PDA

View Full Version : Spitfires in Russia



Hydra444
04-10-2005, 09:55 PM
I've been trying to find info on the Lend-Lease Spits that operated in Russia but can't get anything that actually has in any details like successes and the like.

Could someone hook me up with abit of history about these Russian Spits.Thx http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
04-10-2005, 10:00 PM
they got mark V,IX, possibly I and II

i dont know more about what they did...

one rammed a fw189, to save troops on the ground tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Enforcer572005
04-10-2005, 10:25 PM
I've been reading RED PHOENIX, history of the VVS in WW2, and it mentions Spit mkVs being used alot in the kuban, along with the P39. About all it has so far is that the VVS pilots werent too impressed with low altitude performance, and they had severe IFF problems....Lots of friendly fire incidents, since it looked so much like a 109 to them (and the Lagg didnt?)
one ace named Ivanov got shot down twice by VVS over the Kuban. after 3 months they were taken out of operations in the kuban.They really suffered badly to thier own AA gunners though.

I know they were used alot later to. Theres a photo in the book of spit mk9s in april of 45 on the ground...they all have the wingtips removed.
Ill see if I can find some more stuff tomorow about its use. they used MkV and Mk9, but mostly the former by far. I think they usually took the wingtips off (making them VBs) for low altitude.

In 83 I saw Gen. Stienhoff (262 and 109 ace on both fronts) speak, and he mentioned that they were far more effective in RAF hands than VVS. He said they were not any more effective than most VVS fighters, until you came across some really good pilots, like the red guards ourfits.
It's kinda strange how they could do so well with planes the usaaf and RAF failed with, but didnt like the ones that western pilots did well with.

LEXX_Luthor
04-10-2005, 11:52 PM
They didn't like P~47 either, and like the Spit they eventually used it for PVO interception. PVO was was rear air defence and was thought of as second class...even into the 1980s according to some frontline VVS jet pilots (of course VVS pilots would say that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Also the Spit was not great at the primitive frontline battlefield airfields--better used in the rear to attack long range bombers and recon and operate from better airfields...like the airfields we have over the FB.

We never did get primitive frontline airfields for Eastern Front (think Iwo Jima field).


Ya pingu I was thinking of that Fw189 ramming while waiting...and waiting...for this thread to open. It was artillery spotting at the time, and the Spits had used up ammo before reaching the assigned target (189) or something....story told by German pilot protecting the 189 I think. Can't remember where I read that.

Hydra444
04-11-2005, 12:03 AM
Interesting stuff guys.I always thought it to be alittle odd myself that Russian's never seemed to take a liking to many of the "superior" allied Lend-Lease a/c...Maybe they thought they were noob planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Did any Ruskie's reach Ace status in them?

LEXX_Luthor
04-11-2005, 12:44 AM
Yes. P~39 was, believe it or not, an Ace Maker on the Eastern Front.

LEXX_Luthor
04-11-2005, 12:56 AM
(long read) P~40 Eastern Front
~~> http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/index.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Kittyhawk was considered an "average" aircraft in the Soviet VVS, better than the I-15, I-16, and Hurricane, <span class="ev_code_yellow">but not as good as the P-39</span>, Yak, or Lavochkin <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-------------------

Loooong 4 Part interview with pilot who flew I~16, Hurricane, P~39, P~40, Yaks, etc...he talks about P~39 in part 3.

~~> Golodnikov http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/

At that interview link, on the left you will see links to articles on Lend Leace aircraft, including that P~40 article.

tjaika1910
04-11-2005, 02:13 AM
I quote this from the link above:

A. S. Tell us, our later aircraft€"the Yaks and Lavochkins€"did they fall far behind the Germans?

N. G. They were not inferior. I have already said that in speed, acceleration capability, and maneuverability the Cobra was at a minimum on a par with the German aircraft. And the Yaks and Lavochkins were not less capable than the Cobra. What superiority are you talking about?

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, if you look at any reference book, the superiority in speed of German aircraft€"the Bf-109G and FW-190€"is indisputable. Minimum 20€"25 kilometers at low altitudes and up to 80€"100 kilometers at high altitudes. And you say ours did not lag behind?

N. G. No, some difference in speed always exists. At low altitudes we were a bit faster, at high altitudes they were. The difference was on the order of 10€"20 km. But this difference was not so great that it ensured overwhelming superiority. In combat it was practically not discernible.

