MiG-3 - The Soviet Fighter Few Could Tame
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 was a controversial Second World War Soviet fighter. Some loved it, some hated it. Join us for a look at this very symbolic fighter.
0:04 History
3:56 Strengths
4:36 Weaknesses
5:08 Variants
6:30 Head to Head
8:01 Notable Pilots
9:52 Conclusion
Disclaimer - This channel is apolitical. We do not endorse any kind of political view.
Game footage and aircraft models
War Thunder - / warthunder .
Corrections
The Maximum speed of the P-40E was possibly higher than the 496 km/h stated in this video.
Music by order of appearance
History:
Beautiful Oblivion by Scott Buckley ssoundcloud.com...
Music promoted by httpswww.free-stock-music.com
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
screativecommon...4.0
Strengths and Weaknesses:
Music: www.purple-pla...
Variants:
Silhouette Of War by Keys of Moon | / keysofmoon
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
Head to head:
Music: www.purple-pla...
Notable Pilots
Vladimir by Alexander Nakarada |
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
Conclusion
USSR | The Grand Score by Alexander Nakarada |
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
SFX
Old Vintage Film Scratches:
www.videezy.com... Stock Video Footage by Videezy.com
Sources
Russian Aircraft of World War II - Edward Ward - ISBN 978-1-83886-083-7
German Fighter Aircraft of World War II - Thomas Newdick - ISBN 978-1-78274-970-7
Aircraft of World War II - Chris Grant - ISBN 1-84013-336-8
Fighting Aircraft of World War II - Bill Gunston - ISBN 1-84065-092-3
Aircraft of the Aces, Legends of World War 2 - Iain Wyllie & Tony Holmes - ISBN 1-84176-155-9
The Complete Book of Fighters - William Green & Gordon Swanborough - ISBN 0-86288-220-6
Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II - ISBN 1-85170-493-0
The Gatefold Book of World War II Warplanes - ISBN 1-85627-947-2
Wikipedia
I do not own any of the images used in this video. The owners of such images are identified in the video itself.
![The Soviet Bomber That Was Utterly Bonkers | Tupolev TB-3 [Historical Deep-Dive]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/b0g8HiAbNAE/mqdefault.jpg)
Ironically, playing MiG-3 in computer simulators showed me the exact same conclusion. When I was new to those games I immediately hated the plane. Everyone could turn around me and even if I got a shot on someone, it would do almost no damage. Later, I came back to it and now I really love it. I don't stick around low altitudes dogfighting like before and I use its speed to intercept and outrun most of the enemies. I especially like the BK variant, even though it adds weight the firepower is worth it in my opinion. It really is like a stallion.
Same tactics used against the Japanese Zero. Fight to your strengths not theirs.
Exactly, if a plane is outclassed in dogfights, simply do not make dogfights, make use of your energy to boom and zoom.
seems legit. In my experience in WT the Mig3 will shine chasing those pesky high altittude bombers. Aim for the engines since the lack of 20mm cannon is very punishing to firepower. Against enemy fighters dive attack and climb is the only doable tactic since that plane will get outturned by about every fighter in the game. Do not carry any Air to Ground payload, that won't work
Armour Piercing Bullets used for ground attack coupled with rapid firing 12.7mm wing mounted guns in BK variant make it lethal fighter specially in Dive and frontal head on attacks weather it be croasair mustangs or spitfires. You just have to play on your own terms.
@John Martlew yet i was clapping everyone in a zero in the times of cfs2 ...
The MiG-3's far back cockpit location and sharp shape looks like some of today's racing planes.
It sure looked good.
Stalin made the speed the only factor by which the new fighter plane was to be determined. All design teams fosued on that part, so Jak-1 and ŁAAG-3 were all designed this way...
@@andrzejfilip4913 Anyone can go fast. Few can turn and stopping properly.
@@jarikinnunen1718 no not really. Going fast is very hard on a piston engine fighter. Turing is easy, as any WW1 fighter could outturn any WW2 fighter. My point was the speed as the only tactical requirement was stupid and hence the failure of Mig-1.
@@andrzejfilip4913 Not really..use tactics that capitalize on your speed advantage and it’s not stupid. P-51s and P-47s were not nearly as maneuverable as Bf 109s , Fw 190s and A6M2s but shot down plenty of them.. just don’t get into a turning fight. Worked well. Hellcat too
Training and tactics can be the key. After all, it took the Royal Navy to teach us how to land as Corsair on a carrier.
It took the greatest test pilot of them all Eric " winkle" Brown.
The Corsair was so god damn legendary. Love it and the story of the black sheep squadron
@@spanishpeaches2930 Old Winkle was a legend..
@@bassface8580 Add how beautiful and unique it looks, and you've got yourself a hell of a memorable plane
@@patchouliknowledge4455 yeh and the sound of the things. Werent they one of the fastest planes of the war aswell?
Regardless of performance or record, the MiG-3 was one of the best looking fighters of WWII.
No
yes
Another yes vote here. It is SLEEK!
Eh, spitfire matches, if not better
@@Pheonix5-1 respectfully disagree
The key is to understand where your aircraft is superior and to develop tactics to maximize those advantages. Its also essential to understand your opponents strengths and weaknesses so you can avoid fighting where he has a major advantage.
Unfortunately for the Mig3 pilots, the ennemi was not present at altitudes the Mig was designed for (hi altiude).
They had no choice but to fight where the Mig was at a disadvantage.
The honesty of this video is very admirable.
Da.!.
a rare case! )))
I love the way the cockpit was so far back. Good looking plane.
Reminiscent of the Corsair.
@@bassmith448bassist5 Except the Corsair had all the good looks of a crop duster.
Good looking indeed!
Forward vision during take-off and landing must have been quite terrible. Good looks do not always translate to good function.
@@MrDino1953 I doubt it was any more of an issue for the MiG-3 than it was for the Corsair, and could have been compensated for the same way. Having the cockpit placed so far back certainly didn't stop the Corsair from being one of the most effective US fighters of the war.
These deserve respect as the designs that followed kept getting better. I love those piston Yaks n Migs
Reminds one of the WW1 Sopwith Camel which was also a difficult plane to master but once mastered and used properly, was a deadly opponent.
Overall, the camel seems to have been much more successy
A very good summary. I would add that this aircraft was fairly successfully deployed in the naval aviation and saw combat well into 1944 (in the Black Sea fleet). There was a squadron of MiG-3s in the Northern Fleet as well, and I believe Sorokin (famous Soviet ace who lost his legs but continued to fly) shot down Bf-110 in MiG-3 just a few weeks after the war started. In the naval units, they were used mostly as interceptors against German bombers.
Great work on the video! The presentation was very engaging. Love to see a video on the La-5 or Lagg-3 sometime in the future.
really like the layout of the video. gives interesting and cruicial information quickly and in detail without dragging. could watch vids like this on any and all aircraft and i likely wouldnt get bored.
When a war isn't going well, training tends to suffer as resources, time aren't given as much as it should have. Imperial Japanese Navy aviators had tough requirements, standards before and early in WWII. But later in the war, come 1943 and beyond, the replacements didn't have that luxury, especially 1944-45.
The Luftwaffe was suffering very heavy losses come 1943. Fighting in the Eastern Front and Mediterranean saw them eat heavy losses, particularly trying to save Axis forces in Tunisia and the devastating follow up for Sicily. The Luftwaffe was never the same after Tunisia and Sicily with all their losses. As what happened with Japanese military aviation, time and resources for new pilot training was a luxury that could hardly be afforded.
Soviets early on with all the high losses at the onset of Operation Barbarossa probably were scrambling for new pilots. Wouldn't surprise me if their training wasn't sufficient enough until the war situation got better.
For an air force in WWII to maintain good training throughout the conflict, that was an amazing luxury.
They executed the board.. under the excuse of Social Justice. Every problem Russia had was based around their type of government.
