# Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?



## claidemore (Jul 25, 2009)

We all know that the Soviet Union used a lot of western aircraft via lend-lease during WWII and there's plenty of discussion in this forum about them. 

What about reverse lend lease? What Soviet planes might the western allies have been able to put to good use, either by outright purchase, trade, or licence built in North America or Britain? 
And what further developments might have ensued?

cheers
Claidemore


----------



## Tzaw1 (Jul 26, 2009)

According to my knowledge, no.
The only case about which I heard, it is considering about the purchase of the equipment in USSR in September 1939.
But naturally nothing doing and no one did undertake in this direction any activities.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 26, 2009)

I think MiG 17 and MiG 21 could have been sold in the early days as they were good cheap fighters. 

WW2 fighters would have been limited due to short range nature of Soviet fighters.

Pe-2 would have sold maybe. I-15 and I-16 but would the I-16 passed by a British test pilot? Maybe not.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 26, 2009)

If any aircraft I would pick the IL-2 but I don't think the US would understand the 'quality' of Russian aircraft. The word 'utilitarian' comes to mind.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 26, 2009)

claidemore said:


> We all know that the Soviet Union used a lot of western aircraft via lend-lease during WWII and there's plenty of discussion in this forum about them.
> 
> What about reverse lend lease? What Soviet planes might the western allies have been able to put to good use, either by outright purchase, trade, or licence built in North America or Britain?
> And what further developments might have ensued?


Nothing high-altitude
Nothing at night
Nothing for strategic bombing
At low-level, we had the Typhoon, Tempest, Allison-P-51, P-40 and P-47
Heavy fighters and multi-role, the Mosquito and P-38
Maritime, we had the Beaufighter and Mosquito
Naval, we had the F4U and F6F
Strategic bombing, we had the Lancaster, B-17 and B-24
Medium bombing, we had the B-25, A-26,
Long-range escort, the Merlin-P-51, P-38
Interception, we had the Spitfire
Reconnaissance, we had high-flying anything really

The Soviet Union had some useful aircraft but we'd covered all the bases, I don't think we would have enhanced our options/capabilities with any of them.


----------



## imalko (Jul 26, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Nothing high-altitude



MiG-3 early in the war (later phased out of the production), but basically this type was not needed due of the nature of air operations on eastern front



Colin1 said:


> Nothing at night



Ilyushin Il-4 bomber and number of night harassment light aircraft



Colin1 said:


> Nothing for strategic bombing



Ilyushin Il-4 (used in raids on Berlin and Konigsberg for example), Petlyakov Pe-8



Colin1 said:


> The Soviet Union had some useful aircraft but we'd covered all the bases, I don't think we would have enhanced our options/capabilities with any of them.



Agree. Soviets produced aircraft best suited for their own needs and somewhat unique operational requirements of the Eastern front.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 26, 2009)

I think he was making the point that although the Russians did have aircraft for those special duties, the US already had good aircraft for those roles.

I said the IL-2 cause it may have a better aircraft than what we had at the time and I'm thinking mid-41 to mid-42. Could be wrong.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 26, 2009)

It's an interesting topic, Claidemore. I think the West got it's value from _men_ who quit the Soviet Union - men like Seversky and Sikorsky - came to America and proceeded to influence the aircraft _industry_. I do not believe there was a single Soviet aircraft that was so unique or efficient to outclass its western counterpart(s). Tanks - a different story. Infantry weapons - same. 

Post cold war, I acknowledge the situation has changed - Kamov helicopters and the big Anatov transports being good examples.

MM


----------



## claidemore (Jul 26, 2009)

What about the Tu-2? Considered one of the best medium bombers of WWII, saw service in Korea, and was flown by the Chinese until the 1970s. 340 mph, 8800 lbs of bombs, 1-46 loss per sortie survival rate on the Eastern Front.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 26, 2009)

claidemore said:


> What about the Tu-2? Considered one of the best medium bombers of WWII, saw service in Korea, and was flown by the Chinese until the 1970s. 340 mph, 8800 lbs of bombs, 1-46 loss per sortie survival rate on the Eastern Front.



Tu-2 was not exactly a medium bomber but a *full *a dive-bomber, intended to replace the Pe-2.

VG 33


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 26, 2009)

A good plane, no doubt about it but its best feature may well be it's large bomb bay. We get into the light bomber-medium bomber go round, but I'd still take an A-26 Invader or a B-26 Marauder myself, thanks.

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2009)

claidemore said:


> What about the Tu-2? Considered one of the best medium bombers of WWII, saw service in Korea, and was flown by the Chinese until the 1970s. 340 mph, 8800 lbs of bombs, 1-46 loss per sortie survival rate on the Eastern Front.



What as it going to do that the A-26 couldn't do?

Or that modified A-26 couldn't do?


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2009)

In the first few years I believe that the Pe 2 would have been welcomed as a replacement for the Blenhiem and would have been better than the Ventura. 

As for Tu 2 and what could it do compared to the A 26 the reply is simple, everything until late 1944 when the A 26 entered service.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2009)

But then the TU-2 didn't enter service in any real numbers until Spring and Summer of 1944 according to some accounts.

SO the West is supposed to figure out how good it is, get the plans, tool up a factory, build the planes and get them to combat units ALL in about 6 months?

Or just get the Soviets to deliver large numbers of their best bomber to the West before re-equiping their own squadrons?

Sort of the same thing with the PE-2. Doesn't show up in any numbers until fall/winter of 1941.

Is it better than a Blenhiem? sure, but by Dec of 1941 the British had figured out the Blenhiem had had it's day so any Western production by Bristol would have been at the expense of Beaufighters.

As far as replacing Venturas. I wonder what the bomb load of the PE-2 would have been if it had to fly as far as a Ventura?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 26, 2009)

I think the western allies could have used the YaK-9, as it was a decent fighter in many respects.

But I'd compare the IL-2 to the P-47D as far as a successful ground attack workhorse (single engined). The difference would be that the P-47 could break off it's ground attack and stand and defend itself as a fighter when threatened, something the IL-2 wasn't really capable of.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> But then the TU-2 didn't enter service in any real numbers until Spring and Summer of 1944 according to some accounts.
> 
> SO the West is supposed to figure out how good it is, get the plans, tool up a factory, build the planes and get them to combat units ALL in about 6 months?
> 
> ...



The Tu-2 first saw service in February 1942 during Operation Uranus at Stalindrad, and was very successful. Production was halted for a short time later on, then resumed in 1943. 
North American designed and had a prototype P51 flying in 178 days, and had them in combat 18 months later, so it would have been simple enough to take existing plans of a Tu-2 and put them into production for late 1943, early 1944. 

The Tupolev Tu-2 was 50-60 mph faster than the B-26 Marauder. The B-26 had a high accident rate, earned several unflattering nicknames (Widowmaker, B dash crash, etc), and was not well liked by aircrew. It was actually phased out before the war ended. 
Tu-2 on the other hand, besides being much faster, was well liked by pilots and crew, was easy to handle (same wingloading as a 109G6), and had a reputation (and sufficient armament) for engaging single engined fighters once their bombs were dropped. 
The A-26 had about half the bomb load of a Tu-2. It was about 15 mph faster though.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 26, 2009)

claidemore said:


> North American designed and had a prototype P-51 flying in 178 days...


Claide
closer to 117 days if I recall


----------



## river (Jul 26, 2009)

Hi,

The B26 was an outstanding medium bomber. It had the lowest loss rate of any allied bomber in the war.

It was not a plane for novices and that is why there were a lot of crashes during training. However, once the pilots understood the aircraft it provided admirable service. It wasn't popular among some pilots, but that's applicable to most aircraft.

The Marauder was phased out in March 1945... yes, before the end of the war by a few weeks.

I don't think the Soviets had anything so outstanding in their aircraft inventory that wasn't covered by existing allied aircraft. 

river


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> But then the TU-2 didn't enter service in any real numbers until Spring and Summer of 1944 according to some accounts.


This has been covered by Claidmore



> SO the West is supposed to figure out how good it is, get the plans, tool up a factory, build the planes and get them to combat units ALL in about 6 months?
> 
> Or just get the Soviets to deliver large numbers of their best bomber to the West before re-equiping their own squadrons?


The question was were there any Soviet aircraft that the West could or should have used, all I am saying is yes the PE 2 followed by the TU 2 replacing the Blenhiem and the Ventura.



> Sort of the same thing with the PE-2. Doesn't show up in any numbers until fall/winter of 1941.
> 
> Is it better than a Blenhiem? sure, but by Dec of 1941 the British had figured out the Blenhiem had had it's day so any Western production by Bristol would have been at the expense of Beaufighters.


Not quite, the Blenhiem was in production for years after its sell by date and in front line service almost to the end of 1943. So any PE 2 production could have replaced Blenhiem Production.



> As far as replacing Venturas. I wonder what the bomb load of the PE-2 would have been if it had to fly as far as a Ventura?



Wrong aircraft. The introduction of the Ventura was more in the timeline of the TU 2 with the first RAF Ventura missions taking place in Nov 1942. Given the choice, I would take the TU 2 over the Ventura any day.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 26, 2009)

Slightly off topic but the Tu-2 must be the best aircraft ever designed in a prison!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 26, 2009)

Maybe a tank or two and some infantry weapons, but really hard pressed on coming up with an aircraft.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 26, 2009)

It might harder to find a Soviet plane that was better than a similar western type, but I can think of times when equivalent types might have been welcome. 
When the USA first got into the fight, they were short of fighters, and they used quite a few Reverse Lend-Lease Spitfire Vs, IXs aned VIIIs (right up till 1944). I would think a few squadrons of Yak fighters would have been just as welcome. 
Ditto for the defece of Malta, they were always short of fighters. Not sure how they would get a shipment of Yaks delivered though.

I still like the Tu-2 as a plane that had one or more advantages over any western type. Others might have got the job done, but the Tupolev could have done it better.

I can see the Yak 3 as a good contender too. Had developement and production been shared with western allies thethe Yak 3 might have been in full service several months earlier, not to mention the possibility of solving the problems with the VK107 engine sooner. The Yak 3 is always touted as the best dogfighter of the war, I can't see why any nation wouldn't have liked to have a few squadrons of them. The French certainly were quite happy to get theirs after the war.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 27, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> What as it going to do that the A-26 couldn't do?
> 
> Or that modified A-26 couldn't do?



Was the A-26 a * dive bomber*?
Was it able to launch a 2500kg bomb from a 80° dive and recover at 900 km/h? 
Dit it made his first flight at january 1941?

And etc...

VG 33


----------



## parsifal (Jul 27, 2009)

I am not sure if any Soviet aircraft would be of great use in the west. But before writing off the Soviets, its a good idea to look at their strengths. Above everything else, the Soviets were goosd at flying in poor weather. They could get airborne when others could not. Was this just because they didnt worry about attritional losses, or did their aircraft have better than average capability to operate in conditions of extreme cold?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2009)

claidemore said:


> The Tu-2 first saw service in February 1942 during Operation Uranus at Stalindrad, and was very successful. Production was halted for a short time later on, then resumed in 1943.
> North American designed and had a prototype P51 flying in 178 days, and had them in combat 18 months later, so it would have been simple enough to take existing plans of a Tu-2 and put them into production for late 1943, early 1944.
> 
> The Tupolev Tu-2 was 50-60 mph faster than the B-26 Marauder. The B-26 had a high accident rate, earned several unflattering nicknames (Widowmaker, B dash crash, etc), and was not well liked by aircrew. It was actually phased out before the war ended.
> ...



Seem to have hit a nerve here.

Just which version of the TU-2 was in service in February of 1942?
Prototype ANT-59/103U first flew with with M82 engines instead of AM-37s Nov. 1 1941.
ANT-60/103V first flies Dec 15 1941 and doesn't complete testing until Aug 22 1942. 
ANT-61/103S does NII tests from Sept.13 1942 until Oct 28 1942. Goes into production at GAZ-166 by this time. At least one account says dive brakes are eliminated at this time. The two early versions use lower power versions of the M-82 engine than later versions and even then the 192-43 versions use the M-82NV engine compared to the the later versions using the M-82FN.

Production is halted and 15 months lost, large numbers of aircraft not reaching service units until well into 1944.

So WHICH set of plans are you going to give to the West and what performance numbers to convince them to build the plane? 
Douglas A-26 first flew July 10, 1942 which means design work started months before.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2009)

Glider said:


> This has been covered by Claidmore
> 
> 
> The question was were there any Soviet aircraft that the West could or should have used, all I am saying is yes the PE 2 followed by the TU 2 replacing the Blenhiem and the Ventura.
> ...



NO. 1 has been adressed in previous post.

NO.2 Yes the Blenhhiem was produced too long but the Rusians were in position to supply aircraft to the West in 1941-42-43. Any production by the West would have been at the expense of an aircraft already in production and/or the loss of output while the factory re-tooled and changed metric drawings to imperial measurements. Blenhiem was being phased out and stayed in Front line service only in secondary theaters. PE-2 shows up IN SERVICE late 1941, about a year after the Mosquito first flies. SO by the time it's combat effectiveness can be judged and plans put into place to produce it and get the planes the service squadrons it should be showing up just about the time the Blenheim was replaced anyway.

No.3 I was responding to your statement:

"In the first few years I believe that the Pe 2 would have been welcomed as a replacement for the Blenhiem and would have been better than the Ventura."

I took it to mean that the PE-2 would have been better than the Ventura, It may very well have been for some mission but as I pointed out the PE-2 may not have been able to perform some of the Venturas missions.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 27, 2009)

Parsifal..."Was this just because they didnt worry about attritional losses, or did their aircraft have better than average capability to operate in conditions of extreme cold? .."

In a previous post (WW2 Aviation Movies you like to see) I made reference to my Uncle Aythur who flew in _both _wars - Ferry Command in # 2. For a time Art was ferrying B-25 Mitchells and complained that he and his colleagues would take great effort to get the planes to the Soviet crews _safely_ (get _themselves_ there safely too ) where upon the Soviets would take off in virtually any weather conditions. This was with US aircraft, not Soviet-made machines. So I think your observation has more to do with training and values than the quality of the aircraft. That said, when you look at the record of Soviet ferry crews from Alaska, they're pretty damn good - especially considering the terrain and general weather - moreso when you think just how short the P-39 legs really were - even with external belly tank.

MM


----------



## Glider (Jul 27, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> NO. 1 has been adressed in previous post.


Yes it had been covered. Any version of the TU 2 would have been better than the Ventura



> NO.2 Yes the Blenhhiem was produced too long but the Rusians were in position to supply aircraft to the West in 1941-42-43. Any production by the West would have been at the expense of an aircraft already in production and/or the loss of output while the factory re-tooled and changed metric drawings to imperial measurements. Blenhiem was being phased out and stayed in Front line service only in secondary theaters. PE-2 shows up IN SERVICE late 1941, about a year after the Mosquito first flies. SO by the time it's combat effectiveness can be judged and plans put into place to produce it and get the planes the service squadrons it should be showing up just about the time the Blenheim was replaced anyway.


I think we are almost agreeing. The PE 2 might have been made available sooner rather than later and it would have been a lot better than the Blenhiem. The plane that would have been replaced in production would have been the Blenhiem because as you say it was produced for far too long. As for the time taken who knows how long it would have taken. Engine could have been replaced with Merlins and the actual airframe fairly easily converted to Imperial measurements.

To a certain degree this is a fantasy as there is no way Russia would have given us this aircraft and lets be honest, a T34/KV1 design handed over in 1940 would have been of far greater benefit to the UK. 

The question was simply was their any Russian aircraft that would have been of use to the West and the awnser is Yes. The fact that we would never have been given it is not the point.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 27, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> NO. 1NO.2 Yes the Blenhhiem was produced too long but the Rusians were in position to supply aircraft to the West in 1941-42-43.



That does not make sense to me. If that was the case, then why did the allies continue to supply aircraft such as the B-25 and A-20 via Lend-Lease until 1945?


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jul 27, 2009)

How about the cannons that the Soviets used? They claim it to be better than those of the West.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> That does not make sense to me. If that was the case, then why did the allies continue to supply aircraft such as the B-25 and A-20 via Lend-Lease until 1945?



My appoligies, I ment to say the soviets were in "NO" position to supply aircraft to the west during that time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2009)

Glider said:


> Yes it had been covered. Any version of the TU 2 would have been better than the Ventura.



Again it depends on what mission. Can someone please post a good reference for the TU-2 because some web sites seem to be using fantasy numbers. See:Tupolev Tu-2 - bomber

Please add 4000kg bomb load to the empty weight and see what you get 



Glider said:


> I think we are almost agreeing. The PE 2 might have been made available sooner rather than later and it would have been a lot better than the Blenhiem. The plane that would have been replaced in production would have been the Blenhiem because as you say it was produced for far too long. As for the time taken who knows how long it would have taken. Engine could have been replaced with Merlins and the actual airframe fairly easily converted to Imperial measurements.



Well, any new airframe that required Merlins in 1941-42 might not have gotton very far. That might have been a reason to keep making Blenhiems, no Merlins needed.
As far as "airframe fairly easily converted to Imperial measurements" goes one source claims the Russians needed 1500 drawings to convert the TU-2 from V-12 engines to Radials. The other aspect is that while you can change the numbers on the drawings that doesn't help a lot when your metal skinning doesn't come from the rolling mills in metric measurement, none of your tubing or other "stock" structural materials (like rivits) come in metric sizes and so on. So you can either redraw the prints ( and do weight/stress calculations) to use Imperial sizes or you can get suppliers to furnish "special batches" of materials in between normal production.



Glider said:


> The question was simply was their any Russian aircraft that would have been of use to the West and the awnser is Yes. The fact that we would never have been given it is not the point.



There were Russian Aircraft that the West could have used but only if they didn't really interupt the delivery of the Wests own designs. Since Many Russian aircraft seem to lack range compared to Western Aircraft (talking 1941-43?) they might not have been as useful as they first appear. ON the Eastern Front were airfields were close to the front this was of little importance but even in the Med there was some over water flying.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 27, 2009)

for soviet plane and not only, in russian but google language it's enough for understand number 
13-ÿ áàçà

here googled table of charateristics for tu-2
http://translate.google.com.au/tran...ext/shavrov2/t.htm&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

inlucky it can't link the googled table only the home page of book
on index page click in TU-2, after on Options TU-2 anf finally on Table of characteristics


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 27, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Seem to have hit a nerve here.
> 
> Just which version of the TU-2 was in service in February of 1942?
> Prototype ANT-59/103U first flew with with M82 engines instead of AM-37s Nov. 1 1941.
> ...



I think we should do not make confusion between technical and historical facts. It's not because soviets had no reliable and powerfull engine and no production facilities for the ANT-58 in 1941 that americans or british should have had the same problem. 
Even if satisfactory, it was still a prototype with all usual defects. The only way to save it, was to create a partnership with some western firms to develop the plane further. And to make a kind of deal, some extra light alloy deliveries against a part of finished airframes...

A lot of _what ifs_ anyway, i think...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2009)

The fundamental question to be answered is "which Soviet aircraft, in production quantities at the time, would have been superior to the Commonwaelth/US aircraft for the roles they played."

Second question "which Soviet aircraft, if available in numbers, would have altered the Missions (Tactical, strategic) supported by Commonwaelth/US aircraft.

Would an aircraft like the TU-2 replace a B-17? or a B-26? or a Mosquito?

Would a Mig-3 replace the P-40 in North Africa or in the Solomons?

etc, etc


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> for soviet plane and not only, in russian but google language it's enough for understand number
> 13-ÿ áàçà
> 
> here googled table of charateristics for tu-2
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## Glider (Jul 27, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The fundamental question to be answered is "which Soviet aircraft, in production quantities at the time, would have been superior to the Commonwaelth/US aircraft for the roles they played."
> 
> Second question "which Soviet aircraft, if available in numbers, would have altered the Missions (Tactical, strategic) supported by Commonwaelth/US aircraft.
> 
> ...



Totally agree.

My position is clear in that I would prefer the PE 2 to the Blenhiem and the TU 2 to replace the Ventura. If there is an time overlap I would prefer the PE 2 to the Ventura until the TU 2 comes along. 

Does anyone truly believe that they would rather go into combat in a Ventura or a Blenhiem?


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 27, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Again it depends on what mission. Can someone please post a good reference for the TU-2 because some web sites seem to be using fantasy numbers. See:Tupolev Tu-2 - bomber
> 
> Please add 4000kg bomb load to the empty weight and see what you get



Probably: ??????? ??-2

So Claid was not far from the truth, first serial machines were produced in march 1942 at factory 166, but provided unsatisfactory.



> Well, any new airframe that required Merlins in 1941-42 might not have gotton very far. That might have been a reason to keep making Blenhiems, no Merlins needed.


Maybe Allisons (for the Pe-2), Hercules (for the Tu-2).



> As far as "airframe fairly easily converted to Imperial measurements" goes one source claims the Russians needed 1500 drawings to convert the TU-2 from V-12 engines to Radials.


For wooden or mixed planes as Yak-1, MiG-3, LaGG i think so. No much accuracy required. But from C-47/Li-2 experience ! It's fairly as much work as creating a new aircraft





> There were Russian Aircraft that the West could have used but only if they didn't really interupt the delivery of the Wests own designs. Since Many Russian aircraft seem to lack range compared to Western Aircraft (talking 1941-43?) they might not have been as useful as they first appear. ON the Eastern Front were airfields were close to the front this was of little importance but even in the Med there was some over water flying.


Maybe Allison or Merlin fitted Yak-9D or MiG-3D should have been just ok! 

VG 33

Regards


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> I think we should do not make confusion between technical and historical facts. It's not because soviets had no reliable and powerfull engine and no production facilities for the ANT-58 in 1941 that americans or british should have had the same problem.
> Even if satisfactory, it was still a prototype with all usual defects. The only way to save it, was to create a partnership with some western firms to develop the plane further. And to make a kind of deal, some extra light alloy deliveries against a part of finished airframes...
> 
> A lot of _what ifs_ anyway, i think...



I mean no disrespect to the Russian designers and workmen. It is just that by the time ANY design had proved itself in combat it was at least two years from start up if not more. So if you go back two-three years why would any country think that another country's DRAWING board or PROTOTYPE airplane was any better than their own DRAWING board or PROTOTYPE airplane?

And by the time a plane had proved itself in combat there were any number of up and coming designs that PROMISED to be better. Weither they fufilled that promise is another matter. 

As a for instance the Northrop P-61 Black Widow was being worked on over 14 months BEFORE Pearl Harbor and 8-9 Months before the Soviet Union was invaded. That means the US had about 20 different designs of fighter plane on drawing boards or under construction to replace the P-40 before the P-40 ever equipt a service squadron.

It is easy now to say what planes should have been stopped before they got off the drawing board or to pick winners, it might have been a bit harder to predict the future in 1940-41.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 28, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I mean no disrespect to the Russian designers and workmen. It is just that by the time ANY design had proved itself in combat it was at least two years from start up if not more. So if you go back two-three years why would any country think that another country's DRAWING board or PROTOTYPE airplane was any better than their own DRAWING board or PROTOTYPE airplane?



Great Britain did exactly that when they ordered the P51. Unproven, no plans, no prototype, just a concept. That worked out pretty good. 

Packard ( a car manufacturer) had a re-engineered Merlin running only 11 months after the agreement to produce them was made. 

There's no reason a Tu-2 couldn't have been re-drawn, (and no doubt improved) in a timely manner. The west had the resources, the Soviets didn't, so they shelved the project for 15 months. A western manufacturer, or a co-operative east/west venture, could have had it in full production during that window. 

Remember, the question is, "coulda/shoulda"; not woulda. We all know the answer to 'woulda'. 

My dentist hit a nerve today. But that was not his intention.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Great Britain did exactly that when they ordered the P51. Unproven, no plans, no prototype, just a concept. That worked out pretty good.
> 
> Packard ( a car manufacturer) had a re-engineered Merlin running only 11 months after the agreement to produce them was made.
> 
> ...



Lets see, British order the P-51 in March of 1940, it is first used in combat May of 1942? So following that time scale When does a Western built TU-2 see combat? 
First TU-2 prototype doesn't fly until 3 months after the first P-51. While the Prototype shows amazing performance so do more than a few prototypes that don't pan out.
By the way TU-2 Prototype doesn't fly until what, 13-14 months after the Martin B-26.

As to the West having the resources, just what aircraft are you proposing to cut from production to make TU-2s? What engine are you proposing to use to power it ?

ANd what do you get at the end. The version that went into combat in 1944 had this for performance:

" Cruising speed 442 km / h at an altitude of 5800 m, range - 2100 km at an altitude of 3000 m with 1.5 tons of bombs in the store 2700 liters of gasoline (about 2100 kg)."

While this is very,very good it is a far cry from the 4,000kg bomb loads listed on many web sites. 

Please also note that this performance is with an engine that did not go into production until Jan. 1943. Earlier versions would have had 150hp less per engine for take off (V-12 prototypes had 350hp less for take-off) .
Looking at this plane from a Western perspective, would you really want to fly from bases in England over France and Western Germany in 1943 at 10,000ft at around 270-280mph in a plane that had three hand operated (Non-turret) 12.7mm MG for defence?

Some early prototypes had TWO 7.62 MGs for rear defence. 

Western "improvements" might have included 300-700kg of gun turrets would have reduced the performance of the TU-2. Please note that I use the word " improvements" with reservations


----------



## claidemore (Jul 28, 2009)

Crusing speed of the Tu-2 of 276 mph is pretty much the same as Spitfires during the same time period and higher than most other medium bombers. Ventura crusing speed was only 260, and pilots flew them across the channel, albeit with high losses. Bostons had a crusing speed of 250, and less armament than the Tu-2 and they were quite popular with crews in cross channel operation. Those crews would have traded their Bostons for a Tu-2 that had a top speed of up to 50 mph faster quite willlingly. 

The Blenheim had a turret, and it didn't do it much good. Waist guners in a B17 didn't have turrets, and they did just fine. Turrets are a non issue in a light/medium bomber IMO. 

What plane to replace with the Tu-2? Take your pick. Boston, Blenheim, Hampden, Beufort, Wellington, Whitley (was already done in 1942), Ventura, Manchester( but it was replaced by Lancaster), Marauder and Maryland. It also could have done the Beaufighters job as well or better. 

The Hercules engine on a Tu-2 would have been a good match, increasing it's range (better fuel economy), and depending on the variant, increasing horsepower. 

The other option would be to use resources that were dedicated to any of a number of projects that duplicated other aircraft, such as the B32. Admitedly easier to do in hindsight, but given the option of developing the very practical Tu-2, or pursuing one of the 'fantasy' projects, companies such as Curtiss, Fairchild, Blackburn, Bristol, Martin etc, might have made a more useful contribution to the war effort.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Crusing speed of the Tu-2 of 276 mph is pretty much the same as Spitfires during the same time period and higher than most other medium bombers. Ventura crusing speed was only 260, and pilots flew them across the channel, albeit with high losses. Bostons had a crusing speed of 250, and less armament than the Tu-2 and they were quite popular with crews in cross channel operation. Those crews would have traded their Bostons for a Tu-2 that had a top speed of up to 50 mph faster quite willlingly. .



Some of those Bostons were doing their cross channel flights in late 1941 weren't they? Not quite the same as 1943. As for 50mph faster, quite a trick, see:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/A20/A20FOICa.pdf

See CRUISING SPEED of 305mph at 12,000ft . I wonder what that old A-20 could do if it used full throttle?



claidemore said:


> The Blenheim had a turret, and it didn't do it much good. Waist guners in a B17 didn't have turrets, and they did just fine. Turrets are a non issue in a light/medium bomber IMO. .



Well, apparently your opinion wasn't shared by the USAAF. They had B-17s with no turrets, right up until the E model. The later models of the A-20 had a power turret. No operational B-26 flew without one and The B-25 was equiped with at least one from the B model on. 119 B models delivered in 1941. US navy might disagree also. Gruman Avenger used a power turret instead of a hand operated MG for it's upper rear defense. Blenhiem just might have other issues besides it's turret and just which turret are you refering to? the one with a single vickers K gun with it's 100 shot drum or the one with twin belt fed Brownings? 



claidemore said:


> What plane to replace with the Tu-2? Take your pick. Boston, Blenheim, Hampden, Beufort, Wellington, Whitley (was already done in 1942), Ventura, Manchester( but it was replaced by Lancaster), Marauder and Maryland. It also could have done the Beaufighters job as well or better. .



For now let's leave the Boston In.
Blenheim, fine replace it... oh, thats right by 1943 it was out of production. 
Hampden, fine replace it....oh, thats right production ended in March of 1942. Handley page had stopped production at their factory in 1940.
Beaufort, fine replace it....it takes Bristol from Aug 1943 to Nov 25 1944 to make the last 250 (out of 1428 British built) Beauforts.
Whitley, out of bomber service by the end of April 1942, Production doesn't end for over another year however, something to do with Coastal Command and Anti-sub patrols.
Manchester???? you are really reaching with this one. Lancaster Deliveries start at the end of Dec 1941 using parts left on Manchster production line. 10 days after first flight of a TU-2 protoype using radial engines.
Maryland????365 built total, in service Jan 1941. Already replaced by Baltimore by the time the 103V was even called the TU-2. In fact Baltimores are ORDERED as follow up to Marylands on MAY 18, 1940.

I think I am seeing a pattern here, replace old, obsolete aircraft that were going out of service anyway with new modern bomber that won't be available till Early 1943 (and in real numbers summer or fall of 1943) no matter what is done, then claim how much better new higher powered bomber is.
Continuing:
Wellington.... true the Wellington carried on in production until till October of 1945 but then a Wellington, while slow, had a claimed range of 1325 miles with a 4,500lb bomb load. Same range as TU-2 but with 50% more bombs, Of course the Wellington was retired from Bomber Command in Oct 1943 so again the TU-2 would be replacing a plane already on it's way out.
Ventura...Well you could replace the Ventura but there is the timing thing. First Venturas are ordered May of 1940, second order for 375 placed later the same year. First flown July 31 of 1941, first delivery to RAF in Sept 1941, first issued to squadron in May of 1942, first combat in Nov 1942. Over two years from order to combat and this is for an airframe that was already in production as a civil airliner. Now just when does the West order the TU-2 "off the Drawing Board" ? And how many Venturas are on hand when the "production line" switches over?
That leaves the Marauder and the Boston.



claidemore said:


> The Hercules engine on a Tu-2 would have been a good match, increasing it's range (better fuel economy), and depending on the variant, increasing horsepower. .



Yes, except depending on variant decreasing the horsepower. Just what Hercules made over 1800hp before the end of the war?



claidemore said:


> The other option would be to use resources that were dedicated to any of a number of projects that duplicated other aircraft, such as the B32. Admitedly easier to do in hindsight, but given the option of developing the very practical Tu-2, or pursuing one of the 'fantasy' projects, companies such as Curtiss, Fairchild, Blackburn, Bristol, Martin etc, might have made a more useful contribution to the war effort.



Yes, much easier to do in hindsight. There were very real fears the B-29 program would be a failure and since a large part of the stratagy against Japan depended on the B-29 (or a replacement for it=B-32).
And the "very practical Tu-2" has only proved to be so in hindsight. Given it's lack of combat except in a few isolated incidences until the summer/fall of 1944 pursuing it "off the drawing board" instead something like the B-28 or B-33 doesn't seem like a much better bet. Some of those fantasy projects were shut down but one does wonder how much of the work on pressure cabins and remote sighted turrets carried over to the B-29?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 28, 2009)

I think I'd wrather have 2 x P-47s then 1 x Tu 2.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 29, 2009)

Shortround6: 
They were using Bostons over France in 1944. (some with a turret). Boston max speed was 317mph-340mph, depending on variant.
BTW, post war variants of the Tu-2 had turrets. 

And you are right, there is a pattern, replace planes that aren't up to snuff with one that is. 

Tu-2 specs. 
Tu-2 (1942 model) ANT 60 ASh 82 (1330/1700 hp) 80 built
Max speed: 521 kmh/325 mph
Internal bomb load: 1000 kg (2200 lbs)
External bomb load: 2000 kg (4400 lbs)
Total max bomb load: 3000 kg (6600 lbs)
Optional armament 10 x RS132 rockets
Armament: 2 x 20mm ShVAK, 1 UBT, 3 ShKAS (replaced by UBTs in service)
Range:2020 km (1262 miles)
Ceiling: 9000 m (29,500 ft)

Tu-2s (1943 model) ANT 61 Ash82FN (1460/1850 hp - 4 blade prop) 
Max speed: 550 khm/ 344 mph
Internal bomb load 1000kg
External bomb load 2000 kg
Total max bomb load 3000 kg (6600 lbs)
Range: 2100 km (1312 miles) 
Ceiling 9500 m (31,000 ft)
Armament: 2 x 20mm ShVAK, 3 x UBT

Brief comparisons:
Faster than B26 or B25
2200 lbs greater bomb load than B26 or A20
Greater range than A20, B26
Higher ceiling that A20, B26 or B25 
Better climb rate than B25 or B26
You can see why various sources claim that the Tu-2 was the best medium bomber of WWII. 

archival video footage on YouTube. 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLs2qeDuuC8_


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 29, 2009)

imho can't actually load 3 tonnes of bombs (the russian book that i linked show a load of 3.9 tons, need count crews, ammo, fuel i think no more of 2 tonnes of bombs)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2009)

I am not saying the TU-2 wasn't a very,very good bomber, it might have even been the best. What I am saying is that it was too late in timing for the west to get into service in any numbers. 

IF the Boston could do "317mph-340mph, depending on variant." how is the TU-2 at 325 to 344mph a whopping 50MPH faster?

"And you are right, there is a pattern, replace planes that aren't up to snuff with one that is."

Gee, I thought that is what the Western allies were doing?

Marylands replaced Blenheims, Baltimores replaced both. 
Bostons replaced Blenheims. 
Whitleys and Welliingtons were more twin engined heavy bombers and were replaced by 4 engine bombers and so on.

"Brief comparisons:
Faster than B26 or B25
2200 lbs greater bomb load than B26 or A20
Greater range than A20, B26
Higher ceiling that A20, B26 or B25 
Better climb rate than B25 or B26"

All true except that the speed was bought at the cost of crappy defensive armament, the fixed forward firing 20mm guns are going to be mighty hard to defend the loaded bomber with.

From the figures the TU-2 had just under 4000kg of useful load.
so 1500kg of bombs, 2100kg of fuel leaves under 400kg for crew,ammo, oxogen etc.
Now you certainly can trade fuel for bomb load but that does tend to shorten the range. 
By the way the early B-26s were rated to carry 2 1600lb armour peircing bombs AND a 2000lb torpedo. 5200lb "bomb" load. Never used and totally useless combination but there is that "book" number. 
The TU-2 may very well have been able to cary more bombs further than the B-26 or A-20. the question is weither it could carry ENOUGH more bombs ENOUGH further to make it worth while to start production. Some sources state the INternal Load of the TU-2 was 1500kg. so any heavier load is going outside where the extra drag might cut into range more than simply trading fuel for bomb weight.

By the way, the idea that the TU-2 could do the Beaufighters job was a good joke.
If you think that TU-2 would have been good nightfighter in late 1940 itmeans you have a time machine in yourTU-2s.
You might also ask yourself how the TU-2 would perform caring the guns and ammo the Beaufighter did.


----------



## river (Jul 29, 2009)

Hi,

The Tu-2 does nothing for me. It looks like a Buckmaster or Brigand to me.

It's stats look good on paper, but unless there is some good testimony on how it performed its job in war, how it was liked//not liked by the crews, reliability, accuracy, toughness etc, then I can't see it having any advantage over the existing allied aircraft. And if it did have an advantage, it would need to be so vast that it would be worth tooling up the allies to operate and support the aircraft.

A 1000kg of bombs internally is less than the B26. I know the Tu-2 could carry more weight with external racks, but I can't see that being a viable option in war, unless you have total air superiority, as external bombs would make the plane slower and more vulnerable.

If we were talking about AFV, then I'd certainly say the Russians had a couple of superb tanks the allies could of used, but as far as aircraft go, the allies had all the types they needed.

river


----------



## claidemore (Jul 29, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not saying the TU-2 wasn't a very,very good bomber, it might have even been the best. What I am saying is that it was too late in timing for the west to get into service in any numbers.
> 
> IF the Boston could do "317mph-340mph, depending on variant." how is the TU-2 at 325 to 344mph a whopping 50MPH faster?
> 
> ...





river: Crew liked the Tu-2, it had a high survivability rate for Eastern Front. Commanders in the Bomber Regiments pressed Stallin to put it back into production as they wanted it's greater bomb load capacity (compared to Pe-2). The plane was good enough that they kept on building it after the war, (over half of total production), and used it into the 60's (possibly 70's). Post war they put powered turrets on them, as well as used them in scientific research. It was fast enough to be used in the Recon role, though a Mosquito or P38 would be a better choice IMO.


