PDA

View Full Version : Yak vs P-51



Pages : [1] 2

stalkervision
06-10-2009, 08:00 PM
When the P-51 merlin editions became operational against the Luftwaffe there were many discussions between the german pilots which aircraft was the better fighter. The later Yaks or the P-51.

what are your views?

Flight_boy1990
06-10-2009, 08:01 PM
Yakovlev ofcourse.

Yak-3 is outstanding below 2000m.It's even faster than the latter G series.

danjama
06-10-2009, 08:09 PM
Depends what your using the aircraft for, what type of missions.

Ill come back in 15 pages. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

TinyTim
06-10-2009, 08:11 PM
Better in what?

Low alt, short range - Yak-3.
Med alt, med range - Yak-9U (German pilots nicknamed this one "der Russische Mustang")
High alt, long range - P-51.

Very different planes for very different jobs.

M_Gunz
06-10-2009, 08:13 PM
You could dig up the post-war fighter competition held IIRC in Italy where a IIRC Yak-9DD and P-51
among others chosen and prepared by their home nations were present.

staticline1
06-10-2009, 08:17 PM
One on one? High speed P-51, low speed Yak. All else is up to pilot skill.

VW-IceFire
06-10-2009, 08:48 PM
Depends on the scenario and situation. Looking for a low to mid level scrapper...the Yak. Looking to escort bombers over long ranges or provide fighter superiority over a wide area...the Mustang.

Depends quite a bit on the Yak model as well. The 9U as opposed to the 3 are significantly different in some respects.

M_Gunz
06-10-2009, 08:55 PM
The Yak won the competition BTW.

ElAurens
06-10-2009, 08:59 PM
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1789/00910460078.jpg

FTW.

BillSwagger
06-10-2009, 09:00 PM
IRL, i'd favor the P-51. it had better range and could actually maneuver quite well at lower altitudes. Granted, its not a Yak, but the Yak is not as fast and its fuel capacity and efficiency kept it from being of any use beyond a defensive or lower altitude fighter.

In the game, Id take the yak, because 90% of dogfights are lower than 2000M, and the P-51 seems to need a lot of energy to be any good in the turns. Naturally, the acceleration of the Yak would be better suited for lower altitudes and for the most part, fuel efficiency is less of a concern in virtual reality.

Still....the P-47 craps on both planes in every way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
06-10-2009, 09:06 PM
I luv big jugs too!

horseback
06-10-2009, 09:20 PM
In a one on one competition, I'd favor the Yak; in a 4 on 4 or greater, you have to start thinking about firing time.

A Mustang could engage multiple targets and could afford to miss whereas the Yak HAD to hit its target early on, because there wasn't going to be a later. The longer the engagement lasts the better the Mustang's (or Mustangs') chances become.

In a group engagement, the Mustangs could 'chip away' at whoever got in front of them, doing a bit of damage at a time; they could afford to take more shots, and eventually make lethal hits.

cheers

horseback

Trefle
06-10-2009, 09:47 PM
The Yak like the 109 is a front line fighter .
Yak were used primarily for escorting bombers from what i've read , while the P-39 and La-'s were taking care of fighter opposition most of the time .

Yak is a specialized plane for low altitude combat ( except the 9U) ,built with agility , responsiveness and low cost in mind .
A plane with a nice power to weight ratio and good ability to keep the energy during low to medium speed manoeuvers .

P-51 Mustang was built with speed and range (well not really since it was equipped with Merlin later but it is an important feature of the plane ) in mind , so it"s kinda the opposite of a Yak since it's strong point are speed ( great medium to high alt performances ) , high speed handling and low fuel consumption , so it was was very capable at any altitude , especially at medium/ high altitude .

Both planes were used for different tasks obviously , 51's for long range escorts at altitude and Yaks for pin point attacks on the front line at low altitude , most of the time below 3k's

So it's kinda hard to answer the question , P-51 thanks to his engine could operate on longer distance and achieve the kind of missions the Yak couldn't really do succesfully because it was specialized for low altitude and with limited range , P-51 outdives Yaks , outrun them at most altitudes and outturn at high speed any Yak except maybe the 9U although i'm not sure . Also i think that the P-51 was better armed cause it had lots of ammunitions unlike the Yaks (longer firing time) and was prolly structurally more solid

Yak has prolly a better acceleration to combat speed , is more responsive , better at low speed handling , could change direction quicker than most WWII planes and could probably retain its energy better than the P-51 during low to medium speed combat manoeuvers

Both planes have their advantages and are suited to different types of missions , so the answer must be " it depends " IMO, although if i had the choice IRL , i would go for the Mustang everytime cause it suits more my style of flying

crucislancer
06-10-2009, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Ill come back in 15 pages. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I'll see your 15 pages, and raise you 5. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yak vs P-51 is like comparing apples and oranges. If given the choice, I would pick one or the other on the job I needed to do.


Still....the P-47 craps on both planes in every way

If you are comparing the P-47 to the P-51, I would agree except for range. Jug vs Yak and you have another apples and oranges comparison.

ImpStarDuece
06-10-2009, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
In a one on one competition, I'd favor the Yak; in a 4 on 4 or greater, you have to start thinking about firing time.

A Mustang could engage multiple targets and could afford to miss whereas the Yak HAD to hit its target early on, because there wasn't going to be a later. The longer the engagement lasts the better the Mustang's (or Mustangs') chances become.

In a group engagement, the Mustangs could 'chip away' at whoever got in front of them, doing a bit of damage at a time; they could afford to take more shots, and eventually make lethal hits.

cheers

horseback

I'd much rather be able to take my target out decisively with a single burst than "chip away" at a target, possibly leaving it still dangerous.

A P-51D has roughly 20-21 seconds trigger time for all six .50s and 30 seconds trigger time for the inner pair.

A Yak-9 has roughly nine seconds trigger time for the 20mm ShVAK and 16 seconds for the two 12.7 mm UBs.

If each firing opportunity is 2 seconds, then the P-51 has ten firing opportunies at full gun power, and the Yak has about 4 full two second bursts and another one second burst at full gun power.

I don't know about you, but four two second bursts at an opponent represent a major scoring opportunity, and I don't think that the extra trigger time of the P-51s puts the Yaks at a disadvantage at all.

stalkervision
06-10-2009, 10:08 PM
The p-51 was designed primarily as a low altitude fighter in the beginning same as the Yak. Adding the merlin didn't take this away. It just gave it a high altitude capability it didn't have before.

apples and oranges? Nope..

Flight_boy1990
06-10-2009, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Trefle:
Yak were used primarily for escorting bombers from what i've read , while the P-39 and La-'s were taking care of fighter opposition most of the time .

Not true at all.

Exactly the LA-5 FN/La-7 had better high altitude speed advantages over the Yaks.Therefore were those that were sent high in the sky.
The Yak was flying very low,and escorting the IL-2's,and also if there's opportunity,to strafe ground targets aswell.Also Yak was good enough at low altitudes to take care of itself,so there were specially sent on ground attack missions.

Trefle
06-10-2009, 10:29 PM
That's what i meant mate , i read this in black cross red stars , Yaks were escorting quite often ground attack planes down low whilst P-39 and La's flew higher and in front of them , hoping to engage potential ennemy fighters , perhaps i shouldn't have used the word "bombers" that is misleading , i meant ground attack planes , cheers

Freiwillige
06-10-2009, 10:54 PM
Two things I would point out, First six .50's do not chip away at anything they wreck it especially at convergance.

Secondly there was an engagement in 45' where Mustangs jumped Yaks believing them to be Luftwaffe. 2 Mustangs were lost! The Yaks countered and brought down the American superbirds.

During the Korean war P-51's accounted for several Yak-9's with no losses.

Boandlgramer
06-11-2009, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Yak-9U (German pilots nicknamed this one "der Russische Mustang")


Well I never have read something like that in any german book, or in any memories of german pilots.

M_Gunz
06-11-2009, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
During the Korean war P-51's accounted for several Yak-9's with no losses.

Who was flying those Yaks? Do you think maybe well trained Russians? They didn't even fly all the MiG-15 missions.

Freiwillige
06-11-2009, 02:53 AM
I wasnt saying that. I was just pointing out the facts as history portrayed them. As always it comes down to the quality of the pilots. I think that if skilled Russians went against skilled Americans it would not be all one sided and there would be plenty of deaths to throw around.

Both aircraft outshine the other in certain aspects but there is not enough differance that they cannot be leathal to each other!

TheGozr
06-11-2009, 03:23 AM
Well teh P51 is not really a dog fighter.

Now in Real life the Yak 9U is far superior vs the Mustang..The Mustang is good at high altitude that about it.. very different tactics but.. The P51 can fly a much longer distance for escort but the 9U can fly faster for a much longer period of time and much quicker accelerations . Also the Combat power is much higher on the Yak.. and much lighter.. But ofcourse this is is Real life.. I do i know this? well i just fly it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TinyTim
06-11-2009, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
I do i know this? well i just fly it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What engine? Allison?


Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Yak-9U (German pilots nicknamed this one "der Russische Mustang")


Well I never have read something like that in any german book, or in any memories of german pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I remeber reading about it somewhere (God knows where) a long time ago. A quick check with google gives no results (maybe someone German speaking could recheck this), so I guess it must have been a myth, or maybe a single/rare case.

stalkervision
06-11-2009, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Yak-9U (German pilots nicknamed this one "der Russische Mustang")


Well I never have read something like that in any german book, or in any memories of german pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because you never saw it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You don't know everything obviously.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Actually I have heard the same phrase used. german pilots were making similar comparisons in the book " Erich Harman the Blond Knight of Germany"

crucislancer
06-11-2009, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
The p-51 was designed primarily as a low altitude fighter in the beginning same as the Yak. Adding the merlin didn't take this away. It just gave it a high altitude capability it didn't have before.

apples and oranges? Nope..

You asked for views, and that's mine. I wouldn't use the P-51 for the same job as the Yak, and visa versa. Saying one is definitively better then the other just doesn't work IMHO.

If you prefer, Tomatoes and Potatoes.

stalkervision
06-11-2009, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The p-51 was designed primarily as a low altitude fighter in the beginning same as the Yak. Adding the merlin didn't take this away. It just gave it a high altitude capability it didn't have before.

apples and oranges? Nope..

You asked for views, and that's mine. I wouldn't use the P-51 for the same job as the Yak, and visa versa. Saying one is definitively better then the other just doesn't work IMHO.

If you prefer, Tomatoes and Potatoes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tomatos and tow-mot-tows http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The p-51 was one hell of a good low altitude fighter but suffered from a weak jaw cooling system. That's why the p-47 took over these duties.

M_Gunz
06-11-2009, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Well teh P51 is not really a dog fighter.

Now in Real life the Yak 9U is far superior vs the Mustang..The Mustang is good at high altitude that about it.. very different tactics but.. The P51 can fly a much longer distance for escort but the 9U can fly faster for a much longer period of time and much quicker accelerations . Also the Combat power is much higher on the Yak.. and much lighter.. But ofcourse this is is Real life.. I do i know this? well i just fly it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And you fly which P-51?

lesterhawksby
06-11-2009, 02:38 PM
I'll take one of each, please.

DKoor
06-11-2009, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by lesterhawksby:
I'll take one of each, please. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

They used to have these Yak-9's (new built) for sale... so... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
P-51's shouldn't be that hard to find either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Lovely warbirds TBH.

BillSwagger
06-11-2009, 02:59 PM
are there any figures for Russian aces in Yaks??

that would be interesting to see.

crucislancer
06-11-2009, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
are there any figures for Russian aces in Yaks??

that would be interesting to see.

This book has a list, IIRC:

Yakovlev Aces of WWII (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Yakovlev-Aces-of-World-War-2-_9781841768458/)

DKoor
06-11-2009, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
are there any figures for Russian aces in Yaks??

that would be interesting to see.

This book has a list, IIRC:

Yakovlev Aces of WWII (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Yakovlev-Aces-of-World-War-2-_9781841768458/) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah... it's his lucky day, since I happen to have the book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

So here they are;
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/t537174_yakaces1.gif (http://www.imagesforme.com/show.php/537174_yakaces1.gif)
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/t537175_yakaces2.gif (http://www.imagesforme.com/show.php/537175_yakaces2.gif)
...bear in mind that these are not all Yak aces but only most notable ones (their score).

stalkervision
06-11-2009, 06:02 PM
erich hartman witnessed a few scraps between Russian Yaks and american P-51 near the end of the war. He caused both of them.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

BillSwagger
06-11-2009, 07:14 PM
wow those are pretty consistent numbers. I'm assuming victories were air to air, and not air to ground.

What are the statistics for American P-51 aces??

googled...

http://www.mustangsmustangs.co...51aces/topaces.shtml (http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51aces/topaces.shtml)

Freiwillige
06-11-2009, 07:27 PM
Is the Yak faster down low?
Who maintains energy better?
What is the Acceleration differance?
Is turn and burn better than boom and zoom?

Too many variables. I think it would be no differant than vs the Germans, You win some and you lose some.

VW-IceFire
06-11-2009, 08:07 PM
There are lots of variables but you can narrow them down certainly. Otherwise why bother comparing any two aircraft...just throw up our hands and run http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If we were to break it down in the positives then it goes like this:

Mustang (P-51D)
- faster at all altitudes
- bigger supply of ammunition and greater weight of fire
- optional gyro gunsight is substantially better
- holds speed better, especially in a dive
- significantly longer range
- superb high altitude performance

Yak-9U
- weapons arranged in a tight nose cluster
- significantly better turn rate at all speeds
- better climb rate (IL-2 compare)
- faster roll rate at most speeds
- lighter weight

So its a toss up...the two are different fighters and it depends on which regime the two are in. If its a close in fight the Mustang is in trouble because 9U has similar engine power, lighter weight, better manoeuvrability, and a better climb rate. The Mustang pilot would have to play smart, stay fast, keep energy bleed to a minimum and use superior visibility and gunsight to the maximum. Its an interesting match to analyze actually.

BTW: The Yak-9U functions quite well as a BNZ aircraft due to its better performance at speed including higher maximum dive speed. Controls do stiffen but its better at BNZ than earlier Yak models.

M_Gunz
06-11-2009, 09:24 PM
How can that Yak have a better turn rate at all speeds if the P-51 is faster at all altitudes?
Even below the top speed of the Yak it will not have the excess power to turn better, at top speed it cannot turn....

VW-IceFire
06-11-2009, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How can that Yak have a better turn rate at all speeds if the P-51 is faster at all altitudes?
Even below the top speed of the Yak it will not have the excess power to turn better, at top speed it cannot turn....
I keep reading it and I don't get what you mean at all.

The Yak-9U turns better than the Mustang. I know this both by flying them in-game and by IL-2 compare for turn time by speed at 1000 meters.

M_Gunz
06-12-2009, 12:39 AM
That turn chart doesn't show past 500kph does it?
Max TAS of the Yak-9U at 1000m is about 550kph. At that speed it cannot turn without slowing down. P-51 can.

This is a simple application of taking excess power to turn while holding speed, true of all these planes.
The faster plane can always turn or climb at speeds the slower one cannot. It may not be much but with decent
separation it can assure the slower cannot shoot to hit and hold position at the same time.

BTW, they are very close in speed. The P-51 has only a slim margin there. Once the fight gets into the first
real turn I see the Yak has the advantage.

EDIT:ADD
You know if I was in a Yak-9U trying to run from the P-51 that can turn while catching up, that slim margin
would limit my escape strategies severely.

Trefle
06-12-2009, 02:17 AM
Yak-9U model should be a fair match to the 1944 Mustang , P-51 is noticeably faster above 6000meters and slightly faster below 4000m , but Yak-9U is more responsive , should turn and climb better at most altitudes , unless the Mustang always stays near top speed like M.Gunz said .

The boosted Mustang (MK.III we have in game ) should be more of a problem for Yak-9U , cause it is much faster at all alts and a better performer at high speed above 450kph , if we stay with prop planes , Soviets would probably need the postwar La-9 to get the upper hand , or perhaps implement a more powerful engine for the Yak-9U cause the enveloppe of the Yak is very nice

DKoor
06-12-2009, 02:43 AM
Yak-3 with VK-107A engine is an excellent match to P-51... being even noticeably faster than its brother Yak-9U at all alts.
Not to mention that it has marginally better dive speed than a P-51D http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif .
Magnificent warbird.

Bremspropeller
06-12-2009, 02:44 AM
And looking as hawt as your lil sister from all angles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

TinyTim
06-12-2009, 05:48 AM
Nice sum up, Ice! I'd only add one more thing, which IMO is generally at least as important as top speed - and that's acceleration. Yak-9U has considerably better power to weight ratio.

TinyTim
06-12-2009, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Yak-3 with VK-107A engine is an excellent match to P-51... being even noticeably faster than its brother Yak-9U at all alts.
Not to mention that it has marginally better dive speed than a P-51D http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif .
Magnificent warbird.

Indeed, the Yak-3 VK-107 is probably the ultimate prop fighter in this sim. Yak-3 mated with Yak-9U engine, in a full metal airframe... Empty weight 2300kg, loaded 2900kg - with a 1650HP engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Pity we didn't get the historical correct loadout of two Berezin B-20 cannons, in the IL-2 it has one ShVAK and one UBS.

Anyway, it's more of a 1946 plane (tho prototype flew in 44), so it's kinda unfair to compare it with the P-51D.

One of the best looking too (who said only Italians and Americans know how to build good looking machines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif):

http://www.shrani.si/f/29/Wp/mBB3p5c/yak3vk107-8.jpg

M_Gunz
06-12-2009, 08:24 AM
Only thing short on so many Russian fast planes is the top dive speeds and ammo.
Perhaps the outcome of light builds, can't have everything-everywhere.

na85
06-12-2009, 08:51 AM
One of the best looking too (who said only Italians and Americans know how to build good looking machines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

Italians can build good looking aircraft? News to me.

na85
06-12-2009, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Only thing short on so many Russian fast planes is the top dive speeds and ammo.
Perhaps the outcome of light builds, can't have everything-everywhere.

You don't need much ammo in the Yaks (in game, at least).

I'd take that single ShVAK over 6x .50 cals any day.

TinyTim
06-12-2009, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Only thing short on so many Russian fast planes is the top dive speeds and ammo.
Perhaps the outcome of light builds, can't have everything-everywhere.

In general shoes, I'd take 5 non-strategic materials (like wood) built Yaks over a single superior diving all-metal 190 any day. Quantity is a quality in a way.

mandrill7
06-12-2009, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
In general shoes, I'd take 5 non-strategic materials (like wood) built Yaks over a single superior diving all-metal 190 any day. Quantity is a quality in a way.

A guy called Georgi Zhukov said the same thing in April, 1945..... "Quantity has its own quality."

Freiwillige
06-12-2009, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Only thing short on so many Russian fast planes is the top dive speeds and ammo.
Perhaps the outcome of light builds, can't have everything-everywhere.

In general shoes, I'd take 5 non-strategic materials (like wood) built Yaks over a single superior diving all-metal 190 any day. Quantity is a quality in a way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With that math that would still give the Yak a kill loss deficit of 1/3. Anybody knows that It would take 15 Yaks to equal one FW-190!

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 12:44 PM
The in game performance of the P-51 and its armament is not accurately modeled. When compared to real world testing performed by US, RAF , Polish and RAAF sources, among others. I am not aware of any formal testing and documentation of the Yak-9U other than Russian sources.Comparing the two based upon the performance in this sim is simply " bad sceince". The VK-107A was unreliable poorly engineered,and manufactured.This fact is not modelled in game either ( for any of the russian inline engines). In 1945 when an acceptable level of reliability was reached the max. speed was only 417 MPH at 5,000m ( 16,400 ft.)Again, these numbers come from a single source, and for all we know the engine was destroyed in the process.
Bare in mind this performance could not be sustained without crippling the engine. The Yak 9U does not have the mechanical endurance nor the performance to hang with the P-51. The P-51 driver could get credit for a kill (A) for fuel starvation or (B) mechanical failture. If he cared to engage. The Yak would have no chance at altitude, could not develop the speed to chase nor was it reliable enough to challenge the P-51 in a sustained engagement.

The fact of the matter is The P-51 is capable of being competative at all altitudes with the Yak. While the Yak is simply overmatched at altitude, speed ,dive, range and reliability.

Turning radius is a useless statistic. The Zero could outurn both the Yak and the P-51. However both are superior aircraft compared to the Zero.

A more interesting comparision would be the Hellcat Vs. Spitefire. The disparity in top end speed in real life was not as large.

Bremspropeller
06-13-2009, 01:08 PM
The fact of the matter is The P-51 is capable of being competative at all altitudes with the Yak.

The Yak is gonna eat the Mustang alive on the deck.
The Yak doesn't only turn well, it climbs and rolls well, as well.

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact of the matter is The P-51 is capable of being competative at all altitudes with the Yak.

The Yak is gonna eat the Mustang alive on the deck.
The Yak doesn't only turn well, it climbs and rolls well, as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Yak would need to be at top speed ( 357 mph on the deck vs. 395 mph at 1,500m for the P-51),which it could not maintain for any duration. Nor is it as manuverable at top speed. The Mustang excells at high speed, If the Yak wants to turn at max speed,he looses the advantage, and his engine, if he continues. If he slows to turn, just acceerate away, gain altitude. If he tries to follow,it further stress the unrelible engine, and his performance suffers further.
The Yak could neither run away nor dictate the fight.

Now take the fight to 20,000ft or higher and its laughable. The Yak would overheat trying to get to this altitude, have very little fuel and no chance gain an advantagous position.

The 51 can be competative at any altitude against the Yak.

We are comparing the P-51B that was operational on Dec. 1, 1943 vs a Yak 9U of 1945. The P-51 H, which flew in Feb. 1945 would be its contempory.
Use a comtempary Yak 1 or 7 with on deck speed of aprox. 300 MPH the same poor engine quality, it would be tough to gain the upper hand even on the deck.