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, sometime relatively long ago I was speaking with a pilot€"a frontline veteran. Right after the war they flew in captured aircraft. And no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to attain the speeds the Germans had written in their specifications. The shortfall in speed was significant. In the end, they prevailed upon a German, a high-level specialist, and asked him, €œWhy this shortfall in speed? Are we using the engine€s capability incorrectly?€ His response was that they would never achieve the target speed, because the German specifications showed the theoretical speed, and they were attempting to attain that speed on their instruments.

Nikolay Gerasimovich, in your view, is this possible?

N. G. Of course. We had a group of specialists with us from NII VVS. They were examining specifications and were looking at speed. €œWhat speed is indicated at 7,000 meters? 780? Take away 100. And what about 3,000 meters? 700? Reduce it 70 km.€ This is how they calculated the instrumented speed and, characteristically, almost always hit their target. Perhaps they knew something about our focus on speed.

Text AndreySukhorukov
Translation James F. Gebhardt


That is something for the discussions here on the forums. Some people find data for flight characteristics for aircrafts and want the in the game. And they might not be realistic at all, and not comparable to aircraft data for other countris!

F19_Ob
04-11-2005, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tjaika1910:



........That is something for the discussions here on the forums. Some people find data for flight characteristics for aircrafts and want the in the game. And they might not be realistic at all, and not comparable to aircraft data for other countris! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

U're right.....I have posted the Golodnikov interviews before and he is just one of the pilots who points at these things...
Strangely this important question is seldom touched in the litterature.

Another thing wich is worth a few moments thought is determination of a planes superiority of another, based upon kill-statistics wich dont deal with detailed factors like the pilots skill, the planes condition or variant and also dont usually differ between a kill in the air or on landing ac or parked.
Was the killer in an advantage position from start...a bounce?
These are just a few of the questions one must ask oneself to get close to any form of truth.

some thoughts

Skalgrim
04-11-2005, 03:01 AM
the differ is, at eastfron had they fight under 2000m, and westfront above 6000m

under 2000m has spit not same powerloading advantage like above 6000m, low altitudeis 109g too faster


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
I've been reading RED PHOENIX, history of the VVS in WW2, and it mentions Spit mkVs being used alot in the kuban, along with the P39. About all it has so far is that the VVS pilots werent too impressed with low altitude performance, and they had severe IFF problems....Lots of friendly fire incidents, since it looked so much like a 109 to them (and the Lagg didnt?)
one ace named Ivanov got shot down twice by VVS over the Kuban. after 3 months they were taken out of operations in the kuban.They really suffered badly to thier own AA gunners though.

I know they were used alot later to. Theres a photo in the book of spit mk9s in april of 45 on the ground...they all have the wingtips removed.
Ill see if I can find some more stuff tomorow about its use. they used MkV and Mk9, but mostly the former by far. I think they usually took the wingtips off (making them VBs) for low altitude.

In 83 I saw Gen. Stienhoff (262 and 109 ace on both fronts) speak, and he mentioned that they were far more effective in RAF hands than VVS. He said they were not any more effective than most VVS fighters, until you came across some really good pilots, like the red guards ourfits.
It's kinda strange how they could do so well with planes the usaaf and RAF failed with, but didnt like the ones that western pilots did well with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG53Frankyboy
04-11-2005, 03:34 AM
the soviets got ~150 Spitfire MkV in 1943 , wich they used over the Kuban

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/batz.htm

as Rall reported one they called him crazy in the first time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

in 1944 they got ~1500 Spitfire IX , used in PVO units

F19_Ob
04-11-2005, 03:36 AM
oh I forgot to post about the spitfires...
I haven't read much about the lendlease spits..
but I found this...although I cant confirm or produce a source.
------------------------------------

"Units known to have used the Spitfires :
118 ORAP (PR Mk. IV and Mk. V)
7 IAP (Mk. V)
25 ZAP (Mk. V)
36 IAP (Mk. V)
57 GIAP (Mk. V)
821 IAP (Mk. V)
11 GIAP (Mk. IX)
16 IAP (Mk. V & Mk. IX)
26 GIAP (Mk. V & Mk. IX)
67 IAP (Mk. V)
102 GIAP (Mk. IX)
177 IAP (Mk. IX)
767 IAP (Mk. IX)
20 IAP (Mk. IX)
--------------------------------

It was copied from here and there is more to read in this thread.

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm19.showMessage?topicID=2 .topic

F19_Ob
04-11-2005, 03:44 AM
There is also some debate about the Finns claims where russian spits supposedly had been shot down.
Some points out that they had mistaken yak1's and yak7's for spits over the finnish gulf and that no spits were posted at the Finnish theatre.

I haven't looked in to this discussion...but it feels a bit strange that experienced pilots would make mistakes like that....I mean they knew the yaks well.
On the other hand there are some similarities from some angles at distance...

Might be interesting for U..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Engrs
04-11-2005, 05:10 AM
26 GIAP and 27 GIAP flew Spit IX in the Leningrad area during 1944.

Simmer2005
04-11-2005, 06:15 AM
Of course the Spit was used in Russia. Why do you think it dogfights so well in the game. Just like all the other Russian planes. Unlike all of the US and Other planes. HMMMMMM. If the P51 was the best dog fighter the US had in the ETO then why can you not dog fight with it. "Porked like all the rest"

JG53Frankyboy
04-11-2005, 06:34 AM
LOL

you know the VVS had 200 P-47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hydra444
04-11-2005, 07:58 AM
@Simmer-I could really care less what the plane is like in the game.I just wanted to get some info about this shady part of the Spits battle history.Besides,google hasn't been able to dig up anything on this subject that I hadn't known already.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
So....Out of all these units that flew the Spit is there any details on which was the most successful with them.

BerkshireHunt
04-11-2005, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
They didn't like P~47 either, and like the Spit they eventually used it for PVO interception. PVO was was rear air defence and was thought of as second class...even into the 1980s according to some frontline VVS jet pilots (of course VVS pilots would say that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Also the Spit was not great at the primitive frontline battlefield airfields--better used in the rear to attack long range bombers and recon and operate from better airfields...like the airfields we have over the FB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Russians claimed the Spit's Merlin engine ran rough in their service and that their machines were not as fast as Supermarine claimed. The reason for that was simply that they did not have 100 octane fuel to put in them until the very end of the war.
The small capacity Merlin only gave its optimal power at high boost pressures- which demanded the use of 100/150 octane fuel to avoid pre-detonation of the fuel/air mixture.
If you filled a Spit with lower octane fuel, the engine suffered from detonation, rough running, power loss and piston crown burn-through. Which is what happened in Soviet service.

Russian engines (like German DBs and Jumos) were of much larger capacity and were designed to run on lower octane fuel from the outset (injection helps as well).

Compare capacities:
Klimov VK105 35.00 litres
Mikulin AM35 46.70 litres
Mikulin AM38 46.70 litres
DB601 34.00 litres
DB605 35.70 litres
DB603 44.50 litres
Jumo 211 35.00 litres
Jumo 213 35.00 litres

RR Merlin 27 litres

To give equivalent power outputs to the larger engines the Merlin had to run at high boost on high octane fuel. This was possible in the West, but not in the East.

To quote a Rolls Royce engineer:

"The surprise for us was not how much power the Germans got out of the DB605, but how little. We would have loved to have a 35 litre engine to play with."

What he meant was that a 35 litre engine running on 100/150 octane fuel would have given a lot more power than Daimler Benz ever squeezed out of the '605. But the Germans, like the Russians, did not have high octane fuel available in quantity for service use so they had to, in effect, de-rate the '605, or fall back on ad-hoc measures like the use of chemical charge coolants (MW50)for temporary power boosting.

The Merlin 65/66 in the Spitfire IX had full-time charge cooling from take-off to landing- by virtue of its supercharger intercooler (same for P51). That's like running with MW50 switched on all the time. But the engine was still only 27 litres capacity and demanded at least 100 octane fuel to achieve rated power outputs. So, once again, the Russians had problems operating it.

Think about it- if all your aircraft run on 87 octane are you really going to produce and distribute 150 octane just for some fancy foreign design?
No- and the Russians didn't either.

BerkshireHunt
04-11-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hydra444:
@Simmer-I could really care less what the plane is like in the game.I just wanted to get some info about this shady part of the Spits battle history.Besides,google hasn't been able to dig up anything on this subject that I hadn't known already.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
So....Out of all these units that flew the Spit is there any details on which was the most successful with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a lot of information on Spitfire use by the Russians in Alfred Price's 'The Spitfire Story'- mainly in the Crimea. They scored many victories- but there is just too much to reproduce here.

Hydra444
04-11-2005, 09:06 AM
Wow!This is quite abit of info to absorb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That was some interesting stuff though on why the spit literally didn't perform well under the conditions found on the Eastern Front.Makes me respect those Russian birds abit more.

p1ngu666
04-11-2005, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hydra444:
Wow!This is quite abit of info to absorb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That was some interesting stuff though on why the spit literally didn't perform well under the conditions found on the Eastern Front.Makes me respect those Russian birds abit more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
ppl say il2's where often of awful quality, but theres a reason for that...
after they relocated the factory there where issues.
like the new factory didnt have a roof, but not even snow and -40c and hardly any shelter or food would stop the russians producing il2's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
my freezer runs at -18c i think...

btw, u cant drill holes in il2 armour, its that tough http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

horseback
04-11-2005, 09:24 AM
From my reading of various sources, I get the impression that Lend-lease Spitfires provided to the Soviets were often used and in less than optimal shape. Of course, just transporting them to Persia must have resulted in wear and tear, but by 1943, I understand that the Mk V had been completely replaced on the production lines by Mk IX/VIIIs.

As for high quality avgas, the Allison used in the P-39/P-40 was at least as picky as the Merlin, possibly even more so, judging from the P-38's problems in England. The Soviets supposedly got as much as they wanted from the US, but one wonders if they always 'read the instructions'...

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
04-11-2005, 10:26 AM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//ussrspit1.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//ussrspit2.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//ussrspit3.jpg

spitvb sucks at low alt, is ok at high alt. LF Vb's are good at low alt tho

Bogun
04-11-2005, 10:54 AM
Unlike what some people here choose to believe, in the Real Life some of the obsolete planes were flown for much longer then many imagine€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just want to remind about USN Wildcats FM-2, USAAF P-40€s and RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires Mk.V in 1945€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. So what is wrong with Russians flying Mk.Vb in 1943 again? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Russians allocated all 100 octane gasoline needed to the air units equipped with foreign equipment, but the problem was no so much the gasoline, but general hardship maintaining aircrafts like Spitfires (with its narrow undercarriage) on the unprepared airfields of the Eastern Front as it been noticed here, on this thread. It was one thing to maintain Spitfires in England, where plentiful spare parts were easy to come by, repair and maintenance facilities€¦ Well Russians had the same for their PVO units located near the big industrial centers like Moscow, Leningrad, Murmansk, that€s it.

In general, Spitfires did well in Russia with most losses inflicted not by enemies, but by €œfriendly fire€ of AAA and fighters and by accidents€¦

p1ngu666
04-11-2005, 11:13 AM
indeed bogun, i remmber reading about how russians had problems with some engines, merlin i *think*, they where treating it same as their native engines, which where tougher and could take more abuse.

i think one of the few exeptions to the older planes thing is lw over germany, they got newest stuff, and the upgrades where basicaly based on g6 airframe. that and the fact they where losing alot of aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bogun
04-11-2005, 11:41 AM
No, Luftwaffe was not an exception €" remember reading of one of the German aces picking old Bf109E4 in 1945 and giving newer G6 to one of the trainees €" counting that in the newer plane trainee will have better chance of survival.
You are right about Merlin engines €" there were much harder to maintain on the field. Russians had a lot of experience with Merlin powered Hurricanes and decided €" it just was not worth an effort for the frontline units - PVO units were different story.
But Spitfires were used at the front €" remember reading about Spitfires flying over frontlines during the liberation of Crimea in 1944 and on the far North during pretty much throughout the war.

Slickun
04-11-2005, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tjaika1910:



........That is something for the discussions here on the forums. Some people find data for flight characteristics for aircrafts and want the in the game. And they might not be realistic at all, and not comparable to aircraft data for other countris! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

U're right.....I have posted the Golodnikov interviews before and he is just one of the pilots who points at these things...
Strangely this important question is seldom touched in the litterature.

