Why did the Soviets not like the Spitfire?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2017
- Why did the Soviets not like the Spitfire, a plane that generally drew favourable assessments from most other nations that used it? Let's find out!
- Get our Book -
Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
⚜ Support My Work ⚜
- You can support my Channel with Patreon: / milavhistory-
⚜ Find Me On Social Media ⚜
- Twitter: / milavhistory
⚜ Sources ⚜
Alfred Price, The Spitfire Story
Alfred Price, Spitfire Mark V Aces 1941-1945
Igor Zlobin, Spitfires over the Kuban
Hey all, hope you enjoy this one. It is a bit on the short side but for once I managed to be concise! *Achievement unlocked* ! One quick note on another reason why the Spitfire might have been performing poorer for the Soviets was that the Soviet fuel was of a lower octan volume than British fuel. However, I only see this being brought up on forums etc, and have yet to find it referred in the literature concering the Spitfires. As such I struck it out of my script for now. If anyone has something on this specific issue, please contact me.
Bismarck ~ concise is efficient, efficient is good ^_^
Nice video. How did the Hurricane fared in contrast on soviet hands? I've read they even switched the main guns to make it more likely to their tastes.
They loved the Hurri, its more rugged nature was much better suited to the Soviet air force.
Bismarck as always, very educational, her kommandant.
One thing you forgot to mention was the Soviet dissatisfaction with the Spitfire's landing gear. The plane was never originally intended to be operated from airfields such as those in Kuban. Besides, all Soviet fighters and most Lend-Lease types (P-40, Hurricane, P-39) had reasonably wide-set undercarriage and as such were better suited to Soviet conditions.
I'm not sure about the fuel - if I remember correctly (and do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), by the time the battle of Kuban was going on the Soviets were receiving large quantities of high-quality, high-octane fuel from the Allies via Persia. Soviet pilots _may_ have exacerbated the issues with worn out engines and airframes further by pushing the engines to WEP too often and for too long - this was a known issue with their P-40s and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case with the Spits, especially because they didn't have access to proper manuals. This is pure conjecture on my part though, I'd have to delve into my sources to find out more.
As for the Mk IX - to my knowledge they were seldom used on the front lines simply because a lot more Soviet types were available due to production being ramped up. Besides, despite the fact Soviet Spits were nominally the LF Mk IX (aka low-altitude version) they still routinely outperformed Soviet fighters at high altitudes (5000 metres and above) thanks to the two-stage, two-speed supercharger of the Merlin 66. Because of that they were mostly assigned to the PVO (Air Defence Forces, a separate branch of the armed forces designated with protecting high-value targets in USSR proper, later on they also got over 200 P-47Ds from the US).
Hans, we are reloacting you to the East.
Good, no more Spitfires.
(arrives in East)
Shit, Spitfires!
LOL
I think you mean "Achtung, Spitfire!"
no. more like sheisse, is ze spitfire!
Shit!Fire!
Nothing wrong with the spitfires.
When playing Hearts of Iron IV I also land lease my allies with old equipment...
They never complained.
Better than nowt.
well a gun is a gun and it still can kill people :) better than nothing anyway :)
Lend-lease, not land-lease. The phrase arose from Roosevelt's' policy of "lending" the British American armaments in turn for "leases" of bases in the Caribbean and Bermuda. Due to neutrality restrictions by the American Congress, Roosevelt could not give direct aid to Britain. Instead he "loaned" her vitally needed destroyers and other weapons in return for leases on bases. The effect of the leases (which the Americans relinquished almost immediately after the War) was to release British troops for service on the front, as defense was undertaken by the new "tenants".
This really needs to be a feature in an expansion pack of HoI V. The more complex the equipment (e.g. further down the tech tree) the less effective it should. Or at least that there's a slider that determines how long the "transfer" of equipment will take, but will mitigate the ineffectiveness, to simulate the crews of the recieving nation actually getting proper training and support.
Well, at least they had a tiny bit more of strength.
Nice soviet womble reference
Hollywood Hog lel
womble is a...
Sexy Womble
That burn though "little accuracy"
in which his videos?
Hated the Spitfire, loved the P-39. The Soviet consensus on foreign fighter aircraft was at complete odds with the rest of the world, that's what's really interesting.
That's cuz they got the crappy spitfire
There is an easy explanation. The P38 with its 30mm canon in the propeller could easily double as a ground attack aircraft blasting German infantry vehicles on every pass. The Spitfire was a high altitude fighter meant for dog fighting only. The Russians had better alternatives than the Spitfire in the Yak 9, LA7 and Mig 3.
@@diomedecassar2244
P-39 with a 37mm Cannon. The thing is they used them for Air to Air and not so much for ground attack. They weren't given Armor Piercing Ammo for the 37 either.
.
Eastern front air combat were taking place LOWER than ones in the West. P39 was better fit for USSR fighter plane requirements.
The Spitfire's narrow undercarriage was the only real criticism the Soviets had. When the first Spitfires arrived they where rush into battle with most aircraft lost due to mishaps from lack of training. Desperate times, desperate measures. This guy is using quotes from individuals who were interviewed years after WW2, not at the time they first flew the aircraft. The cold war and national pride are a factor, as well as the surviving pilots would have gone on to more modern Soviet machines making their memories of the Spitfires less rosy. Before the battle of Kursk, the Soviets were grateful for any fighting machine they could get their hands on. After Kursk when it was obvious to the whole world Russia couldn't lose the war, they had the luxury of being more choosey about the lead lease equipment used in the front lines, with the inferior Western Allied tanks and aircraft being delegated to quieter sectors, such as the Finnish Front or station on Turkey's border.
'All this will only alarm your comrades.' Probably one of the best statements regarding the Spitfire's reputation amongst those who fought against it.
every single one would have been better used in the east in Burma
Simply look at the various war archives from the countries involved. The Soviet destroyed more German aircraft through various means then any other allie. I do not mean to belittle the effort and accomplishments of any one of the allies. All did a outstanding job under appalling conditions. The Soviet's in probably the most extreme conditions.
Can anyone explain to Mc Muffin Fuck just how stupid a comment that sounds......
I think supplying your allies with a useful fighter is more that just a military decision! and the unskilled Russian airman, maybe you should read up on this a little and buy a passport! The Russians had many skilled and brave airman and women as the war progressed and produced some of the best fighters of WW2 READ BEFORE typing a typical hick comment...please genuine Americans gag your plebs!!!!!!!
Odd, because the Book Luftwaffe by Williamson Murray is probably the best look at Luftwaffe losses by theatre in existance as it used the Luftwaffes own records.
The real attritional rate against German Fighter pilots did not start until 1944, the start of the big US Heavy Bomber daylight raids with P51 Mustang cover. The only year that Luftwaffe losses in the East were higher than the West was 1942.
In 1943 73% of German Fighter strength was gathered against the Western Allies, in 1944 that had risen to 82% of *all* Luftwaffe Fighters operating against the Western Allies. This is not to mention other aircraft types.
In June-December 1942: Eastern Front: 2388 German aircraft of all types lost
All other Fronts : 2547 German Aircraft of all types lost.
1943: Eastern Front: Fighters: 1099, Total number aicraft lost (including fighters): 3773
North Africa: Fighters: 1520, Total number Aircraft lost (including fighters): 3936
North West Europe: Fighters 2208, All Aircraft: 4247
In other words, in 1943 two thirds of *all* Luftwaffe Aircraft losses were in the theatres facing the Western Allies.
It gets worse for the germans in 1944. The numbers of aircraft facing the Soviets on the Eastern Front had stayed broadly the same. The numbers facing the Western Allies had fallen by 45% over the previous year, not because the Soviets were causing such huge casualties but because the Western Allies were shooting down so many German Aircraft they could not replace either the air frames or the pilots.
Unlike you I have actually looked at those war archives. The claim that some Soviet writers make when quoting 44,000 german aircraft shot down on the Easter Front is so laughable, it is out and out fantasy. That is the Soviets basically claiming *EVERY* German aircraft lost to combat in WWII was shot down on the Easter Front.
I think you need to actually go looking for some more credible sources of information. The Air War against Germany was won in the skies over North West Europe, not over the skies of the USSR. The Land War, now *that* is another matter entirely, that was won by the USSR....
alganhar1
the Germans had no problems pumping out the tanks and planes though in fact they were still pumping out panthers after the war had stopped.
a single panther had a turn around of 3 to 4 days so a single factory could pump out around 10 panthers a week.
planes weren't much different because most of the planes went from steel to wood and canvas because the turn around was faster.
the other problem is the tolerance for the German parts are so tiny, that parts can't be made to replace the old parts.
that's why there's only 1 bf 109 flying today, once the parts break that's it.
the German tanks have the exact same problem you can't make the engines or parts for them either.
the real problem was training people, not getting people the Germans had all of Europe to get people but it'd take the Germans, 6 months to quickly train a tank crew, they really needed 18 months to fully train them. so near the end you had people who didn't have much clue what they were doing going in to fight against troops that would have had a few years of training, then years of real combat.
the pilots were the same took 3 months to train basically someone to fly a bf 109 etc, but really need 12 months of training. so many German fighters weren't ready to handle the combat.
as for the russian fighters they were actually speced way better than the western fighters and the German fighters.
Of course, the Sov's LOVED the P 39, for a lot of reasons. Interesting. An aircraft whose own pilots nicknamed it "The Iron Dog" was loved by the Sovs for what to them were perfectly good reasons. An a lot of those reasons meant many of the Spit's traditional strengths (i.e., it's phenomenal rate of climb) didn't matter, while it's drawbacks (an aircraft which needed careful maintenance) were real problems.
Interesting fact: When starting operations in the Soviet Union, the Free French Groupe de Chasse 3 Normandie (not yet Normandie-Niemen) was offered to operate Spitfires, Hurricanes and P39. This was kindly refused, as it was thought more appropriate to use soviet planes (Yak 7, 1, 9 and later 3). Moreover, the French mechanics that joined at first were used to work Hispano engines (from MS 406 and D 520) and it was very easy for them to convert to the Klimov copies and developments powering the planes. The winter weather, however, was an issue those mechanics could not handle well, so Soviet ground crew supported the squadron for the remainder of the war (the book "Normandie-Niemen" from Yves Courrières is a "must read" if you understand French)
pierauspitz the yak 3 was also a flat out great aircraft, I wouldn't be upset with the choice.
@@tnix80 Yak 3 arrived quite late in the story (december 1944). Normandie Niemen mostly flew yak 1, 7 and 9.
The Yak 3 is more well known as the squadron flew back home in them after the victory, and these are the ones the western press saw. ;)
@@pierauspitz that makes their exploits more impressive I guess. Big difference between those machines.
I had no idea that this happened, very interesting
Great Britain: "it must out turn enemy's so it will kill them quick"
Soviet Union: *It hAs tO bE BuLlEt pRoOf*
None of their planes were. They lost well over 100,000, although certainly not all in combat.
@@rimshot2270 the planes dogfight and mostly air flights dependent on how much people you have, how skill you are, and your awareness in combat. If you would put not skilled Pilots in Bf 109 (let's say 10) and 4 already pilots who fought in plane (Spitfire for example) they know how to fly it and are well aware of the power of enemy, but such a bf 109 pilots who escorted bombers every day? Idk men
@@soldier8507 The P-39 was built for ground support and low-level operations. The Spitfire was built for high-altitude interception and dogfighting. The Russians did more of the former than the latter.
Truth is the Eastern Front needed very different fighters to the defence of the UK. There was more CAS from forward airstrips (by both sides) and much less strategic bombing to defend against. So altitude performance, for example, was not so important, while easy maintenance/repair and heavy armament were. Apart from the other issues outlined here the Spitfire was just the wrong plane for the Soviets. When the Typhoon appeared it would have suited the Russians perfectly - but by then they were getting their Lend-Lease planes from America, not Britain.
As comrade Stalin said: "What Fool would sell us their Secrets."
Hold up, Britain did not 'sell' their secrets to the soviets... they gave them to them and also to the Americans. I think its funny how the Korean war was a war in witch both sides were essentially using British jet engines.
Sapier UK They gave them to the Soviets with the promise that they would be paid. Obviously, as any idiot with half a brain would have realized, the Soviets had no intention of doing so. Not exactly Britain's finest moment.
It wasn't just about payment, the British were keen for the Germans to divert as much of their war effort to the east as possible for obvious reasons. The Royal Navy spent the best part of the war sailing up and down the Arctic Ocean in U-Boat infested waters supplying the Soviets with American and British military aid to ensure the Soviets stayed in the war.
the jet engines were sold post war, in the late 40s, as jet technology (which Britain had pioneered) was one of the only industries it had that was in high demand after the war and that it had a relative monopoly on
Brodie Hoyle then how come the soviets liked the P-39 and it is fucking American
The maintenance crews had certainly difficulties with the tools.
In Russia all metric since 1924 and English airplanes with imperial threads !
Also impossible to reach certain bolts with adjustable (monkey) wrenches.
Then they had to learn fast, if you had a set of tools and spares for the Spitfire or anything,else it would be easy for any mechanic worth his salt, provided they kept the differing tools separate.
Yet they did't have problems with copying 1 to 1 US B-29 made in imperial system and name it Tu-4...
I love how Rall's commander basically told him "Let's just pretend this didn't happen."
AFAIR, soviet pilots in general preferred planes, who performed better at relatiwely low altitudes, like P-39 or P-40.
Planes like P-47 in USSR were used as air defense fighters
You are right P-47s were relegated to chasing low altitude recons and bombers, with one regiment permanently posted to Moscow.
The P-39 airacobra lacked a supercharger which made it poor at high alt (And disliked by the allies) but the lesser weight and other peculiarities made it especially loved on the eastern front. In fact it was so much loved that when LA-7 appeared (arguably one of the finest fighters of the war) most regiments flying the cobra stuck to it instead of converting.
Вячеслав Скопюк
They arrived later in war
+Marty Robinson
So what? P-40 and P-39 served until the war end
Вячеслав Скопюк
The point is as the War continued both sides developed better aircraft and improved those older models. It's like comparing a Eurofighter to a Spitfire!
+Marty Robinson
as I pointed earlier - USSR readily used old models like P-40 and P-39 unitl the end of war
It was also the way the Soviets built their own aircraft, they were ruggedly built to operate from bare minimum airfields. My late father-in-law was born in Moldova and his family was German, when the Soviets moved into Moldova, they just plowed the cornfield under in one night and made an airstrip out it. the landing gear on the Spitfire was mad for paved runways or grass field, the plowed airfields of Eastern Europe were too hard on the landing gear. The same hold up today with Russian air4craft able to use minimal fields, you'd never see a F-15 or F-22 take off from a plowed field, the F-18 maybe because of the heavier carrier landing gear. Canada has operated the CF-188 Hornets from Northern airfields in the high Arctic on exercises.
Charles Damery Yeah all that "rough field" capability is not necessary today, nor are VTOL aircraft needed in Europe. For the limited theater wars that exist, there are more than enough airfields in multiple countries. If for some bizarre reason a major war broke out, it would be between ICBMs and long range bombers, so airstrips in Europe do not factor in.
But the video is about the Second World War, not the present situation and as any one who served in Europe during the Cold War will tell you, the airfield were the first targets, I was a Canadian suicide soldier from June 1978 to August 1981, we knew the airfields at Lahr and Baden-Sollingen were prime target so the brigade got out of there ASAP. I say suicide soldier because when you arrived in Europe your first briefing was, " Welcome to CFB Lahr, if anything happens, your life expectance is 3 weeks, do not expect re-enforcements." And Canadian was to go after the Soviet airborne troops, because the American.
Charles Damery exactly, this is why they liked the American planes, rugged with good firepower. The Soviet planes were good at low altitude which is where they operated.
Taking off from a ploughed field? Mmm, I'm not sure that is true.
rjk69
I think he meant: plowed to get rid of the corn. He talks about his German Father-in-law so it must have been in the Southern part where land is poor (less humus), and it's a steppe (plains). They deployed I-16s (STOL) at that time, and probably used a lot more transport planes and bombers (huge wheels on the landing gear) to attack bridges and pipelines in 1941.
2:05
Did- Did you just..?
10/10
Elite Games yes he did
Elite Games Q
What did he do?
@@derwerbungindiekommentares7751 made a sovietwomble reference in how he has bad aim
Why did the Russia not like the spitfire, simple.
There was tea where vodka should have been.
Actually Russians are big tea fans.
@KnightTiger so u kicked to the russians. Are u happy?
we like some tea in R vodka mate
One thing mentioned here that was a factor was the difference in philosophy used by the Soviets when it came to arming their planes.
There were two basic points of armament on an fighter aircraft. In the fuselage and on the wings.
If you put guns in the wings - what they would do was bore site them so that their fire converged at a certain point at the specified distance from their aircraft that they wanted to fire on their targets. The closer that distance was to their aircraft the more powerful the blast of all those guns would be - but - you had trouble with targets beyond that range - as the bullets that had been converging on that point - were now diverging away from it.
Guns put in the nose of the aircraft could just fire straight ahead. This meant that you could aim your fire in a concentrated stream, rather that spraying an area at a specific distance. Pilots who were good shots could take advantage of this to more accurately place fire on their targets regardless of the distance they were at.
Thus guns in the wings were better for pilots that weren't such good shots - like most pilots were - but those in the fuselage were better for those that were good shots.
The Soviets - if you look at their weapons placement - tended to have all their weapons in the cowling of the aircraft's nose. They didn't have very many of them and this led them to not have that great a fire power - but that is where they wanted them.
So - you look at an aircraft like a P-39 with a 37mm and 2 12.7mm guns in the fuselage - and that fell right in with Soviet weapons placement philosophy. It's my understanding that they sometimes took the machine guns out of the wings so the aircraft would have a faster roll rate.
There is a misconception about the P-39's being used for ground attack by the Soviets. The ammunition supplied was NOT armor piercing - so the 37mm was not intended for a tank busting role - and the Soviets did not use it that way - they used it in an air to air role.
The Americans - with a mass produced air force tended towards the spraying technique and had their guns mostly in the wings. The P-38, which as a multi-engined aircraft was much more complicated to fly than a single engine aircraft, also had it's guns in the center pod firing straight ahead. For the mass of inexperienced pilots the US sent to Europe they weren't well suited to this aircraft. The fact that it had engine and compressibility problems - made them afraid of trying to push it. Lockheed sent their top test pilot and engineers to Europe - toured the US bases and show the pilots just what the aircraft could really do - and they developed kits to fix it's problems. The kits were accidentally shot down on their way to Britain, P-51's became available - and the P-38's were relegated to ground attack and the Pacific, where they were flown by more experienced pilots in better weather and over water - and thus very well received.
So - you can have different weapons that do well in some places that don't do well in others - for various reasons.
Another factor mentioned by another poster - was that with it's narrow track landing gear - the Spitfire didn't do well on relatively crude Soviet Airfields, just as the F4F had trouble on crude fields in the Pacific.
.
+Bismarck
It is interesting to note that late in the war the RAAF were asked to use their Spitfires in ground-attacks - a role it was not built for. As a result some Australians refused to go on these missions. The Spitfire was not meant for low-level attacks. This incident is known as the "Morotai Mutiny" (see link below). So I understand the Soviet's reluctance to use the Spitfire - given they were using it in the wrong role
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morotai_Mutiny
T-34 was the best airplane
greekmarine troller in Germany, we crush t-34. In Soviet Russia, T-34 crushs YUO cyka blyat
The best airplane in fact
T-isnt, a plane!
It's an intergalactic battleship
Luca Blokland nah nah nah it's obviously a planet killer come on guys....smh
Het. KV-2 is best bomber
"Hey Arseny, which button dispense vodka?"
"i dont know, press tha british button"
"cyka dey all british!"
*Tea begins to be dispensed*
"BBBBLYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!"
zombieboy1292 The Soviets ran out of tea 3 months into the war. The spitfires dispensed vodka made from straw after that.
Well, considering that all british british tanks since the introduction of the Centurion tanks in 1945 have a boiling vessel that provides hot water for making tea, the thought is not _that_ far from reality.
@@Gooberpatrol66 Jokes aside, Russians also had and have a great propensity for tea. It was a drink that was consumed in enormous quantities by all who could afford it already in the 19th century, and then even the poorest city dwellers spent a fair chunk of their income on tea (I read about it in a Dostoevsky analysis - both he, when poor and in exile, and his characters consider it a much-needed measure of dignity to be able to buy enough tea every month).
The Spitfire entered service just before World War Two, the brainchild of designer RJ Mitchell.
Later models of the Spitfire could fly well over 400mph in level flight, thanks to their powerful Rolls-Royce Merlin engine and the four-bladed propeller that helped generate extra thrust. Photo reconnaissance versions were even faster, flying without the dragging weight of machines guns or ammunition.
The plane’s superlative performance also made it a natural for test flights, especially for high-speed research. It was on these flights that some Spitfire pilots took the aircraft into previously uncharted territory - encountering the strange aerodynamic forces that occur when the sound barrier is within reach.
As far as I know the Finns were reasonably pleased with the Brewster Buffalo against the Russians. Whereas the Buffalo in the Pacific was an unmitigated disaster.
Reasonablu pleased would be kind of an understatement, actually. The B-239 was really liked by the Finns. Being based on a lighter, earlier F2A-1 variant, the stripping of the naval equipment helped performance further. The type ended up racking an impressive 26:1 kill ratio by the end of the war.
Thomas Borgsmidt Finn's fought with i-15 and i-16, zero was far better
Finns Buffaloes were whit out of armor plates. That makes them faster and more agile than US versions.
The Brewster Buffalo is maligned based entirely on US Naval service. Fisken made ace in the type, including a victory over a Zero or two.
Love your great channel and content. And the wonderful comments section. Thank you all who make reading the comment great fun and informative .
That was a really cool, short video. Nice what you can learn in a small amount of time with no excessive rambling.
Ayy shout out to soviet womble
Glad I'm not the only one to notice.
More of a dig at him really.
I bet if they had sent brand new Spitfires Mk Vc LF with clipped wings and proper supplies, Soviets would have loved it.
Really informative, thanks for putting this together
Very interesting and well produced-thankyou.
So are there any bunkers or barns with lightly used Spitfires in Russia? That would be a great barn find.
im afraid no. Im sure that commies didnt allowed citizens to have a private airplane especially military from capitalistic countries
I read in an aeroplane magazine years ago that lots of crarted spitfires were dumped overboard when the war ended.
@@gravydavy4188 In one of the books I read about the development and use of the P-38, there was a photograph from the end of the war with dozens of P-38s that had been bulldozed into a gully at the side of an airfield in Alaska, simply because they weren't worth enough in scrap to justify the fuel to fly them back to the States. There were thousands of aircraft that met similarly rude disposals at the end of the war -- one of the things that encourages people today to work so hard to restore a found aircraft, no matter how poor condition it's in.
2:00 "Remember when you hit a pedestrian at a cross walk with your car and you just drove away? Pepperidge Farm Remembers, but Pepperidge Farm wont just keep it to Pepperidge Farm's self, maybe you buy some of our cookies and maybe this whole thing disappears"
Schmitty what?
Pepperidge Farm remembers!
Totally incredible documentary film on this war plane's and the way you explained different types of thing's too..very interesting to me ..you did an amazing job on this..I do greatly appreciate it a lot too..Thank you so so much for your videos too..
That was greatly interesting to learn. Thank you for my new found knowledge.
Actually Russians liked it in a beginning of the war, as is was high demand of new planes as a replacement of И-153 chaika. Russian liked for easy to learn, stability and low entrance skill required, that was very important in the beginning. For example P39 was liked a lot, but it was more for skilled pilots. Problem was that it was out of date (that was received by USSR) compared with US planes and USSR modern planes and with manufacturing of new USSR planes the need of Leased planes started decrease in general.
Artem Pavlov exactly, Soviet planes are underrated here in the West. If you play War Thunder you know... i love the early stuff like the chaika, those 7.62mm shkas machine guns are so fast.
P-39 was a darned good ground-attack aircraft, actually the best that we had. The Soviets decided that it was a FIGHTER and started dogfighting the thing.... and it turned in a fairly creditable performance. P-39s received by the USSR were totally rebuilt to effective "zero hours": in effect, to brand-new condition. They then were flown from the Canadian rework factories, up the Alcan highway to Alaska, where the Russian girls took over and flew them to Siberia, then all the way across to the Eastern Front...... by which time they were well broken-in again. I know this is a fact because my Father was Chief Inspector (avionics and Instruments) at Aircraft Repair in Edmonton, Alberta. Every P-39 went out of that plant over HIS signature...... and he was a perfectionist.
FRIDGE LAUNCHER
That's really cool George. I'm glad we were decent enough to send the Soviets quality hardware. It's a shame Stalin was such a dick. Things could have gone so differently.
casey b Not like Churchill or Roosevelt were much nicer though. Everybody were pretty aggressive on their demands after the war and interests conflicted. Putting all the blame on Stalin is simply wrong. And doesn't matter who the leader of the USSR would be since the US would never be able to stay friends with them anyways due to the conflicting ideologies
When you get a instructions manual for your spirit fire and its all in Chinese.......FUCK.
some good analysis there. thats why i like your channel. its informative, and somewhat technical without going over the head of the average person. i feel a little bit smarter when i leave.
I've been enjoying so many of your videos to the point where I just had to sub!.. Keep up the great work!
Interesting, but the complaints- being unfamiliar with the plane, hard to get spare parts, friendly fire incidents, etc, seem like complaints that ANY Lend-Lease equipment would have had. It didn't prevent them from using other foreign items in large numbers...
Pizza Cat As far as I'm aware, the American equipment they got came with ample supplies along with them, so spare parts were never an issue. The spitfire has always been considered an overly complex aircraft in comparison to it's counterparts, so the fact that crews didn't receive any manuals must of really sucked. I would have much rather worked on the relatively simple P-40 then waste my time with the earlier spits.
Ha! I guess if product support was uniquely bad, that's a pretty big deal. I assumed all the stuff they received was in such a state. Yeah, if I had the choice of 'plane with instructions' and 'plane without', that makes sense. Thanks!
Well, if they didn't even bother sending instructions, I can't imagine they went to the effort of replacing gauges. I can picture the cockpit covered in taped notes with hand-written translations... Poor guys. Though, was that a service the Americans offered? Seems like you'd have the same problem.
Well, yeah, but I understand those issues. I only brought up the ones I mentioned because I wanted further information on those points specifically. I wasn't trying to say the video was lacking.
@Pizza Cat. The Soviets had a pretty poor opinion of most Western equipment, the Spitfire was more par for the course than an exception to the norm.
I think the crux of it was the way the fighter was employed.
The Western Allies flew the Vb at high altitude with radar fighter control, the Soviet insistance on trundling around at low altitude without any kind of early warning was just asking for trouble.
Soviet fighters were (typically) overpowered and very agile, with centre line armament. They could accelerate quickly, out roll German designs and their weapons didn't require much skill to bring on target, at least at short range. Spitfires, like Mustangs and Bf109s, were designed to perform at heights the Soviet fighters couldn't even reach.
Goading the Germans down into a low level brawl made sense with most of their aircraft, but it took most of the Spitfire's advantages away. Throw in the added complexity of convergence gunnery and even if the Spitfire was the best supported and maintained fighter in their Air Forces, it would still have underperformed.
The only Allied aircraft I've heard favourable Soviet opinions on was the Airacobra. It was powerfull, had a good roll rate (increased by junking the wing mounted armament fitted to later models) and featured a strong centre line armament. It was similar enough to Soviet equivalents for their crews to appreciate the high quality American engineering.
It's worth noting that the Soviets used Mustangs solely for training, considering the type to 'under perform' compared to Soviet contemporaries.
Many years ago I read a book where Stalin complained of the lack of supplies from the Allies. The the British said," we sent Spitfires". "Our pilots don't like them", said Stalin. Never found out until your showing . Obliged "Bismarck" as I am a great admirer of Bismarck. You wonder if WW1 would have happened at all if Bismarck had been about!
Allies couldn't carry out all their lend-lease obligations. In fact they send 3 times less material and military goods than it was planned and written in protocols. And soviet people paid with gold for all of it. No wonder they were pissed by shitty stuff Britain sold them.
The British asked Stalin why he purged his armed forces in the 1930s; I didn't like them said Stalin.
Artiom Beknazaryan
Land-Lead from Britain to Russia was free of charge.You’re a clueless, propaganda- addled Russian.
@@artiombeknazaryan7542 the soviets defaulted on payments. The full payments were never received after the war.
I can't help but smile at some of the comments. They can't possibly know that Rolls-Royce did plenty of tests with fuel injected Merlin engines in Spitfires. They produced no more power than the Carburetor versions. Technically the injection they used was simple and quite clever. It was a single point injection squirting fuel into the eye of the supercharger. This increased charge density and was more efficient than injecting at the inlet as on the DB engines which used a more complex multipoint system. A few operational Spitfires and Mosquitos did use injection but it offered few advantages. You should also remember that carburetor technology did not stand still, and all the early difficulties were overcome. From an operational viewpoint carburetors were better understood at fitter and maintainance level on the airfields so injection was considered and rejected as it was an answer to a non existent problem. As it was the power output of the Merlin engine more than doubled over the duration of the war from less than 1000 hp to over 2000 hp.
Nice video. Informative and great graphics. Well done.
Hi Bismarck, do you have any clue why did the Germans use inverted V engines on most of their planes? What are the advantages and disadvantages of them, and why didn't any other air force do so too?
Loved the video by the way, i have heard that the Soviet Union did tell their forces that lend-lease vehicles were actually Soviet made for propaganda purposes. I think this was mostly about ground vehicles like tanks, i do not know if this would also apply to airplanes, but this video seems to say that Soviets knew that some of their airplanes were foreign made.
Lunar Safeguard increased visibility down front
How would an inverted V engine give more visibility? Please explain. The one thing i could think of how it would improve visibility is that the upper part of the cowling can be more rounded since the cylinders aren't in the way.
And how would this apply to twin engine planes like the Bf 110, the Me 410 and the Ju 88? Which also have inverted Vs.
And i do know that inverted V engines are more resistant against ground fire, not sure what is the reason for this, possibly because the crankshaft (i believe that is the part) is not as close to the bottom of the plane.
Lunar Safeguard this only applies to single engine aircraft in which the pilot is seated behinde the engine. it is harder to look around a bigger area (top of the v) than a smaller one. If i need to be more specific (english is not my native language ) feel free to ask. Have a great day
Inverted V for better visibility but mostly for an easier maintenance. A weapon in the centerline of the aircraft is possible with a "classic V" : MS406, D520... or Yaks !
Simple answer: why would Russian planes have English labels and Imperial instruments in their cockpits? Even if the pilots knew nothing about world aviation, which would be unlikely imho, this fact alone makes it pretty obvious they weren't Russian made. In the case of the Hurry they even sent some British pilots to train them and fly and fight together for a while when the planes arrived for the first time at Murmansk.
BISMARCK M.A.H.
Correct on the octane, even us oldies remember when car fuel dropped from 5star and we had to add supplements to the 4star petrol for sports cars. It is a shame that so many merchant seamen and royal navy personnel lost their lives in the artic convoys taking aircraft, tanks, fuel and ammo that we needed, along with food to Russia. They NEVER celebrate our effort in providing support just the "glorious actions of Russia!.
do you ever celebrate Russias war efforts?
+Blah b
lol. You are high as kite. And crazy as shithouse rat
+Blah b
and you are crazy as shithouse rat
de Gaulle wasn't gracious either.
Way to go! Thanks for your videos!
The point at 3:08 is interesting; I recall reading some book about WW2 aces (came out in the 1990s AND I don't remember the title) that contained a 'bleep' load of pilot interviews; One of the former Soviet Pilots recollected that when he was a 'normal' fighter pilot his flight plans were very very restricted-patrol over these points & do NOT go chasing after enemy aircraft. All this changed when he joined a "Guards" Regiment;
Could not be outfitted with the standard issue vodka bottle holder.
No problem as the pilot could wear the Soviet standard issue vodka twin pack flying helmet with straws.
They sat on their vodka filled canteens lol
kelly jackson...too funny!
Have you ever considered making a video on the use of heavy fighters in ww2, or specific heavy fighters like the p38 or dh98?
Jkla Alkj or the super heavy fighter/bomber/tank/tank destroyer/ milk truck the T-34 class.
A N I M E
N
I
M
E
Interesting series of events. Very good presentation!
A concise and informative video as always.
No manuals or spare parts is crazy!! Just here you go, good luck!
It the british way of doing things
Worked for Finland.
this wonderful plane is so awesome in BoK
Very informative. Thank you. M.
great info ....as a sim pilot for over 20yrs....one always wonders how planes of the wars faired, and what real time problems they had....keep up the good work bismarck
Excellent explanation Bis. I've wondered for a while if there was more to the story than the spit's guns being deemed too wet for the stronk Soviets (as I was always told by less diligent historians).
They didn't like the weapons but that had more to do with the fact that they were mounted so far apart in the wings. Both sides on the Eastern front typically fired at extremely close ranges in low altitude dogfights so the gun convergence issues of wing mounted weapons were felt particularly badly, and just look how far apart the .303s on Spits are mounted.
Soviets would often remove the wing mounted machine guns on their P-40s and P-39s to save weight, leaving only the nose mounted weaponry, something that wasn't possible on Spitfires.
Rooskies did like the P40 but their favorite foreign aircraft was the Bell P39
They loved the cannon firing through the nose! A great tank busting and ground support aircraft! The Army shipped the P-39 to Guadalcanal but they Army Air Force didn't send the O2 charging equipment so they couldn't get to altitude to fight the Zero. This turned out to be great for the Marines who loved the cannon on the P-39 for ground support! Oh, and the Japanese didn't!
Exilent and coherent. Thank you.
interesting stuff. instant subscription. HAPPY NEW YEAR! from Scarborough, England :-D
Soviet Union extremely needed Spitfires in 1941. By 1943 the hunger of fighters was satisfied. But there was a deficit of high-altitude fighters. So Spitfires when they came at last in 1943 were sent to air defence troops in rear. No policy. Only objective necessity. Soviet pilots liked Spitfire very much, but they have too little chance to taste them in the battle because of mentioned reason. The tecnical culture could be easily rised up when needed as it had been with P-40-s and Hurricanes.
"...extremely needed Spitfires in 1941."
Why exactly Spitfires?
@@zrbbg9639 as a potentially good high altitude interceptor to fight German bombers, levelling Soviet cities. Soviets also had MiG-3 as an interceptor and it wasn't that bad in the role it was specifically designed for, but there were too few of them left after desperate use on low altitudes in summer 1941, and simply no time to fix various bugs of the design.
@@mdokuch96 When it came to fixing issues I think the same could be said about the LaGGs and the La-5.
@@zrbbg9639 different conditions. LaGG was started as a cheap simple analogue of Bf.109, made of delta-wood to save aluminium. Never meant to be an interceptor, but a frontline fighter on low altitudes. Thanks to problems with engines (lack of planned model and weaker substitute), it's characteristics in serial models were worse than on experimental prototype, which was much more agile and better armed. Also, it needed experienced pilots to take everything from the plane's potential.
In the end, only powerful radial engine fully used the whole potential of planer design, but due to the nature of war on the East, the best examples of this plane line like La-7 and La-9 came too late to shine as they deserved.
"Many guns, little accuracy"
Soviet womble in a nutshell
Well done mate
Marcel Albert, a french fighter pilot who flew for the Free French Forces, the Royal Air Force and the Soviet Air Force, considered the Yakovlev Yak 3 superior to the Spitfire and the Mustang. The Luftwaffe advised their pilots to avoid engaging them completely.
Love the presentation style.
This should have been a video about how the Soviets didn't like the M3 Lee
Sir Boom Bomb oh god yes.
The Soviets HATED the vehicle. It wasn’t just the Soviets however. The British also hated it.
When first introduced to the M3 Lee, both the U.K. And the Soviet Union literally *rejected* it, and only accepted it when they were told this is quite literally the only tank the USA could produce in a large quantity at the time.
While the British didn’t like the tank, the Russians hated the tank with a burning passion. It was far too tall, had basically no armor, and it’s anti tank weapons (a hull mounted 75mm cannon, a 37mm anti tank cannon on a small turret on the already tall hull, and a load of machine guns) were far too inadequate to deal with later German tanks, like the Pz IV, Tiger H1, and the Panther series.
On top of that, the M3 Lee was a massive failure as a tank.
I personally can see where the designer (s?) were coming from. It seems they had looked at how to design a tank, what were the best weapons to put on it, but never actually looked at a tank.
But I mean think about it. On paper, it sounds incredibly. A massive tank, great for sighting targets (became a massive weakness) filled with crew members. Covered in weapons, a 75mm gun, 37mm gun, multiple machine guns, side exit doors to load shells and retreat from, (in what would turn out to be a massive disadvantage)
Everybody hated the M3 Lee. Even the U.S hated the M3 Lee.
After the first 3 months of introduction, nobody liked the M3 Lee. Worked well as a stop gap for those few months though. There is a hilarious video comparing the cross country ability of allied tanks vs. German, they use the Lee and the Panther.
german uboats destroyed some 400+ M3 lee on the convoys ... 1/4 of those sent there
Man...that was the fairest assessment about this subject that I have ever seen. I am impressed!
Thanks. This was an interesting vignette of the complicated relationship between the West and the East in confronting Nazi Germany, and the very different tactics and techniques required in different theaters of the war. It also sort of reminds me of some discussions of the Battle of Britain that partly overcome the standard hagiography regarding the celebrated Spitfire to note that much (OK, most!) of the heavy lifting in the whole battle was done by the more humble Hawker Hurricane, not as high a performer especially at high altitudes, but much easier to fix and put back into service than the more finicky Spitfire with its special design and structure. [And it was also easier to mount ground-attack weapons packages on the Hurricane.] It sounds as though the elegant Spitfire was a little out of place in the harsh and unending slugging match of the Eastern Front, much of it conducted at low altitude or ground-attack levels. [And the Spit was never much for range, either.] [As contrasted with the P-39 Airacobra, rejected for regular service by the U.S. Army Air Corps and labeled "the Klunker" by U.S. pilots because of its lack of performance at altitude, but which was a sturdy, reliable machine with a 30-mm cannon firing straight ahead through the propeller hub and able to blast away at anything on the ground or in the air. And the P-39 perhaps somewhat symbolized the rest of America's early fighter designs, which also perhaps fit better on the Eastern Front than the Spitfire: rugged, sturdy machines with good firepower that didn't perform all that well at higher altitudes. [The P-40, the P-51B, etc.]]
An interesting and honest video, thank you.
"Achtung! Spitfire!"
"What?! Here?! In Russia?!"
many guns little accuracy kek
Having spoken to, and flown with a WW2 RAF ace with 28 kills. His answer was simple...."You had to get so close you felt like shitting your pants..then the guns were just fine". One suspects that pilots who complained about the guns either 1) did not have them harmonised quite right or 2) Did not get close enough. It could have done with a cannon or two though. The Vb was not the Spit at its best by any means.
@Tim Hancock i'm laughing at soviet womble, i know how guns work.
OK
many guns little accuracy as designed for the shotgun effect when deflection shooting.
why the Germans put cannon pods on the wings of the G model 109's for deflection shooting b-17..
you cannot straight shoot a bomber.. the tail gunner shoots you in the face..
so you come in with lots of deflection and snap shoot.
and that's all about weight of fire and not about accuracy.
you hunt birds with shotguns.
You can if you have a 37mm or bigger cannon
I loved that you used a picture of sovietwomble for the "many guns little accuracy" bit.
The Spitfire had a great reputation in the air - just see the clip Spitfire 944. In Australian service in the Pacific it encountered some challenges. Narrow track landing gear wrote a lot off due to landing and taxiing accidents on rough strips. Range was also an issue - and there weren't many options in a sparsely populated Areas of Operations. The Merlin suffered a bit too and needed the Volkes filters. Even though it didn't have the performance of the Spitfire, the ruggedness of the P40 Kittyhawk made it a popular mount among RAAF pilots.
Slavfire Mk.Vb
They liked all the tanks, trucks, firearms and ammunition Churchill sent them with the Atlantic convoys.
Tom Murdoch When did Churchill send the Soviets tanks, firearms and ammunition?
@@christinas.4342 uh, across the war? Through the artic convoys and the persian route.
Tom - Indeed, yes, and without fuel supplies through British Army railheads on the Persian border, and other quality fuel from the US, along with the staggering amounts of trucks and Jeeps also supplied mainly from US sources, the Soviet War Machine would likely either ground to a halt, or at least to an even bloodier slow crawl. BTW, the Western allies, mainly the US, supplied strategic metals and other much needed materials to assist the USSR's own war production.
Dear Bismarck , first of all I'm Spitfires lover ...very interesting and intriguing research ... till to your contribution here , I never heard of it ... thank you very much.
Reading at the moment: "The Hurricats" good bit about Sea Hurricanes, and the V for Victor story where a crated Sea Hurricat was stolen off the quay, went for a round trip to Moscow, took five month to return once they (assembled/flew/tested) found out "It wasn't a Special that the RAF was trying hide from them" . . . Just a boring all machine gun type Hurricane, they preferred/got the newer cannons models.
also. the spitfire is a FANTASTIC flying plane and with beauty and grace, but thats not what it was designed for. However most pilots in the BoB said that the hurricane was a better bet if you wanted to shoot something down. The spitfire was shit for the following reasons:
1> narrow track undercarriage. 30% fatalities on take off.
2> peashooters instead of canons. many pilots horrified at emptying a full load into a german fighter only for them to fly away.
3> german pilots being rather snobbish always claimed to be shot down by a spitfire if possible. even if was not the case.
4> overly complex wing structures when single piece stamped pieces would have done.
5> updates were slow coming. come on the yanks designed and build the p51 mustang in 120 days. upping the spit took years. even something as simple as fixing the negative dive fuel starvation took ages and was heralded as something amazing. it was a simple carb fix. get over yourselves.
6> there is a reason the eurofighter typhoon is not called spitfire.
7> supermarine make awesome race planes but had no idea about fighters. their entire history of planes for the RAF were turkeys. just look at the swift.
You do realise that in the BOB both Hurricanes and Spitfires only had .303 machine guns? The Hurricane was a more stable gun platform, but had less performance than equivalent Spitfires.
The Spitfire Mark5B from 1941 with the B type wing was the first to mount 2x20mm cannons plus 4x.303 MGs as standard.
If the Spitfire was so bad, why did it continue to be produced in a large number of different versions throughout the war, even when newer fighters such as the Tempest became available?
"Soviet Union Thumbs Up You".
Sounds painful.
Interesting bit of history. I'm always was a fan of iconic aircraft in history. This was one of them
Well Maddox/1C the IL2 game developers made a pretty decent write up about it publishing TsAGI reports from Russia at the time comparing the Spitfire to the Yak, LaGG and MiG contemporaries made by the Soviets, whose problems were mainly to do with teething issues being relatively new aircraft and back leg manufacture with the Ural shift so were being solved anyway by 43, along with more widely available improved fuel quality and their findings were that all the Soviet models, which are terrific turn fighters simply outmanoeuvred the Spitfire hands down. At low altitude any Yak or LaGG model vastly out turned the Spit and at the higher altitudes the MiG did the same. In the end the only Spit formation kept in service wound up being some MkIX kept at Moscow for bomber defence, which would be for their two-stage superchargers which weren't available in Klimov engines until 1945 and weren't widely equipped until after the war, although it was supposed to be ready for the Yak3 in 1944 but wasn't and wound up in the Yak9U in 45, which was an all metal Yak9 with two-stage Klimov and Yak9P in 46, which was a Yak9U with 2cm Beresins. Now the Americans captured a Yak9P in Korea and tested it at Wright-Patterson, finding that overall, in performance and quality it was in every way equivalent to a contemporary P51D except turned a lot better. As far as the TsAGI tests, IIRC the Yak3 turned almost twice inside a Spit with the 1B/9 something like 1.5, been a few years but it was along those lines. Luftwaffe issued directives for fighting modern Soviet fighters like the Yak were similar to American ones for fighting the Zero, boom and zoom, don't get in a turn fight. The MiG they said don't engage above 4000 metres, period. Those fell out of production after the MiG3 though and most were destroyed on the ground in 41, so you didn't really see any after 43.
Pokryshkin described once why the P39 was so popular, two main reasons for him. First Russian aircraft didn't have good radios until the end of the war. The P39 came with no less than 3 excellent radios and the cockpit was very luxurious, the heating was excellent, instrumentation was extensive and useful and the accommodations roomy and comfortable. This was all better than Russian aircraft. Secondly the main choice for Guards formations in 43, who could choose their own aircraft type was this or the Lavochkin radial, but the Lavochkin was a very new aircraft and there were some problems in early models so they were not very reliable. Later they improved greatly, in 1945 and then he preferred the Lavochkin (although the Yak3 was also available from 44).
4:06 "The United Condom"
Buahahahah
The RAAF in Australia also were sent well used old Spitfires and Hurricanes but we patched them up and made the best of them. Australia had a tiny aircraft manufacturing capability yet we were given the licenses to build our own versions of British aircraft.
There were manuals and indeed I've read that manuals did come with the Spits sent to Russia, in English. Do you reckon they might have had a few engineers who could translate them... it seems they didn't, they just complained. No spare parts, heck the Russians were, and are, masters at reverse engineering anything from outside their country. Hate the Spits did they; didn't stop them copying them and the Merlin engines for their MiGs. (To be factual, giving the Russians the Merlins was an appalling error made by Rolls Royce and condoned by HMG!)
The real issue here is not the Spitfires. The Russians have a long history of outstanding aircraft design and manufacture (yes, they did do lots of original home grown aircraft as well as the copies) what they didn't have was a good reputation for the skill of the pilots, or rather the lack of skill.
One of the greatest mistakes the Luftwaffe made was to keep highly experienced, battle hardened pilots on front line service until they were either killed or captured. The Russians had the same policy (as well as the Japanese). The RAF and the USAAF (and the RAAF) had a strict policy of rotating their best pilots out of battle and to their flying schools. This was a brilliant investment in the outcomes of future battles. Until after the Battle of Britain new RAF pilots were lucky to have 20+ hours on any type of aircraft but at least they were taught by experienced instructors who had seen battle. Cheers, BH
Another excellent video! Sehr gut gemacht!
Trucks from the USA gave the Soviets the greatest benefit. Their mobility on the battlefield moving artillery, men, and supplies allowed them to greatly improve their ability to respond to German battle tactics. Prior to the trucks being used, it was the horse that did the heavy work of war for them. Ask Patton about the contribution of trucks on battlefield performance of an Army. on the move
The Spitfire was one of the Allies' Greatest aircraft but it did take a little talent to bring out that Greatness in flight.
The P51 was a far better all rounder
@@RichardsModellingAdventures You are correct, but the subject here is the Spitfire.
@@RichardsModellingAdventures that depends of how you use it correctly. The spitfire is a better dogfighter than the mustang. This is because the P-51 is built to be a high-alttitude long-range escort fighter for the B-17's where the spitfire isnt suited. So overall the spitfire is a better interceptor and the mustang is a better escort fighter.
IMO the Russians preferred axes and chainsaws over scalpels and Xacto knives...
Their favorite airplanes then and now were robust and designed for operations from marginal fields.. The P-39 and IL2 were workhorses while the Spitfire was more a thoroughbred, requiring more refined airfields that allowed for the narrow landing gear
The Spitfire Vb was rapidly phased out of service with the RAF due to its inferiority to the Fw-190 A series, which it could not match on speed, performance, agility, firepower, acceleration, etc. Hence the Spitfire VIII (US version to replace the P-39 in Tunisia) and Spitfire IX.
Strange that the Soviets liked the P-39 when American pilots loathed the thing as being a death trap in dogfights due to next to zero spin recovery prospects. (If you're less than 2,000 metres above the ground bail out immediately as it needs more sky than this to maybe recover).
Other problems such as the P-39's 37mm. cannon having a pretty abrupt shot drop of 1 metre per 50 metres so it didn't match the machine gun trajectory (or gunsights) didn't help either. In Tunisia US P-39 had the 37mm. removed in an effort to reduce weight, increase performance, improve the turning circle and climb rate to cope with German Bf-109 F4's. (It failed).
I'm expecting a few to many, "Oh my God the P-39 is crap as a dogfighter!!), complaints once it arrived in the game at the end of the Summer. I've flown it in so many simulators and its bad points outweigh its few good points.
Excellent report!
The type of air combat on the Eastern front was completely different then the one on the Western that is the main reason why the Spitfire was not liked by the Russians,it did not suit their needs.
Ranko Orović Baloney. P-38s, P-47s and P-51s flew in all areas of the European theater, including equivalents to the Soviet Union in winter, and succeeded well. Adaptations for climate were well known by WWII.
Ranko Orović you are perhaps correct about the Spit not fitting in however, due to mission types, but again, even the spit was being adapted to multi mission capability in later versions, the Russians simply never received those.
The problem wasn't the weather but the the altitude where they were fighting.The air fights on the Eastern front was on y much lower altitude the in the West.
This is why to Air Cobra was better for the Russians then any other western fighter.
Imagine what we Finns could have achieved with a 1000 Spitfire IX's :O
yeah create a sport where jousting into each other with aircraft.
Didn't you get good German stuff?
A nuke in hellsinki.
If you invase the ussr XD
@@verniy4087 Ungrateful Soviets, hope they sent they back. The Finn's wouldn certainly have made good use of them. 1000 spitfires would have given the Finn's complete air superiority.
EXACTLY, look what they did with the crappy Brewster Buffalo, the gall to turn your nose up to even a second rate Spitfire.
Love the war thinder gameplau in the background
Great video!
Very interesting video. However, I must comment about your words at 1:40 about the Soviets being sent outdated models of the Spitfire. Ultimately it comes down to the skill level of the pilot and any aircraft - whether it is the most modern or an older model - is only as good as the pilot flying it.
For example, for the first half of the war, the Finnish Air Force was equipped with aircraft that were considered obsololete by the great powers.
When Finland was first invaded by the USSR, their main fighter aircraft was the Fokker D-XXI which did not even have a retractable under-carriage. Despite this handicap they gave a good account of themselves out-flying and out-fighting their Soviet opponents. The one defense that the Soviets did use with success is that their planes were generally faster and if spotted soon enough, they could out-run the Finns.
Later the Finns were able to acquire aircraft that were more modern, although still obsolete. Often a single Finnish squadron might consist of several types: Fiat G50's, Brewster Buffalos, Morane Saulniers, Curtiss Hawks, Hurricanes... Despite this handicap they still outfought the Soviets who were equipped with planes that were more modern and technically superior.
Lacking the financial resources for a big defense budget and their own domestic aircraft design and manufacturing industry, the Finns were in the unhappy position of having to make due with whatever they could get their hands on. It was not until about 1942 that they were able to take delivery of the Messerschmitt ME-109G that they finally had an aircraft that placed them on a level playing field.
Many German pilots amassed amazing victory scores flying against the Soviets. It was not until much later in the war that the skill level of Soviet pilots began to improve and their victory scores increased. This, however, is because as the war dragged on, the Luftwaffe gradually lost more and more of its experienced veteran pilots and so increasingly the pilots the Soviets were flying against had less experience than they themselves had.
I recall once reading an excerpt from the war-time recollections of a German pilot. Unfortunately I don't recall his name but his words were something like: "I picked up a lot of bad habits flying in Russia. Victories came easy and I became careless. When I was transferred to the west, I brought those bad habits with me and was promptly shot down."
Anyway, apart from this one criticism this is a very interesting and informative video. :)
Doesn't matter how good of a pilot you are. if your plane is going 360mph and the enemy is going 400mph, you're not going to be effective.
The Russians thought the spitfire was absolutely Yak
one thing to remember on the lend leases of military equipment to the soviet union. the british and usa never gave their top of the line aircraft when they were new. they were also fighting the same war and needed the for themselves. interestingly even when the soviet union did get these aircaft, they were still quite competitive with then used soviet aircraft. the best exception is the shtrumovik which was a remarkable aircraft on any level (as a ground attack tactical bomber).
Good video..spot on and logical. .
Achtung spitfire.....seems like main problem people not the plane.....adaptation ..lodgistics etc....
TL;DW We gave the Soviets old, outdated, second-hand Spitfires and they didn't even fly them properly. To top it all off, they didn't have all the spare parts they needed to maintain their Spitfires.
Good summary. It's hard to add anything.
May be just some "trivia"... Mk Vb were flown by 3rd sq of 7th fighter regiment of Black Sea Navy Air Force. They were equipped for catapult launch. Later on, in 1946, Mk IX were successfully tested from the catapult of cruiser Molotov.
You hit on most of the points that also hindered the few P-47's the Soviets had. With the P-39, one can well imagine that the tricycle landing gear, and the engine being behind the pilot were of great comfort to the pilot. Add in that the nose cannon was good on strafing light armor, and a roll-rate that let you break away, the Airacobra/Kingcobra Bells a good match to the needs of the Soviets.
"many guns little accuracy"
Zulikas69 and is true believe it or not
If warthunder is any realistic, then I completely agree, cos I fire all my bullests with only few "hits" which does nothing.
Could you care enough to explain why?
thanks for explanation, I wasn't such big fan to watch all his videos, so I didn't got it.
Zulikas69 No problem I guess.
SPEETFIRE IS NOT STRONK. STURMOVIK IS STRONK. MUCH ARMOR. MUCH GUNS. NOT LIKE BOURGEOIS SPEETFIRE.
DrCruel Two completely tasks.
You guys could work for World of Warships. lol
A cannon armed Spitfire would chop a Sturmovik to shreds. Sturmoviks were slow & unwieldy & really only capable when you had air superiority, faced with the German fighters of the time they were flying coffins
IMPERIALIST LIES.
Cruel, you look like a sleepy Karl Pilkington.
+Bis18marck70 *I wasn't surprised by the Russians' negative reaction to a British high-altitude pursuit plane.* The Supermarine Spitfire was built for multiple wing guns (the better to riddle enemy attack and bombardment planes), as were the later U. S. Army pursuit planes such as the Republic P-47 and North American P-51; but the Russians already had a high-altutide pursuer in the AM-38-powered Mikojan-Gurevich-3 Forsirovannij, which got by with one 12.7x108 Pulemjot Berezina and two 7.62x54R ShKAS in the forward fuselage, above the wing box. At low altitude, the Jakovljov-9, which packed two Pulemjot Berezina above the wing box plus one Nudelmann-Suranov 23 in the propshaft, was relieving the U.S./Bell Aircraft P-39 and U.S./Curtiss P-40 in the scout role.
A worthy post and thanks for it.