By the time in 1945s, Soviet pilots gets to free hunt the Germans. This is how some Soviet Aces rack up the scores despite having less kills in 1943-9144.
The West Scared of Russia || America Trying to ...
ruclips.net/video/1RPZQM-AWMs/видео.html
This. Many people think allied planes were better. They weren't. Planes were pretty much equal on all sides (except Italy hehe), but the axis shortages and allies learning to use squad tactics won the war
It's easy to design a product when you have limitless funds and time. Designing a competitive fighter plane during a war is another story. They did the best they could. Respect to the young men who put their lives into those experimental machines.
Designing planes during purges is hard. The lead designer of the I-16 was only demoted and contributed heavily to the Mig-1 design. Too many Soviet planes were designed in the Gulags. The Mig-3 had the the huge Moscow factory which made it critical at the battle of Moscow. If its factory had been captured, unstead of a primary defense on THE front, we wouldn't talk about the Mig-3. That factory went to IL-2s as soon as fighters were not critically short (which, ironically, led to a fighter shortage).
No Uyghur
ruclips.net/video/78s7yP2BdF0/видео.html
@@External2737 1) planes were not designed in gulags, because they (or rather some of them) were designed in so called sharashkas - facilities with all the necessary equipment, materials and surveillance meant to make sure that designers are doing their assigned jobs instead of writing reports on each other which they grew so fond of.
2) planes could not be designed in gulagS because the only gulag (ГУЛаг - гла́вное управле́ние лагере́й - chief administration of the camps) was located in Moscow and was meant for prison camp management, not for plane design.
@@calamityjane9826 You should read the history of the Pe-2. Some of those facilities were in nicer gulags, but they were still gulags. It is a facinating history.
@@External2737 as I said, there was only one gulag in Moscow. And it was a bureau, not a camp.
Sharashkas were no camps either. They could be considered a sort of prison though, because the staff were not allowed to leave until the job is done.
Fascinating information, masterfully presented. Thank you!
Thank you for the excellent analysis! This shows that just because an aircraft is beautiful, it may have problems. It is also interesting to learn that the Soviet Army, like the American Army was slow to adopt tactics specific for the weapons platform and theatre specific adversaries...excellent!
"... just because an aircraft is beautiful, it may have problems." Just like a woman.
@@schaerffenberg ...just like a man to say something like that.
As others have mentioned, it’s just a great presentation. Excellent video
Awesome overview for a fascinating aircraft!
Привет, товарищ Ш☭LҒPДСК345!
Ғдисч sээїиɢ чоц нєяз!)))
Early Yak1 was a heavy plane doggy plane at first. Designers lightened it and got a little more HP. Became a very good fighter.
One of my favorite models for attacking German bombers on IL2. I use the cannon armed version and it really works for me.
Mig 3 was nice looking. I hadn't heard of it's performance before.
Years ago, I built an R/C MiG 3 by modifying a Me109 kit, and I used the 1941 white and red color scheme shown at the beginning of this vid. It's so typically Soviet. Paint it white so it blends in with snow, then paint red stars and arrows on it so it looks flashy when it's shown off flying over parades and such. I didn't know anything about its performance - I just thought it was a good-looking plane.
Nice video, I like your style.
Thank you!
thank you, I really enjoyed the video. Especially how well laid out it was
When I play IL-2 Great battle series.
I try to avoid dogfighting when flying this bird.
I basically "Boom and Zoom" and try to climb out if clear (Or turn and dive if a BF109 is on my 6).
But taking off and landing this thing is tricky. It's almost like a disobedient stallion.
Well done.
Thank you!
One of the most beautiful fighters of WW2. Yes it’s beauty ranks up there with the Spitfire or Mustang. It most likely would’ve had a more successful combat record if the Soviet pilots were better trained with their aircraft as well as using better tactics. It was a misused aircraft that had great potential.
Хороший и профессиональный обзор. Ничего лишнего. Спасибо автору!
so stoked to see them in "The Pilot"!
WELL DONE. AMAZING JOB, THANKS
The designer was rewarded with execution. Nice work.
really loving your channel...great work
Thanks for a very interesting & informative video. At Barbarosa's outset, one was forced to "run what you brung", and considering this, the MiG-3 was significantly better than what many of Germany's opponents had with which to fight. U.S.'s P-40, for example, was deficient in important aspects vis-a-vis 1st line axis fighters. I think Mig's "deal bteaking" limitation was likely its demand of very high pilot experience/skill--a nearly intolerable demand at that period of VVS proficiency.
Another very good well researched video on a neglected plane. I am hoping in the future you will produce videos on soviet tanks which I personally am a big fan of.
Had a model of a mig 3 30 years ago when I was a kid love the look of this fighter.
My favorite Soviet prop fighter; speed & altitude can be traded for other values, timing was crucial, firepower could be partly made up in numbers &, or course, training. She looked pretty slick, too, & one of her close relatives was beautiful.
From a design standpoint, the Mig-3 only had a real deficiency, The tailplanes were too close to the main wing (a thing it borrowed from '30s racers, that didn't need to be agile) It's enough to compare the shape of the Mig-3 to that of the Yak-1 to see the difference.
The rest of the defects were easy fix. It was a high-quote long-range interceptor put on a scenario were all the clashes were low to medium altitude and range had no importance, because the tactic was for the aircrafts to take off immediately behind the first line, to achieve local air superiority, but the low level performances increased greatly using the plug&play Mikulin AM38 engine (that of the Il-2, optimised for low level performances) and, with the two ShVAK 20mm gun, it was better armed than the contemporaries Bf109. Both modifications were so easy that they were made on the field also.
Awesome video, subscribed!
Thank you and welcome!
Interesting video essay. Thanks.
Hot looking playing I also like how the cockpits way back on the fuselage. Pilots make a big difference James Doolittle did things in the b-25 nobody thought could be done.
Doolittle was a phenomenal pilot. He was the only pilot to win a race in the GeeBee. It killed all of its other pilots.
I enjoyed this video and subscribed. Well done!
At 5:05 I dreamed that exact part of your video for some reason and now I kinda freak out lol I never watched this before nice video btw
Always loved the MIG 3. I have model to this day. I hope you can do a video on the P 39. It was also not well thought of but in the hands on that Soviet Union Ace it performed well in his good Pilot's hands.
To be a little more precise, "the soviet ace" is Alexander Pokryshkin, who is often described to be the one who adapted high-speed area patrols and altitude ranging of pairs.
Actually, most soviet P-39 aces come from the same unit as Pokryshkin, because they were the first to adapt his strategies and experience them in battles.
But the P-39 was handled more or less fine by most soviet pilots because they were trained in I-16 - a fighter as unstable as an Aircobra.
"If you learn how to handle I-16, you'll fly even on a broom"
@@MDzmitry Do you know something about Kozhedub?(he was the first leading ace while Pokryshkin was 2nd) I only know that he flew first in a I153 and then mostly on a la 5/fn later on the La7 and fought in stalingrad a lot.
@@soapycactuses9281 Haven't been interested in Kozhedub to be honest, since he came to the frontline only in 1943 and flew for quite a while in a regiment dedicated to "free hunt", unlike Pokryshkin. So shortly speaking, he had near ideal conditions for scoring victories.
And a small correction: Kozhedub didn't fight above Stalingrad, his career started at Kursk.
@@MDzmitry ah thank you
who knows more about pokryshkin, knows that its difficult to find out exact number of his victories. Yes he wrote about mig as a stallion in his memories and also he described that he maybe foght more soviet machinery than the enemy pilots. He didnt care about his kills, some records have been lost during retreat (in my opinion "lost" by his foes in red army), more than kills he valued fact that he never lost his wingman
Love the looks of the MiG-3, it looks like a prewar racer!
Need to get a couple in 1/32....
Greetings from a Swede in Glasgow, Scotland....🤜🏻🤛🏻🍻
Agree. Aerodynamics are pleasing to the eye today. Perfect body lines.
So, like all fighter pilots worldwide, Pokryshkin was honest in his assessment of every aircraft he flew. As much as it helps to have a good plane, there is no substitute for pilot skill. His achievements in the P-39, along with him surviving the war, prove that skill.
Molodets ! Excellent and balanced presentation ✈
Primary pilot problems - recall POST-WWII Luftwaffe STARFIGHTER fatalities & the primary causes: Mig is short coupled, high wing taper ratio: I agree completely about riding a stallion analogy. PROPERLY TRAINED, the combat results and reduction of accidents would have been startling - recalling some 1/3 BF109 were lost in ground accidents - pilot inability + undercarriage design flaw (typical of ME designs). Noting also, transition of typical RAF fighter jok of docile, slow biplanes & initial poor performance in Spitfire - several noted the "quanta leap" as a bit of a shock.
Guns: not only one undergunned - look at extraordinary foolishness of USA early Tomahawk/Kittyhawk armament fit IN FULL KNOWLEDGE of German/British typical fit.
*For its time, power output remarkable.
*BF109F - certainly THE formidable stage of 109 genesis ...not at all like the Emil.
*Combat altitude: did ANYONE "get it right" regarding the variety of combat altitudes which only arose as battle theatres grew ? Very respectable high altitude performance - not surprised about loss of control @ highest altitude - no pressurised cabin: dangerous/fatal physiological impairment + impaired aerodynamics @ such density altitudes.
Very good and informative videos.. keep up the good work..
The "Arrow" Paint job seen at 1:30 is Striking!
For me, MIG-3 was the most beautiful soviet fighter of ww2
I'm really enjoying your videos! keep up the good work
Thank you!
I really like the cockpit configuration and the wings design
Good video!!!
Good info.
Soviet air ace Aleksander Pokryshkin (3 times 'Hero of the Soviet Union') did say that the MiG-3 was like a stallion. Took a considerable time to master it but once you know it, you will ride like the wind !
It is a good looking plane.
In War Thunder, it trades blows with more manouverable biplanes (which back then the Soviet pilots prefered, albeit being disasterously outclassed by Bf's performance), being faster, sleeker, more rigid and can handle high service ceiling, great for bomber-interception. It's weak armament is it's biggest con and pro, whilst being slightly worse than German counterpart, the ammunition pool is more than enough, unlike later Soviet planes, equiped with (almost always) only 20mm+ cannons. Back when it was 1.7 the standard variant (nowadays 2.3 regardless) could fly circles around the enemies, and if not turn, most certainly out-fly them in a straight line. Later iterations of the design (I-185/I-225) have remained uniform in how they handle and look, despite various changes to the engine/weapons combo. It's a dependable plane, that can and will rain hell, if used accordingly. Bf and Spitfire, head to head have much flatter learning curve and offer very much different feel to both operating the plane and dealing with enemy planes. A comparable plane, the LaGG-3-66, and LaGGs in general at least in my opinion, prepare the players for rather stingy tech tree experience, with limited ammo pool and/or dubious guns, combined with poor flying performance (overall). In ground RB, it's outclassed in every way and any CAS is a waste of energy, unless fitted with 20mm guns (but then again, YAKs perform way better). One of my favourite planes overall.
I loved your presentation. I found it balanced and objective. Thank you.
Have you any plans to cover the Polikarpov I-16? The I-16 has the distinction of being one of the first monoplane, retractable gear fighters.
Very advanced yet so awful. And certainly the worst of early monoplane fighters with retractable gear. Bad aircraft are so fascinating.
@@radosaworman7628 kite go brrrrr
@@radosaworman7628 At least it had retractable landing gear, look at the Boeing P-26! Remember the thing was first produced in 1933 in a nation with little manufacturing technology.
@@danieleyre8913 and how did that help it? Not much. The plane it was built to defeat (p.11c) could outgun outclimb and outturn it with no successful reversals on its record. Ki-27 additionally had better energy retention turn and climb and killed them by the dozens. Plane built to stupid doctrine, with overgrown engine (both of mentioned planes had 300cc less than it) and ridiculous training regime. The best thing about it was that it gave russians experience with building said landing gear which is a thing worth mentioning. It's failure gave birth to mig-1 and mig-3 witch where only reasonable plane in early Barbarossa on soviet side which ofc where hampered by soviet doctrine.
@@radosaworman7628 What on earth are you guffing about?
The Soviets didn’t care about Poland, your idea that it was designed to especially defeat the PZL 11c is laughable. And also chronologically challenged.
When introduced to the Spanish civil war; the I-16 made an immediate impact. The Heinkel and FIAT biplanes were absolutely hapless against it. Its success was a factor in the Luftwaffe hurrying its own monoplane fighter programme and updating their tactics. The aircraft also made impact when acquired by nationalist China, ending the air superiority the Japanese enjoyed.
Yes the I-16 fared not very well in Soviet hands during the battle of Kolkin Gol. Up against far more experienced Japanese army pilots who were flying an aircraft 4 years younger it’s neither surprising nor condemning of the I-16. And the results were not entirely negative; the end result was the Japanese army mistakenly concluding that manoeuvrability was more important than velocity and energy-retention and that “turn-fight” tactics were superior to the more correct & advanced “hit-and-run” tactics of the Soviets, which would have bad consequences for the Japanese army Air Force from late 1942.
To be frank; your negative appraisal of the I-16 sounds warped by bias & prejudice and includes your own fantasies and facts cherry-picked to support a sought conclusion. The I-16 may have been far from perfect but it was still an amazing and evolutionary design. And were it not for the rotten politics and influence of Joseph Stalin himself in the Soviet air ministry; it could have been the spawn for an amazing family of fighters including the I-180 & I-185.
What a great treatment of this tricky fighter. Thank you.
i would say this is a mythical aircraft that could only be tamed by the most respectful and talented pilots that understood its capabilities and its weaknesses but using its weaknesses as a unique use of the aircraft, an amazing aircraft and Highley underrated, the flaw was lack of training and the time of the war that was upon them gave them little time to train pilots to use the aircraft correctly.
the fact that it was a difficult plane to use ,and yet the notable few that could puts them above ace in my opinion.
we have to also note that the BF109 also had weaknesses.
You can say whatever you want about the technical issues of the MIG-3, but... it's a beauty!!!
I Love the shape of this plane. I have a rc model in the white camouflage. And I like to fly it!!!
The MIG-3 was designed especially for high-altitude combat, as the Soviets did not know what kind of air war they would have to fight against Germany. Stalin suspended production of the MIG due to the fact that it used the same engine as the IIlyushin Il-2 Sturmovik.
Production also ended because the engines were needed for the on demand IL-2 Sturmovik planes
Great graphics and lots of information👍
May have been unforgiving, but the looks were fabulous.
A lot of comtemporary allied - american made aircrafts had this issues too and a example is the P39 Airacobra that american pilots refused to fly it and they were sent lend lease to soviets, that obtained some success with it...
From series to series, Me-109 engines constantly increased their speed (for DB.601Aa up to 2500, for DB.601N up to 2600, and for DB.601E up to 2780 rpm) and had the ability to short-term (5 minutes for series A up to 5 minutes, and for the A(H) and E series formally up to the same 5 minutes, but realistically for an average trained pilot up to 2-3 minutes) of emergency operation at the maximum permissible speed in modes above 2400 rpm.
Well-researched, very nice.
i love how like, War thunder and to a lesser extent the World of series has sparked so man youtuber channels on regarding the history of war machines. i love the little details people pull out and pop up and im just like "oh... interested. didn't know that"
By June 22, 1941, most of the Luftwaffe fighter air units received the best front-line fighter in the world at that time, the Me-109F (Bf.109F). The main modifications of the Messerschmitt F series - F-1 (F-1), F-2 (F-2) had an N series engine with a power of 1200-1270 hp, F-3 (F-3) and F-4 (F-4) had an E series engine with a power of 1350-1370 hp. on takeoff at 2700 rpm. The most common version of the Friedrich in the east until the fall of 1941 was the Me-109F-2 (1270 max-max, 1175-1200 nominal).
From a design standpoint, the Mig-3 only had a real deficiency, The tailplanes were too close to the main wing (a thing it borrowed from '30s racers, that didn't need to be agile) It's enough to compare the shape of the Mig-3 to that of the Yak-1 to see the difference.
The rest of the defects were easy fix. It was a high-altitude long-range interceptor put on a scenario were all the clashes were low to medium altitude and range had no importance, because the tactic was for the aircrafts to take off immediately behind the first line, to achieve local air superiority, but the low altitude performances increased greatly using the plug&play Mikulin AM38 engine (that of the Il-2, optimised for low altitude performances) and, with the two ShVAK 20mm gun, it was better armed than the contemporaries Bf109. Both modifications were so easy that they were made on the field also.
Aerial combat was primarily at 15,000 feet or less on the Eastern Front. This was a reason for its problems. The F version of the BF 109 was considered the best version of that aircraft. The P-39 was good at low altitudes which fit this theater’s combat.
Designed for intercepting strategic bombing efforts it was of little use. As Germany only practiced this for a short time over Moscow. They suffered heavy losses doing so.
Very nice review!
It doesn't matter if you perform better in areas that aren't in the combat envelope. That is why the BF-109 was a better aircraft. That is why your general liked the American aerocobra, it had what we valued; performance balanced with firepower and pilot protection. That was more than the Germans of Japanese focused on. They focused only on performance and firepower.
Appearance wise it reminds me of the Curtiss XP-37. Which had the cockpit even farther back.
Adding 300mm to the fuselage length would have cured a lot of instability issues.
That's what drew me to the Meg three initially while playing war thunder. The MC3 the beast looking fighter. I really didn't know much about it and I'd kind of discovered it while playing. The low altitude thing is definitely correct I cannot turn with anybody and I rapidly losing advantage. But as a booming zoom fighter from high-altitude that thing is relatively incomparable. But yeah, I really like the way that plane looks!!
This was a beautiful airplane and I applaud all the Red Airforce pilots who flew to save their country from the Nazis. Thanks for the video! I just suscribed to your excellent channel.
Hmm interesting, yes I agree with the idea of pilot training or lack of, being a major issue, considering the Luftwaffe brought a wealth of knowledge going back to the Spanish civil war, and the slapping they received during the battle of Britain, however the biggest problem has always been, and still is, political interference from above, especially from amateurs with no real training or skill in this field. Cure those problems and the Mig-3 could have been quite a fighter to contend with, nice looking too.
The same can be said for those at the top of the military. It was Hitler who insisted on using the 50 mm gun for their tanks while it was those at the top of the German army who showed little interest in doing so.
The Soviets also got experience in the Spanish Civil War and actually gave tbe opposition a trashing by introducing the world's first monoplane, metal skin, retra ctable wheels and air to ground rockets. While the west was flying biplanes Nothing could beat it until the Germans introduced the Me 109. Of course the west won't dwell in this fact too much. Probably because they copied the concept ...hahaha.
surprised there was no photo recon model, sounds ideal
I'm surprised no one has posted something about how P-51 pilots are lucky they didn't have to fight this plane during the war because they would've gotten waxed...I swear some people would claim the Buffalo Brewster would outperform the Mustang...
Good video but not sure where you got your speed number for the P-40E from. It was much higher than that at 360 mph.
Result of a night of passion between spitfire and a mustang lovely
Great work Sir thank you
Thank you!
Say what you will - the MiG 3 looks cooler than most single pilot airplanes. I suppose the pilots just got used to a 25 foot nose.
Looking at the dimensions it’s fairly obvious it needed more fuselage behind the cockpit. That would’ve balanced it out.
3:54 Here in the lower right corner we can see the MiG 3 in a combat paintwork, which is deceptively similar to the American P-39 ...
3:54 - rechts unter ist aber eine P 39 Air Cobra - möglicherweise von Pokryschkin. ( Der mit 59 Abschüssen erfolgreiche sowjetische Jagdflieger Alexander Pokryschkin flog dieses Muster ebenfalls und erzielte damit 48 seiner Abschüsse. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39 ) - Ah, bei 9:41 kommt das Bild noch einmal und die Erklärung dazu.
Thank you for this interesting video. But I think you've got the max speed of the P-40E wrong, which should be somewhere around 580 kp/h, not 496 kp/h
Hey there. Yes, it's probably on the low side. In my video about the P-40, I spent a lot of time around its maximum speed. I found that for the E version 538 kph was a more common and balanced value. I should have gone with that value for consistency's sake, but in this video I used all the speed values from the same source, to add some coherency to this specific table. I will add a note about this in the description. Thank you for your comment.
@@AllthingsWW2 But the Soviets ran it on lower octane fuel, not getting the best performance for the Allison Powerplant and they added some of their own equipment, which was heavier ISTRC.
Great video
Very beautiful plane. Would make a good RC kit.
Thanks for this we have MiG-3:warbirds here in NZ👍✈️🇳🇿
I love the lines of that MIG-3!
Interesting, did not know about the Mig-3. Look very similar to a P-51 Mustang.
Artem Mikoyans Hot Rod is a classic Marmite Fighter, you loved or hated, and like Carol Shelby,s Cobra Roadster, a handful, a fighter not for the faint hearted. Artem took a leaf out of Reggie Mitchells book, designing the lightest airframe around the most powerful V-12 engine Mr Mikulin had available. Yes it looks like a pre war racer small wings, tail, cockpit set well back , long sleek nose, a tiny trolley castor tail wheel ,so taxiing the beast on nothing more than a rough cow pasture is fraught with difficulty. Its sheer unstableness is key to low altitude scrapping ,but most VVS pilots were conscripts with very little or no experience flying such a hot rod some weened on the Polikarpov Po-2 a wheezy rag wing biplane left over from the first world war. Poorly armed Artem,s hot rod stood little chance against a Wurger FW 190A, or Friederich BF 190F. There is one flyable Mig 3 powered by an Allison 1710 C-30, built from several wrecks retrieved from the steppe, and only the best warbird drivers get to fly it.
P-40E had a significantly higher top speed than listed here. 538 kph @ 4,600 M.
The Mig 3 mishaps is the perfect example of a very good plane is nothing without a very good pilot.
My favorite plane in War Thunder, very deadly when you understand it’s strengths.
Bf-109F-1 and F-2 much better
GREAT / OUTSANDING VIDEO ! ! !
It was specifically designed for high-altitude combat and Barbarossa was almost all about low or mid-altitude combat, it was never going to do well in that environment.
The difficult handling and lacking armament just compounded the problem. Had its handling been easy, it could have been vastly more successful, but it would still have been handicapped by its design focus.
Had it been armed with lets say a triple of heavy machineguns instead, likewise it would have had a little more chance to be more effective, but mostly so against high-altitude bombers.
So, good handling could have made it a drastically more useful plane, while fixing both handling and armament could have made it a reasonably GOOD plane, but it was created as a high-altitude fighter and it was forced into a low-altitude fighter role, that was never going to be a good thing, no matter how much you improve anything else.
Also, about the range requirement, i've read that apparently it COULD fly the required range, without ammo(possibly without ammo and armament, source was a bit ambigious on that), making it so the designers were technically "kinda" correct...
ahead for the times...higher altitude is everything cause its able to dive from way above an take out many enemys
Aaah but it looked like an ultimate racing plane (!)
The term "myopic carpenter" has now entered my vocabulary. Awesome.
As far as the MIG 3, it probably would have been more successful than the Yak series had circumstances been different.