Soviet fighter question
- Thread starter AdA
- Start date
from flight sims... the I-16 is one of the few fighters in the world in 1941 that can hang with a Zero in a turning fight. Similar speed, just slightly worse turning radius, and nigh-identical armament (Zero: 2x 7.7mm MGs, 2x 20mm autocannon. I-16: 2x 20mm autocannon, 2x 7.62mm MG).
But would it still be better than its more modern siblings?
I'll add the more developed Polikarpov I-180 as a fifth alternative, along with the MiG, Yak, LaGG and the late model I-16 variants.
The Yak-1 would seem to be the best of that bunch, as long as they don't try and dogfight a zero. Use the Yak's Level and dive speed advantage in Boom and zoom attacks, and modified Thach weave team tactics.
If they're not going to dogfight, the MiG is a lot faster than the Yak. The 1941 production versions had top speeds of 628Km/h (MiG) and 560Km/h (Yak).
Mig 3 - Lack of armament isn't going to hurt it so bad against the Zero as it does against other aircraft, it's good at high altitude and faster than the Zero
Yak 1 - Will be in much the same boat as other aircraft which faced the Zero, once they learn not to dogfight it then they can take the Zero out easy, its also not as dead in a dogfight as the Mig would be
LaGG 3 - The same really, though the LaGG is somewhat heavier an aircraft IIRC
I 16 - Will dance with the Zero, and is better armed (or at least, the Type-24 is) and armoured to boot, but is also slower IIRC
Overall, I'd say the Zero will make some early kills as IOTL. But again, as IOTL, when the enemy learns how to deal with it, it's going to start being hurt bad.
Yak 1 - Will be in much the same boat as other aircraft which faced the Zero, once they learn not to dogfight it then they can take the Zero out easy, its also not as dead in a dogfight as the Mig would be
LaGG 3 - The same really, though the LaGG is somewhat heavier an aircraft IIRC
I 16 - Will dance with the Zero, and is better armed (or at least, the Type-24 is) and armoured to boot, but is also slower IIRC
Overall, I'd say the Zero will make some early kills as IOTL. But again, as IOTL, when the enemy learns how to deal with it, it's going to start being hurt bad.
The La-5 has always been my Favorite Soviet Warbird, It' would be fun to watch It matched against later IJ Navy and Army Fighters.
Given the time frame, the IJAAF would deploy a mix of Ki-43 and a larger number of Ki-27. Since the Soviets would need most of their modern fighters in the west, they would be able to spare a limited number of modern fighters to face Japanese forces.
The Ki-43 would probably avoid engaging MiG-3 at high altitude, and would be very hard pressed to catch, let alone shoot down, any Pe-2 deployed.
With Recce MiG-3 virtually uninterceptable, and the Pe-2 able to strike at will, the most complicated task for soviet fighters would be to provide fighter cover for tactical support operations and maintain local air superiority over the battlefield..
What would be the best way to do it?
MiG-3 staying high and making slashing attacks? Yak-1 staying at low/medium altitudes and engaging the Ki-43?
The Yak-1 performance envelope is similar, IIRC, to the P-40, so tactics for Yak units would have to be similar to the more successful P40 units.
The La-5 has always been my Favorite Soviet Warbird, It' would be fun to watch It matched against later IJ Navy and Army Fighters.
But the La-5 is a later machine. The first ones reached the front only in August 1942, with the definitive La-5FN being deployed just in time for the winter 42/43 counter offensives. The La-5FN, and its contemporary Yak-9, would be superior to IJAAF fighters deployed in numbers in late 42, early 43.
The soviet choices for that time frame would therefore be easier. One year earlier, with limited resources and with earlier machines, they would have faced a much more difficult problem.
But those initial Ki-44 were a small number of pre series aircraft. Even if the IJAAF had intended to deploy them against the USSR, it would be in small numbers.
Of course, given a urgent need to intercept Pe-2 bombers, the Ki-44 would be the primary candidate. I don't think early variants of the Ki-44 would be fast enough to intercept MiG-3 flying high altitude, high speed photo Recce missions.
The context I was thinking about would be a confrontation of the same scale as in 1939, started locally by IJA hotheads, and expected by the soviets thanks to good intel. It would take place at the same time as the battle for Moscow, so the Soviets would only be able to spare a small number of modern fighter and bomber regiments for the action. The Japanese would also be primarily focusing on other operations, so would only deploy a small number of their more modern types.
Assuming you could send about 80 modern soviet fighters, along with a few Pe-2, to fight a similar number of Ki-43 with a handful of early series Ki-44 possible (in operational trials), what would you send? (Both sides would also have larger numbers of older aircraft, but in a small scale battle the best units would concentrate on the focus point of the action)
I'm essentially just looking for a set up for an evaluation of the relative capabilities of the Soviet fighters while facing Japanese machines. In 1939 the I-16 proved quite capable when facing contemporary Japanese adversaries. But would the Yak-1 that succeeded it would do well against the Ki-43? The MiG-3 is so different in design from the Ki-43 that it would essentially be a matter of tactical situation, but the Yak would have to engage the Japanese fighter within its comfort zone, and I'm not quite sure how well it could do.
I think the right answer is that there is no right answer. It is dis-similar air combat so tactics and skill levels are important factors. The MiG-3 was tricky to fly and almost impossible to fly well. The exceptions to the rule did just fine. I can't think of ever hearing a nice word about the LaGG-3, except that it was considered ready for service. I suppose that leaves the Yak-1 as prime contender, by default. I suppose it's too early for lend-lease P-39s, which, like Buffaloes in Finnish service, seem to be a cat of a different color with different national markings. The Japanese pilots would seem to be well-trained and experienced, but set in their ways. The dubious quality of un-purged Soviet pilots who haven't heard of, and were probably not allowed to read Chennault, is a giant question mark.
If you figure this one out, you may become the world's leading expert on the topic, by default.
If you figure this one out, you may become the world's leading expert on the topic, by default.
Some thing to keep in mind is the greater range and flight endurance of IJA Aircraft verses most Soviet Designs. Whilst Soviet aircraft would likely be more serviceable in the climatic conditions of Northern Asia in Nov. & Dec. 1941.
I don't think the Ki-27 had much in the way of range.
Upthread armament comparisons: the ShVak was a far superior gun to the Type 99, in terms of RoF and MV, but had a poorly designed shell - very thin-walled, with a too-sensitive fuse, possibly as a result of operational experience and analysis of 1930s combat with Japanese and italian machines.
When used against German aircraft, the shell had a tendency to explode outside rather than inside the target.
Upthread armament comparisons: the ShVak was a far superior gun to the Type 99, in terms of RoF and MV, but had a poorly designed shell - very thin-walled, with a too-sensitive fuse, possibly as a result of operational experience and analysis of 1930s combat with Japanese and italian machines.
When used against German aircraft, the shell had a tendency to explode outside rather than inside the target.