Russian Fighters

[Salim]

So I was reading some stuff about World War 2 aircraft (once again, I might add) and started to wonder about the Russian fighters of the war, and in particular, the earlier versions (back in 1941, when the Germans attacked Russia). I know that the Russians had tons of obsolete aircraft (such as the I-16) and a few modern airplanes like the Yak-1 and Mig-3. I heard that the Mig-3 was, in many cases superior to the German BF-109 fighter. But of course the Germans, having better pilots and tactics, were often able to get the upper hand over their enemies.

So here's my questions.

1: What are your opinions on Russian fighters of World War 2? This goes for all time periods in the war, from the very beginning in 1939 to 1945, and of course, comparing them to other planes in use at the time.

2: If other Allies (America or the UK) had had planes like those flown by the Russians, what do you think the overall (tactical level) effect would have been? A complicated and unusual question, I know, but still...

3: OK, another weird question... do you folks believe that navalized versions of those planes would have been good to operate off aircraft carriers?

[loomaluftwaffe]

why is the MiG-3 superior to the 109?
the VVS came from an average air force to one of the best, with planes like the La-5/7 and the Yak series
the carrier may get stuck in the ice in siberia

[Jank]

"If other Allies (America or the UK) had had planes like those flown by the Russians, what do you think the overall (tactical level) effect would have been?"

The U.S. played offense, not defense. Offense requires you to field fighters with the ability to strike deep into the enemy. Defense requires you to field fighters over or near your own terrotory.

For the U.S., fielding Russian fighters would have hampered offensive operations due to the limited range the Russian planes had.

[Soren]

The only Russian fighter up to Western standards was the Yak-3.

The MIG-3 was nothing compared to the Bf-109.

[Salim]

why is the MiG-3 superior to the 109?

The MIG-3 was nothing compared to the Bf-109.

Check this link out http://www.chuckhawks.com/mig-3.htm

The U.S. played offense, not defense. Offense requires you to field fighters with the ability to strike deep into the enemy. Defense requires you to field fighters over or near your own terrotory.

For the U.S., fielding Russian fighters would have hampered offensive operations due to the limited range the Russian planes had.

It's very true that if the US and the UK had Russian fighters they wouldn't have been able to send their fighters to attack targets far off or to escort heavy bombers into Germany, but I'm not talking about the strategic level of things (such as making sure that bombers get to their target and back and delivering their loads) but the tactical, and by which I mean, simply getting off the ground, flying a hundred or so kilometers and attacking targets there, or simply flying CAP missions and such.

Also in regards to my question about naval operations using Russian fighters. I'm not implying that the USSR would have had a carrier, but rather if it was employed in carrier-based squadrons like those found in the USN, RN, and IJN. The navalization I'm talking about, of course, includes folding wings and an arrestor hook and all.

[lesofprimus]

The 109F proved to be more maneuverable at low to medium speeds, particularly at low to medium altitude.

And this is how and where a majority of combat occured on the Russian Front... The website u posted is about the Mig, and as such, is biased towards it....

The Mig3 was in no way shape or form equal to the Bf 109F....

[Glider]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

And this is how and where a majority of combat occured on the Russian Front... The website u posted is about the Mig, and as such, is biased towards it....

The Mig3 was in no way shape or form equal to the Bf 109F....

Totally agree. The Mig 3 had a high speed certainly but only at altitude, low down it was at best average. It was very heavy and had a very light armament. If the German had built a decent four engined heavy, or even deployed the He 177 in decent numbers, can imagine trying to shoot it down with 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG?

Its manouverabilty was poor and it had some nasty handling traits.

Nearly all the fighting was at low/medium altitude so it was the wrong plane at the wrong time.

[Dogwalker]

Originally Posted by Soren

The MIG-3 was nothing compared to the Bf-109.

Aestetically there is no match, The Mig-3 is a beauty.
Unfortunately it had some serious quirk, not related only with poor handling at low altitude.

Massimo Tessitori reported:
tendency to spin, longitudinal instability and high landing speed:
sliding canopy difficult to open at speeds over 400 km/h, and this led pilots to usually fly with the canopy open, that reduced the speed by 30 km/h;
landing gear often failing to extend, and easy to be damaged during landing;
difficulty to repair damages to the carburettor duct after a belly landing; this could stop to the ground the aircraft for a long time for repair;
difficulty to repair internal structures of the rear fuselage, because the stabilizator was solidal to them and limited their accessibility;
unsatisfactory view, particularly during takeoff and landing, due to the long nose and strongly nose-up asset on the ground;
some splashing of oil on the windscreen reduced the visibility;
high cockpit temperature, due to the ventral cooler;
fumes and, eventually fuel vapors in the cockpit;
lack of a fuel flow indicator;
low range, particularly with canopy opened, that reduced its utility as a reconaissance plane;
the unsatisfactory engine acceleration that caused accidents;
the fall of oil pressure while diving with a negative g load.
The MiG-3 was conceived as an high altitude fighter, but its fuel pump was not suited for it, starving the engine even at 5,000 m altitude.

However many of the quirks were fixed during production. To improve handling at low speed, the orizontal tailplane was modified, and automatic slats were fitted.
Even improving the armament was not impossible.
315 Mig-3 were equipped with two 12,7 mm UBS guns with 700 rounds each (enough for 42 seconds of fire at 800 rpm); of these, 215 examples were armed with two ZROB-82 underwing batteries with 3 ROS-82 rockets each.
Studies for arming the MiG-3s with a 2 gun armament were made frome the end of 1940, and the 23 mm ShVAK gun was identified as the most apt. The last 52 examples, built in Kuibyshev and in Moscow, were armed with a couple of ShVAK.

These are probably among the last MIG-3 built, so they were equipped in such a way

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html

Finally, it could have been a good aircraft, in another scenario.

[Salim]

Hmm, I guess Russian fighters aren't as good as I thought they were...

[Dogwalker]

The Lavochkin La-5 / 7 surely were. Among the best in the war. Perfectly fitted for the eastern front.


www.afwing.com/ intro/Lavochkin.htm


http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/la5/la5.html

[loomaluftwaffe]

from a book that I read, the 109 outperformed the spit V at high alt, so probably the MiG-3 at high alt over the UK might have suited it... but would get shot down if trying to intercept low-lvl 190 Jabos

[cheddar cheese]

I remember having a discussion about the MiG-3's high-alt performance somewhere on this board before. Ill try and find it.

[Salim]

Thanks.

Anyway I do have some reasons for asking questions such as this, I guess I should probably reveal what they are soon.

[lesofprimus]

Have to agree with Dogwalker.... The La-5FN/La-7 series were excellent combat aircraft and put up a good fight againt the Luftwaffe... Also, the latter Yak aircraft were also on par with the Luftwaffe, but the Mig3 was just the wrong plane in the wrong place, at the wrong altitude...

[Henk]

Dagwalker I agree with you that the Lavochkin La-5 / 7 were in fact one of the best aircraft of the war, she was a beauty.

It just shows you Salim you should not believe everything you read on the net, rather get known books and go from there. The net is not always the truth and do not quote from them if you do not know anything about it.