Bremspropeller
06-13-2009, 02:29 PM
Non-issues.

You won't DF at topspeed anyway.

Comparing fighters is a little more than just playing the old "numbers" card-game.

Most fights are either of the slashing-nature or they are brief 30s gaggles.
There is no way of getting the upper-hand for the Mustang, if attacked, in that short amount of time.
When attacking, the 51 is gonna have the advantage anyway.

BillSwagger
06-13-2009, 02:31 PM
The yak is good for flying on deck, but to compete against a fighter like the Mustang it just doesn't have the speed.

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Non-issues.

You won't DF at topspeed anyway.

Comparing fighters is a little more than just playing the old "numbers" card-game.

Most fights are either of the slashing-nature or they are brief 30s gaggles.
There is no way of getting the upper-hand for the Mustang, if attacked, in that short amount of time.
When attacking, the 51 is gonna have the advantage anyway.

My point is there really is not a real life scenario that favors the Yak. It would be foolish for it to head north of 15,000ft.

The reality is the 51 will dive on the Yak, have much better control at this speed and repeat if necessay. If the mustang was on the deck at max speed the yak could not keep up. The tactics would be the same as fighting a Zero, except the Zero has some high altitude performance.

Bremspropeller
06-13-2009, 03:12 PM
The problem with your point is that if the Mustang was jumped, it wouldn't be flying at top-speed in about 95% of all times.


It would be foolish for it to head north of 15,000ft.

That's why I said "on the deck" in my initial post.


The tactics would be the same as fighting a Zero, except the Zero completely outclass the Yak at altitude.

With a 9U, it's pretty much the other way round.
The Yaks are fairly maneuverable - even at relatively high speeds.

TheGozr
06-13-2009, 03:17 PM
I've never heard so much non sens.. but i'm pleased that the interest spark about those 2 planes..

BillSwagger
06-13-2009, 03:22 PM
The 9U is a faster yak, but the Mustang retains its energy much more effectively in and out of turns. I still think the Mustang is the better fighter of this match up.

Trefle
06-13-2009, 03:29 PM
Differences in speed are not so great in game according to Il-2Compare .

Until 6500m , Yak-9U is comparable to the Mustang (P-51D20) in speed and its manoeuvrability at high speed should not be under-estimated IMHO:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/445/sanstitrehiw.th.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/i/sanstitrehiw.jpg/)

If you take the best Yak (Yak3VK107) and the best Mustang (MkIII) ingame , it gives this :

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7828/comparea.th.jpg (http://img15.imageshack.us/i/comparea.jpg/)

Il-2compare doesn't give all infos like aerodynamical properties , acceleration to combat speed or top speed , or roll rate for instance that should be better for Yaks IMHO , but both a/c seems quite close , i also think that it is important to distinguish between combat speed and top speed , the latter is rarely met in combat when you are manoeuvering .

I agree that in real life American manufacturing of engines was of a higher quality/standard , US engine generally speaking were more reliable , i also think that with the added range , P-51 is more useful strategically and would have the upper hand at high altitude , but in game below 7000-8000 meters, i think it is a fair match

DKoor
06-13-2009, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
I've never heard so much non sens.. but i'm pleased that the interest spark about those 2 planes.. +1

stalkervision
06-13-2009, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
I've never heard so much non sens.. but i'm pleased that the interest spark about those 2 planes..

You just haven't looked hard enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I find the discussions quite informative. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DKoor
06-13-2009, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I find the discussions quite informative. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Informative... like in Goebbels kind of way informative? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

M_Gunz
06-13-2009, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Only thing short on so many Russian fast planes is the top dive speeds and ammo.
Perhaps the outcome of light builds, can't have everything-everywhere.

In general shoes, I'd take 5 non-strategic materials (like wood) built Yaks over a single superior diving all-metal 190 any day. Quantity is a quality in a way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With one pilot for all 5 Yaks? It's the pilot, not the plane.

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGozr:
I've never heard so much non sens.. but i'm pleased that the interest spark about those 2 planes.. +1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why bother posting, if its just non sense? Just leting us mere mortals know of our entertainment value.

M_Gunz
06-13-2009, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
My point is there really is not a real life scenario that favors the Yak. It would be foolish for it to head north of 15,000ft.

WWII Russia protecting ground assault and low flying bombers, strafing ground targets or just mid to low CAP was not real life?

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Non-issues.

You won't DF at topspeed anyway.

I think this is an inaccurate statement. Most WW II aircraft cannot dog fight at top speed. The 109 and the Zero especially have control issues at their top speeds.

They certainly would, if they could.


Speed is the most valuable componant of any fighter.

All combatants tried to increase the top end speed of their fighter aircraft. Usually trying to increase power from the engine while decreasing overall weight.

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
My point is there really is not a real life scenario that favors the Yak. It would be foolish for it to head north of 15,000ft.

WWII Russia protecting ground assault and low flying bombers, strafing ground targets or just mid to low CAP was not real life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and exactly what the Yak was engineered/designed for. The P-51 was the premeir high altitude escort aircraft. No incarnation of the Yak would offer a challenge to the P-51 at 23-26,000 ft.. However,the P-51 would certainly be competative at 1,500m with the Yak. Just as it was with the Zero, an aircraft more manuverable than the Yak.The 51 is more manuverable than either at its top speed. The Yak will never have the altitude advantage unless the P-51 driver lets it.

I can always have the altitude, speed and high speed manuverability advantage over a Yak.

No need to slow down and turn with an aircraft, I can defeat with any other tactic.

M_Gunz
06-13-2009, 07:11 PM
I don't think the speed margin is so much, but there is a margin out on the edge, only.

262 had that only larger over the P-51 and yet there were P-51's that shot down 262's that were not trying to land.
It's very hard to outrun a bullet coming from the rear let alone the front or side.

Combat speeds tend to be at maneuver speed, the fastest the plane can go and use full deflection on one axis.
There's freaking studies on that by online players for as long as there's been online WWII and jet sim players.
Guess how fast that turns out in a late model P-51-D?
Why? It is impossible to dodge fire at top speed without either slowing down or losing alt. Bullet is faster than plane.

Not saying Yak always wins but the Yak does hold very good cards, P-51 same or less.
The Pilot makes the difference, either way.
That said, be sure that the Pilot who does not believe he will win starts with one strike already.

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I don't think the speed margin is so much, but there is a margin out on the edge, only.

262 had that only larger over the P-51 and yet there were P-51's that shot down 262's that were not trying to land.
It's very hard to outrun a bullet coming from the rear let alone the front or side.

Combat speeds tend to be at maneuver speed, the fastest the plane can go and use full deflection on one axis.
There's freaking studies on that by online players for as long as there's been online WWII and jet sim players.
Guess how fast that turns out in a late model P-51-D?
Why? It is impossible to dodge fire at top speed without either slowing down or losing alt. Bullet is faster than plane.

Not saying Yak always wins but the Yak does hold very good cards, P-51 same or less.
The Pilot makes the difference, either way.
That said, be sure that the Pilot who does not believe he will win starts with one strike already.

The only advantage the Yak has is turning. This advantage dimishes as the speed of the two aircraft increase and will completely favor the 51 at max speed. No matter how good the Yak pilot is, at altitudes over 23,000 ft the Mustang is deceidely better and mediocre pilot will take care of the yak.

At 1,500m and the pilots are equal, the 51 still has better and more options to bring the engagement to a sucessful conclusion.

Mustangs have shot down Me-262's in aerial combat while diving.

The Yak will never have an altitude advantage unless the 51 gives it up.

As for outrunning bullets, the Yak will always be at the limits of its performance trying to keep up with a 51, stressing a very unreliable power plant, and reducing its manuvering capabilites. As for the 51 it handles better than any other aircraft at speed. Managing a firing solution, thru the thick Black smoke of burning oil, leaking from several seals, as performance continues to drop off would be difficult for even the most experienced VVS pilot.

mandrill7
06-13-2009, 08:24 PM
I think you have to tie the comparison in to a RL tactical scenario. Is the Yak trying to shoot down B-17's escorted by P-51's at 25,000 feet? Well, not much chance of that. The Yak is useless at that height.

Is the P-51 trying to nail Il-2's at 2,000 feet. Well, if the Ponies are going to hang around and do their jobs, the Yaks are going to have ample opportunity to maneuver with them and get their own shots.

How about WW3 in 1946: P-47M's are doing a gattack run on T-34's and Yak-9U's are vectored in by Soviet ground control for the intercept. 1,500 feet. P-47's have speed and toughness and firepower. Yaks have agility and reduced target size. Who wins?

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by mandrill7:
I think you have to tie the comparison in to a RL tactical scenario. Is the Yak trying to shoot down B-17's escorted by P-51's at 25,000 feet? Well, not much chance of that. The Yak is useless at that height.

Is the P-51 trying to nail Il-2's at 2,000 feet. Well, if the Ponies are going to hang around and do their jobs, the Yaks are going to have ample opportunity to maneuver with them and get their own shots.

How about WW3 in 1946: P-47M's are doing a gattack run on T-34's and Yak-9U's are vectored in by Soviet ground control for the intercept. 1,500 feet. P-47's have speed and toughness and firepower. Yaks have agility and reduced target size. Who wins?

More appropriately would be a Corsair F4U-5 and both the T-34 and the Yak loose. I like your thinking, hopefully we see some of these dogfights in the Korean/SOW.

stalkervision
06-13-2009, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by mandrill7:
I think you have to tie the comparison in to a RL tactical scenario. Is the Yak trying to shoot down B-17's escorted by P-51's at 25,000 feet? Well, not much chance of that. The Yak is useless at that height.

Is the P-51 trying to nail Il-2's at 2,000 feet. Well, if the Ponies are going to hang around and do their jobs, the Yaks are going to have ample opportunity to maneuver with them and get their own shots.

How about WW3 in 1946: P-47M's are doing a gattack run on T-34's and Yak-9U's are vectored in by Soviet ground control for the intercept. 1,500 feet. P-47's have speed and toughness and firepower. Yaks have agility and reduced target size. Who wins?

How about this for real. A mixed bag of Yaks escorting Stormoviks with a top cover of Mustangs?

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
I think you have to tie the comparison in to a RL tactical scenario. Is the Yak trying to shoot down B-17's escorted by P-51's at 25,000 feet? Well, not much chance of that. The Yak is useless at that height.

Is the P-51 trying to nail Il-2's at 2,000 feet. Well, if the Ponies are going to hang around and do their jobs, the Yaks are going to have ample opportunity to maneuver with them and get their own shots.

How about WW3 in 1946: P-47M's are doing a gattack run on T-34's and Yak-9U's are vectored in by Soviet ground control for the intercept. 1,500 feet. P-47's have speed and toughness and firepower. Yaks have agility and reduced target size. Who wins?

How about this for real. A mixed bag of Yaks escorting Stormoviks with a top cover of Mustangs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or P-63s escorting IL-10's against Japanese targets protected by Ki-43's

Trefle
06-13-2009, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The only advantage the Yak has is turning

If you speak about late war Yaks like 9U or the all metal one with Vk107a engine , they have a better acceleration to combat speed, roll rate and climbrate as well . I don't think it would be one sided at low to medium altitude , Mustang would have to stay very fast and engage Yaks only when they have the height or energy advantage IMHO (at low to medium alt) , it would probably be quite even below 6km if we only take into account the plane performances (pilot training , G-suits , numbers , engine reliability and many other factors would decide it IMHO )

Freiwillige
06-13-2009, 09:48 PM
Or how about this, A bag of chocolate bars melting on skateboard rolled down the sidewalk being escorted by my uncles grumpy Yorkshire terrier against a dirty toothbrush?

Sorry you can have all the what ifs in the world but lets just say for the sake of argument that the cold war got hot and Patton got his way and after German defeat the Allies went into it with Russia. You would have yaks and Sturmos punching holes in allied front lines where the P-51's would have to face off against the yaks. But...You would also have massive B-17 raids hitting the supply lines at 20k that the Russians would have to answer to

I think at lower levels its a fairly straight match And thats for the best Yaks, Keep in mind the majority were vanilla Yak 9's. Now also take into acount that most Russian aircraft performed well below there specs do to manufacturing woes and limitations both in ENgines and airframes that by 1944 was much better but all the kinks had not been totally worked out. So that one factory's yaks could fly rings around another factory's yaks and there the same aircraft model!

Put bluntly Id go for the Stang.

BillSwagger
06-13-2009, 09:55 PM
How about WW3 in 1946: P-47M's are doing a gattack run on T-34's and Yak-9U's are vectored in by Soviet ground control for the intercept. 1,500 feet. P-47's have speed and toughness and firepower. Yaks have agility and reduced target size. Who wins?


I would speculate the 47M could get in and out pretty easily with out having to engage if flown from altitude down to the deck. We are talking a consistent airspeed well above 500IAS while descending.

The Yak would be outclassed in that regard, but perhaps luring a P-47M into a few energy bleeding turns might make him pray to a wing man.

If the objective is to shoot down the Yaks, then i see the P-47 using similar tactics as they would a Zero. Use the zoom and altitude advantage to gain position for B and Z.
With minimal amount of skill, a Yak pilot should have no problem turning out of the way, but i would speculate that a team battle would leave the 47M victorious.

1 v 1, A yak would have the upper hand on deck, but if the yak can't lure the P-47M to lower heights AND lower energy state, i really don't see the Yak having much of chance.

Trefle
06-13-2009, 10:05 PM
I agree with you Bill , although i think late war Yaks are more comparable to Spitfires than Zeroes , cause high speed manoeuvrability and dive speed limit of all metal Yaks would actually be pretty close to the Mustang's , although since they are lighter , they would prolly be outdived (i mean outaccelerated in a dive ) and outzoomed by US birds .

Kettenhunde
06-13-2009, 10:45 PM
the 9U can fly faster for a much longer period of time and much quicker accelerations .

I gotta ask, under what conditions and what airspeed measurement?

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2009, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Trefle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The only advantage the Yak has is turning

If you speak about late war Yaks like 9U or the all metal one with Vk107a engine , they have a better acceleration to combat speed, roll rate and climbrate as well . I don't think it would be one sided at low to medium altitude , Mustang would have to stay very fast and engage Yaks only when they have the height or energy advantage IMHO (at low to medium alt) , it would probably be quite even below 6km if we only take into account the plane performances (pilot training , G-suits , numbers , engine reliability and many other factors would decide it IMHO ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The VK 107 engine had serious issues, never completely rectified . It wasent until 1945 they were even reliable enough to use consistanly. The top speed was 417 MPH.

In 1943 the Mustang had a top speed of 442 MPH.Compare the Yak-1 or 7 vs. the P-51B. The 51 outperforms the Yak throut both their development.

If you want to use a contemorary Mustang version to the Yak-9U. The P-51-H flew in Feb. 1945 with a top speed of 487 MPH. That is 70 MPH faster than the Yak 9U.

At 1,500M the " H " model had a speed of 444 MPH
vs. the Yak at 357 MPH.

Trefle
06-14-2009, 12:09 AM
The Yak-9U is 1944 mate , i thought P-51H did not see action in WWII and did not know it flew as early as Feb 1945 , good to know.

I agree with you on the reliability issue since i've stated last page(first post of the page ) US manufacturing standard were indeed higher , P-51 and American engines in general were the most reliable at that time , that's why i said at the start of the thread that i would deffo choose a Mustang if i had the choice cause of that plus the fact that i prefer planes that give me the freedom to disengage thanks to better speed and diving characteristics

On the Yak though , some prototypes of Yak-3 with Vk108 (refined and more powerful than Vk107) also flew before the war end although they did not entered production because it was clear for them (for Yakovlev) that the future was for jet planes ( their last piston fighter was made by Lavochkin with the La-9 ).

I also must say that Yak-1 and Yak-7 are 1941 not 1943 , the first models of Yaks were not built with speed in mind primarily , but responsiveness and manoeuvrability at lower speeds , Yaks were specialized planes for low altitude while the Mustangs were more versatile , P-51 were built for speed from the start with a powerful Merlin engine implemented later , whereas the M105pf engine equipping the Yaks until late in the war had the advantage of being easy to manufacture but wasn't the best the Soviet could use , with the war on their territory , they had to rebuild their industry in a haste and needed a cheap and easy solution quickly operational to suit their immediate needs , so comparing the speed of early Yaks with the first Mustangs indeed doesn't do favours to Yaks

Late war and post war Yaks (all metal , powerful engines ) were a different story IMHO because they could worry more about quality near war's end and especially after the war since production figures decreased considerably and they had the benefit of a vast experience of plane manufacturing ,particularly this plane which was the most produced fighter of their airforce , their workforce was also more skilled and they could then afford to use better materials (and better fuel which helped for engine lifespan) among other things , although there is no doubt that they still lagged behind US industry .

BillSwagger
06-14-2009, 02:41 AM
Another thing to point out about most american fighters that saw combat is that they were designed for range. The P-51 was prefered for the escort roll for this reason.
Had we needed interceptor type planes, prototypes like the 47J and P-72 would've been produced on a large scale. These planes would be much faster but would have a smaller combat radius.

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2009, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Trefle:
The Yak-9U is 1944 mate , i thought P-51H did not see action in WWII and did not know it flew as early as Feb 1945 , good to know.

I agree with you on the reliability issue since i've stated last page(first post of the page ) US manufacturing standard were indeed higher , P-51 and American engines in general were the most reliable at that time , that's why i said at the start of the thread that i would deffo choose a Mustang if i had the choice cause of that plus the fact that i prefer planes that give me the freedom to disengage thanks to better speed and diving characteristics

On the Yak though , some prototypes of Yak-3 with Vk108 (refined and more powerful than Vk107) also flew before the war end although they did not entered production because it was clear for them (for Yakovlev) that the future was for jet planes ( their last piston fighter was made by Lavochkin with the La-9 ).

I also must say that Yak-1 and Yak-7 are 1941 not 1943 , the first models of Yaks were not built with speed in mind primarily , but responsiveness and manoeuvrability at lower speeds , Yaks were specialized planes for low altitude while the Mustangs were more versatile , P-51 were built for speed from the start with a powerful Merlin engine implemented later , whereas the M105pf engine equipping the Yaks until late in the war had the advantage of being easy to manufacture but wasn't the best the Soviet could use , with the war on their territory , they had to rebuild their industry in a haste and needed a cheap and easy solution quickly operational to suit their immediate needs , so comparing the speed of early Yaks with the first Mustangs indeed doesn't do favours to Yaks

Late war and post war Yaks (all metal , powerful engines ) were a different story IMHO because they could worry more about quality near war's end and especially after the war since production figures decreased considerably and they had the benefit of a vast experience of plane manufacturing ,particularly this plane which was the most produced fighter of their airforce , their workforce was also more skilled and they could then afford to use better materials (and better fuel which helped for engine lifespan) among other things , although there is no doubt that they still lagged behind US industry .

The YAK-9U with VK 105PF2 engine was a 1944 product. Max speed was 385MPH.

As I posted, the VK 107A engine was not reliable in 1944 and when it was acceptable in 1945 it increased the max speed to 417 MPH

The Yak -1 fitted with the M-106 engine did not see service until 1943. It increased the max speed to 391 MPH, however it could operate at " nominal power" only -poor enigneering and Mfg. But it was the fastest version of either the 1 or 7 series Yaks.

To your point about the Merlin engine. The US licese built Merlin engine was improved by the US and outperformed its english counter part.

The best aircraft the VVS had for low to med operations was the P-39 lend lease . Much more reliable engine, radios, better armed and more range than the current Yaks.

ElAurens
06-14-2009, 09:38 AM
This discussion, while utterly pointless, is fun.

Supposing a war against the CCCP in 1946, the long range escort role would have been taken up by the P-82 Twin Mustang, escorting exactly one B-29 to Moscow, where it would have dropped exactly one nuclear weapon.

End of war.

For the squeamish who think the A-bomb too barbaric, and who would have instead commited millions of troops to a many years long protracted land war in which tens of millions more whould die, then the long range intercept role would still be P-82s, the heavy bombers would be B-29s, and B-36s, the interceptor role would be P 80s, and the VVS would be destroyed on the ground with no airfields left to fly out of. But this would never happen because we would have used the nuke.

Like I said "fun" discussion.

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

Bremspropeller
06-14-2009, 09:43 AM
I don't think the russians would have cared much about your cute little nuke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DKoor
06-14-2009, 09:49 AM
Early and mid war Yaks were inferior to both P-39 and Lavochkin... as far as combat performance goes, Lavochkin 5/7 was best Soviet fighter.

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2009, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Early and mid war Yaks were inferior to both P-39 and Lavochkin... as far as combat performance goes, Lavochkin 5/7 was best Soviet fighter.

However, when the war in the east was still not deceided and the VVS was equipeted primarily with I-16,MIG-3,LaGG-3, YAk-1s and Hurricanes, the P-39s were the best performers. If memerory serves close to 200 VVS pilots were P-39 aces.

If the VVS would have understood the P-47 it may have had an impact as well.

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2009, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
This discussion, while utterly pointless, is fun.

Supposing a war against the CCCP in 1946, the long range escort role would have been taken up by the P-82 Twin Mustang, escorting exactly one B-29 to Moscow, where it would have dropped exactly one nuclear weapon.

End of war.

For the squeamish who think the A-bomb too barbaric, and who would have instead commited millions of troops to a many years long protracted land war in which tens of millions more whould die, then the long range intercept role would still be P-82s, the heavy bombers would be B-29s, and B-36s, the interceptor role would be P 80s, and the VVS would be destroyed on the ground with no airfields left to fly out of. But this would never happen because we would have used the nuke.

Like I said "fun" discussion.

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

I agree, lets hope no one whips out a chart.!!!

ElAurens
06-14-2009, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I don't think the russians would have cared much about your cute little nuke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The Soviets would have collapsed once their centralized, very top down, control structure was taken out. No NKVD, no zampolits, no party aparatchiks, no general staff, and most importantly no Joseph Stalin = no control over the Red Army.

Game over.

But enough of this frivolity.

It's a beautiful day and I'm going riding.

horseback
06-14-2009, 11:33 AM
Any discussion like this has to take into account that the USSR was on an 'all-out' war footing development wise until well after the war ended, while the British and Americans started to ease off because they could see their current generation of fighters beating the best the Germans and Japanese had to offer quite handily, if not due to technology, then to tactics and numbers.

The development of the P-51H was slowed because it wasn't desperately needed, just as the factory orders for Hellcats, P-38s and P-47s were lowered in the winter of 1944/45. There was a similar lack of urgency about the Tempest II and Gryffon powered Spitfires.

The Allies could easily have had the lighter P-51F in production by September '44 had not the Americans been a bit skeptical about some the lightweight materials used to build them...so they contracted the 'beefier' P-51H instead.

As for the contention that a single A-bomb over Moscow would have done the trick, I kind of doubt it.

Stalin was profoundly paranoid, and well aware of the development of the A-bomb and its implications. I cannot picture him being in any predictable location if tensions between the West and the USSR erupted into a hot war. In a very real sense, Stalin was the whole of Soviet government for the last 15-20 years of his life. If you can't guarantee taking him out, then a significant portion of your A bomb inventory is wasted taking out the Kremlin.

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
06-14-2009, 11:51 AM
As for the contention that a single A-bomb over Moscow would have done the trick, I kind of doubt it.

Stalin was profoundly paranoid, and well aware of the development of the A-bomb and its implications. I cannot picture him being in any predictable location if tensions between the West and the USSR erupted into a hot war. In a very real sense, Stalin was the whole of Soviet government for the last 15-20 years of his life. If you can't guarantee taking him out, then a significant portion of your A bomb inventory is wasted taking out the Kremlin.

That's exactly what I think abot it.

VW-IceFire
06-14-2009, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Early and mid war Yaks were inferior to both P-39 and Lavochkin... as far as combat performance goes, Lavochkin 5/7 was best Soviet fighter.
All true. What the Yak represented, however, was a homegrown alternative that was just barely good enough to compete...but it was on hand and improvements continued to come. The La-5 was complicated because its previous reputation with the early series of LaGG-3s was horrible. Once the stigma surrounding the later LaGG-3s and the early La-5s wore off then it became regarded as a superb fighter. The La-7 being regarded as the best of the breed. Interestingly enough I've been reading that Soviet pilots weren't overly impressed by the La-7 ...not because it was bad but because it wasn't much better than the late La-5FNs and the La-7 still had most of the FN's defects.

BillSwagger
06-14-2009, 01:36 PM
Wouldn't you say they Yak is more of a front line fighter compared to the Mustang.

You could take off from a base and be ready for combat with out the need to climb for an energy advantage.

Xiolablu3
06-14-2009, 02:38 PM
What you guys must remember is that its top speed at certain alts that counts.

A Mustangs top speed of 442 is no use if the fight is at 1000metres.

I dont know the Mustangs top speed down low, but I would bet that the Yak3's and (u's arent far off.

VW-IceFire
06-14-2009, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Wouldn't you say they Yak is more of a front line fighter compared to the Mustang.

You could take off from a base and be ready for combat with out the need to climb for an energy advantage.
Yes thats a very good observation. Its the reason that a plane much hated by the USAAF (the P-39) did so well on the Eastern Front as well. Airbases were on the frontline nearly all of the time ...so fighters like the Yak and La didn't need range like US fighters did. They needed immediate battlefield effect which meant low level performance.

Wildnoob
06-14-2009, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Wouldn't you say they Yak is more of a front line fighter compared to the Mustang.

You could take off from a base and be ready for combat with out the need to climb for an energy advantage.
Yes thats a very good observation. Its the reason that a plane much hated by the USAAF (the P-39) did so well on the Eastern Front as well. Airbases were on the frontline nearly all of the time ...so fighters like the Yak and La didn't need range like US fighters did. They needed immediate battlefield effect which meant low level performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

who I'm to say this, but would say that this discription is perfect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

mandrill7
06-14-2009, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
However, when the war in the east was still not deceided and the VVS was equipeted primarily with I-16,MIG-3,LaGG-3, YAk-1s and Hurricanes, the P-39s were the best performers. If memerory serves close to 200 VVS pilots were P-39 aces.

If the VVS would have understood the P-47 it may have had an impact as well.

Actually, the Soviets were given some P-47's by Republic to trial and........ hated them. The jugs represented everything contrary to the Soviet view of "good" air combat. They were heavy. They couldn't turn nimbly. Their climb rate was debatable. They were less effective down low. And they were huge targets. Polkovniks who had been trained to love the Yak and La were appalled. "Such P-47 - even fatter and heavier than Soviet bombers!" they exclaimed.

And that was it for Republic's sales opportunity.

Actually, by 43 when the Kobra arrived in numbers in Russia, the Soviets were flying Yak1B's and La-5F's which were arguably every bit as effective as the P-39, again under 10,000 feet.

BillSwagger
06-14-2009, 05:10 PM
That's the contention of most fighter pilots of that era. Even pilots who flew spitfires were very critical of the Jug, until they learned its advantages.

First impressions, are lasting impressions, and i would argue that descriptions of it being a slow climber and horrible dog fighter are linked to the stigma created by earlier variants of the P-47, which side by side, sure it wasn't as light or nimble, but the plane later paved the way for jet aircraft designs and flight strategy.

TinyTim
06-14-2009, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
That's the contention of most fighter pilots of that era. Even pilots who flew spitfires were very critical of the Jug, until they learned its advantages.

First impressions, are lasting impressions, and i would argue that descriptions of it being a slow climber and horrible dog fighter are linked to the stigma created by earlier variants of the P-47, which side by side, sure it wasn't as light or nimble, but the plane later paved the way for jet aircraft designs and flight strategy.

That's true, but we have to keep in mind the difference in global combat aviation nature in US and in SU. While US payed more attention to long range strategic bombers, SU on the other hand built low alt, short range tactical aviation. US aviation revolved around high flying B-17s and B-24s, Soviets flew Sturmoviks with nearly no high alt strategic aviation.

There is no doubt in my mind P-47 was unsuitable for short range, tactical missions over the battlefield, where it could not dive and could not use its excellent high altitude performance. I don't think Soviets were "dumb", not being able to "understand" the plane. IMHO they understood it very well (it was designed by a Russian afterall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), it was just unsuitable for their needs.

na85
06-14-2009, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:

That's true, but we have to keep in mind the difference in global combat aviation nature in US and in SU. While US payed more attention to long range strategic bombers, SU on the other hand built low alt, short range tactical aviation. US aviation revolved around high flying B-17s and B-24s, Soviets flew Sturmoviks with nearly no high alt strategic aviation.

There is no doubt in my mind P-47 was unsuitable for short range, tactical missions over the battlefield, where it could not dive and could not use its excellent high altitude performance. I don't think Soviets were "dumb", not being able to "understand" the plane. IMHO they understood it very well (it was designed by a Russian afterall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), it was just unsuitable for their needs.

+1

The Soviet Union's air combat doctrines were significantly different from those employed by Western powers.

jamesblonde1979
06-14-2009, 06:06 PM
Probably the P-51 for me, it's speed is adequate and this next to it's longer range allows you the luxury of extending and climbing where possible to drag the Yak into a disadvantage in performance and fuel state. One of these is going to cost the Yak in the end.

In a level, co E fight the Mustang can still out-manouvre the Yak if flown wisely (fast). I wouldn't like to meet a competent Yak driver under these circumstances though as he would definitely be able to turn inside a Mustang and those bigger guns would cause a lot of hurt in a snapshot.

horseback
06-14-2009, 06:07 PM
...but that hardly means that they understood us any better than we understood them.

If you want to compare US fighters to Soviet fighters of the time, pick a pair for your match. 'Yak' is almost so generic as to be meaningless.

Set the parameters for your combat: altitude, weather conditions, one on one or two on two, head on pass and then break, or enter the arena at your preferred alt from opposite sides and then hunt for your opponent, or...?

All of these factors will change the equation to some degree, and then what about the pilots?

Shall we name names? Bob Johnson vs Koshedub (oops, Lavotchkin driver)! Preddy vs Pokryshin (oops-Airacobra driver)! Gentile vs Gulayev (another P-39 guy)! Yeager vs Vorozhejkin (at last, a Yak driver...)!

Or of course, we could put up the 'average' American pilot vs the 'average' Russian pilot, but that demonstration has already been done in Korea.

cheers

horseback

deepo_HP
06-14-2009, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Shall we name names? Bob Johnson vs Koshedub (oops, Lavotchkin driver)! Preddy vs Pokryshin (oops-Airacobra driver)! Gentile vs Gulayev (another P-39 guy)! Yeager vs Vorozhejkin (at last, a Yak driver...)!


i don't understand, what you mean by the naming 'names'?
there were some 25 us-aces with more than 20 kills at all, and more than 80 yak-riders, 20 of them with 30+ (solo-) kills... or was it about names as 'has written a book'?

na85
06-14-2009, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
...but that hardly means that they understood us any better than we understood them.

If you want to compare US fighters to Soviet fighters of the time, pick a pair for your match. 'Yak' is almost so generic as to be meaningless.

Set the parameters for your combat: altitude, weather conditions, one on one or two on two, head on pass and then break, or enter the arena at your preferred alt from opposite sides and then hunt for your opponent, or...?

All of these factors will change the equation to some degree, and then what about the pilots?

Agree. Comparisons between "yak" and "mustang" have too many variables to have any meaning whatsoever.


Shall we name names? Bob Johnson vs Koshedub (oops, Lavotchkin driver)! Preddy vs Pokryshin (oops-Airacobra driver)! Gentile vs Gulayev (another P-39 guy)! Yeager vs Vorozhejkin (at last, a Yak driver...)!

What's the point of this? To show that there aren't (m)any aces that flew yaks?

How about the Normandie Niemen guys? How about Marcel Albert with 23 kills? Le Gloan with 18? André? De La Poype? Risso? Delfino?


Or of course, we could put up the 'average' American pilot vs the 'average' Russian pilot, but that demonstration has already been done in Korea.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Nice try. Many many Chinese and Koren pilots flew MiG 15's in Korea as well, and these guys had little to no combat experience. Let's try to keep this on topic shall we?

BillSwagger
06-14-2009, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

That's true, but we have to keep in mind the difference in global combat aviation nature in US and in SU. While US payed more attention to long range strategic bombers, SU on the other hand built low alt, short range tactical aviation. US aviation revolved around high flying B-17s and B-24s, Soviets flew Sturmoviks with nearly no high alt strategic aviation.

There is no doubt in my mind P-47 was unsuitable for short range, tactical missions over the battlefield, where it could not dive and could not use its excellent high altitude performance. I don't think Soviets were "dumb", not being able to "understand" the plane. IMHO they understood it very well (it was designed by a Russian afterall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), it was just unsuitable for their needs.

+1

The Soviet Union's air combat doctrines were significantly different from those employed by Western powers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The use of the P-47 and P-51 was needed in Russia because allies were flying bombing missions straight over Germany from the English channel and landing in Russia to refuel/reload for a bombing run on the way back. Escorts were needed for this purpose from the east and the west. For the most part, there wasn't a single engine plane the Russians had that did this well. The US was willing to share/lend/lease the large inventory of P-47s with its Russian allies for the purpose of these missions.
It had nothing to do with it being a capable front line fighter, although i might also add that the P-47 was used for ground attack purposes through out much of the second half of the war. This myth that it only performs well up high, is something learned from a video game. They would fly as low as Yaks for the purpose of dropping bombs and strafing ground targets.
Indeed you could not fly a P-47 straight off the runway into battle, like a yak or a spitfire, nor would you want to dogfight down low (hence its not a front line fighter). It performed its roll by getting to the target fast, dumping its payload, and getting back to base to do it again.

DKoor
06-14-2009, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Shall we name names? Bob Johnson vs Koshedub (oops, Lavotchkin driver)! Preddy vs Pokryshin (oops-Airacobra driver)! Gentile vs Gulayev (another P-39 guy)! Yeager vs Vorozhejkin (at last, a Yak driver...)!


i don't understand, what you mean by the naming 'names'?
there were some 25 us-aces with more than 20 kills at all, and more than 80 yak-riders, 20 of them with 30+ (solo-) kills... or was it about names as 'has written a book'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+1

I recently posted score figures for top scoring Yak pilots... again.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...701011367#8701011367 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7711029267?r=8701011367#8701011367)

So one doesn't have to think hard about which name shall he use http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

BTW several Russian chicks actually flew the Yak and some of them did quite a good job scoring +10 kills in it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif .

TinyTim
06-15-2009, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Supposing a war against the CCCP in 1946, the long range escort role would have been taken up by the P-82 Twin Mustang, escorting exactly one B-29 to Moscow, where it would have dropped exactly one nuclear weapon.

End of war.

Firstly, Soviets would surely expect something like that. If there was any sign of open hostilities, they'd with little doubt invest vast efforts into high altitude interceptors(technogoly which was not strange to them, they just didn't need it in Great Patriotic War), and as much as possible disperse strategic targets, especially the ones allowing the decapitation strike.

Secondly, I really doubt in 1946 the US would risk loosing a nuclear device over Soviet territory and thus providing Soviets with nuclear technology.

We've already seen guys who thought Soviet Union was a rotten barn that'd collapse when they kicked the door - and they cockily tried it. These guys were leading then (militarily) most powerful country on Earth. After less than 4 years they received their lesson.

There's a difference between what's rationally to expect, and what's desired.

Freiwillige
06-15-2009, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Supposing a war against the CCCP in 1946, the long range escort role would have been taken up by the P-82 Twin Mustang, escorting exactly one B-29 to Moscow, where it would have dropped exactly one nuclear weapon.

End of war.

Firstly, Soviets would surely expect something like that. If there was any sign of open hostilities, they'd with little doubt invest vast efforts into high altitude interceptors(technogoly which was not strange to them, they just didn't need it in Great Patriotic War), and as much as possible disperse strategic targets, especially the ones allowing the decapitation strike.

Secondly, I really doubt in 1946 the US would risk loosing a nuclear device over Soviet territory and thus providing Soviets with nuclear technology.

We've already seen guys who thought Soviet Union was a rotten barn that'd collapse when they kicked the door - and they cockily tried it. These guys were leading then (militarily) most powerful country on Earth. After less than 4 years they received their lesson.

There's a difference between what's rationally to expect, and what's desired. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russia needs rail lines to defend itself period.
With all of the factory's moved east to keep them out of range of the Germans all that material has to be transported west. Rail was the only solution. Germany did not have the equipment or the foresight to destroy Russia's rail info structure. America and England had 5 years experience! B-29's and B-17's would decimate Russia's logistical support system. The same as they had done with Germany. Russia was already overstretched in Conquering Germany.

Plus a Nuke or two sprinkled lightly on Moscow and Beyond the Urals...Game over.

The Yaks and lag's would have to come up to 25k+ feet just to defend their supply system.

Its like something I read earlier, Amateurs talk tactics, Professionals talk logistics!

Gadje
06-15-2009, 05:23 AM
Luckily for the world then that everyone was sick and tired of war by then.

And sitting in your computer chair and glibly typing:-

Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Plus a Nuke or two sprinkled lightly on Moscow and Beyond the Urals...Game over.


Do us all a favor and remind yourself of the horrors of that time please, there's plenty of it on film. Game indeed!
-sigh- http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
06-15-2009, 06:27 AM
In 1945 the Russians were not exactly stretched and very, very strong at the front.
Operation Bagration was like early Barbarossa in reverse.
The difference between taking Germany and taking Russia for the Allies, compare Delaware to everything west of the Mississippi.
Stopping a government is one thing, holding another country many times your own is another completely.

DKoor
06-15-2009, 07:17 AM
You guys are truly crazy if you think that you can rationally predict the clash of two such powers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Kinda reminds me of "no, my dad is stronger" child arguments.

Freiwillige
06-15-2009, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
In 1945 the Russians were not exactly stretched and very, very strong at the front.
Operation Bagration was like early Barbarossa in reverse.
The difference between taking Germany and taking Russia for the Allies, compare Delaware to everything west of the Mississippi.
Stopping a government is one thing, holding another country many times your own is another completely.

Strong at the front yes, I will agree. Stronger than the western allies even. But stretched they were. Just about everything was spent on operation begration and the finall push to Germany. Russia might even push into France before they felt the ultimate pinch of there supply dwindle. But after that rolling up the red carpet would be inevitable. Especially with the support of France, England, whats left of the German army, Canada and the commonwealth.

I just dont think that Russia could hold on to western Europe if the West had pushed like Patton had wanted to. But Its just my opinion and Ill leave it at that.

Kettenhunde
06-15-2009, 07:27 AM
Comparisons between "yak" and "mustang" have too many variables to have any meaning whatsoever.


Even if you flew an actual Yak and a P-51 on the same day with stock instruments the information would be useless for any kind of performance comparison.

It would be a waste of time.

All the best,

Crumpp

horseback
06-15-2009, 10:30 AM
Nice try. Many many Chinese and Koren pilots flew MiG 15's in Korea as well, and these guys had little to no combat experience. Let's try to keep this on topic shall we? Actually, there weren't that many Chinese or Koreans flying MiGs early on. They blew their opportunities flying La 9s and late Yaks against F-51s and F-82s. We've gotten many versions from the former Soviet Union over the years, and they have only recently admitted that they were doing most of the shooting north of the front lines throughout, and flew most of the MiG missions that engaged Sabres.

The Soviets now admit that in spite of having the advantages of altitude, heavier armament and the the option of engaging when and where they wanted, the Americans in the Sabres gave them fits.

Given that both groups were heavily leavened with WWII veterans, I find the Americans' superior won/loss ratio in fighter vs fighter combats rather revealing.
i don't understand, what you mean by the naming 'names'?
there were some 25 us-aces with more than 20 kills at all, and more than 80 yak-riders, 20 of them with 30+ (solo-) kills... or was it about names as 'has written a book'?
I was speaking of people with known skills and reputations. I think that if you compare the time in combat that it took to acquire their kills and factor in the fact that the Americans had to spend a couple of hours 'in transit' to make contact with the enemy, the Americans got very good very fast.

Pilot ability is the deciding factor when the aircraft are remotely comparable. I find it very revealing that all the top Soviet scorers flew Lavotchkins and Cobras; this indicates to me that either Yaks were generally used to their tactical disadvantage (quite possible in light of the Soviets' top-down military hierarchy) or that the aircraft themselves were not all that user friendly.

cheers

horseback

DKoor
06-15-2009, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
I find it very revealing that all the top Soviet scorers flew Lavotchkins and Cobras; this indicates to me that either Yaks were generally used to their tactical disadvantage (quite possible in light of the Soviets' top-down military hierarchy) or that the aircraft themselves were not all that user friendly.

cheers

horseback Actually no; you are wrong.
However I actually doubt that further insisting that you should take a quick look at the score table for Lavochkin aces, P-39/400 aces and Yak aces (which is presented in the thread BTW) could result in anything that could change your distorted point of view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Wildnoob
06-15-2009, 11:09 AM
but I was think. the few I know about the eastern front is that most of the aerial warfare occur at medium and lower altitude. because of the massive use of the IL2 by the VVS in the CAS role, LW aircraft would need to come down to attack the IL2's. altough when I fly in such theater with the BF-109 (would just cited the BF-109 here, but my favorite ride is the FW-190) I just came down for attack, attack my target and start to climb again to a safe altitude, where the Soviet figther aicraft engines would start to loose performance and the opositive would happen to my BF-109. when I fly with friends, I use wat we call "ladder tactic". if you are with a BF-109 G-10 for example at lower level and a LA-5FN spot you and start to pursuit your airplane, you can have speed, but you not be able to reach a safe altitude to escape from it, so be, he probably would caugth you. for that we keep a few of us waiting above and watching the planes on lower level. came down, fire a short burst, start to climb again, do again, while everyone is climbing. we keep planes at lower, witch would be the attacks, medium and high altitude, all providing mutual cover. when we reach 6000 meters we just are able to escape in most cases using the speed. it's not a perfect tactic, would never say that, but is a good one and work many times, at least that my friends know and where used.

I don't know if this was used in RL, but figth on lower level, no, really not. just came down to fire and run away. I think that if the VVS planes where more capable of high altitude performance this would be really a problem, at least in IL2 using this tactic.

horseback
06-15-2009, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I find it very revealing that all the top Soviet scorers flew Lavotchkins and Cobras; this indicates to me that either Yaks were generally used to their tactical disadvantage (quite possible in light of the Soviets' top-down military hierarchy) or that the aircraft themselves were not all that user friendly.

cheers

horseback Actually no; you are wrong.
However I actually doubt that further insisting that you should take a quick look at the score table for Lavochkin aces, P-39/400 aces and Yak aces (which is presented in the thread BTW) could result in anything that could change your distorted point of view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No warpage here, friend. I looked my facts up from a number of sources.

Actually, of the top 20 Soviet claimants, only 6 made the bulk of their scores with Yaks; the rest were fairly evenly divided between Cobras and La-5/7s, with one having gotten all his credits in Spain (Gritsovets).

Of that 20, only one was listed as having less than 200 combat sorties (#20, Pavel Kamozin with 131), two had over 600 combat sorties, and thirteen had 300 or more combat sorties.

Only two had less than 90 combats.

Consider that very few Americans spent more than a year in combat fighter units, and how few sorties weather and distance permitted them, and much fewer opportunities they had for combat. That guys like Preddy, Johnson, Gabreski, Gentile or Schilling came that close to their Soviet counterparts' scores against the same enemy, even under different conditions, says a lot about their skills.

Draw your own conclusions.

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
06-15-2009, 01:26 PM
Draw your own conclusions.

No "conclusions" to be drawn here.

Tactical warfare over vast, thinly populated areas and an enemy with numerical inferiority.

That "sortie comparison" is lacking issue, to say the least.

zebulon64
06-15-2009, 02:54 PM
For what it's worth

A interview about Me-109 and Mustang from a pilot who does fly them both...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

~~S~~

Xiolablu3
06-15-2009, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Comparisons between "yak" and "mustang" have too many variables to have any meaning whatsoever.


Even if you flew an actual Yak and a P-51 on the same day with stock instruments the information would be useless for any kind of performance comparison.

It would be a waste of time.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How can you say that?

The information would be very useful for a pilot to compare the two aircraft and the different qualities of each?

Gunther Rall tested all the Allied fighters and found it immensly useful to fly these aircraft and find their strengths and weaknesses?

Unless I have misunderstood your point.

I dont see ow it CANT be useful for a pilot to fly and gain knowledge of a plane?

mandrill7
06-15-2009, 04:50 PM
The use of the P-47 and P-51 was needed in Russia because allies were flying bombing missions straight over Germany from the English channel and landing in Russia to refuel/reload for a bombing run on the way back. Escorts were needed for this purpose from the east and the west. For the most part, there wasn't a single engine plane the Russians had that did this well. The US was willing to share/lend/lease the large inventory of P-47s with its Russian allies for the purpose of these missions.
It had nothing to do with it being a capable front line fighter, although i might also add that the P-47 was used for ground attack purposes through out much of the second half of the war.

IIRC, the initiative of the US using the USSR as a staging post for its strategic bombing campaign foundered on Soviet indifference and incidents between the 2 powers. I suspect the last thing the Ivans wanted to do was to have their pilots flying escort on US missions (as opposed to having those same pilots flying Soviet missions) in whatever plane.

For the record, the Soviets used the Yak-9DD as a long-distance escort fighter. It was sort of a makeshift arrangement of a Yak loaded with extra fuel tanks, but the Russians were focussed on short-range low level frontline stuff anway.

mortoma
06-15-2009, 04:54 PM
The real life Yak-3 was probably not as good as the one we simulate in the game. The quality of construction was inferior and that made it heavier than it was supposed to be.

So there you have it, in real life the P-51, in the game the Yak.

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2009, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I find it very revealing that all the top Soviet scorers flew Lavotchkins and Cobras; this indicates to me that either Yaks were generally used to their tactical disadvantage (quite possible in light of the Soviets' top-down military hierarchy) or that the aircraft themselves were not all that user friendly.

cheers

horseback Actually no; you are wrong.
However I actually doubt that further insisting that you should take a quick look at the score table for Lavochkin aces, P-39/400 aces and Yak aces (which is presented in the thread BTW) could result in anything that could change your distorted point of view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No warpage here, friend. I looked my facts up from a number of sources.

Actually, of the top 20 Soviet claimants, only 6 made the bulk of their scores with Yaks; the rest were fairly evenly divided between Cobras and La-5/7s, with one having gotten all his credits in Spain (Gritsovets).

Of that 20, only one was listed as having less than 200 combat sorties (#20, Pavel Kamozin with 131), two had over 600 combat sorties, and thirteen had 300 or more combat sorties.

Only two had less than 90 combats.

Consider that very few Americans spent more than a year in combat fighter units, and how few sorties weather and distance permitted them, and much fewer opportunities they had for combat. That guys like Preddy, Johnson, Gabreski, Gentile or Schilling came that close to their Soviet counterparts' scores against the same enemy, even under different conditions, says a lot about their skills.

Draw your own conclusions.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans suffered greater losses in aircraft in the West vs. East during WW II. It would seem the better pilots and aircraft were in the West. Not to mention the air war started earlier in the East.

To further your point. One could argue while the USAAF pilots were as good if not better than their soviet counterpart.Flying high altitude long distance missions was a greater physical and mental challenge than then short low hops the VVS did. Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots . They had'nt even mastered radio communication , much less taking off of a carrier and coordinating a naval air attack on a capital ship.

Opps,I forgot the almighty Yak would'nt get beyond its own destroyer screen before its need to refuel. But what a tight turn it could make heading back to refuel.

BillSwagger
06-15-2009, 07:40 PM
Picking apart piloting becomes really subjective and biased. I can't be involved in that discussion, but if we are talking about the planes, themselves, consider not only their ace pilots, but the loss rates in combat.

What was the combat loss rate of the P-51??

What was the combat loss rate of the Yak?

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2009, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Comparisons between "yak" and "mustang" have too many variables to have any meaning whatsoever.


Even if you flew an actual Yak and a P-51 on the same day with stock instruments the information would be useless for any kind of performance comparison.

It would be a waste of time.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How can you say that?

The information would be very useful for a pilot to compare the two aircraft and the different qualities of each?

Gunther Rall tested all the Allied fighters and found it immensly useful to fly these aircraft and find their strengths and weaknesses?

Unless I have misunderstood your point.

I dont see ow it CANT be useful for a pilot to fly and gain knowledge of a plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a waste of time because the only way the P-51 ever loose this engagement was if he gave up the atvantage.The advantage a Yak could never have engaging the Mustang, high altitude performance and Speed.
No amount of time in a Mustang will ever allow the Yak pilot better performance from his craft.... Too slow and low.

Trefle
06-15-2009, 08:02 PM
I don't know about the loss rates , but whatever the figures are , both a/c fought in very different contexts

Yak was mainly used as an escort low altitude fighter above its land army's massive operations during 4 years , in a context of lack of spare-sparts and raw materials shortage , difficult wheather and field conditions , accelerated training for most pilots who flew the Yak during a good part of the war and problems of logistics because of the vast distances between front line and hastily rebuilt factories using badly fed and exhausted workforce , which meant that possible defects/failures in Yaks were probably more common IMHO , particularly the first part of the war until 1943 .

Kettenhunde
06-15-2009, 09:53 PM
How can you say that?


Easily.
It is the truth.


Gunther Rall tested all the Allied fighters and found it immensly useful

Huge difference between one pilot flying one plane at a time with stock instruments and doing a side by side comparison or testing an aircraft properly prepared.


Unless I have misunderstood your point.


Bingo....sexy, see above. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I dont see ow it CANT be useful for a pilot to fly and gain knowledge of a plane?


I did not say "gain knowledge" of the aircraft; I said with stock instruments the information would be useless for any kind of performance comparison.

You would need specific instrumentation and fly some specific routines to conduct comparison flights.

All the best,

Crumpp

horseback
06-15-2009, 10:36 PM
Xio, I think what Kettenhunde is saying is that instruments placed on different planes will sometimes give differing results.

Example: Side by side, the Corsair was just a bit faster than the Hellcat. Pilots flying both types compared them straight up many times (in some cases, Carriers went to sea with F4Us and F6Fs in theri VF and VBF squadrons late in the war), and the result was that the F4U-1D was no more than 10-15 mph faster than the F6F-5 at their best altitudes.

However, the Hellcat's instruments showed it traveling almost 30-40mph slower than the Corsair's instruments indicated that IT was traveling. The different mounting/location of the Hellcat's pitot tube or other sensors apparently gave it a diffeent result than the Corsair's.

Technology of the time did not allow for radar to 'clock' fighters's top speeds at 20,000ft; you were dependent upon what your aircraft's instruments told you, which might be why so much emphasis was placed on Indicated Airspeeds rather than True Airspeeds.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
06-15-2009, 11:10 PM
Here is a picture of the CAFE Foundations barograph cuff which shows some of the specialized instruments used in actual performance comparison testing.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8076/sectionmaingfxbarograph.jpg (http://img81.imageshack.us/i/sectionmaingfxbarograph.jpg/)

These are precision instruments whose purpose is to gather data.

Stock instruments have such a wide margin for error that they are useless for comparative performance testing.

All the best,

Crumpp

ImpStarDuece
06-15-2009, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:


To further your point. One could argue while the USAAF pilots were as good if not better than their soviet counterpart.Flying high altitude long distance missions was a greater physical and mental challenge than then short low hops the VVS did. Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots . They had'nt even mastered radio communication , much less taking off of a carrier and coordinating a naval air attack on a capital ship.

Opps,I forgot the almighty Yak would'nt get beyond its own destroyer screen before its need to refuel. But what a tight turn it could make heading back to refuel.

This is a completely disingenuous argument.

Soviet pilots of the period neither had the opportunity or the need to operate long-range escort missions, or take-off/land from an aircraft carrier and attack an opposing capital ship.

To argue that US pilots were better than their Soviet counterparts because they operated different mission profiles is frankly bizarre. Its like arguing that RAF pilots in the BoB were better than US pilots, simply because they flew four or five sorties a day, while US pilots only usually flew one sortie per day.

The strength of a pilot rests on a combination of native ability, tactical knowledge and the amount of training they have received to perform their particular mission profile.

The US, with the luxury of more time and resources to train pilots, arguably did have a generally higher standard of pilots. But its impossible to quantify: different tactical situations and national priorities resulted in completely different operational methods and mission profiles. How would the USAAF have performed if its veteran pilots and the core of its training programme had been killed in the first six weeks of the war?

An Yak-3 or Yak-9 is unlikely to perform a high altitude, long range escort mission well. But, neither is a P-51 likely to make a suitable weeds level escort for a few flights of Il-2s.

Kettenhunde
06-15-2009, 11:56 PM
Xio, I think what Kettenhunde is saying is that instruments placed on different planes will sometimes give differing results.

Example: Side by side, the Corsair was just a bit faster than the Hellcat. Pilots flying both types compared them straight up many times (in some cases, Carriers went to sea with F4Us and F6Fs in theri VF and VBF squadrons late in the war), and the result was that the F4U-1D was no more than 10-15 mph faster than the F6F-5 at their best altitudes.

However, the Hellcat's instruments showed it traveling almost 30-40mph slower than the Corsair's instruments indicated that IT was traveling. The different mounting/location of the Hellcat's pitot tube or other sensors apparently gave it a diffeent result than the Corsair's.


That is pretty much it, horseback. The margin of error is just way too large on stock instruments to return any useful results.

Even with proper precision instruments calibration errors for conditions will render results that are useless unless conditions fall within narrow margins.

The best test's have multiple static sources and indicators with manifolds to cut off pressure readings to compare results. In the cheaper testing, this is the pilot pinching off the plastic static tubes, LOL.

The best comparison is a side by side with mechanics that have specific design training ensuring the aircraft are in proper order.

The pitfall of the side by side is fit and finish.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kocur_
06-16-2009, 12:20 AM
Err... I don't think many of you Gentelmen ever had to do with socialist statistics. In very short: direct comparing Soviet claims of particular pilots with any other air force is like comparing western democracies constitutions and Soviet one regarding freedom of speech. It's BS.
In various times and places Soviets went from puting in statistics anything pilot said without any verification to something akin claim confirmation in other air forces, sometimes as strict as seeing a wreck by an officer. Sometimes a "claim" in Soviet statistics is a claim to hit an enemy plane, not to destroy it actually, yet on paper both claims look the same.
RKKA claims 77 thousand Axis planes destroyed in Eastern Front (AFAIK close to what Luftwaffe lost in total in WW2), 57 thousand is claimed by VVS of which 44 thousand goes to VVS fighters. AFAIK Luftwaffe losses to enemy action of all kinds (including AA) in Eastern Front are estimated to 8 to 12 thousand. So statistically http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif we need to divide any Soviet pilot's claim by figure being result of dividing 44 thousand by number of Axis planes lost to Soviet fighters (whatever that is precisely).

JtD
06-16-2009, 04:00 AM
I think P-51 operating from improvised field strips in the Russian winter in order to fly low level escorts for the Sturmoviks would be dead meat on the table. The Yaks were better at that, with superior climb, turn, all around vision (compared to the razorback models) and of course less critical to take off and land with due to lower stall speeds.

DKoor
06-16-2009, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
improvised field strips in the Russian winter ...at approx 13-17 sec of this small vid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
http://www.2shared.com/file/63...75942b/il2field.html (http://www.2shared.com/file/6334847/f275942b/il2field.html)
...landing strip as crappy as it gets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

DKoor
06-16-2009, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Picking apart piloting becomes really subjective and biased. I can't be involved in that discussion, but if we are talking about the planes, themselves, consider not only their ace pilots, but the loss rates in combat.

What was the combat loss rate of the P-51??

What was the combat loss rate of the Yak? Aside from those facts, it is an interesting fact that the B.239 Buffalo had the best kill/loss ratio of all planes in WW2 (that I know of); it had some 9:1 kill/loss ratio http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Of course it doesn't prove anything about how good the plane was just like most of the facts presented in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

However it represent the fact that those planes served well in combination with many other factors such are tactics, pilot quality etc.

Kocur_
06-16-2009, 07:05 AM
Umm... Yak-9M would get to 5 km in 6,1 m, Yak-9U would do the same in 5 m (Yefim Gordon).
P-51B/C with V-1650-7 and all internal fuel in wing tanks and some in fuselage tank, i.e. at 9680lbs/4394 kg would do the same in like 4,6 m ( http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...24771-climb-blue.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-climb-blue.jpg) ).
It takes Yak-3 with 3,9 m to beat that, but what would it be if Mustang was loaded with only so much fuel to match Yak-3's short range...?

Take-off run of Yak-9M and U was 420 and 380 m respectively, while P-51B/C in condition as above - 488 m ( http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...24771-climb-blue.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-climb-blue.jpg) ). But at 9000lbs/3623 kg, i.e. weight with as much fuel as Yak-9 would take, t/o run was 396 m.

Didn't at least Allison Mustangs operate from field strips in Africa and Burma?

TinyTim
06-16-2009, 07:05 AM
Fokker Eindecker has (far) better kill/loss ratio than MiG-29...

horseback
06-16-2009, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Err... I don't think many of you Gentelmen ever had to do with socialist statistics. In very short: direct comparing Soviet claims of particular pilots with any other air force is like comparing western democracies constitutions and Soviet one regarding freedom of speech. It's BS.
In various times and places Soviets went from puting in statistics anything pilot said without any verification to something akin claim confirmation in other air forces, sometimes as strict as seeing a wreck by an officer. Sometimes a "claim" in Soviet statistics is a claim to hit an enemy plane, not to destroy it actually, yet on paper both claims look the same.
RKKA claims 77 thousand Axis planes destroyed in Eastern Front (AFAIK close to what Luftwaffe lost in total in WW2), 57 thousand is claimed by VVS of which 44 thousand goes to VVS fighters. AFAIK Luftwaffe losses to enemy action of all kinds (including AA) in Eastern Front are estimated to 8 to 12 thousand. So statistically http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif we need to divide any Soviet pilot's claim by figure being result of dividing 44 thousand by number of Axis planes lost to Soviet fighters (whatever that is precisely). Thank you, Kocur. Any western advocate of American aircraft would be denounced immediately for using 'old' cold war propaganda prejudice.

A classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...

And yes, Mustangs in Burma were operated at the peak of monsoon season. There's a classic photo out there of a P-51A taxiing in what has to be two feet/70cm of standing water...

Operation of the P-51B/C began in China under pretty primitive conditions starting in June of 1944, and the big complaint then was not that the airplane wouldn't fly, but that old bugaboo from the ETO, ammo jams due to wing flex, which was soon corrected.

cheers

horseback

horseback
06-16-2009, 08:37 AM
The US, with the luxury of more time and resources to train pilots, arguably did have a generally higher standard of pilots. But its impossible to quantify: different tactical situations and national priorities resulted in completely different operational methods and mission profiles. How would the USAAF have performed if its veteran pilots and the core of its training programme had been killed in the first six weeks of the war? While the USAAC was just starting to expand its pilot training system at the time the USA entered the war, it was well 'behind the curve' for almost a year. Bear in mind that a lot of the Commonwealth's pilots were also being trained in the continental US at the same time, and that the US had nothing to match the state supported pilot training programs of 1930s era USSR...

An Yak-3 or Yak-9 is unlikely to perform a high altitude, long range escort mission well. But, neither is a P-51 likely to make a suitable weeds level escort for a few flights of Il-2s. Give a decent engineering team two months, and they could soup up the engine for maximum performance down low (and still make it last longer than contemporary Soviet engines under combat conditions), lighten the airframe by tossing the fuselage tank and cutting the wing tanks down by say, a third and adding a blown Malcom type canopy (which many wartime pilots considered superior to the D model's bubbletop for all around FOV). I imagine that other minor fixes could be applied that would lighten the aircraft and improve it for low level combat. It might not pull as tight a turn, but it would do the job as well and bring more of its pilots home.

Of course, if we applied some of that to the P-51A, you'd have a faster, better behaved P-40 that could climb like a demon.

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
06-16-2009, 11:17 AM
Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots .

Seriously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
06-16-2009, 11:41 AM
The original P-51 was not a high alt long range escort, it did quite well 15,000ft and below.

Kocur_
06-16-2009, 11:50 AM
No P-51B/C with V-1650-7 or D was particularly "high alt fighter", or in other words, they were so about as much, as LF Spitfires were.

DKoor
06-16-2009, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots .

Seriously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

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

JtD
06-16-2009, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
...landing strip as crappy as it gets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

I figure there wouldn't be too much of laminar flow left on a P-51's wing after this take off, and not much Meredith effect or even cooling with the low and far rear belly cooler the plane has.

stalkervision
06-16-2009, 01:19 PM
The p-51 allison was a very competitive fighter down low. I have read 407 mph quoted and many 109 and 190 victories..

Gibbage1
06-16-2009, 04:38 PM
If I was fighting to win a war, I would pick the Mustang. It had a lot more capability then just shooting down other fighters. If I was just fighting a battle vs other aircraft, I may sway to the Yak, but wars are not 100% won in the air. To win a war, you need boots on the ground, and the Stang is more capable of supporting those boots.

TinyTim
06-16-2009, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If I was fighting to win a war, I would pick the Mustang. It had a lot more capability then just shooting down other fighters. If I was just fighting a battle vs other aircraft, I may sway to the Yak, but wars are not 100% won in the air. To win a war, you need boots on the ground, and the Stang is more capable of supporting those boots.

If you speak about winning a war, did you take into account also which of the two is cheaper to produce, uses less strategic materials, is easier and cheaper to maintain, can use worse prepared fields etc...? This all counts big time in a war. 1v1 is one story, but if you can get 3 Yak-9Us for the price of a single P-51D, situation may be completely different.

BillSwagger
06-16-2009, 08:09 PM
thats also in relation to how well the industrial power can produce these machines.

The P-51 was said to be more efficient and less costly to build than other fighters.

The yak, if built by the US, would probably prove to be even more efficient to build, however the resource deficient soviets were making them so i'm not sure you can make an accurate comparison this way.

Both countries were making the most of what they had, and the Yak was a superb fighter but the P-51 is superior in my mind.

Gibbage1
06-16-2009, 08:42 PM
You may be able to make more Yak's with the same resources, but thats not in the original question. I would rather have 200 P-51C or D's with almost all commonality, then 300 Yak's divided into 20 sub variants each with there own task, roll, and different ammunition and parts. You'll pay for that in logistics.

JtD
06-16-2009, 11:01 PM
The Soviet doctrine had the Il-2 supporting the ground troops, so there was little need for their fighters to do the same.

Kocur_
06-17-2009, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
If you speak about winning a war, did you take into account also which of the two is cheaper to produce, uses less strategic materials, is easier and cheaper to maintain, can use worse prepared fields etc...?

P-51 was way easier and cheaper to produce in US than Yaks would be. Or, in other words P-51 was as well suited to US industry as Yak was to Soviet industry and those are totally incomparable.
The trick is of course technology used. It would be simply impossible to produce tens of thousands wooden wings in US, because that would take zillions tons of seasoned wood, and that process takes time. And since wooden technologies in US aviation industry were almost totally dropped from probably even early 1930s - aside from lightest general aviation - there was simply no resources, in materials, tools and trained personel to produce thousands of fighters.
Welding of chro-mo steel used in fuselage framework is somewhat tricky and here there would be a problem in US with trained personel, perhaps even with the steel too, as US consumed lots of it producing not only tanks, artillery, trucks, but also almost unimaginable tonnage of ships. And aluminium was used almost solely by aircraft industry.

Simply put, P-51 used less, or rather none of strategic material US was lacking, while Yaks, until -7DI, -9 and -3, which had aluminium-steel wing spars, used no strategic resources that Soviets were lacking, i.e. aluminium.


Originally posted by TinyTim:
This all counts big time in a war. 1v1 is one story, but if you can get 3 Yak-9Us for the price of a single P-51D, situation may be completely different.

I really don't think that ratio of 3:1 for comparing those two particular planes is anywhere right. Even less so since even all-wooden-and-steel Yaks actually used considerable amount of aluminium - in their engines blocks.


I don't see how Yaks were easier to maintain or better suited to low quality airfields.

M_Gunz
06-17-2009, 01:54 AM
Also the wood parts of the Yaks were much more survivable in cold and dry than in warm, humid places.
It would be hard to imagine Yaks operating out of Henderson Field or any South Pacific area or some others.
Hey, you use what you have that will do the job. What works well, works well. The Yaks worked well enough!

To the credit of the Russians, look what they did to the P-39 through expertise given to Bell! Without the
input of Russians where would the Airacobra have ended? Would there have been a P-63 at all?

Wiki says;

Soviet Union
The Soviet Union received at least 10 early-model Mustangs and tested them in combat. Some reports suggest that other Mustangs that were abandoned in Russia after the famous "shuttle missions" were repaired and used by the Soviet Air Force, but not in front line service.

Maybe the choice was down to shipping space and they would rather have the P-39's?

