Now I'm really confused...

Rami

Rami

Administrator
Staff member
Hello,

From my research, I was always under the impression that the MiG-3 was difficult to handle at low altitudes and possessed poor maneuverability, due to the heaviness of the Mikulin AM-35 engine, at least until it got above about 5,000 meters. However, in looking at this, it seems that the MiG-3 could actually compete with the German Bf-109e, outmaneuver a Yak-1 at low altitude, turn like an I-15 biplane, and completely outclasses the Bf-109e at altitude?

http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3

Is this accurate? If so, what it pilot inexperience, rather than the performance of the aircraft, that led to its relative ineffectiveness during the opening months of Barbarossa?
 
Hard to say...we're all a bit too young here to answer that with any certainty. We too are at the mercy of confounding historians. But the possibility of your theory does exist, since the combat effectiveness of the Russian fighter force was still in its infancy at that time. Think about this: in the later stages of the broader German campaign, there were reported instances of Russian fighter aces who had survived the earlier battles in inferior aircraft now scoring victories in P-39's against the vastly superior Fw-190. Add THAT to the confusion...
 
Bearcat hit it on the head. Unless you can have access to a Mig-3 now with a proper engine, all we have to go on is what the historians say. But the Mig-3 turn like a I-15 biplane? I don't think so. After all that I read, the Mig-3 was very good, up high. but down low where most of the air combat was in the East it was a dog, when compared to other fighters. The Mig-3 was built to be an interceptor, and maneuverability wasn't high on the priority list when it came to speed and climb, even the armament was light. When the Mig-3 was debuted it was one of the fastest fighter aircraft available in the world, and tricky to handle, even in the air. And to give the P-39 a fair shake, the Ariacobra was a fair fighter plane, and a great ground pounder. But it just lacked the high altitude performance of other aircraft.
 
Reply...

Wulf190,

I completely agree with you about the Bell P-39 Airacobra, and the accounts of superior turning radii to the I-15 and the Yak-1 seem extremely hard to believe. By most accounts I've read, the MiG-3 could keep pace with Messerschmitt models on the deck, but could not outrun them until it got to or above 5,000 meters where it was completely within its element as an interceptor.
 
And, I don't want to get political here, but the Russians were always good at telling the west how great and advanced their weaponry was. I have been inside the infamous T-54 and T-72 tanks that were supposed to be far superior to anything the west fielded in armor. Let's just say, I have my doubts. Neither compared to comparable tanks from the west during the same time period.
 
One has to wonder where some folks get their information. A MiG turn with a I-15? When it has a wing loading of 40.3 lb/sq ft???? Just to put things into perspective here are some wing load comparisons.

Polikarpov I-15 - 17lb/sq ft;
Yak-1b - 33.7 lb/sq ft.
Spitfire Mk.1 - 24 lb/sq ft;
Hurricane Mk.1 - 21.9 lb/sq ft;
Type 0 Model 21 - 22 lb/sq ft
Type 0 Model 52 - 26.3 lb/sq ft
Ki-43-1a - 19 lb/sq ft
Ki-84-1a - 35.1 lb/sq ft
J2M3 - 35.1 lb/sq ft
P-51D - 39 lb/sq ft

According to Gordon and Khazanov's excellent "Soviet Combat Aircraft Vol 1: Single-Engined Fighters", the I-15 could complete a 360 degree turn in just over 10 seconds, the Yak-1 in 22 seconds and the MiG-3 in 25.

As regards a comparison between the Bf109E and the MiG-3 this is what the above book states:

"At altitudes below 13,199ft, where the majority of air combats took place in the summer of 1941, the MiG-3 was slightly faster, as flight tests had shown. But Soviet pilots knew that in critical situations they would not be able to open the canopy and escape from the aircraft, and therefore preferred to fly with the canopy removed. This reduced the MiG's speed by some 18.6mph, so the Bf 109E gained a speed advantage in practical terms.

Although the Bf 109E surpassed the MiG-3 in a steep climb, the MiG's vertical manoeuvrability was better. Turning time of the two was approximately the same (depending on the skill of the Soviet pilot), although the Bf 109's turning radius was 25% tighter owing to it's lighter wing loading. And being lighter, the German aircraft also had more powerful armament.

At altitudes above 16,400 to 23,000ft the MiG-3 completely outclassed the Bf 109E, but combats at that altitude were rare."

Overall the MiG-3 was a demanding aircraft to fly and fight, and required a highly competent pilot to get the best out of the aircraft.
 
Rami said:
Wulf190,

I completely agree with you about the Bell P-39 Airacobra, and the accounts of superior turning radii to the I-15 and the Yak-1 seem extremely hard to believe. By most accounts I've read, the MiG-3 could keep pace with Messerschmitt models on the deck, but could not outrun them until it got to or above 5,000 meters where it was completely within its element as an interceptor.
Click to expand...

The P-39s the Soviet flew at WW2 had some diferences from the other forces samples. They removed the wings guns, some armour and used the Allisson engines ABOVE its recomended settings. Usually, they put their engines at a 3,300 RPM regime! I have an airfile and DP adapted as a typical Russian Front plane.

The P-40B and C received similar improvement. The Soviet flew them without wing guns. One interesting change was a few P-40E that used Klimov M105 engines instead of Allisson ones to combat a engine shortage at the Leningrad Front. This could be a must!

Cheers

Pepe
 
Do not discount the abilities of the Pilots flying them. The German fighter Pilots of 1941 where a competent and well trained in individual and team tatics, something the Russian Pilot lacked through most of the war. They had mass trianing and follow the leader type of training that the Russian received that made the difference.

As late as 1944 the German where able to obtain local Air superierty in certain sections of the Front inspite the Russains having superior numbers over the same section of the Front. It was numbers that made the difference. This does not mean that the Russians did not some of the greatest Individual fighters pilots of the war but as a whole they never developed the finesse nor the tatical refinement of the Luftwaffe.

Just remember Stalin decimented the Airforce leaders before the war ever started. Killling many of its most talented learders under false accusations.

The Russian Airforce performance in the Mongolian Border incident against Japan was not great if it where not for its superior numbers of planes. Its performance in the Brief war with Finland lead much to be desired.

Not to mention the Korean war!

As for the Mig 3. All you of got to do is take close look at it and can almost guess its performance capabilities.
 
Rami said:
Hello,

From my research, I was always under the impression that the MiG-3 was difficult to handle at low altitudes and possessed poor maneuverability, due to the heaviness of the Mikulin AM-35 engine, at least until it got above about 5,000 meters. However, in looking at this, it seems that the MiG-3 could actually compete with the German Bf-109e, outmaneuver a Yak-1 at low altitude, turn like an I-15 biplane, and completely outclasses the Bf-109e at altitude?

http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3

Is this accurate? If so, what it pilot inexperience, rather than the performance of the aircraft, that led to its relative ineffectiveness during the opening months of Barbarossa?
Click to expand...

Rami, I have a simple rule of thumb on research: I stay away from Wikipedia. This article on the Mig-3 is one you could go in, once you got your sources and conclusions, and edit it. That's good. What's bad is Charley Manson can go in and do the same. Wiki is too open and too subjective to cite or take as a source, not long ago the guy who founded it pleaded for contributors to be "more honest and objective". I attended a local computer convention in 1994 where the speaker was some prominent guy who successfully prophesied(back when net access was $2 a minute) that the web was on the verge of exploding into a mass-marketing/information phenomenon and we always needed to be on guard for what he called Silicon Snake Oil. Wikipedia is one of those snake oil vendors.

Like it's great great grandson, the Mig 25, the Mig 3 was not made to dogfight and yet was impressed into service as a dogfighter. If CFS2 as a sim is any standard of judgement, the Mig 3 cannot outturn any of the biplane fighters I fly against it. At the same time there were Mig 3 aces among the Russians, I count myself among them. My mount is the wing-gunpod version. I've downed all versions of the Bf-109E and the Fw-190 A plus numerous ancilliary aircraft to the tune of 34 victories with 3 bailouts. These are dogfight victories, I lost count of bomber interceptions. I'm as Akamatsu, who shot down Mustangs in a Raiden, I'm nuts in the air flying an inferior aircraft. But the Mig 3 is dogmeat for Thicko's Gladiator.

Bonesky
 
Tony, with that kinda tough talk its time you plugged into some real online multiplay...CFS2 AI ain't @#$@ for judging your true prowess at the stick -- the AI engine is far too predictable in A2A engagements.

Spend some time with the gang over at the CFS2 FlightDeck...:gameon:...then come tell us a story...LOL



Ok, OK...back to the topic...
 
bearcat241 said:
Tony, with that kinda tough talk its time you plugged into some real online multiplay...CFS2 AI ain't @#$@ for judging your true prowess at the stick -- the AI engine is far too predictable in A2A engagements.

Spend some time with the gang over at the CFS2 FlightDeck...:gameon:...then come tell us a story...LOL



Ok, OK...back to the topic...
Click to expand...

Bearcat my thoughts exactly.Online flying is a totaly different animal.Some of my best times were flying online and what a blast.


Talon
 
Certainly the various MiG-3's in the il-2 game are nice to fly - its not too hard to get the better of Bf-109F2/4's in them. There again its a Russian designed game in the first place if you get my drift............
 
bearcat241 said:
Tony, with that kinda tough talk its time you plugged into some real online multiplay...CFS2 AI ain't @#$@ for judging your true prowess at the stick -- the AI engine is far too predictable in A2A engagements.

Spend some time with the gang over at the CFS2 FlightDeck...:gameon:...then come tell us a story...LOL



Ok, OK...back to the topic...
Click to expand...

If I had a high speed connect I'd consider it, my few experiences with "online" game play is a lot take it too seriously and the competition soon turns into a peter-pulling contest. Perhaps someday I will remedy the connection thing and show what a Zeke can really do.

Bonesimoto
 
peperez said:
The P-39s the Soviet flew at WW2 had some diferences from the other forces samples. They removed the wings guns, some armour and used the Allisson engines ABOVE its recomended settings. Usually, they put their engines at a 3,300 RPM regime! I have an airfile and DP adapted as a typical Russian Front plane.

The P-40B and C received similar improvement. The Soviet flew them without wing guns. One interesting change was a few P-40E that used Klimov M105 engines instead of Allisson ones to combat a engine shortage at the Leningrad Front. This could be a must!

Cheers

Pepe
Click to expand...

Perhaps someday a certain Pepe may come up with the modifications for this Klimov powered P-40, I'd love to give it a fly.

Bonesky
 
Devildog73 said:
And, I don't want to get political here, but the Russians were always good at telling the west how great and advanced their weaponry was. I have been inside the infamous T-54 and T-72 tanks that were supposed to be far superior to anything the west fielded in armor. Let's just say, I have my doubts. Neither compared to comparable tanks from the west during the same time period.
Click to expand...

Not to turn this into an armor discussion, but you touch on one of my loves: Russian tanks and vehicles.

Did you know after the advent of the Josef Stalin III/T-10 that the Soviets made it policy that no tank crew member would be above 5 feet 6 inches? It due to the height of the vehicles, or lack thereof.

Since my two brother's army service at Ft Knox I've maintained links to Ft. Knox/Aberdeen and it's clear that Soviet equipment was good, crew training was for poop. The Soviets were too poor to actually maintain the large armies they had in a first class combat condition. Reading defector Victor Suvurov's INSIDE THE SOVIET ARMY is clear on that. We'll lose the next major war because our weaponry is based on the Swiss Watch Manufacturing Method. The simplest and best tank to emerge from WW2 was the T-34-85. In the hands of a competent crew nothing the Germans had could withstand them. The T-54/55 tank was clearly a copy of the US M-48 Patton, with one major difference: A 100mm smooth-bore gun based on the proven 100mm anti-tank weapon. Accurate, no, but if you got hit by one...The Soviets were also able to build 5 T-55s for every Patton also. Five Pattons takes out how many T-55s in a 25 tank attack and how many Pattons are left? The Soviets did the same as we with the Sherman: Overwhelmed the Germans with numbers.

Another misconception is we've judged Soviet weapons on the capture of export versions of their weapons, called the "monkey model". Like the F2Fs we sold Britaian, the Dutch, and Finland, Soviet weapons were stripped down versions of their front-line equipment. The Syrian T-72 was not the frontline Soviet T-72. The Soviets, it has been found, were and are the world leader in cost-effectiveness and we'd do well to examine them. Suvurov's works are both a revelation and a Godsend(his teaching on mortars and homily on why 2 unrifled mortars are superior to 1 rifled morter is a classic and an example of what I'm talking about).

We sit and announce months ahead of time a new offensive in Afganistan. The Russians still remember Sun Tzu: all warfare is based on deception.

Back to aircraft: I have your Tuskeegee airman campaigns and am gathering the extras and looking forwrd to flying it.

Bonesky
 
tonybones2112 said:
Perhaps someday a certain Pepe may come up with the modifications for this Klimov powered P-40, I'd love to give it a fly.

Bonesky
Click to expand...

I can do the airfile. Someone needs to make the model. Look the image I uploaded. The spiner is smaller and there's a lot of changes at the nose.

Cheers

Pepe
 
Anybody here read the 4 volumes on the air war on the eastern front by Christer Bergstrom; excellent reads with great quality pics too, I'm on the final volume now; Bagration to Berlin.

The thing that struck me most about the VVS in WW11 was the CHRONIC overclaiming by Russian pilots, I mean everybody exagerated or double/triple claimed to a certain degree - often innocently as the same plane was fired at by several pilots, but our Russian chums took it to a whole new level apparently.

Bergstrom reckons as many 9 out of 10 VVS kills were false following his in-depth examination into surviving German records. So that gives the VVS a 9 tenths overclaim rate - EASILY the worst in WW11.

Guess the political situation must have contributed to that, what with political commissars hovering pretty close to the flight line all the time. Guess you didn't want to be failing too often with the chance of an instant transfer to a manual "mine-clearing battalion" or something worse.

So quite possibly the top scoring aces of WW11 were actually mostly British or US? I know the RAF was pretty damn fussy about allocating kills post 1940 (when victories over nazi planes were understandably exagerarted), but they are possibly the most accurate after 1940 period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top