loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
yup, you know that what u read is mostly correct here
Russian Fighters
- Thread starter Salim
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Obviously.Soren said:
But is that reported on wikipedia too? Thinking at the usual bias when a enemy aircraft was officially tested by a WWII air force, it dont' seems the La-5 to be so bad. It was described as pratically in pair with Bf 109G and FW 190 A8.
Russian aircraft developed better and better over the years during WW2 but if you look at there designs and performance you will see they were designed around a sole purpose. Until about 1943 they were pretty designed as defensive fighters (which is what they really really needed at the time), later they were deveoloped with more offensive in mind when they started to the push to Germany. They had many aircraft toward the end that were just as good but I would not go as far to say they had aircraft that were better than the Bf-109G, K, and Fw-190D.
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
If we look at armament of VVS-RKKA planes we note that generally, not universally, are lightly armed. The very heaviest had no more than 3 20 mms and most had only 1 or 2. These were fuselage mounted. Of course they were relatively maneveraable partly owing to their diminutive size. They were mostly wood with light or no armor and the slim wings precluded cannon mounting.
The MiG-3 had but one 12.7 mm and a pair of 7.62s. The MiG-3 was not on par with Luftwaffe fighters and was relegated to hi-speed (398MPH@25,590 ft.)tactical reconnaisance and replaced by the Yak-1. VVS pilots found the MiG-1 and MiG-3 both relatively poor in the maneverability department. By 1943 it had disappeared from front line service altogether.
The MiG-3 had but one 12.7 mm and a pair of 7.62s. The MiG-3 was not on par with Luftwaffe fighters and was relegated to hi-speed (398MPH@25,590 ft.)tactical reconnaisance and replaced by the Yak-1. VVS pilots found the MiG-1 and MiG-3 both relatively poor in the maneverability department. By 1943 it had disappeared from front line service altogether.
Nonskimmer
Captain
The USSR was also rebuilding their air force almost from scratch as they went, and unlike the United States, they lacked much of the technical expertise in the field of aerospace design and production. This would gradually improve, but they were at a marked disadvantage.
Soviet fighters were built from the start with material and production factors in mind. They had to be easily assembled by largely unskilled labour, out of simple, readily available materials like wood. This held true for almost all Soviet production (simplicity), including tanks and machine guns, etc. Thats why you had such a variation in equipment. It would depend on the factory that produced it.
Soviet aircraft were mostly simple machines built to do a job, and they didn't always do it well, but sometimes they did. The Mig-3 was a pre-war design that was complicated by Russian standards, and not very easy to produce by a struggling wartime Soviet industry. Simpler designs like the Lavochkins and Yaks were much favoured, and did the job for the most part. You also have to remember that with a few exceptions like Kozhedub, Pokryshkin, Gulaev, and a few others, Soviet pilots were relatively unskilled too. The Soviets didn't have the same sort of set training standard that the western nations did (including Germany), and it was mostly left to the individual air regiments to develop their own tactics.
Soviet fighters were built from the start with material and production factors in mind. They had to be easily assembled by largely unskilled labour, out of simple, readily available materials like wood. This held true for almost all Soviet production (simplicity), including tanks and machine guns, etc. Thats why you had such a variation in equipment. It would depend on the factory that produced it.
Soviet aircraft were mostly simple machines built to do a job, and they didn't always do it well, but sometimes they did. The Mig-3 was a pre-war design that was complicated by Russian standards, and not very easy to produce by a struggling wartime Soviet industry. Simpler designs like the Lavochkins and Yaks were much favoured, and did the job for the most part. You also have to remember that with a few exceptions like Kozhedub, Pokryshkin, Gulaev, and a few others, Soviet pilots were relatively unskilled too. The Soviets didn't have the same sort of set training standard that the western nations did (including Germany), and it was mostly left to the individual air regiments to develop their own tactics.
Good points NS.In addition ,I have to say that pre-war Russian aircrafts were designed for a concrete purpose but not as multipurpose ones.MiG-3 was designed as a high altitude fighter with its all consequences.But the war reality forced VVS to used the fighter plane for different tasks.The later Russian aircrafts were desiged as more universal ones.
Dogwalker said:
Wikipedia Dogwalker ? No, although you might rely on such places for your info I don't.