----------



## Condora (Jul 29, 2009)

claidemore said:


> North American designed and had a prototype P51 flying in 178 days





Colin1 said:


> Claide
> closer to 117 days if I recall



To be more accurate, rollout in 117 days, first flight in 178 days. 

I have to agree with River, if it was armour, the russians had some stuff that could be used by other allies.

As for aircraft, they had airplanes that suited their purposes, geography, way of fighting... and the western allies had already suitable stuff for themselves.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Condora said:


> To be more accurate, rollout in 117 days, first flight in 178 days


Ah yes
thanks for the correction, if I recall, they had to borrow the main undercarriage wheels from an AT-6 Texan for the occasion.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2009)

"Exactly, hence the question, could they or should they have looked at 'eastern' types? "

They certainly should have "LOOKED" at them. They certainly could have "LOOKED" at them.

The question is did any 'Eastern' type really display any performance advantages so great to cause the west to modify their production plans to integrate an eastern type into the production schedule.

While the Mustang did set those 117 and 178 day records it was over another year before the first production version was delivered. SO unless the west decides to take a Russian plane 'off the drawing board'
you are looking at 1 1/2 to 2 years from flight testing of the Russian plane till it would be produced in the west. 

And the Russian plane might have to conform to Western ideas of plane design/mission. Like gun turrets for defence on medium bombers (Mosquito excepted) or Western ideas of fighter armament. Western ideas of minimum required range might have stopped the adoption of some Russian types. British Already had the short ranged Spitfire, they didn't need another short ranged single engined fighter. 

"The two 20mm guns were used in the interceptor role, and against enemy fighters after dropping the bomb load. They were not defensive armament, they were offensive. Defensive armament was 3 x UBT 12.7 mm heavy machine guns, which Tu-2 crews considered much better than the 2 gun defensive armament of the Pe-2. "

Nice story but that means that the TU-2 had NO defense from the front. And the idea of using a plane such as a TU-2 to INTENTIONALLY hunt enemy single engine fighters is a joke. Hunt Bf-110s maybe. Please note that even the Lockheed Ventura shot down at least one German single seat fighter using fixed nose guns and Hudsons shot down several German planes with their fixed twin .303 MGs but nobody is claiming that they went LOOKING for enemy fighters to attack as SOP.
The "Defensive armament was 3 x UBT 12.7 mm heavy machine guns" was the large part of the "crappy" defesive armament. One book claims the Nav/bomb aimer behind the pilot had 200-250 rounds for his gun. the Radio operator (upper rear) had 250 rounds and the lower rear gunner had 250 rounds. THis gunner used a ventral periscope for sighting which probably didn't work any better than the western sights of this type. This book is from pre Iron curtain falling days and might be in error. 
Compare this with an early B-26 which had either a .30 or .50 cal MG with 600 rounds( for the .30) in the nose and a similar gun with the same ammo in the ventral tunnel, twin manual .50s in the tail with 1500rpg and the power top turret with 400 rpg. Starting with the 431st B model the ventral gun was replaced by two .50s (one each side) lower beam guns with 240rpg. From the B-26B-10 block the nose gun was standerized as a .50 cal with 270 rounds with another .50 fixed in the nose with 200 rounds. the 4 "package" .50s with 200-250 rounds each are added at this time but then they aren't defensive armament either. Good for ground straffing though and used to good effect on German transport planes over the Mediterranean. On the B-26-20-MA series and all later aircraft the manual twin .50s were replaced by a power mounting with 400rpg. 
Even with this armament the B-26 proved unable to operate over Western Europe in the spring-summer of 1943 without strong fighter escort. Later tatics (including operating at night and short range tatical support duties) helped the Maurauder achieve it's record low loss ratio. The idea that TU-2 could have operated with any better success using the same tatics in the spring-summer of 1943 by mearly cruising 50mph or so faster doesn't seem to make sense. 
Given the losses that Western aircraft were suffering with their much heavier defensive armament I doubt the idea of using a bomber with just 3 hand operated MGs would have appealed to the production planners. 

As for wither the TU-2 could carry 1000kg or 1500kg inside it doesn't make a lot of difference to this arguement except for the note that at 1000kg (2200lbs) it really couldn't carry anymore inside the plane than an A-20 could. 

Beaufighter

"No joke. The Beaufighter did a lot more than just night fighter duties in 1940. I have an aquantance (Dallas Schmidt) who flew them in Malta and then Northern Europe in 1944 on anti-shipping duties. It's one of my favorite planes, but it was a bit slow, and as Dallas said, it was barely above stall speed with one engine out. Tu-2 had room for more guns in the nose, could carry rockets, or 2 torpedos,(Beau caried one) and do it 24 mph faster. Two less crew if the plane isn't being used as a bomber, no defensive guns needed (Beau had none), so those 3 guns and ammo are replaced by forward firing ones. It's definately capable of doing the Beaufighters job from 1943 on. The Beau has the edge in range though."

Just pointing out the difference in timing again.
You need more than just room to mount guns, you need the ability to carry weight and you need the ability to place the weight in regard to the CG of the airplane. THe Beaufighter was carring 334kg worth of guns and another 498kg worth of ammo before they load the torpedo under it. And that is not including that pathetic little peashooter some of the coastal cammand types carryed firing out the back. 

You might want to check that speed advantage again also. Just how fast is the Tu-2 while carring TWO torpedoes OUTSIDE the plane. and you might need that time machine again , see:
Tu-2T and 62T by A.N.Tupolev


----------



## claidemore (Jul 30, 2009)

Shortround:
315 mph for the Tu-2 with one torpedo is only 5 mph slower than the Beaufighters top speed 'clean'. 

Turrets are all well and good, but even the big 4 engine bombers couldn't defend themselves without fighter escort. Can't expect a B26 or a Tu-2 to do it if the B17 and B24 can't. Soviet doctrine called for close escort (usually Yaks), top cover, and/or a fighter sweep ahead (usually La5 or P-39). 

I don't see why a western producer would need to duplicate the flight testing already done by TSAGI, or the combat evaluation done on the Kalinin Front in 1942. In Canada we produced Hurricanes, Mosquitos, Lancasters and Blenheim IVs (we called them Bolingbrokes), and we didn't have to go through exhaustive flight tests to determine if they could fly! We just got the plans, tooled up, and started building the darn things. Instead of 600 or so Blenheim IVs, we could just as easily have built 600 Tu-2s. And if the west didn't want to use them, I'll bet the Soviets would have welcomed the extra production. 

BTW, it'd be a slmple thing to correct the CG of a Tu-2 that gets a few hundred kgs of guns and ammo up front, particularly as it is designed to carry a bomb load in excess of 10 times that amount in bombs. They did it in the Beaufighter, which was after all basically a Beufort with a skinny fuselage. The Pe-3 did it as well, and it's a lot lighter than a Tu-2,(and slower).

As far as relying on speed for surviving bombing missions, the Mosquito did it. But the Tu-2 would not have been quite fast enough to pull that one off. So no replacing Mosquitos with Tu-2s. sigh.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2009)

the alone Tu-2 with torpedo flying in march '45, the after little series it's a variant of after war Tu-2 variant


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Shortround:
> 315 mph for the Tu-2 with one torpedo is only 5 mph slower than the Beaufighters top speed 'clean'. .


Since one source says a Beaufighter could do 308mph with a torpedo, that cuts the TU-2 advantage to 7mph not 24mph with 2 torpedos that you claimed. Tu-2 is better but is it by enough to change over the production line? 
ANd this is the heart of the question, Was an Eastern aircraft ENOUGH better than a Western aircraft to make the effort at starting production worthwhile.



claidemore said:


> Turrets are all well and good, but even the big 4 engine bombers couldn't defend themselves without fighter escort. Can't expect a B26 or a Tu-2 to do it if the B17 and B24 can't. Soviet doctrine called for close escort (usually Yaks), top cover, and/or a fighter sweep ahead (usually La5 or P-39) .



Very true but it doesn't address the question of what the West was looking for at the time. If they were looking for bombers with multipule power gun turrets even a Western designer couldn't have sold them a plane with 3 hand held MGs.



claidemore said:


> I don't see why a western producer would need to duplicate the flight testing already done by TSAGI, or the combat evaluation done on the Kalinin Front in 1942. In Canada we produced Hurricanes, Mosquitos, Lancasters and Blenheim IVs (we called them Bolingbrokes), and we didn't have to go through exhaustive flight tests to determine if they could fly! We just got the plans, tooled up, and started building the darn things. Instead of 600 or so Blenheim IVs, we could just as easily have built 600 Tu-2s. And if the west didn't want to use them, I'll bet the Soviets would have welcomed the extra production.



quite true, you don't have to do all the flight testing already done by the Russians. You do however either have to build the factory to build the planes or convert an existing factory, convert all the drawings amd anglisize some of the parts, build jigs and fixtures and so on. you know, that part that took over a year from first flight of the Mustang until first production delivery. 
I am really getting tired of the time machine the TU-2 seems to possess, Why not just have it time travel back to 1938 and bomb Hitler before the war even starts. Bolingbroke production started in 1939 with the first plane delivered in Nov of 1939. quite trick to build hundreds of TU-2s instead of Bolingbrokes while Tupolev is still doodling the intial design on paper?



claidemore said:


> BTW, it'd be a slmple thing to correct the CG of a Tu-2 that gets a few hundred kgs of guns and ammo up front, particularly as it is designed to carry a bomb load in excess of 10 times that amount in bombs. They did it in the Beaufighter, which was after all basically a Beufort with a skinny fuselage. The Pe-3 did it as well, and it's a lot lighter than a Tu-2,(and slower).



Several points here. 
1. Tu-2 that gets a few hundred kgs of guns and ammo up front, dosn't come close to carring the Beaufighters armament. not unless you think "a few hundred" equels over 700kg. and that is allowing for the guns already firing out the front.
2. GOLLY!!!! the TU-2 was designed to carry over 8000kg of bombs??? might be news to Tupolev.

OK I apologise, you never said you were going to equel the Beaufighters armament. Just add a few hundred KG of guns and ammo to the nose of the TU-2 while pulling a hundred KG out of the tail. which does leave you way short of the Beafighters armament.
3. the whole "Balance" thing. Nose heavy or tail heavy aircraft don't fly very well. "They" corrected the the "CG" of the beaufighter by monting the 20mm guns and ammo about were the bomb bay was on the Beaufort thus keeping the weight about where the CG was to begin with. Guns mounted in the wing tend to be close to the CG to begin with. 
Now if you want to mount the guns inthe bomb bay or in a "pack" under the bomb bay I don't have an arguement for that. 

Could the TU-2 do the Beaufighters job? well, after 1943 I guess it could. Could it do it "enough" better to be worth loosing several months or more of production? Could it do enough better than later types of Western aircraft promised to? like "what if" they speeded up development of the Bristol Brigand/ Buckingham series?



claidemore said:


> As far as relying on speed for surviving bombing missions, the Mosquito did it. But the Tu-2 would not have been quite fast enough to pull that one off. So no replacing Mosquitos with Tu-2s. sigh.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 30, 2009)

Shoutround:
The Bolingbroke 1 was produced in Britain in 1939. The _Canadian _Bolingbroke was actually a Blenheim Mk IV and was produced 'late war' by Fairchild in Quebec. No tiresome time machine there.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 30, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Shoutround:
> The Bolingbroke 1 was produced in Britain in 1939. The _Canadian _Bolingbroke was actually a Blenheim Mk IV and was produced 'late war' by Fairchild in Quebec. No tiresome time machine there.



The British Bolingbroke was also the Blenheim IV. We just changed the name back to Blenheim, whereas Canada did not. Your post seems to suggest they were two different types.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Shoutround:
> The Bolingbroke 1 was produced in Britain in 1939. The _Canadian _Bolingbroke was actually a Blenheim Mk IV and was produced 'late war' by Fairchild in Quebec. No tiresome time machine there.



Try again.

Canada decided to adopt the the Blenheim/Bolingbroke in 1937. First prototype did fly in England on Sept 24,1937. Intial contract for 18 aircraft. 4 out of 9 planed British planes for evaluation and pattern use actually make it to Canada. Bristol does send drawings and proprietary items and components. Work was also undertaken to adopt the Bolingbroke to American structural and equipment standards and for Canadian conditions. Like fitting de-icing boots on wing and tail, fitting dinghies and more radio equipment. Interchangable wheel and ski undercarraiges also planned. 
Production was slow with first Canadian built plane reaching the R.C.A.F Nov 15, 1939 and the 18th plane delievered Aug. 28, 1940. that is for the Bolingbroke I. 
first Bolingbroke IV taken on charge Jan 30, 1941 with 134th aircraft delivered March of 1942. 
after the first contract for 18 aircraft a further contract for 200 was placed at the end of 1939. The final 50 were canceled but were reinstated as Bolingbroke IVT trainers at the end of the production run. Further contracts for Bolingbroke IVT trainers continued production into 1943. 
Is that late war or mid-war?
Bolingbrokes serving with the 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 31 Bombing and gunnery schools and the 1,5,7,8,31,34,and 35 Operational training units. 
SO while the Bolingbrokes might not have destroyed much of the enemy directly I beleive they contributed to the war effort at least as well as stockpiling aluminium and other materials for over 3 years while waiting for the plans of the TU-2 to show up.


----------



## Glider (Jul 30, 2009)

There seems to an ephasise as to how much of an impact the design/tooling and construction effort to produce the Russian types would have had on designs that were used to fight or train for the war.

An alternative is that the effort needed to produce the Tu 2 and Pe 2 could have come from those types that were failures examples being the Botha and Albermarle or were almost no additional increase in performance such as the Albercore.

In short there was plenty of capacity for this effort it was more a case of diverting it to better aircraft designs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2009)

Not really.


Yes the Botha was real dog and proved to be rather lethal to the men she was supposed to be training after being deemed totally unsuited to combat. Trouble is that production started in 1939 and only 580 were built. This might be 575 too many but how many were built AFTER the Soviet Union was invaded? 
Or how many were built after the plans for the PE-2 and TU-2 could resonably have been expected to arrive in England?
SO aside from helping to prevent a stckpile of aluminium being built up just how did the Botha suck up production capacity that could be used for building better Russian aircraft that didn't exist when many of the Bothas were made?
maybe they could have been scrapped earlier to provie raw material but that is not the same thing. 


Albermarle is sort of the same thing. only 600 produced, first fight in March of 1940,. Again rather before the Russians needed any aircraft. only the first 32 even had guns. Since it was built of steel and wood instead of aluminium it didn't use that much material that could have been used for these Modern Russian aircraft anyway. Even if it was a lousy transport you still might have needed a couple of hundred C-47s to replace 550 or so Albermarles  so the total saving might not be a great as you think.

Same situation for the Albacore: first contract for 100 planes place in 1937-38 with second prototype delivered June of 1939. Second contract for 300 aircraft and first aircraft from this batch delievered Aug, 1940. 100 planes later cancelled. Another 100 plane contract placed and first aircraft from this batch delivered April 1941. So far 1/2 of all Albacores delivered are on order before Soviet Union is attacked. Or before more than a prototype of either Russian twin had even flown. 
Another 250 Albacores are odered under contract no. B35944/39 ( is this contract really placed in 1939?) with first delivery in Aug 1941, most are delieved in 1942 with a few straglers showing up in 1944. another contract for 100 aircraft completes the tale with delivers starting in March of 1942. 
While the fusalge was all metal the wings were fabric covered.

Could production have been stopped? probably.
Would stopping production in even the the Fall of 1941 really have freed up production resources for large numbers of Russian designed Aircraft? Assuming you could build one Russian twin for every two Albacores, what are you going to get, 200 planes? and when are you going to get them? And what are the workers going to be doing while the Russian plans ae redrawn and anglisized and the factory re-tooled. 

Sorry, the "IDEA" that large numbers of Russian designed aircraft could have been made in the West "IF ONLY" the West had stopped producing all those 'DUD" aircraft doesn't seem to hold up very well.

It is not a question of whither or not the Russsian planes were any good. they were, they were very good. The qustions are when were the "DUD" aircaft produced in relation to the Russian Aircraft, how many "dud" aircraft were produced and how many Russian aircaft could have been built instead, and how much trouble it would have been to re-engineer the Russian aircraft for Western production. 
Another question, with about 11,400 PE-2 built by the Russians just what difference would another 600 or so made? A little over 5%. That is cutting about 400 Albacores and 400 Albermarles.


----------



## Glider (Jul 30, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Not really.
> 
> 
> Yes the Botha was real dog and proved to be rather lethal to the men she was supposed to be training after being deemed totally unsuited to combat. Trouble is that production started in 1939 and only 580 were built. This might be 575 too many but how many were built AFTER the Soviet Union was invaded?
> Or how many were built after the plans for the PE-2 and TU-2 could resonably have been expected to arrive in England?



The point is that there were resources available. Design and engineering teams don't just pack up and go home when the first plane takes to the air. 
Had the Dud aircraft been stopped when it was realised that they were duds, resources were available and the idea holds up pretty well.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2009)

Glider said:


> The point is that there were resources available. Design and engineering teams don't just pack up and go home when the first plane takes to the air.
> Had the Dud aircraft been stopped when it was realised that they were duds, resources were available and the idea holds up pretty well.


[/QUOTE]

Please show me how the idea holds up.

While 580 Bothas were made, a further 676 were canceled. Production at the Brough factory peaked at 32 in June of 1940 with from 6 to 18 a month being compleated from Jan of 1941 to May of 1942 when production stopped. A whopping 114 being built at this plant in the last 12 months of production. The factory at Dumbarton stopped production in June of 1941 with just 55 aircaft delivered since the Jan 1st of 1941. I don't know all of what these factories went on to make but the Dumbarton factory was making Short Sunderlands under subcontract. I magine uses were found for other "unused" capacity.

you are correct, "Design and engineering teams don't just pack up and go home" . they stay and try to improve the aircraft or go on to design new aircraft, see Blackburn Firebrand. First prototype flew on 27 Feb 1942. 18 months after a full scale mock-up had been compleated.
 
Now maybe the Firebrand didn't turn out all that well either but the engineering staff at Blackburn weren't sitting around on their hands.

By the way, the Botha had been ordered "off the drawing board" which might have soured the Goverment (along with several other such projects, like the Coventeer tank) on ordering large scale production based on paper drawings.

Edit> just found more information on Blackburn. In the Summer of 1940 they appointed as a "sister" firm to Grumman and made rsponsable for all modifications to Grumman aircraft to bring them into line with British requirements. This includes Martlets I-III, Martlet/Wildcat IV, V, and VI. Avenger I to III, Hellcats I and II (including night fighters) and also Corsair Mks I to IV the also handled a few other types. Fom the end of 1940 to 1945 Blackburn handled over 400 modifications and trial installations. Blackburn aslo was involved in coproduction of the Fairey Barracuda and had an extensive repair organazation going which also including the the breaking down for salvage of between 400-500 airframes. I think that many other British companies (or american for that matter) when looked at closely cold be seen to be working at a rather hectic pace that might not be reflected in a simple "planes produced number".


----------



## Glider (Jul 30, 2009)

Please show me how the idea holds up.[/QUOTE]

Certainly



> While 580 Bothas were made, a further 676 were canceled.


580 Bothas were built that shouldn't have been


> Production at the Brough factory peaked at 32 in June of 1940 with from 6 to 18 a month being compleated from Jan of 1941 to May of 1942 when production stopped. A whopping 114 being built at this plant in the last 12 months of production.


So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942 producing an aircraft that should never have been built.


> The factory at Dumbarton stopped production in June of 1941 with just 55 aircaft delivered since the Jan 1st of 1941.


We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted.

So we agree that we have production at two factories which could have been put to better use. My suggestion is simply that the Production of the PE2 would have been a better use of this resource. Remember that we also have the Botha design team who could have worked on getting the PE 2 design translated.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2009)

Glider said:


> Please show me how the idea holds up.



Certainly


580 Bothas were built that shouldn't have been
So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942 producing an aircraft that should never have been built.
We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted.

So we agree that we have production at two factories which could have been put to better use. My suggestion is simply that the Production of the PE2 would have been a better use of this resource. Remember that we also have the Botha design team who could have worked on getting the PE 2 design translated.[/QUOTE]

How did they know it should never have been built until they built it?
And having been stung by the Botha do you think they would have ordered teh PE-2 into production before flying an example of it?

"So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942"
No we don't agree because that factory was working at something like 1/3 capacity on Bothas while it was changing over to build 635 Fairey Barracudas. 

"We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted." again we disagree because while the Botha prodution may have been wasted the REST of the factory was making Sunderlands, 250 by wars end. 

A question might be weither those factories would have been able to turn out those numbers of aircraft if they hadn't been geared up to produce the Bothas. 

In fact another newly built Blackburn factory built 1700 Swordfish during the war, starting in Dec 1939. 

As to your suggestion, are you borrowing the time machine from the TU-2?

First PE-2 bomber prototype doesn't even fly until Dec 15, 1940 by which time about 340 Bothas had been built. What were the British supposed to do, Stockpile Aluminium, engines, propellors and instraments while waiting 15 months for Russians to get the plane into the air for the first time?
And that is assuming that the British and the Russians were on good terms at the time which they weren't. Something called the Winter War with Finland the year before. 

I am not sure about the entire design team but chief designer G.E. Petty was working on the Firebrand in July of 1940, only 5 months before the PE-2 flies and 11 months before the Russians are invaded. 

Next question, just were are the engines going to come from to power it. It is not like England has a surplus of Merlins in 1941. Or do we just get Bristol to stop making those useless Mercury and Perseus engines and have their design team and engineering staff change over to Merlins. After all we know the Centaurus engine is a loser right so why waste time on it.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 30, 2009)

I believe the Pe 2 first flew in May 39 (VI-100), production started in June 40, and into service in Aug 40.


----------



## Glider (Jul 31, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> "So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942[/I]
> No we don't agree because that factory was working at something like 1/3 capacity on Bothas while it was changing over to build 635 Fairey Barracudas.


I don't belive this point to be correct. The Prototype Barracuda didn't fly until 29th June 1941, service trials were not completed until February 1942 which showed the need for further changes including airframe strenthening. Only 30 were built before the mark II entered production. It doesn't take 2 years to prepare a factory for production of an aircraft, particualy if the aircraft didn't fly until June 1941. So the capacity did exist.



> _"We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted,_Again we disagree because while the Botha prodution may have been wasted the REST of the factory was making Sunderlands, 250 by wars end. ."


250 by wars end is one thing, how many by May 1941, I thought but could be wrong that the initial order was for 15



> A question might be weither those factories would have been able to turn out those numbers of aircraft if they hadn't been geared up to produce the Bothas. ."


As mentioned the numbers either were small or did not exist

."


> In fact another newly built Blackburn factory built 1700 Swordfish during the war, starting in Dec 1939. ."


If your relying on new factories to support your position then straws are being grasped at.

."


> As to your suggestion, are you borrowing the time machine from the TU-2?."


No I am happy with the PE 2 to replace the Blenhiem and Ventura until the TU 2 came about

."


> First PE-2 bomber prototype doesn't even fly until Dec 15, 1940 by which time about 340 Bothas had been built. What were the British supposed to do, Stockpile Aluminium, engines, propellors and instraments while waiting 15 months for Russians to get the plane into the air for the first time?
> And that is assuming that the British and the Russians were on good terms at the time which they weren't. Something called the Winter War with Finland the year before. ."


But when was the design available.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 31, 2009)

Instead of the PE-2, in its own timeframe, wouldn't they (if this situation had actually existed) have been better off tooling up for Mosquitoes anyway?

oops, wooden construction. Then they could restructure the design for aluminium or build the Hawker P.1005? Anyway you look at it, importing the PE-2 does not bring enough advantages to justify it.



> But when was the design available.


 Never.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2009)

Glider said:


> I don't belive this point to be correct. The Prototype Barracuda didn't fly until 29th June 1941, service trials were not completed until February 1942 which showed the need for further changes including airframe strenthening. Only 30 were built before the mark II entered production. It doesn't take 2 years to prepare a factory for production of an aircraft, particualy if the aircraft didn't fly until June 1941. So the capacity did exist..



don't know but I doubt the British let a factroy toodle along at 1/3 cpacity for over a year without making SOMETHING, even parts for another manufacturer. Especially in 1941. I also have seen in two places that the Barracuda first flew in Dec of 1940. Yes, extended trials may have delayed production. 




Glider said:


> 250 by wars end is one thing, how many by May 1941, I thought but could be wrong that the initial order was for 15.



It could have been. that is how MK Is they made, point is that the Factroy wasn't doing nothing. It does take time to ramp up production, Blackburn wound up making 1/3 of all Sunderlands. A Sunderland is also about 3 times heavier than a Botha and I would guess a lot harder to make.



Glider said:


> If your relying on new factories to support your position then straws are being grasped at.



Not really, were do you think some of the management and production engineering staff came from if not some of the workers, the fields of Yorkshire? (no disrespect to the peaple of Yorkshire) Blackburns new fatory was the SOLE SOURCE for Swordfish from the end of 1940 till the end of production. They would need at least a nucleus of trained workers to train the new hires. And without getting them from their own factories were were they going to get them? Hire them from Supermarine or Hawker?




Glider said:


> No I am happy with the PE 2 to replace the Blenhiem and Ventura until the TU 2 came about.



Still with the time machine. Venturas were first ordered in early 1940. A modification of an airliner that was already flying. Deliveries were delayed until almost 2 years later, must of been all that excess capacity in America.  Of course for a British company like Blackburn to make the PE-2s instead of Lockheed making Venturas you have to get all the raw materials and/ or sub-components (landing gear parts, instraments, engines) from America to England. Ventura might have been delayed due to Lockheeds being over committed and/or due to a shortage of R-2800 engines.
Blenhiem production was winding down in 1942. 
you still haven't addressed the engine problem.




Glider said:


> But when was the design available.



Which design? the VI-100 high altitude interceptor with two seperate pressure cabins and turbocharged engines or the Attack bomber? the VI-100 started flight tests 3-4 weeks AFTER the Mosquito.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 31, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Which design? the VI-100 high altitude interceptor with two seperate pressure cabins and turbocharged engines or the Attack bomber? the VI-100 started flight tests 3-4 weeks AFTER the Mosquito.



I believe that is incorrect.

_The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW II_ by Metrobooks.

Pe 2 "The VI-100 first flew on 7 May 1939." pg 316

Mosiquito "...the first prototype flew on 25 November 1940." pg 307

_ Combat Aircraft of World War II_ by Bookthrift also states this as well. - pages 182 95
It also adds: "...the Pe 2 went into service in August 1940" pg 183


----------



## Glider (Jul 31, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Still with the time machine. Venturas were first ordered in early 1940. A modification of an airliner that was already flying. Deliveries were delayed until almost 2 years later, must of been all that excess capacity in America.



You are of course correct when you say that the first planes were ordered in 1940 unfortunately for the RAF most of the first order were taken over by the USAAF. This delay was increased when the USAAF placed an order for 200 aircraft the RAF having to wait in line. Production capacity in the USA was at full stretch.



> of course for a British company like Blackburn to make the PE-2s instead of Lockheed making Venturas you have to get all the raw materials and/ or sub-components (landing gear parts, instraments, engines) from America to England. Ventura might have been delayed due to Lockheeds being over committed and/or due to a shortage of R-2800 engines.


I admit to not understanding this section at all. I have always said that the PE 2 could have been built instead of the Blenhiem or if you don't want to impact the Blenhiem production line, the Botha and or Albermarle. There is no link to the production of the Ventura in the USA to the Production of the PE2 in the UK. Why on earth would the UK need to access Ventura parts to build the PE2?



> you still haven't addressed the engine problem.



The UK had a number of options, the Merlin is the obvious one being an in line engine in production for a host of aircraft.
If you want to leave Merlin production untouched the Taurus is a good option being small, light, with a good power to weight ratio plus a decent fuel consumption. Installing a Radial instead of in in-line is more work but the UK did this to a numb er of aircraft such as the Beaufighter, Lancaster and Halifax. I believe that the Battle was also converted in limited numbers but not totally sure on that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I believe that is incorrect.
> 
> _The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW II_ by Metrobooks.
> 
> ...



My apolagies, I made a misteke and you are correct about the Mosquito.

This site has a different date for the VI-100/ PE-2 however.
'100' (VI-100) high altitude interceptor by V.M.Petlyakov


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2009)

Glider said:


> You are of course correct when you say that the first planes were ordered in 1940 unfortunately for the RAF most of the first order were taken over by the USAAF. This delay was increased when the USAAF placed an order for 200 aircraft the RAF having to wait in line. Production capacity in the USA was at full stretch.



RAf actually did get the first few hundred Venturas made, they did release some for use by Canada.

See: Lockheed Ventura for RAF




Glider said:


> I admit to not understanding this section at all. I have always said that the PE 2 could have been built instead of the Blenhiem or if you don't want to impact the Blenhiem production line, the Botha and or Albermarle. There is no link to the production of the Ventura in the USA to the Production of the PE2 in the UK. Why on earth would the UK need to access Ventura parts to build the PE2?.



Sorry, you are the one who posted " No I am happy with the PE 2 to replace the Blenhiem and Ventura until the TU 2 came about" 
I thought you ment replace production of Venturas, not just replace them in squadron service. 




Glider said:


> The UK had a number of options, the Merlin is the obvious one being an in line engine in production for a host of aircraft.
> If you want to leave Merlin production untouched the Taurus is a good option being small, light, with a good power to weight ratio plus a decent fuel consumption. Installing a Radial instead of in in-line is more work but the UK did this to a numb er of aircraft such as the Beaufighter, Lancaster and Halifax. I believe that the Battle was also converted in limited numbers but not totally sure on that.



Not much question that a Merlin might fit. the question is were do you get the Merlins from? Even if you can find factory capacity for the airframes by stopping the "DUDS" the duds really weren't using Merlins (well, except maybe for the Defiant) so which "somewhat better than a DUD" gets it's engines taken away?

Taurus had a few problems of it's own. Not sure if it ever got a 2 speed supercharger in production form.
A major increase in Taurus production might mean fewer Hercules engines. Doubts about Taurus led to more than one scheme to power Beauforts with P&W R-1830s.

thats about it for British engines without really working things over. I doubt anybody would be impressed with a pair of Napier Daggers. While the Beaufighter and the 4 engine bombers might be able to go between Merlins and Hercules engines trying to hang a pair of Hercules engines on a PE-2 airframe might be a bit much.

If you look hard enough you can find Battles with all manner of engines. Since they didn't really need (want) then for combat after the battle of France and since the airframe was actually rather sturdy it was quite popular as an engine test bed.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2009)

Has there already been an argument about the MiG-3? In my opinion it would've done very nicely in the Battle of Britain, kicked butt as it were.
I heard from a vet interview cruising height for free roaming jäger was 7000m, which was where the early Mark Spits were losing performance but the MiG was supreme at this height. The MiG is really strong from mid altitude to high.
Plus the Soviet idea of poor turn performance still runs rings around anything else.

Admitedly at that time the initial exports would've been early MiG-1 versions with poor longitudinal stability and open cockpits, but this would've been superseded quickly.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 1, 2009)

Hello



Shortround6 said:


> Lets see, British order the P-51 in March of 1940, it is first used in combat May of 1942? So following that time scale When does a Western built TU-2 see combat?
> First TU-2 prototype doesn't fly until 3 months after the first P-51. While the Prototype shows amazing performance so do more than a few prototypes that don't pan out.


We can't compare Tupolev's and NA workong conditions, neither Donovan Berlin, neither Edgar Shmued were arrested by the FBI as enemies of the "American People". ANT 58 fly tests proved such successifull that Tupolev begun transmitting drawings for production line in february. But Tupolev design bureau had NO personnal test pilots and NO personnal factory. And NO possibility for producing aircrafts and force the destiny as NA did in april 41 before the -successsifull- end of the official trials in July 1941.

Moreover MiG-1 flew on april 1941, the 5th, and deliveries begun on december 1940. PB-100 flew on the end of the summer 1940, first seial plane, at end of 1940. Without german intervention Tu-2 should have been produced at the end of 1941.




> By the way TU-2 Prototype doesn't fly until what, 13-14 months after the Martin B-26.


From october 40 to january 41 it makes 3-4 months, not 13-14. Since soviets had no engine to fit on the ANT-58, other requests were made by the NKAP in the meanwhile. That proves NOWAY that the ANT-59 was a better airframe than the 58.
It was just a matter of soviet taste, i think. Nobody was obliged to share it, loosing extra time.




> As to the West having the resources, just what aircraft are you proposing to cut from production to make TU-2s? What engine are you proposing to use to power it ?


Bristol Hercules, PW R-2800, Wright R-2600...
I would propose to cut from Armstrong Withworth Albemarle, Hudson, Harpoon, Martin Baltimore, Vultee Valiant, NA T-6, Ryan PT-22... (training planes replaced by wooden or mixed planes as Yakovlev UT-2, or some Yak-7V).



> ANd what do you get at the end. The version that went into combat in 1944 had this for performance:
> 
> " Cruising speed 442 km / h at an altitude of 5800 m, range - 2100 km at an altitude of 3000 m with 1.5 tons of bombs in the store 2700 liters of gasoline (about 2100 kg)."
> 
> While this is very,very good it is a far cry from the 4,000kg bomb loads listed on many web sites.


4000 kg it was for post war planes. But possible in 1942-43 at short range from american "hardened" (metal plates, concrete..) airfields.



> Looking at this plane from a Western perspective, would you really want to fly from bases in England over France and Western Germany in 1943 at 10,000ft at around 270-280mph in a plane that had three hand operated (Non-turret) 12.7mm MG for defence?


Considering that soviet max speed* is *the max *continuous spped* at *nominal power*, you could fly at 340 mph (550km/h) at 18 000ft (5800m) that reduces very much your *lethality conus*. At 200 -220 mph of coarse like the B-26, you would have been attacked from all sides by fighters and need as much guns as a B -17G.



> Some early prototypes had TWO 7.62 MGs for rear defence.


Probably a mistake: ONE 12.7 and TWO 7.62 at least or FOUR 7.62 for the ANT-58. 3 defense post (2 on the top, 1 on the lower side of the fuselage). Some mosquitos had no defense at all, with 642 km/h measured (638- 635 official) speed for the ANT 58 you may not need them too much.




> Western "improvements" might have included 300-700kg of gun turrets would have reduced the performance of the TU-2. Please note that I use the word " improvements" with reservations


"Western improvements " would have transform the Tu-2 in a B-26, make loosing it's main advantage on the other planes : the *diving bomber accuracy*.

And so for the rest of soviet tactical aviation, making it as much as ineffective as Gen. Freyberg's one at Monte-Cassino. 

Regards

VG-33


----------



## Glider (Aug 1, 2009)

vanir said:


> Has there already been an argument about the MiG-3? In my opinion it would've done very nicely in the Battle of Britain, kicked butt as it were.
> I heard from a vet interview cruising height for free roaming jäger was 7000m, which was where the early Mark Spits were losing performance but the MiG was supreme at this height. The MiG is really strong from mid altitude to high.
> Plus the Soviet idea of poor turn performance still runs rings around anything else.
> 
> Admitedly at that time the initial exports would've been early MiG-1 versions with poor longitudinal stability and open cockpits, but this would've been superseded quickly.



I admit that I don't think the Mig 3 would have been of interest. It was a lightly (very lightly) armed aircraft fast at altitude but vulnerable at lower altitudes where most of the fighting took place.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 1, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think I'd wrather have 2 x P-47s then 1 x Tu 2.




And were your 2 or 20 P-47 able to* hit* a bridge, a Bunker , a boat with a 3300lb (1500kg) bomb from a step dive at 1200 km from their airfield?

Regards


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 1, 2009)

Glider said:


> I admit that I don't think the Mig 3 would have been of interest. It was a lightly (very lightly) armed aircraft fast at altitude but vulnerable at lower altitudes where most of the fighting took place.



Well, the MiG 3 was flying from 505 SL to 656km/h at 8 km with a 0.732 reduction gear or 526-635 with a 0.903 reduction gear with a 830 kg AM-35A. In order to use it with a Merlin (620 kg), you will need at least 4 synchronised Hispano canons in the nose to keep the CG unchanged, (or a heavy Griffon, Sabre engine). 

That makes it *not *a vulnerable aircraft compared with a Sptitfire at low altitude, and *not* a unarmed one (if carrying 200 kg of extra armament in the nose).

A real pity, the full soviet factory equipment was unemployed since october - november 1941. The only job to do was to send the whole package to the allies...

Regards

VG-33


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 1, 2009)

Hello



river said:


> Hi,
> 
> The Tu-2 does nothing for me. It looks like a Buckmaster or Brigand to me.
> 
> ...