Gibbage1
06-17-2009, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Soviet doctrine had the Il-2 supporting the ground troops, so there was little need for their fighters to do the same.

OK. Add even MORE to the logistics.

Gibbage1
06-17-2009, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Maybe the choice was down to shipping space and they would rather have the P-39's?

They may not of been given much of a choice. The Russians also got a few P-47's and they deemed them worthy for only shooting at ships. There idea of an ideal fighter was much like the Japanese, in that if it didnt turn well on the deck, it wasent a fighter. The Germans sent over a bunch of aircraft to the Japanese and they also didnt like them much due to the same thing. If it didnt turn well, it wasent a fighter! That very narrow mindset definitely hurt the Japanese. I think the P-39 won a warm place in the Russians hearts for two reasons. #1, it could turn well, and #2, the US were giving them tons. On the other hand, they were rather skimpy with P-51 and P-47's, keeping the best at home, and the British only handed over used Spitfires.

JtD
06-17-2009, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The Soviet doctrine had the Il-2 supporting the ground troops, so there was little need for their fighters to do the same.

OK. Add even MORE to the logistics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As compared to having A-20, A-26, B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-29, TBD, TBF, SBD, SB2C in various subtypes doing the bombing for the US air forces?

Logistics aren't everything, purpose is also important.

TinyTim
06-17-2009, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
If you speak about winning a war, did you take into account also which of the two is cheaper to produce, uses less strategic materials, is easier and cheaper to maintain, can use worse prepared fields etc...?

P-51 was way easier and cheaper to produce in US than Yaks would be. Or, in other words P-51 was as well suited to US industry as Yak was to Soviet industry and those are totally incomparable.
The trick is of course technology used. It would be simply impossible to produce tens of thousands wooden wings in US, because that would take zillions tons of seasoned wood, and that process takes time. And since wooden technologies in US aviation industry were almost totally dropped from probably even early 1930s - aside from lightest general aviation - there was simply no resources, in materials, tools and trained personel to produce thousands of fighters.
Welding of chro-mo steel used in fuselage framework is somewhat tricky and here there would be a problem in US with trained personel, perhaps even with the steel too, as US consumed lots of it producing not only tanks, artillery, trucks, but also almost unimaginable tonnage of ships. And aluminium was used almost solely by aircraft industry.

Simply put, P-51 used less, or rather none of strategic material US was lacking, while Yaks, until -7DI, -9 and -3, which had aluminium-steel wing spars, used no strategic resources that Soviets were lacking, i.e. aluminium.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well put, tx for insight.


Originally posted by Kocur_:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
This all counts big time in a war. 1v1 is one story, but if you can get 3 Yak-9Us for the price of a single P-51D, situation may be completely different.

I don't see how Yaks were easier to maintain or better suited to low quality airfields. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not saying they were. I'm saying if you extend the discussion and start speaking about winning the war (rather than compare the two planes 1 by 1 as up to now in this thread), then you must take this things into an account and assess them, you can't simply assume the plane ratio as 1to1. 3:1 was a completely made up (and yeah, probably exaggerated) example with an if infront.

Gibbage1
06-17-2009, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
As compared to having A-20, A-26, B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-29, TBD, TBF, SBD, SB2C in various subtypes doing the bombing for the US air forces?

Logistics aren't everything, purpose is also important.

If im not mistaken, the question was "What was the better fighter"? I dont see many fighters listed up there. Im simply saying that the P-51, as a fighter, contributed more to the war effort then just being a FIGHTER. It was also able to serv as ground support, long range escort, long range recon, high alt fighter, and an endless laundry list of other capabilities that the Yak could not do, or needed multiple versions, causing added logistical problems. Supporting 10-15 different fighters on the same field is a logistical nightmare.

Gammelpreusse
06-17-2009, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
As compared to having A-20, A-26, B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-29, TBD, TBF, SBD, SB2C in various subtypes doing the bombing for the US air forces?

Logistics aren't everything, purpose is also important.

If im not mistaken, the question was "What was the better fighter"? I dont see many fighters listed up there. Im simply saying that the P-51, as a fighter, contributed more to the war effort then just being a FIGHTER. It was also able to serv as ground support, long range escort, long range recon, high alt fighter, and an endless laundry list of other capabilities that the Yak could not do, or needed multiple versions, causing added logistical problems. Supporting 10-15 different fighters on the same field is a logistical nightmare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hmmm, didn't the 51 have some serious vulnerabilty issues with it's engine to ground fire and thus was rarely used as ground attack fighter? More then willing to be corrected here, but that's what I picked up before.

Gibbage1
06-17-2009, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Hmmm, didn't the 51 have some serious vulnerabilty issues with it's engine to ground fire and thus was rarely used as ground attack fighter? More then willing to be corrected here, but that's what I picked up before.

It was quite often used for ground targets. Yes, not the best suited for the roll, but that didnt keep them from slapping a couple of 1000lb bombs and dropping them off at the local Luftwaffe airfield or train depot. Also, the P-51 was used EXTENSIVELY in Korea for ground attack. Again, not the best of choice, but it did it. The US really had no designated ground attack aircraft like the IL2 (A-36, but it was not used extensively) so they used all there fighters in that roll, making them true multi-roll. P-38's also did a lot of mud moving.

Very often, at the end of the war, once the bombers were escorted, the P-51's would dive down and see what they could shoot up. By that time, the Luftwaffe was not much more then a memory. On these runs, they only had there guns since they carried drop tanks for the escort roll.

JtD
06-17-2009, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

If im not mistaken, the question was "What was the better fighter"?

Then why do you drop a comment on the use of the Il-2? I was merely pointing out that you were comparing apples to oranges, and in fact still are. Ground attack capabilities were not required from fighters in the Soviet air force.


Supporting 10-15 different fighters on the same field is a logistical nightmare.

Lets see, since 1941 we have the P-40 in a dozen variants and the P-51 in at least three major variants. Compared to that, we have the Yak-1/-3 series in, what, like 5 different variants?
But of course, to suit your argument, you could simply pick one of the types in service for just the last year of the war and compare it to all types produced by a company over the duration of four years. Imho, that's pretty lame.

How many sub types of the Yak-3 were used as a front line fighter in WW2?
How many sub types of the P-51 were used as a front line fighter in WW2?

Xiolablu3
06-17-2009, 04:11 AM
The Yak had an inline engine too and I would think it was just as vulnerable as the P51/Me109/Spit/P40 to ground fire.

Any inline engine has a cooling system which one lucky bullet can kill.

Of course whether its catastrophic or not entirely depends if the fighter is fighting over its own territory or not. Easily repairable for a fighter defending. A death Knell for a fighter over enemy territory.

Trefle
06-17-2009, 04:27 AM
I've read the Klimov M-105 engine was one of the best inline engine of the war regarding battle damage , could even fly with 2 cylinders shot according to Soviet vets , it equipped the Lagg-3 aside from Yaks

Gammelpreusse
06-17-2009, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Hmmm, didn't the 51 have some serious vulnerabilty issues with it's engine to ground fire and thus was rarely used as ground attack fighter? More then willing to be corrected here, but that's what I picked up before.

It was quite often used for ground targets. Yes, not the best suited for the roll, but that didnt keep them from slapping a couple of 1000lb bombs and dropping them off at the local Luftwaffe airfield or train depot. Also, the P-51 was used EXTENSIVELY in Korea for ground attack. Again, not the best of choice, but it did it. The US really had no designated ground attack aircraft like the IL2 (A-36, but it was not used extensively) so they used all there fighters in that roll, making them true multi-roll. P-38's also did a lot of mud moving.

Very often, at the end of the war, once the bombers were escorted, the P-51's would dive down and see what they could shoot up. By that time, the Luftwaffe was not much more then a memory. On these runs, they only had there guns since they carried drop tanks for the escort roll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, strafing runs were done by nearly all fighters in WW2. I do not think that is much of an argument for a specialised role of the Pony in this regard.

Thanks for clearing up the other points, however. Didn't know about Korea, will have to read up on that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gammelpreusse
06-17-2009, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Yak had an inline engine too and I would think it was just as vulnerable as the P51/Me109/Spit/P40 to ground fire.

Any inline engine has a cooling system which one lucky bullet can kill.

Of course whether its catastrophic or not entirely depends if the fighter is fighting over its own territory or not. Easily repairable for a fighter defending. A death Knell for a fighter over enemy territory.

...I think all fighters you counted up here were not exactly famous for their ground attack capabilities, now were they? At least in this I do not see an argument "for" the ground attack role of inline engine fighters in general, including the Pony, though obviously it was used in Korea as such quite a lot.

Now that makes me wonder if the USAF there had a lack of ground attack aircraft in general and thus used the Mustang in this role for no alternative beeing available or because the Pony actually did possess capabilities making it superiour to other aircraft types in this regard.
If the latter, I'd be really interested in what those capabilities look like.

TinyTim
06-17-2009, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Yak had an inline engine too and I would think it was just as vulnerable as the P51/Me109/Spit/P40 to ground fire.

Any inline engine has a cooling system which one lucky bullet can kill.

Of course whether its catastrophic or not entirely depends if the fighter is fighting over its own territory or not. Easily repairable for a fighter defending. A death Knell for a fighter over enemy territory.

It makes me wonder however if different planes had considerably different probabilities of taking a fatal hit into a radiator. IL-2 for example had air intake above the engine, with radiator located in fuselage behind the engine and forward of the pilot if I'm not mistaken. The air exited the plane below the pilot - at the same place where air from oil cooler (box below the fuselage) exited. It seems such a radiator was harder to hit than, say, a P-51 one, but it surely had other drawbacks, like impact on aerodynamics.

It's drifting offtopic, since all yaks in question (9U, 3) had very similar and similarly located radiator to P-51, but interesting question nevertheless.

BillSwagger
06-17-2009, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Yak had an inline engine too and I would think it was just as vulnerable as the P51/Me109/Spit/P40 to ground fire.

Any inline engine has a cooling system which one lucky bullet can kill.

Of course whether its catastrophic or not entirely depends if the fighter is fighting over its own territory or not. Easily repairable for a fighter defending. A death Knell for a fighter over enemy territory.

...I think all fighters you counted up here were not exactly famous for their ground attack capabilities, now were they? At least in this I do not see an argument "for" the ground attack role of inline engine fighters in general, including the Pony, though obviously it was used in Korea as such quite a lot.

Now that makes me wonder if the USAF there had a lack of ground attack aircraft in general and thus used the Mustang in this role for no alternative beeing available or because the Pony actually did possess capabilities making it superiour to other aircraft types in this regard.
If the latter, I'd be really interested in what those capabilities look like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not as familiar with Korea, but i can say the density of flak and other ground fire over Germany was pretty astonishing. See my post on the P-47 war story..

I will also note that any plane that can carry bombs and/or rockets can be used for ground attack. I think in Korea we had jets for the air war, and mustangs had graduated to ground attack, as most fighters past tend to progress.

horseback
06-17-2009, 09:48 AM
The western Allies did not have specialty ground attack aircraft specifically designed for the role analogous to the Sturmovik during WWII. They adapted other high performance aircraft that were less successful in other roles, like the Typhoon, or really numerous, like the P-47.

The A-36 Apache version of the Mustang was supposedly a dive bomber, but it was actually a contractual means of keeping the Mustang in production until spending could be authorized for a USAAF 'approved' version of the Pony (P-51A) in the very early days of the war, instead of something built to RAF specs (Mustang Mk Ia/P-51). It was fairly effective, but the production run ended pretty quickly, and wasn't revived because of the pressing need for the long range fighter versions.

In real terms, the USAAF/USAF never had a dedicated frontline support aircraft until they borrowed the Navy's Skyraider in Vietnam, realized its value and decided to contract for the A-10 in the '70s. The Mustang was pressed into service in Korea because it was all we had (in Japan) with anything like the capability at the time (having decommissioned a bunch of P-38s with bulldozers just a few months before).

The Navy and Marines used the (radial engined) ADs and Corsairs for their primary ground attack in Korea with good success; they didn't move wholesale to jets until the later '50s, and the Skyraider was still around until the late '60s/early '70s.

From my reading, I get the distinct impression that the Soviets used their fighters for ground support mainly as an afterthought as well; prewar doctrine seemed to assume that the ground attackers would get through the enemy's ground and air defenses, and we all know how that worked out. While a Yak-1 or LaGG couldn't carry much of an air to ground load, it was something that could be used against the enemy and still have a chance of getting back to base afterwards.

I don't buy the 'ruggedness' claim for the Klimov; the one problem that dogged the whole series of Soviet inlines was overheating without the enemy adding to the complications. A holed radiator or oil cooler would be a very serious problem, even though the Soviets' air doctrine called for them to spend most of their time within a short distance of their own lines.

cheers

horseback

Gammelpreusse
06-17-2009, 10:02 AM
thanks horseback, that kinda supports my impressions about the Ponys role in ground support in Korea.

So in conclusion neither the Yak nor the 51 were stellar ground pounders, more pressed into this service.

Don't want to step onto your toes, Gibbage, but after reading this it's not exactly fair to other planes by claiming the 51 was an effective ground support aircraft when directly compared to the likes of a 47, 38, Tempest, Typhoon, 190F or Corsair, etc.. It appears to be more of an "..also not completly a dog in these roles.." case. But that is true for every inline engine fighter, including the russian types.

M_Gunz
06-17-2009, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Yak had an inline engine too and I would think it was just as vulnerable as the P51/Me109/Spit/P40 to ground fire.

Any inline engine has a cooling system which one lucky bullet can kill.

Of course whether its catastrophic or not entirely depends if the fighter is fighting over its own territory or not. Easily repairable for a fighter defending. A death Knell for a fighter over enemy territory.

...I think all fighters you counted up here were not exactly famous for their ground attack capabilities, now were they? At least in this I do not see an argument "for" the ground attack role of inline engine fighters in general, including the Pony, though obviously it was used in Korea as such quite a lot.

Now that makes me wonder if the USAF there had a lack of ground attack aircraft in general and thus used the Mustang in this role for no alternative beeing available or because the Pony actually did possess capabilities making it superiour to other aircraft types in this regard.
If the latter, I'd be really interested in what those capabilities look like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mustangs were used for ground attack in WWII. After escort they did go low and attack airfields and other targets.
The term was "collateral damage" and the Mustangs were not the only escorts that did so. IMO the P-47 was better
suited for the same role. More guns as well as better ability to take damage.

The Mustangs did not do badly in that role either. They didn't just throw planes and pilots away as it wasn't done
out of desperation.

In Korea the Mustangs were not good for a whole lot else.

As to USAAF specialty ground attack planes.... let's not forget: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell)


Because of the urgent need for hard-hitting strafer aircraft, a version dubbed the B-25G was developed, in which the standard-length transparent nose and the bombardier were replaced by a shorter solid nose containing two fixed .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns and a 75 mm (2.95 in) M4 cannon, one of the largest weapons fitted to an aircraft, similar to the experimental British Mosquito Mk. XVIII, and German Ju 88P heavy cannon carrying aircraft. The cannon was manually loaded and serviced by the navigator, who was able to perform these operations without leaving his crew station just behind the pilot. This was possible due to the shorter nose of the G-model and the length of the M4, which allowed the breech to extend into the navigator's compartment.

The B-25G's successor, the B-25H, had even more firepower. The M4 gun was replaced by the lighter T13E1, designed specifically for the aircraft. The 75 mm (2.95 in) gun fired at a muzzle velocity of 2,362 ft/s (about 720 m/s). Due to its low rate of fire (approximately four rounds could be fired in a single strafing run) and relative ineffectiveness against ground targets, as well as substantial recoil, the 75 mm (2.95 in) gun was sometimes removed from both G and H models and replaced with two additional .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns as a field modification.[1] The -H also mounted four fixed forward-firing .50 (12.7 mm) machine guns in the nose, four more fixed ones in forward-firing cheek blisters, two more in the top turret, one each in a pair of new waist positions, and a final pair in a new tail gunner's position. Company promotional material bragged the B-25H could "bring to bear 10 machine guns coming and four going, in addition to the 75 mm cannon, a brace of eight rockets and 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) of bombs."[2]

The B-25H also featured a redesigned cockpit area, with the top turret moved forward to the navigator's compartment (thus requiring the addition of the waist and tail gun positions), and a heavily modified cockpit designed to be operated by a single pilot, the co-pilot's station and controls deleted, and the seat cut down and used by the navigator/cannoneer, the radio operator being moved to the aft compartment, operating the waist guns.[3] A total of 1,400 B-25Gs and B-25Hs were built in all.

The final version of the Mitchell, the B-25J, looked much like the earlier B, C and D, having reverted to the longer nose. The less-than-successful 75 mm (2.95 in) cannon was deleted on the J model. Instead, 800 of this version were built with a solid nose containing eight .50 (12.7 mm) machine guns, while other J-models featured the earlier "greenhouse" style nose containing the bombardier's position. Regardless of the nose style used, all J-models also included two .50 in (12.7 mm) guns in a "fuselage package" located directly under the pilot's station, and two more such guns in an identical package just under the co-pilot's compartment. The solid-nose B-25J variant carried an impressive total of 18 .50 in (12.7 mm) guns: eight in the nose, four in under-cockpit packages, two in an upper turret, two in the waist, and a pair in the tail. No other bomber of World War II carried as many guns. However, the first 555 B-25Js (the B-25J-1-NC production block) were delivered without the fuselage package guns, because it was discovered muzzle blast from these guns was causing severe stress in the fuselage; while later production runs returned these guns, they were often removed as a field modification for the same reason.[4] In all, 4,318 B-25Js were built.

We have a flyable B-25J in IL2 with 12 50 cals and 10 different bomb loads including FABs or parafrags.
And only 5,718 of these ground attack planes were built.

Gibbage1
06-17-2009, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
So in conclusion neither the Yak nor the 51 were stellar ground pounders, more pressed into this service.


Stellar, no, but better then the Yak. P-51 could carry up to 2x1000lb bombs, and that was just the every day ordinary D model. They could also be fitted with Bazooka tubes, and later, Hvar rockets. This made it more potent in the ground role then the Yak, that had at maximum, 4x100kg bombs in a specific bomber version. Even those didnt fly that often in that config due to poor balance from the bombs being located in a seat behind the pilot (The bomber was a converted 2 seat trainer Yak).

So its 200 or 300Kg (400-600lb) on a special bomber Yak, or 2000lb on a Mustang. What sounds more effective?

Gammelpreusse
06-17-2009, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
So in conclusion neither the Yak nor the 51 were stellar ground pounders, more pressed into this service.


Stellar, no, but better then the Yak. P-51 could carry up to 2x1000lb bombs, and that was just the every day ordinary D model. They could also be fitted with Bazooka tubes, and later, Hvar rockets. This made it more potent in the ground role then the Yak, that had at maximum, 4x100kg bombs in a specific bomber version. Even those didnt fly that often in that config due to poor balance from the bombs being located in a seat behind the pilot (The bomber was a converted 2 seat trainer Yak).

So its 200 or 300Kg (400-600lb) on a special bomber Yak, or 2000lb on a Mustang. What sounds more effective? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

more "effective" then the yak for sure in the extra weapons department. But not anymore dedicated to that mission but in details.

DKoor
06-17-2009, 12:57 PM
My view is after all that P-51 was better fighter all things concerned.

But for Germans it was pretty much all the same.
They were overwhelmed by both types in their game, very high up and down low... altitudes which didn't favor German machines while they favored their enemies.

Kocur_
06-17-2009, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The western Allies did not have specialty ground attack aircraft specifically designed for the role analogous to the Sturmovik during WWII.

It is true, no such plane was used, or even produced. But some were developed.
Actually pre-WW2 USAAC "Attack" category was exactly that: specialised planes for attacking ground targets close to frontline with bombs and guns. It evolved until there was little difference between two-engined Attack planes and light to medium twin engined bombers. But even during WW2 USAAF had planes in development, that closely followed lines of 1930s "A" planes and Il-2, Su-6 or Hs 129 plus strong influence of dive bombing idea. Short notes on say XA-38 or XA-41 can be found here: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m...aft/attack/index.asp (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/research/aircraft/attack/index.asp) . It's safe to assume I think, that success of strongly bulit US fighters in attack role made those specialised Attack planes far less attractive that they were when programs were initiated.

Gibbage1
06-17-2009, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
more "effective" then the yak for sure in the extra weapons department. But not anymore dedicated to that mission but in details.

Your only proving my point more, in that it was NOT dedicated, but still better then the dedicated version of the Yak. So the P-51 was much more versatile, making it more valuable to the war overall

JtD
06-17-2009, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Stellar, no, but better then the Yak. P-51 could carry up to 2x1000lb bombs, and that was just the every day ordinary D model...

Funny that the aircraft Data Sheets say 2x500 lbs max.
Early Yaks could carry 2x100kg bombs or 6 RS 82 rockets. I wouldn't know if and how often this was used in service. Apparently it was a little desired feature, and later Yaks did not support it. Like I've said a couple of times now, different doctrines. Apples and Oranges, you just don't get it.

Gammelpreusse
06-17-2009, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
more "effective" then the yak for sure in the extra weapons department. But not anymore dedicated to that mission but in details.

Your only proving my point more, in that it was NOT dedicated, but still better then the dedicated version of the Yak. So the P-51 was much more versatile, making it more valuable to the war overall </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

heh, if you insist so, who am I to say otherwise =)

Gibbage1
06-17-2009, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Funny that the aircraft Data Sheets say 2x500 lbs max.
Early Yaks could carry 2x100kg bombs or 6 RS 82 rockets. I wouldn't know if and how often this was used in service. Apparently it was a little desired feature, and later Yaks did not support it. Like I've said a couple of times now, different doctrines. Apples and Oranges, you just don't get it.

The B/C and D models had a stronger wing then the A model to deal with the greater power of the engine. This allowed for heavier bombs to be mounted.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p51_8.html)

As for "apples and oranges", they are both fighters. So its more of an "granny smith and red delicious" then anything.

Like I said, the P-51 was more versatile, without having to require many variants, so in my openion, was better suited to the war. As a pure fighter, for doing nothing other then shooting other fighters down, maybe the Yak, but again, shooting down other fighters wont win a war.

JtD
06-17-2009, 05:01 PM
The article seems to be wrong, here's some first hand information:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-3.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-IV-ads.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg

All of which state 2x500 or 1000lbs total as the maximum load out.

Data sheets taken from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org.

Since you've failed to find it out yourself, I'd also like to point out that these models are at least 3 major sub variants of the P-51 as opposed to exactly 1 major variant of the Yak-3 to see service. So much for your simpler logistics argument.

Gibbage1
06-17-2009, 06:26 PM
Even at 1000lb, its still better then the yak. And there was more then just the Yak-3. There was the Yak-1 series, Yak-3, Yak-7 and Yak-9.

horseback
06-17-2009, 07:59 PM
As to the hard nosed B-25s--they were an outgrowth of the famous "Pappy" Gunn's conversions of A-20B/Cs into dedicated strafers in the Southwest Pacific.

It's my understanding that the B-25G/H models were used primarily in the antishipping role, and may actually have sunk more Japanese tonnage than US submarines.

Going up against German fixed defenses at low level was a task with a lot more 'hair' on it than these slower & larger targets would have wanted (if the pilots were remotely sane, which leads us to Catch-22: "We can take you out of combat if you're crazy, but if you ask us to take you out of combat, then you're not really crazy.").

Again, we're still talking about which Yak we want to compare to the Merlin Mustang, which was a 1943/44 design. The Yak-3 was a late '43 design as well, entering production about the same time the first P-51Ds were beginning to enter production, so they can be considered contemporaries, although they were polar opposites in missions and best altitudes.

The Mustang shone up high, while the Yak-3 was at its best in the weeds, 3000m or lower. I think it's safe to say that each would be a prohibitive favorite in its home field.

The Yak-9U or UT was closer to the Mustang in concept and performance at least at medium altitudes. It was after all called the 'Russian Mustang' by the Germans who must have seen a similarity or two.

That might be a good matchup, from say, 5000m-8000m. The Yak would probably dominate below that band, and the Mustang above, with pilots of equal ability.

cheers

horseback

ElAurens
06-17-2009, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
It's my understanding that the B-25G/H models were used primarily in the antishipping role, and may actually have sunk more Japanese tonnage than US submarines.
horseback

Not very likely.

US submarines were responsible for 55% (FIVE MILLION TONS) of Japanese shipping sunk in WW2. Yet, the US submarine force made up only 1.6% of the US Navy.

deepo_HP
06-17-2009, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
It was after all called the 'Russian Mustang' by the Germans who must have seen a similarity or two. boandlgramer said it before, but that term is fictious to me and those 'germans' which i know from the shire. if ever, they speak of the 'american yak' when telling from the war in middleearth at the fires.

M_Gunz
06-17-2009, 11:58 PM
Less than 1400 75mm equipped B-25's as opposed to over 4300 B-25J's were made.
According to the article they took out a lot of airfields and other ground targets.

1) They strafed and bombed and rocketed and cannoned ground targets.
2) They were used in the 1000's
3) But the USAAF had no specialized ground attack planes?

What's the matter? It's not single engined? It's not fast enough? It's not "official" with over 5000 made?

Oh wait! I know! I must be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif ANGRY! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif so actual facts don't matter! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just for the sake of tender hearted readers, I've thrown in the cartoon smilies to show that I AM laughing at
the absurdity of denying or ignoring this simple point, the USAAF did have at least one specialized ground
attack aircraft during WWII. I only mean to address that POINT, it's not a personal attack, just a correction.

R_Target
06-18-2009, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Less than 1400 75mm equipped B-25's as opposed to over 4300 B-25J's were made.
According to the article they took out a lot of airfields and other ground targets.

1) They strafed and bombed and rocketed and cannoned ground targets.
2) They were used in the 1000's
3) But the USAAF had no specialized ground attack planes?

What's the matter? It's not single engined? It's not fast enough? It's not "official" with over 5000 made?

Oh wait! I know! I must be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif ANGRY! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif so actual facts don't matter! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just for the sake of tender hearted readers, I've thrown in the cartoon smilies to show that I AM laughing at
the absurdity of denying or ignoring this simple point, the USAAF did have at least one specialized ground
attack aircraft during WWII. I only mean to address that POINT, it's not a personal attack, just a correction.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. And don't forget the A-20.

JtD
06-18-2009, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Even at 1000lb, its still better then the yak. And there was more then just the Yak-3. There was the Yak-1 series, Yak-3, Yak-7 and Yak-9.

And there was the P-38, the P-39, the P-40 and the P-47. In like dozens of major sub types.

M_Gunz
06-18-2009, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
I was kind of thinking the same thing. And don't forget the A-20.

These? And the A-20G is another we have in IL2. I wonder if the ones sent to Russia were equipped with UBS guns?


A-20G
The A-20G, delivered from February 1943, would be the most produced of all the series - 2850 were built. The glazed nose was replaced by a solid nose containing four 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano cannons and two .50 in M2 Browning machine guns, making the aircraft slightly longer than previous versions. After the first batch of 250, the unreliable cannon were replaced by more machine guns. Some had a wider fuselage to accommodate a power driven gun turret. Many A-20Gs were delivered to the Soviet Union. The powerplant was the 1,600 hp (1,200 kW) R-2600-23. US A-20Gs were used on low-level sorties in the New Guinea theatre.

A-20H
The A-20H was the same as A-20G, continued with the 1,700 hp (1,270 kW) R-2600-29. 412 of these were built. The takeoff weight was raised to 24,170 lb (10,960 kg).

ADD: just look at both the B-25J and A-20G in IL2Compare and there is quite a bit of difference.
Down at strafe heights the A-20G gets over 450kph at 100% as opposed to the B-25J at about 360kph at 100%.
I do have to say though that at over 200mph at sea level the B-25J isn't exactly slow.

M_Gunz
06-18-2009, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Even at 1000lb, its still better then the yak. And there was more then just the Yak-3. There was the Yak-1 series, Yak-3, Yak-7 and Yak-9.

And there was the P-38, the P-39, the P-40 and the P-47. In like dozens of major sub types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many of those differences affected what kinds of logistics? Ammo? Engine or other parts?
Ordnance as the inability of a newer type to deliver what the older ones used?

A change in the wing or a fix to some problem especially if the older ones got field mods hardly qualifies
as logistics problems, no?

JtD
06-18-2009, 01:48 AM
I can hardly give a list of all maintenance parts required for each type, can I? There are things that are interchangeable, while others aren't.

Kocur_
06-18-2009, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
The Mustang shone up high, while the Yak-3 was at its best in the weeds, 3000m or lower.

Soviets did with their engines the same thing that every one else did, that is they kept increasing mainfold pressure. Final version of M-105 aka VK-105, the PF-2, which powered Yak-3 could run at 1100 mm/43'' Hg. But since supercharger was not updated, critical altitudes kept decreasing in subsuquent versions dropping to merely 700 m (1st gear) and 2700 m (2nd gear). VK-105PF-2 developed 1210 PS at 0 m, 1260 PS at 700 m and 1180 at 2700 m.


At 700 m Yak-3 would enjoy 2692 kg/1260 PS = 2,14 kg/PS and at 2700 m - 2692 kg/1180 PS = 2,28 kg/PS. Wingloading was 2692 kg/14,85 m^2 = 181 kg/m^2.

P-51B/C with as much fuel as Yak-3 carried (~ 360 l or 265 kg) would weight 3950 kg. With V-1650-7 developing ~ 1600 PS around 700 m it meant 2,46 kg/PS and around 2700 m it would be ~ 1670 PS for 2,36 kg/PS. Wingloading would be 183 kg/m^2.

So Yak-3 was a little more of hot-rod below 1 km, but just under 3 km Mustang was only just a tad behind.

P-51D with 265 kg fuel weighted 4120 kg. V-1650-7 at 75'' Hg developed around 1800 PS at 700 m, which means 2,28 kg/PS. The last altitude for which chart in this report (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-24777.html) gives power is 2255 m, where 1890 PS was developed. It's safe to assume I think that it would not drop below 1850 PS in next 445 m, which would mean the same 2,22 kg/PS at Yak-3's second best altitude.
Wingloading would be here 190 kg/m^2.
So P-51D at 75'' Hg would be basically on par with Yak-3 in Soviet fighter's best altitude range, when it comes to the basic factor for manouverability, climb, level and initial dive acceleration.
Naturally lighter P-51B/C at 3950 kg and at 75'' Hg would beat Yak-3 in this competition, with 2,19 kg/PS at 700 m and 2,13 kg/PS at 2700 m.
Both Mustangs even at 67'' Hg were faster than Yak-3 at any alt.

Yak-3 is brilliant achievement but only in relative terms. I mean lots of performance were squeezed using engine which was pathetically weak for 1944. In comparison with fighters of countries which lead in engine development Yak-3 was a good performer but nothing special - even in it's narrow altitude range - as it turns out even when compared with not so lightly built P-51.


Originally posted by horseback:
The Yak-9U or UT was closer to the Mustang in concept and performance at least at medium altitudes.

VK-107 as it was operated in 1944 developed 1500 PS at 0 m, 1550 PS at first critical altitude of 1000-1300 m and 1450 PS at 3600-3800m (curve I have seems to be flat between those alt values). Yak-9U weighted 3227 kg with 320 kg of fuel, which means 2,08 kg/PS and 2,23 kg/PS respectively.
Weights of P-51s adjusted to that would be 4000 kg for P-51B/C and 4175 for P-51D, so even without further math it can be seen that Yak-9U and not Yak-3 had clear edge in powerloading (then again not really in speed) over P-51s at low alts.


Originally posted by horseback:
That might be a good matchup, from say, 5000m-8000m. The Yak would probably dominate below that band, and the Mustang above, with pilots of equal ability.

VK-107 power dropped below 1300 PS at 5 km, and to merely 1100 PS at 6 km. So I think the upper border of alt range for general good match up (including Mustangs' upper hand in speed, dive, dynamic climb and Yak-9U's edge in tight manouvering and climb) would be rather 6 km.

M_Gunz
06-18-2009, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I can hardly give a list of all maintenance parts required for each type, can I? There are things that are interchangeable, while others aren't.

Different engine, different radio, weapon, etc, might have different parts. Same engine, etc, won't.
That simplifies things just a bit doesn't it? There were a lot of variants on all sides with only minor changes.

It only means that variants do not necessarily mean a lot of different parts. That is all.

JtD
06-18-2009, 04:55 AM
Yes, true. Most of the Yaks and LaGGs used the same engine, which made logistics a lot easier than some might expect. The US birds did not all have the same engine, and the use of 150 octane fuel would put another major factor on the table.

Kocur, I doubt a plane 1.5 times as heavy and 1.5 times as powerful would need the same amount of fuel for the same duration. But you're right in that the Yaks weren't particularly well powered, it was the aircraft design, which focussed on maneuverability rather than speed, that would give them the advantage down low. Thanks for taking the time to post the numbers!

Kocur_
06-18-2009, 06:14 AM
In my limited understanding, it is drag, that determines range, if other things, particularly engine specific consumption, are the same (or unknown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).
If so, it would be worth noting that Yak-9U made 575 km/h out of 1650 PS and Mustangs made more from very similar power, rather lower actually (596 km/h and 1615 PS (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-6883.html)). I belive it idicates that both would reach about as far, if only their engines consumed similar amount of fuel per time.

Yak-3 is another matter, since it was obviously less draggy than Yak-9U, reaching a little less - 568 km/h - using considerably less power of 1210 PS. If we use a rule of thumb that speed increaces or decreaces with cube root of ratio between power available, then we may conclude that P-51B/C without racks and using 1210 PS would reach 542 km/h. Not so far off Yak-3's 568 km/h but that seems to indicate that indeed P-51 would have to have more fuel than Yak-3 to match the latter's range. Since drag increases with speed and any cruising speed would produce less drag, I think that "more fuel" would be a very small difference.

M_Gunz
06-18-2009, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by ***and thanks for doing so!*** JtD:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg


Would data from the lower right Range and Endurance table be applicable to someone's handy Yak data?

Kocur_
06-18-2009, 08:16 AM
Only if he knew that ranges of both planes were determined with the same procedure, which seems unlikely.

JtD
06-18-2009, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
In my limited understanding, it is drag, that determines range, if other things, particularly engine specific consumption, are the same (or unknown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

Yes, that's right, but for endurance you don't go for drag at max power and speed but for drag at most efficient settings. We could ballpark a number (where's Kettenhunde when you need him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) but having seen how easily this upsets the place I guess we better don't.

From the Yak-3's pilot handbook it appears the cruising speed is 280 km/h, and, with the P-51 at 350 km/h, this indicates a similar endurance on a similar fuel load. However, at a first glance, the Yak's low cruising speed is not entirely consistent with its high top speed on such a low power.

So I guess I'll look into it...

horseback
06-18-2009, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Less than 1400 75mm equipped B-25's as opposed to over 4300 B-25J's were made.
According to the article they took out a lot of airfields and other ground targets.

1) They strafed and bombed and rocketed and cannoned ground targets.
2) They were used in the 1000's
3) But the USAAF had no specialized ground attack planes?

What's the matter? It's not single engined? It's not fast enough? It's not "official" with over 5000 made?

Oh wait! I know! I must be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif ANGRY! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif so actual facts don't matter! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just for the sake of tender hearted readers, I've thrown in the cartoon smilies to show that I AM laughing at
the absurdity of denying or ignoring this simple point, the USAAF did have at least one specialized ground
attack aircraft during WWII. I only mean to address that POINT, it's not a personal attack, just a correction.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. And don't forget the A-20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>While I think it's nice that great minds think alike and all, I'd like to point out two things:

1. The solid nosed B-25 or A-20 was an adaptation of an already existing model of aircraft, intended in this case as a level bomber.

2. I specifically said that they were not a good choice as strafers against German ground defenses. Check your sources; you'll see little or no mention of A-20s or B-25s used against the Germans' ground installations as strafers. Against shipping yes, against more lightly (relative to the German) defended Japanese island airfields, yes, against German troop concentrations or hardpoints in the ETO close to the front, NO.

These aircraft were totally unsuited for the classic 'close' ground support that the Sturmovik type attack plane provided, which I thought was the general point of comparison.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
06-18-2009, 10:47 AM
And I wrote that the USAAF did have specialized ground attack planes after two others wrote there were none.
Whatever else anyone may have written makes no difference on the matter to me.

Kettenhunde
06-18-2009, 11:31 AM
We could ballpark a number (where's Kettenhunde when you need him ) but having seen how easily this upsets the place I guess we better don't.

I would be glad to help but I don't like upset it causes either.

If someone will post the weight, power, and Vmax for the variants we can easily determine Maximum Endurance and Best Range cruise speeds for the Yak/P51.

Assuming that is even the question as I have not read the whole thread.

So first let’s define the question and then we can look for the answer.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
06-18-2009, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
So first let’s define the question and then we can look for the answer.

All the best,

Crumpp

MY advice is thus. Run. Run fast. Run far. Whatever you do, dont look back, or you will be trapped in another Spit vs 109 quagmire thats totally unescapable.

DKoor
06-18-2009, 06:42 PM
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/lol.gif

BillSwagger
06-18-2009, 07:05 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

giggitty giggitty !!

Flight_boy1990
06-18-2009, 07:34 PM
Now i see that i'm not the only one draged in stupid arguments here,this made me relax. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
06-18-2009, 10:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

M_Gunz
06-19-2009, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We could ballpark a number (where's Kettenhunde when you need him ) but having seen how easily this upsets the place I guess we better don't.

I would be glad to help but I don't like upset it causes either.

If someone will post the weight, power, and Vmax for the variants we can easily determine Maximum Endurance and Best Range cruise speeds for the Yak/P51.

Assuming that is even the question as I have not read the whole thread.

So first let’s define the question and then we can look for the answer.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was argument about maximum or combat performance (changes to suit argument) between Yak and P-51.
Then comes "P-51 with same/equivalent (not nailed down) fuel as Yak".
So we have P-51 chart with fuel use at 2 different alts (1 useful to compare with Yak, 10,000 ft) but it says Endurance
at the top so that spawns the next tangential delay.
Typical. Get a page or two away from the start of just about anything and it's lost so why bother, it don't matter anyway.

Kocur_
06-19-2009, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If someone will post the weight, power, and Vmax for the variants we can easily determine Maximum Endurance and Best Range cruise speeds for the Yak/P51.


Since you don't mention anything specific, I will go the easiest way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yak-3
weight: 2692 kg, incl. ~ 265 kg fuel
power: 1210 PS @ 0 m
Vmax: 568 km/h @ 0 m

Yak-9U
weight: 3227 kg, incl. ~ 320 kg fuel
power: 1650 PS @ 0 m
Vmax: 575 km/h @ 0 m

P-51B
weight: 4179 kg, incl. ~ 500 kg fuel
power: 1615 PS @ 0 m
Vmax: 596 km/h @ 0 m

The thing is to know how much fuel P-51 needed to match Yak-3 and Yak-9U range with their respective fuel loads.

Frequent_Flyer
06-19-2009, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots .

Seriously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Epic trolling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No trolling here . The skill set the USN and USMC develop could not be matched by the VVS.
they were better trained in every aspect of Flying from navigation to gunnery. They performed every type of mission the land based VVS did as well as the carrier based ones.Their operations were not limited to low altitude escort or cap . There is no comparision.

You can dissmiss it as trolling. A deeper thinker would understand the finer points.

DKoor
06-19-2009, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots .

Seriously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Epic trolling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No trolling here . The skill set the USN and USMC develop could not be matched by the VVS.
they were better trained in every aspect of Flying from navigation to gunnery. They performed every type of mission the land based VVS did as well as the carrier based ones.Their operations were not limited to low altitude escort or cap . There is no comparision.

You can dissmiss it as trolling. A deeper thinker would understand the finer points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A deeper thinker...?

An excellent training regime can always beat talent?
Average pilot with excellent training beats talented pilot with average one (who later proves himself in combat numerous times BTW)?

I somehow still think you are joking.
You can't possibly think that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Trefle
06-19-2009, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots .

Seriously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Epic trolling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No trolling here . The skill set the USN and USMC develop could not be matched by the VVS.
they were better trained in every aspect of Flying from navigation to gunnery. They performed every type of mission the land based VVS did as well as the carrier based ones.Their operations were not limited to low altitude escort or cap . There is no comparision.

You can dissmiss it as trolling. A deeper thinker would understand the finer points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but i have to disagree with you here. USN pilot had very good training and were fine pilots overall , on this i fully agree , but i don't think it can justify belittling other nation's pilots who fought in totally different context and didn't enjoy advantage of technology.


1) How do you know VVS pilots were not trained to navigations and gunnery ? at the start of the war Soviet pilots had very good training (but inferior planes) , at the end of the conflict , their skill/experience were high for many of them according to several books covering the subject as well as interviews where vets clearly state they were well trained at nav and gunnery , it is in between (roughly between 1942 and 1944 )that they had to rush pilots to the front

2) USN pilots performed the same kind of mission ? probably , but not with the same intensity than on the eastern front (see battle of Kuban etc)with a blitz krieg in progress , and especially not against the Luftwaffe which was by far the best airforce in the world (until late 1943) with modern doctrines and machines .

With all due respect to the Japanese , they were not a force comparable to facing the Luftwaffe , IJN got nearly all their pre-war trained veterans KIA/MIA after barely a year of combat , they didn't have reserve pilots , they didn't have radios for most of them , and aside being outnumbered by 1943 their planes were seriously obsolete for most of the conflict .

3)VVS pilots didn't have to fly off carriers , that doesn't mean they couldn't have done it , Germans didn't have to fly off carrier , does that mean a deep thinker would consider Luftwaffe experten inferior to USN pilots ? difficult to agree with this point .

Also if you read any veterans testimonies from German and Soviet side , there was nothing more dangerous than low level escorts above ennemy troops position with AAA (Germans had well trained flak battallions ) and all type of caliber firing at you (even infantrymen) , it wasn't just about skill but luck too ..

M_Gunz
06-19-2009, 05:36 PM
Russia had extremely talented pilots before WWII that flew in the war. 3 of these guys flew I-16s tied together with not
very long colored bands (5m IIRC) doing maneuvers in tight formation and landed with the bands intact.

Would I expect 3 average US pilot trainees to equal that feat? Not on your life. Should I? No. But what that does show
is that yes there were Russian pilots more than equal to the average coming out of US military pilot schools as in "any".

There were Russian Aces and non-Aces who regularly flew P-39's without flat-spinning into the ground. Some did but "any"
is not the same as "all". There were US military pilots who did flat-spin P-39's, I know a man who rescued one in San
Francisco off a mud flat. Again, "any". In both cases "any" as in "not-none".

I would suggest further that people who think they know all about Russian pilot training go read the interviews given by
Russian Aces and count the hours given, then consider time spent in actual service before making broad statements about
the quality of every VVS pilot. Some Russian Aces saw action in Spain and accounted well for the I-16 even there. To be
a successful combat pilot is already more than your average trainee from any military pilot school of the time. What did
the US pilots say about when the real training began? It was in combat.

Frequent_Flyer
06-19-2009, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Trefle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots .

Seriously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Epic trolling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No trolling here . The skill set the USN and USMC develop could not be matched by the VVS.
they were better trained in every aspect of Flying from navigation to gunnery. They performed every type of mission the land based VVS did as well as the carrier based ones.Their operations were not limited to low altitude escort or cap . There is no comparision.

You can dissmiss it as trolling. A deeper thinker would understand the finer points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but i have to disagree with you here. USN pilot had very good training and were fine pilots overall , on this i fully agree , but i don't think it can justify belittling other nation's pilots who fought in totally different context and didn't enjoy advantage of technology.


1) How do you know VVS pilots were not trained to navigations and gunnery ? at the start of the war Soviet pilots had very good training (but inferior planes) , at the end of the conflict , their skill/experience were high for many of them according to several books covering the subject as well as interviews where vets clearly state they were well trained at nav and gunnery , it is in between (roughly between 1942 and 1944 )that they had to rush pilots to the front

2) USN pilots performed the same kind of mission ? probably , but not with the same intensity than on the eastern front (see battle of Kuban etc)with a blitz krieg in progress , and especially not against the Luftwaffe which was by far the best airforce in the world (until 1944).

With all due respect to the Japanese , they were not a force comparable to facing the Luftwaffe , IJN got nearly all their pre-war trained veterans KIA/MIA after barely a year of combat , they didn't have reserve pilots , they didn't have radios for most of them , and aside being outnumbered by 1943 their planes were seriously obsolete for most of the conflict .

3)VVS pilots didn't have to fly off carriers , that doesn't mean they couldn't have done it , Germans didn't have to fly off carrier , does that mean a deep thinker would consider Luftwaffe experten inferior to USN pilots ? difficult to agree with this point .

Also if you read any veterans testimonies from German and Soviet side , there was nothing more dangerous than low level escorts above ennemy troops position with AAA (Germans had well trained flak battallions ) and all type of caliber firing at you (even infantrymen) , it wasn't just about skill but luck too .. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are wrong on the Luftwaffe being the best airforce in the world at the begining of WW II.If you are considering pilot training.

The best trained pilot from 1939 till aprox. 1942 was the Japanese pilots - do the research.

At the begining of WWII the Polish pliots were better trained than the VVS.

The Germans did not think much of the collective skill of the VVS until the later stages of the war.

There is no comparable skill the VVs trained pilot would have to a carrier landing or take off.To the coordinated attacks on well defended capital ships. Nor is there anything close to the navigational skills required to finding a carrier deck in daylight in good weather. Muchless in the conditions present in the pacific, at dawn or dusk.

The fact is the VVS pilot was flying short hops over solid ground and at low altitude. The most well defended target they attacked on a regular basis was a vehicle or armour convoy. Hardly the compares with the AAA a fleet of capital ships can throw up along with the cap.

If the VVS aircraft was damaged it put down on the firm ground with at probaly better than even odds of making it back to friendly territory. Flying over the pacific the same set of circumstances the odds were not in this pilots favor. The USN was the only combatant in WW II to formally train its pilot in the art/sceince of " deflection " shooting. They pioneered dive bombing and were at it before the Germans.

The Russian Military view on soldiers/pilot/salior -they are disposable assets. Not much training went into any of their armed forces at the begining of the war.the "purging" of the officer corp. prior to WW II is well publicized, but only the tip of the iceberg in the whole scheme.

The Germans faced much worse than the VVS as they attacked the well defended larger cites of the "Mother land".

DKoor
06-19-2009, 06:24 PM
And how you explain a Soviet ace phenomenon?
I think they surely must have falsified their documents because they were too inferior vs any contemporary air service let alone mighty Luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
Good grief. They even went ahead and claimed that several of their aces have best scores of all allied aces... must be vs Ju-52's or alike (probably false, they are VVS pilots they over claim at least triple times more than any other air force members).

Imagine, they even boasted some female pilots that supposedly shot down German aircraft several times!

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

Frequent_Flyer
06-19-2009, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
And how you explain an Soviet ace phenomenon?
I think they surely must have falsified their documents because they were too inferior vs any contemporary air service http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
Good grief. They even went ahead and claimed that several of their aces have best scores of all allied aces... must be vs Fi-153's or alike (probably false, they are VVS pilots they over claim at least triple times more than any other air force members).

Imagine, they even boasted some female pilots that supposedly shot down German aircraft several times!

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

Perhaps english is not your first language. The executive summary,would be as follows: The VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots.

The Allied Ace of Aces in the VVS flew for years longer than Bong, Gabreski and Johnson.etc...In a much more target rich environment.The US regularly rotated their best pilots into training roles, something the VVS nor the Luftwaffe did with any regularity. I do not care to the math.However, An educated guess tells me, the number of kills per sortie averaged out would tell a different story.

Trefle
06-19-2009, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
You are wrong on the Luftwaffe being the best airforce in the world at the begining of WW II.If you are considering pilot training.

Considering they had built experience after conqueering most of Europe , had veterans from 1936, the most modern doctrines , some of the finest planes and their pilots very well trained , there is no doubt for me that until 1943 it was the most competent airforce to deal with


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The best trained pilot from 1939 till aprox. 1942 was the Japanese pilots - do the research.

At the begining of WWII the Polish pliots were better trained than the VVS.

Japanese Navy sure had high standards of training , and were possibly the only one who used to train their pilots at night fighting .. but one cannot say their average pilots were more competent than the German , British , French , Soviet , Polish , Czech pilots etc.. in combat situation . What they had is many veterans (cause the war started in 1937 for them) , but they lost almost of all them by late 1942


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The Germans did not think much of the collective skill of the VVS until the later stages of the war.

This is true , but it's to be put into context , the first few months of Barbarossa , Soviet lost most of their pre-war trained pilots flying obsolete planes and had to rush pilots to the front from late 1941 until 1944 , but we're talking about the average pilot here , VVS always had a handful of highly skilled seasoned aces throughout the conflict that could compare with any nation's aces IMHO ..


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
There is no comparable skill the VVs trained pilot would have to a carrier landing or take off.To the coordinated attacks on well defended capital ships. Nor is there anything close to the navigational skills required to finding a carrier deck in daylight in good weather. Muchless in the conditions present in the pacific, at dawn or dusk.

But they didn't have carriers , they used to train for navigations over the vast taiga of soviet union , but yeah , i agree with you that attacking capital ships required exceptional courage and was extremely dangerous , not that Soviet didn't attack ships in the baltic sea , but it's obvious they faced a different war ..


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The fact is the VVS pilot was flying short hops over solid ground and at low altitude. The most well defended target they attacked on a regular basis was a vehicle or armour convoy. Hardly the compares with the AAA a fleet of capital ships can throw up along with the cap.

Here you simplify , they suffered heavy losses to flak , life expectancy of a sturmovik pilot was a 2 months the first years of the war , escorting every day these planes over ennemy position was certainly not as harmless as you seem to suggest IMHO


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
If the VVS aircraft was damaged it put down on the firm ground with at probaly better than even odds of making it back to friendly territory. Flying over the pacific the same set of circumstances the odds were not in this pilots favor.

here i fully agree with you , navigation skills were extremely important over the ocean , perhaps more than over USSR's vast battlefield although it wasn't mch better to be shot down over ennemy lines too , but i don't see why it would mean that USN pilot skill didn't compare with other nation's pilots , you never know how Soviet pilots would have adapted in a different theater of war


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The Germans faced much worse than the VVS as they attacked the well defended larger cites of the "Mother land".

I agree with you , because AAA was more intense but also the closer German got to Soviet cities , the more intense and numerous were their ennemy in the skies , Soviet would send everything they could get to fly

R_Target
06-19-2009, 06:47 PM
It always seemed to me that the elite pilots of all sides had more in common with each other than they did with the average pilots of their respective air forces.

Frequent_Flyer
06-19-2009, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
There is no comparable skill the VVs trained pilot would have to a carrier landing or take off.To the coordinated attacks on well defended capital ships. Nor is there anything close to the navigational skills required to finding a carrier deck in daylight in good weather. Muchless in the conditions present in the pacific, at dawn or dusk.

But they didn't have carriers , they used to train for navigations over the vast taiga of soviet union , but yeah , i agree with you that attacking capital ships required exceptional courage and was extremely dangerous , not that Soviet didn't attack ships in the baltic sea , but it's obvious they faced a different war .. [/QUOTE]


I did not say they were incapable of these skills. They were not trained in them and therefore not as " skilled"




Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The fact is the VVS pilot was flying short hops over solid ground and at low altitude. The most well defended target they attacked on a regular basis was a vehicle or armour convoy. Hardly the compares with the AAA a fleet of capital ships can throw up along with the cap.

Here you simplify , they suffered heavy losses to flak , life expectancy of a sturmovik pilot was a 2 months the first years of the war , escorting every day these planes over ennemy position was certainly not as harmless as you seem to suggest IMHO

It is very unlikely a defending airforce can bring the concentration of defense over a moving vehicle/armour colum that is " built into a capital ship and its defense. The majority of the early Sturmovik losses are attributed to the lack of escort. Much like the US discovered in the early daylight bombing.

[

Frequent_Flyer
06-19-2009, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
It always seemed to me that the elite pilots of all sides had more in common with each other than they did with the average pilots of their respective air forces.

I will agree with you. However the common pilot in one "mans" airforce may equal the elite in another "comrads" airforce. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
06-19-2009, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
And how you explain an Soviet ace phenomenon?
I think they surely must have falsified their documents because they were too inferior vs any contemporary air service http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
Good grief. They even went ahead and claimed that several of their aces have best scores of all allied aces... must be vs Fi-153's or alike (probably false, they are VVS pilots they over claim at least triple times more than any other air force members).

Imagine, they even boasted some female pilots that supposedly shot down German aircraft several times!

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

Perhaps english is not your first language. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah takes a great deduction skill, just as in the case of establishing the skill of the whole particular air force and its aces and how they figure when compared to other air forces and their skills http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .


The executive summary,would be as follows: The VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots. Come again?
Few posts above you said:

"Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots."
But even what you said about VVS not being as skilled as USN/USAAF/USMC (or anyone else for that matter) is not less ridiculous.


The Allied Ace of Aces in the VVS flew for years longer than Bong, Gabreski and Johnson.etc...In a much more target rich environment. Haha... more target rich environment, you got that one right! http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/lol.gif
Haha, its just like in jokes... like those were the clay pigeons to shoot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Like that wasn't the same Luftwaffe that fought in BoB, MTO, Western Europe...


The US regularly rotated their best pilots into training roles, something the VVS nor the Luftwaffe did with any regularity. I do not care to the math. Sorry mate, but since you claim what you claim you should be interested in math, and not firing blanket statements http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
What you do is only showing an ultimate ignorance that also largely borders with something else, far more dangerous.


However, An educated guess tells me, the number of kills per sortie averaged out would tell a different story. Pardon me to ask you... have you ever really bothered yourself to look for info about that?

Yes the question is rhetorical http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Kettenhunde
06-19-2009, 09:57 PM
Typical. Get a page or two away from the start of just about anything and it's lost so why bother, it don't matter anyway.


LOL, a page or two is better than threads with a complex mathematical argument.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Yak-3
weight: 2692 kg, incl. ~ 265 kg fuel
power: 1210 PS @ 0 m
Vmax: 568 km/h @ 0 m

Yak-9U
weight: 3227 kg, incl. ~ 320 kg fuel
power: 1650 PS @ 0 m
Vmax: 575 km/h @ 0 m

P-51B
weight: 4179 kg, incl. ~ 500 kg fuel
power: 1615 PS @ 0 m
Vmax: 596 km/h @ 0 m

OK, I will crunch some numbers for performance so we can see how a dogfight lines up. It will also help with determining cruise speeds and aligning engine data.


The thing is to know how much fuel P-51 needed to match Yak-3 and Yak-9U range with their respective fuel loads.

Anybody have any Brake Specific Fuel Consumption data?

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
06-19-2009, 11:11 PM
The executive summary,would be as follows: The VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots. Come again?
Few posts above you said:

"Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots."

I guess english is not your first language.
Neither statement is mutually exclusive and both are true. Here is your deduction, pharsed in a simple if, than statement

If not a single soviet Ace could equal the skill of the USN/USMC pilots, than the VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots.

Note Well: I do not need to insult you to make this point.

deepo_HP
06-20-2009, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Perhaps english is not your first language. The executive summary,would be as follows:... is english your first language then?
it is not mine, so perhaps i get things wrong or will in the following. indeed, historically seen it is not my second either... but i assure you, my thoughts on this matter were the first.

hi frequent_flyer,

i also am not much into historical facts on individual soldiers. so i thought a bong was a glassy thing before i joined this game, not to speak of the much harder to pronounce soviet names.
but every now and then i try to find my own information, often after i read flat and general and blank statements like 'xxx is not as skilled as yyy', or 'no single xxx could equal the skills of an yyy' and so on. from my own experience (see above) i know, that the kind of information which one aquires over the years is often language driven (as i never read a soviet book in russian). i think to know as well, that some societies are more skilled in printing war-stories to books to have them read.

anyway. since you mentioned languages, where did you get the deep knowledge - as the deeper thinker than dkoor, that you are - about the skills of soviet pilots. or is it what you meant by 'executive summary', which you concluded by the lack of naval warfare in soviet russia?

what interests me further is, what you consider a skill? in my opinion it is a purely individual (as in tied to persons) characteristic, gained only by experience, talent and partly by the effort to achieve skills. sure, a well trained person is better prepared to develop skills, but training doesn't guarantee in no way a skilled outcome, perhaps it supports the effort to achieve a skill.
which is one reason for american rotation, that the ace's skill can somehow be used for training better than theory only. still skills can't be assured by training. navigational tools can be taught to use, but the skill will be to find the way home after dizzy circling, having the needle shot in combat and running for one's life until all is clear.
have you ever seen russian landscapes? similar are in the states, but navigationwise, russia is more like the pacific in that regard.

so what exactly are the skills, the navy pilots have so much more? after all, they also didn't jump on japanese capital ships too often for attack, did they? and landing on a carrier is tough, as we all know, but years of landing on muddy stripes hidden in a foggy winterlike climate make me wonder, how a skill-contest in landing will look like.


i am not eager to get into numbers now - it would be as if i said 'look, i got numbers on wikipedia'.
but just for having done so nevertheless (hmm, yes... is cheap i know), i wondered a slightly little bit, how many missions that must have been to make the difference between the pagelong list of soviet aces of 20+ compared to those (sry, forgot the number... or better, i have no clue, who was navy and who airforce) you mentioned. i mean to get the 'executive summary' of not a single soviet ace would be skilled as a navy ace.

ah well, and since i already commited the wikipedia read... why do these most skilled pilots since the old greeks need 20.83 to be registered under their skill?
i just ask, because you pointed so well to the ratio of kill per mission as part of the skill-board.


my 'executive summary' (after thinking in unknown depth) is that your statements are either concluded from extremely good and detailed knowledge of historical skill-levels (like analysing combat reports of many fights for skillful piloting or mistakes as results of no skill... maybe you have a team of assistants even?) or that you are more like someone siad before: a troll (i am not first english language, but i imagine a troll as a passionate consumer of adventureous tales and such, who has the strong wish to spread them amongst as many as possible)



hi all others,

sorry, if it looks like i am questioning any side's skills. honestly i wouldn't know, but i wouldn't also post such. indeed i had to look the numbers up and i surely have cherry-picked some (i am not first language english, hope the cherry is ok?).
so, if it looks like that, pls be assured, that my only interest was to find my own balance again. i was left quite unstable in my view of the world, after i was told, that flying part of the biggest force in that war had no pilot as skilled as the sailing part of their perhaps best equipped ally.

M_Gunz
06-20-2009, 05:20 AM
Just so the original claim doesn't get redefined into something else:

Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots .

and a well handled double-cast with 360 degree twist (this may get the gold!) with later reference to "the finer points".

No trolling here . The skill set the USN and USMC develop could not be matched by the VVS.


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots .

Seriously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Epic trolling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No trolling here . The skill set the USN and USMC develop could not be matched by the VVS.
they were better trained in every aspect of Flying from navigation to gunnery. They performed every type of mission the land based VVS did as well as the carrier based ones.Their operations were not limited to low altitude escort or cap . There is no comparision.

You can dissmiss it as trolling. A deeper thinker would understand the finer points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

****************************************

Brems got that first one from:

Frequent_Flyer

Posted Mon June 15 2009 18:27 Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by horseback:

quote:
Originally posted by DKoor:

quote:
Originally posted by horseback:
I find it very revealing that all the top Soviet scorers flew Lavotchkins and Cobras; this indicates to me that either Yaks were generally used to their tactical disadvantage (quite possible in light of the Soviets' top-down military hierarchy) or that the aircraft themselves were not all that user friendly.

cheers

horseback

Actually no; you are wrong.
However I actually doubt that further insisting that you should take a quick look at the score table for Lavochkin aces, P-39/400 aces and Yak aces (which is presented in the thread BTW) could result in anything that could change your distorted point of view Smile .

No warpage here, friend. I looked my facts up from a number of sources.

Actually, of the top 20 Soviet claimants, only 6 made the bulk of their scores with Yaks; the rest were fairly evenly divided between Cobras and La-5/7s, with one having gotten all his credits in Spain (Gritsovets).

Of that 20, only one was listed as having less than 200 combat sorties (#20, Pavel Kamozin with 131), two had over 600 combat sorties, and thirteen had 300 or more combat sorties.

Only two had less than 90 combats.

Consider that very few Americans spent more than a year in combat fighter units, and how few sorties weather and distance permitted them, and much fewer opportunities they had for combat. That guys like Preddy, Johnson, Gabreski, Gentile or Schilling came that close to their Soviet counterparts' scores against the same enemy, even under different conditions, says a lot about their skills.

Draw your own conclusions.

cheers

horseback



The Germans suffered greater losses in aircraft in the West vs. East during WW II. It would seem the better pilots and aircraft were in the West. Not to mention the air war started earlier in the East.

To further your point. One could argue while the USAAF pilots were as good if not better than their soviet counterpart.Flying high altitude long distance missions was a greater physical and mental challenge than then short low hops the VVS did. Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots . They had'nt even mastered radio communication , much less taking off of a carrier and coordinating a naval air attack on a capital ship.

Opps,I forgot the almighty Yak would'nt get beyond its own destroyer screen before its need to refuel. But what a tight turn it could make heading back to refuel.


*****************************"Hitler Built A Fortress Around Europe,But He Forgot to Put A Roof On It" ~ FDR

Posts: 747 | Registered: Sun May 09 2004

M_Gunz
06-20-2009, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
It always seemed to me that the elite pilots of all sides had more in common with each other than they did with the average pilots of their respective air forces.

+1 -- Right to the bone!

M_Gunz
06-20-2009, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The executive summary,would be as follows: The VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots. Come again?
Few posts above you said:

"Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots."

I guess english is not your first language.
Neither statement is mutually exclusive and both are true. Here is your deduction, pharsed in a simple if, than statement

If not a single soviet Ace could equal the skill of the USN/USMC pilots, than the VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots.

Note Well: I do not need to insult you to make this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you merely insult on flimsy basis an entire country and all the Aces from WWII that came from it.

You are not comparing average or even best to best but *any* (not a single) to average.
You have not provided anything like proof for this at all.
The broad insult you have thrown out only matches the depth of your often displayed bias.

TinyTim
06-20-2009, 06:53 AM
This thread leads me to a question. How did these savages, half men and half snakes, evil as hell and dumber than a fixed pitch prop, ever managed to survive the first 14 days of war against the formidable, intelligent and superiorly armed invaders, let alone push them out 4 years later and ultimately defeat them, conquering their capital? It only makes me wonder because it's obvious that if the Western allies and Soviet Union clashed in 1945 or 1946, that those worm infested rotten crates and the evil and utterly dumb Tolkien style red creatures piloting them would succumb, die and evaporate in droves simply from an overexposure to pure and divine awesomeness of the first noble, shiny and inherently superior pony and his square jawed, noble, smart and de-facto invincible pilot that would cross the borderline.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this thread is going http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. One would expect WW2 itself was a lesson big enough.

Kettenhunde
06-20-2009, 07:37 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Can we find ways to make our points without assuming the other side in incapable of an intelligent and rational choice?


I finished a prediction of the Yak-3 and P51B based on the data posted earlier. There were some very interesting points that came about and I learned a little about both designs, especially the Yak series.

Of course some questioned did come up as there is just not very much data on the Yak available.

I would feel better about the prediction if we had some stall speeds and a position error correction chart.

Next question is the wing area. Although wing area can change based on how it is measured, I found some conflicting numbers that seem outside the typical points of measure.

What I have so far does make sense but I would feel better as I usually confirm a prediction with multiple measured points.

What is the wing area of the Yak 3?

What is the stall speed and PEC of the Yak 3?

Thanks!

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
06-20-2009, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The executive summary,would be as follows: The VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots. Come again?
Few posts above you said:

"Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots."

I guess english is not your first language.
Neither statement is mutually exclusive and both are true. Here is your deduction, pharsed in a simple if, than statement

If not a single soviet Ace could equal the skill of the USN/USMC pilots, than the VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots.

Note Well: I do not need to insult you to make this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you merely insult on flimsy basis an entire country and all the Aces from WWII that came from it.

You are not comparing average or even best to best but *any* (not a single) to average.
You have not provided anything like proof for this at all.
The broad insult you have thrown out only matches the depth of your often displayed bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is an interesting phenomenon on this board. Horseback among others post very thoughtful and politically correct content. However, if it is complimentary of the US its fighting men or equipment it is pounced upon by the usuall suspects. Judging by their " post " count, they have made it their lifes crusade to discredit /disprove or mitigate the pro US statements. These folk are willing to accept that a particular airforce or aircraft is superior to another, as long as it is not a US fighting force or aircraft.Their posts quickly degenerate into insults aimed at the individual whose opinion contradicts theirs

In a previous post I mentioned the Japanese pilots were the best trained pilots from 1939-42. Another indivdual claimed " the Luftwaffe was the best airforce untill 1944 ". Neither you nor Dkoor challenged these statements, both equally as broad.

I will condense this for you: It is impossible that any two combatants are trained equally as well. Political and religous beleifs, economics and geography combined with training methods make this an indisputable fact.

Therfore, one of the combatants will possess a greater skill set and out perform his/her opponent.The same reasoning can be applied to the weapons used by opposing forces. Calling this statement biased is simply ignoring fact...you have no problem accepting this as fact as long as it is consistant with your beleif....that is the definition of " biased"

M_Gunz
06-20-2009, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The executive summary,would be as follows: The VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots. Come again?
Few posts above you said:

"Furthermore, There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots."

I guess english is not your first language.
Neither statement is mutually exclusive and both are true. Here is your deduction, pharsed in a simple if, than statement

If not a single soviet Ace could equal the skill of the USN/USMC pilots, than the VVS were not as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots.

Note Well: I do not need to insult you to make this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you merely insult on flimsy basis an entire country and all the Aces from WWII that came from it.

You are not comparing average or even best to best but *any* (not a single) to average.
You have not provided anything like proof for this at all.
The broad insult you have thrown out only matches the depth of your often displayed bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is an interesting phenomenon on this board. Horseback among others post very thoughtful and politically correct content. However, if it is complimentary of the US its fighting men or equipment it is pounced upon by the usuall suspects. Judging by their " post " count, they have made it their lifes crusade to discredit /disprove or mitigate the pro US statements. These folk are willing to accept that a particular airforce or aircraft is superior to another, as long as it is not a US fighting force or aircraft.Their posts quickly degenerate into insults aimed at the individual whose opinion contradicts theirs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are doing a good job at the last sentence there. "Complimentary to the US and its fighting men and equipment" does
not include slighting other countries, their fighting men and equipment, does it? Because if you READ what I wrote then
you will see that I wrote nothing against the US and its fighting men and equipment.

What I did, what you can't deal with, is pointed out that you are wrong about the VVS and that you insult them.
So now you attack me with a load of untrue hyperbole.


In a previous post I mentioned the Japanese pilots were the best trained pilots from 1939-42. Another indivdual claimed " the Luftwaffe was the best airforce untill 1944 ". Neither you or Dkor challenged these statements, both equally as broad.

But not as BLATANTLY untrue, biased nor insulting as the ones I pointed out as untrue, biased and insulting.
WHY do you have trouble understanding that? Is it that you honestly believe the line of dirt you laid down?


I will condense this for you: It is impossible that any two combatants are trained equally as well. Political and religous beleifs, economics and geography combined with training methods make this an indisputable fact.

Therfore, one of the combatants will possess a greater skill set and out perform his/her opponent.The same reasoning can be applied to the weapons used by opposing forces. Calling this statement biased is simply ignoring fact...you have no problem accepting this as fact as long as it is consistant with your beleif....that is the definition of " biased"

That does not mean that NO PILOT of the one side is as good as THE AVERAGE or ANY pilot of the other.

You want to change your original point into this new definition? I quoted what you originally wrote and what you
wrote to compound it. What you wrote quoted above is different, the old moving target who was never wrong ploy.

You want to address what I quoted and wrote about then do that. Changing your line after making up a bunch of BS
about me don't cut it. You are the one making the personal attacks, all I did was object to what you wrote.
Hey, why don't you get some buddies to post about how angry I seem then PM the mods? That might work.

ElAurens
06-20-2009, 09:56 AM
Well said FF.

It is indisputed fact that both branches of the Japanese military, and the IJN in particular, had the most rigorous training regimen in the world. They regularly washed out pilots to crew positions that would have been aces in any other air force. We can argue about their old fashioned tactical doctrine, but the fact remains, these were the best trained combat pilots on the planet at the start of the war.

And yes, there are members of this "community" who seem to make it a crusade to bash the United State's efforts in WW2 at every turn.
I fail to understnad why this seems so important to do.

It is also the biggest reason why most users of this sim no longer frequent this forum.

Every day is a new **** fest.

M_Gunz
06-20-2009, 10:06 AM
"Bash US" = not agreeing to ride the propaganda wagon over some other country.

DKoor
06-20-2009, 10:09 AM
I don't care what Frequent_Flyer or any other forum member think of the issue of "skill".
Results and combat records speak for themselves.
Whether you want to admit or not, every air force in WW2 worth mentioning had some fine airmen that distinguished themselves thoroughly in combat.

None of them had equal training opportunities http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Yet they did an outstanding job out there, in the sky where it really matter while others got shot down be it for lack of combat skill (other guy was better) or simply - their number was called (flak, malfunction etc.).

Saying how every member of one air force is skilled more than the member of the other particular force disgust me as a really vicious racist remark to say the least.
I feel the same disgust as when one say how white man is superior to black man in some way.

That is why I said that Frequent_Flyer must be joking... I can't think of anyone civilized in the world today who can come up with such or similar statements.

Frequent_Flyer said;


In a previous post I mentioned the Japanese pilots were the best trained pilots from 1939-42. Another indivdual claimed " the Luftwaffe was the best airforce untill 1944 ". Neither you nor Dkoor challenged these statements, both equally as broad.

...but obviously overlooked when I said:



But even what you said about VVS not being as skilled as USN/USAAF/USMC (or anyone else for that matter) is not less ridiculous.


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

DKoor
06-20-2009, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Well said FF.

It is indisputed fact that both branches of the Japanese military, and the IJN in particular, had the most rigorous training regimen in the world. They regularly washed out pilots to crew positions that would have been aces in any other air force. We can argue about their old fashioned tactical doctrine, but the fact remains, these were the best trained combat pilots on the planet at the start of the war.

And yes, there are members of this "community" who seem to make it a crusade to bash the United State's efforts in WW2 at every turn.
I fail to understnad why this seems so important to do.

It is also the biggest reason why most users of this sim no longer frequent this forum.

Every day is a new **** fest. Can't believe that you are actually supporting backward racist remarks.

Your country fought against that thorough all its history.

It still does http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

M_Gunz
06-20-2009, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
None of them had equal training opportunities http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

True. Some indeed many non-US pilots started the war with longer time and training than the *average* US military pilot!
Some were military pilots many years and instructed others even before 1940.
The Japanese had extremely good training before the war though I cannot say how it was all during the war, at some point
they were sending out pilots barely trained at all.
In Germany there were a lot of pilots who started with gliders at young age and flew powered planes many hours before WWII.
In England they had regularly trained pilots with many hours of high quality flying, as did the USA!

None of that counts the government sponsored civilian pilot training programs that practically all major countries had as
well as sports clubs, airlines, etc. Lindbergh flew mail delivery planes, his expertise was crucial to extending P-38
range and IIRC he did participate in some combat missions in the Pacific.

I just think it's BS to say that no Ace of any one or other country (in this case Russia) was as good as any USN/USMC pilot.
It shows a huge ignorance of just how good many Russian WWII Aces were.

ElAurens
06-20-2009, 03:47 PM
DKoor, I don't quite see where you are getting racism out of this discussion. I am hardly a racist.

And I agree with you. Every country involved in the air in WW2 produced a cadre of really excellent pilots.

My point is that when discussing training, the Imperial Japanese started the war with the best trained pilots. Period. I'm not taking sides, nor am I trying to make a political statement.

Now as to the other area of contention, US bashing on this forum, anyone who looks objectively at the posts here will see that whenever anything is posted about US aircraft or flyers, and their performance, the usual suspects will crawl out of the woodwork and do their level best to dispute the claims/assertions/and or facts presented, and if unable to do that, they will start pretty quickly with the personal stuff, in an effort to trash the thead.

It happens every time.

Don't believe me?

Start a new thread with the title P51, and see what happens.

DKoor
06-20-2009, 04:50 PM
I didn't reacted because of the Japanese pilots or their air force, I've reacted because of the racist remark how none of the Soviet pilots, aces included, had the skills to match any US air force pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

This has absolutely nothing to do with the US, that much is obvious.
It only serves one thing, to belittle Soviet air force and their members as a whole. I call such obvious blanket statements racist, and that is end of story for me.

I personally have nothing versus US or its air force... in fact I made my only skin for P-38 aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , it took me very long time and quite effort to make it;
http://mission4today.com/index...file=details&id=1913 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads2&file=details&id=1913)
http://adary.lunarpages.com/~missi19/uploads/downloads/images/2007/01/599_p-38j%20loehnert%20ss.jpg
On PTO i almost exclusively fly US aircraft, while in ETO (western front) good part of my flying is done in US crates http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

BTW you said a thread about P-51... I did it already;
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/8181039856/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8181039856/p/1)

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

Trefle
06-20-2009, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
And I agree with you. Every country involved in the air in WW2 produced a cadre of really excellent pilots.

The point is that it's not what your friend said when he said that Soviet pilots couldn't compare with the superior skills of USN pilots ,

For instance in my answer to him , i acknowledged how fine and competent pilots were the USN pilots but also said that one must not use it to belittle other nation's pilots who fought in a very different context

But i'm glad to agree with you on this that's what several posters were answering him basically , RAF , VVS , Luftwaffe etc.. they all had their share of quality pilots and there wasn't an airforce "superior in skillz" than another , IMHO there were just more pilots with experience in some airforces than in others at some point , some airforce with more pilots/planes , better planes etc.. but it's very difficult to compare two airforces that fought in 2 totally different theater/conditions , no one can predict how USN pilots would have coped against the Germans in USSR for instance


Originally posted by ElAurens:
My point is that when discussing training, the Imperial Japanese started the war with the best trained pilots. Period. I'm not taking sides, nor am I trying to make a political statement.


Nobody challenged this point AFAIK , but the conclusion to draw about this point regarding combat skills .. btw it was the Japanese Navy (IJA was different training) pilot training program that was indeed quite rigourous compared to other airforces as they required night spotting tests , advanced nav test , aerobatics tests etc.. .

BUT , these pilots were not better prepared for COMBAT than some other nation's pilots who also had excellent gunnery and aviation training ... for instance Luftwaffe's pilot who had already intense campaigns in Poland , France , Britain , Yugoslavia (even Spanish civil war for a few of them ) etc.. before december 41 .. Some Soviets pilots of pre-war program were very well trained , some of them also fought in 1936 etc

Guys like Hannes Trautloft , Werner Mölders , Adolf Galland etc.. sure had no training in ocean navigation nor were trained in conformity with all criterias of IJN , but they were prepared to apply modern doctrines and tactics and had an awful lot of experience against several European airforces , i wouldn't say there were less capable than any IJN pilot in combat , nor that their tactics were less effective ..

One must keep in mind that veterans IJN aces (who had pre-war training )were for most of them out of combat or KIA by late 1942 .. American pilots who also had very good pre-war training (not as elitist as IJN training ) held their own against them .. these IJN pilots had no radio and outdated doctrines , which at the end of the day means that as good as their training was , it wasn't enough to prepare them better than their ennemies for combat after all as they faced American pilots organized through radio comms , well prepared/trained for group tactics making use of modern doctrines .

For what you say about US bashing , i think it is sad cause i've not seen any occurence or any hostility to USA in the thread , on the contrary , there is a lot of respect for the quality of their pilots , planes and their role in the war , i hope you don't take offense but IMHO you kinda flame the thread with US bashing accusations cause i seriously doubt M.Gunz or Dkoor are anti-american , anyway cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
06-20-2009, 07:02 PM
May I clarify something here for those whose first language is not English (and for a pathetic minority for whom it is their only language)?

The citizens of the Soviet Union, or even just Russia, are not a race; they are a nationality or at most an ethnicity. As a nation, it is composed mostly of white folks, not particularly discernable from the the mostly white folks who served in the US military.

So for someone from the US to denigrate the training or skills of the Soviet air forces compared to the training and skills of one specific group of the US air forces can hardly be based on racism, unless the the denigrator in question thought that the Russians in question all had purple skin, or twelve toes or something like that which would differentiate them from us generally caucasian, hopelessly mixed breed Americans (like this 1/4 German, 1/4 Cheyenne, 1/8th Cornish, 3/8th God knows what-possibly even some Russian- Yankee Doodle Dandy).

Honest, once your family has been here for more than two generations, there's no telling what kind of mish mash is in your DNA. Someone from every nation and tribe in the world has come here and gotten laid.

Frequent_Flyer might be a raving nationalist or a bit of a Navy/Marine Corps elitist, but his hypbolic claims were emphatically NOT racist.

To call someone 'racist' is a very serious charge. Too many people in this forum sling it around without any understanding of what it really means or how ugly a charge it really is. If you want to start throwing a new word around, make sure you know what it truly means, especially if it seems to have some kind of power.

I didn't learn that particular lesson until my Mom washed my mouth out with soap (Lifebouy. Ugh.)

cheers

horseback

DKoor
06-20-2009, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
May I clarify something here for those whose first language is not English (and for a pathetic minority for whom it is their only language)?

The citizens of the Soviet Union, or even just Russia, are not a race; they are a nationality or at most an ethnicity. As a nation, it is composed mostly of white folks, not particularly discernable from the the mostly white folks who served in the US military. Everyone knows that Soviets weren't a race, but when you discriminate someone on particular basis (being member of the VVS qualifies you as less skilled than the others) the term applies.
Here's an explanation:


the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '[3]

This is the definition from UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.


So for someone from the US to denigrate the training or skills of the Soviet air forces compared to the training and skills of one specific group of the US air forces can hardly be based on racism, <span class="ev_code_red">unless the the denigrator in question thought that the Russians in question all had purple skin, or twelve toes or something like</span> that which would differentiate them from us generally caucasian, hopelessly mixed breed Americans (like this 1/4 German, 1/4 Cheyenne, 1/8th Cornish, 3/8th God knows what-possibly even some Russian- Yankee Doodle Dandy).

Honest, once your family has been here for more than two generations, there's no telling what kind of mish mash is in your DNA. Someone from every nation and tribe in the world has come here and gotten laid. See above... in the light of UN convention your definition is simply wrong.


Frequent_Flyer might be a raving nationalist or a bit of a Navy/Marine Corps elitist, but his hypbolic claims were emphatically NOT racist.

To call someone 'racist' is a very serious charge. Too many people in this forum sling it around without any understanding of what it really means or how ugly a charge it really is. If you want to start throwing a new word around, make sure you know what it truly means, especially if it seems to have some kind of power.

I didn't learn that particular lesson until my Mom washed my mouth out with soap (Lifebouy. Ugh.)

cheers

horseback You first have no idea of what it means http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

And another thing. Instead of you saying to your friend how it is not a nice thing to spread such ideas on an international forum, you add oil to fire even more.

horseback
06-20-2009, 07:30 PM
Sorry--I didn't learn English at the UN, nor do I accept its authority to redefine words in my language-race is race, not national origin, not artificial invisible legalistic deliniation.

I am however, prepared to accept the probability that lawyers and diplomatic bureaucrats are a seperate and totally inferior, race.

I stand by my statement.

cheers

horseback

ElAurens
06-20-2009, 07:36 PM
Citing anything the UN publishes as definitive souce material places you on very thin ice sir.

Very thin indeed.

DKoor
06-20-2009, 08:21 PM
No problem.
It'd be good to see some of your sources in light of which following statements are welcomed on multinational forum:



There was'nt a single soviet ace that could equal the skill the USN and USMC pilots.



However the common pilot in one "mans" airforce may equal the elite in another "comrads" airforce.


It is really funny that some of you guys complain about some users bashing your country, while on the other hand you do not react when someone does that to some other country.
Not only that - instead of cooling things down, you actually defend that point of view.
You also question UN... that organization is an effort to promote international peace and security worldwide... so we can have a common ground and avoid misunderstandings.
UN may not be an ultimate source but it is certainly one of the strongest sources of law science which implicate most of the national legal systems in the world... yours and mine.

Anyhow you can enjoy your show - but without me.

I've had enough of this nonsense.

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 05:21 AM
Couldn't agree more, DK http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-21-2009, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
May I clarify something here for those whose first language is not English (and for a pathetic minority for whom it is their only language)?

The citizens of the Soviet Union, or even just Russia, are not a race; they are a nationality or at most an ethnicity. As a nation, it is composed mostly of white folks, not particularly discernable from the the mostly white folks who served in the US military. Everyone knows that Soviets weren't a race, but when you discriminate someone on particular basis (being member of the VVS qualifies you as less skilled than the others) the term applies.
Here's an explanation:


the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '[3]

This is the definition from UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.


So for someone from the US to denigrate the training or skills of the Soviet air forces compared to the training and skills of one specific group of the US air forces can hardly be based on racism, <span class="ev_code_red">unless the the denigrator in question thought that the Russians in question all had purple skin, or twelve toes or something like</span> that which would differentiate them from us generally caucasian, hopelessly mixed breed Americans (like this 1/4 German, 1/4 Cheyenne, 1/8th Cornish, 3/8th God knows what-possibly even some Russian- Yankee Doodle Dandy).

Honest, once your family has been here for more than two generations, there's no telling what kind of mish mash is in your DNA. Someone from every nation and tribe in the world has come here and gotten laid. See above... in the light of UN convention your definition is simply wrong.


Frequent_Flyer might be a raving nationalist or a bit of a Navy/Marine Corps elitist, but his hypbolic claims were emphatically NOT racist.

To call someone 'racist' is a very serious charge. Too many people in this forum sling it around without any understanding of what it really means or how ugly a charge it really is. If you want to start throwing a new word around, make sure you know what it truly means, especially if it seems to have some kind of power.

I didn't learn that particular lesson until my Mom washed my mouth out with soap (Lifebouy. Ugh.)

cheers

horseback You first have no idea of what it means http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

And another thing. Instead of you saying to your friend how it is not a nice thing to spread such ideas on an international forum, you add oil to fire even more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dkoor,
If I consider the VVS less skilled than the USN/USMC it is my opinion.You may be offended ,that hardly qualifies the statement as racist in any sense of the word. You have verly little understanding of racism. Combined with even less understanding of the word " skill".
By your definition, my opinion of the USN/USMC possessing superior skills to VVS was also a "racist" remark against the USAAF !!!!! WHY DOES THIS NOT OFFEND YOU?

Skill- expertness;practiced ability;facility in an action;dexterity or tact.

To be of the opinion that an idividual is more "skilled' than another. Even in the context of your definition of raciism, simply is not racism. For the record I do not accept your above referenced definition of racism.

To the best of my knowledge, not a single Soviet Ace during the conflict, commonly refered to as World War Two effected a " carrier" landing nor take-off. This was not a " practiced ability ". Therefore, not a single VVS ace or otherwise were as skilled as the USN/USMC pilots.

Step off your soap box and read the plain english words without your prejudiced interepretations.

To establish " racism " intent must be known.
A person of color can refer to another person of color using a " racial slur" and it is not cosidered a racist remark. There is no intended to harm or damage.
The fact the VVS pilots were not as " skilled" does not damage or harm the " Russian" people.

In every walk of life and profession people attain different levels of skills. A General practitioner is not the MD performing the quadruple bypass surgery.

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 09:56 AM
although im american, i'm clearly better than you all for other reasons.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 09:57 AM
You told about pilot-skill.

Landing a plane on a boat doesn't neccessaryly insist that you're a great pilot.

You can have OK3s all the way but s*ck a$$ in ACM.

Unfortunately, few wars are won by landing aircraft on boats.
They are won by pure fighting-skills.

Being able to land your plane on a carrier says pretty much nothing about those skills.

Thus, your comparison between the USN/ USMC and VVS pilots just based on the fact that USN/ USMC pilots could operate from carriers lacks funding.

There is a point that being able to transfer a pilot to some place off-shore a country and attack it from sea might multiply his worth to his own government.
Unfortunately, in a steppe war, it does not.

Frequent_Flyer
06-21-2009, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
You told about pilot-skill.

Landing a plane on a boat doesn't neccessaryly insist that you're a great pilot.

You can have OK3s all the way but s*ck a$$ in ACM.

Unfortunately, few wars are won by landing aircraft on boats.
They are won by pure fighting-skills.

Being able to land your plane on a carrier says pretty much nothing about those skills.

Thus, your comparison between the USN/ USMC and VVS pilots just based on the fact that USN/ USMC pilots could operate from carriers lacks funding.

There is a point that being able to transfer a pilot to some place off-shore a country and attack it from sea might multiply his worth to his own government.
Unfortunately, in a steppe war, it does not.

The USN/USMC pilot could land, take off, and fight from a carrier deck and from a land based airfield. Therefore possesing at least a 50% greater skill set than any VVS pilot. They fought at higher altitudes. By virtue of the carrier based operation they had to be skilled in many operations the VVS never engaged in.

For the record: if you talk to any real combat pilot he/she will tell you landing on a carrier deck is one of the most difficult " skills " to attain. Even more so in WW II.

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 10:30 AM
So what?

Which was the last war that was decided by landing-abilities?

Can't think of a single one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's the FIGHTING skills that count.
You don't learn those during CarQual. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-21-2009, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
So what?

Which was the last war that was decided by landing-abilities?

Can't think of a single one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's the FIGHTING skills that count.
You don't learn those during CarQual. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif


371 USN and 124 USMC pilots attained ACE status in WW II. Not sure of the tonnage of enemy shipping sunk, mines laid, shore and land installations destroied, enemy vehicles, supply depots, aircraft on the ground.. etc. I'm pretty sure they had fighting "skillez".

just an FYI- your landing skill or lack there of ,usually determined if you suited up for the next mission or they pushed your coffin over board.

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 11:44 AM
And what exactly does your fancy number of "aces" tell?
Count the number of VVS aces and try again.


just an FYI- your landing skill or lack there of ,usually determined if you suited up for the next mission or they pushed your coffin over board.

Wow, thanks for making that clear.
Wouldn't have thought or that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

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

And that relates HOW to being killed in COMBAT or not?
Right, it doesn't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
06-21-2009, 01:48 PM
This is exactly why I told Crumpp to run. I hope he listened to me, for once. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif