PDA

View Full Version : "Hero planes" of the Big Patriotic War?



Friendly_flyer
01-19-2008, 02:25 PM
Hi!

I have a question:

In 1941 Sovjet was attacked by the Germans, and their air-force made a heroic fight trying to hold back the Luftwaffe. The Sovjets rally had two fighter plane types in any number. One was the I-16, but what was the other, I-153 or Mig-3?

Friendly_flyer
01-19-2008, 02:25 PM
Hi!

I have a question:

In 1941 Sovjet was attacked by the Germans, and their air-force made a heroic fight trying to hold back the Luftwaffe. The Sovjets rally had two fighter plane types in any number. One was the I-16, but what was the other, I-153 or Mig-3?

JSG72
01-19-2008, 03:03 PM
To be honest.

I don't think it mattered a jot. What the Soviets put up against the Luftwaffe.

The Organisation and Tactics of the Germans. Had already displayed the outcome.

It was in thier underestimation of numbers.

That the Reichs Hierachy. Made the grave mistakes.

All mentioned "Soviet Planes" . Were inferior.

So this is where the large. Luftwaffe "Kill Ratio" was endorsed.

It is therefore clear that if the Russians, had only flown Westland Whirlwinds.

They would have then have lost the War, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gifin 1941. I think.

na85
01-19-2008, 03:31 PM
You didn't really answer his question, but for the record, this statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:

All mentioned "Soviet Planes" . Were inferior.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is false. Russian planes were only inferior in certain aspects of flight, but far superior in others.

dduff442
01-19-2008, 04:19 PM
IIRC, at the launch of Barbarossa the I-15/I-15bis, I-153 and I-16 were the most numerous fighter types in the Soviet inventory. The LaGG-3 and MiG-3 were being introduced but were only available in small numbers.

JSG72
01-19-2008, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
You didn't really answer his question, but for the record, this statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:

All mentioned "Soviet Planes" . Were inferior.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is false. Russian planes were only inferior in certain aspects of flight, but far superior in others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ermmm... Which ones of the planes quoted? That made up the vast majoriy of the Soviet fighter force.

One has to take into account the Training and doctrines of the Sovet Air force.

It wouldn't have mattered if they had been flying F-86s' or Mig-15s. They would still have been beaten at this time.

The utelisation and wherwithall. Were not the predominant requisite. At this period of the War?

Friendly_flyer
01-20-2008, 03:51 AM
Thanks Dduff442, that's what I was after!

I have been told that the I-153 and I-16 had status in the Sovjet comparable to the status of the Spitfire and Hurricane in Britain. Could anyone shed some light on this?

GIAP.Shura
01-20-2008, 04:58 AM
I've seen that statement a couple of times and in my opinion is generally made to give an English speaking audience some understanding for the affection in which they are held by Russians rather than either the performance of these aircraft or the roles that they played.

The I-16 was a very capable fighter in the 30s and was very maneuvrable. However, apparently it required a great deal of skill to fly and was very tiring.

The I-15 series was one of the best biplanes ever built. It was very successful in the conflicts in the Far East (until the turn of the 40s when the Zero totally outclassed it), less so in the Spanish Civil War. Clearly WW2 showed that the biplane had no place as a dogfighter in modern aerial combat, however, several I-153s survived fighting the entire length of the war.

So, they are not really comparable to the Hurricane and Spitfire since they were both largely obsolete as dogfighters. However, they were the mainstay of the VVS during Operation Barbarossa and they were of invaluable help in defending Russia. Assessing these aircraft in terms of numbers destroyed by the Luftwaffe misses the point that these aircraft had a much more mixed role than that of Western European Airforces. Russian air doctrine was conceived largely in terms of effective ground support and the ability of both these aircraft to be effective ground attackers should not be underestimated. Hence, there is a similar conception of these aircraft as the Spitfire and Hurricane, as the aircraft that defended the homeland.

dduff442
01-20-2008, 07:31 AM
I know that I-153s were used in the Kuban in 1943 in the AA suppression role. They'd fly ahead of the IL-2s and swat any AA guns in the target area with rockets. Dangerous work, but ideally suited to the plane and cost-effective.

GIAP.Shura
01-20-2008, 09:01 AM
I-153s were not UAVs.

Friendly_flyer
01-20-2008, 11:46 PM
Shura, would you say that their they have a cultural standing in Russia (or had in Sovjet) comparable to the cultural standing of the Spitfire and Hurricane in Britain? If so, do you know of any sources for such a statement? I'm editing a very slim article on the I-16 in the Norwegian Wikipedia.

JtD
01-21-2008, 09:11 AM
When you read about "great" Soviet planes you usually read about Yaks.

It's probably because the Yak (and the La) were the planes to drive the Germans out of the Soviet union, while the early birds allowed them in.

I-16 is most famous for it's performance in the Spanish Civil war, where it outclassed most of it's opponents.

Not that I have read a lot of Soviet literature on the subject, but sure more than none.

Edit: Oh, well, and of course the Sturmovik. There is a reason we are playing Il-2, not I-16 or something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GIAP.Shura
01-21-2008, 10:03 AM
Friendly_flyer,

Most of my knowledge of VVS aircraft comes from books based on pilot's accounts, sections from general history literature and internet scuttlebutt. I can't really say for sure the exact cultural importance of these planes to citizens of former Soviet regions but my impression is that there is warmth felt for these planes from the general public.

In pilot accounts there isn't the same warmth for the planes as you read from pilots of the Spitfire. There was only limited resistance to transfer from the I-16 to the early Laggs and that was mainly about visibility. The pilots definitely wanted more performace than they had and there is little doubt that as far as they were concerned these weren't the great Soviet planes of the war.

Another problem with the Spitfire/Hurricane comparison is that the war was very different on the Eastern Front than it was on the Western Front. Air operations on the Western Front were very high profile and aerial supremacy was an important, isolated objective, either as fundamental to preventing invasion or as a precursor to successful D-Day operations and strategic bombing. On the Eastern Front air operations were closely integrated into the ground operations at nearly all times.

In other words, the conception of the Spitfire to most Brits is that it was what saved them from invasion. However, this is in no the same situation for the I-16 or the I-153. I think JtD's evaluation of them as having allowed the Germans in is unfair. It was "easy" for the Brits to hold out a German invasion with airpower alone so long as there was a channel in the way. I think the Germans' far superior doctrine and logistics is what "let them in" rather than an inherent superiority of aircraft.

As I said before, I think the Spitfire/Hurricane comparison is a lazy attempt to get the attention of less well informed readers/viewers. I'll ask the Russian speaking members of my squadron about this.

Friendly_flyer
01-21-2008, 10:50 AM
Thanks Shura, that's awfully nice of you.

I fully get the difference between the two situation. What I was thinking about is a situation where one show a picture of an I-16 to a Russian, would he/she recognise it? Would he/she know it was a Sovjet plane that faced overwhelming odds against the Luftwaffe, the way a lot of British would recognise the distinct profile of a Spitfire, even today?

JtD
01-21-2008, 11:56 AM
Shura, what I was trying to say is if you take a popular Soviet book regarding WW2 than it will focus a lot more on the battle of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk and afterwards. Comparatively little is found about the early phase of the great patriotic war. The stories of retreat and losses are not as nice to tell as the ones of victory. Now this Soviet literature and it's focus on the second half of the conflict had a large influence on the popular perception of the GPW. No matter what phase or what plane, from what I have seen the focus has always been the Soviet people, not one certain machine. Unlike BoB, where so many owed so much to so few, the Soviets always made it a peoples war. Just check which memorials were built in the UK and which were built in the SU.

It's not my "evaluation" of the planes involved, but apart from that you are absolutely right with what you say.

Still, my bet is the most popular fighter of the era in Russia is the Yak. The I-16 has no status that can compare to a Spitfire or Hurricane.

JSG72
01-21-2008, 05:21 PM
I fully get the difference between the two situation. What I was thinking about is a situation where one show a picture of an I-16 to a Russian, would he/she recognise it? Would he/she know it was a Sovjet plane that faced overwhelming odds against the Luftwaffe, the way a lot of British would recognise the distinct profile of a Spitfire, even today?

You can say what you will. However. The 153 and I-16 were basically the most numerous types In the world as opposed to the Spitfire and Hurricane.

As it would appear.

Most folks left on this Site are Fliers as opposed to Scenario/Realistic types.

It would IMHO. Be fair to say that Soviet craft were indeed inferior to the german forces Doctrine and Tactics.

For reasons explained in previous posts.

And that is why German Kill ratios were so high, at the beginning of the GPW.

Tendancies to play down inadequencies and promote victory are rife, within all history.

Soviet "Spitfire" is the LA-5fn to LA-9 with YAK-9 n its many varients being the "Hurricane"

M_Gunz
01-21-2008, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Hi!

I have a question:

In 1941 Sovjet was attacked by the Germans, and their air-force made a heroic fight trying to hold back the Luftwaffe. The Sovjets rally had two fighter plane types in any number. One was the I-16, but what was the other, I-153 or Mig-3? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was the IL-2. No kidding, they were used to intercept bombers and did very good at that.

I can give you more or you can search.

alert_1
01-22-2008, 07:05 AM
I16 wa teh "hero plane" because a lot of ttehm were used for taran attack, they were justo good only for that....Luftwaffe on east front was not defeated by VVS but rather by Red Army. You know, the best air supremacy is T34 on you runway...

Friendly_flyer
01-22-2008, 07:16 AM
Just out of curiosity I gave the old I-153 a spin. I haven't flown it since IL2-days. It's actually a splendid little plane, stable yet nimble, and with a very useful load-out for for close air support. I suggest anyone try out the I-153 single mission that comes with the game, it's great fun!