups with the dreaded Messer from a stat point of view for what it's worth.
With P-39's and Russia, always the focus tends to be on the environment whilst the reorganization and evolution of soviet tactics are either discounted or ignored.
While i do agree that the Hurricane was outclassed by the mature varients of the Bf-109, one can never seperate the tactical/operational setup and the quality of the pilot training and pipeline from the equation. Under better situations, the Hurricane could be competetive. It even "won" one of it's Theater based matchups with the dreaded Messer from a stat point of view for what it's worth.
With P-39's and Russia, always the focus tends to be on the environment whilst the reorganization and evolution of soviet tactics are either discounted or ignored.
None, really, Yak-1B and early La-5 were close though.
They used any fighters they could get. The Russians were flying any planes they had, even fixed landing gear biplane I-15's.
Yes. At the time the USAAF also used any fighter planes they could get, and Spit V was not the worst choice.
You should do the the same.
Last edited:
3. last one first, you haven't specified any particular statement I made that was incorrect, or shown any contrary research. Obviously you don't like my post, but you have to do more than just say generally 'it's incorrect' for your rejoinder to have any credibility.
1. As I stated, the Soviets thought that the US Lend Lease fighters, as well as the newer of their own types, were superior in the circumstances to the Hurricane. And, we can see from contemporary combat results in other theaters that the Hurricane was less a match for 109F/G by 1942 than other Allied fighters including P-40 types; Brit/CW generally agreed this. So the Soviet opinion is not very surprising.
2. The same Japanese units performing the same missions from the same bases against the same targets. The implication of your question is counter logical. The Spitfire V all else equal had superior altitude performance to the P-40E. If flying at high altitude was a solution, then the Japanese would have been quite stupid to employ high altitude as a way or counter Spitfires but not have thought of it as a way to counter P-40's. The more complicated answer is that Spitfires (as again somewhat parallel with Russian situation) were useful intercepting high altitude Japanese recon planes, Type 100 Hq Recon Planes, aka 'Dinah'. However in combats with bombers escorted by Zeroes the Spitfire didn't do any better v the bombers and considerably worse v the Zeroes than the P-40's had in the previous year's campaign in a virtually identical situation. One explanation often offered for this is the Spitfire's poor ability to hold onto its theoretical performance in primitive conditions (and separate from its combat results, the Spitfires suffered an alarmingly high wastage rate in accidents and mechanical failures operating in northern Australia conditions). But this is the whole point of comparing the two situations to begin with: a major reason the Soviet Tactical AF's found the Spitfire V practically inferior to the P-39 in 1943 on their southern front was one of the reasons the Spitfire V arguably proved practically inferior to the P-40 defending Australia, lack of tolerance for primitive conditions. So again the Soviet experience and opinion shouldn't be that shocking.
Joe
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
