Did USSR use Spitfires too?

[Debonair]

kewl, thanks for posting that...

[Ghosth]

Awesome read, thank you very much!

[aztec]

Thx for sharing that Tilt.

[-aper-]

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

There was interesting episode in the book written by Alexandr Pokryshkin about the test fights between P-39 vs LaGG-3 and Spitfire vs LaGG-3.
Pokryshkin and the pilot from the neighbour squard Sapozhnikov (his squad was re-equiped with Spitfires) were asked to fly to Tbilissi and participate in the test fights against new version of LaGG-3 (lighten version with M-105PF engine) which was put into production in Tbilissi aircraft factory.
Pokryshkin flew P39 and Sapozhnikov flew Spitfire. They should have to fight with test pilots from LaGG-3 aircraft factory. According to the rulez of competition LaGG-3 started fight sitting on the tail of it's opponent. Though it was quite unfair Pokryshkin had to accept this.
Hi put his P-39 into a sharp turn watchig LaGG-3 closing the distance, and then suddenly Pokryshkin made a barrel roll with alt decreasing,  forcing LaGG-3 to overshoot. Few seconds later Pokryshkin catched LaGG-3 in the gunsight. It was not difficult for him to sit on LaGG's tail for the next few minutes.
Later on he put P-39 into the vertical climb and made a reverse turn on top. LaGG's pilot tried to follow but he was not that skilled and had to finish climb below P-39. Pokryshkin, again easily put LaGG into the gunsight.

As for Spitfire vs LaGG-3, Sapozhnikov also managed to win turnfight in Spitfire vs LaGG but during vertical fights LaGG and Spit seemed to be pretty even.
Then the diving test was performed. Three planes: P39, Spitfire and LaGG-3 were put into deep dive simulteneously and while P-39 and LaGG dived wing to wing, Spitfire was far behind. The following zoom climb gave even more advantage to P-39 and LaGG over Spitfire.

Overall the chief engineer of Lagg's factory was quite dissapointed with the results. Pokryshin said him after the end of trials not be so upset because the new LaGG was not a bad plane, and the results depended mostly on pilot's experience and skills.

[1K3]

Which LaGG-3 version is that?  I read that many pilots did not like the early LaGG-3s because pilots joked that rather than being an acronym of the designers' names (Lavochkin, Gorbunov, and Goudkov) "LaGG" stood for Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob ("guaranteed varnished coffin")

[Bronk]

Originally posted by -aper-
There was interesting episode in the book written by Alexandr Pokryshkin about the test fights between P-39 vs LaGG-3 and Spitfire vs LaGG-3.
Pokryshkin and the pilot from the neighbour squard Sapozhnikov (his squad was re-equiped with Spitfires) were asked to fly to Tbilissi and participate in the test fights against new version of LaGG-3 (lighten version with M-105PF engine) which was put into production in Tbilissi aircraft factory.
Pokryshkin flew P39 and Sapozhnikov flew Spitfire. They should have to fight with test pilots from LaGG-3 aircraft factory. According to the rulez of competition LaGG-3 started fight sitting on the tail of it's opponent. Though it was quite unfair Pokryshkin had to accept this.
Hi put his P-39 into a sharp turn watchig LaGG-3 closing the distance, and then suddenly Pokryshkin made a barrel roll with alt decreasing,  forcing LaGG-3 to overshoot. Few seconds later Pokryshkin catched LaGG-3 in the gunsight. It was not difficult for him to sit on LaGG's tail for the next few minutes.
Later on he put P-39 into the vertical climb and made a reverse turn on top. LaGG's pilot tried to follow but he was not that skilled and had to finish climb below P-39. Pokryshkin, again easily put LaGG into the gunsight.

As for Spitfire vs LaGG-3, Sapozhnikov also managed to win turnfight in Spitfire vs LaGG but during vertical fights LaGG and Spit seemed to be pretty even.
Then the diving test was performed. Three planes: P39, Spitfire and LaGG-3 were put into deep dive simulteneously and while P-39 and LaGG dived wing to wing, Spitfire was far behind. The following zoom climb gave even more advantage to P-39 and LaGG over Spitfire.

Overall the chief engineer of Lagg's factory was quite dissapointed with the results. Pokryshin said him after the end of trials not be so upset because the new LaGG was not a bad plane, and the results depended mostly on pilot's experience and skills.

Please forgive the lack of sarcasm in my post.  As it was directed at the post I quoted.   I'm sure the author of that post got the intent .

Bronk

[-aper-]

Originally posted by 1K3
Which LaGG-3 version is that?  I read that many pilots did not like the early LaGG-3s because pilots joked that rather than being an acronym of the designers' names (Lavochkin, Gorbunov, and Goudkov) "LaGG" stood for Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob ("guaranteed varnished coffin")

I guess it was LaGG-3 version 66
Due to lack of M-82 engines in the Caucasia area, Tbilissi Aircraft Factory N31 had to produce LaGG-3 in 1943 (1,065 built) and in 1944 (229 built).
Finally in 1944 the factory started to build La-5FN but after the very few were produced it got the order to switch to ... Yak-3 production.
LaGG-3 version 66 was quite improved compared to LaGGs of 1941-42 series. The weight was reduced to 2,990 kg, the plane got M-105PF engine and was equiped with automatic slats to improve handling at low speeds. The perfomance was rather close to Yak-9.

[Angus]

Did the USSR never use the Spits at their optimal altitude?

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Angus
Did the USSR never use the Spits at their optimal altitude?

Its an interesting point and the answer is probably not..............

VVS Bomber escorts were (in the main) escorting Pe2 or Il2m3 type aircraft at what we would consider low level.

VVS interceptors were concerning them selves latterly (in the main) with such as FW190 fighter bombers...... again operating in lower level jabo strikes against mobile Russian logistics and their depots.

Russian strat was so far behind the lines by late 43 > 44 that LW level bomber strikes were agin air fields, rail heads, depots and what was left of the ports of Leningrad and Sevastopol. Hence high level bomber interception was limited to the ports whilst airfield attacks etc still seemed to occur either from Jabo or mid level altitudes.

If I remember correctly Hitler even ordered the use of his best long range high level bombers  He177's** against ground targets on the eastern front and ended up squandering nearly the whole 177 fleet there in inappropriate medium/low level activities.

From this you will see that there was no real call for fighter, escort, interceptor duties in the VVS for stuff optimised at altitudes of 15 to 25 k and hence any full winged Spit was not in the environment for which it was originally intended.

**Yes I Know they were supposed to be dive bombers too....

[Angus]

Thought as well.
Anyway, while the USSR put some effort into the Mig-3 as a high level fighter (turned out as not so special?), I was always baffled at all those tests and comparisons - they were using Spits where they did not belong.
At 25K the SpitV and the La5 don't have a turning or climb contest, and above not regarding speed either. In 1942 you have battle ready Spitties above 40K then the emphasis drops lower. Funny, while after all, the Hitech job getting power out high is more demanding then low, so since the LW held the cards up high, I would have thought that Spitties were rather a welcome to counter that one. Even in the BoB the LW was, after all, bombing urban areas from above 20K.
The fight was high, then it went lower.
Why did the air fighting over Russia stay so low? Was it so much close support, with the USSR holding the game where it was important? Or is it climate/cloud related? Or was it related with the USSR late war being on the offensive with mostly low-alt business? Why was high alt bombing not applied in any considerable measure in the USSR? Even the He-177 ending up low!!!

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Tilt
From this you will see that there was no real call for fighter, escort, interceptor duties in the VVS for stuff optimised at altitudes of 15 to 25 k and hence any full winged Spit was not in the environment for which it was originally intended.

The altitude for which a Spit was optimised was not based on the wing, but the motor fitted to it.

F V - Merlin 45/46
LF V - Merlin 55
F IX - Merlin 61
LF IX - Merlin 66

All 4 could be clipped or un-clipped, the LF versions performing better at low alts.

They did recieve some LF IX's towards the end, but I think the majority were clapped out F V's.
So your correct in that they would be using them outside of their best environment, but this was the motor, not the wing.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by Angus

Why did the air fighting over Russia stay so low? Was it so much close support, with the USSR holding the game where it was important? Or is it climate/cloud related? Or was it related with the USSR late war being on the offensive with mostly low-alt business? Why was high alt bombing not applied in any considerable measure in the USSR? Even the He-177 ending up low!!!

With a few exceptions, the air war in the over Russia was a pure tactical one. Both air forces concentrated on supporting the ground warfare.

[Bruno]

Spitfires over Kuban

[Tilt]

Thanks Bruno............... good read.

Thks Kev.

Any one wanna skin that MkV?  

If so I may even fly it occasionally:rolleyes:

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Tilt
Thanks Bruno............... good read.

Thks Kev.

Any one wanna skin that MkV?  

If so I may even fly it occasionally:rolleyes:

Funny you should ask that.

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=199476

Just debating on whether it should have the lightning bolt or not.