Another thing wich is worth a few moments thought is determination of a planes superiority of another, based upon kill-statistics wich dont deal with detailed factors like the pilots skill, the planes condition or variant and also dont usually differ between a kill in the air or on landing ac or parked.
Was the killer in an advantage position from start...a bounce?
These are just a few of the questions one must ask oneself to get close to any form of truth.

some thoughts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as one can "judge" the suitibality of a plane for "dogfighting" one can also do the same for a planes ability to "bounce" another. Quite often the requirements are at odds. For example, low wing loading = good turning at low speeds, high wing loading = less drag and more performance. This is a generality, of course.

So, how would one want to build his air force? For dogfighting, meaning high drag and low range designs, big wings and low weights? Or, big, fast, high wing-loaded birds full of gas for long range, fast divers and zoom climbers, to take the fight TO the enemy?

2/3 to 3/4 (maybe even higher) of ALL aerial kills, in all wars, are from an unobserved bounce. It became obvious as time progressed from WW1 that the question, "what is more important, maneuverability or performance?" was a no-brainer. Every beligerant in WW2 figured it out. Except for a few notable exceptions, planes got bigger, faster, and heavier. Performance was the key.

We like the maneuverability thing as simmers. We can get killed and come back. Its a gas to go round and round.

May I suggest that if we would actually die from our game that we would find the fastest thing in the air and fly it exclusively? The ability to fly to the other guys place and fight him on YOUR terms, and be able to leave when YOU felt like it, would mean everything. Low speed g's available would become so far down the list of attributes we'd be looking for as to be irrelevant.

Do not turn your nose up at the high wing-loaded, fast turn-challenged performers.

Atomic_Marten
04-11-2005, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Just as one can "judge" the suitibality of a plane for "dogfighting" one can also do the same for a planes ability to "bounce" another. Quite often the requirements are at odds. For example, low wing loading = good turning at low speeds, high wing loading = less drag and more performance. This is a generality, of course.

So, how would one want to build his air force? For dogfighting, meaning high drag and low range designs, big wings and low weights? Or, big, fast, high wing-loaded birds full of gas for long range, fast divers and zoom climbers, to take the fight TO the enemy?

2/3 to 3/4 (maybe even higher) of ALL aerial kills, in all wars, are from an unobserved bounce. It became obvious as time progressed from WW1 that the question, "what is more important, maneuverability or performance?" was a no-brainer. Every beligerant in WW2 figured it out. Except for a few notable exceptions, planes got bigger, faster, and heavier. Performance was the key.

We like the maneuverability thing as simmers. We can get killed and come back. Its a gas to go round and round.

May I suggest that if we would actually die from our game that we would find the fastest thing in the air and fly it exclusively? The ability to fly to the other guys place and fight him on YOUR terms, and be able to leave when YOU felt like it, would mean everything. Low speed g's available would become so far down the list of attributes we'd be looking for as to be irrelevant.

Do not turn your nose up at the high wing-loaded, fast turn-challenged performers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back on the old issue.. there is no doubt that we have some favourites (ac) in the game, but if by any chance we have to choose between airplanes as WW2 flyers in combat (BTW I have a strong feeling that possibility to choose was the privileges of minority), there is no doubt what sane majority would choose; of course performance and above all, speed. About country of origin, plane type, look, all the second grade info in choosing..

Also, adaptability (simplicity of use) would have to be of great importance also. Whats the point of having fighter which demands many training hrs.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

So if you ask me, taking *JUST* this game in consideration, I would choose either LA7 or ME262 in real combat.

Atomic_Marten
04-11-2005, 01:28 PM
I have just realized, BTW that this has to do nothing with this thread so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Slickun
04-11-2005, 04:34 PM
We're talkin airplanes, what's important in a fighter....and how the Spit might not have fit into the USSR's definition of it.

LEXX_Luthor
04-11-2005, 04:50 PM
Didn't Russia got Lend Leace gas from Ussia? good gas? bad gas?

LEXX_Luthor
04-11-2005, 05:07 PM
Good read pingus, and Berks, Boguns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

blakduk
04-11-2005, 05:39 PM
I'm not sure if its relevant to the Russian experience or not, but i recall reading of Czech and Polish pilots flying for the RAF in BOB that they had difficulties with the cockpit layout etc of the British planes. Everything was back-to-front for them and it took quite a while for them to become familiar with the peculiarities.
A great story i read a long time ago (probably an urban myth) was that the Germans utilised all the equipment the British left behind at Dunkirk for only about 6mths- they had too many accidents (mainly due to the right-hand drive layout) and mechanical failures (everything was made to empirical measurements rather than metric). Rumour apparently circulated that the equipment was deliberately left behind to sabotage the Reich!
I was interested to note while in Europe myself that the continental Europeans still regard the British as peculiar and eccentric.

