Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet Navy's Airforce

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by RGA View Post
    Hurricane isn't a bad aircraft at all. During the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane shot down the majority of the planes claimed by the RAF (1,593 out of 2,739 total claimed). Its main drawback is its speed. Actually, the Spitfire is faster, but the Hurricane is more maneuverability. Why the RAF rejected the Hurricane and developed the Spitfire is the Spitfire superior speed.
    A Hurricane was not able to fight effectively against Bf109 even in 1940 during Battle of Britain. It was sent against German bombers because it was not able to fight against German fighters. Spitfire saved Britain from catastrophe in 1940 because if there was no Spitfires Hurricanes wouldn't win in struggle against Bf109s.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by RGA View Post
      The P-40 isn't a high-speed fighter. Soviet pilot tried to improve its climb rate by removing 1 or even 2 pairs of wing guns ( That's also the thing they did with P-39). Without changed, the original P-40 wasn't sufficient for missions of Northern Fleet.
      The main disadvantage of I-16 was his low speed (like P-40). It was much more maneurable than Bf109 but it was not enough. Speed was the most important.

      So I-16 and P-40 had the same disadvantage in comparison to Bf109 and modern Soviet fighters of that time.

      Comment


      • #18
        I believe some of the best aircraft of the war were Soviet. The IL-2, PE-2 and Tu-2. Additionally, the Yak-3 (which actually became operational after the Yak-9) was the best fighter. In fact, Luftewaffe pilots were instructed not to attempt to "dogfight" with it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Barbarossa View Post
          Additionally, the Yak-3 (which actually became operational after the Yak-9) was the best fighter. In fact, Luftewaffe pilots were instructed not to attempt to "dogfight" with it.
          Do you mean Yak-3 in your last statement?

          By the end of the war the quality of German pilots had decreased and the one of the Soviet pilots - had increased.

          Also the Soviets had much reserves of planes, pilots and fuel but the Germans had not.

          So it could be not only the question of the quality of the planes.

          Comment


          • #20
            It's hard to say which aircraft's side was better. It depends on many factors:
            Yak-3 is very maneuverability, but it lacks acceleration and long range. In fact, Yak-3 is the lightest fighter of the war, and it can outmaneuver any others aircraft. But, it had to sacrifice its range, due to the short amount of fuel.
            Bf-109 and Fw-190 are also short-range fighters, but they were equipped with MW-50 boost, and could escape from any following enemy. Their armament is very strong.
            P-51 is a long-range escort fighter, and that's the main task of it in WW2. Its main drawback is its liquid-cooled engine, and many US ace said that, "only a bullet can bring a P-51 down".
            When using as supporting fighter, Yak-3 is the best. But for intercept mission, Bf-109 and FW-190 are better. For long-range escort mission, no fighter can match the P-51.
            "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RGA View Post
              It's hard to say which aircraft's side was better. It depends on many factors:
              Yak-3 is very maneuverability, but it lacks acceleration and long range. In fact, Yak-3 is the lightest fighter of the war, and it can outmaneuver any others aircraft. But, it had to sacrifice its range, due to the short amount of fuel.
              Bf-109 and Fw-190 are also short-range fighters, but they were equipped with MW-50 boost, and could escape from any following enemy. Their armament is very strong.
              P-51 is a long-range escort fighter, and that's the main task of it in WW2. Its main drawback is its liquid-cooled engine, and many US ace said that, "only a bullet can bring a P-51 down".
              When using as supporting fighter, Yak-3 is the best. But for intercept mission, Bf-109 and FW-190 are better. For long-range escort mission, no fighter can match the P-51.
              That is some very generalizing comments and only half truths.

              Talking about qualities of a "109" or "190" makes very little sense. There is sóme 150 kph difference in top speed between early 109's and late. Also the MW-50 injection isn't some sort of super-boost, making them uncatchable. There were still planes able to equal their speed.

              Manouverability also is a vague term. What does it cover? sustained turn rate, momentarily turn rate, roll rate, climb rate? For instance all 190A's had great roll rate (some 180 degree/sec off the top of my head), but they climbed slow compared to contemporary planes, and had a poor sustained turn.
              Snefens

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by RGA View Post
                It's hard to say which aircraft's side was better. It depends on many factors:
                Yak-3 is very maneuverability, but it lacks acceleration and long range. In fact, Yak-3 is the lightest fighter of the war, and it can outmaneuver any others aircraft. But, it had to sacrifice its range, due to the short amount of fuel.
                Bf-109 and Fw-190 are also short-range fighters, but they were equipped with MW-50 boost, and could escape from any following enemy. Their armament is very strong.
                P-51 is a long-range escort fighter, and that's the main task of it in WW2. Its main drawback is its liquid-cooled engine, and many US ace said that, "only a bullet can bring a P-51 down".
                When using as supporting fighter, Yak-3 is the best. But for intercept mission, Bf-109 and FW-190 are better. For long-range escort mission, no fighter can match the P-51.
                Take care with such too common sentences.

                1. You forgot about different models and different time periods.

                Bf109... Of which type and in which time? Bf109B fought in Spain, Bf109E and Bf109F attacked the USSR in June, 1941, Bf109G fought in the end of the war. Do you think all they were equal?

                For example, in 1941 the Soviets fought very well against Bf109E but Bf109F was far much dangerous enemy.

                I-16 also had a few models and the best models (I-16 type 29) were very good.

                2. There were a lot of factors which influented the effectiveness of a plane.

                For example, in Battle of Britain Spitfires had better fuel, shorter range from airfield to the placew of a combat and the possibility to bail out safely over their territory. In the same time their airfield were under bomb raids and those were the Germans who chose the time of air battle so it was often when tired exhausted RAF pilots were forced to take off and to fight.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I mean the fighter at the end of the war: Fw-190D and Bf-109G (lastest version G6, G10, G14). They may be not very good in turn , but they can escape by steep dive. That's their advantage. Their armament is also very strong: Fw-190 has 4 20mm cannons and 2 13mm MG. Bf-109 has 1 30mm nose cannon, 2 13mm Mg and sometimes 2 20mm wing-cannons. Their strong armament but poor maneuverability means that , they had to attack surprisely , destroy their enemy and escape as fast as possible. The German pilots, especially their aces, were very good at this.
                  "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by RGA View Post
                    I mean the fighter at the end of the war: Fw-190D and Bf-109G (lastest version G6, G10, G14). They may be not very good in turn , but they can escape by steep dive. That's their advantage. Their armament is also very strong: Fw-190 has 4 20mm cannons and 2 13mm MG. Bf-109 has 1 30mm nose cannon, 2 13mm Mg and sometimes 2 20mm wing-cannons. Their strong armament but poor maneuverability means that , they had to attack surprisely , destroy their enemy and escape as fast as possible. The German pilots, especially their aces, were very good at this.
                    In the end if the war Luftwaffe was not able to resist the Soviet Air Forces. The most of its aces were shot down, the significant part of the pilots were green novices with lack of training.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      To get back towards topic.
                      Does anyone have information about which units were in Baltic Fleet in 1944 at the end of the Leningrad siege?
                      Snefens

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The quality of Luftwaffe at the end of the war was very bad. Most of their experts were killed, and their average pilots were only trained in accelerated courses. Some was only trained a few hours before the flight. But it doesn't mean that the German aircrafts were bad.
                        "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X