F4U-4 vs YaK-9U

F4U-4 vs. YaK-9U


  • Total voters
    89

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

Hi Catch22,

Clay Allison: Take a look at how many 10 plus kill aces the USA and the Soviets had in Korea. Also check out who was the top scorer in that conflict, and consider that the high scoring US pilots did so primarily against North Korean pilots while the Soviets racked up their scores against arguably the best trained pilots in the world.

I admire national pride, but it needs to be backed up with more tangible arguments than opinion.
But there's also 'reverse national pride' sometimes, wanting to take certain other countries down a notch and so not looking into facts carefully enough when that's what they appear to do. I'm not saying it applies to you, but it does apply IMO to cases where Soviet accounts of Korea are presented in a misleading way.

The big picture in Korea is not that most US victories were against the North Koreans. Over half the officially admitted MiG-15 air combat losses were Soviet AF (319 per one good Russian source, other sources vary slightly). Most of the rest were PLAAF (224 is their official air combat loss total). The North Koreans themselves probably only lost a few dozen MiG-15's in air combat. F-86's claimed almost 800 MiG's (other fighter types claimed few, B-29's were credited 27 but most of those can be seen to have been overclaims) v that probably ~600 actual MiG-15 air combat loses. Looking into claims in WWII the number of actual losses per 100 credits is usually lower than that, often way lower, on average definitely lower. Nothing has been 'debunked' about F-86 claims in Korea that isn't or wouldn't be, usually more so, if WWII claims were given the same scrutiny.

On the Soviet side however, Soviet claims of F-86's alone enormously exceeded F-86 air combat losses per original records on the US side, quite detailed, and with various different kinds of records that all paint about the same picture (save interesting exceptions and mysteries here and there). The Soviets claimed upwards of 650 F-86's (named by type in specific combats), the Chinese 211 and again the NK's per one Russian sources made a serious (non-propaganda) claim of 40-some F-86's. Officially 78 F-86's were lost in air combat, but checking plane by plane I'd say up to 90 or so could be classed air combat losses. It's still an astounding 10:1 overclaim ratio (not to be confused with kill ratio) among the 3 allies in combat v F-86's (it wasn't quite as bad for claims v other types). And case by case there's no evidence the Soviet claims were greatly more accurate than Chinese claims.

Assuming proportionality therefore the F-86 kill ratio v the Soviets was 4-5:1, overall 6-7:1. Those are very high numbers for a ratio between top of line fighters verified by loss accounts of both sides. Higher numbers still quoted for WWII fighters are claims, usually subject to heavier discounting than the F-86 claims, and often include non-fighters and/or clearly inferior fighters as targets.

Back on the pilot level, the scores of high claiming Soviet pilots greatly exceeded the likely actual victories they scored: it's easy to see comparing detailed accounts combat by combat from each side. The two sides' accounts almost always agree when and where combats took place and types and rough numbers of a/c involved, but the Soviet credits are pretty consistently way in excess of the actual US losses. It's a prime example of why comparisons of credited scores of pilots from different AF's in WWII are also essentially meaningless.
Here's an example analysis of the score of the highest credited Soviet pilot:
Korean War Ace Nikolai Sutyagin

Joe
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet: I stand corrected but, looking at the list you still have to go a ways down before you get to Marseille. Change my statement to read 160 kills and it still makes my point.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your point. The point I see is that pilots were shot down in droves on all fronts by all sides.
 
Hi Davparlr,

>Every time I try to evaluate this from various sources, I come against illogic.

I see what you mean - I looked at #2155 here: F4U Performance Trials and found a wrong entry in the historic data table for MIL power, a generic NORM power curve, and two contradicting MIL power curves in the same report on the same aircraft.

>Dean only reference the 13'1'' propeller on the F4U-1, which is a three bladed prop. The F4U-4 used a four blade prop. Joint fighter conference book shows a 13'4" three bladed prop on the F4U-1C and a F2G with a 14'0" four bladed prop.