Bogun
04-11-2005, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Didn't Russia got Lend Leace gas from Ussia? good gas? bad gas? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Altogether Soviet Union received 2,850,500.00 short tons of lend-lease aviation gasoline and light fraction gasoline (to be refined into aviation gasoline on Russian facilities). 97% of lend-lease gasoline was 99-octane or higher.

In addition Soviets captured 82,800.00 metric tons of aviation gasoline in Rumania, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

From 1940 to 1945 Soviet Union produced 6,428,000.00 metric tons of aviation grade gasoline.

Source:
http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/04.html

Lend-lease gasoline was used almost exclusively in the frontline units armed with leand-lease equipment and to bust the octane number of the gasoline produced in the USSR. Russian M-82 and M-105 engines were designed for 95 octane gasoline.

LeadSpitter_
04-11-2005, 07:54 PM
First off I would like to say great thread hydra, I have wondered myself how they did. i know the p40s p39 and p63s did very well.

The only other thing I have read is the russians and american pilots really disliked the yoke on the hurricane and spitfire "joking about it flying like your holding a teacup"

On other accounts i've read the spit was a rough ride. the ac shakes alot in level flight compaired to the p39 p40 and mustang.

Maybe some of the russian community members can translate some information about how they did and more pilot accounts of the spits. I highly doubt they all felt the same way about the spit. Like any unfamiliar aircraft people prefer what they knew, the 109 and 190 for example many prefered the 109 over the 190 which was much better performing ac.

p1ngu666
04-11-2005, 08:32 PM
i havnet heard of spits shaking, apart from a dodgy one, a panel wasnt fitted properly, and would vibrate at higher speeds

Enforcer572005
04-11-2005, 11:45 PM
wow, great info I've always wondered about,but for every mystery answered, more arise.

I thought the P47s were used by the soviet navy, and one would think that they'd like the big, tough bird and its g-attack talent. it also had a huge gas chugging radial engine that I thought would burn anything. I'm curious as to its combat record as well.

What gets me though, is their love of the P-39, sort of like the Finns love for the Buffalos. USAAF experience in primitive front line conditions wasnt good, as it was a maintenance nightmare on Guadalcanal (I did a campn for the p39 and p400 for CFS2-They hated that plane). The nose gear would get crammed with mud and not retract or not extend and was too delicate for unpaved fields in usaaf thought. But some of the top VVS aces loved those things.

I wonder how they felt about the P-63, since it had the bugs worked out and was a much higher performance bird.

It amazes me that the VVS would like the P-39 better than the P-40, much less the P47. Alot of the thousands of planes given to them were brand new.Lots of factors that didn't apply to the western front obviously.

SnapdLikeAMutha
04-12-2005, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
On other accounts i've read the spit was a rough ride. the ac shakes alot in level flight compaired to the p39 p40 and mustang.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is probably more of a low level thing, aicraft with a low wing loading like the Spit tend to have a high gust response at low level (ie they have a greater reaction to small pockets of turbulaence) this causes the aircraft to have something of a rough ride at low level. The F-15 and most delta-wing fighters are severely hampered by this at low-level. The Western aircraft with the lowest gust response (ie the most comfortable at low level) is the Tornado MRCA.

Hydra444
04-12-2005, 01:51 AM
Holy ****! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I leave for work and come back and BAM!All this great stuff about the Spits in Russia AND some of the other Lend-Lease a/c.

So the Spit actually served with squadrons other than the PVO units it seems.Interesting.With engine issues that the Spit was less than a good match for the Russian front,but apparently gave a good account of itself.

I wasn't aware that the Ruskie's had any other marks of the Spit other than that of the MK.Vb.

Daiichidoku
04-12-2005, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
LOL

you know the VVS had 200 P-47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


well....P 39, 40 and 63 seem to be the only US aircraft in the game that fly as well as, or better in some respects than they should

hmmmmm the same types the Russia used

ah, you say they used the 47 as well, so that would kill that theory, as the 47 is certainly not "up to snuff", as the 39 40 63 are?

true, they used 47s....47s made by a company founded by Kartveli and Seversky, two Tsarist running dogs who abandoned Mother Russia for capatalist pig USA!..THAT explaiins that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


too bad Russia didnt use P 38s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Hydra444
04-12-2005, 12:10 PM
I agree.The P-38 FM is the only thing about this game that aggravates me.But thats something for a different topic.

Now,back to the history of the Spit in Russia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Monty_Thrud
04-12-2005, 02:59 PM
Regarding the low fuel grade used in the Russian Spitfires...i seem to rememeber years ago when unleaded fuel was coming to the UK, i was a bit worried because i ride a couple of Classic British Bikes, so i started reading up on what i should do to continue riding them, there were reports of heavy valve and valve seat recession.
Well lots of chemical companies started producing additives for engines...too many infact, so i wanted to know which was the best to use, IIRC one company used something like lead balls in a steel mesh or something!?, not sure what exactly but they stated that this additive was used in Hurricanes and Spitfires in WWII because of the low grade fuel problem, not sure of the companies name, could have been Millers but dont quote me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hydra444
04-13-2005, 02:02 AM
Sounds similar to adding octane boost to a full tank of gas in ones car.Not exactly the same principal,but similar.

stathem
04-13-2005, 01:29 PM
At the time of the switch to unleaded, (and probably still) there were a few companies offering octane booster with tetraethyl lead (anti-knock) included. The unleaded is 95 RON, 4-star used to be 99 RON (or 98, can't remember exactly) (same as supergreen is now). We used to use it in rally car engines that didn't have hardened valve seats.

Daiichidoku
04-13-2005, 01:49 PM
sweet plane, eh stathem?

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAsA3oW6EeBgUhdQy1kWhv12UpgsKR4h92weG1euSEyTn3N3 UnnZ!euNYpl1cNUmr6UAHbyVj7BqZj6EpUEHU2Q!q9uT5On!68 rfU4SoiapS8uL0V61Dw/fot0640.jpg?dc=4675517953019048954

stathem
04-13-2005, 02:06 PM
Yes Daii, a beauty, shame they didn't take it up.

Err, is that sig showing? It's not showing to me in my posts.

woofiedog
04-14-2005, 03:39 AM
Juan Lario Sanchez...

http://members.fortunecity.com/sanmarca/image52.gif


Personal Victories 34 (incl. USSR) (27)
Shared Victories 8 (incl. USSR) (8)
Units and Service
Spain 4EC, 2EC
USSR 108IAP, 127IAP, 348IAP
Planes I-15, Spitfire

He was born in Madrid in 1918. He was part of the pilots' second quota sent to Russia. (June, 1937). Was promoted to Sergeant 20-11-37 (D.O. 5 of 6-1-38) and to Lieutenant 30-03-38 (D.O. 131 of 31-05-38)

At the end of the Spanish Civil war he went to France where he remained in several camps until at the end of May of 1939. He then emigrated to the Soviet Union where he took part in the defense of Moscow and later took part in the battle of Stalingrad.

List of other Ace's that flew Spit's in USSR

Marcel Lefvre: confirmed 8 shared 3 D.520 ; Spitfire ;Yak

Roland de la Poype .... 7 USSR(6) 9 Spitfire V ; Yak-9 , Yak-3

André Moynet .... 6 USSR(3) 3 USSR(1) Spitfire IXb ; Yak-9 , Yak-3

Leopold Srom .... 5 USSR(4) 3 USSR(1) Spitfire I , Vb ; La-5FN

Josef Stehl*k .... 3 USSR(1) 7 USSR(1) MS.406 ; D.520 ; Hurricane I , IIa , IIb ; Spitfire Vb , Vc ; La-5FN

Link:
http://wio.ru/aces/acenn2.htm

jeanba2
04-14-2005, 09:46 AM
Woofiedog,

The French NN pilots you quote did fly Spitfire but not Soviet Spitfires.
They flew Spitfires as part of the RAF or the Free French Forces.

Hydra444
04-14-2005, 10:53 AM
Interesting stuff woofie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I thought the Free French in Russia ONLY flew Yaks,but I stand corrected http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif