wuzak
Captain
I believe the confusion was that the aircraft described was the Tempest I, which was fitted with the Sabre IV. Neither went into production.
MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
I believe the confusion was that the aircraft described was the Tempest I, which was fitted with the Sabre IV. Neither went into production.
I don't consider both above mentioned as underrated. They might be less known in English speaking world indeed, but only less known if compared to P-51 and B-17, etc. Early Yaks and Peshkas as mass produced types are mentioned in all serious publications related to Eastern Front. In Russian (Soviet and many post Soviet) works both belong to almost untouchable holy list of "sacred cows" along with IL-2.
Actually, in my humble opinion, I'd place whole Yak family in "over-rated" category. It was real workhorse, of course. Were they better than contenders? Did they deserve so much production capacity on the cost of other prospected types? Could Yaks production become first priority for the factories if A.Yakovlev was not Stalin's favourite and high rank bureaucrat - who (surprise surprise) had powers to allocate production lines and to approve or shut down other projects? I'm not sure.
Well that's interesting Dimlee, but I would chalk that up to the difference in perception within the Russian-speaking world from the Anglophone.
In the Anglophone world the Yak, and any other Soviet types, are essentially given 'honorable mention' as in, these are the aircraft being shot down in droves by the Luftwaffe on the Russian Front. while in Aviation circles the top 20 experten are practically household names - who doesn't know who Gunther Rall or Erik Hartmann or Hans Joachim Marseilles were etc., as were the top 5 or 10 American and British / Commonwealth aces- Richard Bong, Pappy Boyington, Gabby Gabreski, Marmaduke Thomas Pattle, Clive Caldwell, Johnny Johnson and so on, and even the top Japanese aces like Nishizawa and Saburo Sakai and so forth. But precious few know who Kozhedub, Shestakov, or Rechkalov are - Pokrushkin is probably the only name widely known due to the curiosity that he flew P-39s.
The wikipedia article on WW2 Aces barely has any Russians on it, for that matter.
When they have top ten WW2 aircraft or fighters on History Channel the only Russian one you usually ever see is the Il2.
As for Yakovlevs political connections landing him contracts, well trust me that kind of thing happened in the West too, though granted we didn't have any major aircraft designed from prison. The contracts awarded to outfits like Fairey and Curtiss, the continued manufacture of of Hurricanes into 1944, debacles like the Helldiver, the Seamew, the Me 110 / 210 , He 177 and frankly the P-38 (which would go on my list of most overrated fighters) speaks to the effects of corruption and the abuse of political influence in every nation in WW2.
At least the Yaks could do the job. What would the alternative have been in 1941 and 1942? The I-153 and I-16 were obsolete, the LaGG-3 was inferior to the Yak 1 or Yak 7 (but were produced in large numbers anyway) the La 5 was produced I think as fast as possible once they became available in spite of some ongoing problems... the MiG 1 and MiG 3 were basically useless at low altitude.
What alternative were you thinking of?
S
Last edited:
Difference in perception exists at both sides, of course. Not as significant as 20-25 years ago, but still there.
Political connections and contracts... I do trust you
and my knowledge and own life/work experience.But lobbying in communist system is something completely different. You already mentioned "aircraft designed from prison", so you were aware what happened to many (too many, over 100 names in just TsKB-29) aviation/rocket engineers and leading designers. Unfortunately, some aircraft were designed "from grave" as well. The list of people executed was long. Management of TsAGI, of KhAI and of several aviation factories, staff of aviation ministry, several designers as Kalinin, Langemak, Kleymyonov, Mikhelson - to name just a few.
To lose the contract because of your competitor's connections in War Department. Or to lose your freedom or life due to falsified accusation of treason or vreditelstvo. Feel the difference. And please note that Yakovlev was no. 2 in aviation ministry and de-facto main decision maker (before the final verdict of Stalin) in everything related to new aircraft. Imagine Kelly Jonson in War Production Board...
Early Yaks were good as stop gap measure, no doubt. Especially for less experienced pilots who were not able to handle MiG-3. (Anyway, MiG-3 has fallen a victim to IL-2 mass production - engines from the same factory).