Interesting, I hadn't been aware of the 14 ft propeller. Even the smaller ones yield rather high tip speeds, which is not helping propeller efficiency at all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi again,

Here some preliminary results from my analysis of the BuAer F4U-1 data sheet.

The speed data has been calibrated for the "normal" power top speed at critical altitude, and the rest has been calculated from there.

The top speed graphs seem to fit fairly well (considering that it's not a precision analysis yet), but the "neutral" gear setting of the supercharger drive shows that there is a marked difference between the rated powers listed in the manual (used for my analysis) and the powers the speed graph are based on with regard to their full throttle heights.

The same difference is visible in the climb graphs, but additionally, my climb calculation results in markedly higher climb rates than given by the BuAer data. I'm not sure what causes this ... usually my calculation because of neglecting the extra drag of open cowl flaps is slightly high, but typically less than 1 m/s, not the 2 - 3 m/s we're seeing here. Either the cowl flaps of the F4U-1 created a very generous amount of drag, or the cause of the difference is something else ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • F4U_speed_comparison.png
    F4U_speed_comparison.png
    6.7 KB · Views: 129
  • F4U_climb_comparison.png
    F4U_climb_comparison.png
    6.8 KB · Views: 92
But there's also 'reverse national pride' sometimes, wanting to take certain other countries down a notch and so not looking into facts carefully enough when that's what they appear to do. I'm not saying it applies to you, but it does apply IMO to cases where Soviet accounts of Korea are presented in a misleading way.

The big picture in Korea is not that most US victories were against the North Koreans. Over half the officially admitted MiG-15 air combat losses were Soviet AF (319 per one good Russian source, other sources vary slightly). Most of the rest were PLAAF (224 is their official air combat loss total). The North Koreans themselves probably only lost a few dozen MiG-15's in air combat. F-86's claimed almost 800 MiG's (other fighter types claimed few, B-29's were credited 27 but most of those can be seen to have been overclaims) v that probably ~600 actual MiG-15 air combat loses. Looking into claims in WWII the number of actual losses per 100 credits is usually lower than that, often way lower, on average definitely lower. Nothing has been 'debunked' about F-86 claims in Korea that isn't or wouldn't be, usually more so, if WWII claims were given the same scrutiny.

On the Soviet side however, Soviet claims of F-86's alone enormously exceeded F-86 air combat losses per original records on the US side, quite detailed, and with various different kinds of records that all paint about the same picture (save interesting exceptions and mysteries here and there). The Soviets claimed upwards of 650 F-86's (named by type in specific combats), the Chinese 211 and again the NK's per one Russian sources made a serious (non-propaganda) claim of 40-some F-86's. Officially 78 F-86's were lost in air combat, but checking plane by plane I'd say up to 90 or so could be classed air combat losses. It's still an astounding 10:1 overclaim ratio (not to be confused with kill ratio) among the 3 allies in combat v F-86's (it wasn't quite as bad for claims v other types). And case by case there's no evidence the Soviet claims were greatly more accurate than Chinese claims.

Assuming proportionality therefore the F-86 kill ratio v the Soviets was 4-5:1, overall 6-7:1. Those are very high numbers for a ratio between top of line fighters verified by loss accounts of both sides. Higher numbers still quoted for WWII fighters are claims, usually subject to heavier discounting than the F-86 claims, and often include non-fighters and/or clearly inferior fighters as targets.

Back on the pilot level, the scores of high claiming Soviet pilots greatly exceeded the likely actual victories they scored: it's easy to see comparing detailed accounts combat by combat from each side. The two sides' accounts almost always agree when and where combats took place and types and rough numbers of a/c involved, but the Soviet credits are pretty consistently way in excess of the actual US losses. It's a prime example of why comparisons of credited scores of pilots from different AF's in WWII are also essentially meaningless.
Here's an example analysis of the score of the highest credited Soviet pilot:
Korean War Ace Nikolai Sutyagin

Joe

You said it better than I could.
 
