Spitfire MK 5

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

Hi al,l need a little to help to understand here, as I don't know much about Russian ww2 planes, so any help is appreciated.

When the the Russians finally got the Spitfire MK5 and the Hurricane before it, was it (the Spit5) considered a better fighter than the Yak1 by the Russians ? If it actually was better than the early Yak, nevermind service conditions as we don't have anything close to it in the game, how come that Yaks easilly outflys 109's in the game at expert settings when the 109F actually could hold it's own against Spit 5's early 1942 over the channel and over France?

 

 

Just curious, or is it just a question of programmed bias ?

 

bb

 

[DD_Arthur]

[Guest deleted@30725]

Googly moogly

 

http://www.1jg51.net/jg51/109G6Yak9.html

 

I'm sure other plane enthusiasts will have better sources and information.

 

Russian biased? You've been on the war thunder forums too much bud.

Edited February 8, 2015 by deleted@30725

[Wulf]

Funny you should ask.

 

My understanding is that 'officially', the Soviets were 'unimpressed' with the lend-lease Mk 5s they received.  Whether this was because Western aircraft had to be, by default, not as good as Soviet  aircraft or whether it had something to do with the second hand state of the aircraft they received I don't really know (they typically were pretty worn out as I understand it).  However, we do have some pretty reliable stats for the Mk 5 that can be compared with known (western) stats for the Bf 109.

[Crump]

The VVS got the Spitfire without any instructions.  The had to figure it all out and ended up flying them until the engines were exhausted.  Without spare parts, the planes were done.

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/spit/

[D_Konig]

Funny you should ask.

 

My understanding is that 'officially', the Soviets were 'unimpressed' with the lend-lease Mk 5s they received.  Whether this was because Western aircraft had to be, by default, not as good as Soviet  aircraft or whether it had something to do with the second hand state of the aircraft they received I don't really know (they typically were pretty worn out as I understand it).  However, we do have some pretty reliable stats for the Mk 5 that can be compared with known (western) stats for the Bf 109.

 

They werent impressed because im pretty sure the ones they did receive were pretty close to being worn out and run down. I remember reading something about that just recently so yeah you're right about the second hand thing. They didnt lend them top shelf equipment to be sure.

[Wulf]

The VVS got the Spitfire without any instructions.  The had to figure it all out and ended up flying them until the engines were exhausted.  Without spare parts, the planes were done.

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/spit/

 

 

Interesting read.  Thanks Crump.

[Crump]

You are welcome!

[Jade_Monkey]

way to help out, give them [Edited] equipment 

Edited February 10, 2015 by Bearcat
Language

[Crump]

 

 

way to help out, give them [Edited] equipment 

 

I think the ships with the instructions and spare parts got sunk in the convoy on the way to Russia.  It wasn't intended to hand them over without spares or instructions. 

[JtD]

When the Spitfire V arrived in Russia, it was already outdated. While it did compare favourably with contemporary Soviet fighters, it was compared to a generation of Soviet fighters a good year younger than itself.

[Finkeren]

There were a number of other factors that reduced the Spits usefulness on the Eastern Front.

 

Much has been made of the lack of 100 octane fuel for the VVS which supposedly lowered to performance of the Merlin engine significantly.

 

The Spitfire was also built primarily for high altitude performance and was at a disadvantage in low level operations in the East.

 

The Spit likely also rolled significantly worse than the Soviet fighters which might have contributed to its poor reputation.

 

Last but not least there was the simple fact, that gunnery was harder. While the Spits gunsight was clearly better than the Soviet ones, the armament spread out over the wing meant, that you had to pay close attention to convergence, something most VVS pilots weren't used to, let alone trained in, with all modern Soviet fighters carrying their armament in the nose. For a fighter carrying only 60 rounds per gun of cannon ammo, there's not a lot of margin for sloppy shooting.