PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, did the VVS not like the spitfire?



XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:05 AM
just wondering, ive heard that the spitfire wasnt that well received with the VVS, was this because of performance issues? weak armourment? or because of the maintenance? id like to know since we might be gettign 3 spits in the payware add-on.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:05 AM
just wondering, ive heard that the spitfire wasnt that well received with the VVS, was this because of performance issues? weak armourment? or because of the maintenance? id like to know since we might be gettign 3 spits in the payware add-on.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:06 AM
Why do you need to ask Oleg about it?

---------------------------------------
You want accurate? Next time your player is killed, delete the game from your system and never play it again.-BuddhaBing

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:14 AM
Apparently not, it was unsuited for the raging eastern front, having a complicated maitenance and no sand filter, unsuited for the Kuban and Crimea sectors. They were retreated and used for the defence of Moscow, however

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:19 AM
wasnt the spitfire used in lenningrad too?

ZG77_Nagual
11-06-2003, 01:24 AM
Americans didn't like it either

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:27 AM
it was made for high altitude wasnt it?

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:41 AM
no...there were low level variants. the "LF" version ws a merlin engine with the supercharger geared to kick in at a lower level (16,000ft)then the "F" variant. the LF was also sometimes given clipped wing for a faster rollrate down low.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:53 AM
American's liked it enough to use it for PR work for quite some time.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 02:07 AM
As to the Spitfire in the VVS, I think quite a few of the issues were to do with reliability, or the lack of to be more to the point (the Spitfire was not made to the same demanding reliability standards the Soviets were fond off). Also I am not sure what "quality" of Spitfires were sent (ie. 2nd hand as opposed to new machines).

As to Americans not liking it... thats subject to debate. It depends on which pilot you ask.... some off them absolutely loved the Spitfire, even to the point where they said they never flew such a pleasant design again.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:07 AM
Hehe, typical Russian hardware standards. Designed to be tough as nails, survive in any condition, and work. Nothing fancy, nothing super amazing, just get the job done.

Much like the rockets they've been using. There still is not a U.S. counterpart that is equally as reliable.

Or the whole story about how NASA spent large sums of money to develop a zero-G pen. Cosmonauts used pencils. Gotta love that stuff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I bet the Merlins were tough to maintain and I'm sure British crews spent considerble time tuning and working on them.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:17 AM
I think they did like it. Didn't Stalin lament the fact that he got Warhawks and Hurricanes instead of Airacobras and Spitfires?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:22 AM
Maintainance is heavily reliant on the standards of the people suing and maintaining the equipment. That goes for all hardware. Parts counts and stock also make a large difference but if your average mechanics are only basic then your equipment had better not be special.

This is why the AK47 makes a much better terrorist and revolutionaries weapon than most any other, it won't quit near as quickly if it's not kept clean and oiled. An M16 not cleaned or mistreated (makes a very poor hammer) would fail much, much sooner while if kept maintained will last but still not have the life of the AK47. I know I'd rather have the M16 if I had to move quick and shoot often at medium to short range though, try one-handing an AK47 sometime.

Ruggedness too counts for much but Spitfires were not so fragile as to be unsuited for war. They were in constant use in 1940 often in back to back sorties without falling apart en masse.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 06:35 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Americans didn't like it either
-

Supposedly the pilots of the 4th FG complained bitterly when they had to give up their spitfires for thunderbolts.

DangerForward

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:26 AM
Sorry guys to catch this one a bit late but discussion topics are for General Discussion not ORR. Please continue there.

ORR Guidelines http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zuhqm

<p align="center">
<A HREF="http://www.mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/il2_fb.htm" TARGET=_blank>
http://mudmovers.com/temp/snoopysig1.jpg</A>
<A HREF="http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm" TARGET=_blank>
Unofficial IL-2 Community FAQ</font></A>
Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)
Forgotten Battles Reality Check (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html)
</font>