Was the Mig-15 the very last time the Soviet/Russian aerospace industry produced something roughly equal performance-wise to NATO airpower?

Was the Mig-15 the very last time the Soviet/Russian aerospace industry produced something roughly equal performance-wise to NATO airpower? And even so it used a copied British engine.

The Mig19 and Mig21 were also hot stuff when they were introduced in the 1960s and they were able to give US Bombers a hard time in ‘Nam, but even that wasn’t really a true equal to the F4/F8 in the same way the Mig15 was to the Sabre

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just wait for the T-15 Armatos multi-theater flying armoured warfare vehicle.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    MiG-29 was the equal of the F-16 when introduced and for a few years

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      When was the MiG-29 introduced? And when was the F-16?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        When the Fulcrum was introduced, the F-16 was still several years away from radar missiles. There's a lot that could be argued either way between these planes at that time, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider them competitive in at least some sense. They were different designs built for somewhat different purposes.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >When the Fulcrum was introduced, the F-16 was still several years away from radar missiles
          The Mig-29 and F-16 Block 15 both entered service in the early 80s, the latter had AIM-7 Sparrow capability.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The main disadvantage of the MiG-29 Vs say an F-16A MLU, is that the F-16 has much better avionics that allow for better situational awareness on the battlefield.
            The MiG-29 had been designed around GCS interception missions like the MiG-21s and 23s had been used before.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              In general the F-16 has better situational awareness. But the point I was addressing was the F-16's armament, which would indeed have been quite limited if it didn't have AIM-7s - which it did.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Block 15OCU only got Sparrow capability in 1989 with the ADF upgrade.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Block 15 MLUs began getting Sparrow in 1986, Block 25s began delivery in 1984
              The Mig-29 entered Soviet service in late 82 or early 83.
              Not a big gap.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                To begin with, the whole "no sparrow" thing was 100% result of USAF policy as they wanted F-15 to only have that. F-16C had all the necessary wiring and foreign variants used Sparrows.

                Not that Migs had any useful radar guided missiles either way.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >they wanted F-15 to only have that
                nah
                they wanted to roll out F-16s in large numbers and fast, knowing they could upgrade them later
                this wasn't the massive problem then it appears to be now: AIM-9s had finally turned the corner on reliability and were "good enough" for most air forces

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                They literally didn't want F-16 to engorge on the F-15's air superiority role and use it as a fighter-bomber as well as for daytime patrols and other minor stuff. That's where 95% of sorties go after air superiority is established which is why they wanted a cheap and numerous plane to do that.
                >this wasn't the massive problem then it appears to be now
                It wasn't a problem at all, it's just a fake gripe vatniks bring up to cope with their technologically inept and decrepit plane getting dunked on.
                >AIM-9s had finally turned the corner on reliability and were "good enough" for most air forces
                Even vietnam-era Sidewinders were good enough when they changed tactics and adopted solid state electronics that didn't fail nearly as much. Especially the USN did see success with them near the end of the war and they were their main user. They also had a good showing in subsequent wars, especially in the hands of Israelis. AIM-9L absolutely wrecked shit in falklands war and achieved unimaginable at the time >50% Pk. It's really a modern missile aside from the new tech that supplanted it, still very effective and dangerous. Many euro air forces only very recently started retiring it.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >When the Fulcrum was introduced, the F-16 was still several years away from radar missiles.
          >implying Mig-29s ever shoot down enemy fighter with their radar missiles

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No.
      It was ok on in the one aspect in dogfight but heavily failing in all other areas.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Mig-15 was shooting P-80s and F9Fs out of the sky along with B-29s before we got the F-86 out there. They were ahead of us at that point. After that they have always been behind.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think the MiG-17 would've been the last one where they were ahead, flying in 1953 and a direct upgrade to the 15 which was equal to the F-86. Too late for Korea though.

      https://i.imgur.com/KQjNI5W.jpg

      Was the Mig-15 the very last time the Soviet/Russian aerospace industry produced something roughly equal performance-wise to NATO airpower? And even so it used a copied British engine.