You can read the test in the book "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche, ISBN 0531037118.
Adler, Les, Erich, any of you mod's, I would really hate having to write the whole test down again as I'm on a pretty tight schedule at the moment, so if any of you could find the post where I wrote it last then that would be great.
I don't know if you mod's have some kind of searching tool, but if so then just write down "Hans Werner Lerche" and I'm sure it'll pop up.
Btw, for anyone interested I can provide the 'original' test document.
Dogwalker said:
No Dogwalker, it was found inferior to the Bf-109G in everything except roll rate, and against the Fw-190A-8 it was found inferior in everything except sustained turn rate and climb rate below 3km.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Tanks for your kindness upon my fonts.Soren said:
I didn't ask if You read it on wikipedia, but if it's the same report.
It is.
This is your prevoius post.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/why-allied-soviet-equipment-superior-3319-5.htmlSoren said:And according to extensive German testing of a La-5FN, it was found that it couldn't turn as well as a cleanly loaded Bf-109. (German 109 pilots attest to this fact as-well)
The following excerpts are taken from "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. His book includes a detailed wartime test report prepared by him, on the La5FN.
Hans Werner Lerche:
He tested an La5FN powered by an M- 82FNV engine in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia.
"It was obvious from the start that this aircraft was no longer comparable with the earlier Soviet fighter types of rather primitive construction, and that it was a very serious opponent to our fighters below 3000m (10,000ft). "
He describes having been made giddy by carbon monoxide entering the cockpit during his first flight; thereafter he chose to always wear an oxygen mask when flying it. He also says the noise from its engine was deafening and that he always had to put cotton wool in his ears when aboard.
His report lists the following figures:
Max speed 403mph at 20,670 ft
Rate of climb, rated power, at 300m (984ft) 16.17 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 4000m (13,120 ft) 13 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 7000m (22,320 ft) 6 m/s
Climb to 16,400ft (5000m) in 4min 42 sec
Service Ceiling 31,170 ft (9500m)
Power Plant: Shvetsov M- 82FNV 1,850h.p
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon with 200 rounds each.
Armour protection 57mm armoured glass windscreen, 68mm rear armoured glass plate for head protection, 7mm rear armour plate.
The summary of his report (marked 'SECRET') was sent to Messerschmitt, Dornier, Heinkel and Junkers, as well as the RLM, and reads:
"The LA 5FN represents a great improvement in performance, flying characteristics and serviceability compared to earlier Russian fighters, and its performance below 3000m is particularly noteworthy. Maximum speed is below that of our fighters at all altitudes; best climbing speed near ground level lies between those of the 190 and 109. In the climb, and turns below 3000m, the La5FN is a worthy opponent, particularly for the 190. the type's manufacturing shortcomings would hardly affect the Russians who are used to inferior flying characteristics. Range is short, flight endurance at rated power being about 40 minutes."
The report detail goes into great depth about the machine's handling characteristics, so I'll just pull out a few bits:
"Full throttle altitudes are so low that full emergency power cannot be achieved in either climbing or horizontal flight. "
"Surface finish, especially that of the wings (wood) is good; the sideways and forward extending slats fit very accurately. "
"The pilot's sitting position is comfortable. In flight the strong exhaust fumes are troublesome. The oxygen system is a copy of the German diaphragm flow economiser system."
"Longitudinal stability at normal angles of attack with undercarriage and flaps retracted or extended, is surprisingly good, even in a full power climb. In steep turns elevator forces are fully positive and fairly high, so that nose trim is advisable in a sustained turn.
Yawing oscillations damp out slowly, nevertheless gun aiming is quite easy. Roll response to rudder is mild; the nose rises or falls in response to rudder, but this is not particularly disturbing. "
He goes on to describe the forgiving stall characteristics which he ascribes to the extension of the slats.
"The smallest turning circle at rated power at 2400m is about 28/30 sec for a stable 360 degree turn at constant height. This implies a minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m, with emergency power, of about 25 sec. "
He then says the aircraft has a tendency to porpoise on landing because the elevators become immersed in the wing wake and the undercarriage is poorly damped.
The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots are as follows:
"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights."
So, it seems that Hans Werner Lerche was capable to make the La-5 turn better, climb better and accelerate better, at low altitude (the altitude at wich the most part of the dogfights over the russian front took part), than one of the best fighter around in 1943.
It needs to remember that the maximum speed acheived by Lerche is superior to that achieved by FW 190A and Bf 109G in several tests.
It seems not so bad to me.
Dogwalker said:
Hey, its not like your post didn't sound just a bit insulting as-well !
Now where on Wikipedia is this report mentioned ? I'm asking because I can't seem to find it myself and I'd like to see what is actually written.
Dogwalker said:
Hey, wake up Dogwalker, that test was done in 1944(The summary is from 45), and the Fw-190 in question was an A-8, by no means a fighter variant.
Dogwalker said:
Really Dogwalker, care to document that ? I'm warning you though, I've got virtually all available Fw-190 test-flight reports and I've seen nothing which would indicate Lerche reached higher speeds, under similar conditions, than in other tests.
Btw, thanks for finding my post, saved me alot writing, so its appreciated.
P
PipsPriller
Guest
A good summation of Russian fighters is best provided by a German. In the book 'The Russian Air Force In The Eyes Of The German Commanders", Walter Schwabedissen said
" whereas the latest Bf 109G and Fw 190 models were equal to any of the aforementioned Soviet aircraft [Yak 7 and 9, La 5/FN] in all respects, this cannot be said of the Yak 3, which made it's appearence at the Front in the late summer of 1944. This aeroplane was faster, more manoeuvrable and had better climbing capabilities than the Bf 109G and Fw 190, to which it was inferior only in armament."
" whereas the latest Bf 109G and Fw 190 models were equal to any of the aforementioned Soviet aircraft [Yak 7 and 9, La 5/FN] in all respects, this cannot be said of the Yak 3, which made it's appearence at the Front in the late summer of 1944. This aeroplane was faster, more manoeuvrable and had better climbing capabilities than the Bf 109G and Fw 190, to which it was inferior only in armament."
At high alltitudes but not at low alltitudes, which is where most of the combat was flown at.
Do not forget the Yak-3 was a "lightweight" contender. A negative consequence was the extremely light armor fitted to the model -pretty similar feature on all versions-. With a maximum loaded weight of 2550kg the Yak-3 was perhaps one of the lightest fighters of the war.
Keeping in mind the Luftwaffe was not present in numbers in the east during 1944, the Yaks got pressed into ground-attack missions alongside the shturmoviks.
Large numbers of Yaks saw service attacking german ground positions where they suffered accordingly against German infantry fire, not to mention Flak positions firing heavier weapons against them. Any German gunner manning his MG42 could set a Yak-3 on fire.
The Yak-9T (a heavier version) and Yak-3 saw service in the ground attack mode, even though they were not designed to perform as such.
The Yaks -all variants- were extremely easy to shoot down; they were virtually uncapable of sustaining damage
While I have always acknowledged the clear improvement attained by soviet planes of the last year of the war when compared with the massive fleet of doomed material of the beginning, i am confident when affirming they never really got the best out of their models.
Hastily built machines, not of great quality, poorly equipped -i.e. no radios on most planes throughout the entire war- and manned by pilots who were likewise hastily trained and put into the cockpits.
Soviet designers and aircraft production facilities were subjected to brutal political pressure and harassment.
The Bf 190 G-2´s sent to the Finnish Air Force did not experience too much trouble in dealing with either Yaks or La´s. The G-6, G-10, G-14 and K-4 versions of the Bf 109 did not have too much trouble against them either.
No match against the Fw 190 D-9 and Ta-152.
However, the soviets had the "quality" of producing stuff in huge numbers and also had the aid of LL which relieved their industry of tremendouns pressure.
Another one of the many allied urban legends "Luftwaffe fighter units were issued orders to not engage the Yaks at low altitude..". Funny. A waste of time.
Finally, Soren´s comments on the over-inflated Lavochkins are correct.
Keeping in mind the Luftwaffe was not present in numbers in the east during 1944, the Yaks got pressed into ground-attack missions alongside the shturmoviks.
Large numbers of Yaks saw service attacking german ground positions where they suffered accordingly against German infantry fire, not to mention Flak positions firing heavier weapons against them. Any German gunner manning his MG42 could set a Yak-3 on fire.
The Yak-9T (a heavier version) and Yak-3 saw service in the ground attack mode, even though they were not designed to perform as such.
The Yaks -all variants- were extremely easy to shoot down; they were virtually uncapable of sustaining damage
While I have always acknowledged the clear improvement attained by soviet planes of the last year of the war when compared with the massive fleet of doomed material of the beginning, i am confident when affirming they never really got the best out of their models.
Hastily built machines, not of great quality, poorly equipped -i.e. no radios on most planes throughout the entire war- and manned by pilots who were likewise hastily trained and put into the cockpits.
Soviet designers and aircraft production facilities were subjected to brutal political pressure and harassment.
The Bf 190 G-2´s sent to the Finnish Air Force did not experience too much trouble in dealing with either Yaks or La´s. The G-6, G-10, G-14 and K-4 versions of the Bf 109 did not have too much trouble against them either.
No match against the Fw 190 D-9 and Ta-152.
However, the soviets had the "quality" of producing stuff in huge numbers and also had the aid of LL which relieved their industry of tremendouns pressure.
Another one of the many allied urban legends "Luftwaffe fighter units were issued orders to not engage the Yaks at low altitude..". Funny. A waste of time.
Finally, Soren´s comments on the over-inflated Lavochkins are correct.
P
PipsPriller
Guest
Udet said:
Such wild general statements are one of the reasons that contribute to the belief that Soviet aircraft were inferior to the Luftwaffe. For example the Yak 9T was a totally different aircraft to the Yak 3. In it's debut over Kurst Yak 9's claimed the destruction of 54 enemy aircraft for the loss of just 12 to all causes. And according to pilot reports the Yak 9 - in all variants (15 in total) was rated as the best in survivability next to the La 5FN.
Udet said:
Again several misconceptions.
i) The machines were not hastily built from late 1942 onwards, when all had been moved east out of Luftwaffe bomber range. Yes quality was always a problem with Soviet aircraft, but the quality emproved enormously from late 1943 onwards - although never reaching German nor Allied levels.
ii) All aircraft off the production lines were fitted with radio's from December 1942 onwards (mostly just able to receive commands), only the flight leaders having the ability to transmit.
iii) Whilst the hasty training programme left much to be desired from June 1941 to early 1943, it improved dramatically from mid 1943 onwards. For example the average number of hours solo a pupil had in late 1941 was 16 hours. In 1942 it rose to 31 hours. In March 1943 it was 120 hours and by November 1943 it had risen to 190 hours. The standard from January 1944 onwards was 330 hours.
Udet said:
What a silly claim. The numbers of these aircraft were so insignificant as to be utterly ignored.
However, the soviets had the "quality" of producing stuff in huge numbers and also had the aid of LL which relieved their industry of tremendouns pressure.[/QUOTE]
They managed to produced in huge numbers because of the development of a highly skilled workforce, a multitude of aircraft plants in safe locations and excellent management practices. It wasn't a miracle, but the outcome of a well planned and implemented programme. And they put produced the Germans in raw numbers.
Udet said:
Yep, the origin of this claim is clouded in mystery.
Udet said:
Well for an aircraft that is supposedly over-inflated in importance it did well to lose just 115 aircraft to all causes in 8 months of combat. Perhaps you haven't read the many pilots reports who claim that the La 7 was the best of that family of aircraft, and proved the equal to anything in the Luftwaffe armoury.
It's all well and good to focus on numbers and stastics for aircraft performance, but in the final analysis it's the pilots reports that count most.
QUOTE #1:
"Such wild general statements are one of the reasons that contribute to the belief that Soviet aircraft were inferior to the Luftwaffe. For example the Yak 9T was a totally different aircraft to the Yak 3. In it's debut over Kurst Yak 9's claimed the destruction of 54 enemy aircraft for the loss of just 12 to all causes. And according to pilot reports the Yak 9 - in all variants (15 in total) was rated as the best in survivability next to the La 5FN."
Really?
You call my words "such general wild statements". Frankly speaking is that i say to you i have no problem with that at all. Still, and as you might comprehend, i have certain things to type down here.
Now, let me illustrate it a bit further for you:
Try to read things before discharging your words: although not thoroughly detailed, i did state the Yak-9T is a different machine, note where i said "a heavier version", after having described the Yak-3 as a "light weight".
I do know what the differences between the Yak-3 and the Yak-9T were. Sorry mister but i do not believe you can come along and tell me what the differences between both models were.
I will put your "Kursk" reference in the dustbin -fast track-. Do you know how many planes the jagdwaffe destroyed in combat on July 5th only, mister -not including those lost to Flak and accidents-? Does not sound like you do.
Please note you suggest my comments of the late Focke Wulfs beating the Yaks "are silly", while filing a funny claim of some sort of "superb" record of a Yak model during a battle where the VVS did very little besides losing thousands of pilots in just a few days. You need professional help and ought to inform someone.
Again, it´s funny you called my words "general" and "wild" while failing to see your own vagueness:
So the Yak-9T "claimed" the destruction of "54 planes" in "its debut battle"?
A claim counted as effectively destroyed?
54 planes? During Kursk? Shadowy data.
Are you acquainted with the soviet method to confirm victories to their pilots?
More of your stuff:
QUOTE # 2:
"Again several misconceptions.
i) The machines were not hastily built from late 1942 onwards, when all had been moved east out of Luftwaffe bomber range. Yes quality was always a problem with Soviet aircraft, but the quality emproved enormously from late 1943 onwards - although never reaching German nor Allied levels."
QUOTE # 3:
"ii) All aircraft off the production lines were fitted with radio's from December 1942 onwards (mostly just able to receive commands), only the flight leaders having the ability to transmit."
Really? You ought to stop for you are clueless.
QUOTE # 4:
"iii) Whilst the hasty training programme left much to be desired from June 1941 to early 1943, it improved dramatically from mid 1943 onwards. For example the average number of hours solo a pupil had in late 1941 was 16 hours. In 1942 it rose to 31 hours. In March 1943 it was 120 hours and by November 1943 it had risen to 190 hours. The standard from January 1944 onwards was 330 hours."
Laughable -and pointless-. It gives me a pretty accurate picture of your knowledge about soviet losses during 1943 , say, at Kursk and during the battle over the Kuban bridgehead which are battles highly boasted by the soviet propaganda. Same for the year of 1944.
My "misconceptions"? I appreciate your kindness and warm gesture; it tells me you are a noble man who tries to help people when you see their failures. Keep up the good work, there will come the day when planet earth is free of ignorant people such as myself.
We have the same situation here mr. wisdom. Here are the questions to challenge your self-reliance:
(1) Have you talked to veterans of the VVS? If so, how many have you had the chance of meeting?
(2) Have you had the chance of meeting people who worked in airplane production facilities of the soviet union during the great patriotic war? If so, how many have you had the chance of meeting and where were such facilities located?
More from you:
QUOTE # 5:
"What a silly claim. The numbers of these aircraft were so insignificant as to be utterly ignored."
Not a claim mister; rather it´s a fact. In the scarce numbers it saw service the Ta-152s raided the soviet fighters losing zero of their own; the Fw 190 D-9 was produced in certainly higher numbers and just like its younger cousin, it owned the Yaks in combat.
You have problems in distinguishing between claims and facts.
This gentleman is really something. A "silly claim". Once more, read your vague assertion regarding the Kursk debut of the Yak-9. I already ignored it.
QUOTE # 6:
"They managed to produced in huge numbers because of the development of a highly skilled workforce, a multitude of aircraft plants in safe locations and excellent management practices. It wasn't a miracle, but the outcome of a well planned and implemented programme. And they put produced the Germans in raw numbers."
Really? This interesting. Did not know about this remarkable fact. Do not change my life in such a rude manner.
Finally, to have a golden ending:
QUOTE # 7:
"Well for an aircraft that is supposedly over-inflated in importance it did well to lose just 115 aircraft to all causes in 8 months of combat. Perhaps you haven't read the many pilots reports who claim that the La 7 was the best of that family of aircraft, and proved the equal to anything in the Luftwaffe armoury.
It's all well and good to focus on numbers and stastics for aircraft performance, but in the final analysis it's the pilots reports that count most.[/QUOTE]"
The first paragraph of this quote is a jewel, i´m keeping it for future debating; i promise i´ll practice intellectual honesty and will give credit to the man who coined the marvelous phrase.
In fact Priller i devoted too much time in responding to your silly, blanket and void posting. I promise i will ignore any future response you might deliver to my comments.
cheers
"Such wild general statements are one of the reasons that contribute to the belief that Soviet aircraft were inferior to the Luftwaffe. For example the Yak 9T was a totally different aircraft to the Yak 3. In it's debut over Kurst Yak 9's claimed the destruction of 54 enemy aircraft for the loss of just 12 to all causes. And according to pilot reports the Yak 9 - in all variants (15 in total) was rated as the best in survivability next to the La 5FN."
Really?
You call my words "such general wild statements". Frankly speaking is that i say to you i have no problem with that at all. Still, and as you might comprehend, i have certain things to type down here.
Now, let me illustrate it a bit further for you:
Try to read things before discharging your words: although not thoroughly detailed, i did state the Yak-9T is a different machine, note where i said "a heavier version", after having described the Yak-3 as a "light weight".
I do know what the differences between the Yak-3 and the Yak-9T were. Sorry mister but i do not believe you can come along and tell me what the differences between both models were.
I will put your "Kursk" reference in the dustbin -fast track-. Do you know how many planes the jagdwaffe destroyed in combat on July 5th only, mister -not including those lost to Flak and accidents-? Does not sound like you do.
Please note you suggest my comments of the late Focke Wulfs beating the Yaks "are silly", while filing a funny claim of some sort of "superb" record of a Yak model during a battle where the VVS did very little besides losing thousands of pilots in just a few days. You need professional help and ought to inform someone.
Again, it´s funny you called my words "general" and "wild" while failing to see your own vagueness:
So the Yak-9T "claimed" the destruction of "54 planes" in "its debut battle"?
A claim counted as effectively destroyed?
54 planes? During Kursk? Shadowy data.
Are you acquainted with the soviet method to confirm victories to their pilots?
More of your stuff:
QUOTE # 2:
"Again several misconceptions.
i) The machines were not hastily built from late 1942 onwards, when all had been moved east out of Luftwaffe bomber range. Yes quality was always a problem with Soviet aircraft, but the quality emproved enormously from late 1943 onwards - although never reaching German nor Allied levels."
QUOTE # 3:
"ii) All aircraft off the production lines were fitted with radio's from December 1942 onwards (mostly just able to receive commands), only the flight leaders having the ability to transmit."
Really? You ought to stop for you are clueless.
QUOTE # 4:
"iii) Whilst the hasty training programme left much to be desired from June 1941 to early 1943, it improved dramatically from mid 1943 onwards. For example the average number of hours solo a pupil had in late 1941 was 16 hours. In 1942 it rose to 31 hours. In March 1943 it was 120 hours and by November 1943 it had risen to 190 hours. The standard from January 1944 onwards was 330 hours."
Laughable -and pointless-. It gives me a pretty accurate picture of your knowledge about soviet losses during 1943 , say, at Kursk and during the battle over the Kuban bridgehead which are battles highly boasted by the soviet propaganda. Same for the year of 1944.My "misconceptions"? I appreciate your kindness and warm gesture; it tells me you are a noble man who tries to help people when you see their failures. Keep up the good work, there will come the day when planet earth is free of ignorant people such as myself.
We have the same situation here mr. wisdom. Here are the questions to challenge your self-reliance:
(1) Have you talked to veterans of the VVS? If so, how many have you had the chance of meeting?
(2) Have you had the chance of meeting people who worked in airplane production facilities of the soviet union during the great patriotic war? If so, how many have you had the chance of meeting and where were such facilities located?
More from you:
QUOTE # 5:
"What a silly claim. The numbers of these aircraft were so insignificant as to be utterly ignored."
Not a claim mister; rather it´s a fact. In the scarce numbers it saw service the Ta-152s raided the soviet fighters losing zero of their own; the Fw 190 D-9 was produced in certainly higher numbers and just like its younger cousin, it owned the Yaks in combat.
You have problems in distinguishing between claims and facts.
This gentleman is really something. A "silly claim". Once more, read your vague assertion regarding the Kursk debut of the Yak-9. I already ignored it.
QUOTE # 6:
"They managed to produced in huge numbers because of the development of a highly skilled workforce, a multitude of aircraft plants in safe locations and excellent management practices. It wasn't a miracle, but the outcome of a well planned and implemented programme. And they put produced the Germans in raw numbers."
Really? This interesting. Did not know about this remarkable fact. Do not change my life in such a rude manner.
Finally, to have a golden ending:
QUOTE # 7:
"Well for an aircraft that is supposedly over-inflated in importance it did well to lose just 115 aircraft to all causes in 8 months of combat. Perhaps you haven't read the many pilots reports who claim that the La 7 was the best of that family of aircraft, and proved the equal to anything in the Luftwaffe armoury.
It's all well and good to focus on numbers and stastics for aircraft performance, but in the final analysis it's the pilots reports that count most.[/QUOTE]"
The first paragraph of this quote is a jewel, i´m keeping it for future debating; i promise i´ll practice intellectual honesty and will give credit to the man who coined the marvelous phrase.
In fact Priller i devoted too much time in responding to your silly, blanket and void posting. I promise i will ignore any future response you might deliver to my comments.
cheers
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
well ignore this Udet you are a pompous ******* and probably had the **** kicked out of you daily when you were a kid by other smaller kids
Henk
Master Sergeant
Where is Les now? pbfoot to who did you wright that?
P
PipsPriller
Guest
Your post Udet illustrates your inability to argue a case, it seems you are only capable (and poorly at that) of issuing insults.
I give specific's whilst you just blow hot air. Ho hum.
I give specific's whilst you just blow hot air. Ho hum.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Ur going to sit there and state that u ignore the combat effectiveness of the 2 best prop jobs in the entire War???? Are u an idiot or just clinically retarded??? Talking with Willi Reschke many years ago solidified this that no Soviet fighter could come close to either aircraft at any altitude...priller said:
Sounds like ur one of those pro-Soviet everything else sucked morons....
P
PipsPriller
Guest
Well, well. Here's another who can only resort to insults.
For clarification it's pointless to mention the impact of two aircraft that saw such limited service. Yes they were outstanding aircraft, arguably the best piston aircraft of the war from any nation. However there were only around 670 Fw 190D-9's produced. And most saw service in the west. Of the Ta 152 only a handful served with JG301 (never more than 16 on hand at any one time) and even less with Erprobungskommando Ta152.
And with only the fiollowing victory claims it hardly made an impact against the V.V.S.
Ofw. Josef Keil, 1 P51 on the 1 march 1945??, 1 P47 on the 10 april 1945 and two Yak9s on 21 april 1945. Total victories 10.
Ofw. Walter Loos, 2 Yak9s on 24 april 1945, 1 Yak9 on 30 april 1945. Total victories 3.
Ofw. Willi Reschke, 1 Hawker Tempest on 14 april 1945, 2 Yak9s on 24april 1945. Total victories 27.
(above claims from the book "Jagdgeschwader 301/302 "Wilde Sau" In defense of the Reich with the Bf109, Fw190 and Ta152" By Willi Reschke).
For clarification it's pointless to mention the impact of two aircraft that saw such limited service. Yes they were outstanding aircraft, arguably the best piston aircraft of the war from any nation. However there were only around 670 Fw 190D-9's produced. And most saw service in the west. Of the Ta 152 only a handful served with JG301 (never more than 16 on hand at any one time) and even less with Erprobungskommando Ta152.
And with only the fiollowing victory claims it hardly made an impact against the V.V.S.
Ofw. Josef Keil, 1 P51 on the 1 march 1945??, 1 P47 on the 10 april 1945 and two Yak9s on 21 april 1945. Total victories 10.
Ofw. Walter Loos, 2 Yak9s on 24 april 1945, 1 Yak9 on 30 april 1945. Total victories 3.
Ofw. Willi Reschke, 1 Hawker Tempest on 14 april 1945, 2 Yak9s on 24april 1945. Total victories 27.
(above claims from the book "Jagdgeschwader 301/302 "Wilde Sau" In defense of the Reich with the Bf109, Fw190 and Ta152" By Willi Reschke).