Alternative for Yaks was I-185 which could be ready for mass production:
- as early as autumn 1941 if engine M-71 is improved (or engine M-82 is available for Polikarpov)
or
- in spring 1942 - if Polikarpov is given adequate facilities in Novosibirsk after evacuation
or
- as late as Jan-Feb 1943 if someone in aviation ministry does not decide to postpone production launch indefinitely.
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,311
- Jun 25, 2013
Stalin was frequently the USSR's worst enemy; his personal paranoia, seeing threats to his rule in every подстака́нник probably added months to the war. Now, I don't think a resurgent czarist regime would have behaved that much differently than did the soviet one -- reconquering territories removed by Brest-Litovsk would be just as much a czarist goal as a bolshevik one, although they'd cloak the reasons in different rhetoric --but a leader with a lesser tendency to imagine threats is likely to have done much better for the USSR or Russia.
Between the USSR's obsessive secrecy and Cold War politics, very little (positive and negative) about the Soviet contribution towards victory in Europe was in many history books in, at least, the US.
Between the USSR's obsessive secrecy and Cold War politics, very little (positive and negative) about the Soviet contribution towards victory in Europe was in many history books in, at least, the US.
As a child in the 60s it was difficult to be sympathetic to the Soviet Union when you see early warning stations on top of the moors and endless talk of "two minute warnings" and "what to do if we have a nuclear attack" on the TV.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,311
- Jun 25, 2013
...or watching the range circles from the ballistic missiles Khrushchev put in Cuba, which included the town where I was busily going to elementary school.
Smokey Stover
Banned
I think that's a matter of opinion and with respect maybe a little ignorance. From luftwaffe pilot reports i have seen the Yak 9 was very much respected. And if your talking about overrated aircraft then maybe we should add the P-51, which in all fairness was nothing more than a flying gastank. The Russians didn't think much of it either. Especially as many Mustang pilots who came into contact with Russian fighters attacked them without hesitation. Albeit miss identification, 2 P-51D's attacked a La -5. Long story short both mustangs were shot out of the sky.
Yeah let me be clear - I am not arguing for sympathy for Stalin or for the Soviet system. Both were abhorrent. But somehow we (in the West so to speak) are easily able to make the separation between the atrocities of the Nazi regime on the one hand and the skill and courage of their pilots and troops, and quality of their aircraft, tanks and other kit, on the other.
The truth is, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were Totalitarian regimes in which a great deal of their equipment, including fighter planes, were manufactured at least in part by slave labor. Both wasted resources in the war to persecute their own and foreign populations. But this has relatively little to do with the merits of the aircraft they flew. Corruption of Curtiss aircraft company in the US may not have as many sinister details as corruption by Yakovlev in Russia, but the results were the same - sometimes inferior or badly flawed aircraft made it into combat. So on that level it is equivalent. Whether its nominally a democracy, a monarchy or a Fascist state, ultimately either some meritocratic aspects begin to get established in the military or else it just goes under. The Germans and the Soviets, the Italians and Japanese may have valued loyalty to the State over competence, but they had to also respect competence to some extent. That is why V.M. Petlyakov was let out of prison when he designed the Pe-2.
For the record, I also think the reaction against the P-51 has gone a bit too far. It wasn't the be-all end-all but neither was it just a flying gas-tank. It was remarkably fast and caused tactical as well as operational problems for the Luftwaffe.
S
He was the worst enemy of the people who found themselves under his rule, of course. But USSR was designed by him and his team and despite the catastrophe of 1941, they has achieved a lot in 1945. Half of the continent under Communist rule de facto, Red China emerging in the East and fantastic propaganda achievements which recruited many new spies and "useful idiots" in the West and has created strong sympathies in colonies all over the world. In this respect Stalin was the best friend of USSR as he brought it close to the peak of power and prepared foundation for further expansion (continued by Khruschev and Brezhenev yet in different manner). Just to clarify: I mean USSR as a state machine created and managed for one ultimate goal: world dominance.
Regarding Czarist regime...there are many interesting alt-history scenarios. But that regime was dismantled before the Bolsheviks. So the nearest alternative to Lenin/Stalin clique was Russian republic of 1917- short lived in real life.
Sorry to digress.
Last edited:
Some "trivia"...
