Shortround6
Major General
To go along with the Myths.
While reading "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" I ran across two passages that show conflict in reports about aircraft.
1. page 72.. "While the pilots of the 487th Fighter Air Regiment gave the Mig-3 a very low assessment owing to it's poor maneuverability, those of the 519th Fighter Air Regiment put it in first place, considering the Yak-1 too fragile, the Lavochin LaGG-3 too heavy and the I-16 too slow."
Aside from pilots disagreeing I will leave this one alone.
2. Page 109...
"When the Soviet Air Force operations during the advance on the North Caucasian Front in March-April 1943 was analysed, the I-16s survivability in attack missions was twice as high as that of the armoured IL-2, and in air combats the losses per sortie were 1 1/2 times less than those of modern Yak-1s, LaGG-3s, fighters obtained under the Anglo-American Lend-Lease armament and equipment supply agreement. The I-16s high maneuverability and survivability, and it's pilots great experience on the type, were the reasons behind the low loss rate."
Now this report I find interesting in the fact that it makes no reference to damage inflicted on the enemy. If the I-16s only cause 1/3 as much damage to the enemy per 100 sorties which is the more effective? There is also no reference or data on the relative numbers involved. A few dozen I-16s vs hundreds of Yaks and Laggs or the other way around?
While reading "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" I ran across two passages that show conflict in reports about aircraft.
1. page 72.. "While the pilots of the 487th Fighter Air Regiment gave the Mig-3 a very low assessment owing to it's poor maneuverability, those of the 519th Fighter Air Regiment put it in first place, considering the Yak-1 too fragile, the Lavochin LaGG-3 too heavy and the I-16 too slow."
Aside from pilots disagreeing I will leave this one alone.
2. Page 109...
"When the Soviet Air Force operations during the advance on the North Caucasian Front in March-April 1943 was analysed, the I-16s survivability in attack missions was twice as high as that of the armoured IL-2, and in air combats the losses per sortie were 1 1/2 times less than those of modern Yak-1s, LaGG-3s, fighters obtained under the Anglo-American Lend-Lease armament and equipment supply agreement. The I-16s high maneuverability and survivability, and it's pilots great experience on the type, were the reasons behind the low loss rate."
Now this report I find interesting in the fact that it makes no reference to damage inflicted on the enemy. If the I-16s only cause 1/3 as much damage to the enemy per 100 sorties which is the more effective? There is also no reference or data on the relative numbers involved. A few dozen I-16s vs hundreds of Yaks and Laggs or the other way around?