Hi Davparlr,

Interesting, I hadn't been aware of the 14 ft propeller. Even the smaller ones yield rather high tip speeds, which is not helping propeller efficiency at all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

The F2G was powered by the humongeous P&W 4360 engine of 3000 hp. Maybe the prop had a different design.:confused:
 
Look, I'm not knocking the Soviet pilots personally, I'm down on their training program. The Soviet Union always had a cavalier disregard for the lives of their troops and that went for their pilots as well. You look at kills, I look at losses. The Soviet pilots were killed in droves and you can't really argue that point. They just weren't trained up to peacetime standards the way American pilots were throughout the war.


Uhh one thing the soviets didn't have like everyone else was a disreguard for their pilots, pilots are a huge investment in time and resources, you might be confusing ww2 desperation tactics with business as usual.

Look at their kills look at their losses and dig through all the creative accounting national pride etc and you find the soviet pilots gave as good as they got.
 
Clay:
Getting back to WWII.
The Soviet pilots were killed in droves
How many exactly is that? Could you give us some numbers or sources to back up your opinions?

How do you quantify a countrys willingness to sacrifce it's pilots? We're discussing a country that lost 28 million people during that war. IF, they had a disregard for the lives of their pilots it was because they were waging 'total' war, with every resource, including human ones, committed to the max.
You can't fight a war without casualties, and to rid a country of invaders who were committing genocide on large segments of its population, they could ill afford to pamper their pilots.

As for training, there is a common myth that Soviet pilots were poorly trained. Fact is, Osoaviakhim had 120,000 trained pilots in reserve before the war started. 500 hours was not uncommon before a pilot got sent to a combat unit, and it was standard to have 100 hours minimum before being selected for a 'training unit'. Of course this vaired throughout the war. In 1941 there were some low time pilots who were sent to combat units. By 1942/43 this was no longer the case.

The Soviets actually had a special unit of 'aces' who travelled to the different fronts and instructed the various fighter regiments in fighter tactics and advanced gunnery. I don't believe anybody else had a similar system. (They were also responsible for writing the fighter tactics manuals, some of which you can find online)

I actually consider the VVS to have been quite open to the needs of their pilots. Something like 200 modifications were made to the Yak 1 at the pilots request.
 
Stalin seemed quite open to suggestions for improvement by his generals, as long as his plans were being met. It also seems that the fighter pilots of the USSR had many concessions made for them by the regime. I am not sure how long after the war they enjoyed these extra "privelages" though. The death toll of the Red AF in the early stages of Barbarossa were attrocious though.

Reading through some German accounts of air combat on the Ostfront I have came across the story of the Soviet ace unit that traveled to the trouble spots to shoot down fighters.
 
Hi Davparlr,

>The F2G was powered by the humongeous P&W 4360 engine of 3000 hp. Maybe the prop had a different design.:confused:

Oops, I had confused the FG and the F2G :) I think the R-4360 had a different reduction gearing, so it probably turned this 14' propeller slower than the R-2800 variants theirs.

(On WWII Aircraft Performance, there is an experimental F4U listed with a 13' 0" propeller and a reduction gearing of 0.4 instead of the usual 0.5. They were going for speed with this one! :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Davparlr,

>The F2G was powered by the humongeous P&W 4360 engine of 3000 hp. Maybe the prop had a different design.:confused:

Oops, I had confused the FG and the F2G :) I think the R-4360 had a different reduction gearing, so it probably turned this 14' propeller slower than the R-2800 variants theirs.

(On WWII Aircraft Performance, there is an experimental F4U listed with a 13' 0" propeller and a reduction gearing of 0.4 instead of the usual 0.5. They were going for speed with this one! :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I have a data base of aircraft that I like to keep up with the best data available. As of yet I am still quite confused on the data for the F4U-4, so if you can make heads or tails of the data, please let me know. Thanks.
 
Clay:
Getting back to WWII.
How many exactly is that? Could you give us some numbers or sources to back up your opinions?
That's a fair question to ask, but on what do you and the previous poster 'dig down and the Soviets gave as good as they got' [let's assume WWII, since that's patently untrue in Korea] base your opinions, of Soviet parity with German fighters it seems you think? The Korea case is relevant in suggesting tremendous caution in evaluating Stalinist era Soviet fighter combat effectiveness based on Soviet accounts, which is what you seem to be mainly doing. The same is true of their 1939 air combat with the JAAF in the Nomonhan conflict: their claims were very inflated (around 6:1 in that case, not as exaggerated as in Korea but still worse than average for WWII-era fighter overclaiming).

The 'Great Patriotic War' is a bigger case less well documented from both sides. AFAIK Soviet fighter success in the GPW was highly variable and it's harder to make a single statement about it. 'Shot down in droves' is probably fair for 1941-2 on most evidence (the Germans claimed very high ratio's and their claims in the West in that period are documented to have been generally reasonably accurate). 'Gave as good' is probably fair for some Soviet units in mid-late war though not necessarily in general until perhaps quite late in the war.

For example big picture in 1944, overall VVS v LW stats for fighter losses, fairly late in the LW's gradual decline, and when lots of pretty good Soviet fighter types were operating. Even that year the VVS recorded 2-3 times as many fighters lost in air combat or 'failed to return' as the Germans reported lost in air combat. The 'big failed to return' category makes it somewhat unclear though. Another more micro example though is VVS v highly experienced Finnish Bf109 units on the Karelian front in mid 1944: those combats are two side documented to have been heavily in the Finns' favor.

These are only partial examples, but again by what two-sided measure do you guys instead conclude the Soviet fighters 'gave as good as they got' in the GPW in general? It simply wasn't true in Korea v USAF F-86 units, an easier case to analyze.

Joe
 
Hi Davparlr,

>I have a data base of aircraft that I like to keep up with the best data available. As of yet I am still quite confused on the data for the F4U-4, so if you can make heads or tails of the data, please let me know. Thanks.

Hm, I just tried, but the BuAer data on the F4U-4 seems to be completely bogus. While it seemed that the F4U-1 BuAer climb graphs were all a bit on the low side, the F4U-4 "normal" power climb graph calculated by the same methods appears to be very high. I can't match the speed graph either, and it's not just that the "neutral" supercharger gear deviates like for the F4U-1, but the entire graph comes out with the wrong slope.

Do you have more data on the F4U-4 in your database? I think the BuAer data is not sufficient to crack the nut. Anything on engine power would be appreciated, too ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi again,

>Hm, I just tried, but the BuAer data on the F4U-4 seems to be completely bogus. While it seemed that the F4U-1 BuAer climb graphs were all a bit on the low side, the F4U-4 "normal" power climb graph calculated by the same methods appears to be very high. I can't match the speed graph either, and it's not just that the "neutral" supercharger gear deviates like for the F4U-1, but the entire graph comes out with the wrong slope.

OK, I just noticed that the R-2800-18W has a different reduction gear ratio than the R-2800-8W (.45:1 instead of 0.5:1), which takes care of the slope. The speed calculation now is almost as good as those of the F4U-1, meaning that the "neutral" supercharger gear is the main difference.

However, the BuAer climb chart still appears bogus. The funny thing is that if I'd assume that the climb graph listed for "normal" power is actually for "military" power, I'd actually consider it in good agreement with my calculations, to the point of again having the greatest difference in the "neutral" supercharger gear regime. This might be coincidental, though.

Anyway, here the new (still preliminary) graphs. Power figures are taken from the F4U summary data file MSWF4UDATA.pdf, using the "revised as of April 1, 1945" set. I'd say this was the time when the engine manufacturer had to reduce his power estimates for the R-2800-18W, and perhaps the high performance data in the BuAer document was still based on the original projections.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • F4U_speed_comparison.png
    F4U_speed_comparison.png
    6.7 KB · Views: 102
  • F4U_climb_comparison.png
    F4U_climb_comparison.png
    5.9 KB · Views: 92
Hi Joe,

That's a fair question to ask, but on what do you and the previous poster 'dig down and the Soviets gave as good as they got' [let's assume WWII, since that's patently untrue in Korea] base your opinions.......but again by what two-sided measure do you guys instead conclude the Soviet fighters 'gave as good as they got' in the GPW in general?

I did not post either of the above statements you mention, so I'm not clear why you are asking me to respond to them. Unless it's a reverse-reverse national pride thing? :)

I've given examples of Soviet training programs and fighter tactics manuals, I've given statistics of Soviet top aces, I've shown that the Soviet hierarchy was concerned about their pilots and did not have callous disregard for them, and I've shown that there was no shortage of pilots (except for a short time in 1941).

You have provided a good argument for Soviet overclaims in Korea, but nothing to indicate that their skill level was any less than their opponents. Indeed pilots accounts from either side indicate that they considered the opposing pilots equally skilled.

As far as Vietnam goes, USSR wins again, Petrovich got 6, Cunningham 5. (and there are a bunch of North Vietnamese pilots who did better than either)

But, I'm not trying to prove that Soviet pilots were better than American ones. My point has been from the very start that statements based on vague impressions and patriotic fervor are not worth the pixels they are written on.
 
1. I did not post either of the above statements you mention, so I'm not clear why you are asking me to respond to them. Unless it's a reverse-reverse national pride thing? :)

2. I've given examples of Soviet training programs and fighter tactics manuals, I've given statistics of Soviet top aces, I've shown that the Soviet hierarchy was concerned about their pilots and did not have callous disregard for them, and I've shown that there was no shortage of pilots (except for a short time in 1941).

3. You have provided a good argument for Soviet overclaims in Korea, but nothing to indicate that their skill level was any less than their opponents.

4. Indeed pilots accounts from either side indicate that they considered the opposing pilots equally skilled.

5. As far as Vietnam goes, USSR wins again, Petrovich got 6, Cunningham 5. (and there are a bunch of North Vietnamese pilots who did better than either)

6. But, I'm not trying to prove that Soviet pilots were better than American ones. My point has been from the very start that statements based on vague impressions and patriotic fervor are not worth the pixels they are written on.
1. But you are implying parity, with either Germans in WWII or US in Korea, and you repeat it this recent post.

2. As I said you seem to base your impression on one sided accounts. That's preferable perhaps to basing it on vague notions, but the Korea example shows how far off that can be, especially when it comes to Soviet accounts.

3. But there's a direct logical connection between their high overclaims and their effectiveness that you're ignoring in that statement. According to each side's losses per then-secret records the F-86 v Soviet AF MiG-15 kill ratio in Korea was order of 4-5:1. The MiG-15 and F-86 each had performance advantages over the other. On balance IMO, almost all US pilot opinion, and a lot of Soviet opinion especially reading between the lines, the F-86 was the more practically effective fighter v. fighter plane on balance (MiG the better interceptor, probably). But the F-86's advantage was nothing like enough to establish a 4 or 5:1 exchange ratio with equal pilots. That ratio is strong evidence that the US pilots were more effective on average.

4. Not true as far as USAF opinion, especially when considered in light of both sides' accounts we now know. US pilots recognized some opposing MiG pilot, 'honcho's', as being highly skilled, though not necessarily as skilled as themselves on average. But they didn't know exactly who those guys were, or who the more numerous less skilled MiG pilots were. This relates back to your misunderstanding that most high scoring US pilots scored against North Koreans, not so. It's apparent looking at individual combats that MiG formations which the US pilots thought were 'bandit trains' of low skilled pilots led by a few 'honchos' were sometimes in fact Soviet units operating on their own. In effect the US pilots didn't think most of those Soviet pilots were good, though some were. Again back to the basic stat: 4-5:1 ratio, how can that be squared with equal pilots on average?

5. 'Again' seems to imply the top scoring pilots in Korea were Soviet. Read the link about Sutyagin. His official score was 21, actual somewhere south of 5 (not just him, go down the list of top Soviet scores v US records of the same combats and you'll find the same thing). US fighter credits in Korea were only moderately exaggerated on average (IOW quite accurate by WWII standards), Soviet ones highly exaggerated. Hence it's extremely unlikely the top *actual* scorer in Korea was Soviet, he was almost certainly USAF. As for WWII more research would be needed to judge how to view the official scores of the top Soviet pilots compared to other air arms where overclaim ratios may have been very different.

Then in speaking of Soviet pilot in Vietnam you're dealing in the realm of 'sea stories' by Soviet advisors. There's no documentary evidence of any such combat missions, a then-secret GRU history of the Vietnam air war doesn't mention them. And therefore there are no details of times and places which would allow comparison to US records to verify the claims. Soviet pilots scores in Korea were real from an official Soviet perspective, and so all those details are known, different situation.

6. I'm giving factual evidence from each side's records about Korea that strongly implies US pilots on average were considerably more effective than Soviet. For WWII, I've given examples where Soviet fighter units were also apparently less effective than Axis even pretty late in the war. What's your contrary evidence in either case? Just denouncing 'national pride', implying your own immunity to it, isn't evidence of your seeming thesis: that Soviet fighter pilots on average were as effective as their opponents in GPW or Korea.

If instead you're making a kind of anecdotal statement, that *some* Soviet pilots were as effective or more than the average opposing pilot in GPW or Korea, of course that's true, that would be kind of a trivial statement.

Joe
 
I'm not trying to imply parity, I'm stating that one measurement of quality of pilots is how many achieved 20 or more kills. 203 for the Soviets. 27 for the Americans. Keep in mind that some of those Soviet aces were flying P39s, which Americans had little or no success with. 203 pilots with over 20 kills is not an anomoly, it's a pattern. We can keep going down the list, and the Soviets are going to come out ahead all the way.

Thats all I need to shed the appropriate light on the original posting:

Overall, I'd say a long series of contest would return a 3:1 kill advantage over the Yak-9, not even counting the fact that American pilots have always been better than Russian pilots. (No offense, but 3 wars in which they can be compared head to head (Korea, Vietnam) or against common opponents (WWII) renders a clear enough result for me.
 
I'm not trying to imply parity, I'm stating that one measurement of quality of pilots is how many achieved 20 or more kills. 203 for the Soviets. 27 for the Americans. Keep in mind that some of those Soviet aces were flying P39s, which Americans had little or no success with. 203 pilots with over 20 kills is not an anomoly, it's a pattern. We can keep going down the list, and the Soviets are going to come out ahead all the way.

Thats all I need to shed the appropriate light on the original posting:

Calidmore - curiosity compels me to ask how many a/c the LW lost against the USSR in WWII? the number you have there for 20+ awards seem awfully high. How many had more than 5 but less than 20?

The biggest issue with the USSR MiG ace scores in Korea is that their awards exceeded by far the air to air losses of the USA. I wonder the same about Ost Front.
 
If I'm not mistaken the clandestine Soviet Air Force in Korea was manned by volunteers who also received awards and money for their successes. With Joe Stalin as my boss, I'd hate to report that I was anything other than highly successful and I think I might have to stretch the truth to do it!
 
Hi drgondog:
Here's an incomplete list of Soviet Aces.
Soviet Ftr Aces of WW2
I stopped counting at 100 and the bar that indicates how far you are down on the page had only moved about 3/4 of an inch.
Yeah the Soviets overclaimed in WWII, just like every other airforce. I would think their claims would have greater chance of confirmation than in Korea, since they actually took possession of most of the ground they fought over.
I don't have a source for LW losses on the Eastern Front.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back