FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If I remember right the few that made it to Spain performed well and was even more maneuvable than the early Bf 109s it faced.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If I remember right the few that made it to Spain performed well and was even more maneuvable than the early Bf 109s it faced.The I153 was a generation before the Bf109, but not a bad airplane, better than the german biplanes which it fought in the spanish civil war.
The I-153 failed miserably as a fighter though, being massively outperformed by the 109.
If I remember right the few that made it to Spain performed well and was even more maneuvable than the early Bf 109s it faced.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread - there was also discussion about the export version that went to Finland where it had one of the best, if not the best kill to loss ratio of the entire war!!!!I notice how NO ONE has even MENTIONED the F3F Brewster 'buffalo' as of yet, the thing was very possibly THE WORST aircraft of the entire war!
The Finnish had even better succes with the 109.
Again the I-153 was a good fighter in its day, it was just outclassed by modern German fighters, but as stated could hold its own against early 109s - that was proven over Spain.As for the I-153, very maneuverable yes, but painfully slow. The 109 massively outperformed the I-153.
The I-153 is one of the very worst a/c of WW2 IMO, being completely useless from start till finish. Heck even the Brewster Buffalo out performed it.
The I-153 got its ass kicked by the 109 over spain FLYBOYJ.
Anyway we're talking WW2 here and IMO the I-153 was as useless as could be in that war. And I really don't think that just because it was built for the early 30's that this justifies that it can't be called the worst of WW2. Heck if it's that way round why not bring up the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, it kicked ass in WW1, so surely it can't be called crap in WW2. See what I mean ??
The "Crappy'ness" of an a/c in war shouldn't be based on its performance at its introduction date, but rather on its performance in that very conflict, and the I-153 in short sucked as a fighter in WW2.
Did it????The I-153 got its ass kicked by the 109 over spain FLYBOYJ.
The aircraft performed per it's design requirement - it would be like putting the Bf 109 aganist an F-86 and saying the Bf 109 was crap, just the opposite of your example.Anyway we're talking WW2 here and IMO the I-153 was as useless as could be in that war. And I really don't think that just because it was built for the early 30's that this justifies that it can't be called the worst of WW2. Heck if it's that way round why not bring up the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, it kicked ass in WW1, so surely it can't be called crap in WW2. See what I mean ??
I disagree - the I-153 was outclassed, was flown by inferior pilots who deployed inferior tactics- it was a generation behind what it was fighting against - it would be like He 51s fighting Spitfires (as I stated earlier). But had it fought against an air arm whose best fighter was the He 51, I think things would of been very different as it older brother the I-15 did very well against the He51 over Spain.The "Crappy'ness" of an a/c in war shouldn't be based on its performance at its introduction date, but rather on its performance in that very conflict, and the I-153 in short sucked as a fighter in WW2.
Actually, the 1-153 never flew in Spain. That was the I-15 (Chato)or I-152;both had fixed landing gear, the 153 had retractable gear.
The I-153 was actually built because of the 'success' of the other two earlier types in Spain which convinced Soviet planners in the 30s that hightly maneuverable bi-planes could still be effective in modern warfare.
The I-153 was not operational until 1939, and remained in service until 1943. They build 3437 of them, armed initally with 4 x 7.62mm, later with 2 or 4 x 12.7mm or 2 x 20mm.
It was considered to have done better against the Japanese Ki-27 than either the I-15bis or I-16.
There were 11 Soviet pilots who achieved 'Ace' status flying the Polikarpov biplanes during WWII. Alexander Ardeyev was one of them, with 12 kills flying I-153s. 56 kill ace Rechkalov also got 3 kills in a I-153.
Definately not a great plane, but also definatley not the worst plane of WWII.
The Finns would beg to differ, along with a number of USN pilots who flew it in testing.I notice how NO ONE has even MENTIONED the F3F Brewster 'buffalo' as of yet, the thing was very possibly THE WORST aircraft of the entire war!
Wouldn't that then make it an I-16 with a top wing and some struts tacked on?Actually, the 1-153 never flew in Spain. That was the I-15 (Chato)or I-152;both had fixed landing gear, the 153 had retractable gear.
No - it said it might not have ever seen combat - and that was also the point by claidemoreFLYBOYJ,
That article just reinforces what I said, the Polikarpoc series gots its ass kicked over Spain by the 109.
AgreeMoving on..
If any WW2 fighter was used in the Korean war in the 50's it would've been the worst of that conflict FLYBOYJ, the Jet's would massacre it.
Are you talking about the I-16? It was outclassed but did hold it's own against the early 109s. US Mercenary Frank Tinker shot down a Bf 109 flying an I-16. Overall I agree the early 109 was a superior aircraft when compared to the I-16 (or I-153) but again the I-15, I-16 and the I-153 fulfilled their role during the period they were intended to be used in, that being the late 1930s. Again the I-153 should be compared with the last of the biplane fighters, the Gloster Gladiator, the CR 42, the Avia and the He 51.The Polikarpov series were useless in WW2 and can therefore be called the worst of that conflict. Heck they did miserably over Spain against the Bf-109C B's.
Wouldn't that then make it an I-16 with a top wing and some struts tacked on?
Of course, I think it pre-dates the I-16, but just saying. Elvis