Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Does so

You miss my point. Biplanes weren’t a backbone of Soviet air force during WWII for sure, thus they had a SMALL number of biplane fighters (i-153). These planes were a rollback from an i-16 known as a rata or mosca. An i-16 was a pretty revolutionary plane for earlier 1930s (a fast agile monoplane featuring retractable landing gear). An i-153 biplane came in 1934 as a less revolutionary alternative but the history proved that even an i-16 turned absolete by late 1930s with a Bf-109 in the skies.
The point is the Soviets has stuck with a technology from the early 1930s with Stalin’s purges.
U-2 biplane in Night Witches’ use weren’t even a combat planes.


10 posted on 06/14/2013 4:19:39 AM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: cunning_fish
The point is the Soviets has stuck with a technology from the early 1930s with Stalin’s purges.

Agreed—and nothing against biplanes, either. As I stated, Russian designs have always impressed me.

"...U-2 biplane in Night Witches’ use weren’t even a combat planes..."

'Didn't write that—but "ground-attack" ain't bad—

Fascinating reading:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:7JKwZD6IGpAJ:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_Po-2%2BU-2+biplane+in+Night+Witches%E2%80%99&gbv=2&ct=clnk

17 posted on 06/14/2013 6:31:30 AM PDT by Does so (Progressives Don't Know the Meaning of INFRINGED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson