Author Topic: Did USSR use Spitfires too? (Read 1727 times)

1K3 · « **on:** February 12, 2007, 07:34:09 PM »

I wonder if Spitfire was also in USSR's lists at the time when US and UK provided lend-lease fighters and bombers to the Red Army AF. What Spitfire Mk.s did they use in the Red Army AF? What's the soviet pilot's opinion about the Spitfire vs their homemade LAs and Yaks and the P-39?

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:41:27 PM »

Yes, Several different marks of Spitfire were sent to the Russians. Mk V, Mk IX and, I think, some Mk XVIs.

As with the P-51s they were given, the Russians were not that fond of them as they didn't handle the rough Russian conditions as well as some other lend lease aircraft and, in the case of the Mk Vs at least, were used and war weary examples.

Kev367th · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2007, 09:40:50 PM »

Dunno about the XVI, but they got the LF IXe (XVI by any other name really).
Also the V, IX.

Krusty · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2007, 01:05:16 AM »

Apparently they disliked them because they weren't rugged enough, and weren't "manuverable" enough (despite turning tighter than most Soviet-built aircraft, I bet)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2007, 01:41:40 AM »

The Russians had over 1000 Spitfire LFIXs to go with many Spitfire Vs.

One Spitfire IX recovered from Russia is waiting it's turn to be restored in England.

They didn't get XVIs.

Angus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:45:13 AM »

I remember Gunther Rall's first expression when he encountered Spits over the Crimean noodleula.
He said something like "Spitfires. I got afraid".
Turned out that his concern was also about running into the RAF, since they had got their tactics right and at the time, the Russians not.
BTW, quite some Spits ended on the bottom of the sea, en route to the USSR,- those I know of are Mk V's. They were being sent in 1942. The RAF had planned to send a squadron with them AFAIK, - 111.

Tilt · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:44:00 AM »

General consensus from VVS was that the Spitfire and in particular its Merlin engine was not a robust piece of equipment able to withstand the rigors of front line abuse that native aircraft were put through.

Also VVS's standard 95 octane fuel required an additive to make it suitable for use in Spitfires and Hurricanes where as the P39 did not.

You can always tell when the VVS was being polite about a lend lease machine because they would always note how good the radio was..................

There is a record of comments made by Czech La5FN pilots who had earlier flown both SpitV's and SpitIX's for the RAF.....I'll dig it up and copy it below.

Bronk · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2007, 09:41:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Apparently they disliked them because they weren't rugged enough, and weren't "manuverable" enough (despite turning tighter than most Soviet-built aircraft, I bet)

Yet they loved the slow, underpowered, crappy gun, unmaneuverable, P-39.

Bronk

Squire · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2007, 11:18:33 AM »

Worth the money I would think, I dont have it yet but its on order:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=T0412~ser=ACE~per=2

Oleg · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2007, 11:47:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Yet they loved the slow, underpowered, crappy gun, unmaneuverable, P-39.

And some of them said P-39 was not inferior to 109 and 190 in any aspects. But engine life time was too short

Bronk · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2007, 11:55:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oleg
But engine life time was too short

Wonder if that resulted from a combination of translating maintenance data, fuel grade, and running ac over boosted.

Bronk

Krusty · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2007, 01:10:59 PM »

Basically they ran them over twice the limit, and they burnt out every other sortie. Something like that.

They didn't care, they were in a disposable-commodity mindset (troops AND equipment). If it breaks slap another in there, we have thousads of spare parts, that type of deal.

tedrbr · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2007, 01:45:57 PM »

Have to also remember and take into account that the Soviets tended to downplay all aircraft and equipment they got from the United States and England during the war.

Be it Russian pride, propaganda, or whatever, the stuff that came from Lend-Lease was not discussed.

So, any info of Russian Spitfires from the Russian perspective will be a bit watered down, vague, compromised, or incomplete.

Krusty · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2007, 01:49:46 PM »

Most of it falls into that "vague" category, at least from what I've seen ted.

Tilt · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:40:04 PM »

Following is extracts from a reverse perspective...............

Czech pilot Valousek had flown with 310 squadron flying Spit VB's, Vc's and possibly IX's prior to volunteering to join a VVS unit.

He is one of a VVS Czech regiment operating 21 La5FN's deep behind enemy lines in the Slovakian hills to support the "Slovakian partizan uprising" of Sept/Oct 44.

He compares the La5FN from a pilots perspective who had previously flown Spitfires against the same 109's and 190's he talks of here..........