Mig 3 - First Impressions

[7.GShAP/Silas]

  The A6M and the Ki-43's could literally run circles around the 109 and 190, they were much more difficult aircraft to combat than either Luftwaffe fighters. You are wrong regarding the P-40, the VVS viewed it as superor to the Lagg and Rata. 

 

 

I have all the respect in the world for the skill of the Japanese aviators and the quality of their aircraft, but that's a silly thing to say.

[Finkeren]

If simply being able to run circles around other fighters were a valid measurement of a good fighter aircraft, then the I-16 would've massacred the Luftwaffe from day 1 of Barbarossa.

 

And if the P-40 was viewed by the RAF as adequate to take on the very best fighters of the Luftwaffe, why was it rejected for service on the Channel Front, despite having considerably longer range than the Spitfire, and instead sent to North Africa along with the obsolescent Hurricanes? Let's not forget, that pilots like H. J. Marseille had a field day with the P-40s in North Africa, scoring more victories against Western Allied aircraft than any other German ace in his short career.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A clear example of anecdotal evidence not being worth a damn is that the P-39 was deemed unfit for combat operations in the Western Front and extremely unfavourable in the Pacific, warranting its delivery to the Soviet Union together with the first batch of UK-sourced undesirable aircraft (together with the P-40 and Hurricane).

 

If the P-39 was the dog people took it for, it wouldn't have been a mainstay of the Soviet fighter force from 1942 until 1945 creating ace after ace in many different regiments, regions and operational regimes (from the ground covering Southern Front demanded to the protection of ships in the Arctic or the interception of high-altitude recce aircraft near Leningrad).

 

Now, you mentioned the handling of the Il-2, but I have yet to see any complaints about the aircraft itself. On the opposite, most pilots used to say the Ilyusha nearly landed itself and handled like a fighter. The two-seat variant lost a lot of that, but most of its negative vibes came from its performance relative to the old Il-2 rather than generally speaking. The Il-2 had such losses because of the type of mission it went in and the numbers used.

 

About other air forces using the P-40 widely, a lot of it has to do with it being available and it by and large not being a high-end fighter most people wanted, which is why the RAF and USAAF were very keen to give it away to whomever wanted while they kept all the Spitfires and other assorted good stuff to themselves. The Soviets had very mixed opinions, but by any means what you can find in the West about the LaGG-3 and MiG-3 is very one-sided poorly sourced biased stuff. There were problems introducing them because most pilots were I-16/15/153 jocks and the fighting style was completely different. However, good pilots like Pokryshkin, Suprun, Galchenko and so on loved their MiG-3s and LaGG-3s and in some cases would refuse to convert to other variants (Sasha Pokryhskin continued flying his MiG-3 even when the whole regiment had converted to the Yak-1, and only the sight of a MiG-3 crashing in front of his eyes due to being overworn and having no spares convinced him to make the change - which he complained about to everyone including Rechkalov, to whom he said 'Yak carpenters are all short-sighted').

 

The Ki-43 and A6M being hard to fight versus the 109 are just subjective matter. The RAF was very afraid of the 190 while the Soviets rejoiced when they saw one and thanked the heavens that it wasn't a Messer.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

To sum it up, all anecdotal evidence does not say much about one aircraft and its general merits or performance. It does, however, show how much the pilot matters (not just in terms of quality of flying but also flying style).

 

As Pokryshkin himself said of the MiG-3, it was an aircraft where the advantages were not evident at first look, but they were there and all it took was a good pilot to find them. The same can be said about most aircraft, the P-40 included, and if you want to see an example of the BoM P-40 being used ask Silky from Y-29 who says he's getting excellent results with it.

[Frequent_Flyer]

I have all the respect in the world for the skill of the Japanese aviators and the quality of their aircraft, but that's a silly thing to say.

 The facts speak for themselves, it wasn't necessary to write,  you are correct it is silly. However most folks on this board are unaware of the PTO. They are very myopic.

[Frequent_Flyer]

If simply being able to run circles around other fighters were a valid measurement of a good fighter aircraft, then the I-16 would've massacred the Luftwaffe from day 1 of Barbarossa.

 

And if the P-40 was viewed by the RAF as adequate to take on the very best fighters of the Luftwaffe, why was it rejected for service on the Channel Front, despite having considerably longer range than the Spitfire, and instead sent to North Africa along with the obsolescent Hurricanes? Let's not forget, that pilots like H. J. Marseille had a field day with the P-40s in North Africa, scoring more victories against Western Allied aircraft than any other German ace in his short career.

You may need to review some of your statistics. The" obsolete Hurricane " is credited with  more victories in BOB than the Spitfire. This obsolete aircraft had no problem scoring heavily against the best the Luftwaffe had. Additionally, the RAF and Polish pilots who flew both the Hurricane and the P-40, agreed the P-40 was a better aircraft. Therefore, relegating it to Africa was obviously a mistake . Furthermore the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft to the West vs. the VVS. Draw your own inferences to the quality of aircraft and pilot. The West was just as target rich of an environment as the East for the Luftwaffe. However, they did not have success for a variety of reasons.

[LukeFF]

Well, there were many more Hurricanes than Spitfires in the Battle of Britain, so it's little wonder they had a higher score than Spitfires.

[Frequent_Flyer]

 

 

The Il-2 had such losses because of the type of mission it went in and the numbers used.

The IL-2 was designed ( although very poorly ) from the outset as a ground attack aircraft. It was armored and armed for this purpose and had such a horrendously high casualty rate. This is the very definition of a failed design. Your statement is nonsense. When you design a purpose built aircraft and your casualty rate is horrendously  high, meaning the most important asset to any air force, the pilot is not returning your design , engineering and training staff team have failed.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Not to mention that the Hurricane's job was to take care of bombers primarily, an easier target.

 

The PTO was not a bunch of flying targets and conditions were hard and in many case desperate and dire, however all things considered the P-40 was still no world-beater in any scenario.

 

The East vs West debate is a long one that we should steer clear from, of course.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It's way offtopic but it's also way off the ground.

 

The IL-2 suffered horrendous losses in early stage of the war. The first models, knwon for their tailheavyness, lack of protection to the rear and dangerous flight characteristics as widowmakers, made a great part of casualties. At the time Luftwaffe enjoyed air superiority with more capeable aircrafts. Later, when the tide turned, IL-2s became fearesome and effective. Their loss rate droped progressively from mid 1944 till the end of the war.

 

Likewise you could call the B-17 a failure. They suffered among the most losses of all bombers deployed in WW2. That logic does not consider that B-17s had their highest casualty rate when flying without escort fighter protection over largely hostile territory though. Nor that the B-17, designed as a long range bomber, did it's job (horrificly) well without question.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Frequent_Flyer]

Well, there were many more Hurricanes than Spitfires in the Battle of Britain, so it's little wonder they had a higher score than Spitfires.

That is not the wonder of it all. There were more Bf-109 than " obsolete Hurricanes ", yet the best the Luftwaffe had could not destroy and obsolete air force.

[indiaciki]

It's way offtopic but it's also way off the ground.

 

The IL-2 suffered horrendous losses in early stage of the war. The first models, knwon for their tailheavyness, lack of protection to the rear and dangerous flight characteristics as widowmakers. At the time Luftwaffe enjoyed air superiority with more capeable aircraft. Later, when the tide turned, IL-2s became fearesome and effective. Their loss rate droped prgressevily from mid 1944 till the end of the war.

 

Likewise you could call the B-17 a failure. They suffered among the most losses of all bombers deployed in WW2. That analogy does not consider that B-17s had their highest casualty rate when flying without escort fighter protection over largely hostile territory though. Nor that the B-17, designed as a long range bomber, did it's (horrificly) job well without question.

 

Just thought of the B-17 while reading the "failed aircraft" discussion :D

[rlk281]

Not familiar with the utility you're using to display heat/FPS, etc...  What is it?

 

Thanks!

 

 

MiG's 21,000

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

What Stuka said To complement, I think each Il-2 finished the war had an expectancy of 90 missions per aircraft. Sometimes strategists and tacticians will consider the gains worth the losses, which leads to some bloody but successful designs.

 

The Hurricane was falling a little short in 1940, but with the introduction of the Bf-109F and later the Fw-190 it was wholly outclassed which led to its relegation to more minor roles and pushed it to situations where it was desperately needed. That is not to say that it was a terrible aircraft - it really wasn't. But as everyone else started to fly faster it lacked the climb rate, it was draggy so it became too slow and didn't dive so well and had a roll rate that didn't help either. Of course, many times it was used with great success, but this was more down to tactics and skill than its own merits. I do appreciate the discussion though, it's a nice one - but right now we're stealing the poor MiG-3's spotlight here

 

(A last thing on the Spitfire/Hurricane/109 thing though, the Spitfires did a very decent job dragging the fighters away so the Hurricanes could engage more efficiently. On top of it all, there is reason the Battle of Britain is deemed one of the highest instances of heroism during the war - they did an amazing job when resources and odds were at their lowest)

Edited December 26, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Finkeren]

You may need to review some of your statistics. The" obsolete Hurricane " is credited with more victories in BOB than the Spitfire. This obsolete aircraft had no problem scoring heavily against the best the Luftwaffe had. Additionally, the RAF and Polish pilots who flew both the Hurricane and the P-40, agreed the P-40 was a better aircraft. Therefore, relegating it to Africa was obviously a mistake . Furthermore the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft to the West vs. the VVS. Draw your own inferences to the quality of aircraft and pilot. The West was just as target rich of an environment as the East for the Luftwaffe. However, they did not have success for a variety of reasons.

What does any of this have to do with how the P-40 performed in VVS service? Yeah, the Luftwaffe scored most of their victories against the Soviet air forces and lost more planes against the Western Allies (particularly from late 1943 onward) that's true, but how's that related to the P-40, which played a very minor role anywhere but in North Africa, where the RAF actually lost heavily to the much smaller LW fighter force during 1941-42?

 

And how is the Hurricanes performance during the Battle of Britain relevant to the P-40? Statistics from the BoB shows, that the Bf 109Es scored more victories than they lost against not only Hurricanes but Spitfires as well during that period.

[Frequent_Flyer]

It's way offtopic but it's also way off the ground.

 

The IL-2 suffered horrendous losses in early stage of the war. The first models, knwon for their tailheavyness, lack of protection to the rear and dangerous flight characteristics as widowmakers. At the time Luftwaffe enjoyed air superiority with more capeable aircraft. Later, when the tide turned, IL-2s became fearesome and effective. Their loss rate droped prgressevily from mid 1944 till the end of the war.

 

Likewise you could call the B-17 a failure. They suffered among the most losses of all bombers deployed in WW2. That analogy does not consider that B-17s had their highest casualty rate when flying without escort fighter protection over largely hostile territory though. Nor that the B-17, designed as a long range bomber, did it's (horrificly) job well without question.

Of course, if there is no fighter opposition you would expect less losses for the IL-2 units. This was never the case in the West. When the US and RAF began their strategic bombing of Germany they sent up  a large contingent of fighters. It was a big mistake in tactics for the US to send bomber groups to targets unescorted.

[indiaciki]

And how is the Hurricanes performance during the Battle of Britain relevant to the P-40? Statistics from the BoB shows, that the Bf 109Es scored more victories than they lost against not only Hurricanes but Spitfires as well during that period.

 

Historical debates on the forum are only about tech talk... LW pilot traing was initially way superiour to allied traing. More experience etc. 

 

back to the MiG - 3.

 

I found an original technical manual from 1941 (pdf)::

 

https://vk.com/doc67707672_396900430?hash=4914ea38fdce1d6c3e&dl=4f6acbd1e92eb6b03a

Edited December 26, 2015 by indiaciki

[JtD]

The P-39's biggest drawback when tested by the RAF was carbon monoxide intoxication of the pilot. They sent the aircraft to the Soviet Union, where they were most welcome. Because they had a decent radio.

 

Just to illustrate how the same aircraft can be rated differently, outside of performance figures, by air forces that have different priorities. And secondly, how games fail to model aircraft properly.

 

One questions, though - what does all that have to do with MiG-3 first impressions?

[indiaciki]

does anybody know engine settings, for cruise, combat etc, mixture (if needed - supercharger?), speeds - prop RPM? All i know is from the documentary. stall below 130, landin 140 km/h not much more. TO flaps seen in documentary were about 30 deg, landing full. any more information?

Edited December 26, 2015 by indiaciki

[LukeFF]

That is not the wonder of it all. There were more Bf-109 than " obsolete Hurricanes ", yet the best the Luftwaffe had could not destroy and obsolete air force.

 

It very much is the wonder of it all. More planes + going after the bombers = more victories scored overall than Spitfires. The Spitfires, fewer in number, were capable and able to keep the 109s in check. 

[Finkeren]

does anybody know engine settings, for cruise, combat etc, mixture (if needed - supercharger?), speeds - prop RPM? All i know is from the documentary. stall below 130, landin 140 km/h not much more. TO flaps seen in documentary were about 30 deg, landing full. any more information?

The engine is pretty easy to manage, even though it works slightly differently than other engines.

 

Basically you can run the engine at full throttle and max RPM all day and just use mixture to keep MP below 1120. You can, and should, reduce RPM and throttle somewhat during cruise to keep the engine cool and conserve fuel, but there are no set values for this. In a combat situation you really only have to touch mixture and radiators.

 

Supercharger is single-stage and single-speed so no need to control that.

 

The stall and landing speeds you mention seem too low. I usually touch down around 170.

 

The flaps are unusual in their operation, as they only have 2 settings (up/down) but the angle at which they deploy can be controlled by holding the drop- or retract flaps button. I use full down setting for landing, and I find that if I set the flaps to 20% for take off it helps me getting airborne without using the entire length of the runway. After take off you can set the flaps limit to 30-50% and use them as combat flaps. They deploy and retract really fast, so they are well suited for this. Not sure how historically accurate that would be though.

 

Hope that helps

[LukeFF]

Just thought of the B-17 while reading the "failed aircraft" discussion :D

 

It would also be like saying the Fw 190 was a worse aircraft than the Bf 109, simply because the 190s scored fewer victories than the 109s. The Il-2, by nature of its combat role, was going to have a higher loss rate than other aircraft types. That's what happens when one sends planes in at low altitude over territory defended by fighters and high-caliber autocannons. 

[Frequent_Flyer]

 

What does any of this have to do with how the P-40 performed in VVS service? Yeah, the Luftwaffe scored most of their victories against the Soviet air forces and lost more planes against the Western Allies (particularly from late 1943 onward) that's true, but how's that related to the P-40, which played a very minor role anywhere but in North Africa, where the RAF actually lost heavily to the much smaller LW fighter force during 1941-42?

 

And how is the Hurricanes performance during the Battle of Britain relevant to the P-40? Statistics from the BoB shows, that the Bf 109Es scored more victories than they lost against not only Hurricanes but Spitfires as well during that period.

 you seem to have overlooked that you introduced the " obsolete " Hurricane into the discussion. Although obsolete it still scored heavily against the same opponent the P-40 faced in Russia, Africa, Italy and so on..  I drew an analogy to the fact that the P-40 was a better aircraft than the Hurricane. It was faster, could turn tighter. better armed, better in a dive etc. If you believe the P-40 as modeled in BOS is historically accurate, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is virtually unflyable in a combat role in this sim.

This link is not new to this forum:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/

[Freycinet]

Finkeren and LukeFF, thanks for your informative and well-argued postings in this thread: good reading and I'm learning a lot.

[303_Kwiatek]

Fw 190 was more advanced then 109 and was not worse then 109. 109 was better at high alts but at low to medium alt Fw 190 was better fighter ( even if it had worse climb rate then 109 still Fw 190 in 1942 got it better then enemy fighters). British pilots know it very good and Russian also.  Many Fw 190 aces also got high scores expecially at eastern front - look Nowotny for example. If Fw 190 A-3 in BOS would have accurate climb rate and Russian planes would have speed, roll and dive speed like should then we would have something more real.

 

The more i play these game and more stuff is coming the more im conviced that these game is seriously balanced ufnortunately and reperesents not historicall performacne diffrences between planes from these peroid.  I think even old Il2 1942 ( besides LA5 family) was much more accurate regarding performacne of these planes. ( maximum speeds, maximum dive speeds, roll rates, climb rate etc).  Here we got just Russian version of ww2 aviation history.

Edited December 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[LukeFF]

If you believe the P-40 as modeled in BOS is historically accurate, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is virtually unflyable in a combat role in this sim.

 

Well, there is the documented fact that the P-40s sent to Stalingrad were wiped out in short order by the Luftwaffe. If it was so great, why did it not fare better? And, as noted above, if it was so great, why did Afrika Korps pilots rack up such high scores against it?  

 

 

Here we got just Russian version of history.

 

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it any more true. You've been playing this same tune for years now. Oh and, see Rule #18 for this forum. 

Edited December 26, 2015 by LukeFF

[Frequent_Flyer]

It very much is the wonder of it all. More planes + going after the bombers = more victories scored overall than Spitfires. The Spitfires, fewer in number, were capable and able to keep the 109s in check. 

This is not accurate, the 109's were told not to leave the bombers. If your contention is the Hurricanes went after the bombers because the 109's went after the Spits and abandoned the bombers. Additionally, the Luftwaffe had a greater number of fighters than the RAF.

[Finkeren]

you seem to have overlooked that you introduced the " obsolete " Hurricane into the discussion. Although obsolete it still scored heavily against the same opponent the P-40 faced in Russia, Africa, Italy and so on.. I drew an analogy to the fact that the P-40 was a better aircraft than the Hurricane. It was faster, could turn tighter. better armed, better in a dive etc. If you believe the P-40 as modeled in BOS is historically accurate, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is virtually unflyable in a combat role in this sim.

This link is not new to this forum:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/

I never said the Hurri was "obsolete" during the BoB. I said it was obsolescent (i.e. on its way to become obsolete) a year later in North Africa.

 

Was the P-40E much better than the Hurricane? Sure, it was a bit faster (still slower than the Bf 109 E) but it had a lower T/W ratio, much higher wing loading and significantly lower climb rate. If it was better, I'd say that was due to its range, sturdyness and heavy armament rather than its performance.

[LukeFF]

This is not accurate, the 109's were told not to leave the bombers. If your contention is the Hurricanes went after the bombers because the 109's went after the Spits and abandoned the bombers. Additionally, the Luftwaffe had a greater number of fighters than the RAF.

 

Not accurate? Then who in the RAF was engaging the 109s while the Hurricanes went after the bombers? Defiants? 

[Lusekofte]

The Allison engine later development managing 1200 HP made the P 51 very fast at low altitude, The P-40 D manage to hold its own in North Africa due to fair performance compared to the 109 F at low altitudes . I know the P-40 was a popular plane among Russian Pilots. 

But we cannot compare that reality with what going on in the servers here. There simply was not a single pilot flying alone with no plan what so ever witch happens here.

Aircraft performance got nothing to do with stupid

[Frequent_Flyer]

Well, there is the documented fact that the P-40s sent to Stalingrad were wiped out in short order by the Luftwaffe. If it was so great, why did it not fare better? And, as noted above, if it was so great, why did Afrika Korps pilots rack up such high scores against it?  

 

 

 

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it any more true. You've been playing this same tune for years now. Oh and, see Rule #18 for this forum. 

You might want to read this for a balanced historical account:http://lend-lease.ai...romanenko/p-40/

However, I doubt you have any interest in historical accuracy.

[indiaciki]

The engine is pretty easy to manage, even though it works slightly differently than other engines.

 

Basically you can run the engine at full throttle and max RPM all day and just use mixture to keep MP below 1120. You can, and should, reduce RPM and throttle somewhat during cruise to keep the engine cool and conserve fuel, but there are no set values for this. In a combat situation you really only have to touch mixture and radiators.

 

Supercharger is single-stage and single-speed so no need to control that.

 

The stall and landing speeds you mention seem too low. I usually touch down around 170.

 

The flaps are unusual in their operation, as they only have 2 settings (up/down) but the angle at which they deploy can be controlled by holding the drop- or retract flaps button. I use full down setting for landing, and I find that if I set the flaps to 20% for take off it helps me getting airborne without using the entire length of the runway. After take off you can set the flaps limit to 30-50% and use them as combat flaps. They deploy and retract really fast, so they are well suited for this. Not sure how historically accurate that would be though.

 

Hope that helps

 

Thanks ! I got my speeds from this documentary:

 

 

I think she has an Allison engine, though. Vladimir Barsuk states that the low stall speed / landing speed were due to the very good working leading edge slats. Approach speed 210 km/h - 170 km/h. It was able to fly at very low speeds. (at least the one he flies now).

 

I guess the MiG we have here is modelled after the plane he flies. 

Edited December 26, 2015 by indiaciki

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

To complement, I think each Il-2 finished the war had an expectancy of 90 missions per aircraft. Sometimes strategists and tacticians will consider the gains worth the losses, which leads to some bloody but successful designs.

 

Yep, live expectancy went of from between 4-8 missions in the beginning of the war to 90 in the end of the war. Had not a lot to do with the aircraft itself i guess, you could have replaced it with a Po2, and the losses would have probably been around the same..

[Frequent_Flyer]

Fw 190 was more advanced then 109 and was not worse then 109. 109 was better at high alts but at low to medium alt Fw 190 was better fighter ( even if it had worse climb rate then 109 still Fw 190 in 1942 got it better then enemy fighters). British pilots know it very good and Russian also.  Many Fw 190 aces also got high scores expecially at eastern front - look Nowotny for example. If Fw 190 A-3 in BOS would have accurate climb rate and Russian planes would have speed, roll and dive speed like should then we would have something more real.

 

The more i play these game and more stuff is coming the more im conviced that these game is seriously balanced ufnortunately and reperesents not historicall performacne diffrences between planes from these peroid.  I think even old Il2 1942 ( besides LA5 family) was much more accurate regarding performacne of these planes. ( maximum speeds, maximum dive speeds, roll rates, climb rate etc).  Here we got just Russian version of ww2 aviation history.

 

Fw 190 was more advanced then 109 and was not worse then 109. 109 was better at high alts but at low to medium alt Fw 190 was better fighter ( even if it had worse climb rate then 109 still Fw 190 in 1942 got it better then enemy fighters). British pilots know it very good and Russian also.  Many Fw 190 aces also got high scores expecially at eastern front - look Nowotny for example. If Fw 190 A-3 in BOS would have accurate climb rate and Russian planes would have speed, roll and dive speed like should then we would have something more real.

 

The more i play these game and more stuff is coming the more im conviced that these game is seriously balanced ufnortunately and reperesents not historicall performacne diffrences between planes from these peroid.  I think even old Il2 1942 ( besides LA5 family) was much more accurate regarding performacne of these planes. ( maximum speeds, maximum dive speeds, roll rates, climb rate etc).  Here we got just Russian version of ww2 aviation history.

Very well said !  The Russian version complete with  their own laws of physics and aerodynamics.

[Danziger]

Why are people trying to turn a MiG-3 thread into a P-40/BoB/Pacific/North Africa thread?

 

I mean I understand that the Americans are naturally pissed that a mediocre American plane isn't portrayed as winning WW2 in a Russian based sim. Why in this thread though?

Edited December 26, 2015 by BorysVorobyov

[303_Kwiatek]

Very well said !  The Russian version complete with  their own laws of physics and aerodynamics.

 

At least someone from these country is not blinded and use his brain

 

Yes such aerodynamic is clearly seen when 109 F is doing spiral climb at slow speed and Yak-1 is hanging behind with flaps down.  In reality plane with flaps down in such situation would be left in dust.

 

True is that German planes in 1941-1942 was outclased Russian ones with huge marigin in most important aspects.  What i see in these game is balancing some things which casue these marigin much less then it should be.

Edited December 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Ah, those pesky Russians and their Russian information about aircraft operated by the Russians! Who in their sane mind would listen to those Russians when they are so evil and treacherous, right?

 

Seriously, there is some paranoia worthy of McCarthy here about evil commies lying about the universe and upgrading everything they flew while downgrading the rest. Or you suggest we create a flight simulator based not on physics calculations and engineering but anecdotes?

 

Now please if you want to continue take it elsewhere and let this thread resume being a MiG-3 thread.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Finkeren]

You might want to read this for a balanced historical account:http://lend-lease.ai...romanenko/p-40/

However, I doubt you have any interest in historical accuracy.

I honestly don't know why you keep refering to that article. It doesn't support your assertions. In fact it directly says, that the Soviet pilots and commanders regarded the Kittyhawk (P-40E) as "average" - better than the I-153, Hurricane and I-16 but inferior to the P-39, Yakolev and Lavochkin fighters.

 

It goes on to say, that the P-40 was used to rebuild unsuccesful regimemts that had been wiped out. If the regiment then distinguished itself in the P-40, it would be upgraded to a Guards regiment and be reequiped with better fighters like Yaks and Lavochkins. If it continued to perform poorly it would be transfered to the PVO and continue to fly the P-40.

 

I don't see how that supports your point of view?

[Frequent_Flyer]

Not accurate? Then who in the RAF was engaging the 109s while the Hurricanes went after the bombers? Defiants? 

I am typing very slowly: The 109's escorted the bombers, therefore if the Hurricanes were intercepting them( the bombers) the 109's would be engaging the Hurricanes. Yet the Hurricanes scored more victories than the Spits. For clarification I am going along with your inaccurate representation of BOB. The fact is the Spits regularly engaged the bombers as well.

 

 Shall I draw a picture ?

[Finkeren]

I guess the MiG we have here is modelled after the plane he flies.

Not for its performance but likely for its handling, operation (except engine management) and visuals.