I'm not shure that B-26 was able to take-off from a soviet wet grass airfield, even with 0 kg bomb load.



> If we were talking about AFV, then I'd certainly say the Russians had a couple of superb tanks the allies could of used, but as far as aircraft go, the allies had all the types they needed.



And what if comparing the Stuka, Douglas SBD, Helldiver, Skua, Aichi D3 Val dive bomber results and B-26, B-25, Blenheim, Beaufighter ones?

Regards 

VG-33


----------



## Glider (Aug 1, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Well, the MiG 3 was flying from 505 SL to 656km/h at 8 km with a 0.732 reduction gear or 526-635 with a 0.903 reduction gear with a 830 kg AM-35. In order to use it with a Merlin (620 kg), you will need at least 4 synchronised Hispano canons in the nose to keep the CG unchanged, (or a heavy Griffon, Sabre engine).
> 
> That makes it *not *a vulnerable aircraft compared with a Sptitfire at low altitude, and *not* a unarmed one (if carrying 200 kg of extra armament in the nose).
> 
> ...



Where on earth are you coming from? Last I heard the Mig 3 had 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG which to me in mid 1941 is light or am I missing something.

Merlin engine and 4 x 20mm guns, sorry but where did these come from


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 1, 2009)

Glider said:


> Where on earth are you coming from? Last I heard the Mig 3 had 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG which to me in mid 1941 is light or am I missing something.
> 
> Merlin engine and 4 x 20mm guns, sorry but where did these come from



Hello Glider, 

Weighting more than 830 kg the Mikoolin AM-35 engine was about 200 kg heavier than a Merlin XX, 41,45 engine. I supposed of course a _what if _ MiG-1/3 airframe remotorised with the Merlin. 

Regards 

VG-33


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 1, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> And were your 2 or 20 P-47s able to* hit* a bridge, a Bunker, a boat with a 3300lb (1500kg) bomb from a steep dive at 1200 km from their airfield?


I doubt it
but what is the significance of hitting targets of tactical value so far inside enemy territory? Furthermore, why is it important to hit these targets in a steep dive? P-47s could hit targets like that on the battlefront and everything within a meaningful distance behind it ie those MSRs/lines of communication where resupply was beginning to concentrate.

A Lancaster B Mk I (Special) could destroy a bridge, a bunker or a boat with a 12,000lb Tallboy or 22,000lb Grand Slam and it wouldn't need to *hit* either of the first two. I don't recollect any bridge names but bunkers would include submarine pens, the V3 site and boats would include the Tirpitz.

On the flipside of your question, could a Pe-2 drop its ordnance, turn into the interceptors and make a fight of it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Moreover MiG-1 flew on april 1941, the 5th, and deliveries begun on december 1940. PB-100 flew on the end of the summer 1940, first seial plane, at end of 1940. Without german intervention Tu-2 should have been produced at the end of 1941.



North American had slight problem didn't they? Didn't their contract with the British say that their fighter had to out perform the the P-40? if it didn't they would have to manufacture P-40s? Might be a slight delay while test are carried out. 

As for the Mig, you are correct, different circumstances, an intial production run of 100 planes was started before the completion of state trials where the the prototype was unanimously censured for handling characteristics, manoeuverability and stability. Minor modifications to the aircraft on the assembly line slowed production to 20 delieveries by the end of 1940 compared to the planned over 60. Further production after the first 100 was held up while the redesign was completed. Granted this was done very quickly and the first MiG-3 came off the line in Februry of 1941. Should the first 100 aircraft even have been made?





VG-33 said:


> From october 40 to january 41 it makes 3-4 months, not 13-14. Since soviets had no engine to fit on the ANT-58, other requests were made by the NKAP in the meanwhile. That proves NOWAY that the ANT-59 was a better airframe than the 58.



Well, this does get back to which set of plans, when?

B-26 was ordered off the drawing board just like several soviet planes. 

If U.S. is given the planes for the ANT-58 in Dec of 1940 how long is it going to take them to turn it into the TU-2?

"Design was revised and became more technological, number of joints was decreased and whole assembly procedure was revised. Cuts were made even on total length of electric wiring."

And isn't there something about changing the corrigations in the underskinning of the wing from a U shape (or square corrigation) to a V shape?
Saved weight but mght have called for a new stress analysis?

Of course this is in addition to redoing the engine installation. Granted the Russians had a few detours but first radial engined prototype doesn't fly until Dec 1941?

THe M-82 first under goes state tests in the spring of 1940. A batch pf protoypes are built May 13,1941 NKAP issues a decree initiating series production even theough M-82 doesn't complete second second series of state tests until May 22 1941. Power rating is 1700HP. 





VG-33 said:


> Bristol Hercules, PW R-2800, Wright R-2600...
> I would propose to cut from Armstrong Withworth Albemarle, Hudson, Harpoon, Martin Baltimore, Vultee Valiant, NA T-6, Ryan PT-22... (training planes replaced by wooden or mixed planes as Yakovlev UT-2, or some Yak-7V).



Nice to note that you are a time traveler or that you are such an expert that you could identify which aircraft are winners and which ones are losers before they even fly.Another thing to consider is that while many of these aircraft couldn't do what a TU-2 does the TU-2 might have trouble doing the jobs that many of those aircraft did. 




VG-33 said:


> Considering that soviet max speed is the max continuous spped at nominal power,)



Really? Mig-1s could fly at 626kph at 7000m is max continous speed? or was max continous more like 550kph for the MIG 1?

I have also seen references to the dive brakes being rmoved from laterprodution TU-2s. 

Also refences that suggest the max sized bomb as 1000kg witch would cast doubt about dive bombing attacks with a 1500kg bomb. 

What was the capability of the 1940-41 design vrs Western Designs?
Early B-25s were rated for 5200lbs of bombs, later versions swapped guns for bomb load. 


Regards

VG-33[/QUOTE]


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I doubt it
> but what is the significance of hitting targets of tactical value so far inside enemy territory? Furthermore, why is it important to hit these targets in a steep dive? P-47s could hit targets like that on the battlefront and everything within a meaningful distance behind it ie those MSRs/lines of communication where resupply was beginning to concentrate.
> 
> A Lancaster B Mk I (Special) could destroy a bridge, a bunker or a boat with a 12,000lb Tallboy or 22,000lb Grand Slam and it wouldn't need to *hit* either of the first two. I don't recollect any bridge names but bunkers would include submarine pens, the V3 site and boats would include the Tirpitz.
> ...



The problem is that if the P-47 *could* attack targets he probably *would * miss them, in circumstances when a Tu-2 (or a Stuka) would hit them. This is a hudge difference, in precision result.

The same for the Lancaster with it's 12,000 bomb. Since bombe efficiency is decreasing at square low, a tallboy at 1 000 yards from the targed would be 100 times less efficient than a 2200lb bomb at 200 yards from the target. And i am not overstating dispersion values, one from the other. A dive bomber is supposed to put more than 50% bombs in a 50m circle. In carpet bombing method you may have some kilometers error: it's only for targets like big factories or towns.

It's like hitting a tank with 40 mm Vickers gun at 400-500 by direct trajectory yards or with a 120 mm mortar from parabolic trajectory. Simply, you will *never* hit your bunker at Omaha Beachat from a Lancaster, except from an accident. You will *not miss *your bunker at the same place from a Pe-2 or (with good weather conditions and highly trained crew), except from an accident. That makes some difference.
As i said before verify how many ships were hitted (and sunked) from vertical and from horizontal bombing.

And what is the proportion of real hits, from 100 lauched bombs by the two methods?

Regards

VG-33


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> The problem is that if the P-47 *could* attack targets he probably *would * miss them, in circumstances when a Tu-2 (or a Stuka) would hit them. This is a hudge difference, in precision result.


Do you have data to show that the Tu-2 (or Stuka) was a more accurate (or for that, less accurate) attack aircraft than a P-47?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> A dive bomber is supposed to put more than 50% bombs in a 50m circle.
> 
> You will *not miss *your bunker at the same place from a Pe-2 or (with good weather conditions and highly trained crew), except from an accident.
> 
> VG-33



Which is it?

50% of bombs missing 50 meter bunker (the size of 1/2 a football field) or only missing by "accident" in good weather and a highly trained crew?

How highly trained?

By the way, Dive bombing land targets kind of went out of fashion when large numbers of automatic cannon started showing up with the defenders. The dive bombing approach gave too much time for the AA gunners to line up and the pull out gave too easy a target to guns not directly being bombed. 
Shallow angle diving attacks, while not quite as accurate, tended to be a little easier on the attacking airplanes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2009)

Just for the record, the P-47 was known for it's accuracy against armored targets and structures like railroad tunnels and successfully used a skip-bombing method (with 500 pounders). Even a near miss against armored targets such as Tigers and Panthers, a 500 pounder would knock the tank over.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 2, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> And were your 2 or 20 P-47 able to* hit* a bridge, a Bunker , a boat with a 3300lb (1500kg) bomb from a step dive at 1200 km from their airfield?
> 
> Regards



Does which method employed really mater as long as "a bridge, a Bunker, a boat" is destroyed?


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 2, 2009)

Hello





> As for the Mig, you are correct, different circumstances, an intial production run of 100 planes was started before the completion of state trials where the the prototype was unanimously censured for
> handling characteristics, manoeuverability and stability. Minor modifications to the aircraft on the assembly line slowed production to 20 delieveries by the end of 1940 compared to the planned over 60. Further production after the first 100 was held up while the redesign was completed. Granted this was done very quickly and the first MiG-3 came off the line in Februry of 1941. Should the first 100 aircraft even have been made?



No, not exactly. The first production batch was composed from 50 MiG-1, the secund from 50 MiG-3, and then 50 more MiG-1. All following planes were MiG-3. It means that both planes were produced in parallel assembly lines. The main difference between a MiG-1 and MiG-3 is an extra 250 litres tank behind the pilot's seat. Due to extra 200-250 kg and the aft CG, handling characteristics, manoeuvrability and stability of the MiG-3 were much worse than MiG-1 one's. The only reason for transformation was the 1000 km range NKAP request issued in the meantime instead of the previous 600 km at 0.9 V max speed. Exactly as for the LaGG-1/LaGG-3 and Yakovlev I-26/I-28 family. But it’s just a detail.




> Really? Mig-1s could fly at 626kph at 7000m is max continous speed? or was max continous more like 550kph for the MIG 1?



Look, we spoke about that question several times


Ôîðóì ñàéòà www.airforce.ru: Ñòàòüÿ

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-yak-1-vs-hurricane-17485-4.html#post532071

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-yak-1-vs-hurricane-17485-4.html#post533425


Soviet *rules and procedures * are were very simple: the nominal engine power is the max continuous power (means with no time limits). In the opposite case it was indicated "forsage".
Moreover measurements of the max speed ware to be validated only at conditions of
-constant speed
-constant height
-constant power
-*constant engine heat* (no oil, water, cylinder head temperature increase)






> Really? Mig-1s could fly at 626kph at 7000m is max continous speed? or was max continous more like 550kph for the MIG 1?



Really, the range from soviet_ us and coutumes_ for fighters was given at 0.9 Vmax (0.9 x 626-657 = 560-580 km/h for the MiG-1) for soviet planes and at 0.8 V max for bombers. 

So i don't understand where is it taken from that 0.8 V max of the Tu-2 (and Pe-2, Yer 2, Il-4...) should be the max cruse speed?






> Well, this does get back to which set of plans, when?
> B-26 was ordered off the drawing board just like several soviet planes.
> If U.S. is given the planes for the ANT-58 in Dec of 1940 how long is it going to take them to turn it into the TU-2?



-Why are you so obsessed by plans? From driving boards to the real plane it's far from being a simple formality but a real challenge. Both P-51 and ANT-58 encountered success, but it is not a general law.
Then prototypes should be satisfactory enough to be commanded *and* serial builded. Both of them won that secund challenge.

-Why do you absolutly want to transmit plans and to change the ANT-58 to the 59? The lower firing point? It coasts the bomb load reduction. ANT-58 was intended to carry 3000 kg of bombs inside the fuselage, latter reduced to 2500.




> "Design was revised and became more technological, number of joints was decreased and whole assembly procedure was revised. Cuts were made even on total length of electric wiring."


All that could have been modified progressivly on the assembly lines, exactly as for the other planes of the world.




> Of course this is in addition to redoing the engine installation. Granted the Russians had a few detours but first radial engined prototype doesn't fly until Dec 1941?
> THe M-82 first under goes state tests in the spring of 1940. A batch pf protoypes are built May 13,1941 NKAP issues a decree initiating series production even theough M-82 doesn't complete second second series of state tests until May 22 1941. Power rating is 1700HP.



And why americans and britishs should have been waiting for *soviet* radial engines? The deal was just to go to Moscow (Ramenskoyé in fact). Study and test the ANT-58. Built or not a joint venture if being interested with the plane. I'd rather see american or english help on mounting a factory in USSR, in exchange of a part of produced airframes. 



> Nice to note that you are a time traveler or that you are such an expert that you could identify which aircraft are winners and which ones are losers before they even fly.Another thing to consider is that while many of these aircraft couldn't do what a TU-2 does the TU-2 might have trouble doing the jobs that many of those aircraft did.


Nobody knows, even it the Pe-2 or a Tu-2 could have been praised by allied pilots. For instance soviet comission made a lot of trials with the Martin B-26, disliked it, every time making a rough opposition to american proposals to include it to LL deliveries. 



> Also refences that suggest the max sized bomb as 1000kg witch would cast doubt about dive bombing attacks with a 1500kg bomb.


The FAB 1500 bomb was simply not a serial one, only small experimental parts were delivered, from Ozerov memories even mock-ups of FBB 2500 kg bombs were dropped from the plane. (Toupolevskaya sharaga)



> What was the capability of the 1940-41 design vrs Western Designs?
> Early B-25s were rated for 5200lbs of bombs, later versions swapped guns for bomb load.


On paper, all kind of planes are looking good. In order to estimate performance evolution of the Tu-2 with american engines, look at La-5FN TsaGI calculations.


Regards


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Do you have data to show that the Tu-2 was a more accurate attack aircraft than a P-47?



Dear FLYBOJ, all that questions to the Wechmacht or the Kriegsmarine . After every battle they were sending files to the allies and to the soviets, to show them the results of the aerial attacks and some congratulations from time to time, didn't they?

Serioulsy, we could found polygone experimental test results (from 6/7 to 25/30 times less dispersion in a dive attack ???)*, but how close was it to the real combat conditions? (Stress, FlaK, errors, meteo...)

Regards

*Statistical numbers from a VVS booklet printed in 1940. Some other theoretical numbers were founded in Aviation Navale archives in France, but contradictory from one to another.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Dear FLYBOJ, all that questions to the Wechmacht or the Kriegsmarine . After every battle they were sending files to the allies and to the soviets, to show them the results of the aerial attacks and some congratulations from time to time, didn't they?
> 
> Serioulsy, we could found polygone experimental test results (from 6/7 to 25/30 times less dispersion in a dive attack ???)*, but how close was it to the real combat conditions? (Stress, FlaK, errors, meteo...)
> 
> ...


So VG seriously, there is no way you could support that claim.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

Blueprints and airframes for a Yak-1 would have been a great help in the early war. American companies like Hughes and Fairchild were doing impressive things with duramold plywood. We could have had an Allison engined Yak-1A (A for America) to lend least back to Russia, to the Aussies (so they wouldn't have to cobble together the CAC Boomerang), and to the Chinese. I think our composite bonded wood would be more resistant to the problems other wood planes had in the Asian heat and humidity. In any case, considering the 

If we had enough aluminum we could make an all-metal version. I'd sure rather have a Yak-3A than a P-40. We could have used it ourselves in an interceptor/defense role similar to the Spitfire.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Blueprints and airframes for a Yak-1 would have been a great help in the early war. American companies like Hughes and Fairchild were doing impressive things with duramold plywood. We could have had an Allison engined Yak-1A (A for America) to lend least back to Russia, to the Aussies (so they wouldn't have to cobble together the CAC Boomerang), and to the Chinese. I think our composite bonded wood would be more resistant to the problems other wood planes had in the Asian heat and humidity. In any case, considering the
> 
> If we had enough aluminum we could make an all-metal version. I'd sure rather have a Yak-3A than a P-40. We could have used it ourselves in an interceptor/defense role similar to the Spitfire.


You don't build aircraft with blueprints, you build them with production tooling. All the blueprints in the world aren't going to build an aircraft unless you have a way to mass produce airframes, and that's done with production jigs and fixtures.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You don't build aircraft with blueprints, you build them with production tooling. All the blueprints in the world aren't going to build an aircraft unless you have a way to mass produce airframes, and that's done with production jigs and fixtures.


So you are saying that it would have been impossible to licence build the Yakovlev because we couldn't have made our own tooling?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> So you are saying that it would have been impossible to licence build the Yakovlev because we couldn't have made our own tooling?


Oh we could have made our own tooling, but by the time you consider that in producing some one other country's aircraft the increased cost and time will factor in. Tooling needs to be supplied with drawings when having someone else build your aircraft.

Has any one considered the metric conversion or some of the different operating systems that would have required specially trained pilots and ground crews to operate any soviet aircraft in the west during WW2? It was all do-able but IMO not worth the time and effort to get the same end result.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh we could have made our own tooling, but by the time you consider that in producing some one other country's aircraft the increased cost and time will factor in. Tooling needs to be supplied with drawings when having someone else build your aircraft.
> 
> Has any one considered the metric conversion or some of the different operating systems that would have required specially trained pilots and ground crews to operate any soviet aircraft in the west during WW2? It was all do-able but IMO not worth the time and effort to get the same end result.


Don't ground crews and pilots have to be trained on any new airplane?

Anyway, blueprints, tools, drawings, a completed airframe, everything we needed to produce it under licence could have been had and it would have been worthwhile even if we just used it for export.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Don't ground crews and pilots have to be trained on any new airplane?


They do - but consider having a whole contingency using metric tools and having to maintain the aircraft with entirely different general practices for say welding, safety wiring, fabric application, safetying hardware, and I could go on and on.


Clay_Allison said:


> Anyway, blueprints, tools, drawings, a completed airframe, everything we needed to produce it under licence could have been had and it would have been worthwhile even if we just used it for export.


I disagree - while the aircraft might have offered better performance in some cases to what we were operating, I think in the long run we were better off producing our own aircraft to our own standards and guidelines. In the end, I believe we produced better aircraft that had longevity, quality and maintainability built into them. From what I've seen of Soviet WW2 aircraft, they sometimes were lacking in those areas.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They do - but consider having a whole contingency using metric tools and having to maintain the aircraft with entirely different general practices for say welding, safety wiring, fabric application, safetying hardware, and I could go on and on.
> 
> I disagree - while the aircraft might have offered better performance in some cases to what we were operating, I think in the long run we were better off producing our own aircraft to our own standards and guidelines. In the end, I believe we produced better aircraft that had longevity, quality and maintainability built into them. From what I've seen of Soviet WW2 aircraft, they sometimes were lacking in those areas.


Would you rather have a P-40 than an American built Yak?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Would you rather have a P-40 than an American built Yak?


Depends where....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends where....


Mainland China/Burma/India, and I mean an all-metal yak (I'm assuming you are an American and thus we can afford the aluminum for you.)


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 2, 2009)

P-40 was a stronger fighter bomber IMO which was useful in that theatre.


If there was excess capacity to produce the Yak-1, why not just make more P-38's which was already in production?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> P-40 was a stronger fighter bomber IMO which was useful in that theatre.
> 
> 
> If there was excess capacity to produce the Yak-1, why not just make more P-38's which was already in production?


I thought of that but it just seemed like the 38 was too complicated for anyone but Lockheed. Maybe a simplified supercharged 38?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Mainland China/Burma/India, and I mean an all-metal yak (I'm assuming you are an American and thus we can afford the aluminum for you.)


I don't think a metalized Yak would have worked. With that said, the original Yak series could have been used for short tactical strikes like in the CBI or used for fighter CAP over a small radius like Guadalcanal. Outside of that it would have been useless in the SWPTO


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't think a metalized Yak would have worked. With that said, the original Yak series could have been used for short tactical strikes like in the CBI or used for fighter CAP over a small radius like Guadalcanal. Outside of that it would have been useless in the SWPTO


Metalized Yak wouldn't have worked? Ever hear of the Yak-9?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> P-40 was a stronger fighter bomber IMO which was useful in that theatre.
> 
> 
> If there was excess capacity to produce the Yak-1, why not just make more P-38's which was already in production?



Yep



Clay_Allison said:


> I thought of that but it just seemed like the 38 was too complicated for anyone but Lockheed. Maybe a simplified supercharged 38?


Not true - although a difficult aircraft to build, additional assembly lines could easily been opened.

BTW look into the different plants P-38 were built at Burbank. There were several assembly lines in different factory locations one line about 3 miles from the main plant.

The first article shows the outside assembly line at plant B-1. The second photo shows the interior of plant B-1. The third photo shows building 304, plant B-6. In later years the Constellation, Electra and later P-3 would be built there.

Point being, every time another line was opened at Burbank, people were hired trained and then put on one of these lines. If there was production at 3 locations at the Lockheed facility, having a subcontractor build P-38s away from Burbank was very do-able. I believe that Vultee built something like 60 P-38Ls before the war ended.

A long, sad goodbye to Plant B-1


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2009)

I think FB was alluding to this in anearlier post, but I might just add my two cents worth. The problem with opening up a new production line for a new type is that it requires jigs and dies to be made up, to a high tolerance, and this requires time and expertise, generally in the form of high quality tradesmen toolmakers. These guys are about as rare as rocking horse Sh*t to be blunt.

Then you need to perfect your production line itself....esentially what is the most efficient way to build your piece....who does what and in what order.....does this gear or this pump go in before this brace or this pipe type questions. This again can take time. Laslty you need to work out your QA program....what needs to be tested and what doesnt need so much QA testing.

None of these are worked out with blueprints. The blueprints tell the toolmakers the design and dimensions of particular items, but it doesnt tell y the factory how be organized and what to look out for....

I have never worked in an aircraft factory, but I have worked on setting up production lines. I assume the same principals would apply, regardless of whether you are making B-1s or toasters


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep
> 
> 
> Not true - although a difficult aircraft to build, additional assembly lines could easily been opened.
> ...


If we COULD get more P-38s, why didn't we? It was available in 1939! We could have replaced all of our P-40s and lend leased THEM to our allies.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If we COULD get more P-38s, why didn't we? It was available in 1939! We could have replaced all of our P-40s and lend leased THEM to our allies.



almost 3x in cost, only had prototype tooling until 1942, major dive perfromance questions unresolved - aside from that it was a winner. 

Unfortunately it did not reach its potential until long after a better and cheaper fighter, P-51B, was available off assembly lines in mid 1943.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2009)

drgondog said:


> ...major dive perfromance questions unresolved...


Didn't they resolve that dive issue with special flaps fitted just outboard of the engine nacelles?


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So VG seriously, there is no way you could support that claim.



Seriously, it's not forbidden to think a little before posting, even for moderators.

So from your theory the _Aichi D3A _/_SBD Dauntless _/Helldiver job could have been done by a _Zero_/ _Wildcat_/Hellcat fighter. 

In reality it didn't work, for obvious reasons ... that dooesn't need to be developped any longer.

Regards

VG-33


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Seriously, it's not forbidden to think a little before posting, even for moderators.



Guess what? Your arrogant @sshole response just got you 7 days with a dunce cap on. If you choose to come back you will govern yourself accordingly.

But to once again address your dumb @ss comment - you have no way of proving that the Tu-2 or Stuka were more accurate attack aircraft than the P-47. That was the whole point. Until you're able to prove otherwise by some accurate and tangible means (pilot reports, flight tests, etc.) I suggest just keeping your mouth shut.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 3, 2009)

The Soviets flew western aircraft in some cases very successfully...P-39...

So the concept of getting used to a differnet style of plane should be no bother.

How long does it take to licence build an aircraft and put in full production? 2 years maybe and the aircraft you were trying to build becomes obsolete.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The Soviets flew western aircraft in some cases very successfully...P-39...
> 
> So the concept of getting used to a differnet style of plane should be no bother.


Technically no, but there is a learning curve when basic standards that apply to a current fleet are suddenly changed to support one airframe type, both operational and maintenance wise


The Basket said:


> How long does it take to licence build an aircraft and put in full production? 2 years maybe and the aircraft you were trying to build becomes obsolete.


Very true especially if we look at this during WW2 with regards to combat aircraft.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 3, 2009)

Well come to think of it I can't remember any examples of a foreign contract built aircraft that was made in large numbers by any side. While it seemed easy enough for GM to take over making F4Fs for instance, having it come from elsewhere is a different thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Well come to think of it I can't remember any examples of a foreign contract built aircraft that was made in large numbers by any side. While it seemed easy enough for GM to take over making F4Fs for instance, having it come from elsewhere is a different thing.


Look at the Canadain aircraft industry during WW2. The Aussies did pretty well too.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Look at the Canadain aircraft industry during WW2. The Aussies did pretty well too.


Canada was able to produce some Hurricanes. I didn't know that CAC made any foreign designs, what licensed production did they have?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Seriously, it's not forbidden to think a little before posting, even for moderators.



Take your own advice next time...


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Canada was able to produce some Hurricanes. I didn't know that CAC made any foreign designs, what licensed production did they have?



P-51s
P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And aero-engines.
Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Look at the Canadain aircraft industry during WW2. The Aussies did pretty well too.



Canadians had to "americanize" the Bristol Blenheim when they produced it. American instraments, fittings, piping and such. Some British alloys were proprietary and had no 100% equivelent SAE alloy. 99% maybe

Canada and to some extent Austrailia also had America to draw on when it came to supply of machine tools.
Even with such supply, to do as well as they did starting from basicly nothing with few if any trained workers was quite an achievement.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Canadians had to "americanize" the Bristol Blenheim when they produced it. American instraments, fittings, piping and such. Some British alloys were proprietary and had no 100% equivelent SAE alloy. 99% maybe


First time I heard of that. Which of these alloys were "proprietary?" For the most part you were looking at 24T aluminum and 4330 steels. There was magnesium used as well.



Shortround6 said:


> Canada and to some extent Austrailia also had America to draw on when it came to supply of machine tools.
> Even with such supply, to do as well as they did starting from basicly nothing with few if any trained workers was quite an achievement.


Agree


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2009)

The alloys might have more to do with engine construction than airframe. 

But as an example of possiable confusion I wil give you this. Aluminium rolled sheet (for baffles, cowling, etc.) could be called 17S as an alloy trade designation. It was called QQ-A-353 under a federal system which the army used while the navy called the same alloy 47A3c and the S.A.E called it 26 with the A.S.T.M. calling it B78-36T.

Or for Aluminium forgings (for Pistons, crankcases, connecting rods, Impellors, etc) you have alloy trade designations of 14S, 18S, 25S, 3S, and A51S all of which are called QQ-A-367a by the federal and army sytem and all of which are called 46A7b by the navy sytem. A.S.T.M has no designation and the S.A.E. has designations only for for the 15S and A51S which it calls 27 and 280 respectively. 
Each of these does actually have slightly different composition

See: supermarine spitfire | 1939 | 0927 | Flight Archive alloy

and: 1938 | 2180 | Flight Archive alloy

Is DTD 351 the exact same as 24T aluminium? is it close enough? 

I don't know, all I am saying is that just having a set of blue prints from another country doesn't mean you are ready to start production in your country. Things may have gotten a lot more standerized since WW II.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2009)

Aircraft produced in Australia during the war were almost exclusively foreign designs.

In additioon to those in the Table in 1943 plans were under way in Australia for the Beaufort Division of DAP to build the Lancaster Mk III. The Lancaster Mk IV (or GAF Lincoln B Mk 30 as it became known) was built because of the long-range requirements in the Pacific area. Orders were placed for 85 Lincolns, but only 73 were built. The first five Lincolns, A73-1/5, were constructed from British supplied components and A73-1 made its first flight on March 17 1946. The first Australian built Lincoln, A73-6 was delivered in November 1946. The Lincolns were phased into No 82 Bomber Wing at RAAF Amberley to replace the Liberators of Nos 12, 21 and 23 Sqns. The Lincoln B30 originally had four Merlin 85 engines, but was later equipped with a combination of two Merlin 66s in the outboard positions and two inboard Merlin 85s. Eventually, four Merlin 102s were installed and this version became the GAF Lincoln B Mk 30A. Armament was generally upgraded to ).5 in and 20mm cannon. The Lincolns gave great service, serving with the RAAF until 1961


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The alloys might have more to do with engine construction than airframe.
> 
> But as an example of possiable confusion I wil give you this. Aluminium rolled sheet (for baffles, cowling, etc.) could be called 17S as an alloy trade designation. It was called QQ-A-353 under a federal system which the army used while the navy called the same alloy 47A3c and the S.A.E called it 26 with the A.S.T.M. calling it B78-36T.


The QQ-A-353 is the general material specification. The rolled sheet is 17T and known as 2017 in today's world. There will be a heat treat designation following it depending on how it was heat treated, usually T-3, 4 or 6. It its annealed it will carry the letter "O"

From one of my material books I show 2017 consisting of the following.

Aluminum Balance 
Chromium 0.1 max 
Copper 3.5 - 4.5 
Iron 0.7 max 
Magnesium 0.4 - 0.8 
Manganese 0.4 - 1 
Remainder Each 0.05 max 
Remainder Total 0.15 max 
Silicon 0.8 max 
Titanium + Zinc 0.2 max 
Zinc 0.25 max 




Shortround6 said:


> Or for Aluminium forgings (for Pistons, crankcases, connecting rods, Impellors, etc) you have alloy trade designations of 14S, 18S, 25S, 3S, and A51S all of which are called QQ-A-367a by the federal and army sytem and all of which are called 46A7b by the navy sytem. A.S.T.M has no designation and the S.A.E. has designations only for for the 15S and A51S which it calls 27 and 280 respectively.
> Each of these does actually have slightly different composition


QQ-A-367A is an open die forging spec that is related to 2219 Aluminum

Aluminum Balance  
Copper 5.8 - 6.8 
Iron 0.3 max 
Magnesium 0.02 max 
Manganese 0.2 - 0.4 
Remainder Each 0.05 max 
Remainder Total 0.15 max 
Silicon 0.2 max 
Titanium 0.02 - 0.1 
Vanadium 0.05 - 0.15 
Zinc 0.1 max 
Zirconium 0.1 - 0.25 




Shortround6 said:


> See: supermarine spitfire | 1939 | 0927 | Flight Archive alloy
> 
> and: 1938 | 2180 | Flight Archive alloy



NEAT!



Shortround6 said:


> Is DTD 351 the exact same as 24T aluminium? is it close enough?


I believe DTD 351 is an Alclad Process that is usually applied to 24T or in today's world 2024T material 


Shortround6 said:


> I don't know, all I am saying is that just having a set of blue prints from another country doesn't mean you are ready to start production in your country. Things may have gotten a lot more standerized since WW II.


Very correct and that was part of my original point. With the introduction of SAE specs and ISO, things are more standardized but when dealing with Soviet or Eastern Europe processes, there are still many differences.

If you have an interest in aircraft materials and processing, get an older copy of the "Standard Aircraft Handbook" or a copy of the Airframe Powerplant Mechanics General Handbook AC 65-9.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Canada was able to produce some Hurricanes. I didn't know that CAC made any foreign designs, what licensed production did they have?




Canada also produced the PBY Catalina.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Canada also produced the PBY Catalina.


At Canadair in Montreal


----------



## claidemore (Aug 5, 2009)

Another option for using western resources to produce a Soviet design would be to move the entire factory, lock stock and barrel, to Canada or the US. Factory No 47 (Yak 1) was moved from Leningrad to Chkalov for instance. One of the Pe-2 factories was moved as well, losing only a few months production. In many cases some of those relocated factories were being operated outdoors, with no shelter whatsoever. I'm sure we could have housed that equipment properly in North America, with resultant increses in productivity and quality.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Another option for using western resources to produce a Soviet design would be to move the entire factory, lock stock and barrel, to Canada or the US. Factory No 47 (Yak 1) was moved from Leningrad to Chkalov for instance. One of the Pe-2 factories was moved as well, losing only a few months production. In many cases some of those relocated factories were being operated outdoors, with no shelter whatsoever. I'm sure we could have housed that equipment properly in North America, with resultant increses in productivity and quality.




I agree its possible, but moving from onbe place inside a country to another location outside the country is an immensely more difficult task, not least because of language issues.

And whilst i am no great sympathizer of the Communist system, one thing they could do was to organize their war industry. The coommand economy of the USSR proved to be highly effecient in organising labour bring resources togeter and the like. In the context of the war, Soviet industry was super organized


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 5, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Another option for using western resources to produce a Soviet design would be to move the entire factory, lock stock and barrel, to Canada or the US. Factory No 47 (Yak 1) was moved from Leningrad to Chkalov for instance. One of the Pe-2 factories was moved as well, losing only a few months production. In many cases some of those relocated factories were being operated outdoors, with no shelter whatsoever. I'm sure we could have housed that equipment properly in North America, with resultant increses in productivity and quality.


I don't think they had an entire factory to spare.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2009)

It might be one thing to move a factory by rail taking several days or even a week for each train to move it's load to the new location. Same train might even make several round trips.
It might be another thing to to move the factory by rail to a sea port. unload the trains, load ships, sail ships on 2 week (or more) sea voyage. unload ships onto trains at new port and send trains to new factory location. 
The Russian might have been very good at dismantling the factory (early production steps moved first) and re-establishing production lines in new location witht the least disruption of production. Some how I doubt that with all the extra handling the sea move woulf take that that everthing arrives in the proper order to get fast production going on foreign soil.

And you still have the supply problem. Not too many producers of metric nuts, bolts and screws in North America in the early 40s.


----------



## Altea (Aug 6, 2009)

Hello


_



Originally Posted by Clay_Allison 
So you are saying that it would have been impossible to licence build the Yakovlev because we couldn't have made our own tooling?

Click to expand...

_


> Oh we could have made our own tooling, but by the time you consider that in producing some one other country's aircraft the increased cost and time will factor in. Tooling needs to be supplied with drawings when having someone else build your aircraft.




In general case I would say “yes”. But the Yak fighter with its wooden wings and welded steel tubes fuselage was a tremendously simple plane to fly and to build (for a warbird !). It did not required such an accuracy that would have need complete transmitting of full set of sophisticated tools and jigs for assembly lines. Moreover it could have been builded by craftsman’s methods in simple workshops. 
So, it opens a lot of opportunities to small and light-planes builders like Beech, DH Canada, Cessna, Steerman, Stinson…not specially accustomised to complicated airplanes


Even Orenburg’s builded metallic Yak-3U from 1993 are hand maded and considering the number of still flying converted or modified Yak-11 and some Yak-3 called “U”, i don’t think that it is particulary hard to adapt it to American standards. As Jean Marie "John" Garric just did in Harlingen, Texas:

France Warbirds



> Has any one considered the metric conversion or some of the different operating systems that would have required specially trained pilots and ground crews to operate any soviet aircraft in the west during WW2? It was all do-able but IMO not worth the time and effort to get the same end result.



Really? I don’t see why. France, USSR and certainly Finland exploited both systems without any kind of major problem.
It’s also the case of a lot of country’s owerdays. Even in aeroclubs for amateur pilots, i never encountered someone finding hard to pass to a Cessna from a JoDel, or the opposite way….

Best regards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2009)

Altea said:


> In general case I would say “yes”. But the Yak fighter with its wooden wings and welded steel tubes fuselage was a tremendously simple plane to fly and to build (for a warbird !). It did not required such an accuracy that would have need complete transmitting of full set of sophisticated tools and jigs for assembly lines. Moreover it could have been builded by craftsman’s methods in simple workshops.


Not by the thousands.




Altea said:


> Even Orenburg’s builded metallic Yak-3U from 1993 are hand maded and considering the number of still flying converted or modified Yak-11 and some Yak-3 called “U”, i don’t think that it is particulary hard to adapt it to American standards. As Jean Marie "John" Garric just did in Harlingen, Texas:


Again that was hand built over a period of time with no wartime stress or schedule placed on those working on the aircraft. Remanufacturing a warbird for exibition purposes is a lot different than mass producing a warbird during a wartime pace.



Altea said:


> Really? I don’t see why. France, USSR and certainly Finland exploited both systems without any kind of major problem.


During WW2 you had lathes, milling machines and even measuring tools by the thousands all in inches that would have to be either converted or discarded. Additionally you had a training factor of a population that already worked with imperial measurement that would have had to be re-trained. All do-able but hardly worth the effort.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2009)

I would second Flyboys comments. 

Although I think" Beech, DH Canada, Cessna, Steerman, Stinson" might take exception to "not specially accustomised to complicated airplanes".

See: Beechcraft Model 18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or: Warbird Alley: Cessna UC-78 Bobcat / AT-17 / T-50

and while not a complicted airplane: Warbird Alley: Stinson L-5 Sentinel

means that Stinson probably had their hands full.

I also doubt that Piper was using " craftsman’s methods in simple workshops." 

"In 1940, the year before the United States' entry into the war, 3,016 Cubs were built; soon, wartime demands would increase that production rate to one Piper J-3 Cub being built every 20 minutes"

The idea that America had all kinds of spare production capacity just sitting around doing nothing just waiting for something to do needs to be discarded once and for all. 

My Grandfather worked in a 4 man machine shop half- way up the coast of Maine. They made gyroscopes under subcontract for Nordon bombsights.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I also doubt that Piper was using " craftsman’s methods in simple workshops."



You got that right. Piper built Cubs in the same manner Henry Ford built model Ts.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 6, 2009)

> During WW2 you had lathes, milling machines and even measuring tools by the thousands all in inches that would have to be either converted or discarded. Additionally you had a training factor of a population that already worked with imperial measurement that would have had to be re-trained. All do-able but hardly worth the effort.



There is also the option of making an "inch" Yak which would not be compatible with "metric" Yaks. Much the same way many of the Russian engines were "metric" versions of American "inch" designs. Sometimes you can convert the design rather than the tools to each measurement's nearest Imperial equivalent.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> There is also the option of making an "inch" Yak which would not be compatible with "metric" Yaks. Much the same way many of the Russian engines were "metric" versions of American "inch" designs. Sometimes you can convert the design rather than the tools to each measurement's nearest Imperial equivalent.



Yep!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> There is also the option of making an "inch" Yak which would not be compatible with "metric" Yaks. Much the same way many of the Russian engines were "metric" versions of American "inch" designs. Sometimes you can convert the design rather than the tools to each measurement's nearest Imperial equivalent.



Yes you can. but how many engineering hours and draftsmen hours does it take?

And is the " nearest Imperial equivalent" a little too heavy or a little to light to handle the load?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 6, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes you can. but how many engineering hours and draftsmen hours does it take?
> 
> And is the " nearest Imperial equivalent" a little too heavy or a little to light to handle the load?


It might take some small changes, but our tooling wasn't so crude that you would be having to make really rough approximations. In most big parts you would see less than .01 inches difference and in small precision parts they would probably convert down to thousandths of an inch. 

The parts wouldn't interchange but they would be in all ways proportional. With modern computers it would take days. In the 1940s, I'd be surprised if it went longer than a month.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2009)

Every single drawing would have to be redone. And while no single part is going to pose a problem it is the assembly that poses problems. Maybe not too great to over come but everything has to be checked. 

How many Hawker Typhoons lost their tails? 
How many other aircarft suffered structual failures in flight or on landing (FW 200s) 

What if all the dimesional changes add 40lb to the tail of the aircraft?

It might fly OK or it might need a a counter weight in the nose to help balance it. Think 109 with wooden tails with counter weight under the oil cooler. 

Yes it can be done but I don't believe anywere near as quick and easy as you think.

And what have you got when you get done? If it is the Early Yak 1 you are taking about a rather unsatasfactory machine. If you are talking about later ones with the M-105PF engine you are talking about the middle of 1942 with P-47s in mass production and Mustangs already flying operations over France. 

In other words, why bother.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 7, 2009)

> What if all the dimesional changes add 40lb to the tail of the aircraft?



I know I live in a world with Auto CAD and all kinds of cheats to help me do crap but the conversion should be good enough that if you hold a metric part and an imperial part in either hand you should not be able to tell the difference without a stamp or a tag. I could spend two days with a chart and a stack of drawings converting the measurements to withing .01 inches without using a calculator. I can't believe that it would be impossibly hard.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 7, 2009)

The Soviets replaced their P40s in front line service with the various Yak variants. We could have done the same in the west, replacing part of P40 production with Yaks. 

We've already established that either the Allison or Merlin engine was adaptable to the Yak airframe, and indeed tested by the Soviets. We wouldn't have even needed to start producing Klimovs, just Yak airframes. The 1000 or so Packard Merlins that went into P40F/Ls would have given excellent service in a Yak airframe, certainly netting a greater increase in performance than they achieved in the P40. 

Clay is right about changing measurements to SAE equivilants, it's not that complicated. There are even some sizes of nuts and bolts that are interchangeable (more or less). It's always easy to find reasons why something shouldn't be done, the trick is to find ways to get it done. 
Here's a little video of a Yak factory. Complicated tooling and precision instruments are conspicuous by their absence. You will see hammers, wrenches and several vices mounted on tables. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjR6CEUyFf4_

Even though we wouldn't have needed to start building Klimovs, if we had, we'd have had an aircraft engine that would accept a centerline firing cannon. Centrally mounted guns have been often argued on these forums to be much more effective than wing mounted guns.


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 7, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> It might take some small changes, but our tooling wasn't so crude that you would be having to make really rough approximations. In most big parts you would see less than .01 inches difference and in small precision parts they would probably convert down to thousandths of an inch.
> The parts wouldn't interchange but they would be in all ways proportional. With modern computers it would take days. In the 1940s, I'd be surprised if it went longer than a month.



I'd be surprised if it it took less than six, even with a large team of draughtsmen.
And no, with modern computers it takes _far_ longer than days.
A few years ago I worked for a British company that had an American parent company, they sent us the drawings (not plans!) of their latest design of conveyor (basically two side pieces and a lot of rollers - simple), and told us that it was going to be a new product line in the UK.
I was in charge of the project.
3 months later we managed to produce the first one: it's not simply a case of converting the dimensions and getting on with it, you have to make sure that all of the "bought-out items" (i.e. stuff you don't manufacture yourselves - hydraulic cylinders and fittings, nuts, bolts, etc) are compatible.
An aircraft is not an isolated item, it uses _many_ parts that already exist and which conform to existing standards - THAT'S what makes it difficult.

And then you get onto the "little" things - do the two nations use differing system voltages? (So do you buy equipment from the original nation, switch EVERYTHING or start a secondary national standard?). Likewise hydraulic pressure, pneumatic pressure...

To give an example the original system used 1/2" diameter steel rollers as a sensor in places: British Steel stopped producing imperial sizes decades ago, no problem, switch to 12mm, but the fittings (plastic) that held it were designed for 1/2" and wouldn't have held 12mm. Even though these plastic bits were relatively small and minor components (less than an inch long) it was going to cost £30,000 for new tooling to get them injection moulded - because nobody in the UK made them.
Everything has a huge knock-on effect when converting from metric to imperial and vice versa, and that's without National standards in voltages/ pressures/ material grades... tyre sizes? Instrument dial sizes? Hydraulic/ pneumatic connections?

It's a very big deal and not one that's particularly "fun" or profitable.
Even ten years later that design is one of the least well regarded inside the company


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 7, 2009)

MrCreak said:


> I'd be surprised if it it took less than six, even with a large team of draughtsmen.
> And no, with modern computers it takes _far_ longer than days.
> A few years ago I worked for a British company that had an American parent company, they sent us the drawings (not plans!) of their latest design of conveyor (basically two side pieces and a lot of rollers - simple), and told us that it was going to be a new product line in the UK.
> I was in charge of the project.
> ...


I see where you are coming from but it isn't' "quite" as bad when you are committed to making it all "in house" rather than making it piecemeal and depending on a mix of foreign and domestic parts.


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 7, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I see where you are coming from but it isn't' "quite" as bad when you are committed to making it all "in house" rather than making it piecemeal and depending on a mix of foreign and domestic parts.



No that was the problem; we _wanted_ to make it all in-house, but some things don't translate directly.
For example the little plastic bit - we had to set up a new "industry" practically since nobody in the UK Made anything like it.
Aircraft (and practically everything else manufactured) are set up to take as much advantage as possible of existing tooling and off-the shelf items.
If the off-the-shelf items don't fit (wrong measurement system) then you have to set up manufacturing for those or use the nearest available equivalent.
Hence weight/ size differences which have vast knock-on effects down the line.

If the closest equivalent is, say, 10mm larger all round, then everything around that item has to be moved (especially if it's high temperature equipment), which in turn moves other stuff, which means you have to redesign bays, mountings...

Ask any design engineer: the worst job in the world is working on stuff that isn't your own.
Give me a clean sheet of paper and a set of specs _every time_. It's far less hassle.


----------



## Altea (Aug 7, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I don't think they had an entire factory to spare.



A big soviet factory it's a small town (up to 100 000 inhabitants!).But at least 5 of them were out of work by the end of 1941.

Su-2, Ar-2, Yak-4,Polikarpov I-18, MiG-3 unuesed complete tooling, or some Yak, LaGG, Yer-2, Pe-8 etc...assembly lines.

Best regards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 7, 2009)

MrCreak said:


> Ask any design engineer: the worst job in the world is working on stuff that isn't your own.
> Give me a clean sheet of paper and a set of specs _every time_. It's far less hassle.



BINGO!



Altea said:


> A big soviet factory it's a small town (up to 100 000 inhabitants!).But at least 5 of them were out of work by the end of 1941.
> 
> Su-2, Ar-2, Yak-4,Polikarpov I-18, MiG-3 unuesed complete tooling, or some Yak, LaGG, Yer-2, Pe-8 etc...assembly lines.
> 
> Best regards



Don't quite understand what you're trying to say but also consider the Soviets used slave labor and had some people working duress.

_"1937, Tupolev was arrested together with Vladimir Petlyakov on trumped up charges of plotting a "Russian Fascist Party." In 1939, he was moved from a prison to an NKVD sharaga for aircraft designers in Bol'shevo near Moscow, with many ex-TsAGI people already set to work. The sharaga soon moved to Moscow and was dubbed "Tupolevka" after its most eminent inmate. Tupolev was tried and convicted in 1940 with a ten year sentence, but was released in 1944 "to conduct important defence work." (He was not to be rehabilitated fully until two years after Stalin's 1953 death.)"_


----------



## Altea (Aug 7, 2009)

> Don't quite understand what you're trying to say but also consider the Soviets used slave labor and had some people working duress.



Sorry for my english. I'm saying that because of the total war mobilisation and industy evacuation, some soviets factories reminded without workers, and with a considerable amount of unused tooling.

Of course j'm not shure that planes like Su-2, Ar-2 or Yak-4 that production completly stopped due to circumstances were probably not of any kind of interest for western users in 41/42. But soviets were *still* interested in it, and it would have made no problem to tranmit the whole tooling in the US or Canada/ Commonwealth countrys.

Polikarpov I-18/ I-185, and MiG-3 were in the same case, but could have been much appreciated outside the soviet union in 42.

And since we are talking about november-december 41, there were some worring incertainlies about the production* resumption* of some types like the Yer-2, Il-4, Pe-8. (In the meantime their production was canceled). 


In that tragical conditions, i don't think that soviets would have made any resistance to send not only some assembly lines, but full factories in the west (far far east in fact).


----------



## Condora (Aug 7, 2009)

Just to illustrate the point, the germans had a *small* logistics problem when they invaded the Soviet Union:
as soon as they left their original area of influence, they discovered the gauge was different in the USSR, and couldn't use german trains there. They were limited to any functioning captured russian train until the gauge was changed, and by then they were retreating, not advancing.

I think the most effective way would be for the western allies to "make their own russian plane", using what they had at hand. If it doesn't work as well, identify the difference that causes the problem, and correct it.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 7, 2009)

Condora said:


> I think the most effective way would be for the western allies to "make their own russian plane"


and with the debate having evolved thus, why not cut out the 'Russian' and just "make their own plane"
Which they did


----------



## Condora (Aug 7, 2009)

I think I did not explain well... 

I was not talking about the "should we pick THAT plane or the other", but the problem of trying to do something according to foreign specs.

What I meant is doing something like the russians did with the HE-100 or the B-29: they got one of those, and sort of reverse-engeneered it, using the tools/equipment/engines they had available.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

Once air superiority was theirs, I suppose the Il-2 Sturmovik would have come in handy with western allied air forces... Other than that, I think the West always had a equivalent to the Soviet planes, and usually a better one. If the West would have had a shortage in aluminium and other elements, I suppose the La-5FN would be a good choice.

And the French were quite fond of their Yak-3s...
Kris


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> ...the Il-2 Sturmovik would have come in handy with western allied air forces. Other than that, I think the West always had a equivalent to the Soviet planes, and usually a better one...


in this case the P-47


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

Definitely not !!

The P-47 is often considered to be a flying tank but in fact it was nothing but. You'll read over and over again on how sturdy it was. But in fact, that's a big exaggeration. It's still about armour. And the Il-2 had a ton of steel armour. How much did the P-47 carry? Maybe a quarter of that?? 

Plus, the P-47 didn't carry cannons like the Il-2.
Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 7, 2009)

> Polikarpov I-18/ I-185, and MiG-3 were in the same case, but could have been much appreciated outside the soviet union in 42.



I'd have taken either. The MiG-3 could have been the high altitude fighter I'm always wishing we had, unfortunately only if we could get one of our automobile manufacturers to build the Mikulin under Licence.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Definitely not !!
> 
> The P-47 is often considered to be a flying tank but in fact it was nothing but. You'll read over and over again on how sturdy it was. But in fact, that's a big exaggeration. It's still about armour. And the Il-2 had a ton of steel armour. How much did the P-47 carry? Maybe a quarter of that??
> 
> ...


The P-47 was tough, but it also eluded damage with superior speed on its fighter-bomber missions. Once the bombs were dropped, it could haul butt away from the "scene of the crime". P-47s accounted for amazing tonnage in trains, trucks, light armor, bridges, barges, and any other targets of opportunity and likely it was a combo of the sturdiness of the airframe construction and the speed lent it by the R-2800 that gave it amazing survival rates.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I'd have taken either. The MiG-3 could have been the high altitude fighter I'm always wishing we had, unfortunately only if we could get one of our automobile manufacturers to build the Mikulin under Licence.



Why?

Mig was a bad handling, poorly armed aircraft with short range. 

And if you want a boat engine to power your aircraft you could always get Packard to give you some engines from the production line that supplied Higgins, Elco, and Huckins.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The P-47 was tough, but it also eluded damage with superior speed on its fighter-bomber missions. Once the bombs were dropped, it could haul butt away from the "scene of the crime". P-47s accounted for amazing tonnage in trains, trucks, light armor, bridges, barges, and any other targets of opportunity and likely it was a combo of the sturdiness of the airframe construction and the speed lent it by the R-2800 that gave it amazing survival rates.


Sure, it was a great aircraft, no denying there.

I'm just saying it's not to be compared with a proper heavily armored aircraft, like the Hs 129 or Il-2. The P-47 was sturdy but so was the P-39, the Tempest, the Fw 190, ... but none of them could stop bullets and shells because of a lack of steel hardened armour. No sturdy design can cover that up. We have to keep that into perspective. Il-2, Ju 87D and Hs 129 were in a whole different league.

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Sure, it was a great aircraft, no denying there.
> 
> I'm just saying it's not to be compared with a proper heavily armored aircraft, like the Hs 129 or Il-2. The P-47 was sturdy but so was the P-39, the Tempest, the Fw 190, ... but none of them could stop bullets and shells because of a lack of steel hardened armour. No sturdy design can cover that up. We have to keep that into perspective. Il-2, Ju 87D and Hs 129 were in a whole different league.
> 
> Kris


The P-47 was also twice as big as some of the fighters you mentioned. That's a whole lot more shells you can take before the plane breaks up. 

My point was that big slow targets like the Il-2 and the Ju-87 couldn't run away like the P-47 and were more armored but less likely to save their pilots than a plane with a combination with power and speed.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 8, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Why?
> 
> Mig was a bad handling, poorly armed aircraft with short range.



Mig 3 had a tactical range of 1250 km. 150 km more than a P40-E. 

Pokryshkin liked the Mig 3. In his words:


> In flight the MiG-3 was easy and obedient. One movement of the stick changed its position, stopped in revolution. I liked this machine, qualities and conception for attack! "


 Early Migs were trickier to handle, but changes made during production, such as adding LE slats and enlarging the horizontal stabilizer improved things considerably. 

Mig 1 and 3 were under-armed, but the last 52 Mig 3's and the half dozen Mig 3U addressed that problem with 2 x 20mm ShVAK. The 5 gun Mig, with 3 x 12.7 and 2 x 7.62 had adequate firepower, but lost some performance due to the gun pods.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

besides the aircraft, the US sure could have used some real cannon like the 20mm ShVAK, the Berezin UB or the Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 8, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Mig 3 had a tactical range of 1250 km. 150 km more than a P40-E.



Correct, I was thinking of the Mig 1. The Mig 3 cruised faster than the P-40E too. although it would be interesting to find some figures for each plane for cruising speed used, at what altitude for what range using what for a fuel load. Some older books say the Mig 3 had a 245 liter 'overload' fuel tank and while many fighters used such tanks later in the war with restrictions on combat use if fuel was in the tank I don't believe I have seen anthing on this concerning the Mig 3. It may not apply. Interesting to find out if range figures for P-40 include drop tank or not. 



claidemore said:


> Pokryshkin liked the Mig 3. In his words: Early Migs were trickier to handle, but changes made during production, such as adding LE slats and enlarging the horizontal stabilizer improved things considerably.



An old book ,quite possiably out of date with new knowledge from the east says "...stability had been decidedly improved, as were the control forces, and by general consensus, the handling characteristics were now acceptable, although it was tacitly admitted that the MiG-3 was no novices's aeroplane and, while a major improvement on the MiG-1, it called for a high degree of piloting skill."



claidemore said:


> Mig 1 and 3 were under-armed, but the last 52 Mig 3's and the half dozen Mig 3U addressed that problem with 2 x 20mm ShVAK. The 5 gun Mig, with 3 x 12.7 and 2 x 7.62 had adequate firepower, but lost some performance due to the gun pods.



OK, 58 aircraft out of about 3,300 had two (?) 20mm cannon and this is at the end of the Production run?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 8, 2009)

Civettone said:


> The P-47 is often considered to be a flying tank but in fact it was nothing but. You'll read over and over again on how sturdy it was. But in fact, that's a big exaggeration.
> 
> It's still about armour. And the Il-2 had a ton of steel armour. How much did the P-47 carry? Maybe a quarter of that?


Robert S Johnson may disagree with you on that point

It's not about armour at least, not to the exclusion of all else. Turning an aircraft into a barge full of pig iron does not make it more survivable. How do you armour control surfaces and tail units? Rear gunners were horribly exposed. The oil cooler wasn't protected. All you do is slow the aircraft down and make life easier for a cannon-armed Luftwaffe bird and the Wehrmacht flak emplacements once they were over the target. The Il-2's real ace card was numbers.

Without a general balance between

survivability
hitting power
manoeuvrability
speed
ceiling
range

for single-engined combat aircraft they're either going to fail, or require air superiority in which to operate. The other aircraft of WWII that famously sacrificed all else for one attribute (in this case, manoeuvrability) was the A6M-series aircraft and once the Allies worked out its ace card it became easy prey for the late-war USN/USMC fighters.

Let's look at the P-47 wrt that list

survivability - yep, pretty sure I've got Robert S Johnson on board with that one
hitting power - well, it couldn't crack a tank open but 8 x .50s and underslung ordnance still made it a battlefield menace you couldn't ignore
manoeuvrability - once the payload is delivered, the P-47 is back in the fighter role, he's got a good chance of leaving the scene of the crime before the Luftwaffe show up but if they do, they've still got to contend with a very capable fighter, not a scrap dealer wallowing around like a sinking barge.
speed - covered that
ceiling - not that important for ground attack but the P-47 wasn't shy in the high-altitude performance stakes
range - about 920Kms for the P-47 vs 600Kms for the Il-2 on internal fuel

Now take me through the list with the Il-2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The P-47 was also twice as big as some of the fighters you mentioned. That's a whole lot more shells you can take before the plane breaks up.



Don't be fooled by that. The size of an aircraft has nothing to do with the amount of the damage an aircraft can take. An aircraft does not have to take a lot of "rounds" to lose structural integrity and "break up".



Colin1 said:


> Robert S Johnson may disagree with you on that point
> 
> It's not about armour at least, not to the exclusion of all else. Turning an aircraft into a barge full of pig iron does not make it more survivable. How do you armour control surfaces and tail units? Rear gunners were horribly exposed. The oil cooler wasn't protected. All you do is slow the aircraft down and make life easier for a cannon-armed Luftwaffe bird and the Wehrmacht flak emplacements once they were over the target. The Il-2's real ace card was numbers.



I agree with you there. It does not matter how armored an aircraft like the Il-2 is. Without sufficient fighter support, it is cannon fodder. You can not armor an aircraft enough to make it "invincible".


----------



## vanir (Aug 8, 2009)

Uh-oh I hope I don't get in the middle of an argument, but I have to say I myself find the comparison of a P-47 to the Il-2 completely out of accordance with design features and intended role (speaking in terms of pilot doctrine).

You fly them differently, obviously, hence you use them differently. This is similar to an argument I had once about comparing dive bombers like the Ju-87 to fighter-bombers like the Typhoon and P-47. Totally different kettle of fish on this basis. Consider:

The Il-2 is flown in defence penetration slowly at very low altitude and relies on its heavy armoured bathtub (which fully protected the rear gunner when this feature entered serial production, field modified single-seaters were the only ones without rear gunner protection, who also had 7.62mm instead of 12.7mm armament and the weaker engine), armour good enough to withstand light FlaK with high survivability (historical accounts clearly demonstrate the almost impenetrable nature of the armoured bathtub to all but the very heaviest armament).
The VYa-23 was also very hard hitting (twice the explosive fill of the 20mm ShVAK round), shaped charge ROFS-132 rockets could cut a King Tiger in half, wing mounted ShKas provided light ground suppression and a set of 100kg bombs internally was all carried in addition. But I mean also crucial to consider is the sheer variety of weapon and warhead types available to the Il-2, generally interchangeable (aside from the NS-37 armament specific to the M3 version, though it retained rocket/bomb capability but deleted all other wing guns). There are no less than eight distinct types of rocket/warhead combinations available for various targets, bomb types ranging to hollow charge/light-anti-tank PTAB bomblets, deadly anti-personnel canisters and even a sort of Soviet version of napalm.
This is clearly a very specialised type of aircraft, a light-bomber and heavy attack model with armour over performance, and production ease/conservatism over reliability. The motor might blow from being overworked halfway back to base, but little on Earth is going to stop it either getting to its target or destroying it. Escorts were also standing doctrine and part of the Il-2 squadron formations, typically LaGG-3 fitted with 250kg bombs and VYa-23 to provide additional fighter-bomber/attack support, though bombs would be jettisoned if attacked by fighters for engagement purposes (primary role of course Il-2 escort, ground attack was secondary). P-39 and La-5 were also commonly used for this.

No need to go over the P-47 as it is widely known. But clearly flown differently (attack penetration at medium altitude and high speed for one, like a schnellkampf doctrine for fighter-bombers rather than a slow circling approach typical of heavy attack models). And clearly used differently but that's just another way of defining to fly an aircraft differently when applying it to the target.

So IMHO whilst two different aircraft might attack the same kind of target, they can still be performing entirely different roles to do it. Which is a reflection of how you fly them differently, and the associated aerial doctrines imposed.

P-47 and Il-2 are like comparing boats with cars by saying they're both transports. In my opinion.

I should add, this also means of course the Il-2 can do some things the P-47 can't and vice versa, because they are so very different. I should think this obvious.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Don't be fooled by that. The size of an aircraft has nothing to do with the amount of the damage an aircraft can take. An aircraft does not have to take a lot of "rounds" to lose structural integrity and "break up".
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you there. It does not matter how armored an aircraft like the Il-2 is. Without sufficient fighter support, it is cannon fodder. You can not armor an aircraft enough to make it "invincible".


The P-47 is pretty famous for coming home looking like it shouldn't still be flying. I recall hearing a story about an Fw-190 running out of ammo trying to shoot one down (I assume he either was a bad shot or was already low on ammo).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The P-47 is pretty famous for coming home looking like it shouldn't still be flying. I recall hearing a story about an Fw-190 running out of ammo trying to shoot one down (I assume he either was a bad shot or was already low on ammo).



I do not doubt that. Fact however is that it has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft. Size does not make an aircraft able to sustain more damage. You quote stated: 



> The P-47 was also twice as big as some of the fighters you mentioned. That's a whole lot more shells you can take before the plane breaks up.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not doubt that. Fact however is that it has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft. Size does not make an aircraft able to sustain more damage. You quote stated:


Just stands to reason that you have to bring a bigger gun to shoot down a big thing with a very strong structure than a small thing with decent sturdiness.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 8, 2009)

Colin1 "...The Il-2's real ace card was numbers...." Bang on. 

Il-2's - bathtub or no bathtub - were toast without top cover support from P-39 Airacobras (and the like). Without local air superiority IL-2 attacks were too-often one way trips.

Waves and waves and waves of Il-2's attacking must have been a frightening experience for any troops on the ground. No doubt they were effective in the unique circumstances of the Eastern Front. But in Western Europe .... can't see it ... lack speed, range and manoeveribility IMHO.

Typhoons and Thunderbolts may have lacked armor and payload but they could cruise-hunt well above random flak, locate a target opportunity and pounce. The moment they were on-the-deck there could be surprises anywhere.

I can't see low and slow moving Il-2 prowling around France and Germany just behind the lines making trouble - whereas in Russia - when the Germans attack with armour - launching waves of IL-2's to counter attck - or using waves of Il-2's to follow an artillery bombardment - those are different scenarios.

Typhoons and P-47's didn't regularly have Spits and Mustangs flying top cover for them, did they? 

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Just stands to reason that you have to bring a bigger gun to shoot down a big thing with a very strong structure than a small thing with decent sturdiness.



No it has nothing to do with the size! I would rather have something that is small with a strong structure. It makes for a smaller target to shoot at.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No it has nothing to do with the size! I would rather have something that is small with a strong structure. It makes for a smaller target to shoot at.


I believe that the loss rate to AA was worse for the Mustang than for the P-47. I know that doesn't tell the whole story, but if I was going to definitely take a 20mm hit, I'd rather it be in a P-47.


----------



## Altea (Aug 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not by the thousands.



Why not by tens of thousands like in USSR (36 000 planes built). ? The fact that the Yak is *easy* to build in small workshops with poor means, induces automatically that it’s *very easy* to buid in big industrial structures. In reality, the output depends a lot on welders and joiners drill. But, with experience, everything comes on…



> Again that was hand built over a period of time with no wartime stress or schedule placed on those working on the aircraft. Remanufacturing a warbird for exibition purposes is a lot different than mass producing a warbird during a wartime pace.



It’s even more true and stressful with complicated airplanes with elliptical or laminar wings.



> During WW2 you had lathes, milling machines and even measuring tools by the thousands all in inches that would have to be either converted or discarded. Additionally you had a training factor of a population that already worked with imperial measurement that would have had to be re-trained. All do-able but hardly worth the effort.



Lathes ? What is the difference for the worker to turn a 12 mm shaft with + - 0.25 mm accuracy or 0.5 inch onewith + - 0.01 inch accuracy. It's like driving a car (or landing a lightplane) at 90 km/h in Europe or 50 mph (US, Canada ). All you have (he has) to do it’s to respect indicated values, no matter it’s in mm or inches, km/h or miles/h…

I don’t see the special re-training you’re talking about. Moreover all Yak planes are conceived from the crush to be built, maintained and handled by poorly qualified personnel. So the be tooling package for a Yak plane should have been very light, exactly at the opposite of Tu-2's or Pe-2's one. 




> Oh we could have made our own tooling, but by the time you consider that in ...Tooling needs to be supplied with drawings when having someone else build your aircraft.



No doubt with that at the beginning, but even a Hellcat aileron wouldn't go the Wildcat and the opposite.

Best regards


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I believe that the loss rate to AA was worse for the Mustang than for the P-47. I know that doesn't tell the whole story, but if I was going to definitely take a 20mm hit, I'd rather it be in a P-47.



I agree, in your situation here I would rather be in a P-47, because it was stronger than the P-51. I will say it again though, it has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft. The size of an aircraft will not determine how many round it will take before the "structure breaks up".

I have seen small aircraft taken down by hundreds of rounds and I have seen very large aircraft taken down by 1 single round.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree, in your situation here I would rather be in a P-47, because it was stronger than the P-51. I will say it again though, it has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft. The size of an aircraft will not determine how many round it will take before the "structure breaks up".
> 
> I have seen small aircraft taken down by hundreds of rounds and I have seen very large aircraft taken down by 1 single round.


I agree with you, but ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL the bigger plane has more room to re-enforce structure. Could you design a Spitfire that could take as many hits as a B-17? Of course not. The bigger plane has more potential to absorb more energy. Whether it takes advantage of that potential, that's totally a different story and can only be judged individually.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I agree with you, but ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL the bigger plane has more room to re-enforce structure. Could you design a Spitfire that could take as many hits as a B-17? Of course not. The bigger plane has more potential to absorb more energy. Whether it takes advantage of that potential, that's totally a different story and can only be judged individually.



I disagree. It all depends on the material and the design of the aircraft.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I disagree. It all depends on the material and the design of the aircraft.


So you could design a spitfire sized plane that could take multiple 30mm hits and survive just as well as a B-17?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> So you could design a spitfire sized plane that could take multiple 30mm hits and survive just as well as a B-17?


Clay
when you say 'survive just as well as a B-17', nothing of the period could really stand up to 30mm cannon; 2-3 rounds were usually sufficient to bring down a heavy. A Spitfire-sized aeroplane being hit somewhere 'hard' like the engine would practically disintegrate.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Clay
> when you say 'survive just as well as a B-17', nothing of the period could really stand up to 30mm cannon; 2-3 rounds were usually sufficient to bring down a heavy. A Spitfire-sized aeroplane being hit somewhere 'hard' like the engine would practically disintegrate.


that's my point. I understand what Alder is saying, but he's being too extreme about it.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 8, 2009)

vanir said:


> Uh-oh I hope I don't get in the middle of an argument, but I have to say I myself find the comparison of a P-47 to the Il-2 completely out of accordance with design features and intended role (speaking in terms of pilot doctrine).
> 
> You fly them differently, obviously, hence you use them differently. This is similar to an argument I had once about comparing dive bombers like the Ju-87 to fighter-bombers like the Typhoon and P-47. Totally different kettle of fish on this basis. Consider:
> 
> ...


Good post! 
I would also like to reiterate how we got on this subject. I suggested the Il-2 as something the allies didn't have and would have been a great weapon for the western allies once air superiority was achieved. Then someone replied that the West had the P-47. 

The P-47 is awesome, no doubt about it. But it's not an Il-2. Il-2 was - like the Ju 87D and Hs 129 - a fantastic ground attack aircraft. It's difficult to compare the P-47 and Il-2. 

Discussions about speed vs armour have been going on since WW1. Even the A-10 vs F-16 discussion back in the 90s was to a certain extent about that. 

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 8, 2009)

Altea said:


> Why not by tens of thousands like in USSR (36 000 planes built). ? The fact that the Yak is *easy* to build in small workshops with poor means, induces automatically that it’s *very easy* to buid in big industrial structures. In reality, the output depends a lot on welders and joiners drill. But, with experience, everything comes on.



THe Russians, according to some accounts, had trouble with parts fitting in planes built in the same factory.
Some Western and even Japanese plans to use dispersed manufacture but central assembly points had troubles with sub assemblies not fitting together. 
Some accounts speak of troubles with certain Russian planes were parts from one factory don't fit planes from another factory even though they were supposed to be built from the same drawings. ths mass manufacturing is not as easy as some peaple think. 



Altea said:


> Lathes ? What is the difference for the worker to turn a 12 mm shaft with + - 0.25 mm accuracy or 0.5 inch onewith + - 0.01 inch accuracy. It's like driving a car (or landing a lightplane) at 90 km/h in Europe or 50 mph (US, Canada ). All you have (he has) to do it’s to respect indicated values, no matter it’s in mm or inches, km/h or miles/.



Except all the dials on the lathe that control movement are already calibrated in thousands. The micrometers and calipers the the machinest is using to measure the "indicated values" are in thousands and not miillimeters. SO the machinist has to perform calculations a lot more often than he would if the drawings were in imperial units. 
And a lot more chances of making mistakes and scraping part. Many lathes at the time had screw cutting gears. by engaging the correct gear the power feed would automaticaly advance the cutting tool the right number of threads per inch. Without making new gear sets you can't cut metric threads very quickly. And that goes to the the bought in parts. 
Western factories did not make their own nuts, bolts, screws, rivits, pipe fittings, tubing, etc. it was all bought in from outside suppliers who would not be happy trying to make "batches' of metric parts and then switching back to Imperial measure parts. the time it takes to set up these more automatic machines is time they ae not producing product. 

Strangly enough, The British thought they had to replace metric instraments with Imperial measurment ones when ever possible with the aircraft they took over from the French contracts. 



Altea said:


> I don’t see the special re-training you’re talking about. Moreover all Yak planes are conceived from the crush to be built, maintained and handled by poorly qualified personnel. So the be tooling package for a Yak plane should have been very light, exactly at the opposite of Tu-2's or Pe-2's one..



Poorly made parts can be "made" to fit at the factory by poorly trained personel to keep up production numbers. However that policy can turn around a bite you in the rear end when your " poorly qualified personnel" try maintain the aircraft in the feild. Instead of replacement parts ( or ones canabalized from another aircraft on scene) dropping into place these "poorly qualified personnel" are going to have hand fit the parts, hopefully they are oversized and so can be cut, filed or sanded to fit and not have to be built up. Having high production but low servicability doesn't really do much for numbers of aircraft in the air. 
And the repaired aircaraft might have a rather lumpy, bumpy surface finish when they are done which will affect performance.


----------



## vanir (Aug 8, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Colin1 "...The Il-2's real ace card was numbers...." Bang on.
> 
> Il-2's - bathtub or no bathtub - were toast without top cover support from P-39 Airacobras (and the like). Without local air superiority IL-2 attacks were too-often one way trips.
> 
> ...



Okay firstlly that's part of the very different roles of light-bombers and fighter-bombers, or in german schlacht(pz) and schnellkampf flugzeug. Comparative performance simply isn't relevant unless you're trying to make an argument that a fast bomber is better than an attack aircraft, in which case you're talking about doctrine and not individual aircraft design.

Secondly Rall clearly described how to shoot down a lone Il-2, which he described as extremely difficult and extremely dangerous. There were no quick kills, the engine and pilot compartment was too heavily armoured even for the MG151. He said you had to sit very close on its tail and gradually shoot away the control surfaces to bring one down. He said this became extremely dangerous when rear gunners were incorporated, and this position was included in a larger armoured section in production during 1942, with a more powerful engine to compensate the weight increase, and very good 12.7mm Berezin defensive guns (upsized to 20mm it became easily the best performer in its class of the war).

Thirdly these "waves and waves" of attacking Il-2's were typically three flights of one squadron, which used "circle of death tactics" since they were virtually impossible to bring down even by ground fire. At Kursk within 20 minutes one formation of M3 models decimated the 9th Pz Division (70 tanks destroyed) with its 37mm high velocity guns and rockets, circling until all their ammunition was used.
It was the same a/c coming back around and being seen again and again, not waves of new ones as would be typical doctrine for anything less armoured and well equipped. Pilot doctrine in the Il-2 was to circle, attack, rinse and repeat until all the ordnance, 4x bombs or special weapons internally, 4x rockets and hefty ammunition stores for NS-37 or ShVAK/VYa/ShKas guns were completely exhausted.

The tactical outlay employed for the Il-2 following the dramatic reorganisation of the Soviet air forces in 1942 was a combination of fighter and attack divisions flying two separate missions. The fighter division would be roughly a thousand metres above the Il2 force and sweep ahead to engage enemy interceptors. The attack division had its own escorts no more than 300 metres higher who would give close escort to the combat zone and then circle at the peripherary and wait. The Il-2s themselves would fly at around 30 metres altitude in defense penetration and then climb and attack the target, circling and repeating until ammunition stores were empty.
Following this, if the fighter division was successful in engaging the majority of enemy interceptors the escort fighters of the attack division would then perform their ground attack run with bombs and strafing as fighter-bombers.
If it all went south and the fighter division lost the day, the escorts would jettison their bombs and form fighter reinforcements to protect the Il-2s. But even without escorts, once equipped with armoured rear gunners and Berezins, the Il-2 was not indefensible. Early versions in 1941 were found to stand up well to ground fire but interceptors could afford to sit on the tails of the single-seaters for extended periods to shoot out their control surfaces. This wasn't the case by mid-42 and the Il-2 became a very difficult aircraft to bring down by anything short of a gunboat (ie. armament of three or more MG151 or heavier).

edit to add, anecdotally many publications cite the Il-2 as a uniquely Soviet revolution in ground attack doctrine which was not replicated in the west until the A-10 Fairchild. Perhaps when people compare the Thunderbolt to the Il-2 they mean the Thunderbolt II ??
Although admitedly the idea was also used by Germany in the form of the Hs-129 although I'm not sure it's quite so good a parallel as the design specifications for that a/c were as much production simplicity (non-strategic engines, etc.) as it was defense penetration and dedicated close support, not really the same requirements or features as the Il-2.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

vanir said:


> Okay firstlly that's part of the very different roles of light-bombers and fighter-bombers, or in german schlacht(pz) and schnellkampf flugzeug. Comparative performance simply isn't relevant unless you're trying to make an argument that a fast bomber is better than an attack aircraft, in which case you're talking about doctrine and not individual aircraft design.
> 
> Secondly Rall clearly described how to shoot down a lone Il-2, which he described as extremely difficult and extremely dangerous. There were no quick kills, the engine and pilot compartment was too heavily armoured even for the MG151. He said you had to sit very close on its tail and gradually shoot away the control surfaces to bring one down. He said this became extremely dangerous when rear gunners were incorporated, and this position was included in a larger armoured section in production during 1942, with a more powerful engine to compensate the weight increase, and very good 12.7mm Berezin defensive guns (upsized to 20mm it became easily the best performer in its class of the war).
> 
> ...


So, how did the Il-2 stand up to the MK-108? I think without escort a single 30mm from the nose of a 109G would likely blow it out of the sky.


----------



## vanir (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> So, how did the Il-2 stand up to the MK-108? I think without escort a single 30mm from the nose of a 109G would likely blow it out of the sky.



Tony Williams is the best, and readily available reference for this question I should think. Penetration is required for that armoured section, which the Mk108 doesn't have (a Mk101/103 would be far better) but certainly a shot or two in the wings or rear fuselage is bound to do quite a bit of damage. The Mk108 has been described as more like a grenade launcher than a gun, it has a hell of a charge said capable of bringing down a B-17 with only a few shots.

That said I've seen photos of an Il-2 with roughly half its tail section completely blown away by sustained FlaK and MG151 fire and a smiling aircrew standing beside it.

edit, also the Mk108 wasn't in production until late 43 and from what I can gather was only very rarely fitted until 1944, only a standardised armament in late 44 and even then by no means universal for the 109.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2009)

The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (the A-10's namesake) was a premier ground attack machine. Heavily armed, capable of carrying a heavy loadout and more than capable of defending itself when attacked, it was in many respects, ahead of the IL-2. 

It was also rugged and could absorb heavy damage while remaining airworthy.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

vanir said:


> Tony Williams is the best, and readily available reference for this question I should think. Penetration is required for that armoured section, which the Mk108 doesn't have (a Mk101/103 would be far better) but certainly a shot or two in the wings or rear fuselage is bound to do quite a bit of damage. The Mk108 has been described as more like a grenade launcher than a gun, it has a hell of a charge said capable of bringing down a B-17 with only a few shots.
> 
> That said I've seen photos of an Il-2 with roughly half its tail section completely blown away by sustained FlaK and MG151 fire and a smiling aircrew standing beside it.
> 
> edit, also the Mk108 wasn't in production until late 43 and from what I can gather was only very rarely fitted until 1944, only a standardised armament in late 44 and even then by no means universal for the 109.


If the Il-2 could absorb more total punishment than the B-17, I'll screw a sheep. I don't think it could take a shot from the 37mm M4 cannon (the one from the P-39) either.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 9, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> THe Russians, according to some accounts, had trouble with parts fitting in planes built in the same factory.
> Some Western and even Japanese plans to use dispersed manufacture but central assembly points had troubles with sub assemblies not fitting together.
> Some accounts speak of troubles with certain Russian planes were parts from one factory don't fit planes from another factory even though they were supposed to be built from the same drawings. ths mass manufacturing is not as easy as some peaple think.
> 
> ...



I have a close friend who refurbishes parts for helicopters. There is no margin for error, everything has to be perfect. A lot of the techniques and tricks he uses are the same things a farm handyman uses, just a whole bunch fussier about the end result. Basic mechanics being applied to hi tech parts. 

Most of the Soviet designs were anything but hi tech. They were simple, rugged, and crude. I don't see any great difficulties in a western manufacturer with availability of better materials, tools etc, producing a Yak or Tu-2. Yes there would be obstacles, but none of them are insurmountable, and the benifits might have outweiged just the addition of another useful aircraft. Better East/West relations comes to mind with attendent reduction in Cold War hostile attitudes etc. Yeah that's a bit of a stretch, but it darn sure couldn't have hurt. 

On a different note"
As far as the IL-2 being only useful on the Eastern Front, but not on the Western Front, that seems a little illogical. The opponent was exactly the same on both fronts. It would just be a simple matter of using tactics to which the IL-2 was suited. I'm sure US, Canadian and British infantry and armor would have appreciated it's close support capabilities. 

Note: The Soviets were able to stick metic engines and weapons into P40 and Hurricane airframes under field conditions, and make gauges and instruments work somehow. How could it be more difficult for a western manufacturer to do similar (reverse) conversions?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2009)

> FW190 was made in sub assemblies at 'cottage industry' dispersed factories. They had excellent quality.


In the beginning, yes, toward the end of the war a totally different story.

The problem with "cottage industry" is you don't have the ability to mass produce certain components as if you were to have a whole assembly line available. Additionally you have to have efficient logistics and transportation available to bring everything into one place. With Germany getting bombed 24/7 this presented a problem later in the war. Of course factories in the US and Canada did not have this problem.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 9, 2009)

Great information Vanir , thanks. I did not mean to depreciate the Sturmavik but I hold to my view that it was very much a unique development of the Eastern Front.

Furthermore: "...As far as the IL-2 being only useful on the Eastern Front, but not on the Western Front, that seems a little illogical. The opponent was exactly the same on both fronts. It would just be a simple matter of using tactics to which the IL-2 was suited. I'm sure US, Canadian and British infantry and armor would have appreciated it's close support capabilities." [Claidemore].

To that I say: geography, scale and defensive barriers/urban centres. The Eastern Front was vast compared to Western Europe. Much fighting on open steppes .... no comparison with the hedgerow country of Normandy or the Italian boot. [I am NOT saying all of Eastern Europe is steppe .. but a lot of it is flat west of the Carpathians].

Typhoons used "cab rank" circling tactics over Normandy and at Falaise to get at German armour - they didn't have supporting fighter cover on two levels backing them as the Il-2's did after the 1942 reorganization. [Vanir]

Claidemore ... it would be the difference between fighting on the plains from Calgary to Winnipeg vs fighting in the farm belt of S. Ontario 

No Kursk on the Western Front.

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> So you could design a spitfire sized plane that could take multiple 30mm hits and survive just as well as a B-17?



Yeah you could. You are missing the point. The P-47 was not rugged because of its size, but because of its design. You hit a P-47 (or any aircraft for that matter) in the right spot with a single round it is going to go down. It all depends on where the aircraft is hit. NOT because of size! 

Again I have personally seen relatively small aircraft come home with over 200 holes in them, and seen large aircraft brought down by one single round.



Clay_Allison said:


> that's my point. I understand what Alder is saying, but he's being too extreme about it.



No I am not being extreme at all! You said that the aircraft could take more damage because of its size. That is not true, it was because of its design...



Clay_Allison said:


> S I think without escort a single 30mm from the nose of a 109G would likely blow it out of the sky.



A single 30mm round could blow any aircraft out of the sky.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ...A single 30mm round could blow any aircraft out of the sky.


Agreed...

The Mk108 with it's minengeschoß rounds were devestating to anything unfortunate enough to be it's target. Didn't matter if it was a B-24 or an IL-2, the m-geschoß packed 4 times as much HE as it's 20mm counterpart.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed...
> 
> The Mk108 with it's minengeschoß rounds were devestating to anything unfortunate enough to be it's target. Didn't matter if it was a B-24 or an IL-2, the m-geschoß packed 4 times as much HE as it's 20mm counterpart.


Which is why I would have no use for being in an unescorted Il-2. With a P-39 along to help me (with its' huge cannon of course), I'd be happy, but flying a big slow garbage scow like the Il-2 and waiting for a Messerschmidt to bounce me from above with that cannon? Thanks anyway.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2009)

I agree with you there!

A Bf109 bouncing an IL-2 would be bad enough, imagine a Fw190A8 having it's way with a Sturmovick....not gonna be pretty...


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 9, 2009)

How many from 36000 Il-2's survived the war?
What was the really bomb load?
How good was the bombsight?
How goods was the accuracy of guns?
How good were pilotage properties?

And... In real fighting circumstances P -47 took the greater bomb/rocket load than Pe-2.

The production of the any Soviet plane in USA or Canada would not cause any problem. Only what for?
Surely only for this, it to send to USSR within the lend-lease. 8)


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

Tzaw1 said:


> How many from 36000 Il-2's survived the war?
> What was the really bomb load?
> How good was the bombsight?
> How goods was the accuracy of guns?
> ...


If I was producing an Americanized Yak-1 with an Allison engine, I'd send it to the Soviets, the Australians, the Indians, the Chinese, the New Zealanders, Phillipinos, pretty much anyone who couldn't otherwise get into a fighter plane.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2009)

Here's a quick comparison between the Jug, the Peshka and the Sturmovik

I still think for it's abilities, the P-47D offered more of everything from a single-seater than any other aircraft that fit in it's role. A fighter, bomber, escort, ground attack and everything in between.

*P-47D*
Max. speed: 433 mph @ 30,000 ft.
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft. 
Range: 800 miles
Weight empty: 10,000 lb.
Weight loaded: 17,500 lb.
8 - .50 in. M2 Browning MG 
Max. bomb loadout - 2,500 lb. 
10 - 5 in. rockets 

*Pe-2b*
Max. speed: 360 mph
Service ceiling: 28,870 ft. 
Range: 721 miles
Weight empty: 12,952 lb.
Weight loaded: 16,639 lb.
2 - 7.62mm fixed ShKAS MG nose mounted, 12.7mm Berezin UB replaced 1 ShKAS on later versions. 
2 - rear firing 7.62mm ShKAS. 
1 - Berezin UB MG, upper bombardier turret - '42 onwards.
1 - Berezin UB MG, gunner's ventral hatch - '42 onwards
1 - ShKAS MG, operated by a gunner from port, starboard or upper mountings - '42 onwards. 
Max. bomb loadout - 3,520 lb
Some pe-2s were equipped with DAG-10 launcher, launching AG-2 parachute grenades w/timed fuses. 

*IL-2m3*
Max. speed: 257 mph 
Service ceiling: 18,045 ft.
Range: 450 miles 
Weight empty: 9,612 lb. 
Weight loaded: 13,580 lb.
2 - 23mm VYa-23 cannons
2 - 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns
1 - 12.7mm Berezin UBT MG, rear gunner
Max. bomb loadout - 1,320 lb
*OR*
8 - 82mm RS-82 rockets
*OR*
4 - 132mm RS-132 rockets


----------



## Altea (Aug 9, 2009)

Hello,



> I'd be surprised if it it took less than six, even with a large team of draughtsmen.



Wow! Only 102 days to design/create a complete sophisticated plane like the Mustang, and 6 full months only to make draws for a soapbox like a Yak-1? Even with a large team of draughtsmen and about ¾ europeans metric engineers from Sikorsky-Kartvelli-Seversky design bureaus.

There is something “strange” in your estimations I think. 




> A few years ago I worked for a British company that had an American parent company, they sent us the drawi….etc
> 
> ….It's a very big deal and not one that's particularly "fun" or profitable.
> Even ten years later that design is one of the least well regarded inside the company



Your experience in itself is indisputable, and there is nothing to discuss about. But how far could it be applied to the Yak-1/7/9 *airframe *conversion from metric to imperial system?



> Ask any design engineer: the worst job in the world is working on stuff that isn't your own.
> Give me a _clean sheet of paper _and a set of specs every *time*. It's far less hassle.



*Time *is the key factor, you’re right. How hassle is it or not is an insignificant factor. *What-if* soviets have had ready Yak-1 with Merlin XX or Allison engines in the early 1942 spring, after the good thrashing got by the allies in the North Africa or Pacific TOW?

I have no doubt on what would have been said to you from Jeffrey Quill or “Chuck” Yeager about the use of your *clean sheet of paper*, if you were a Hurricane or P-40 designer/supporter/representative, after comparative trials in Moscow (between soviet 109E3, F2, merlin engined Yaks and Hurricanes, and Allison fitted P-40's and Yaks...). And so for the Kiwis, the “Aussies”, Free-frenchs, Afrikaners, Flying-dutchmans, Polaks, Aliens….

In final worlds the customer-pilot is the King. He decides. And j'm not persuaded that you will convince him that your own project: 
-would be far superior
-faster available in front line units,
than a join-ventured Yak 1A or 7A (america) assembly line.

Regards


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2009)

Altea said:


> ...Wow! Only 102 days to design/create a complete sophisticated plane like the Mustang, and 6 full months only to make draws for a soapbox like a Yak-1? Even with a large team of draughtsmen at ¾ Europeans engineers from Sikorsky-Kartvelli-Seversky design bureaus.
> 
> There is something “strange” in your estimations I think.


Actually, they're right:


> British issued a MAP order for NA-73X project, March 1940. *Prototype NA-73X was rolled out just 117 days after the order was placed*, and first flew on 26 October 1940, just 178 days after the order had been placed—*an uncommonly short gestation period*.


NA-73X was the original designation of the Mustang Mk.I (P-51)


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

Once again I'd like to point out that it sure would be nice to be able to make soviet cannons under license. Replacing the M2 .50 with the Berezin UB (chambered for the American .50 BMG) would have halved the weight and doubled the rate of fire of american aircraft guns.

Edit: same rate of fire, I was comparing the UB to the M2HB, not the AN/M2.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2009)

Not much I can add here. But according to one website (Zenos) the Il-2 had the lowest loss rate of any Soviet built bomber. If that is true, then the armoured bath concept had some merit.

Soviets used simlar tactics to the Allied "Cabranks". They called them "stateroom", basically circling and attacking targets of opportunity....helped to slow down the movement of reserves at the point of schwerepunkt.

As Vanir points out, Soviets were also effective at keeping the German fighters at bay. They did this by sending the fighters ahead and above the Il-2s. The idea was to keep the germans so busy with numbers, that the bombers could go to work as unhindered as possible. There are a lot of people in this place who argue that the VVS was no match for the Luftwaffe, to a point this is true, but in reality the VVS worked out tactics that worked for them. And in the end it was not the case that the Luftwaffe wa turning the VVS into mincemeat every time. Truth is, from Kursk onward, the Soviets were achieving quite competitive exchange rates, more to the point they tailored their air force not as an air superiority weapon, but as a ground support weapon, and in this they were palpably successful. People can argue all they like about how good the Luftwaffe was, fact is, that on the eastern front putting effective fighters into the air is less important on a front that long to getting your bombers over the target, getting the mission done, and then getting the hell out. The Soviets worked this out, eventually, and got to be exceptionally good at it to boot.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 9, 2009)

"...If I was producing an Americanized Yak-1 with an Allison engine, I'd send it to the Soviets, the Australians, the Indians, the Chinese, the New Zealanders, Phillipinos, pretty much anyone who couldn't otherwise get into a fighter plane....."

I know it's not_ intentional_, Clay, but *every time* you get on this "budget" fighters for the Allies it sound *condescending* as Hell. 

The Russians CLONED the B-29, the Americans DIDN'T clone the Yak ... does that tell you something Clay?  Give your head a shake. 

MM


----------



## Civettone (Aug 9, 2009)

Not much to add to the excellent posts of Vanir and Parsifal. 

Perhaps I could also repeat that this discussion is not about the Il-2 being better than the P-47, they were simply different concepts. I read a lot of comments on how good the P-47 was, and I agree. But all in all ... Western Allies never operated heavily armoured attack aircraft like the Germans and Russians did. The Russians used I-16s and Yak-9Ts for ground support and the Germans used Fw 190Fs. The fact that they kept using the slower but more heavily armoured Il-2, Ju 87D and Hs 129 gives an indication that these older variants were in a league of their own. Looking at the loss figures for both Il-2, Ju 87D and Hs 129 at the Eastern Front it is striking to see how low the losses actually were. First of all, hardly any from enemy fighters as they operated directly above the frontline which means they had to be engaged before they reached it which would be a lucky encounter. Second, they were often met heavy ground fire, especially the Russians who even shot at them with infantry weapons or even with tank guns. Yet ... losses were low.

One guy - perhaps it was at the LEMB forum - said that the Fw 190F was less effective than the Ju 87D it replaced: less accurate and more vulnerable to enemy ground fire. 

Kris


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 9, 2009)

Interesting post, Civettone, I agree. 

In the West, Typhoon losses to* flak *were quite high [Closterman] ... and that's _with_ air superiority.

I think it is simplistic to consider the two fronts as *inter-changeable*. I have no issues with the appropriateness of Soviet aircraft for the theatre. But Churchill wasn't asking the Soviets for technological "aid" - he was quire content that Soviets were committed in the flesh. Whereas, Stalin wanted aid AND a second front [ASAP]. Who came out of WW2 with who's atomic and industrial secrets...?

With no disrespect for anyone of any persuasion on this site - the history of the USSR industrially is the history of technology transfer from WEST to EAST. Whether Ford, Austin, Douglas or Autocar... 

Wishful thinking about Yak assembly lines in Sydney, Lahore, or wherever is fantasy .... which is one reason I have no time for sims. When I want to improve my hand-eye co-ordination I use a chainsaw  It's real ... with real consequences.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2009)

I think the comparison regarding the P-47D was to prove that the allies didn't need a Soviet ground attack aircraft, as the P-47 was up to the task.

The western front did in fact evolve differently than the eastern front, for a number of reasons. Geography was one, also the Allied designs were of a different school of thought, based on thier individual needs.

I would suppose that rather than being condescending, Clay was suggesting that an inexpensive fighter be supplied to nations who weren't able to afford high-end machines, and rather than give them obsolete aircraft, provide them with a proven machine that could be produced quickly enough. At least that was the way I saw it.

I enjoy running combat sims because it's pretty difficult these days, to climb into a Fw190A8 and tangle with an adversary. Besides the fact that Fw190A8s just aren't laying around, the FAA has fairly strict rules about flying unplanned routes at wildly diverse altitudes and of course, shooting down another plane. They really frown on that. So a quality combat sim is far more practical, plus you have the ability to research missions and the aircraft that operated on those missions. Think of it as a 3D model that you not only build and paint, but can actually use. I'm sure there's one or two other folks in this forum that feel the same.

As far as a chainsaw, yeah...I can operate one of those too...except I used to go up 40-50-60+ foot connifers and top them, wearing a belt and a pair of corks. That had a serious set of circumstances.

I'll stick to sims


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2009)

Altea said:


> Hello,
> Wow! Only 102 days to design/create a complete sophisticated plane like the Mustang, and 6 full months only to make draws for a soapbox like a Yak-1? Even with a large team of draughtsmen and about ¾ europeans metric engineers from Sikorsky-Kartvelli-Seversky design bureaus.
> 
> There is something “strange” in your estimations I think.



It only took about another year to deliever production examples. 



Altea said:


> *Time *is the key factor, you’re right. How hassle is it or not is an insignificant factor. *What-if* soviets have had ready Yak-1 with Merlin XX or Allison engines in the early 1942 spring, after the good thrashing got by the allies in the North Africa or Pacific TOW?
> 
> In final worlds the customer-pilot is the King. He decides. And j'm not persuaded that you will convince him that your own project:
> -would be far superior
> ...



By 1942 American projects were into the later model P-47s. 
In fact the Bell P-59 project (jet) was started in Sept 1941 with 13 pre- production airframes started in March of 1942.
Order date for the XP-63 was 6/27/41
Grumman Hellcat was first ordered July of 1941 with first flights of Wright engined Prototype in June 1942with P&W engined prototype in July 1942. First production plane delivered in Oct 1942. I really doubt a American production line for the Yak could be up and running any faster if the decision to do it wasn't made until Feb/March of 1942. Many other American manufactures took a year or more to go into production after the decision was made.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2009)

No disrespect to the Russian designers and workers. They were starting from behind the curve and had to often work in appalling conditions-- Political, climate, and bomb damage/invasion. 
They were able to come up with effective warplanes and build them in large numbers.
Unfortunatly for this discussion, most of the 1941 models were little more than protoypes themselves and even if ordered into production before or at the same time the prototype actually flew many of them needed considerable "tweeking" before they were even fully acceptable to the Soviet authorities. 

Again I say that much credit is due to the design teams and factory workers who turned some of these less than satasfactory models into the much more effective versions of of even 1-2 years later considering the conscription, factory evacuations and moves and so on. Much credit is also due to the pilots, many of whom had much less airtime than many western pilots who would be considered "green" in theri own air forces.

WHile the MiG-1, Yak-1 and LAGG -1were large advances over many of the older aircraft in sevice with the Russian air units that does not mean they were realy up to western standards in their original 1940-41 forms. There may be some dispute as to when the M-105PF engine went into production which might further affect how a ealy fall 41 aircraft might fair in an evaluation compared to a spring or sumer 42 example. 

Considering the difficulties the west was having in gearing up production in 1941-42-43 I just do not see any "spare" capacity for Russian aircraft and the engines the would need in the US.

Well, OK the Brewster Buccaneer/Bermuda could be gotton rid off but given Brewsters later record of slow/none delievery this wouldn't get you much 

By mid to late 1942 when the better performing Russian planes show up the west also has a few better planes further along their production tracks. WHile the LA-5 is a very good airplane the choice of western engines for it is rather limited. THe Wright R-2600 is close in power (actually a little low) but is about 6 in (150mm) larger in diameter. Yes you could stick it on but you won't get quite the same perfomance. That leaves the P&W R-2800 which is in rather short supply. What American airplane using the R-2800 does anyone suggest get cut to provide engines for American LA-5s?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...If I was producing an Americanized Yak-1 with an Allison engine, I'd send it to the Soviets, the Australians, the Indians, the Chinese, the New Zealanders, Phillipinos, pretty much anyone who couldn't otherwise get into a fighter plane....."
> 
> I know it's not_ intentional_, Clay, but *every time* you get on this "budget" fighters for the Allies it sound *condescending* as Hell.
> 
> ...


I'm talking about production. The Russians took our planes, yes? They must have needed planes then, right? I'm not condescending to anyone about anything but we had a lot of factories that were under no threat of being bombed. We lend-leased things all over the place. An idea to ramp up production to hand out weapons to our allies in large numbers makes tons of sense to me.

Nobody has yet convinced me that a (lighter than 7000 pound) dogfighter based around the V-1710 is a bad idea. There's nothing wrong with the engine, there's nothing wrong with our aircraft industry. 

I also like plywood fighters and I think the really good ones showed how competitive they could be (Mosquito for instance). I think that Duramold Plywood could have been used to great effect in producing a fighter like that with the added benefit that wood was cheaper than aluminum.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2009)

To all those who think the Americans had vast numbers of workers standing around doing nothing and just waiting for something to do.

See: Waco CG-4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THe Glider program was one reason that woden aircraft went out of fashion in the US war production schemes. 

THe Aluminum shortage never really materialized and many Makers of wooden aircraft and/or furnature makers were working on the glider program so there wasn't a large amount of excess capacity to make wooden planes with.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 9, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I think the comparison regarding the P-47D was to prove that the allies didn't need a Soviet ground attack aircraft, as the P-47 was up to the task.
> 
> The western front did in fact evolve differently than the eastern front, for a number of reasons. Geography was one, also the Allied designs were of a different school of thought, based on thier individual needs.


I respectfully disagree! Both the Typhoon as P-47 were never designed as ground attack aircraft. They became them because their original role had been taken over by other fighter aircraft !

Of course it's true that the P-47 was up to the task. The history of WW2 is well known. But if we're talking about Russian aircraft which would have been useful for the Western AFs, then I think the IL-2 is a possiblity. 

I also disagree with the argument of geographics. Look at the map again and you'll see that there's not that much difference: plains, hills, few mountains (except for Italy), some forests, some big rivers, ... In fact, the army would have been more affected by it: just think of tank warfare for instance. Yet we don't see that differing that much. Of course, I'm talking about the Eastern Front of 1944...


Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2009)

Interesting point, however I must point out that the P-47 continued to be a fighter even after it's ground attack abilities were put into service, right up to the end of the war.

The IL-2i version never realized that ability. All other versions of the IL-2 were slow and required air superiority for it to accomplish it's task. Wherever the P-47 went, it went with impunity, wether it was on the deck or at 30,000 feet.

It was not uncommon for the P-47 to accompany bombers to a certain point, "hand them off" to the next fighter escort, and then drop from thier high altitude and conduct harrassment of enemy ground units on thier way back to base. It was a multi-role aircraft that was a valuable asset to any airforce that used it.

And I thought we were talking abut the time period of about the onset of the war, not 1944. In the beginning of the war, the geography of the west and the east were totally different. By 1944 the fronts were drawing close together, and of course at that point the geography would be similiar. 

The early years of the war saw western Allies flying across the channel into France and Belgium, which does have hills of varying degrees along with plains, but also networks of hedgerows and broken terrain. In the East, you had rolling hills and steppes with large wooded tracts. There was a difference in ground attack methods between the two fronts. The IL-2 operated close to the front whereas the western Allies had to fly across the channel to strike at targets.


----------



## vanir (Aug 10, 2009)

I'd like to make a couple of other interesting observations to freshen things up a bit.

In 41 while the Soviets were still in "emergency mode" and the winter was crawling in, the first of several hundred Hurricanes had already been received with brilliant British dedication to immediate aid (imho Churchill was playing the German forces off between the Eastern and Mediterranean Fronts, which worked beautifully).
Often the Hurris were unusable however, poorly suited to the particularly rough Russian field conditions and weather, the Soviets wound up removing armoured seats and radios and fitting them to their own a/c (typically LaGG-3 around Leningrad) unless relatively limited supplies of local servicing fluids and minor components could be installed to the Hurricanes. They just weren't suited to operating at 30 below and the available fuel quality meant boost had to be recalibrated below +6lbs which killed performance even on a good day. The Soviets first found them useful only as bomber interceptors (MkII's with 12 gun or cannon armament), and later only as light attack aircraft (during 42 on the Stalingrad approach, Hurribombers were used widely to attack German transport lines, still fast enough to be rarely intercepted in hit and run tactics).

Now the talk is the LaGG-3 and Yak-1 with M-105P (low boost) engines was not very adequate in terms of performance compared to the latest 109F in 1941, but this was still better suited to Russian conditions (both rough field and weather) than western types. During 1942 however there was better supply of high grade fuels and the Soviets cleared the Klimov for higher boost pressures (the one and only difference between the M-105P and PF motors, and the recalibration could be performed in the field). I assume the Hurribombers were also recalibrated to +8 or +12lbs in 42...but by then Ural production was already improving quite a bit on the LaGG and Yak fighters (many of their early inadequacies were due to the recent shift of factories and subsequent, dramatic drop in airframe finishing quality, refinished examples of the Yak-1 in Dec41 gained as much as 15km/h over production versions taken randomly off the line in a Tsagi report and this was quite typical until about mid-42).
But finishing quality aside we're talking about indigenous aircraft which could operate under any weather and field conditions typical to the Soviets.

Several US types were pushed to be included in Lend Lease shipments, but the Soviets were not interested in some, extensive testing revealed several simply couldn't operate under the required conditions. The P-39 was reportedly updated several times with features requested by the Soviets, as it had not become a popular aerial fighter in its intended role with the USAAC/F and most of its numbers were headed there, but it wasn't a matter of surplus, it was a matter of whether or not the Soviets wanted them or could even use them, since they'd have to pay for them eventually.

For the so-called "poorer nations" like Australia and so forth, well I don't think economy was such an issue with LL, after all Australia even started building Mustangs in 1944. In this case I think it was the availability of aircraft types, we chose the P-40 because Spit production was needed by Britain and getting US freight was eaiser than British freight, probably also the reason we didn't use many Merlin engine P-40s but stuck to Allison versions.
I'm guessing if the US had the Yak in major production say late 42 we'd have stuck with the all metal P-40 anyway, the Yak is composite/fabric, the Klimov basically a redeveloped Hispano-Suiza and the equipment is poor. Say this license built version used all American parts, what, fifties in the wings and an Allison? So it's a P-40 with crappier airframe and equipment? And if talking about a redesign, as has been mentioned why do that when it is easier to design the Mustang from scratch? I mean you're talking about basically a Yak-3 with an Allison and fifties in the wings being available the same time as the MkI Mustang, which is a cleaner, fresher design with better equipment/design features that RAF pilots declared handled better than a Spit at low altitude (hence the suggestion a Merlin should be fitted).

I mean in terms of single seat fighters comparing to late war Allied types the Soviets really made the grade with the La-5FN, La-7 and Yak-9U/P (with its 1650hp motor and much better throttle heights). Earlier stuff was workable and had potential, but I think their best value was being indigenous and inherently capable of functioning well under Soviet field conditions.

But the Il-2, Pe-2, Tu-2 and La-5/7 were all excellent and very worthy a/c imho, easily comparable to the best in the west ca.1944 production. The Yak I think was a production dream for the Soviets, it started off like a Hurricane and wound up like a Mustang (Wright field comparatively tested a Yak-9P captured during the Korean war as equivalent to a P-51D in all respects but better manoeuvrability). At any given time though I don't think it was any better and possibly not quite as good as parallel Allied fighters like the MkIX/VIII Spit and P-47 (or in 41 the MkII/V Spit and P-40E).


----------



## vanir (Aug 10, 2009)

> The IL-2i version never realized that ability. All other versions of the IL-2 were slow and required air superiority for it to accomplish it's task. Wherever the P-47 went, it went with impunity, wether it was on the deck or at 30,000 feet.


I don't really agree with this. The Ju-87 required local air superiority to function but not the Il2, most defitely not. The Il-2 frequently operated in contested airspace throughout 1943, at Kursk for example, with relatively few losses.

And this business about single shot 30mm kills...and that Oldsmobile cannon in the P-39...I would direct these comments once again to an appropriate expert like Tony Williams. When talking about heavily armoured small a/c penetration and flat trajectories is key. The Mk108 virtually "lobbed" its rounds and the yank 37mm has a hard time penetrating thin plate (it was not in any way an anti-armour round). Now the Soviet NS-37 and 45mm were very powerful weapons noted for single shot kills at extreme range against fighters, but then they were also noted for almost stopping the firing a/c (Yak-9T/K or LaGG-3T) mid-flight with recoil. These guns are a totally different kettle of fish and were designed for thick armour penetration (ie. light anti-tank work), unlike the Mk108 or Oldsmobile gun which are aerial guns designed for taking out large targets with broad vulnerable sections at fairly close range.

Sure any single 30mm round will take down any small a/c shot in the wingroot, and just a few rounds will have a similar effect on the wingroot of a B-17, but what are you going to do as a Luftwaffe interceptor, radio the Il2 pilot and ask him if he wouldn't mind flying straight and level so you can lob an Mk108 shell into his wingroot at close range?
Your best chances of manoeuvring hits are going to be at centre of mass, right where the armoured bathtub is, which I dare say would take a glancing Mk108 round surprisingly well. I don't think it'd stand up to a Mk101/103 round however.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2009)

Keep in mind that the Mk108 minengeschoß round was an extremely potent HE round, and can't really be compared to other 30mm (or 37mm) cannon rounds. It wasn't designed to penetrate armor as much as it was designed to detonate violently, creating maximum amount of damage to it's target. This would be catastrophic to an aircraft's structure and/or surfaces. As I said previously, the 30mm minengeschoß was 4 times more powerfull than the MG151/20 20mm minengeschoß. The difference between the two rounds is that one or two Mk108 rounds would bring down a B-17 where it took 20 or more MG151/20 rounds to do the same.

A pilot who flew a Mk108 equipped aircraft wouldn't "lob" shells at a target, but would close in to maximize the weapon's accuracy. This meant closing in from about 690 meters or less even though it's range was technically up to 1,000 meters, but not very accurate at max.

The Mk101 and it's successor, the Mk103 were of a different design, and chambered a different 30mm (30x184B) round than the Mk108 (30x90RB). These two weapons were more specialized as anti-armor weapons. They had a number of cartridges available, the tungsten-tipped AP projectile being the most common used.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 10, 2009)

vanir said:


> I don't really agree with this. The Ju-87 required local air superiority to function but not the Il2, most defitely not. The Il-2 frequently operated in contested airspace throughout 1943, at Kursk for example, with relatively few losses.
> 
> And this business about single shot 30mm kills...and that Oldsmobile cannon in the P-39...I would direct these comments once again to an appropriate expert like Tony Williams. When talking about heavily armoured small a/c penetration and flat trajectories is key. The Mk108 virtually "lobbed" its rounds and the yank 37mm has a hard time penetrating thin plate (it was not in any way an anti-armour round). Now the Soviet NS-37 and 45mm were very powerful weapons noted for single shot kills at extreme range against fighters, but then they were also noted for almost stopping the firing a/c (Yak-9T/K or LaGG-3T) mid-flight with recoil. These guns are a totally different kettle of fish and were designed for thick armour penetration (ie. light anti-tank work), unlike the Mk108 or Oldsmobile gun which are aerial guns designed for taking out large targets with broad vulnerable sections at fairly close range.
> 
> ...


We'll have to disagree until one of us finds evidence. I think that thin-walled heavily loaded MK 108 shell would knock anything out but a very lucky B-17 with one hit. I know people like to think of the Il-2 as a flying tank but it wasn't actually a tank. Add to that, the German is probably coming down from above in a 109 or 110 and you have a problem.


----------



## Altea (Aug 10, 2009)

Hello Shortround6 ,



> Correct, I was thinking of the Mig 1. The Mig 3 cruised faster than the P-40E too. although it would be interesting to find some figures for each plane for cruising speed used, at what altitude for what range using what for a fuel load.


Might be useful: Â.Á. Øàâðîâ. Òîì 2 - òàáëèöû 20




> Some older books say the Mig 3 had a 245 liter 'overload' fuel tank and while many fighters used such tanks later in the war with restrictions on combat use if fuel was in the tank I don't believe I have seen anthing on this concerning the Mig 3. It may not apply. Interesting to find out if range figures for P-40 include drop tank or not.


For the I-200 state trials: 580 km at 565 km/h (09 Vmax speed), and from memory 784km at 465 km/h
The I-200/MiG-1 had one fuselage 110l and two 155l wing root tanks.

The P-40E had 35+50+62.5 us.gal tanks. (461l)

The MiG-3 carried an extra 265l ( with less than realy 250 usable litres, due to mis-shapen geometry) tank under the pilots seat and a second oil tank beneath the engine. In order to compensate the aft CG, the engine was moved 100 mm forward, lengthening the plane as same. Total fuel capacity 680litres (usable 640-650)

From P-40E pilot notes
700 miles at 188 IAS at 12000 ft with 100 us gal fuel (23 for warm up)
325 miles at 261 IAS at max continuous power at 9000 ft with 123 us gals.

From MiG 3 NII-VVS trials in 01-02/1941
At 0.9 V max (575-590 km/h) the serial n° 2115 reached 820 km, and the SN° 2107 857km failing to satisfy the NKAP request from October 40, for 1000 km range at 0.9 Vmax speed applied to all the new generation fighters Yak I-26, LaGG I-22, MiG I-200.

A big scandal exploded. Mikoyan and Goorevich quickly wrote to the NKAP _“Real MiG-3 technical range is 1100-1150 km, our calculations are based on NII-VVS and state trials where it was observed a 0.38 kg/km fuel consumption. Moreover, during the state acceptance trials it was found uncumplete fuel use from tanks. This fault is actually corrected.”_ Afterwards it was explained that 0.38 Specific fuel consumption (SFC) was obtained with an altitude corrector. Even without it device, in April 1941 two others serial planes made 1000km range flight between Moscow and Leningrad as usual at 90% max speed and 7300m height.
The sn° 2592 achieved 1100 km at 562 km/h without using security (Warm UP) reserve and the sn° 2597, 970km, probably loosing a little its way in the cloudy sky. Both off them had the new rear smaller tank cutted by full 80 litres. Total capacity: 530l instead of 650l.
First serial MiG to be fitted with reduced tank the sn° 2859 made trials in may 1941, the 21th.
802 of this new tanks were made by the factory n°1 in may-june 41, and send to the units to be retrofitted instead of the older ones.
From the 12th series plane, rear tank was cutted by 110 litres instead of 80.
From the 14th series, wing tanks were cutted by 50 litres more. And reminded like that until the end of production.

Since MiG OKB largely overstepped state requirements, it’s look like a success story. But it wasn’t and ended tragically. In the meanwhile someone from the country rulling classes get interested in that polemic being only of technical problem kind…and made political conclusion that NII institute *deliberately* minimized new plane achievements. In other worlds a sabotage act.
Brutal unjustified repression falled on AI Filin, the very competent NII-VVS manager and he was prosecuted; NII leading engineers Nikichenko and Voevodine were dismissed from their function and retrograded. What for? Without straight quality control the plane soon degenerated. For instance sn° 3943 was just able to reach 628 km, at 7200m height with 355kg (490l) fuel. 

From Khazanov Medved, Maslov "Istrebitel' MiG-3"




> An old book ,quite possiably out of date with new knowledge from the east says "...stability had been decidedly improved, as were the control forces, and by general consensus, the handling characteristics were now acceptable, although it was tacitly admitted that the MiG-3 was no novices's aeroplane and, while a major improvement on the MiG-1, it called for a high degree of piloting skill."



Since the MiG-3 was al little longer, it may improve longitudinal stability. Since it was 250 kg (3355 kg instead of 3099) heavier this adversely affected *manoeuvrability*, and field performance. On the other hand, if the forwaed fuselage lengh was increased, the aft size remaind the same (...probalbly to short for a quick spin recovery. But it's just a supposal.). Probably the MiG-3 sn° 2122 was lost on january 41, the 19th for that reason. The test pilot Balunin being (with some success) in charge from 1940 of the full aerobatics program with MiG's experimental and first serial fighters, was switched to the MiG-3 spin trials programm. On may 1941, he failed to recover from a flat spin, bailing out from the sn° 2109.
The spin program was then stopped: some uncertainly reminds until now about the MiG-3 behavior on a spin, in particular those fitted with wing BS pods (and 250l aft tanks) .
About the control forces; the problem was corrected in statical and dynamical way on the experimental planes themselves, and then with an _unexplained_ delay on serial ones.


Regards


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 10, 2009)

"... The P-39 was reportedly updated several times with features requested by the Soviets, as it had not become a popular aerial fighter..." yes and the P-63 received major input from the Soviets. But Bell's attention to their client was because the Soviets had become their BEST client. Just good business.

Yes, Clay, the US* had* aircraft and the Soviets needed aircraft, but the Americans didn't *cater* to the Soviet's specific requirements with the exception just mentioned of Bell. . There are many areas - one can argue - where the US would have been *better served* by adapting Soviet practices such as diesel engines in tanks rather than ronsons  but they didn't. They built the stuff they wanted/knew how to build and for the most part it was "take it or leave it" - which is fair enough when it's on their dime 

The differences in front line conditions between the Soviets and the USAAF are not simply ideological - but very real. The Communists were in the process of boot-strapping a huge, backward country into the 20th century when the war began .... that is not a criticism but reality .. they coped and they prevailed. Much credit due to them.

Vanir ... I think your points are well made.

As to the Olds cannon - I agree with comments that state it was inferior to Soviet weapons. The Soviets have designed great weapons and the Russians have always used artillery effectively. 

[aside] I was reading about PT boat operations in the early years of the Pacific theatre and was amused to note that many were retro-fitted with 37mm's scavenged from P-39's - worked very well against barges and shallow draft vessels. Slow rate of fire and trajectory weren't a problem, no need for AP rounds as the targets were all thin skinned - but what that tells you is just how inappropriate the Olds cannon really was was air warfare. Then imagine building a twin-engined bomber killer (Bell Airacuda) around two of these guns ... that's how far off some of the thinking was about what the coming air warfare was going to be like .... same for the role of battleships.

Finally - ".. I would suppose that rather than being condescending, Clay was suggesting that an inexpensive fighter be supplied to nations who weren't able to afford high-end machines, and rather than give them obsolete aircraft, provide them with a proven machine that could be produced quickly enough. At least that was the way I saw it. .." I appreciate that there was no intentional put down on Clay's part, GrauGeist, but time and again it seems nations seem to prefer "F-86 Sabres" over "Folland Gnats" - the Gnat being a more recent example of an "inexpensive" front line fighter for "disadvantaged countries ... and in the Indo-Pak war some pilots used the Gnat very effectively.

No slur on sims was intended GG - I just get annoyed when sim-world blurs with actuality. I know we have sims to thank for the good results the US is getting with Predator drones .... I admire you nerve for topping conifers ... I'm twitchy enough cutting then on the ground 

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2009)

I would agree with Vanir on the Russian aircraft points. 

I think he as stated some of the Russian conditons rather well.

going to the Flip side of trying to use Russian fighters in the west ( I will leave the bombers alone for now) 
All three of the Early Russian fighters were short ranged, yes the MiG solved that problem earlier than the other two but the MiG had a problem of it's own. The MiG especially if built in the west would have REQUIRED Russian guns or production of Russian guns. The American .50 was heavier and slower firing than the Russian 12.7 leading to a loss of firepower that would only be made worse by substituting American .30s for the Russian 7.62s. The Hispano was never sychronized and is not an option for the MiG. 
ALL of 3 of the Russian fighters had wings just a bit bigger than the wing on a 109. Not a lot of room for changing to wing mounted guns even if the wing structure was redesigned for it. Yes you could get some sort of wing mounted armament but can you get enough to compensate for the loss of the engine mounted 20-23mm gun if you try to use a western engine?
And you are into the whole redesign the engine installation, redesign wing structure, design armament installation and keep CG somewhere near the same point problem. Yes it can certainly be done it but it kind of loses that "we could do it fast and easy" appeal.
It is not quite the same thing to stick an one engine in another airframe to to test performance "potential" as it is to engineer a proper installation that will allow for proper cooling and oil supply under a varity of climate conditions and flight conditions. For instance even Merlins and Allisons require different radiator and oil cooler setups becasue even when making the same power their liquied cooling and oil systems absorb different percentages of the waste heat.
Even if a Russian aircraft performed well in the Heat of a Russian summer on the steppes does that mean it would have run cool enough in the North African dessert?


----------



## Condora (Aug 10, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> an inexpensive fighter be supplied to nations who weren't able to afford high-end machines, and rather than give them obsolete aircraft, provide them with a proven machine that could be produced quickly enough



Hoorray for that!
We'd have appreciated having a few modern planes in Portugal at the time, when it seemed Germany would try to come visit us, and we only had Gladiators to face the Luftwaffe.

During the war, we received some surplus Hurricanes and Spitfires from the RAF, but always the early models.
Also managed to get the hand on Airacobras, B-24s, Wellingtons, even P-38s, but always from some pilots who were forced to land here, and their planes were confiscated.

As a matter of fact, there is an amusing story, of ONE P-38 pilot who managed to get away WITH his plane: he was low on fuel, and forced to land. As soon as someone from the airfield showed up, he started berating them on their delay to refuel his plane. His bluff was so good, that when the instructions to detain him arrived, he had fuelled up and was already taking off again. 
I think the only ones not laughing were the authorities and the guys from the airfield...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 10, 2009)

Great story, Condora, but .... "an inexpensive fighter". The P-40 and P-39 were inexpensive fighters  built without coercion. 

Were the Germans threatening Portugal? I just assumed that Spain's neutrality more or less protected Portugal's flank. Please, educate me on this.

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2009)

Getting to the idea of "an inexpensive fighter" if power by an Allison.

The engine won't be any cheaper or the propellor or the rediator, oil cooler etc.
The instrament panel won't be any cheaper or radios or oxogen equipment etc.
If the Armament is any cheaper it means that there is less of it.
If the plane weighs about about the same as a "more expensive" metal plane can you make the landing gear, tires, brakes retracting mechanism any cheaper?
won't the armour and bullet proof windscreen cost the same?

Just how much cheaper will the TOTAL cost of the "inexpensive fighter" be?
Especially if you have to pay for a whole new factory to make it. 
How many have to be made before you break even compared to making existing aircraft on existing or expanded production lines. 

Most countries that actually tried to make "inexpensive fighters" tried using smaller planes with smaller less expensive engines or engines that weren't considered first rate so the demand for them was lower.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 10, 2009)

Shortround6 I agree 100%. 

One challenge - in my mind - was to make aircraft out of "non strategic" materials .. and I guess one could argue that if a country had an abundant resource that was non-strategic .. plus craftsmen who knew how to work with it .. then that could be leveraged into useful production. 

But for countries with advanced industrial infrastructure like Germany, UK and USA the more significant challenge was to "engineer the hell out of manufacturing" once a plane was protoyped as with the Mustang and Me-109 where the reduction in costs were achieved - not by making aircraft simple or of non-strategic resources - but by creatively driving manufacturing costs down. That worked and still does.

MM


----------



## Condora (Aug 10, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Great story, Condora, but .... "an inexpensive fighter". The P-40 and P-39 were inexpensive fighters  built without coercion.
> 
> Were the Germans threatening Portugal? I just assumed that Spain's neutrality more or less protected Portugal's flank. Please, educate me on this.
> 
> MM



Only during the initial stages of the war was there any possibility of that happening...

For a while, there was the fear that the germans would feel a need to have control of the access to the Mediterranean and middle of the Atlantic: they were going everyplace else in Europe, and until it was clear that Spain's neutrality would be respected (and Portugal's too), the thought was that germans could decide to occupy the Peninsula too. Napoleon did it, and for the same reason: to completely cut Britain off from the Continent.

I guess that if that had happened, the result would be similar, as far as Portugal was concerned: abandon the country, fight back from the islands and colonies.

As soon as the Battle of Britain had ended, and Barbarossa had started, it was clear that an invasion would not happen. Folks just kept going with their lives, listened to the radio telling them how the war was going, and watched the spies from both sides pretending to keep an eye on each other (they didn't do much, even stayed at the same hotel, had breakfast or lunch together...).

The regime's preferences were a bit on the german side, and as for the population, some of them had fought the germans in WW I, and in general there was more simpathy towards the british. The government's references didn't prevent them from letting the british set up an airbase in the Azores, and when the americans joined the fight, the situation was so much clearer that although the americans were refused to set up an airbase in the Azores, a second british base in the Azores was allowed... even though EVERYBODY knew not a single british would be in that second base, they would all be (and were) americans! 

So, if Hitler had invaded Portugal - and messed up with Spain in the process -, I think he'd have lost a lot: the spanish were tired of fighting the civil war, but as soon as they would see the germans ruling their country, they would once more fight the invaders. Hitler would loose an ally - Franco -, and have a guerrilla war on his hands. The allies could have lost Gibraltar, Malta would be in a dire situation, but the allies would get two more countries on their side - countries with a lot of colonies and manpower elsewhere.


----------



## Altea (Aug 10, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I'd have taken either. The MiG-3 could have been the high altitude fighter I'm always wishing we had, unfortunately only if we could get one of our automobile manufacturers to build the Mikulin under Licence.


Hello

A Mikulin 35A, are you shure?

But it was so big and heavy: weight 830 kg, instead of about 600 for the Klimov, the Merlin and DB-601 Engines…for 2840 inch²!!!

Mikulin AM-35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Its specific power is 25.8 (29 for take off.) hp/ lit and power to weight ratio 1.445 (1.62 hp/kg)

For the Klimov 105PA those indicators are 31.5 hp/l and 1.8 (1.9) hp/kg

About 42.5 and 1.95 for the V-1710F-20R Allison.

Personally, I would rather follow TsAGI devices

Ôîðóì ñàéòà www.airforce.ru: Ñòàòüÿ


_
« В марте 1944 г. в ОКБ-155 был проработан вариант истребителя МиГ-3 с мотором Пратт-Уитни R-2800-63 и турбокомпрессором Дженерал Электрик С-23, которые устанавливались на американском истребителе Рипаблик Р-47D-10RE "Тандерболт". За основу проекта был принят истребитель МиГ-9Е (И-211). При расчетной мощности 2250 л.с. (с учетом скоростного наддува) самолет должен был иметь максимальную скорость 740 км/ч на высоте 10000 м и практический потолок 14500 м. Полетная масса должна была составить 3800 кг. 8 апреля 1944 г. материалы были представлены на рассмотрение в НКАП, однако дальше теоретических разработок “дело не пошло » _

With google translator it’s making something like this : “The design bureau 155 made (designed) a MiG-3 version with a PW R-2800-63 engine with supercharger GE C-23 that were taken from a Republic P-47 D-10 RE « Thunderbolt ».
The basic airframe was from the MiG-9 E (I-211) experimental fighter. At calculated power of 2250 hp (with dynamic blow) the plane should fly at 740 km/h at 10000m with a service ceiling of 14500m.
The TO weight should be 3800 kg. In april 1944 all documents were send to NKAP to validate the project, but this affair wait no further than theoretical studies”.

From the La-5FN datasheet, I extrapolated (roughly) MiG-9E performance:

Мотор М-82ФН Райт Пратт-Уитни
R-2600 2800
Вес сухого мотора 850 900 1030
Мидель мотора 1,25 1,50 1,40
Мощность на 2-й 
границе высотности 1450 1450 1500
Расчетная высота 
(с учетом скорост. 
наддува) 6100 4800 7800
..........................................

Мощность у земли 
Макс. Скорость 
на расч. Высоте 650 620 685

670 km/ at 6100m and 1450 hp with an M-82FN should give 640 km/ at 4800m (1450hp at rated altitude) with a Wright R-2600 and 705km/h at 7800 with a PW R-2800 (1500 at RA) engines.

Not so bad.

Altea


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 10, 2009)

Thanks, Comdora 

MM


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 10, 2009)

Altea said:


> Hello
> 
> A Mikulin 35A, are you shure?
> 
> ...


Well, I guess you could re-engine to the Wright R-2600.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2009)

I agree with you regarding sim data versus real data, MM

It's two different worlds that need to remain seperate!

I know that arguing the poor performance of a flight model requires involvement of actual data, but it doesn't work in the other direction. I know alot of younger folks tend to use sim performance in debates over actual machines events, perhaps because they haven't applied themselves to actual reference material (that does require reading, something that seems to be rare these days).

When I offer data and/or statistics in a debate, I go for actual legitimate reference sources and once in a while, I even learn something...I think we all do at one point or another. That's the beauty of a great forum like this, where everyone can bring the best of the best to the table. 

As far as working in the woods goes, that was many moons ago...I'm older now, and don't heal near as quick as I used to...you couldn't pay me enough money to "get up top" these days!


----------



## Civettone (Aug 10, 2009)

According to hartmann, he always went for the oil cooler. The Il-2 did fly rather straight as it wasn't very agile. Even more so, its best defense would be to fly in formation.

One really has to understand just how well these attack aircraft could defend themselves when flying in close formation. They were never the sitting ducks they are often thought to be. Rudel's memoirs are quite illustrative: he flew his Ju 87 until the last days of the war, and kept on instructing his squadron that if they stayed in close formation they were going to be allright. Looking at the loss figures for Ju 87, Hs 129 and Il-2 it becomes obvious that they had little to fear from interceptors. However ... that was on the Eastern front: Ju 87s suffered horrible losses over Italy. But then again, so did the Fw 190F. 

I also have to respectfully disagree about the MK 108 being more of a grenade launcher with the shells lobbing towards the target. yes, its MV was lower than that of the MG 151 but it was comparable to the older MG FF which was used by the Fw 190A until late 1943 and beyond. We have to keep certain things in perspective: a gun fires rather straight at least for the first second. In case of the MK 108 that means a range of 500 m. At longer range it was definitely not accurate enough. But which fool fires at a target half a mile away?

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Aug 10, 2009)

I never really understood why the Mikulin engine of the MiG-3 was only good at higher altitude. I mean, I can understand the need for a high altitude interceptor but why couldn't the engine have been retuned for lower altitude again? 


Kris


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 10, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I never really understood why the Mikulin engine of the MiG-3 was only good at higher altitude. I mean, I can understand the need for a high altitude interceptor but why couldn't the engine have been retuned for lower altitude again?


I think the problems were more airframe than powerplant
The MiG-1 was a pig for spinning in, whilst the MiG-3 attempted to address the inherent limitations of the airframe, they were never fully worked out. At the low- and medium-altitude combats that characterised the Eastern Front, the MiG-3 lacked manoeuvrability and of course an engine being tasked at the wrong altitude. 

So handling and manoeuvrability; the engine of course, didn't help.

It was fitted with a Shvetsov ASh-82 radial and was proposed for production as the MiG-9 (not to be confused with the jet MiG-9) but the Soviets weren't interested in disrupting manufacture of the La-5 for an aircraft that didn't offer any advantages over it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2009)

If I may I would like to answer both of your last posts.

ALL shells are subject to gravity which means that they ALL fall about 16ft in the first second of flight. They all fall about another 48ft in the second second of flight. the question is how far have they flown in that 1 second (or 2 seconds). Shells forward velocity will fall off slower at higher altitude. Thinner air means less drag. Low velocity guns are harder to use for defection shooteing. Not only is the shell dropping but you have to lead the target aircraft more. A plane that is going 500kph is actually traveling at 138meters a second. While the firing planes speed is added to the muzzle velocity of the fired shell you can start to see some of the aiming problems. like were is the target plane actually going to be in 1 second

As far as the AM 35 was concerened. It was "retuned" for lower altitude. it was called an AM 38.

To change from a high altitude engine to a low altitude engine is more than changing timing or carburator jets. the gear ratio in the supercharger drive has to be changed.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 10, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I never really understood why the Mikulin engine of the MiG-3 was only good at higher altitude. I mean, I can understand the need for a high altitude interceptor but why couldn't the engine have been retuned for lower altitude again?






1) The MiG fighter was* never* designed as a *high altitude * fighter, but as a *general* air superiority fighter.
2) It was never intended to use a M-35A, but a 1400hp Mikuline 37 (basically an AM-35 with an intercooler). 

Because the M 37 was unavailable, the Mikuline AM 35A engine was used, giving only 1120 hp (1350 for TO) at SL and 1200 at 6 km. 

The low altitude version was called the Mikulin 38. Basically the same engine that a M 35, but with a much smaller supercharger. It was giving 1600 hp at 1000-1500m. Too low for a fighter.

Some MiG-3 airframes were fitted with AM-38 for experimental purposes.

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/mig3_2.shtml

VG


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 10, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Robert S Johnson may disagree with you on that point
> 
> It's not about armour at least, not to the exclusion of all else. Turning an aircraft into a barge full of pig iron does not make it more survivable. How do you armour control surfaces and tail units? Rear gunners were horribly exposed. The oil cooler wasn't protected. All you do is slow the aircraft down and make life easier for a cannon-armed Luftwaffe bird and the Wehrmacht flak emplacements once they were over the target. The Il-2's real ace card was numbers.
> 
> ...







> Robert S Johnson may disagree with you on that point



I don’t know if S Johnson will disagree or not. But he certainly never flew assault missions with an Il-2 and probably never saw on what they are look like. And what if his point of view (with some limited interest) is contradicted by thousands af stormovik pilots and their fighter pilots guardians. I said _what if_, but actually it is already maid;

:: Àðòåì Äðàáêèí :: ß äðàëñÿ íà Èë-2 :: ñêà÷àòü êíèãó â rtf, fb2, iSilo, Rocket eBook :: Áèáëèîòåêà OCR Àëüäåáàðàí

Unfortunately it’s not soon translated in English. “Only vet’s interviews: I fought on a Il-2” With no political -background.




> - Turning an aircraft into a barge full of pig iron does not make it more survivable.


A barge? If there was a barge in the story it’s not probably the one you’re thinking about. Have you got some valuable numbers to support that was the P-47 a more nimble plane or a better turner?

A 1941 year Stormovik had a wing loading of only 138,5 kg/m² (122 clean condition), and a specific power of 3.17 kg/hp. 159 and 3.5 in 1944, *284 *and 3.13 for the P-47D respectively.
So *wich one *is the barge, and why?





> -The oil cooler wasn't protected


Where have you taken that from?



> -All you do is slow the aircraft down and make life easier for a cannon-armed Luftwaffe bird and the Wehrmacht flak emplacements once they were over the target.



Do you know how many armour-percing bullet proportion there were in flak ammnution stocks? In a Luftwaffe fighter?



> Now take me through the list with the Il-2





> survivability - yep, pretty sure I've got Robert S Johnson on board with that one


J've got my mother in law on Il-2 side. And so what? There is a lot of aeras where the P-47D is able to be definitly lost by a single but happy mauser rifle shot from a german infanteryman. Not a single place like that on the Il-2, except maybe for the oil radiator exhaust slot; but it's less than 3-4 inch, at rear 10° max trajectory angle. No one chance on 10 million to hit it from the groud.



> hitting power - well, it couldn't crack a tank open but 8 x .50s and underslung ordnance still made it a battlefield menace you couldn't ignore


0.5 caliber is much to big for the infantery and soft-skins, to light for armored cars. Better than nothing, but unadapted for ground support mission.




> manoeuvrability - once the payload is delivered, the P-47 is back in the fighter role, he's got a good chance of leaving the scene of the crime before the Luftwaffe show up but if they do, they've still got to contend with a very capable fighter, not a scrap dealer wallowing around like a sinking barge.


A *very capable * figher? Maybe at height and only in boom zoon tactics. A low height the P-47 TOT is worse than the stormovik one.



> speed - covered that


100 ok! But 190F-8 was much faster at SL. And anyway, it was making attacks only at 400 km/h to provide some accuracy.



> ceiling -


I don't give a damn for what we need.



> range - about 920Kms for the P-47 vs 600Kms for the Il-2 on internal fuel


About 95% of VVS stormovik missions were made at the front line or at best 15-25 km iside german lines. And from 30-50 km distant airfieds.
In the navy it was different, stormoviks suffered because of their short range. But thy was never designed for maritime purpose


VG


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 10, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> 0.5 caliber is much to big for the infantery and soft-skins, to light for armored cars. Better than nothing, but unadapted for ground support mission.



This comment kinda jumped out. If a .50 cal is much too big for this (which honestly I do not understand as the objective is to kill they enemy), then would not the 20mm from the Il-2 also be way too big??

If a P-47 can shoot holes through a boiler of a locamotive which is at least half an inch thick, why do you feel it would be ineffective against amoured cars?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 10, 2009)

I think everyone posting on this site, VG33, understands that the IL-2 is a hero of the Great Patriot War. We know more were built (by a very slim margin) than other types. That said, it still remains true that the IL-2 was appropriate for the EASTERN FRONT - unique to the conditions and the Soviet doctrine. I am happy that your Mother in Law agrees with you,  VG, but unless she was a combat pilot, I think the comment is a wee bit over the top. As is "Not a single place like that on the Il-2, except maybe for the oil radiator exhaust slot; but it's less than 3-4 inch, at rear 10° max trajectory angle. No one chance on 10 million to hit it from the groud...".

I understand that that once perfected, the Il-2 had a great pilot survivability rate - well - so did the P-47  Johnson is certainly living proof of that.

To me VG - the key distinction between the two was that the P-47 was air conditioned and the Il-2 wasn't.  

Think about it.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 10, 2009)

In any case, VG, the glorious legacy continues.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Have you got some valuable numbers to support that was the P-47 a more nimble plane or a better turner?



The P-47 had a higher wing loading and slightly higher power mass. On paper the the IL-2 would have a better sustained turn rate, however the P-47 had a better roll rate which enabled it to enter into and out of a turn quicker.



VG-33 said:


> Not a single place like that on the Il-2, except maybe for the oil radiator exhaust slot; but it's less than 3-4 inch, at rear 10° max trajectory angle. No one chance on 10 million to hit it from the groud.


Every aircraft has a vulnerable spot and although the IL-2 was probably the most heavily armored aircraft of WW2 many were brought down by fighters and flak by a round or shrapnel making its way to an oil cooler or radiator line.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 10, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> This comment kinda jumped out. If a .50 cal is much too big for this (which honestly I do not understand as the objective is to kill they enemy), then would not the 20mm from the Il-2 also be way too big??


They would. It' better to use Il-2 ShKAS 0.3 cal for this purpose. And 23 or 37mm guns for tanks.





> If a P-47 can shoot holes through a boiler of a locamotive which is at least half an inch thick, why do you feel it would be ineffective against amoured cars?


A locamotive is made of common steel, a Panzer from armour. To make a hole in the armour you need at least an anti armor bullet.

What is the Brinell or Rockwell hardiness value od your thug steel, the 0.5 bullet stell, the panzer armor?

Regards

VG


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> What is the Brinell or Rockwell hardiness value od your thug steel, the 0.5 bullet stell, the panzer armor?



Rockwell or Brinell testing has no bearing in this situation because there is an element of force, density and trajectory. You factor in the weight of the round and the muzzle velocity plus the harness value of the round. Hardness testers are static and designed to take a surface hardness in a non-dynamic environment.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2009)

You can be sure that they weren't using wad-cutters or ball rounds in those 8 .50s.

A fifty with an AP round can punch through some fairly thick material.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> You can be sure that they weren't using wad-cutters or ball rounds in those 8 .50s.
> 
> A fifty with an AP round can punch through some fairly thick material.



And 8 of them concentrated on a single target will do damage.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 10, 2009)

I just read an AP round that was used in WW2 could go through 22.2mm of face hardened steel @ 91m, and 19mm @ 500m.


I'm still somewhat confused as to how 2 x 7.62mm are better anti personnel/lite vehicle then 8 x .50's.

From D-Day to VE Day, they destroyed something like 86,000 railway cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 AFV, and 68,000 trucks. Apparently the combination was a good one.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I just read an AP round that was used in WW2 could go through 22.2mm of face hardened steel @ 91m, and 19mm @ 500m.
> 
> 
> I'm still somewhat confused as to how 2 x 7.62mm are better anti personnel/lite vehicle then 8 x .50's.
> ...


Not to mention over 4,000 aerial victories in the ETO between 1943 and 1945 (including a V-1 buzzbomb).


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-47 had a higher wing loading and slightly higher power mass. On paper the the IL-2 would have a better sustained turn rate, however the P-47 had a better roll rate which enabled it to enter into and out of a turn quicker.


I agree for the turn rate, but have no data for the roll rate, and roll acceleration. Roll rate/acceleration depends a lot of inertia moments, that means distance x weight influence. So if the Il-2 wing is lighter, despite of its biger size, the plane could have a better roll too, despite some prejudices.




> many were brought down by fighters and flak by a round or shrapnel making its way to an oil cooler or radiator line.


Not by a 7.92 cartridge. In the P-47 you can hit the pilot, the oil circuitry, the fuel circuitry, or the ignition circuitry leading to the complete plane loss, by a simple Mauser rifle.

Regards


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Not by a 7.92 cartridge. In the P-47 you can hit the pilot, the oil circuitry, the fuel circuitry, or the ignition circuitry leading to the complete plane loss, by a simple Mauser rifle.
> 
> Regards


Ok, so...cannon rounds taking out half the engine, flak tearing wingtips off, 30mm cannon takes off rear elevator, 7.92 rounds shatter instruments, 20mm holes to wings, fuselage, canopy and stabilizer just to name a very few instances of severe damage where they flew back across the channel and you're saying that a single rifle shot can do what all the above mentioned couldn't?

Seriously...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> They would. It' better to use Il-2 ShKAS 0.3 cal for this purpose. And 23 or 37mm guns for tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't be absurd. The German locomotives were heavily armored. Hit something with enough sustained AP fire and it will get through. Inc;uding a locomotive that wouldn't flinch at carrying 1000 extra pounds of armor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Not by a 7.92 cartridge. In the P-47 you can hit the pilot, the oil circuitry, the fuel circuitry, or the ignition circuitry leading to the complete plane loss, by a simple Mauser rifle.
> 
> Regards


And you could do the same to any other aircraft including the IL-2 if its hit in the right place and although heavily armored, the IL-2 was not invulnerable and that would include smaller arms.

This is from an interview with Ilmari Juttlainen, Finland's top ace of WW2

_"MH: Your score includes seven Ilyushin Il-2s. How did you manage to bring down those armored ground-attack planes? 

Juutilainen: The Il-2 had really tough armor, and from directly behind you could only eliminate the rear gunner. There were three separate armor plates behind the pilot and the engine. The aircraft flew usually at low level, so the only approach was from above. We attacked their formations from both sides to disperse their defensive fire. From the side and above, one could shoot at a place in the armpit of the Il-2's wing, which normally caught fire". _

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/ilmari_juutilainen.htm


----------



## Altea (Aug 11, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Don't be absurd. .


Don't be absurd yourself. ! Or _innacurate_ in your posts



> The German locomotives were *heavily armored*. Hit something with enough sustained AP fire and it will get through. Inc;uding a locomotive that wouldn't flinch at carrying 1000 extra pounds of armor


The locomotive is made of usual soft steel close to iron properties, with low carbon mixture, *not armor*. Some parts are of cast iron or stainless steel. An armored locomotive had additional armored plates. Armored trains exists of course. It's an exception, not the general case in 43-45.


Regards

Altea


----------



## vanir (Aug 11, 2009)

It was Me-262 pilots who likened the Mk108 as a grenade launcher more than a gun, which lobbed its shells to the target.
An interesting note is also that when the Mk108 was fitted as a motorkanone it was subject to vertical convergence, and was aimed slightly upwards. It fired in a shallow arc and you tooled the convergence to travel upwards across the sight at about 150m and again down through the sight at 350m, as typical settings, and those are your two convergence ranges. An MG151 you just pointed straight and it went straight for a good 500m or more.

It is also noteworthy the minengeschoß is a description of improved industrial processes used to produce thin-walled HE shells. Between the wars and in the early MG FF a sort of thick walled casting was used which was already being surpassed in other countries like Great Britain. A new thin walled production technique was then used, allowing higher HE fill and this was referred to as the mine shell. It's basically just the modern way of making shells in the thirties and increased the effectiveness of the 20mm round tremendously. The British and everybody had improved shell production techniques during the thirties so it wasn't the magic round or anything.
You could still get shells made using the older technique, but to put the same HE fill in them the shell weight would be much higher.
The Mk108 and Mk101/103 uses the same warhead, but difference propellant cases (the high velocity Mk101/103 of course much larger). Both can use a mine shell at 330g but due to the low velocity of the Mk108 this was the only shell type fitted. The Mk101/103 also used a 447g regular HE shell (thick walled, same fill, easier to produce but reduced performance too much for the Mk108 ), a 500g APHE shell and a 355g tungsten core shell. Ideal loadout in an aerial mount was a combination of mine shells and tungsten cored, but neither were always readily available.

So you see the thing about the Mine shell is not so much a big fantastic HE fill, but a much lower shell weight for the same HE fill as other nations were using in similar calibres, so the gun itself had better performance...in the case of the Mk108 an inordinately high rate of fire and low recoil effect for that calibre in 1943.
Another point is a comparison of muzzle energy, the Mk108 half that of the Japanese Type 5 30mm aero gun and significantly less than a quarter of a Mk101/103. Trust me, it lobbed.

Pilots have also stated that "only a few Mk108 shots were required to bring down a B-17" but by a few they undoubtedly meant typically more than one. Me-262 pilots did report however that only one volley of shells from its four Mk108 armament could bring down a B-17.
Thus a conservative estimate of 3-5 Mk108 shells fired by an experienced pilot might be said a good average minimum to take down a B-17 if the shots are good, at least according to pilot comments.

But as has been mentioned and I've seen gun camera footage confirming this, an a/c firing MG151 could sit on the tail of a B-17 and fire away for quite some time, whilst damaging individual sections (gun turrets, engines, etc.), the bomber may well be recorded as lost, but it didn't exactly break apart and go down and who knows, possibly made it back to base.

But where we head into the argument of "how many shells does it take to down an a/c" we should also look at the combat record of aces like Marsielle. One of my favourite pieces of documentation was his ground crew records for 5 June 1942, following a sortie in which Marsielle was credited with downing six P-40Es from No5 Sqn SAAF. The armourers recorded replacing only 10 rounds of 20mm and 180 rounds of 7.92mm upon landing. So tracking shots aside, say 1-2 rounds of 20mm mine shells and a dozen 7.92mm per Kittyhawk downed?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

Altea said:


> Don't be stupid.


Please refrain from calling anyone stupid in this thread - it WILL NOT be tolerated


----------



## Civettone (Aug 11, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> If I may I would like to answer both of your last posts.
> 
> ALL shells are subject to gravity which means that they ALL fall about 16ft in the first second of flight. They all fall about another 48ft in the second second of flight. the question is how far have they flown in that 1 second (or 2 seconds). Shells forward velocity will fall off slower at higher altitude. Thinner air means less drag. Low velocity guns are harder to use for defection shooteing. Not only is the shell dropping but you have to lead the target aircraft more. A plane that is going 500kph is actually traveling at 138meters a second. While the firing planes speed is added to the muzzle velocity of the fired shell you can start to see some of the aiming problems. like were is the target plane actually going to be in 1 second
> 
> ...


Fascinating stuff! 

It pretty much confirms what I said about the fall: in the first second it is limited. Most targets were within what? 200 meters? That's half a second of the MK 108. What's the typical distance in a dogfight?

I know that the MK 108 fell more than the MG 151. But sometimes I feel as if it portrayed that the MG 151 shot straight ahead while the MK 108 was a mortar. 


As to the MiG-3, I read time and time again that the engine was optimized for high altitude (actually medium altitude but high to Eastern Front standards...) and that the MiG-3 suffered as soon as it fought at low altitude. The only aircraft I know that suffered from this are turbocharged fighters like the P-47. The MiG-3 had a single-stage supercharger if I'm not mistaken. 
But is it really that hard to change the gear ratio? I remember the Spit and Bf 109 changing gear ratio without much problem (a higher gear ratio as soon as they were cleared to do this). And what about new production? As soon as the war broke out and the MiG-3 suffered, couldn't they simply changed the new production Mikulins? I know production continued unaltered for at least a couple of months ... 
And finally, the only fighter that I know that was optimized for a higher altitude was the Spitfire HF-versions. Other fighters struggled at higher altitude, most notably the german fighters in 1943/1944. They had to wait for new engines (Jumo 213 and DB 605AS) before they achieved at it. So was optimizing an engine for a different altitude so difficult??

I find the MiG-3 story to be unique, there's no other aircraft like it. And that's why it is so strange to understand.


Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Don't be absurd. The German locomotives were heavily armored. Hit something with enough sustained AP fire and it will get through. Inc;uding a locomotive that wouldn't flinch at carrying 1000 extra pounds of armor.



The typical German train was not armored, it was no different than any other steam or diesel locomotive. They did however have Armored Trains, but they were not the norm.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And you could do the same to any other aircraft including the IL-2 if its hit in the right place and although heavily armored, the IL-2 was not invulnerable and that would include *smaller arms*.
> 
> attacked their formations from both sides to disperse their defensive fire. From the side and above, one could shoot at a place in the armpit of the Il-2's wing, which normally caught fire". [/I]





Sure, it was *not* invulnerable...

But if you call smaller arms 8mm and less sized bullets, the answer is *NO*. Either, show me *the* place in the Il2 airframe that is vunerable to a *single 0.3 bullet*. If you're cutting it's wooden fuselage with a sustainted neverending burst, it would be possible. But hard to imagine, especially from the ground...

VG-33


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

Civettone said:


> As to the MiG-3, I read time and time again that the engine was optimized for high altitude (actually medium altitude but high to Eastern Front standards...) and that the MiG-3 suffered as soon as it fought at low altitude. The only aircraft I know that suffered from this are turbocharged fighters like the P-47. The MiG-3 had a single-stage supercharger if I'm not mistaken.
> But is it really that hard to change the gear ratio?


You're not mistaken, but the MiG-3 had a Polikovski variable pitch paddle supercharger, even if single-staged. It was more advanced that the Allison one.




> I remember the Spit and Bf 109 changing gear ratio without much problem (a higher gear ratio as soon as they were cleared to do this).


Why not? The AM-35 was giving 1200 hp at 4500m, the AM-35A at 6000m. The main difference was the supercharger gear rato.



> And what about new production? As soon as the war broke out and the MiG-3 suffered, couldn't they simply changed the new production Mikulins?


What Mikulin? The seral AM-35A was highly unreliable. Work still continuated on it. The M-38 provided successeful and soon obtained the highest priority . Developpement programm comprised the AM-37 and AM-39. Enormous work for an entreprise with reduced staff, because of the war-mobilisation.



> I find the MiG-3 story to be unique, there's no other aircraft like it. And that's why it is so strange to understand.


Not that strange, without the _zavod_ 1 evacuation and the absolute priority given to the AM-38 engine, massive MiG-3 production should have been continuated.

Regards

VG


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, so...cannon rounds taking out half the engine, flak tearing wingtips off, 30mm cannon takes off rear elevator, 7.92 rounds shatter instruments, 20mm holes to wings, fuselage, canopy and stabilizer just to name a very few instances of severe damage where they flew back across the channel and you're saying that a single rifle shot can do what all the above mentioned couldn't?
> 
> Seriously...



_Ok, so...cannon rounds taking out half the engine_,
_Seriously_ as you just said. And you forgot the 7.92 mauser bullet taking off the half of the pilot's head...

Regards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Sure, it was *not* invulnerable...
> 
> But if you call smaller arms 8mm and less sized bullets, the answer is *NO*. Either, show me *the* place in the Il2 airframe that is vunerable to a *single 0.3 bullet*.


The oil cooler - although difficult to hit, even a .22 round through it (and this includes almost all WW2 oil coolers, be it round, square and used in a radial or in-line engines) taking out enough internal capillaries within the cooler will eventually cause it to allow all engine oil to leak and ultimately cause the failure of the engine. The only variable is the size of the hole, system pressure and the time in the air after the oil cooler is damaged.

On the IL-2 the oil cooler was located on the lower portion of the aircraft presenting a difficult air-to-air target. Although this wasn’t really an Achilles Heel, both Soviet and German servicemen have spoken about IL-2s being brought down by damage to the oil cooler.

Additionally many times damage to aircraft components will not require a direct hit. An explosive round, incendiary or even a small arms round hitting armor plate and then shattering or ricocheting will be enough to hit aluminum fluid lines or rubber hoses, again setting up a chain of events that could bring down the most robust aircraft.

I've seen small rocks because damage to oil coolers installed on modem GA aircraft and if allowed to be operated continually would have caused all the oil to leak out. For the most part recip aircraft engine oil coolers haven’t really changed in 60 years.


----------



## JoeB (Aug 11, 2009)

.50 cal v trains: quite effective. It seems many people are affected by anti-.50 syndrome, maybe because that was common American practice, and what Americans think is always wrong or at least suspect? .50 was in fact reasonably close to optimum for a wide variety of ground attack targets in WWII. Too light for tanks; one might say 'obviously' but that didn't stop large numbers of almost wholly erroneous claims by eg. P-47's to have destroyed tanks with .50. Hard as that may be to believe, but such claims were frequent, where strafing US 9th AF a/c claimed tanks specifically with their .50's, and it was achieved by various fluke shots or killing exposed personnel or putting rounds through open hatches, sometimes, but not often. Lightly armored vehicles weren't really a major category of ground attack target, but .50 could do the job in most cases. For soft skins, in theory rifle caliber could do it, but in practice something harder hitting was desirable, same with locomotives/trains, grounded a/c, exposed or lightly protected personnel on board ships, etc. many many types of material targets and/or targets with personnel protected by thin or soft plate that might stop or seriously slow down a rifle caliber bullet. Then .50 still sprayed out a lot of bullets when the target was purely personnel. 20mm was also a reasonably efficient weapon against a lot of the same targets (but not tanks either, not most 20mm against most late WWII tanks) but not necessarily obviously superior to .50 in the late WWII ground attack application (though again depending on what exact weapons and targets).

Many have noted how locomotives had an almost magical appeal as target to strafing a/c, and indeed typical WWII steam loco's were vulnerable to .50 fire, in the big target represented by their (mild steel, aka 'boiler plate') boilers, though of course items like the steam cylinders and running gear would require much larger projectiles to damage.

Joe


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The oil cooler - although difficult to hit, a .22 round through it (and this includes almost all WW2 oil coolers, be it round, square and used in a radial or in-line) will eventually cause it to allow all engine oil to leak and ultimately cause the failure of the engine. The only variable is the size of the hole, system pressure and the time in the air after the oil cooler is damaged.
> 
> .



Minute dear, we are just speaking about *small arms*!

If you hit a P-47 , Mustang, Yak, Typhoon oil cooler with your Mauser, you will definitly shot the plane more a late.

The Il-2 oil cooler was outside the main armored box, but contained in an 9-11mm armored duct anyway, even from the front if pilot was closing armored louvres during the attack (for short time), the only way to touch the radiator was from the rear side and at very closed fire angle and thin fence.

Good luck:

http://www.23ag.ru/assets/images/imeg16.jpg

Regards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Minute dear, we are just speaking about *small arms*!


I am talking small arms, and please don't call me dear. 


VG-33 said:


> If you hit a P-47 , Mustang, Yak, Typhoon oil cooler with your Mauser, you will definitly shot the plane more a late.


Yes you will and the same holds true for an IL-2


VG-33 said:


> The Il-2 oil cooler was outside the main armored box, but contained in an 9-11mm armored duct anyway, even from the front if pilot was closing armored louvres during the attack (for short time), the only way to touch the radiator was from the rear side and at very closed fire angle and thin fence.


And it still was not invincible - the louvers had to be opened sometime (unless operating in the bitter cold) and there's an opportunity to exploit this weakness.


VG-33 said:


> Good luck:


And maybe luck was needed but its not to say it didn't happen


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

From Erich Hartman

""That was a day I will never forget, 5 November 1942, a Shturmovik IL-2, which was the toughest aircraft to bring down because of the heavy armour plate. *You had to shoot out the oil cooler underneath, otherwise it would not go down*. That was also the day of my second forced landing since I had flown into the debris of my kill. I learned two things that day; get in close and shoot and break away immediately after scoring the kill."

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/WW2/aces/Erich Alfred Hartmann.htm


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> _Ok, so...cannon rounds taking out half the engine_,
> _Seriously_ as you just said. And you forgot the 7.92 mauser bullet taking off the half of the pilot's head...
> 
> Regards


Ok, this is starting to get stupid...all the ridiculous nitpicking...

The P-47 was not an open cockpit like a Fokker D.VII...it did in fact have armor plating that afforded the pilot good protection. Moreso than most Allied aircraft.

The amazing marksman that can keep his cool and squeeze off the shot that will hit the pilot in the head as the aircraft is diving and strafing them probably probably can't be stopped. I'll also figure that this same "ubermann" can take the top off a Sturmovik pilot, too. Seeing as how both aircraft didn't have armor plating all the way up the side of the pilot's head. If they did, it would be called a tank, and that's for a different thread entirely.

I think every aspect of the comparison between the IL-2 and the P-47 has been played out, and the conclusion would be that no, the Allies didn't really have a need for such an aircraft just as much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease.

Two different machines that filled two very important, but different roles.

That was the spirit of the thread, and it would be nice to get back to the discussion instead of magic bullets and arguing every freaking aspect of a point until it becomes ridiculous.

On the subject of locomotives, yes, they had steel, iron and similiar components and yes, small arms fire could penetrate all but the armored locomotives/trains that were in use through the war.

HOWEVER, the boiler of the locomotive is the key component of a steam locomotive. It contains water vapor (steam) that is under tremendous pressure, and is therefore constructed with a tempered steel for it's boiler. I'm not an expert on the various locomotives in use during that time period, but I do know that the steel used generally had to follow a certain PSI rating that exceeded the maximum amount of pressure (head of steam) that the locomotive could generate. Unless the round was AP or an HE round of a large caliber, there will be no penetration.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I think every aspect of the comparison between the IL-2 and the P-47 has been played out, and the conclusion would be that no, the Allies didn't really have a need for such an aircraft just as much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease.
> 
> That was the spirit of the thread, and it would be nice to get back to the discussion instead of magic bullets and arguing every freaking aspect of a point until it becomes ridiculous.



BINGO!!!!


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I am talking small arms, and please don't call me dear.
> ...


----------



## Civettone (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Moroever the fact that he claimed the IL-2, does not prouves that this plane was shooted down, and not even damaged.


What's that supposed to mean??

And attacking the Il-2 from below makes sense for obvious reasons. The easiest part would have been to go for the cockpit from above ... if not for the rear gunner. Wait, in fact, if you would come from above, you would have to go for the unprotected rear gunner because once he's gone, the aircraft becomes a rather easy target (if flying alone). There is even a theory (from Suvurov) that Il-2 rear-gunners were political prisonners, basically being sent on suicide missions.

From wikipedia: _Some pilots favored aiming down into the cockpit and wing roots in diving attacks on the slow, low-flying Il-2 formations.Several Luftwaffe aces claimed to attack while climbing from behind, out of view of the rear gunner, and aim for the Il-2's non-retractable oil cooler. The veracity of this has been disputed by some Il-2 pilots in postwar interviews, since Il-2s typically flew very close to the ground (cruise altitudes below 50 m (160 ft) were common) and the radiator protruded a mere 10 cm (4 in) from the aircraft._

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Whynot? It's not injurious.


Because I don't want you to and I'm not going to tell you again.



VG-33 said:


> Wich way, if the armored duct is not pierced?


Straight from the rear. See your drawing



VG-33 said:


> Whatever Hartmann tells or not, the chance to hit the radiator itself (not the radiator box) is minimal. AFAIK Hartman flew a 109G or F, not an Albatros. It means one or three 20 mm canons. From he''s history he never pretented to have destroyed the Il-2 only with light machine guns. Moroever the fact that he claimed the IL-2, does not prouves that this plane was shooted down, and not even damaged.
> And, with it's 20mm canon he was perfectly able to destroy the 12 mm Il-2 back plate, touching the main fuel tank.
> 
> Regards


And no one will deny that. The fact remains that if, and I repeat IF an IL-2 oil cooler is ruptured or for that manner any WW2 aircraft's oil cooler, it can and will loose oil that can and will lead to oil starvation and eventual engine failure.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 11, 2009)

I keep having flashbacks to the opening credits of "Air America".

Stranger things other than a small caliber bullet have brought a fighter down.

Its possible. But to say that it would never, ever happen is not being open to possibilities.


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 11, 2009)

Civettone said:


> What's that supposed to mean??
> There is even a theory (from Suvurov) that Il-2 rear-gunners were political prisonners, basically being sent on suicide missions.
> 
> 
> ...



Thats an old story thats been hanging around for years but i've read various accounts from ex il2 pilots and their gunners were generally just normal recruits, there were some reports of the suicide gunners but never did any of these pilots ever see one themselves. It was a bit "Loch Ness monster".


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

> GrauGeist said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, this is starting to get stupid...all the ridiculous nitpicking...
> ...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 11, 2009)

VG-33 - what I want to know more about are the aerial mini-mines that could be deployed under the belly of the Il-2 via mini-parachutes - drop 150 feet and explode. Did those things actually work? 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 11, 2009)

"... much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease."

That has always puzzled me somewhat, GrauGeist. Why didn't the Soviets find the P-47 useful - especially given their desire to clone the B-29 - another high-tech complicated aircraft. I don't actually know how many L.L. P-47's the Soviets received. One reads that P-47's that broke down on shuttle missions through the USSR were retained, as well. 

I have come to understand - rightly or wrongly - that P-47's were used later in the war for *air patrol over Moscow*. If that is true it suggeststhat (1) the Soviets recognized the P-47 would be a great defensive weapon if Germans tried a high altitude bomber run on the capital city, (2) that the leadership believed that the P-47's looked IMPRESSIVE to the street (who wouldn't know much about them, wouldn't likely have sons or daughters building/maintaining/flying them). The only thing the uninitiated would see is that they were BIG, FAST and POWERFUL.

Stationed in Moscow flying air patrols in P-47 D's with bubble canopies and air conditioning would have been a really plum assignment  compared to flying Il-2's, Yaks etc from the fields close to the front.

Can anyone confirm that is how the Soviets used the handful of P-47's that they obtained?

MM


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> VG-33 - what I want to know more about are the aerial mini-mines that could be deployed under the belly of the Il-2 via mini-parachutes - drop 150 feet and explode. Did those things actually work?
> 
> MM



And it was used by Pe-2, also. They work in what sense, that they oppened parachutes and exploded? Yes!

I'm not really fluent in russian, but i can read and talk. AFAIK from books i recieved from my russian friends some crews praised them, some didn't. The idea was not to destroy ennemy fighters, but surprising the pursuers you could "cut" the attack, and often the following ones, only by dissuasion.

It seemed more popular for Pe-2, being faster they had the time to escape after such a stratagem.

Regards


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 11, 2009)

Thanks VG-33 

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 11, 2009)

195 P-47's were supplied to Russia under LL

http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm


VG-33, how many Il-2's were lost during WW2


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 11, 2009)

In battle: 11,566 from 34,943 produced.
But... at end of war USSR had 3487 Il-2's.
And I have a question: what with remained 19,890?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 11, 2009)

A loss rate of 33%?? Cripes!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease."
> 
> That has always puzzled me somewhat, GrauGeist. Why didn't the Soviets find the P-47 useful - especially given their desire to clone the B-29 - another high-tech complicated aircraft. I don't actually know how many L.L. P-47's the Soviets received. One reads that P-47's that broke down on shuttle missions through the USSR were retained, as well.
> 
> ...


Hi MM,

The Soviets were given 203 P-47D models which they relegated to high altitude defense over major urban areas in the rear. They didn't do much with them otherwise, since they already had heavy hitters like the P-39 and P-63 as well as the IL-2 and La-7. To be honest, I have never heard if they actually engaged Axis units with the Thunderbolts, but seeing as how they weren't at the front, my guess is they didn't.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

The average IL-2 had a "life expectancy" of 30 missions.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 11, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> 195 P-47's were supplied to Russia under LL
> 
> Lend Lease
> 
> ...



1.1 (0.6) in 41
2.6 (1,8 ) in 42
7.2 (3.9) in 43
8.9 (4.1) in 44
3.8 (2.0) in 45 in thousands (-) for combat reasons from krivosheyev. 



on 1/05/45 soviet air forces had 10100 Il-2 and il10 in service. (some sources quoted 11-12 000 stormoviks)

a good link:

IL2 page Statistika

Combat losses are in the 4th and 5th table.

Regards

VG


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 11, 2009)

Great info, thanks.

So out of 10,759 it lists as having been lost (ignoring the Navy chart):

2,557 were shot down by planes
4,679 by antiaircraft
109 on the grounds (I assume)
3,414 from unknown reasons

Not trying to be a smart a**, but for a plane supposedly very difficult to shoot down, at least 24% of the losses were from air to air combat.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 11, 2009)

GG - thanks for those numbers. I never realized they received that many. And I have never heard of P-47's engaging ....

FlyboyJ - you may be familiar with this link already:

Ëåò÷èêè-øòóðìîâèêè. Õóõðèêîâ Þðèé Ìèõàéëîâè÷. Ïðîåêò ß Ïîìíþ. Ãåðîé ÂÎÂ

The interviewee gives the impression that "survival" was more like 7-8 missions. That seems very short to me but surviving 30 seems very lucky. I have no skin in this game but am amazed at how emotional feelings run on the subject of the Eastern Front - clearly there is a lack of understanding of the *sheer scale* of Eastern Front operations (closest match is the US Pacific war), but I also get the feeling that there's a kind of fantasy involved that doesn't serve historical understanding as much as political/idealogical beliefs. Sad - because generations do need to understand the scale and sacrifice - but also need to understand it was unwinnable without the sheer brutality of the Soviet system.

Thanks for the stats VG33. 

MM


----------



## JoeB (Aug 11, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> HOWEVER, the boiler of the locomotive is the key component of a steam locomotive. It contains water vapor (steam) that is under tremendous pressure, and is therefore constructed with a tempered steel for it's boiler. I'm not an expert on the various locomotives in use during that time period, but I do know that the steel used generally had to follow a certain PSI rating that exceeded the maximum amount of pressure (head of steam) that the locomotive could generate. Unless the round was AP or an HE round of a large caliber, there will be no penetration.


No, I must disagree. See my post above 'boiler plate' and 'mild steel' were generally synonymous terms because that's what was used in typical relatively low pressure boilers like those on steam locomotives, or 'locomotive type' (ie fire tube or Scotch) relatively low pressure boilers on ships. Mild steel means low carbon low alloy steel. Heat treatment (like tempering) is about rearranging the physical properties of the solid solution of carbon in iron, in mild steel not enough carbon for it to be relevant. One idea of mild steel is that hot rolling at the mill or hot forming during manufacture doesn't change the properties of the steel, even if the cooling is not closely controlled. 

WWII era locomotive boilers typically operated at around 200-250psi (~14-17 bar) and it was quite practical, and therefore standard practice, to construct them of riveted mild steel. Thickness of a 200psi boiler was around 1/2" (12.5mm), higher pressure ones 9/16" (14mm). That's equivalent to around 9-10mm of rolled homogeneous armor plate (rule of thumb mild steel provides 75% as much protection), which .50 cal AP could penetrate at realistic ranges, assuming some rounds hit fairly close to perpendicular. And I've seen footage of locomotives strafed by USAAF a/c and apparently leaking steam copiously. Not trying to nitpick but just make clear the fact, that locomotive boilers could be and were penetrated by .50 cal strafing.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> GG - thanks for those numbers. I never realized they received that many. And I have never heard of P-47's engaging ....
> 
> FlyboyJ - you may be familiar with this link already:
> 
> ...



I haven't seen it, great post!


----------



## vanir (Aug 11, 2009)

Naval aviation were the only Soviet air force to use the P-47, and I think they were all stationed in the Black Sea.

One of the main reasons the P-39 was popular and equipped to Guards regiments was its luxurious equipment by Soviet standards (stated by Porkryshin), with three radios and good cockpit equipment. Its M4/T9 gun isn't that hard hitting, the British didn't even want it in their orders (switched for a Hispano 20mm).
The Soviets also requested the four thirties be removed from the wings as they were superfluous and reduced performance. The Q-series in service with some Guards pilots from 1944 were pretty good aircraft but the reputation of the type as a ground attack plane is an American phenomenon.
The Soviets used it as a fighter for aerial combat, or as a fighter-bomber escort for Il2 wings, it was never an anti-tank a/c as claimed by some commercial publications, the Oldsmobile 37mm could barely penetrate 25mm of slab armour at 90-degrees, something your average anti-tank infantry rifle could best. Anything tougher than a Japanese light tank rendered the weapon useless even with AP shells.
By comparison the Vickers S gun at 40mm had better than 50mm penetration and added another 50% to this with improved late war ammunition, whilst the German Mk101/103 could do just about the same at 30mm calibre.
The Oldsmobile gun was great for soft targets or aerial targets at relatively close range, Soviet vets mention a single shot would cause an enemy fighter to simply break up mid air.

Some sources claim 12,000 Il-2 are listed as being in active service at one time late in 1944, the highest number of any single aircraft type in history. Over 30,000 were delivered during the war. Of this some 2500 lost to interception sounds pretty good.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2009)

JoeB said:


> No, I must disagree. See my post above 'boiler plate' and 'mild steel' were generally synonymous terms because that's what was used in typical relatively low pressure boilers like those on steam locomotives, or 'locomotive type' (ie fire tube or Scotch) relatively low pressure boilers on ships. Mild steel means low carbon low alloy steel. Heat treatment (like tempering) is about rearranging the physical properties of the solid solution of carbon in iron, in mild steel not enough carbon for it to be relevant. One idea of mild steel is that hot rolling at the mill or hot forming during manufacture doesn't change the properties of the steel, even if the cooling is not closely controlled.
> 
> WWII era locomotive boilers typically operated at around 200-250psi (~14-17 bar) and it was quite practical, and therefore standard practice, to construct them of riveted mild steel. Thickness of a 200psi boiler was around 1/2" (12.5mm), higher pressure ones 9/16" (14mm). That's equivalent to around 9-10mm of rolled homogeneous armor plate (rule of thumb mild steel provides 75% as much protection), which .50 cal AP could penetrate at realistic ranges, assuming some rounds hit fairly close to perpendicular. And I've seen footage of locomotives strafed by USAAF a/c and apparently leaking steam copiously. Not trying to nitpick but just make clear the fact, that locomotive boilers could be and were penetrated by .50 cal strafing.
> 
> Joe


Sorry Joe, I must have missed your post, which was good info, by the way.

I've also seen footage of ground attack conducted by Allied aircraft against rail targets, and they just tear those engines apart which was one of the things I was commenting on, as it had been said that a .50 couldn't penetrate thicker material and that's where my comment about the boilers came in. I had been under the impression that the steel used in the boilers had a higher density than mild, mainly because of the pressures behind it.

I have seen both a .30-06 AP and 7.62x39 AP punch through a 1/2" plate of mild at moderate ranges, so I can easily see a .50 doing the same. So I am in total agreement with you about the penetration!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 11, 2009)

vanir said:


> Some sources claim 12,000 Il-2 are listed as being in active service at one time late in 1944, the highest number of any single aircraft type in history. Over 30,000 were delivered during the war. Of this some 2500 lost to interception sounds pretty good.



THis kinda makes me wonder and Tzar1 touched up this earlier.

If 30k were built, 11k were lost in combat ad there were at most 12k in service, what happened to the other 7k??


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> THis kinda makes me wonder and Tzar1 touched up this earlier.
> 
> If 30k were built, 11k were lost in combat ad there were at most 12k in service, what happened to the other 7k??



I dont know, but it is quite normal that only a fraction of aircraft ever get used operationally. For the US only about 40% of its aircraft produced during the war were committed to operational units. The remainder generally ended up as landfill after the war.

Its normal for an air force to hold back significant numbers of aircraft as reserves and still others to be assigned to OCUs and other training elements. 

7000 unnaccounted airframes is actually a fairly low number as a proportion of the total. It suggest the Soviets were not running huge numbers in their reserve elements, and/or did not have a particulalry large training establishment.

I'll bet the losses stated in this thread dont include noncombat losses.

As a general rule of thumb it was quite normal under wartime conditions for combat units to suffer an average of 5-8% attrition due to non-combat related causes in any given month. It was this high because aircraft were often called upon to exceed their safe working limits interms of range, or payload, or both, and were often made to fly in conditions that in peacetime would be considered unsuitable. All nations, to a greater or lesser extent, considered their aviators to be expendable if the battle situation demanded it.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 12, 2009)

Altea said:


> Don't be stupid. ! Or _innacurate_ in your posts
> 
> 
> The locomotive is made of usual soft steel close to iron properties, with low carbon mixture, *not armor*. Some parts are of cast iron or stainless steel. An armored locomotive had additional armored plates. Armored trains exists of course. It's an exception, not the general case in 43-45.
> ...


The contemporary film THUNDERBOLTS (made by the Army in 1944) referred to "Armored Locomotives" as among the P-40's common targets. Locomotives pull hundreds of tons. Adding armor would be easy, inexpensive, and if it did some good infinitely valuable. What is a TRAIN load of supplies worth to your troops? The Germans would have been stupid not to put a ton of rolled steel on the locomotive and I don't think they were stupid.


----------



## Juha (Aug 12, 2009)

Still busy so only some short comments.

I generally agreed with Vanir
Il-2 was a different solution than fighter bomber to ground support mission. Slower but much better protected. Some fighter bomber types could deliver heavier loads. Both Il-2s and fighter bombers could have been used in same missions. In fact Il-2 might have been useful in Western use, because of from 43 onwards Allies usually had air superiority and greatest danger in CS work was German AAA. Additional plus was that German infantry knew that it didn’t have anything by which they would have a reasonable chance to bring down an Il-2, so they just needed passively to take what was coming. Always bad for morale. Against fighter bombers one could at least hope to accomplish something with MG 34s and 42s which also had some deterrent value against fighter bombers. 

IIRC the most effective anti-tank weapon forn Il-2 was the PTAB bomblets, which Vanir have mentioned. The recoil of 37mm NS-37 generated nose down pitch and made it difficult to aim accurately and only a short production run of that version was made. All WW2 air-to-ground rockets were inaccurate. But the claim that “At Kursk within 20 minutes one formation of M3 models decimated the 9th Pz Division (70 tanks destroyed)” is pure propaganda as many other claims made by pilots on results of their attacks against tanks.

Il-2s were used from the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, sometimes successfully sometimes they suffered very heavy losses. So early on Soviet tried to arrange a fighter escort for Il-2s but that wasn’t always possible. But even without fighter escort it wasn’t a easy target to fighters and not totally defendless, especially after they got rear-gunners. Finns usually attacked from rear higher and a bit from side and aimed to rear part of wing roots as the quote from Juutilainen showed or simply rely on 20mm minen shells and shoot the tail surfaces to pieces, preferendly after eliminating the rear gunner. Tail surfaces, rear fuselage and outer wings of Il-2 were as vulnerable to HE fire as those parts in normal planes. 

However, Il-2 wasn’t immune against AAA, even if at the beginning Germans found out that their 20mm Flak was rather ineffective against it. But the use of ½ HE and ½ AP rounds was at least partial solution to that. Finns noticed the same. But Il-2 remained a more difficult plane too shoot down by 20mm Flak than fighter bombers and its pilots knew that and could ignore Flak more than fighter bomber pilots which means good for accuracy.

Hello Viking
Il-2s were lost also in accidents, in operational and in training units. And as other planes some just got so weared that it was more econominal to scrap them than trying to keep them airworthy, especially later in war when new a/c were easily available.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The contemporary film THUNDERBOLTS (made by the Army in 1944) referred to "Armored Locomotives" as among the P-40's common targets. Locomotives pull hundreds of tons. Adding armor would be easy, inexpensive, and if it did some good infinitely valuable. What is a TRAIN load of supplies worth to your troops? The Germans would have been stupid not to put a ton of rolled steel on the locomotive and I don't think they were stupid.



Armour costs money, much more than regular steel.
Armour is almost always in short supply in war time.
a single ton of armour would be almost worthless on a locomotive.
20lbs per sq ft for 1/2in steel (armour or soft steel) (12.7mm) or 100sq ft to the ton. 
How big are these locomotives? even if you don't armour the lower 3-4 feet you need 200-300sq ft or more.
Steam locomotives need maintence and inspections, armour shrouds would make this difficult and reduce availibity of locomotives. 

If you really believe war time propaganda films I can find books printed in WW II that say Curtiss P-40 Warhawks could do 400mph.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> However, Il-2 wasn’t immune against AAA, even if at the beginning Germans found out that their 20mm Flak was rather ineffective against it. But the use of ½ HE and ½ AP rounds was at least partial solution to that. Finns noticed the same. But Il-2 remained a more difficult plane too shoot down by 20mm Flak than fighter bombers and its pilots knew that and could ignore Flak more than fighter bomber pilots which means good for accuracy


This was, I believe
compounded by Stalin's insistence that all ordnance be fired in anger. This invariably resulted in coming round for that suicidal second pass and straight into a ready and waiting flak barrage that had you ranged.
The Il-2 was not in any way immune to German flak.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 12, 2009)

I conversed for a while with an ex P47 pilot, Don Archer, who lost his enteire flight to flak in one pass on a ground attack mission to an airfield in France. That's 3 out of 4 in less than a minute, and his plane was damaged as well. 

parsifals post about the percentage of planes that never made it to combat units is interesting. No doubt that at least some of that production could have been put to better use.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I conversed for a while with an ex P47 pilot, Don Archer, who lost his enteire flight to flak in one pass on a ground attack mission to an airfield in France. That's 3 out of 4 in less than a minute, and his plane was damaged as well.
> 
> parsifals post about the percentage of planes that never made it to combat units is interesting. No doubt that at least some of that production could have been put to better use.



Wastage of planes in WW II was phenomenal compared to today. 

A friends father flew with VMF-124 in the late part of the war. The number of planes and pilots lost in training and operational accidents was truely staggering. 
A loss rate like that today would keep congress busy with hearings for the next 50 years.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 12, 2009)

That's right, Colin1. No rounds were to return to base.

Claidemore, I remember reading Pierre Closterman's book The Big Show in the late '50's when I was a kid - until then the books I'd read were fighter pilot books like Bader and Tuck and I couldn't believe the casualties the Typhoons took on ground attack runs ... it depressed the Hell out of me ... it seemed every mision lost 1 or 2. Something like 500 Typhoons lost in Nothwestern Europe [don't quote that number, I'm not great with numbers ] from D-Day to war's end. I have to believe that Typhoons were more vulnerable than P-47's -- they didn't come home with cylinders knocked off.

MM


----------



## Altea (Aug 12, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Please refrain from calling anyone stupid in this thread - it WILL NOT be tolerated




I apologyze to Clay Allison. Had corrected my sentence. 

Incident is closed. So i think there si no need to keep theese unpleasant posts in the tread any longer. 

Regards

Altea


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 12, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> ...I couldn't believe the casualties the Typhoons took on ground attack runs ... it depressed the Hell out of me ... it seemed every mision lost 1 or 2


Typhoons suffered totally unacceptable losses to engine failure
I forget the correct figure but it was something like every flight (or every mission) lost a Typhoon to engine failure.


----------



## Altea (Aug 12, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The average IL-2 had a "life expectancy" of 30 missions.



I think it's false, or inaccurate even if it's from older russian sources.

From: IL2 page Statistika

you see that loss rate was depending from the war period

26.06.41 - 01.07.42: 13
01.08.42 - 01.06.43: 26
on 01.11.44: 85
01.01.45 - 09.05.45: 90


That mean a "life expectancy" roughly closer to 50 missions. 

But in that form, the rough number is not very significant. 

In 1941-42 a lot of planes were abandonned on the airfields with little damage during the german advance and counted as "combat losses".

A lot of planes lost by accident were counted as combat losses, since unit commanders wanted to protect their pilots, especially experienced ones from being persecuted. And by the way avoid NKVD, Smersh enquest commissions. Well, i understand: it was soviet system...

Since the "number of realised war missions", was used in red army to promote pilots for higher ranks and state awards, the rule was only to count "successeful" mission, only if your principal or secondary target was reached and damaged/destoyed. The real number of realised missions was higher than officially counted ones.

For all that reasons, some modern russian historians as Kooznetsov, Mukhin estimate that *real *"life expectancy" of the Il-2 was about 80 missions: 20-30 for the beginning and about 100-120 at the end of the war.



Altea


----------



## Altea (Aug 12, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, they're right:


Yes they are.



> _British issued a MAP order for NA-73X project, March 1940. Prototype NA-73X was rolled out just 117 days after the order was placed, and first flew on 26 October 1940, just 178 days after the order had been placed—an uncommonly short gestation period. _



But j' am right too. Prototype NA-73X rolled out on 9 september 1940, just 102 days after the order was placed, _awaiting it's engine_. So if engine was delivered at time, the plane could have been flyed well before october.

Regards


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 12, 2009)

Engine losses _were _extreme - something about those sleeve valve engines that didn't like the dust on the forward fields.

I was a know-nothing  Airframe Tech (RCAF 411 Sqd., Reserve) in my teens. Our Senior Sgt was ex RAF - a tough old bird with a dirty mind and a wicked tongue . He was a "servicing commando" (his term) working on Typhoons on forward fields in France after D-Day. Had great tales but rarely about the Typhoons 

Before I joined, 411 had been re-purposed by D.O.D from F-86 Canadair Sabres to Beech Expeditors (a real comedown and morale killer) and it was pretty hard for me to get enthusiastic about Expeditors with that, altho I admit I used to fantasize that they were Me-110's on the line, especially in winter . After I had decided not to pursue an airforce "career", 411 started to convert to deHavilland Otters - I like them a lot more and subsequently spent a lot of civilian hours in Otters and Beavers (wheels, floats, skiis). Great, great machines.

MM


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 12, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Armour costs money, much more than regular steel.
> Armour is almost always in short supply in war time.
> a single ton of armour would be almost worthless on a locomotive.
> 20lbs per sq ft for 1/2in steel (armour or soft steel) (12.7mm) or 100sq ft to the ton.
> ...


P-40 was a typo, I meant to say P-47.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> P-40 was a typo, I meant to say P-47.



Doesn't matter, I can still find wartime publications that say the Curtiss could do 400mph. 
Point is the wartime publications, Newsreels and moves for the folks at home weren't any more reliable then than they are now. 

SO I am really questioning the armourded trains/locomotives not which plane was shooting them.


----------



## Juha (Aug 12, 2009)

Hello Colin
Il-2 could take enormous amount of damage and IMHO two 20mm hits on the nose of a Typhoon/Spitfire/P-40 would much more probably bring the plane down than two 20mm hits onthe nose of a Il-2. Of course no amount of armour would make a propeller plane totally immune because a good hit on a propeller blade would bring the plane down.

Juha


----------



## Altea (Aug 12, 2009)

vanir said:


> Naval aviation were the only Soviet air force to use the P-47, and I think they were all stationed in the Black Sea.
> 
> One of the main reasons the P-39 was popular and equipped to Guards regiments was its luxurious equipment by Soviet standards (stated by Porkryshin), with three radios and good cockpit equipment. Its M4/T9 gun isn't that hard hitting, the British didn't even want it in their orders (switched for a Hispano 20mm).
> The Soviets also requested the four thirties be removed from the wings as they were superfluous and reduced performance. The Q-series in service with some Guards pilots from 1944 were pretty good aircraft but the reputation of the type as a ground attack plane is an American phenomenon.
> ...



Good post, nothing to add.

Except that: if the P-39 could't take on panzers it was an excellent anti-locomotive hunter. By the way it means that steam locomotives were not made of "hard steel".

and



> Over 30,000 were delivered during the war. Of this some 2500 lost to interception sounds pretty good



2500 + a part of the 3414 ones lost for unknown reasons.

Regards


----------



## Altea (Aug 12, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> THis kinda makes me wonder and Tzar1 touched up this earlier.
> 
> If 30k were built, 11k were lost in combat ad there were at most 12k in service, what happened to the other 7k??



 But, it seems that VG already gave the answer



> 1.1 (0.6) in 41
> 2.6 (1,8 ) in 42
> 7.2 (3.9) in 43
> 8.9 (4.1) in 44
> 3.8 (2.0) in 45 in thousands (-) for combat reasons from krivosheyev.



It makes 23.6 thousands of stormovik lost in 41-45, about 12.4 thousands of them for combat reasons. No?

Altea


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 12, 2009)

Altea said:


> But, it seems that VG already gave the response
> 
> It makes 23.6 thousands of stormovik lost in 41-45, about 12.4 thousands of them for combat reasons


A plane whose losses to 'other means' competed quite briskly with losses to combat ops, to the point in 1944 where losses to other means outstripped combat losses by more than half.

Remind me, why is this a 'Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?'


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Armour costs money, much more than regular steel.
> Armour is almost always in short supply in war time.
> a single ton of armour would be almost worthless on a locomotive.
> 20lbs per sq ft for 1/2in steel (armour or soft steel) (12.7mm) or 100sq ft to the ton.
> ...


An armored locomotive being serviced, 1942...


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2009)

Thank you.

Now the question is was this armoured locomotive part of an armoured train that engaged in land combat, say anti-partisan. or was it armoured to withstand air attack?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 12, 2009)

Actually, Shortround6, the question is: "is it a Soviet armoured train or a German?" To my eyes, the men servicing it are in Soviet uniforms. I wasn't aware that they had a Partisan problem 

MM


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2009)

That is a Soviet locomotive. They used armored locomotives mostly with armored trains in the earlier years, I have seen some armored locomotives with unprotected stock cars, some having AA flatcars and some without. I posted that to give a fair idea of an armored locomotive from the early years of the war.

Armored trains were actively used by the Finns, Soviets and Germans. I know that the British had armored trains, but they saw little action. The Eastern Front saw more action against enemy troops by both the Soviets and Germans.

The Germans even used a lead flat car that could deploy a "high rail" armored car to sweep ahead of the train. See sunny's post: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation-videos/german-armored-train-18807.html while the video is definately wartime propaganda, it does give some great views of a German armored train (and it's components) in action.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 12, 2009)

I believe the Poles also had one that they put to good use during the Invasion by Germany.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I believe the Poles also had one that they put to good use during the Invasion by Germany.


Good God man, you're right...I'm doing about three things at once here, and was going to post that the Poles in the late 30's had some serious armored trains!

_*Just a note here*_: I do not know all that much about armored trains, what I do know, was learned in passing while studying events that they happened to be in.

If anyone's interested in reading a great discussion about them (with excellent photos info) check out this discussion at WW2F: Trains in WWII - World War II Forums


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 12, 2009)

Hack I had no idea the Finns used them. 

Dam, that's a pretty good site!


----------



## stasoid (Aug 13, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> This was, I believe
> compounded by Stalin's insistence that all ordnance be fired in anger. This invariably resulted in coming round for that suicidal second pass and straight into a ready and waiting flak barrage that had you ranged.
> The Il-2 was not in any way immune to German flak.



From the memoirs of I-16 and Il-2 pilots that I've read, in their ground attack missions they usually split up. One smaller group (two or three planes) was to take the flak out. So, that second pass, was not that much suicidal after all but more accurate, I suppose.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 13, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Doesn't matter, I can still find wartime publications that say the Curtiss could do 400mph.
> Point is the wartime publications, Newsreels and moves for the folks at home weren't any more reliable then than they are now.
> 
> SO I am really questioning the armourded trains/locomotives not which plane was shooting them.


Armoured train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poland used armoured trains extensively and successfully during the Invasion of Poland. One observer noted that "Poland had only few armoured trains, but their officers and soldiers were fighting well. Again and again they were emerging from a cover in thick forests, disturbing German lines"[5] 

This in turn prompted Nazi Germany to reintroduce them into its own armies. Germany then used armoured trains to a small degree during World War Two. However, they introduced significant designs of a versatile and well-equipped nature, including railcars which housed anti-aircraft gun turrets, railcars designed to load and unload tanks, and railcars which had complete armour protection with a large concealed howitzer gun. Germany also had fully-armoured locomotives which were used on such trains.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2009)

I am not saying there were NO armoured trains. there certainly were . I have even seen pictures of a small tourist narrow gage train in England armoured and armed for anit invasion duty. A few Lewis guns couple of Boys anti-tank rifles, looks like something at an amusment park. 

However the total number of armoured trains wasn't all that many. 

See: List of armoured trains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the list may not be complete (no German trains?) I think that we can see that compared to the number or unarmoured trains the numbers are very small. 

see: http://www.matadormodels.co.uk/tank_museum/bp4_bp44.htm

This started with the contenttion that P-47s were strafing armoured locomotives:

:"The contemporary film THUNDERBOLTS (made by the Army in 1944) referred to "Armored Locomotives" as among the P-40's common targets. Locomotives pull hundreds of tons......"

Now P-47s did destroy thousasnds of locomotives. but how many of these armoured trains were used on the Western Front or even in Italy where the P-47s were?
How many common frieght or passenger locomotives were armoured?
Putting a coouple of sandbagged flatcars with flack guns on a regular train does not make it an armoured train or mean that the locomotive was armoured.

As for it being a good idea, it might have been absolutly brilliant. Every locomotive armoured against air attack in the last the 2 years of the war means one or two less German armoured cars or halftracks manufactured maybe even three or four.
That sure would have made things a lot easier for the Allies.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Every locomotive armoured against air attack in the last the 2 years of the war means one or two less German armoured cars or halftracks manufactured maybe even three or four.
> That sure would have made things a lot easier for the Allies.


I don't quite get the arithmetic behind your logic
it might have put a dent in production numbers but more heavily armoured trains would have been more survivable; hence more of the historically destroyed payloads would have gotten through


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I don't quite get the arithmetic behind your logic
> it might have put a dent in production numbers but more heavily armoured trains would have been more survivable; hence more of the historically destroyed payloads would have gotten through



Give the size of a locomotive it would require ALL of the armour from several non-tank type vehicles to cover ONE locomotive. 
Armmour steel is not regular steel. it requires certain elements in small amounts for alloying purposes, of course when you are talking about thousands if not tens of thousands of tons even small percentages add up. it also requires heat treament and is difficult to work with. 
Trying to armour thousands of locomotives from air attack would have put a real dent in production numbers. try picturing a 251 half track next to a locomotve. ANd how much good does it really do to armour the locomotives if the rolling stock is unarmoured.


----------



## Altea (Aug 13, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> A plane whose losses to 'other means' competed quite briskly with losses to combat ops, to the point in 1944 where losses to other means outstripped combat losses by more than half.
> 
> Remind me, why is this a 'Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?'



Have you got numbers for the P-51, the B-17, the P-47?

About 35 000 Il-2 produced 23 000 lost (12 000 in combat) , 12 000 remainding in service, that mean inevitably a 100% complete *accountancy balance*, and ordinary *wear an tear *losses comprised in the loss list.

I think you have confused _book-keeping_ losses and _accidental_ losses...

Altea


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Altea said:


> 1. Have you got numbers for the P-51, the B-17, the P-47?
> 
> 2. About 35 000 Il-2 produced 23 000 lost (12 000 in combat) , 12 000 remainding in service, that mean inevitably a 100% complete *accountancy balance*, and ordinary *wear an tear *losses comprised in the loss list.
> 
> 3. I think you have confused _book-keeping_ losses and _accidental_ losses...


1. Comparing apples with oranges, surely?


vanir said:


> P-47 and Il-2 are like comparing boats with cars by saying they're both transports



2. Three cheers for your 100% accountancy balance, nice to know that of 23,000 planes lost, 11,000 of them weren't to enemy action. Very reassuring.

3. I was going by the list VG-33 submitted, the figure in brackets being losses to combat, unless I've misinterpreted it.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 13, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not saying there were NO armoured trains. there certainly were . .



Is that not what you bascially stated in your post 284????



Shortround6 said:


> Armour costs money, much more than regular steel.
> Armour is almost always in short supply in war time.
> a single ton of armour would be almost worthless on a locomotive.
> 20lbs per sq ft for 1/2in steel (armour or soft steel) (12.7mm) or 100sq ft to the ton.
> ...


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 13, 2009)

simply that many of locomotives were not armoured (obv. imho)


----------



## Altea (Aug 14, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> 1. Comparing apples with oranges, surely?


J'm not comparing anything, for the moment i'm just looking for statistics.




> _This was, I believe
> compounded by Stalin's insistence that all ordnance be fired in anger. This invariably resulted in coming round for that suicidal second pass and straight into a ready and waiting flak barrage that had you ranged.
> The Il-2 was not in any way immune to German flak._


Stalin has nothing to do with this. She standard soviet Il2 tactic was *at least* 3-4 passes on the target; one with bombs, one with rockets, the others for the straffing and the last one for the camera for fixing the results. With unsatisfactory results, a secund wave of Il2 was launched. If not, a third one and so on, until the moment when ground forces were estimating that ennemy was weakened enough.

Difficult to hope on any surprise effect in that case, like the P-47 or Typhoons or P-51's did. Moroever Il-2 were usually working on the front contact line, where Flak was particulary dense. P-47s typical mission was 20-25 km behind the front lines, where Flak concentration was much weaker.



> 2. Three cheers for your 100% accountancy balance, nice to know that of 23,000 planes lost, 11,000 of them weren't to enemy action. Very reassuring.



It's two different missions, Stormoviks were sometimes coming back with 200-300 holes in the airframe. With a mid loss rate of 1 plane for 36 missions, the statistics of the 3rd aerial army give that 1 plane was hit every 2 or 3 missions by Flak. More than 90% KO (immobilised to damages) planes wre returning back to combat.

Even in a "calm" secundary front as Carpatian Mountains, one plane was hit every 4 or 5 missions.

That mean simply, that with soviet total-war, mid-kamikaze methods, 12 000 Il-2 from 36 000 produced managed to survive. On the *same work *conditions, i think it would be 200-300 P-47 from 15 000 or something like that.

In fact NO allied plane would survive,operating the way that soviets were using their Stormoviks.


So considering the high Il-2 loss rate to the other planes, we're comparing apples with oranges


Regards

Altea


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 14, 2009)

"... in fact NO allied plane would survive,operating the way that soviets were using their Stormoviks... '

I have to agree with you on that point, Altea  However, it's as much the MISSION as it is the PLANE ... and this thread is basically about planes.
I doubt the Allies would ever have had a scenario that called on operations of the scale that the Il-2 was tasked on - and had they - with their resoucres, tactics, training and VALUES .. they would have used P-47's and Typhoons. 

So where is this thread getting us ...? I still see no evidence that their is any Soviet warplane that the Allies would/should have used in WW2.



MM


----------



## Civettone (Aug 14, 2009)

A bit of a side note, but perhaps interesting to some. The Germans had a few Kampf-units specialized in "train busting" (the so called 'Eis'-units). What's surprising is that they used Ju 88C Zerstörers armed with light MGs for the job! No cannons, no bombs. 

Also the American fighters were very succesful in train busting, and you know what armament they had.

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Is that not what you bascially stated in your post 284????



I was responding to this:

"The contemporary film THUNDERBOLTS (made by the Army in 1944) referred to "Armored Locomotives" as among the P-40's common targets. Locomotives pull hundreds of tons. Adding armor would be easy, inexpensive, and if it did some good infinitely valuable. What is a TRAIN load of supplies worth to your troops? The Germans would have been stupid not to put a ton of rolled steel on the locomotive and I don't think they were stupid."

Which I don't believe was referring to armoured military combat trains but to normal (commercial) freight or passanger trains and locomotives.

The fact that there were Armed and armoured trains in use by various countries in WW II in numbers that could be in the hundreds if the Russian numbers are to be believed doesn't mean that there was a capablity to armour thousands if not tens of thousands of locomotives in western europe in the last 2-3 years of the war. 
A number of Railroads tried light weight streamlined shrouds on some express locomotives, most were gotten rid of becasue of maintence issues and they dodn't coer up as mutch as those armoured train pictures show.

I was aslo trying to get this thread a little more back on track rather than this train diversion. 

I agree with Mr. Maltby. I have seen little evidence of any Soviet plane that would have made much difference to the weatern allies to use or manufacture. 
I also think that any attempt to manufacture a Soviet aircraft in the west would entail at least a one year delay if not closer to two yars and so any comparison of Soviet types would have to be against Western types that were also 1 to 2 years from entering squadron service.


----------



## vanir (Aug 14, 2009)

Civettone said:


> A bit of a side note, but perhaps interesting to some. The Germans had a few Kampf-units specialized in "train busting" (the so called 'Eis'-units). What's surprising is that they used Ju 88C Zerstörers armed with light MGs for the job! No cannons, no bombs.
> 
> Also the American fighters were very succesful in train busting, and you know what armament they had.
> 
> Kris



Although KG50 did use dirty big Mk101 sticking out the nose of their He177s for "flak suppression duties" in concert, go figure.
I'd say if the target were an armoured train with AAA it'd get a slightly different response from the local Fliegerführer than a regular troop transport. I dare say they'd list it as an "assault train" rather than a "train" judging by the way Soviets used their armoured trains around Charkov, Vyazma and Stalingrad.

Soviets are weirdos anyway (I mean that in a nice fashion here), they armoured up their river barges and trains and stuck 3" T-34 turrets on them and 25mm AAA, then used them as mobile assault weapons.
When the 16th Pz of the XXIV PzKorps reached the Volga in September 42 they used up most of their ammunition exchanging turret fire with bloody river barges, whilst being targeted by Flak guns near the tractor factory aimed by women from the local university.

I think it was at Vyazma they used armoured trains as assault guns to good effect.


Hey you know what I reckon'd be interesting. Disappear Germany and put the Allied Western Front up against the Soviet Eastern Front. Attack the Red Army with P-47s and the GI's with Il2s. Mustangs versus La-5s.
What would happen there?


----------



## Civettone (Aug 15, 2009)

Food for a new thread 


Kris


----------



## vanir (Aug 16, 2009)

Nice idea, but I'm sure it's been done.

hehe, as a follow up I was just picturing the RLM trying to counter Soviet tactics from 43. A bunch of Prussian retirees sitting around saying stuff like, Hey, their women are putting grenades in bread loaves, that's not fair.
And in typical German fashion invent a new cannon type designed to penetrate bakery ovens from 2000m.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 17, 2009)

LOL !!!


Kris


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 18, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If the Il-2 could absorb more total punishment than the B-17, I'll screw a sheep. I don't think it could take *a shot from the 37mm *M4 cannon (the one from the P-39) either.



Why not five of them?







from:
Èíòåðâüþ ñ Â.Â.Òèòîâè÷åì

On his 3rd mission, Titovitch's Il-2 recieved 5 37 mm FlaK bullets, but managed to return to the airfield near MGA, Leningrad vicinity.

VG


----------



## Civettone (Aug 18, 2009)

I see two impacts. Where were the other 3 ?


Kris


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 18, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I see two impacts. Where were the other 3 ?
> Kris



Looks like there's a hole through the port wing root/ flap and another large mess in what's left of the starboard aileron.
Interestingly the hole through the port root looks (from the "lips" around the hole) as if the round went in through the top of the wing...


----------



## Civettone (Aug 18, 2009)

The two I saw seem to be the result of the explosion/blast while the one at the wing root just went straight through (as it probably didn't go in from above ).

As such the only way it could have survived 5 shells was if they didn't all detonate...
Kris


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 18, 2009)

The control surfaces look to all the world to be made of canvas.
If that's the case it will undoubtedly explain the shells not detonating.
Thing is, how do you goad a barge full of scrap-iron around the sky with canvas control surfaces?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 18, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Why not five of them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not the same round, not all mm's of ordnance are created equal.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2009)

While the damage sustained to that aircraft and the fact that it returned to its base is commendable, it seemed most of the hits it received went through fabric control surfaces taking out some ribs and stringers. There were enough of the control surfaces left to sustain flight obviously.

With that said I doubt the damage would have been that same if the round found its mark squarely on the empennage or at the wing root.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The control surfaces look to all the world to be made of* canvas*.
> If that's the case it will undoubtedly explain the shells not detonating.
> Thing is, how do you goad a barge full of scrap-iron around the sky with canvas control surfaces?


More than likely Irish Linen or Cotton.


----------



## Condora (Aug 19, 2009)

German pilots had the same problem with Hurricanes: the bullet went through the airplane and came out on the other side, just punching a hole in it...
And there were other airplanes using some kind of fabric.

Below is an Wellington, but the result is the same: skin went off, but the airplane made it back...





Sorry, the pic doesn't show, you can check it where I saw it...
http://www.answers.com/topic/vickers-wellington


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 19, 2009)

Condora said:


> ... Wellington, but the result is the same: skin went off, but the airplane made it back...


The reason alot of Wimpeys came back from a beating was much more likely due to its structure rather than the doped-linen skinning


----------



## Civettone (Aug 19, 2009)

I don't know, I would say it had to be a combination of both. Wasn't that structure developed by Barnes-Wallis?? What's it called again??


Kris


----------



## Condora (Aug 19, 2009)

Geodesic.
Wonder if that kind of construction could be used on a fighter...
Large "holes" in the structure (bomb bay, e.g.) made it weaker, but a fighter doesn't have them.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 19, 2009)

Condora said:


> Geodesic


lol not quite - geodesic is the 'giant golf ball' structure built around some satellite earth stations and, believe it or not, modern soccer balls. Pioneered by Buckminster-Fuller I believe.

the Wimpey used a geodetic structure, pioneered by Barnes Wallis.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> lol not quite - geodesic is the 'giant golf ball' structure built around some satellite earth stations and, believe it or not, modern soccer balls. Pioneered by Buckminster-Fuller I believe.
> 
> the Wimpey used a geodetic structure, pioneered by Barnes Wallis.



From Wiki for what it's worth

Geodesic airframe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 19, 2009)

Hello,



> *Civettone*:I see two impacts. Where were the other 3 ?





> *Clay_Allison* :Not the same round, not all mm's of ordnance are created equal.




With google translator and dictionnary:
On it's 3rd mission, first war day Titovitch's Il-2 was hit by 5 37 mm shells. Broken depth rudder, destroyed right wing spar, broken right aileron, right canon pulled out, broken back cabin armour plates. A lot of small splinters damaged wings and fuselage.

From the pilot itself _"... i was the forth of our zveno (fingerfour) platoon, the last plane was usually coming under ennemy fire: germans had a 37 mm automatic gun in this aera feed by cartiges (of five). All the german did, it's to press the pedal and "blam, blam, blam,blam, blam, all in my plane..."_

All the shells exploded of course, but partly outside of the plane. The Il-2 wooden _ monocoque_ structure (and moreover fabric covered one) was often too soft for 37 mm flak bullets (crossing through the structure, expoding outside) and the bathtub too hard (bullets were exploding too early this time, limiting destruction effects). Sometines even the _bathtub_ was broken in pieces, engine reminded damaged but still in working condition. In fact the bathtub distruction eating some cinetic and blowing energy was limiting on it's turn bullet and splinters penetration inside the engine block.

That mean the Il-2 far from being indestructible was perfectly able to withstand sometimes a full 37 mm AA Flak hit on it's armor. 




> *Colin1 *Thing is, how do you goad a barge full of scrap-iron around the sky with canvas control surfaces?


That shows the problem...for the Flak and fighters. Of course Titovitch never saw his Il-2 again (probably scrapped) and used other 872e ShAP (stormoviks air regiment) planes.

Regards


----------



## Waynos (Aug 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From Wiki for what it's worth
> 
> Geodesic airframe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wow, they seem to have got that right 

Yes, when discussing the structure of a Wallis designed bomber the correct term is always Geodetic. I don't know enough about it understand why but the concept didn't seem able to translate to all-metal aircraft. Even the Windosr (which was roughly comparable to the B-29) had a canvass skin!!


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Rockwell or Brinell testing has no bearing in this situation because there is an element of force, density and trajectory. You factor in the weight of the round and the muzzle velocity plus the harness value of the round. Hardness testers are static and designed to take a surface hardness in a non-dynamic environment.



 It's not has the bearing of anything, it's just a question of the utmost performance in armor piercing matters. So you'll never pierce a safe with a flashball or with a wood-drill. With weight and velocity, of coarse you can just brake it, by craking it. It's not the same thing.

VG


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> It's not has the bearing of anything, it's just a question of the utmost performance in armor piercing matters. So you'll never pierce a safe with a flashball or with a wood-drill. With weight and velocity, of coarse you can just brake it, by craking it. It's not the same thing.
> 
> VG


 It depends on the hardness *and thickness *of the armor you're trying to pierce. The Harder the plate the more brittle it becomes when you put a direct load to it in an unsupported area. If the penetrating material has a correlating harness to the the surface trying to be penetrated as well as the right shape at the tip, then the right amount of force behind it will do the rest. I could take a cone or sharpened shaped steel object with a Rockwell harness of say C40 and with enough force penetrate a plate with a hardness of say C60 if the thickness of the plate cannot sustain the load behind the object. The object doing the penetrating may distort, crack or break as you put it, but it will penetrate the plate if the *thickness AND brittleness *of the plate can't support the dynamic load of the object being forced (or fired) at it.


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 20, 2009)

According _Boyevaya rabota sovietskoj i niemietskoj aviacii w Vielikoy otechestviennoy voynie (The figtning work of Soviet and German aviation in Great Patriotic war)_ by Andrey Smirnow, Moscow 2006, pp. 291-292.

*Penetration of Il-2's armour *

For MG 151/15
12 mm back plate: AP 400 m at angle above 50°, HE 100 m above 60°
6 mm plates: AP 400 m above 20°, HE 100 m above 30°

For MG 151/20
4 mm plates: HE 600 m

At drawing below: armour thickness in mm (from Kuznetsov's monography)

BTW: 
1. Oil radiator wasn't armoured from the back (this is note for Hartmann). 
2. Many of Il-2's had a wooden rear part of hull and wings.

And a small general remark:


> This was the Russian tank, for Russian army and Russian industry, to a maximum adapted to our conditions of the production and the exploitation. And fight on him could only Russians!


Such opinion, maybe slightly exaggerated, Mikhail Bariatynski put out to the tankT-34. You can use this to the most (if not all) of Soviet planes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2009)

Great illustration of the IL-2's armor...

One thing I notice though, is the lack of armor for the rear gunner. Am I missing something here, or is that position left exposed?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 20, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Great illustration of the IL-2's armor...
> 
> One thing I notice though, is the lack of armor for the rear gunner. Am I missing something here, or is that position left exposed?


I can also see what German pilots meant by hitting the Il-2 in the 'armpit'; definitely looks like a way in there


----------



## Condora (Aug 20, 2009)

I guess the poor rear gunner was "additional anti-shrappnel armour"...


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2009)

Condora said:


> Geodesic.
> Wonder if that kind of construction could be used on a fighter...
> Large "holes" in the structure (bomb bay, e.g.) made it weaker, but a fighter doesn't have them.



No. Fighters are stressed 2.5-3 x over bomber design loads.

What that means is that metal skin with shear capability (aluminum, steel) is required to transmit bending loads to stringers via shear panels and torsion via bulkhead/skin combinations. A geodesic structure Might work but everything must be carried in combination of truss like tension/compression with no provision for shear panel distribution - as linen is inadequate.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Great illustration of the IL-2's armor...
> 
> One thing I notice though, is the lack of armor for the rear gunner. Am I missing something here, or is that position left exposed?



Dave - I believe the pilot and engine is essential to the mission and most threats are coming from the targets out in front and sides. The plate in the rear provides some protection to Gunner, but Gunner/plate combo great for pilot from rear attacks - lOl.


----------



## Condora (Aug 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> No. Fighters are stressed 2.5-3 x over bomber design loads.
> 
> What that means is that metal skin with shear capability (aluminum, steel) is required to transmit bending loads to stringers via shear panels and torsion via bulkhead/skin combinations. A geodesic structure Might work but everything must be carried in combination of truss like tension/compression with no provision for shear panel distribution - as linen is inadequate.



 
I'm outta my depth here... señor, mee beezeeness ees computors!

But not all airplanes were dependent of that system - monocoque/stressed skin? -, at least the Hurricane still used fabric, right? What would be the problems of replacing linen with something else?


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 20, 2009)

Condora said:


> at least the Hurricane still used fabric, right? What would be the problems of replacing linen with something else?


None. Example - Yaks. The last Yaks are covered with aluminium sheets. But it was still non-working coverage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2009)

Condora said:


> I'm outta my depth here... señor, mee beezeeness ees computors!
> 
> But not all airplanes were dependent of that system - monocoque/stressed skin? -, at least the Hurricane still used fabric, right? What would be the problems of replacing linen with something else?



The Hurricane did have its doped fabric wings replaced by an all metal wing.


----------



## Condora (Aug 20, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Hurricane did have its doped fabric wings replaced by an all metal wing.



OK, but just the wings, the fuselage still was doped fabric. And even had one wing of each, sometimes...



Tzaw1 said:


> None. Example - Yaks. The last Yaks are covered with aluminium sheets. But it was still non-working coverage.



OK, so as an intelectual exercise, take for instance a geodetic airplane covered with aluminium sheets. Advantages over monocoque/stressed skin would be... what?
Would it be some "structure resilient as Hell" airplane? 
(I'm not thinking armour. Yet...)

The kind of airplane that you've used up all your ammo on it, and that "flying gruyère" is still flying?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2009)

Condora said:


> OK, but just the wings, the fuselage still was doped fabric. And even had one wing of each, sometimes...



The wings were interchangable, but I find it hard to believe that it would fly with one metal and one fabric wing. That would throw off the CG and the weight and balance.


----------



## Condora (Aug 20, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The wings were interchangable, but I find it hard to believe that it would fly with one metal and one fabric wing. That would throw off the CG and the weight and balance.



Not your everyday configuration, but there was at least an aeroplane doing it, I remember reading it (for trials, if I recall correctly). How often they used that configuration, I don't know. If the difference was not too great - one can always balance the wings, and remember that one is "weaker" -, they could use an old wing to replace a new one that was heavily damaged. 

If they did it in such cases, I have no indication... perhaps someone else has a clue, you guys always seem to have more data than I do.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 20, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I can also see what German pilots meant by hitting the Il-2 in the 'armpit'; definitely looks like a way in there



What you _can_ see it's a way for the wing spars, and _schematic_ drawing innacuracy. All armor plates were joined (placed edge to edge) on a high tensile steel frame. Moroever armor was sometimes double, as for pilot's seat _and _ il-2 bathtub.

VG


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Dave - I believe the pilot and engine is essential to the mission and most threats are coming from the targets out in front and sides.  The plate in the rear provides some protection to Gunner, but Gunner/plate combo great for pilot from rear attacks - lOl.


I'll be danged...I had no idea that the IL-2's pilot was additionally sheilded by the rear gunner's body. 

Makes me wonder if the stories about the rear gunners being convicts (or similiar) was really true, or was it one of those things where the Soviets sarcastically meant lack of protection for the gunner was a "death warrant".


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 20, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Makes me wonder if the stories about the rear gunners being convicts (or similiar) was really true, or was it one of those things where the Soviets sarcastically meant lack of protection for the gunner was a "death warrant".


From what I can gather of those stories
the convicts had to complete 9 combat missions to be admonished of their 'crimes against the state'
If they looked like they were going to make it, they were transferred off and into something more likely to get them killed (the mind boggles: whatever that might be)


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 20, 2009)

Hello



> =Tzaw
> *Penetration of Il-2's armour *



The way is it presented, it"s a kind of information 100% true of course, but 0% valuable:

- is it from ground tests or from air battle statistics?
- was it from 30% or 70% cases on your statistical Gauss curve? Russians always gave the both values.
- In how many cases the bathtumb boring/damaging lead to the whole plane loss?



1. Oil radiator wasn't armoured from the back (this is note for Hartmann). 
False, only for very first series. I admit that pivoting armored _louvres _were slim (5 mm) anyway.

2. Many of Il-2's had a wooden rear part of hull and wings.
Some of them of very bad wooden parts. Well, with a TBO of 50 hours for the AM-38 engine and a life expectancy of 20-30 missions, i suppose it was not of a great importance...

Regards

VG



> Such opinion, maybe slightly exaggerated, Mikhail Bariatynski put out to the tankT-34. You can use this to the most (if not all) of Soviet planes.



What do you mean?


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 20, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> From what I can gather of those stories
> the convicts had to complete 9 combat missions to be admonished of their 'crimes against the state'
> If they looked like they were going to make it, they were transferred off and into something more likely to get them killed (the mind boggles: whatever that might be)




This is an urban legend of course, but rear gunner was realy poorly protected until the late Il-2 KSS _Strelka_ (Arrow Wing) (Il-2 with backwards swept wings) production, with lenghtened bathtumb.
Anyway, gunner's head and shoulders reminded unprotected.

??????? ??-2 ???

Regards


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 20, 2009)

> _What you can see it's a way for the wing spars, and schematic drawing innacuracy_.


This is natural inaccuracy. Because this is schematic drawing, not production.
BTW What frame? Armour was the frame. See attached image. There's been the aluminium engine mounting (numbered elements).



> _Moroever armor was sometimes double, as for pilot's seat and Il-2 bathtub_.


There was no armour pilot's seat.



> _is it from ground tests or from air battle statistics?_


For MG 151/15 from ground test in factory No 125, July-August 1942. I do not know no manner, to qualify from what distance was pierced armour during the fight.



> _In how many cases the bathtumb boring/damaging lead to the whole plane loss?_


I don't know. And You?
But the reading of the monograph "Shturmovik Il-2: "Lyetayushchiy tank" by Oleg Rastrenin permits to suppose, with 100%.
BTW There is the good analysis of damages Il-2's.



> _Some of them of very bad wooden parts. Well, with a TBO of 50 hours for the AM-38 engine and a life expectancy of 20-30 missions, i suppose it was not of a great importance..._


Surely you joke 
At the all weakness of the armour, only 10% damages happened on protected elements (4% engine, 3% radiators, 3% cockpit).



> _the late Il-2 KSS Strelka (Arrow Wing) (Il-2 with backwards swept wings) production, with lenghtened bathtumb._


These are two separate matters. The Il-2 with a rear-gunner was in the production and service from the beginning 1943, _Strelka_ from the end 1943. The armour himself did not change.


----------



## Altea (Aug 21, 2009)

Tzaw1 said:


> This is natural inaccuracy. Because this is schematic drawing, not production.
> BTW What frame? Armour was the frame. _See attached image_. There's been the aluminium engine mounting (numbered elements).


But you only send the engine mounting scheme, not the whole armored caisson.




> There was no armour pilot's seat.


It seems that there were a 12mm plate protecting pilor's neck and head, and 5mm partition between the pilot's back and the main tank.





> Surely you joke
> At the all weakness of the armour, only 10% damages happened on protected elements (4% engine, 3% radiators, 3% cockpit).


AFAIK, even if the AM-35A and 38 engines had successivly passed the state 100 hours trials, they were soon reduced to 50 hours of TBO (time before overhall) for serial ones. It's also an explanation for the short life expectancy of the early Il-2's.

Regards
Altea


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 21, 2009)

> even if the AM-35A and 38 engines had successivly passed the state 100 hours trials, they were soon reduced to 50 hours of TBO (time before overhall) for serial ones. It's also an explanation for the short life expectancy of the early Il-2's.


Yes, this is explanation for the short life expectancy, but in normal exploitation. Isn't explanation for damage ratio: 27% wings, 25% tail and tail rods, 20% rear hull, 10% landing gear, 8% propeller. Remaining 10% in my last post.



> It seems that there were a 12mm plate protecting pilor's neck and head, and 5mm partition between the pilot's back and the main tank.


It seems, but was only for pilot's neck and head. Seat was not protected.
There was only thin wall between the pilot's back and the main tank. Non-armoured.
See attachments. Armoured plates are drawed with thick line.


----------



## Altea (Aug 21, 2009)

Tzaw1 said:


> Yes, this is explanation for the short life expectancy, but in normal exploitation. Isn't explanation for damage ratio: 27% wings, 25% tail and tail rods, 20% rear hull, 10% landing gear, 8% propeller. Remaining 10% in my last post.



It's an explanation for why nobody managed to restore a damaged Stormovik with 35-40 flight hours life. What for, working 600-1000 man hours for the reminding 10 -15 flight hours (if nothing would hapenagain)?And why was it systematically send to the "PARM front reparation mobile workshops" and written-off for _combat damages _there by technical comission, for spart-pieces.



> It seems, but was only for pilot's neck and head. Seat was not protected.
> There was only thin wall between the pilot's back and the main tank. Non-armoured.
> See attachments. Armoured plates are drawed with thick line.








The _thin wall_ as you called it, on pilot's back has 5mm armor thick in the TsK-55 (BSh-2.1): both for *D *section and *E *section






Increased to 7mm from the TsKB-57 (BSh-2.2 future Il-2). Some sources quoted 5mm but it is obviously an error taken on the first TsKB 55-57 projects. (The TsKB-57 was a TsKB-55 with a Mikouline 38 engine instead of the 35A one, and a 155 kg extra tank instead of the rear gunner). 
So for the Il-2 and Il-2M-3: 7mm armor for *D *and 12mm thick for the* E* section wall.
Anyway there'is no doubt about the fact that the wall always existed. But maybe M. Perov and Rastrenin discovered someting new since 2003?

Regards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2009)

Altea said:


> It's an explanation for why nobody managed to restore a damaged Stormovik with 35-40 flight hours life. What for, working 600-1000 man hours for the reminding 10 -15 flight hours (if nothing would hapenagain)?And why was it systematically send to the "PARM front reparation mobile workshops" and written-off there by technical comission, for spart-pieces.


Actually in today's world a restoration would be possible (at least in the US) that could possibly raise the hours on a restored airframe or a new airframe (and engine) life could be established based on flying the aircraft in a civilian capacity (airshows).


----------



## Altea (Aug 22, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually in today's world a restoration would be possible (at least in the US) that could possibly raise the hours on a restored airframe or a new airframe (and engine) life could be established based on flying the aircraft in a civilian capacity (airshows).



Maybe, but considering war statistics Il-2 ground crews were busy enough, since 50% of the Il2 came back with light or heavy damages to their airfields. You won't do miracles with an engine that is a kind of industrial wreckage. Last AM-38 were better and had a TBO of 150 hours. Boston Cyclone about 400 hours and even 600 for some special series.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2009)

Altea said:


> Maybe, but considering war statistics Il-2 ground crews were busy enough, since 50% of the Il2 came back with light or heavy damages to their airfields. You won't do miracles with an engine that is a kind of industrial wreckage. Last AM-38 were better and had a TBO of 150 hours. Boston Cyclone about 400 hours and even 600 for some special series.


Agree - If an IL-2 airframe was found today that could possibly be made airworthy, I think an Allison would be a first choice as a reliable substitute engine.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 22, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree - If an IL-2 airframe was found today that could possibly be made airworthy, I think an Allison would be a first choice as a reliable substitute engine.


I hope big CNC machines become available soon that can crank out new Allison blocks. we are running out of Allisons.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

So there aren't any AM-38 engines to be found anywhere?

If not, then why not remanufacturer a modern version?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> So there aren't any AM-38 engines to be found anywhere?
> 
> If not, then why not remanufacturer a modern version?


I think you'd have better chances with an Allison.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

Nothing against Allisons, I've always been partial to them.

I was just thinking from an authentic restoration point of view.

I'm sure the logistics of replicating a complete AM-38 would be a nightmare, mostly because of the lack of NOS parts needed to complete even a new one.

Probably the same reason why there's only one Zero with an original Sakae engine left


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Nothing against Allisons, I've always been partial to them.
> 
> I was just thinking from an authentic restoration point of view.
> 
> ...



Yep!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 22, 2009)

I am rooting hard for automated manufacturing, someday it should get cheap enough for me to own my own Warbird replica for the cost of an expensive luxury car/motorhome.


----------



## Altea (Aug 22, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> So there aren't any AM-38 engines to be found anywhere?
> 
> If not, then why not remanufacturer a modern version?



The last ones are already in use


rusavia


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2009)

Tzaw1 said:


> It seems, but was only for pilot's neck and head. Seat was not protected.
> There was only thin wall between the pilot's back and the main tank. Non-armoured


How did the pilot strap himself in?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> How did the pilot strap himself in?


If it was me, they'd have to use handcuffs and a stright-jacket...

Noway in hell I would have flown one of those things into battle.


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 4, 2015)

> The only case about which I heard, it is considering about the purchase of the equipment in USSR in September 1939.



I read this comment in the first page. I was wondering which equipment the UK would consider for import in September 1939. Any information?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 4, 2015)

None, since the USSR was also involved in the invasion, partition and destruction of Poland. That really would have been the ultimate betrayal.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

alejandro_ said:


> I read this comment in the first page. I was wondering which equipment the UK would consider for import in September 1939. Any information?



Don't think that Soviets have had anything to offer in 1939 that will equal, let alone better what the UK/RAF have had at the time.


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 4, 2015)

> Don't think that Soviets have had anything to offer in 1939 that will equal, let alone better what the UK/RAF have had at the time.



Of course, but these were times when European nations were getting as much armament as possible. If you are desperate, Il-16 are better than nothing.

I thought all interest vanished after Winter War.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

UK was, maybe, desperate to acquire more fighters in mid-1940, when France and some other Allied/friendly countries fell. In 1939, France was in a more desperate need, their best domestic fighter in 1939 being the MS-406?
Though, the P-36 should be a better aircraft than the I-16.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

In 1939 and most of 1940 the UK was paying cash, both to domestic and foreign manufacturers. 

Buying 2nd best if you need numbers is one thing, buying crap and not having enough moneyleft to pay for good stuff is something else. 

And the _desperation_ factor changed considerably from the Fall of 1939, to the spring of 1940 to the late summer/fall of 1940 to the winter of 1940/41. Greatest desperation being just after France fell. BY Nov/Dec of 1940 the German "invasion" had been pushed back from weeks away to months away (Spring/summer of 1941) British domestic production was ramping up, more time could be spent assessing some of the 'stuff' that was arriving from the US. If P-40B/C were being judged unfit for _European_ use, why buy I-16s? 

Lagg-s and Yaks and many other Russian aircraft that fought in WW II were little more than prototypes in 1939/40.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2015)

I think that in terms of performance, the soviets are always going to look second rate compared to the allies. . But the Soviet technology did have some qualities worth mentioning. 

At the top was the simplicity of their designs. They were easy to build, almost devoid of accessories, often made of wood and other non-strategic materials. If the US or Britain had suffered shortages of Aluminium as the Soviets did, their aircraft designs may have been of some use as stop gaps.

Their least good bit of technology was probably their engines. The engine installation into the IL-2 was particularly bad. how might a Sturmovik have managed with a Merlin or an Allison installation. How might the sturmovik have performed in early 1941 for example. Whereas in March or April 1941, the RAF could afford to send 12-18 blenheims, or Whitleys over france on intruder operations, with swarms of fighter cover, would they have been better off with 30-50 IL-2s with Merlin engines and Self Sealing tanks. Probably no difference, but worth a second thought IMHO.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2015)

The self-sealing tanks were standard on Il-2.
For a liquid cooled engine in a ground attacker, the choice of engine and its installation in the Il-2 was probably the best in the world. The coolant radiator was located in a tunnel, leading from top of the engine down to under pilot. The oil cooler was not that well protected though.
In 1941, the AM-38 was delivering 1600 HP for take off, and 1500 HP from SL to ~5500 ft (no ram; with ram it was up to 3-4 km, or 9-12 kft). Please note that is the 'nominal power', not some kind of short-burst power. Contemporary V-1710 would be totally underpowered for the Il-2 (1150 HP for take off, and up to 12000 ft, up to 5 minutes), and so would be the Merlin (1280 HP for take off). The AM 38 was heavier than those Western engine, though. At any rate, no Soviet engine would fill the needs of the Il-2 until the M-82 arrives (early 1942).
In same year, Western engines that would look good on Il-2, or better, would be the R-2600 (1700 HP at low alt) and R-2800 'A' (1850 HP at low level), also the Hercules IX (1600-1700 HP? at low level).

In 1941, the AM 38F offers 1700 HP for take off, and it is also rated for 1700 HP to up to ~2000 ft in emergency setting.

Sending the Il-2 with any engine across the Channel would probably mean that many would not come back due to running out of fuel. Range (not radius) being ~630-750 km (let's call it 430 miles) - works as ~150 miles of combat radius? The Pe-2 have had range of ~1200 km.

Now, the Pe-2 with Merlins or V-1710, that would be an airplane


----------

