Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The US airforce would've been great as the Soviet airforce. RAF would've also been more than just fine.The Soviet Air Force was, by the latter part of the war, good at being the Soviet Air Force. Rubbish at being the Royal Air Force or the US air force as they were at being the Soviet Air Force. The test has to be if it was fit for purpose. It's purpose not other air force's purposes.
But I would like it to be formulated for us what the VVS is good for. Huge numbers vs range, accuracy and power of strikes? Maybe they conducted better reco and close support? Where was it expressed? And why were these huge VVS not sufficient, like the UK and US AF?The US airforce would've been great as the Soviet airforce. RAF would've also been more than just fine.
We can recall that the best aircraft the Soviets had were with Western genes.
The Soviet AF would've been a bad replacement for both the RAF and for the USAAF.
Western AFs were also pretty huge (while the geographical area they operated above was probably incomprehensible for many people of the day).But I would like it to be formulated for us what the VVS is good for. Huge numbers vs range, accuracy and power of strikes?
WAFs were with superior recon assets and assessment. Close support - not the strong suit of the WAFs, but probably still contributing to the war effort big time.Maybe they conducted better reco and close support? Where was it expressed?
Agreed.To begin with, the total losses of the USSR are unprecedented, unthinkable. And the number of missions carried out by the Air Force is unexpectedly small compared to their numbers.
I don't share the opinion that all AFs are equally great.With the opinion that all AF are equally greatly... Formulate it a little more precisely.
That never crossed my mindOr are you writing about politeness?
I concur, the USAAF and the RAF could have easily done (and did) what the VVS did, the VVS however, was NOT capable of doing what the USAAF and RAF did.The US airforce would've been great as the Soviet airforce. RAF would've also been more than just fine.
We can recall that the best aircraft the Soviets had were with Western genes.
The Soviet AF would've been a bad replacement for both the RAF and for the USAAF.
Equally the VVS did not want to do what the RAF and USAAC/F did and chose accordingly. The obvious example is their love of the P39 and its successor the P63. It did not fit well to the RAF and USAAC requirements but did fit the requirements of the VVS and the P63 remained the core of the Soviet Far East air defence well into the jet age.I concur, the USAAF and the RAF could have easily done (and did) what the VVS did, the VVS however, was NOT capable of doing what the USAAF and RAF did.
Len't not pretend that VVS was just as good as the RAF and the Americans, but that they chosen to do their job differently.Equally the VVS did not want to do what the RAF and USAAC/F did and chose accordingly.
The P-39 and P-63 fell short of the RAF and AAF requirements. That was a bug, not a feature.The obvious example is their love of the P39 and its successor the P63. It did not fit well to the RAF and USAAC requirements but did fit the requirements of the VVS and the P63 remained the core of the Soviet Far East air defence well into the jet age.
Were the Soviets efficient?Of course this is simplified almost to absurdity but it does illustrate that a comparison of the effectiveness of the principal allied air forces easily descends into comparisons of apples with oranges. The measure should be how effective was the Soviet Air Forces at the task it chose.
I must go back over my posts to see where I said the Soviets were efficient at their task and as good as the RAF and Americans because I do not recall having said either. I do not know enough about the Soviet air forces to comment authoritatively on either matter but my point was merely that it is not a straight like for like comparison.Len't not pretend that VVS was just as good as the RAF and the Americans, but that they chosen to do their job differently.
The P-39 and P-63 fell short of the RAF and AAF requirements. That was a bug, not a feature.
That neither of these was category 1 fighter, and was still regarded as equal if not better than the Soviet fighters says a lot about the Soviet fighters. Need to use gifted 5 foreign fighters' types and 3 foreign bomber types also says a lot.
Were the Soviets efficient?
I've asked a simple question, that, granted, is bound to have a complicated answer.I must go back over my posts to see where I said the Soviets were efficient at their task and as good as the RAF and Americans because I do not recall having said either. I do not know enough about the Soviet air forces to comment authoritatively on either matter but my point was merely that it is not a straight like for like comparison.
This is always an issue and needs refining into good at what? Just as the perennial which (insert preferred aeroplanes) was 'best' never defines 'best' at what and when?
The P-63 was a good fighter and could give a P-51 all it could handle. It was about 15 mph slower top speed at best height (if that matters .... mostly not) and didn't have the range of a P-51. But, if they were in the same airspace, the P-63 was not going to be easy meat for anyone.Len't not pretend that VVS was just as good as the RAF and the Americans, but that they chosen to do their job differently.
The P-39 and P-63 fell short of the RAF and AAF requirements. That was a bug, not a feature.
That neither of these was category 1 fighter, and was still regarded as equal if not better than the Soviet fighters says a lot about the Soviet fighters. Need to use gifted 5 foreign fighters' types and 3 foreign bomber types also says a lot.
Were the Soviets efficient?
The P-63 was a good fighter and could give a P-51 all it could handle. It was about 15 mph slower top speed at best height (if that matters .... mostly not) and didn't have the range of a P-51. But, if they were in the same airspace, the P-63 was not going to be easy meat for anyone.
It could have done just fine as a main fighter for the U.S.A., except the P-51 was already in serice, and so the P-63, though good, was not a "step forward" from the P-51. They made the right decision for the U.S.A.A.F. to use the P-51, but there was little wrong with the P-63 except for not enough range and an already-existing aircraft that was as good or better, with an in-place logistics chain and already-trained mechanices in the field.
at low altitudes, under 5000 feet, the P-61 was about 10mph faster than the P-51BIt mattered that the P-51B was 30-40 mph faster than the P-63A, and that it have had double the range. It also mattered that the P-51B was earlier than the P-63A by several months.
The P-63 was a step backward vs. the P-51.
No big surprise that they chose a aircraft they had already been flying and was familiar with.The Planes of Fame has a Yak-3 in Normandie-Niemen colors and we have heard from families of people who were there that they DID, in fact, choose the Yak over anything else. Ours is powered by an Allison and runs great.
Not exactly sure if the stories are true, but a few people and families of people who operated the actual Yaks say thay really liked them. For whatever that may be worth. Our Allison-powered Yak flies quite nicely and is well-liked by anyone who flies it.
Don't think it was that much faster but, in any case, the P-63 was a pretty decent aircraft. It just wasn't better than the P-51 that was already in service.It mattered that the P-51B was 30-40 mph faster than the P-63A, and that it have had double the range. It also mattered that the P-51B was earlier than the P-63A by several months.
The P-63 was a step backward vs. the P-51.
You probably mean P-63, not P-61?at low altitudes, under 5000 feet, the P-61 was about 10mph faster than the P-51B
Yeah, the P-61 would suck as an escort. But the VVS wasn't using it as that.
Need to match available Hardware with the Doctrine at play
No idea why I put P-61 in there.You probably mean P-63, not P-61?
Trick was that the P-51B was capable to fight any aircraft that the P-63 could, and trash a lot of them at any give altitude, while the vice-versa was not the case. Especially if the fight was to happen 500-600 miles away from the base.
P-63A came close to the P-51B under 20000 ft if the 1st have had installed the water-alcohol injection. If the P-51B was using 150 grade fuel, it was still coming up ahead by a good margin. Ditto for the P-51D.
The P-63s were judged by the Soviets as being with a too weak fuselage, per the 'America's hundred thousand book' entry about the P-63.It would be mostly in the under 15,000 regime, where honestly, the Merlin powered Mustang were not that great, due to occasional snap roll behavior and other issues when used as a dogfighter, not their slight speed or huge range advantages
These are Bell's graphs, drawn about one year before 1st P-63C was delivered (see the date).I believe the P-63 had better down low flying behavior
The 40 Yaks-3s of the Normandie Niemen were offered by Stalin on june 9, 1945 as a reward to the pilots who used them.No big surprise that they chose a aircraft they had already been flying and was familiar with.
They took them back to France when they were disbanded, whatever became of those aircraft?
Isn't the Planes of Fame Yak-3 a modern construction ?
Is that fair to say it's got maybe a little better quality than that of an aircraft constructed in the middle of WW2, in Russia.
Look here eBay: Yakovlev Yak-3No big surprise that they chose a aircraft they had already been flying and was familiar with.
They took them back to France when they were disbanded, whatever became of those aircraft?
Isn't the Planes of Fame Yak-3 a modern construction ?
Is that fair to say it's got maybe a little better quality than that of an aircraft constructed in the middle of WW2, in Russia.