Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
shortround.....what's the title of this thread?
Go back to the OP if you need a refresher.
Elvis
Go back to the OP if you need a refresher.
Elvis
P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane
- Thread starter Clay_Allison
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the OP said this.
On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.
But the Hurricane was not obsolete in 1938-1940 it was the UKs frontline fighter, while the Spitfire existed and was in production the actual level of production meant that the weight of the conflict fell upon the Hurricane.
The P40 gets a bit of a bad press, in North Africa it may or may not have been superior to the Bf109E and inferior to the 109F depending on the variant. That is not really the issue because North Africa was originally Italy's domain. The Hurricane and P40 forced Germany to intervene and provide Bf109s but never in the numbers required. One of the later variants of the Hurricane had 40mm canon mounted under the wings with much success in ground attack in 1942, that means it wasnt obsolete and not really worried about enemy fighters.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I don't think I need a refresher.
I was pointing out that the answer could depend on WHEN you took the look or when the "plans crossed the desk".
Saying the Yak was the Best choice in 1940 or 41 because it morphed into the Yak 9 or Yak 3 several years later requires a large amount of hindsight, not foresight at the time. Especially the using the YAK 3 as a reference point which used a whole new wing. Not exactly visible on the "plans on the desk" early in the war.
For instance on Dec 5th 1941 there were only 83 Yak-1s on strength with the VVS of which 47 were serviceable. Most, if not all of the 1941 Yak-1s used the M-105PA engine, not the 105PF and most, if not all used one 20mm cannon firing through the prop hub with 120 rounds and a pair of 7.62 MGs on top of the engine with 380 rpg.
Hardly an awe inspiring armament. Please note that the Russian cannon, while fast firing, fired a light (91/96 gram) projectile with a correspondingly light HE filler. It was of poor ballistic shape and would loose velocity fairly quickly.
Later Yak-1s pretty much traded the pair of 7.62 mgs for a single 12.7mg. Granted it was faster firing than the US .50.
And you better have a good tactical bomber because the YAK pretty much sucked for ground attack. Granted that role was not anticipated in 1940/41.
Wiki says this
Developed from the V10 and V13 prototypes, the Bf 109D was the standard version of the Bf 109 in service with the Luftwaffe just before the start of World War II. Despite this, the type saw only limited service during the war, as all of the 235 Bf 109Ds still in Luftwaffe service at the beginning of the Poland Campaign were rapidly taken out of service and replaced by the Bf 109E, except in some night fighter units where some examples were used into early 1940.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
...thus my response of "what's the title of this thread?"
Thanks for participating.
Elvis
Last edited:
Any chance to elaborate this to us non-original English-language speakers?
But it doesnt because it states P40 and Hurricane as a series of aircraft but specifically the YAK-1, not the YAK series 1-9. They all had their time in the sun at different times and in different places although all were used in Russia. Hard to consider even a Hurricane Mk1 as an obsolete type in Russia when they used the Po-2 throughout the conflict.
As a native English speaker from England I believe the word "esoteric" covers it.
GregP
Major
It's supposed to be a discussion, not a "must win" argument.
The Russian planes were head and shoulders better than anything WE had during the Russian winter. They were operating when we were grounded. Little did we know they were using crude-but-effective techniques to operate, but they WERE also familiar with how to pick an airfield that would not be a quagmire in the spring thaw. Ability to be operational when we could not was a huge advantage, including over the Germans. Even today, Russian cold weather gear is some of the world's best ... it HAS to be since they live in cold every year about winter time.
The Yaks may or may not have been wonderful in more temperate temperatures, but they did GREAT in the cold. Most Soviet pilots loved the P-39 for a number of reasons, but high on the list was a radio! It allowed communication that was otherwise impossible. Counts for a LOT.
I've ALWAYS considered the T-34 to be a great tank for the Soviet Steppes. The Sherman might and might not have been. But, for it's intended use, the T-34 was tops ... if you could get around its many weaknesses. They DID, in spades, by employing its strengths and using tactics that negated its weaknesses.
As a general comment, the AK-47 (not WWII) was never the best weapon, but it WAS the most reliable and could operate when other equipment was rendered non-operational. I read about one guy who shot over 8,000 rounds through an AK-47 without cleaning it! And it continued to shoot. That doesn't make it a good weapon, but DOES make it "hang in there" better than the best of the rest. A lot of Russian equipment was that way ... not the best, but very serviceable and well-designed for unskilled use.
Never underestimate Russian equipment. It was good or someone died. Gives a LOT of incentive to designers as they were held accountable. Siberia was no fun, and everyone knew it. They also knew Uncle Joe wasn't above killing them for little reason.
Was Russian equipment the best? No. But it was serviceable and the Russians didn't quit when many might have.
Personally, I doubt we'd have won the war without Soviet participation. The Russian Front took up an enormous amount of resources from Germany. I'm glad Hitler was not one to sit around and wait for things to develop, but instead attacked. It gave the western front a much-needed and handy relative respite.