      The Mig19 and Mig21 were also hot stuff when they were introduced in the 1960s and they were able to give US Bombers a hard time in ‘Nam, but even that wasn’t really a true equal to the F4/F8 in the same way the Mig15 was to the Sabre

      The only reason you can mage an argument for the MiG-21 in Vietnam was because of the F-4's BVR combat ban. If it wasn't for that there would be no debate.
      At least those losses led to the US developing Energy Maneuverability Theory.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I think the MiG-17 would've been the last one where they were ahead, flying in 1953 and a direct upgrade to the 15 which was equal to the F-86
        there were several variants of each plane, F-86A and Es mostly fought Mig-15bis and basic ones. In 1953 the F-86F came out with an uprated engine which was completely crushing the remaining migs at that point. While the soviets theoretically could introduce the contemporary Mig-17 they got burned pretty hard by USAF early on and left the fighting to the chinese and koreans. They also cut the early mig-17 production in favor of making more 15s and their pilots actually liked the 15 more due to its better climb rate and low speed turning ability. I'd say that 17 is a better plane that was a closer match to the F-86 because it could actually dive with it and had more speed but these things were wasted on the soviet pilots who never learned how to use that.

        The radar gunsight was an important thing but soviets actually didn't produce many of them until a few years later so most Mig-17s used a sight similar to the 15.

        The real best mig was the Mig-17F with an afterburner, it actually was the best soviets produced, power level-wise.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And the Russians flying the Migs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The F-86 and MiG-15 were made literally at the same time. It's just that the US didn't feel the need to bring the sabre to korea until the MiG-15 showed up. And before it did, those F-80s and F9Fs were clubbing shitty old soviet prop planes.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The BMP shit on the M113 for most of the 70s, not gonna lie.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, and the M-60 shat on the MTLB for all of its history, what's your point?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >M-60
        the tank? the machine-gun? either way, not a relevant comparison.

        My point is the BMP and the M113 were both used to transport troops accompanying the Abrams tank into battle. The former was much better than the latter at being an IFV.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          moronic Black person. That's the point. The M113 was an APC with a .50 on top and the BMP had a Black person-rigged Recoiless rifle as main armament so they can't be compared. Can't you not contradict yourself in on message?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >A was more heavily armed than B so they can't be compared
            Pajeet-tier circumlocution

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          An IFV was better at being an IFV than an APC? Amazing!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No
            An IFV was better at being an IFV than an IFV
            You know nothing

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              dubs wasted on a subhuman. The m1113 is not an ifv. Here I drew big pointing lines for your small vodka-addicted brain

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >knows nothing
                >spergs
                Tell me, Black person, what did the US Armored Division use before the Bradley?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing you fricking idiot. The they implemented the IFV in their doctrine the same time they made the bradley

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >US tanks advanced totally unsupported before they made the Bradley
                there's a fricking idiot here, but it's not me

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                An Infantry Fighting Vehicle does significantly more than follow tanks. The M113 was an APC, you may have heard of them, its job was to support infantry by moving them up to the front lines. It was a support vehicle, not a combat vehicle. An IFV such as the Bradley is purpose designed to be able to fight on the frontlines as mobile fire support. For infantry. It does not replace the APC, but on some levels it does supersede it by trading some ability to carry troops in exchange for being able to carry them much closer to a combat area and of course, the fact it's incredibly heavily armed. The Stryker is much more of a replacement for the M113 than the Bradley, with the Bradley being designed both as a light recon vehicle as well as an IFV, the Stryker being much more purpose built for rapid infantry transport in combat situations. Notable that the Stryker is not actually referred to as an IFV but as an ICV, Infantry Carrier Vehicle. That being its primary role as taking over the APC role and having firepower as a secondary goal to its primary one, which is to transport large amounts of infantry.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I know perfectly well what an IFV and APC is.
                Fact of the matter is that until the Bradley entered service, US Armored Divisions employed the M113 as a de facto IFV.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No they deployed the M113 as an M113. The M113 never partook missions like the Bradley did in Desert Storm, because the M113 was an APC not an IFV. "Driving with the tanks" doesn't make the M113 "used like an IFV" unless you want to argue the 4 ton truck used in WW2 was a fricking IFV. Don't be dumb.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The M113 never partook missions like the Bradley did in Desert Storm
                oh honey have you got a lot to learn

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Oh honey shut the frick up and go jerk off or something more useful than this

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Black person, learn to shut the frick up and take the L when you've shown the world you know nothing

                M113s were right there when the US INVENTED its cavalry doctrine

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Wow its almost like infantry were capable of keeping up with slow moving m48's and m60's but as the abrams was made with speed in mind they also made the bradley to both keep up with the abrams speed but help infantry keep up too. Thats fricking crazy there definitely is an idiot between us two but its not me. Maybe its the subhuman Black person that thinks the m113 is an ifv

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >infantry were capable of keeping up with slow moving m48's and m60's
                lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >infantry were capable of keeping up with slow moving m48's and m60's
                like I said, a fricking idiot

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think we have seen the BMP+Abrams kino from Ukraine yet.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      When OP was talking about aircraft he didn't mean that kind of flying.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Authoritarian centralized structure means there’s pretty much one guy/team in charge of a particular industry. Soviet Union had some pretty smart engineers early on but when they die or somehow disappear that was it. No one to hand down the information, research is all classified and hard to access and got worse as the computer gap/brain drain/putting friends in charge increased.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Authoritarian centralized structure means there’s pretty much one guy/team in charge of a particular industry
      Can't be further from truth. There were many competing bureaus who had their own "lobby" among the party leadership leading to multiple variants of the same equipment with non interchangeable parts leading to logistical issues (BMPs for example)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This anon understands the moronicness of the Soviet MIC.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviets were literally always behind the US. By 1953, the F-86 enjoyed a comfortable superiority against the MiG-15 in Korea.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Mig-15 was based off a captured German design.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ta 183 never got made

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In the Air the USSR was always somewhat behind the US and even much of Europe.
    It took them longer to move from Turbojets to afterburning turbofans, their composite technology was less advanced and crucially their avionics was lacking, especially towards the end of the cold war.
    Basically all Russian RWR tech for example was derived from captured US equipment from the Vietnam war.

    On the ground things were more complicated, the T-64 and early T-72s didn't really have a response from NATO, because their own next gen tank project, the MBT-70, wasn't successful.
    The M60, it's self almost a stop-gap design, ended up serving as the bulk of US tank forces well into the 80s and only remained competitive by leveraging western sensor and FCS superiority.
    Through the 60s and 70s the NATO ground forces were expecting to rely quite heavily on tactical nuclear weapons in order to put up a defence against large and well equipped Soviet formations.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the Mig-15 the very last time the Soviet/Russian aerospace industry produced something roughly equal performance-wise to NATO airpower?
    Also Su-27 tree.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The Su27. Posing a threat to the F15. Do vatniks really?

      104-0 btw.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Su-27S is not a match for F-15C MSIP. Kinematics yes, but in terms of electronics, radar, situational awareness it was far behind. When the Su-27 entered service every USAF F-15C had already been manufactured.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >When the Su-27 entered service every USAF F-15C had already been manufactured.
        Reminder that the service entry date of the Su-27 is fake and the plane wasn't actually operational for years after that. The radar for the original Su-27 only entered service in 1991 and only because they pushed it through the trials just to get anything at all.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The problem for the Soviets weren't the airframes but the avionics.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Soviets took the German heavy presses so could copy any western frame plans

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nope, because they used a rolls royce engine the labour government allowed them to copy LOL!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Labour
      >Not being a commie wienersleeve
      Pick one.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Nene

    >A total of twenty-five Nenes were sold to the Soviet Union as a gesture of goodwill - with reservation to not use for military purposes - with the agreement of Stafford Cripps. Rolls-Royce were given permission in September 1946 to sell 10 Nene engines to the USSR, and in March 1947 to sell a further 15. The price was fixed under a commercial contract. A total of 55 jet engines were sold to the Soviets in 1947.[13] The Soviets reneged on the deal after the Cold War broke out in 1947, and reverse engineered the Nene to develop the Klimov RD-45, and a larger version, the Klimov VK-1, which soon appeared in various Soviet fighters including Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15.

    Russians are worse than chinks, they can only make good shit when they copy it.
    EAT SHIT VATBlack folk! EAT MY CORN FED, SUN RIPENED, 48 DAY AGED AMERICAN SHIT

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >brits selling stuff to the communists
      Should this surprise anyone, really? They housed bolsheviks before 1917 happened, they sold soviets tanks like the Vickers, they were rife with communist spies like the Cambridge five, they let soviets take Poland, they occupied Persia with soviets, they backstabbed Republic of China and had commies replace them in the UN, they let commies take Hong Kong, the list goes on an on.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        they could've redeemed themselves if they went ahead and pushed through with the plan to nuke soviets after the war but alas

        communist empowerment during the early cold war was a travesty

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Believe it or not, prior to 1946, Britain and the USSR were still on good terms from WW2. They kept a bunch of treaties such as allowing each other to inspect military bases controlled by the other on short demand and had Stalin not been an absolute homosexual, chances are would have maintained good buds if Khrushchev was leader at the time. Stalin REALLY soured the relationship between Britain and the USSR due to his insane paranoia.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          it's amazing to think about how much better off both countries would be if hitler and stalin dropped dead
          the moment a great charismatic leader unites your country you need to push him down some stairs and have someone competent take over

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They still do lol
    >it’s about BVR combat doe
    The R-77 is miles ahead of anything NATO has, the R-37 even more so

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      delusional

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >vatnik AA missiles
      >not utter and complete garbage
      pick one and only one

      https://medium.com/war-is-boring/russias-most-feared-air-to-air-missile-is-actually-kind-of-a-dud-ebebe8b28f4f

      >And even so it used a copied British engine.
      the whole design is based on German blueprints, there is next to nothing original about it

      they stretched the fuselage to fit the british engine, lol

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >And even so it used a copied British engine.
    the whole design is based on German blueprints, there is next to nothing original about it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Deranged wehraboo delusions

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        cope. german scientists are responsible for the f86 and also swept wings.

        germanys aerospace industry was the most advanced of the war.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >germanys aerospace industry was the most advanced
          mogged by piano plane

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >obsolete wooden aircraft
            meanwhile germany pioneered a bunch of aircraft related technologies used to this day and german designs lived on long after the war, unlike this.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >pioneered
              >after
              cope for investigating theoretical bullshit too late to actually affect the war

              here, have superior WW2 jet

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >t. idiot
                thats why everyone uses straight wings oh wait they stopped doing that as soon as they acquired german research on swept wings, among other things.

                >too late to actually affect the war
                stupid argument considering germany could not have won the war anyways due to economic factors (fighting the entire world including the usa which was on another continent and never had to face strategic bombing). something like the me262 undoubtedly gave them an advantage they otherwise would not have had against allied strategic bombing and airpower.

                every argument involving german ww2 tech devolves into this sort of nonsense, despite the technology still being used today. and this is just one example of many.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >as soon as they acquired german research
                delusional

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >delusional
                what is operation paperclip? who invented swept wings? who demonstrated reduction in drag? how come post war jet designs have swept wings despite wartime allied designs having straight wings? so many questions.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >what is operation paperclip?
                a meme tankies and wehraboos use to cope with their scientific inferiority
                >who invented swept wings?
                bongs did
                >who invented swept wings? who demonstrated reduction in drag? how come post war jet designs have swept wings despite wartime allied designs having straight wings?
                literally repeating the same thing several times, lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >a meme
                kek. try not to cry.

                >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, a meme. It's literally irrelevant besides Fon Braun, who had little connection to US military rocketry.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >hurr durr just trace the lineage of every invention and take credit for being the ancestor
                bongs invented the computer
                drops mic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >yeah? w-well the biritsh invented computers
                stop shidding and farting yourself, this thread isnt about computers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                We invented airplanes, now sit down and shut up you stupid kraut

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                nobody invented everything and all technology progresses on previous technology. the point is that the f86 airframe is based on german ww2 designs and research and would not have been possible without that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the point is that the f86 airframe is based on german ww2 designs
                which ones?

                it sure feels like you're a butthurt vatnik mad about migger-15 being called out as a stolen copy

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                well for one germany basically invented swept wings for enhanced transsonic performance, german scientists took that design to several places after the war. even argentina developed one because kurt tank was hired there.

                this is just a historical fact, i have no idea how it generates so much butthurt.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >well for one germany basically invented swept wings
                armatard, is that you? spamming a single point like a drooling moron sure looks like it.

                Who invented laminar flow?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It’s literally untrue you drooling moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >/k/ once again shows it has no idea what its talking about
                germany began research in the 30's on swept wings specifically to counter transonic drag and had several designs for this during the war.

                this specifically is what led to the development of aircraft like the f86 and modern airliners.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes and whose research did they base that on I wonder? You’re redefining definitions to suit your world view. Germans did not invent swept wing aircraft and they absolutely did not pioneer them they were modernizing 50 year old science and improving on 30 year old designs and all of the stuff they did in the 30s was directly built on top of international scientific collaboration and theorizing in the 20s even then. Read a fricking book.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes and whose research did they base that on I wonder?
                who was conceiving of supersonic flight in the early 1900s?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Well that would have been an Austrian’s theory but if we’re moving the goal posts to supersonic flight and not swept wing designs the Americans win that one either way. Instead of trying to move the goal posts so you can be right can you just go drown yourself in the toilet or something this is pathetic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the german swept wing is much different than the one shown on some early 1900s biplane, developed for a different purpose and possessing characteristics beyond simply being swept.

                the point is that their designs and research were copied after the war because they increased the performance of aircraft. thats why the things like p80 werent further developed.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the german swept wing is much different than the one shown on some early 1900s biplane, developed for a different purpose and possessing characteristics beyond simply being swept.
                me262 wasn't

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the only work germany did regarding swept wings was the me262
                the me262's mildly swept wings did actually improve performance, but germany was developing true swept wings at the same time and the me262 didnt really represent the actual state of their technology.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >ackshually we had more wunderwaffen

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Mere microseconds from entering service!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                so even though germany beat everyone else to the introduction of a jet fighter, made one that was notably more advanced and introduced several other new technologies, they were also somehow behind. ok, got it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The Germans beat people to a lot of half baked overpriced underperforming technologies that had no actual impact on the course of the war because they were overpriced and underperforming. If the Germans had been able to mass produce 262s they still would have lost because the upsides were minimal and the downsides, mostly in the extreme, were crippling. Yes they put out a jet engine fighter that essentially took as many resources as six similar Bf109s to keep in the air. They did this because they were desperate, and on some level it makes sense. After all, it was much easier to crew one plane than six and in the end, one experienced pilot is going to do more than six rookies who immediately get shot down because they have less than 100 flight hours between them.

                Jet tech was better done by the Allies. The Germans figured out wing shape first, sure. And they were also pretty good about the whole rocket engines thing definitely ahead of the curve there. But it wasn’t that jet aircraft were some magical wunderwaffle, the US and British both developed their own variants independently. They didn’t deploy them over Germany because they didn’t meet western quality standards for mass procurement and also, they might have given the Germans a good idea about how to make engines that last longer than one flight. Don’t get me wrong, a 262 with half decent engines might have been a pretty good piece of work. You know, like the F-86 was when it was reworked to have swept wings. But since it had a good engine and better body it turned out to be a damn good plane. Imagine if the US had figured out swept wing tech in 1943, you would have had F-86s clubbing the shit out of 262s by wars end.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >led to the
                tis many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, Black person

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Swept wing designs originate in the early 1900s with the first actually successful design being made by British designer Dunne who then inspired multiple other gliders and planes before during and after ww2. Germans only began looking into swept wing designs in the mid 30s and based their work on Dunne’s proven designs. Why you insist on trying to revise actual history when it’s absolutely not grey or up for debate in any way is beyond me.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the point is that all aircraft designs are based on american prewar designs (has wings) and would not have been possible without that.
                suck my dick, germoid.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Brazil invented the airplane moronic UnitedStatesian the wright brothers glider only flew with a catapult

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                hue

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                By the time Alberto’s kite “flew” with the strong wind keeping it airborne for a few hundred feet the Wright brothers had managed to fly 24 miles in a single powered flight. Go away Pedro Brazil will never be a respected country.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >no witnesses
                Frauds

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >stopped doing that when they acquired German research on swept wings
                Actually they started doing that post war because there was no threat of invasion and they had time to apply their relevant engineers on making a reliable design for swept wing. Germany did what Germany does and adopted a more complicated design for zero gain over contempory jet fighters when they already had issues with manufacturing. If they weren't moronic, they'd have made a Gloster Meteor style design and made do but they instead decided to increase cost during total war by refusing to accept a proven half measure you can rapidly produce for less cost is a better option than the opposite.
                >something like the me262 undoubtedly gave them an advantage
                By the time the Me262 was deployed "en masse", the Meteor was already in operations and it was faster, similarly ranged and wasn't swept wing while being better at climbing AND having a higher altitude while not burning it's engines out in 6 hours.
                The only real advantage it had over the Meteor was the guns.

                The only area that Germany had absolute dominance over the UK/US in war time designs was the V1/V2. Everything else was just a more complicated platform that barely outperforms much cheaper and much more cost effective equivalents.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                > Germany did what Germany does and adopted a more complicated design for zero gain
                Reminder that germans began their jet engines development with centrifugal designs that we're superior up to the 47-49.
                The Jumo had problems of reliability because its design made it prone to vibrations (not related to turbine's alloy).

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >superior
                >failed more often and produced less power
                Not sure how you attribute that to a "better" engine but given those are the two reasons you go with jets over piston, seems a bad thing to claim they were "superior".
                But that's Germany in a nutshell. Make a more complicated and expensive design with potentially superior performance and then have it turn out to be terrible in a war where you need relatively cheap and well performing designs you can rapidly mass produce and replace as they fail.
                Having a 6 hour life span on your jet engines seems to be a massive set back for your platform that's under constant combat due to a 2 pronged war where it needs to constantly intercept bombers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >"better" engine
                Early centrifugal engines were simpler, had better TWR and more reliable. That's why I call them better. Germans didn't favor them because its "frontal area" but in the end the jumo had a similar frontal area because all its auxiliary systems around the engine itself.

                >Having a 6 hour life span on your jet engines seems to be a massive set back for your platform that's under constant combat due to a 2 pronged war where it needs to constantly intercept bombers.
                > you need relatively cheap and well performing designs you can rapidly mass produce and replace as they fail.
                I agree, I think that I expressed myself badly, if germans had keep developing their centrifugal engines like the british their jets would had been better than the Me262 and earlier. IMO at least by comparing engines of that time.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Had always thought the 262 needed engine overhaul or outright replacement at 24 hours.
                >Found this instead: https://text-message.blogs.archives.gov/2014/12/16/the-german-jet-me-262-in-1944-a-failed-opportunity-part-i
                Holy fricking shit the unironic sperging about the fricking thing.
                IT IZ NOT ZE FIGHTER! IT IDENTIFIES AS ZE BOMBER! STOP SAYING FIGHTER REEEEE

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                oh yeah
                Hitler was not at his finest in 1945

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The 262's swept wings were for center of gravity purposes and the Bongs made better turbojets that didn't disintegrate in 6 hours, have a nice day.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >me 262
            germany had swept wing designs beyond the "sweep" of the me262.

            >british engines
            britain did not face the resource shortages or bombing that germany did. despite this germany beat britain in fielding the first jet fighter.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The Meteor was not fielded because it was unsafe to fly. It was in almost all accounts including safety, superior to the Me-262, but still wildly insufficient in quality for the Allies to field. The Me-262 was fielded because the Germans were desperate and it managed to kill more experienced german pilots in a few months than the Allies managed to do in an entire year as a result. The Me-262 should not have been fielded and the fact you do not understand this is highly telling of your limited understanding of this topic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >make shitty jet
                >meanwhile me262 has impressive combat record
                ok anon. the me 262 was basically untouchable in the air (partly due to its speed) and the only way to take it out was
                >try to ambush on landing
                >try to ambush on take off
                >bomb on ground
                >bomb factory

                it was a pretty big problem for allied bombers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                thanks anon, now i understand why we still use piston engine aircraft today

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                we certainly don't use early german jets, it'll tell you that much

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you use alot of other german technology though

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                german cars are alright, i suppose. i don't like the electronics they put into them, though.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                chuck yeager actually got his kill by coming across one that was landing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                not his problem

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the only way to take it out was
                >try to ambush on landing
                >try to ambush on take off
                both of which phases turned out to be a huge proportion of its flight, because lol that acceleration

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You forgot
                >wait for the shitty jet to flameout and crash that thing with no survivors

                at least it wasn't a comet

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Cool Wehrmacht propaganda but it’s not actually true. Did you know one of the reasons the Meteor wasn’t deployed over Germany was for fear of the Germans capturing an engine and reverse engineering it and making an actually good jet engine that doesn’t kill more of its pilots than the enemy does?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you mean because the me262 would probably have shot it down?

                >Captain Eric Brown, an RAF test pilot who had flown 487 types of planes during his service, flew a captured Me 262 (as well as other German Second World War jets) after the end of the war. He referred to the Me 262 as "the most formidable aircraft of WW2." He noted that it had a number of innovatory features, but in terms of performance, was a quantum jump ahead of other planes at the time. In particular he noted its swept back wings, its axial flow jet engine, and the four powerful 30mm cannons. He stated that it was significantly faster than the fastest Spitfire (at the time) and with that speed "you could conduct combat totally on your own terms. If you didn't want to engage, you could go off and leave everyone standing."[123]

                how many aces flew the meteor though? plenty of aces in the me262, it was superior (obviously) to any piston driven aircraft which is basically all the allies fielded.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Remind me which airframe design was immediately thrown in the trash can for being hot garbage as soon as the war ended and which one led to further iterations on the design and while you’re at it remind me how one cherry-picked opinion somehow countermands that fact?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >which one led to further iterations on the design
                you mean the focke-wulf jet designs?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You’re a funny guy you know that?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The Huckebein was proven to be garbage once argentina made it, half the climb rate of the Saber and MiG

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >ace worship
                >in the 21st century
                we don't hog kills and leave our wingmen to die, Meyer

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Getting your ace off of 5 bombers
                >Thinking that makes for superiority
                Do g*rms really?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >creating an aircraft that is much more capable than any other contemporary to the point it ushers in a new age of air combat
                >not significant
                ok

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Using this wunderwaffen to impotently shoot down 5-6 bombers out of a single 120 bomber group
                Ah yes, so revolutionary. If only they could figure out how to use the damn thing but at least the rest of the world knew where to go with it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >it only shot down 6 aircraft
                why is this board so full of morons

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >t. unable to read to the end of a sentence

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >implying that was their only engagement
                >implying it did not inflict large casualties and was not a major threat to allied airpower
                also thats a pretty large group and had extensive escort protection too.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Dont forget the Jumo 004 engines were cheaper and used less scarce alloys than the DB605.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >germany had swept wing designs beyond the "sweep" of the me262.
              Which were all shit
              >britain did not face the resource shortages or bombing that germany did. despite this germany beat britain in fielding the first jet fighter.
              By like a month, Soviet clones of German engines were so bad they had to steal the Nene

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Soviet clones of German engines were so bad they had to steal the Nene
                That's despite soviets literally ripping out and stealing all the related industry from germany into the soviet union. They actually restarted V-2 production on that equipment.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Frick off

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the f86 design didnt come directly from the me262.

            >Crucially, the XP-86 was not able to meet the required top speed of 600 mph (970 km/h);[9] North American had to quickly devise a radical change that could leapfrog its rivals. The North American F-86 Sabre was the first American aircraft to take advantage of flight research data seized from the German aerodynamicists at the end of World War II.[10]

            also adolf busseman proposed a 35 degree swept wing on the me262 which wasnt used, but he was captured by the western allies under operation paperclip and the f86 used the same wing sweep angle.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              go back www.fanfiction.net

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                go look it up.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >/k/ is confronted with the fact german ww2 technology contributed significantly to the post war development of many things
    >category 5 redditor chimpout occurs
    fricking kek. this place has really gone downhill

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >vatnik learns that soviets never created anything original and every their achievment is either fake or made by shameless stealing
      >vatnik shitposter vomits over the thread with moronation
      every time

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The only significant contribution the Germans made was in showing people that swept wing worked in practice, the engine designs and overall body design were awful and immediately abandoned so badly even the Soviets didn’t want them and they went and stole British designs instead. And they’re the guys so desperate they put a Tiger Porsche engine in the T-14, which is probably one of the worst engines ever made and it’s still apparently better than the Me-262’s engines. You can vaguely credit the F-86 being as good as it was to the existence of the 262’s wing shape, I’ll give you that much if you’ll stop trying to credit a science independently developed over the span of more or less 50 years to three guys in the 30s.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >even the Soviets didn’t want them and they went and stole British designs instead
        this technically isn't true, the airframe was indeed german. the problem was that the airframe design was bad enough that going for dives in it would be suicidal. Soviet engineers would revere Yeager for dive testing that thing when learning he was flying a captured one later on. This was one of the things soviets mostly fixed in Mig-17.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >And they’re the guys so desperate they put a Tiger Porsche engine in the T-14, which is probably one of the worst engines ever made
        I bet the engine was a lot more reliable as soon as it was not being used in a Tiger Porsche. Germans do love stressing the everloving frick out of a drivetrain.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >TikTok frog
    >abhorrent post

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Frick off plebs, sexiest plane of ww2 coming through

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >of ww2
      no

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It still counts

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Just look at it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That’s the shitty trainer version. Post the real one.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The MiG-15 wasn't a fighter, it was an interceptor designed to take out B-29's, hence its low velocity 23mm and 37mm cannons.

    In Korea, MiG 15's got fricked whenever they went against F-86's. F-86's had better high speed performance and could choose when to engage and disengage. Perhaps their greatest advantage over the MiG-15 was their radar gunsight.

    The Soviets would later copy this radar gunsight into the MiG-17.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *