[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Gaston

First of all, I did not say in my post that the Mk IX being slower turning than the Mk V was part of the quote: I do note the Mk V in the real world is generally considered to out-turn the Mk IX though... Ask people who flew or still fly both Marks...

Is French your native language? Tough luck: It is mine...:

" Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal (l'I-16 était remarquablement agile en virage N.D.L.R), alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

-On April 29th the regiment completed 28 sorties to escort bombers and ground attack aircrafts and 23 to protect ground troops, with four air battles occuring. The first few days were marked by failures due to the use of "outdated" (my use of quotation marks) horizontal combat tactics (My note: horizontal combat was never considered outdated in all of WWII, except for the Allies in the Pacific: It covers about 95%+ of all Western air battle in 1944) while the Spitfire was particularly well-adapted to fighting in the vertical plane.


Second quotation : "A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l’allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification."

Translation: "At low and medium altitude, the Mark VB was outperformed by German and Soviet fighters of its time. To try to improve its maneuverability and its speed (?!?: My note: They couldn't have expected much speed increase from that now could they? Obviously this was more about maneuvering), the Soviets lightened it by removing the four machineguns and their ammunition. This variant was evaluated by the VVS test center during the Summer of 1943. Apparently it was not a success, as there was no instruction to standardize the modification"

If you think my translations are inaccurate, you seriously need to learn to read French...

If the turn rate was really satisfactory to the Soviets compared to their own types, why would they change tactics to the vertical for this type alone? And why did they try to lighten it, at no improvement in drag or speed, if not obviously to improve its maneuverability? If the Spitfire really turned with around 17-18 sec turn times (TsAGI), which is every bit as good as the best of their fighters, why did they consider it unsuitable for their ususal turning tactics?

If you want to cling to the pipe dream that the Mk V was any worse turning than a Mk IX, then just keep on dreaming...

Except against slow-turning types like the P-51 or the Me-109G, turning tactics with the Spitfire were simply not very competitive, this worsening with the Mk IX, which is why the Mk IX is always used in dive and zoom tactics (followed by the occasional harsh high G high speed unsustained turn, its performance for which was on the other hand quite good), and this almost without exception: The vertical was what it excelled at...

Gaston

The Russians were never really happy with the Spitfires they got. They found the Merlin to be exceedingly troublesome and it had difficulty with the fine dust conditions that were found in the Kuban area. The British found similar situations when operating in Normandy (thus requiring new filters to be fitted). I really don't think the Russians were ever able to get the most out of their Spitfires but as with all fighters during WWII they seemed to be focused on getting the most out of the aircraft by removing unnecessary equipment. Indeed, removing the machine guns may have been an effort to improve maneuverability by increasing the roll rate. Compared to contemporary Russian fighters, particularly the Yak, the Spitfire is quite slow in the roll.

I'm not discounting the report but as with any historical reports it does have to be placed in full context. Indeed, when they first received Spitfires in early 1943 they were operating with one hand behind their back...

We studied the new equipment diligently, but were unable to acquire any practical mastery of the Spitfire in the air because we did not have any instructions on techniques of piloting this airplane. Neither the technical staff nor the regiment instructors knew its most basic flight and tactical data.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

Here's an interesting account with the Russians doing test combat near the front.

Captain Sapozhnikov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, flew the Spitfire, and Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin, commander of 1st Squadron, 16th GIAP, flew the Airacobra. A factory test pilot flew the LaGG. Here is how Pokryshkin describes this aerial combat in his memoirs:

The conditions for the battle were complicated: our “enemies” were to fly toward Sapozhnikov and me on unknown azimuths. Thus, even before the start of the fight in high-speed turns, they had favorable positions. But the bosses had decided, and we did not argue with them. We had to find a way out in the course of the fight.
The leadership arrived. I flew in the first pair. I gained the established altitude and by rocking my wings gave the command to initiate the fight in horizontal maneuvers. I energetically put my aircraft into a turning climb and, allowing the LaGG to approach to a dangerous distance, executed a sudden roll with decrease in altitude. The LaGG-3 passed by above me and I immediately set up on his tail and got him in my sight. No matter what way the LaGG turned, I kept him in my sight. Several minutes went by and the result was obvious.
Then we examined how the LaGG would handle itself in vertical maneuvers. I threw my aircraft into a steep dive and, having gained velocity, departed into a zoom. At the apex I placed my airplane on its wing. The LaGG was making a combat turn below me. It was relatively easy for me to catch him in the tail and fix him in my sight, parrying all attempts of this ‘enemy’ to avoid my attack.
Sapozhnikov also won his fight in turning and climbing, but fought to a draw in vertical maneuvers. After coming out of a dive, the LaGG-3 stayed close to me in a high-speed pass over the airfield, but the Spitfire, which had weaker diving capabilities, fell significantly behind us.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

Versus the LaGG it seems the Spitfire had no trouble turning with it. Not that the LaGG was exceptional in the turn but further places in context that the Russians were experimenting with the Spitfires capabilities when they did receive it. Note these are front line pilots.

Now here's the most interesting piece that pretty much goes against the stuff you translated:

One of the most important sources by which one can judge the combat employment of the Spitfires is the testimonials of the pilots themselves about this aircraft. There is hardly a better person to characterize this equipment than a pilot who had to fight in it. Although during Soviet times it was customary to remain silent or curse aviation equipment delivered by Lend-lease, the memoirs of Anatoliy Ivanov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, contain the following description of this aircraft:

The Spitfire was a simple aircraft that permitted significant mistakes in the techniques of piloting. The I-16 was much more demanding. The Spitfire had a radio, not a great radio, but a radio nonetheless. The singular superiority of the Spitfire was the fact that it was very light and, because of its thrust-to-weight ratio, was a good climber. This supported reliable vertical maneuver. However the greatest deficiency was the fact that the weapons were spread out along the wings. The distance between the cannons was approximately four meters. During an attack on the enemy from close range, their lethality was greatly diminished.

Over the short period of time the regiment’s pilots fought in the British aircraft, they managed to overcome the fact that the Spitfire lagged behind the German Bf-109 and especially the Fw-190 fighters in such an important characteristic for a fighter as diving capabilities. The principal explanation for this was the lightness of its construction—the aircraft simply was unable to amass sufficient energy. Therefore “to exit an engagement in a Spitfire by diving was a fatal error, because this aircraft was light and a poor diver. A Messerschmitt could rapidly catch and shoot it down.”

The regiment’s pilots considered the conduct of battles in the horizontal plane to be the optimum method of contesting with German fighters. Despite the fact that, as already noted above, because of its lightness the Spitfire was a quick climber, the pilots of 57th GIAP recommended engaging the Messers and Fokkers in turning battles. Ivanov emphasizes that it was necessary to draw the enemy into a right turn, “because the Messerschmitt’s propeller rotated to the left, and the airplane executed right turns with greater difficulty than left turns.” For this reason, the regiment’s pilots mastered the execution of deep right turns in the Spitfire. In Ivanov’s opinion, this training was no accident, and many enemy fighters were destroyed using this particular method.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

It does seem that drawing into a right turn seemed to be emphasized by the pilots here but that horizontal fighting was recommend method by the pilots of this Russian Guards unit.

Now would you like to move the goalpost out further?