The Russian planes were head and shoulders better than anything WE had during the Russian winter. They were operating when we were grounded. Little did we know they were using crude-but-effective techniques to operate, but they WERE also familiar with how to pick an airfield that would not be a quagmire in the spring thaw. Ability to be operational when we could not was a huge advantage, including over the Germans. Even today, Russian cold weather gear is some of the world's best ... it HAS to be since they live in cold every year about winter time.
The Yaks may or may not have been wonderful in more temperate temperatures, but they did GREAT in the cold. Most Soviet pilots loved the P-39 for a number of reasons, but high on the list was a radio! It allowed communication that was otherwise impossible. Counts for a LOT.
I've ALWAYS considered the T-34 to be a great tank for the Soviet Steppes. The Sherman might and might not have been. But, for it's intended use, the T-34 was tops ... if you could get around its many weaknesses. They DID, in spades, by employing its strengths and using tactics that negated its weaknesses.
As a general comment, the AK-47 (not WWII) was never the best weapon, but it WAS the most reliable and could operate when other equipment was rendered non-operational. I read about one guy who shot over 8,000 rounds through an AK-47 without cleaning it! And it continued to shoot. That doesn't make it a good weapon, but DOES make it "hang in there" better than the best of the rest. A lot of Russian equipment was that way ... not the best, but very serviceable and well-designed for unskilled use.
Never underestimate Russian equipment. It was good or someone died. Gives a LOT of incentive to designers as they were held accountable. Siberia was no fun, and everyone knew it. They also knew Uncle Joe wasn't above killing them for little reason.
Was Russian equipment the best? No. But it was serviceable and the Russians didn't quit when many might have.
Personally, I doubt we'd have won the war without Soviet participation. The Russian Front took up an enormous amount of resources from Germany. I'm glad Hitler was not one to sit around and wait for things to develop, but instead attacked. It gave the western front a much-needed and handy relative respite.
alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
Also, the Yak-9 derived from the Yak-7, which had some significant improvements over Yak-1.
GregP
Major
Hey VG 33,
Great forum name.
At least Vernisse (engineer) and Galtier (designer) didn't power the VG 33 with a Russian engine! But it WAS suggested to power the VG 50 with an Allison V-1710. Wonder how it would have worked out?
Great forum name.
At least Vernisse (engineer) and Galtier (designer) didn't power the VG 33 with a Russian engine! But it WAS suggested to power the VG 50 with an Allison V-1710. Wonder how it would have worked out?
Then the Hunter / Harrier.One could say the Hurricane morphed into the Typhoon > Tempest > Fury.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
One could say the Hurricane morphed into the Typhoon > Tempest > Fury.
Actually, it's full-circle Fury>Hurricane>Typhoon>Tempest>Fury.
Sorry...couldn't resist!
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
If the P-40 is narrow what do you call the Spitfire?
wiki says this
Pilots used to British fighters sometimes found it difficult to adapt to the P-40's rear-folding landing gear, which was more prone to collapse than the lateral-folding landing gear of the Hawker Hurricane or Supermarine Spitfire. In contrast to the "three-point landing" commonly employed with British types, P-40 pilots were obliged to use a "wheels landing": a longer, low angle approach that touched down on the main wheels first.
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
The above I agree with though not the inference that the P-40 required a very flat approach. Many of the strips P-40s operated from in PNG and the Solomons definitely did not have room for a low angle approach.
The collapsing problem was primarily a result of the pilot not waiting until the gear was fully locked down mixed with an indication system that was not precise enough (indicated down as opposed to down and locked).
A hydraulic system that was operated by the pilot pulling a switch on the control column instead of running at all times was another factor since it was easy for the pilot to release the switch before full system pressure recovery (the pilots only indication of locked) if distracted resulting in an unlocked gear. In combat this system ensured that the hydraulic fluid was not "instantly" lost if a hydraulic line was damaged so one has to factor that plus against the collapsed gear minuses.
Early P-40s also had a problem with all the fluid being lost when the gun charging system leaked and that also produced gear up landings until the hydraulic gun chargers were disabled. During the Philippines retreat inoperative guns were a major issue for the P-40 pilots because of the chargers being disabled. See Doomed at the start for more detail.
Last edited:
One could say the Hurricane morphed into the Typhoon > Tempest > Fury.
You could take that line backwards to the Pup/Camel. The Sopwith Aviation Company was bought by HG Hawker Engineering (thence Hawker Aircraft, Hawker Siddely and ultimately BAe) so you could extend it forward the Harrier and then the latest Typhoon (Eurofighter). I'm not sure it helps much, but it does illustrate the importance of comparing like with like, particularly at a time of rapid development.
Sidney Camm survived from the age of those biplanes to see the development of what would become the Harrier. All that in one human lifetime.
Cheers
Steve