He was let out of prison but was neither paroled nor acquitted. So he remained the convict de-jure until his death.
The very fact that they had prison design bureaus is horrifying- I think most of his colleagues he was working side by side with were executed.
But the Pe-2 was a great bomber and a beautiful aircraft. The Yak-1B was a superb fighter. So was the Yak 9, the Yak 3, the La 5 and 5FN, the La 7. The IS-2 was a mighty tank. The Su-100 was a fearsome tank destroyer.
Stalin, like Hitler, was a serial killer in control of a State, if that doesn't terrify us then we are incapable of rational thought. But that doesn't stop us from admiring the Fw 190 or the Tiger I. Or the Zero or the G.55.
I was a soldier myself for a few years in my youth, and I love war machines especially aircraft. And yet I am against war unless absolutely necessary. (I think most of the ones we engage in aren't). These are contradictions but inherent to human nature and to the study of these things. We have to understand war in part to be safe. We want to understand war because conflict is in our blood.
Switzerland was simultaneously one of the most warlike and most peaceful nations in history. They are routinely criticized for their policy of neutrality but I think they threaded the needle of military preparation with avoidance of war pretty well, at least so far as the benefit of their own citizens is concerned.
Other than that one small country I can't think of anyone who has figured this out or even come close.
S
Last edited:
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
The most under rated would have to be the p40 in my opinion. Volumes have been written about how it was not a good long range escort fighter. Well that's not what it was designed for. It was designed to fill requirements for an aicraft to give support to and air cover for ground forces while oparating from short unimprooved runways. At this it excelled and I would argue was one of the best right up until the end of the war.
wuzak
Captain
No, it was not designed for long range escort.
Nor was it designed for ground support.
It was designed as a pursuit type aeroplane, the goal of which was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft, primarily bombers.
At that role it was shit, so it turned to ground pounding. As was common for fighters that had gone past their use by date.
I think he meant it was intended to intercept tactical bombers, like Stukas or Ju 88s, or Ki-21s, or G4Ms, or Val dive bombers, which it did do - shooting them down in droves, but it was in actual use forced into more of an air-supremacy, anti-fighter mission since the other available aircraft - Hawker Hurricanes, P-39s, F2A Buffaloes, P-35s, Gladiators and so forth weren't up to the task. This is why so many of the Zeros and Bf 109s shot down in 1942 were by P-40s, and so few by the other aircraft mentioned.
This continued by the way long after Spitfires, Corsairs and P-38s arrived on the scene. Well into mid 1943 P-40s were still flying a significant number of the fighter sweeps, escorts, interception, combat air patrol and armed recon missions in the Pacific, CBI, and Mediterranean Theaters - and in Russia- and shooting down large numbers of enemy aircraft in the process.
Including by your countrymen incidentally, who did exceedingly well with the type (at least 6 double P-40 aces and one quadruple ace came out of Australia), and the humble New Zealanders who did even better statistically, claiming a 5-1 ratio of confirmed victories to combat losses (to all causes) with the P-40. in fact the man pictured above, the New Zealander Geoff Fisken was the Commonwealths leading Ace in the Pacific Theater- and he scored his last 5 victories flying P-40s from Guadalcanal in June of 1943.
This fellow, Clive Caldwell (on the left with the cigarette), was Australias top fighter ace with 28 victories, scored 22 of those flying P-40 Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in North Africa, shooting down 3 "experten" in the process: Hauptmann Wolfgang Lippert (25 victories - Group Commander of the famous II. JG 27), Erbo Graf von Kageneck (67 victories), and Arnold Stahlschmidt (59 victories) all while flying a P-40. He also survived a 2on 1 fight against Werner Schorer (114 kills by the end of the war) and shot down his wingman in the process.
S
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
It wasn't designed to do that specifically. It was designed to defend against all enemy aircraft.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I didn't say it was designed strictly for ground support. It was like all pre war army fighter types with the exception of the p38 designed primarily to give air cover to and secondarily direct support to ground forces over tfhe battle field as that was the envisioned purpose of army fighter air craft at the time. Army airforce doctrine at the time was that the bomber would always get through. Nobody, or at least verry few invisioned the need for long range escort fighters.
