# Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

For sake of concision, I'm limiting this to twin engine bombers which were produced in some numbers (at least a few hundred) and saw action in 1942 and 1943. And not the Mosquito because we already know that is the best.

The best bomber for purposes of the poll is one which can best:

Reach the target, i.e. it has decent range

Hit the target and cause damage to it 

Survive the experience so that it can do it all again
And also can be produced in sufficient numbers to affect the war
To me it comes down to the Soviet and American bombers, namely the A-20, B-25, Pe-2 and Tu-2. I am willing to learn otherwise though.






The A-20 is fast for a bomber, not "Mosquito Fast" but fast ~ 320 mph I guess depending on the variant. Very good by early-war standards. It has a 'medium' range (945 miles 'Combat range' per wiki, and carries a 4,000 bomb load which is good. Offensive armament was 'heavy' with 6 or more .50 cals and defensive armament was light to moderate, with a powered two gun turret in the later versions. They were quite good I think in the early years, and adapted well to the strafing role similar to the B-25 but not quite as much. Could (and did) also carry torpedos, which is useful. This is how the Russians used them a lot.





The B-25 is a little slower 272 mph, but it's the most heavily armed of all of them with powered turrets to boot, and has an impressive range of 1,350 miles (not sure if that is "Combat range" with bombs or ferry range or what, maybe someone can clarify). 3,000 lbs of bombs so a little less than an A-20. They adapted them to do skip-bombing which is very accurate and approximates a torpedo attack in terms of damage against ships, it also carried rockets and parafrag bombs, and per the Wiki, Ttorpedoes though I don't know that they ever did. And they mounted a 75mm cannon on it so I think we can say it was extra effective at criteria #2.





The Pe-2 is the fastest I think, though this is apparently a subject for debate. Also depends on the variant no doubt but I have seen the number 360 mph thrown around for a good while. Range is 'medium' at 721 miles, I assume this is "Combat Range" but maybe someone can clarify. It's rather lightly armed with one gunner and two or three defensive guns. In attack, it was allegedly stressed for dive-bombing though it didn't have that many offensive guns (usually just 2 Lmg or 1 Hmg) and carried 3,500 lbs of bombs though I'm not sure how many in the various bomb bays (it had small bomb bays in the Engine naecelles) or if that means external bombs too which would slow it down a lot. It must have been cheap to make because they made 11,000 of them.






The Tu-2 is arguably better than the Pe-2 in many respects. Fast, at 325 mph, heavily armed with 2 x 20mm cnanons and 3 Hmg defensive guns. Range was very good at 1,200 miles. Carried 3,300 lbs internally (i.e. for high-speed missions) plus 5,000 externally which is a lot. That would make it the heaviest bomb load carrying bomber of the four of them at 8,000 lbs I think though such a heavy external load would cut range and speed drastically. It was also stressed as a dive-bomber, though like the Ju-88 and the Pe-2, this really meant a "shallow dive" bomber, i.e. at a 45 degree angle rather than a near vertical dive like a Stuka. Still, probably more accurate than regular bombing. It must have been expensive to make however as they only made a few hundred during the war and I gather it was only used for "boutique" missions so to speak.


Of the four, I would say the B-25 was the most dangerous for fighters to attack, followed by the Tu-2. The Pe-2 would probably be the hardest to intercept though on the Russian front they faced very fast German fighters and took heavy losses. The first three, A-20, B-25 and Pe-2 all took pretty heavy losses especially against the Germans, (Pacific was a little safer for heavily armed bombers). The Tu-2 probably had the best loss rate but that may have been simply due to what kinds of missions it was sent on.

The most lethal to targets to me would be IMO the B-25, the Tu-2, the Pe-2 and the A-20 roughly in that order.

The B-25 and Tu-2 had the best range, I think (I'm relying mainly on Wikipedia here for numbers so prepared to be corrected).

The Tu-2 loses some ground though due to it's limited production run.

All four were pretty well armored i believe, and had self-sealing tanks. I know both the A-20 and the Pe-2 had issues with gunners getting killed and not being adequately protected in the earlier versions.

The ultimate question is really how survivable was it in a given sortie. To me, speed matters more than firepower for this, but that is just my opinion.

My vote goes to the Peshka overall, followed by the Tu-2, the B-25 and then the A-20. However if you were talking the key mid-war years, the A-20 and the Peshka look a lot better as they had a lot of impact early on.

I don't think any of the other bombers in the list were really comparable to these four. The B-26 was a disappointment, not that fast in spite of the very short wings, it should have been cancelled. Most of the British bombers on the list were obsolescent by 1942. Their best medium bomber other than the Mosquito was the Beaufighter, but i didn't put that on the list because it's a fighter, really.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, let me hear yours!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Incredible as it may seem, the Lancaster was actually designed as a medium bomber, while the Mosquito was a light bomber.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 5, 2018)

Not to stir the pot (I’d _never_ do that  ), but the confusingly designated Douglas A-26/B-26. Fast, heavily armed, and long-lived.

Oops! Thanks, Tomo

That means I switch my vote to the A-20, although the Martin 167 has its points. How many other bombers had the pilot make ace flying them?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Not to stir the pot (I’d _never_ do that  ), but the confusingly designated Douglas A-26/B-26. Fast, heavily armed, and long-lived.



Not in service in 1942-43...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

A lot of the Russian data is very suspect. Especially the bomb loads. Wiki tends to go for maximum number Like max speed when lightly load. Max range when carrying max fuel and few, if any bombs. Max bomb load a plane could get off the runway with even if the plane was back on the runway in 20 minutes to refuel  
The PE-2 had a bomb bay in the fuselage that carried four 100kg (220lb) bombs, it had a compartment in each engine nacelle that carried one 100kg (220lb) bomb. There were cassettes of smaller bombs 2-4lbs?. 
external storage/racks were provide for four 250kg (550lb) bombs OR two 500kg (1100lb) bombs. 
Now some of the "confusion" may come from the fact that near the end of the war some prototypes or very small batches were built wight ASh-82 radials and VK-107 engines of much greater power. But for the run of mill PE-2 the "normal" bomb load was 600kg and the max was listed as 1000kg. 
The TU-2 barely makes this thread as only a very small batch were made during this time period and due to relocation of factories and higher priorities (engines needed for LA-5s) production was halted for a period of time. 16 had been produced of this later batch by the end of 1943. 
Some of the post war versions (and several thousand were built post war) have very high bomb loads listed but the war time (1944-45) versions had a max of 3000kg and it is debatable about how much of this was inside.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Anyway, those are my thoughts, let me hear yours!





Shortround6 said:


> A lot of the Russian data is very suspect. Especially the bomb loads. Wiki tends to go for maximum number Like max speed when lightly load. Max range when carrying max fuel and few, if any bombs. Max bomb load a plane could get off the runway with even if the plane was back on the runway in 20 minutes to refuel
> The PE-2 had a bomb bay in the fuselage that carried four 100kg (220lb) bombs, it had a compartment in each engine nacelle that carried one 100kg (220lb) bomb. There were cassettes of smaller bombs 2-4lbs?.
> external storage/racks were provide for four 250kg (550lb) bombs OR two 500kg (1100lb) bombs.
> Now some of the "confusion" may come from the fact that near the end of the war some prototypes or very small batches were built wight ASh-82 radials and VK-107 engines of much greater power. But for the run of mill PE-2 the "normal" bomb load was 600kg and the max was listed as 1000kg.



Russian data os okay, when it comes to their stuff. Problem is when people pitch figures that were made by prototypes (Pe-2 M82, Pe-2M VK-107) as relevant for run on the mill examples. 
Serial produced examples of the Pe-2 were good for 300-330 mph, depending on altitude and engines. Max bomb load was indeed 1000 kg (~2200 lbs), normal was 600 kg (~1300 lbs). Bomber versions were good for 1200-1300 km of range - talk 700 miles - not a sign of a long range bomber people migh expect with 2 engines invested. 300 mile radius? Table taken from Shavrov's bible, in Spanish, can be translated: link



> The TU-2 barely makes this thread as only a very small batch were made during this time period and due to relocation of factories and higher priorities (engines needed for LA-5s) production was halted for a period of time. 16 had been produced of this later batch by the end of 1943.
> Some of the post war versions (and several thousand were built post war) have very high bomb loads listed but the war time (1944-45) versions had a max of 3000kg and it is debatable about how much of this was inside.



There were 79 Tu-2 produced in 1942, due to shortsightedness of Soviet brass/leadership it didn't entered mass production in 1943, when only 13 were produced. More than 4000 of M-82/ASh-82 engines were produced in 1942, while only 1129 of La-5 was produced in the same year - there was a big surplus of M82 engines in 1942, a reason why Soviets also tried Yak-7, Il-2 and Pe-2 with those, plus Pe-8 and Tu-2.
engine production
aircraft production


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

Trying to stay out of guns vs speed argument (at least for now) simple counts of guns is often very misleading. 
Going back to the PE-2 most had a single 12.7 and a single 7.62 firing forward and these were fixed and aimed by the pilot. 
Fixed forward firing guns are useful for strafing or perhaps planes flying in small very loose formations where the pilot has freedom to maneuver. They are almost useless in larger or tighter formations where a maneuvering bomber is in danger of colliding with it's squadron mates. 
Then you have the manually aimed guns vs guns in *power* turrets. I emphasis "power" as some bombers had gun mounts that were called turrets but were manually powered or only partially power driven. 
Slipstream blast hitting the gun barrel/s could make aiming anywhere except near the tail very difficult. Some of the early Russian mounts were extremely difficult to get the gun to point more than 40 degrees from the fuselage line. Please look at the photo you provided of the PE-2 and find that reverse shark fin on top of the gun-mount canopy. That is an aerodynamic balance. as the gunner moves the gun to right, for instance, the air pressure on the gun barrel is supposed to counteracted by the air pressure on that fin as it moves with the rear of the mount and so the gunner has to use much less muscle to aim the gun sideways. 
British estimated that a gun in a powered mount was around 3 times more effective than an unpowered mount. Even powered mounts vary. 
Then you have combat duration or firing time. The Russians didn't carry a lot of ammo for their defensive guns. Of course if you aren't flying very far into enemy territory then having 15-20 seconds of firing time may be OK. 

The 2nd 7.62 gun on the PE-2 was given to the radio operator who already manned the lower rear 12.7 gun. The gunner, when he wasn't manning the 12.7mm and looking out the port holes could switch the gun from one side of the compartment to other and if feeling really ambitious/feisty could fire it out of a top hatch holding the gun in his arms while resting the gun barrel on the hatch edge. 
The Germans had a real fetish about one man leaping about (or rather twisting like a contortionist) to man multiple guns pointed in different directions so actual gun count far exceeds the number of guns that could actually be fired at one time. 

As far as the American B-26 goes, there is some confusion on that one. The early short wing ones could top 300mph pretty easy. It was the later tilted wing ones that were around 283mph top speed.

ANd that brings up another problem with comparisons. While a speed rating using a 5 minute rating on a fighter may tell you something, on bombers it tells you a lot less. Bomber speeds fluctuate much more than fighters due to load. And accelerating a bomber from cruise speed to top speed is going to use up a lot more of those 5 minutes. And again, flying in formation can really limit the use of high speeds, formation has to fly at speed of the slowest plane and/or the plane on the outside of a turn.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 7, 2018)

I vote for Tu-2 but have to admit that this aircraft was not as fully tested during WWII as other types mentioned. So it is a bit of "what if".
Still, there was general agreement among pilots and many (most?) historians that Tu-2 was significant step forward and could successfully replace not just Pe-2 but also Il-4 and even Il-2 in some operations and augment lend leased types. It was versatile, became the platform for various modifications, sturdy and reliable - after early production issues were resolved. Long post war career. 
Probably, decision to stop production in 1942 was one of the worst mistakes made in Kremlin in relation to VVS.


----------



## Freebird (Apr 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> View attachment 488592
> 
> The Pe-2 is the fastest I think



Pe-2 was the first model that I built...

Luckily I don't have any photos, I'd die from embarrassment. 


Anyways, I voted for the A-20


----------



## davparlr (Apr 7, 2018)

I voted for the short wing B-26B, not the long wing B-26C.

I am a big fan of the A-20, which was about as fast as the Zero, and cruised at a speed where the Zero was starting to have control heaviness problems. If I had to fly one of these planes in this period, and not the Mosquito, it would be the A-20.

The B-25 was a great work horse, good at many things and a true war hero.

But I gotta vote for the B-26. In my opinion, it is under appreciated. It was 30 mph faster than the B-25, 27 mph faster in cruise (which meant less exposure to enemy defenses). It carried slightly less load a shorter distance than the B-25. But it had a demonstrable ability to penetrate tough defensive situations, including battle of Midway where three of four were able to get to weapon release points against the main fleet (none were successful. Bad torpedoes? Bad training? Too many alligators to concentrate on weapon delivery? All of the above?) The Japanese did report that the B-26s were blazingly fast and difficult to shoot down. In additional, they did have a good survivability reputation in the ETO. Early bad reputation was created due to normal developmental issues (weak nose gear) and, IMO, lack of understanding by the AAF of training pilots for high speed, high performance aircraft. An issue they, and Navy, would have to address in only a few years. They should not have lengthened the wings but should have trained better. They lost over 30 mph between the B and the C, some probably due to other things (e.g. weight increase). Speed is life.

The Pe-2 is impressive and very Mosquito-like in speed, is very small with limited load carrying ability.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2018)

Best medium bomber apart from a Mosquito has to be...another Mosquito.

I'll get my coat!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2018)

davparlr said:


> I voted for the short wing B-26B, not the long wing B-26C.
> 
> I am a big fan of the A-20, which was about as fast as the Zero, and cruised at a speed where the Zero was starting to have control heaviness problems. If I had to fly one of these planes in this period, and not the Mosquito, it would be the A-20.
> 
> ...



Dave - Pe-2 was not comparable with Mossie with regard to the speed - 300-330 mph vs. 370-400. 
Early A-20s were capable for 340+ mph, while the early B-25s were at 315-320 mph, as fast as early B-26s.

The torpedo saga was a sad one for the US military in 1942, we can just wonder what would've been the results of B-26s attacking the Japanese with bombs during the battle of Midway, wave-top.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2018)

Capabilities are all over the place as we are comparing planes that weighed under 17,000lbs and planes that weighed over 36,000lbs.
Obviously the big/fat boys can carry much more ordnance much further than the little guys.

And planes like the Wellington had been shuffled off to night bomber, maritime duties unless almost complete air superiority had been achieved.

Basicly the 3 best contenders are the A-20, the B-25 and the B-26 depending on mission if you are flying in daylight.
The TU-2 is too much of an unknown. The first 80 aircraft used ASh-82 engines and weighed around 880lb more empty than later aircraft which used ASh-82FN engines. Actual operational radius, speeds and bomb loads are lower than "book" figures but that is true of many western aircraft. 
Many of the early service trial flights were around 310 miles (range or radius?) with 1000 to 2000kg bomb loads. Later, when th eplane was but back into production it was demanded that the plane be able to fly not less than 2000km with a 1000kg bomb load. The 1944 production planes may have been able to exceed this, I don't know.

The A-20, like most of the others, shows considerable variation in this 2 year time period. They start with 400 gallons of fuel, seven .30 cal guns and 2000lb of bombs and finish with 725 gallons of fuel, nine .50 cal guns and a possible 4000lbs of bombs (may require less fuel?), in any case pretty much anything over 2000lb requires under wing bomb racks. 

B-25s go from Early C & D (and early ones had a single .30 in the nose and no tail guns ) to the H showing up (at the factory) with the 75mm gun, eight forward firing .50s, the top turret moved forward, waist and tail guns installed. 

B-26s show a very large change in armament also although not quite so radical (no 75mm cannon 

Early A-20s are disliked in the pacific due to short range.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 7, 2018)

Obviously, there's also a lot of influence by the tactical use: putting the Mosquito into a mass formation, as done with B-17s, would not work, nor is it likely unescorted B-25s would do well against a dense, well-managed air defense system, like that over Germany.

Or, to put it another way: how would the Fairey Battle do over the Somme in 1917?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2018)

None of the medium bombers are going to substitute for the B-17/B-24 in daylight. 
In large part because they don't fly high enough. The lower you fly the more time the AA guns have to shoot ( mitigated somewhat by the higher speed of the mediums?) but more importantly the lesser flight times make the AA fire more accurate and decrease the error of the mechanical time fuses. 2% of 15 seconds or 2% of 20 seconds? 
And none of the early ones are quite quick enough to use speed to get away from fighters (perhaps the A-20 but it doesn't have the fuel to keep it up for long) and they don't have the gun power to even attempt long running fights (or the ammo unless you run the weight up which forces the altitude down)


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The TU-2 is too much of an unknown. The first 80 aircraft used ASh-82 engines and weighed around 880lb more empty than later aircraft which used ASh-82FN engines. Actual operational radius, speeds and bomb loads are lower than "book" figures but that is true of many western aircraft.
> Many of the early service trial flights were around 310 miles (range or radius?) with 1000 to 2000kg bomb loads. Later, when th eplane was but back into production it was demanded that the plane be able to fly not less than 2000km with a 1000kg bomb load. The 1944 production planes may have been able to exceed this, I don't know.
> ...



Shavrov notes 2020 km range for the early Tu-2 with M-82: link
I'm not sure that early Tu-2 were heavier any bit than the Tu-2S examples.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2018)

They were supposed to have changed some of the structure, reduced the number of instrument , Reduced the hydraulic piping four fold and some other methods. Made the aircraft easier to manufacture and service in some ways.


----------



## Glider (Apr 7, 2018)

My selection would be a Do 217 speed payload and range, but often overlooked.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2018)

Excellent choice, a very useful bomber indeed.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 7, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Dave - Pe-2 was not comparable with Mossie with regard to the speed - 300-330 mph vs. 370-400.
> Early A-20s were capable for 340+ mph, while the early B-25s were at 315-320 mph, as fast as early B-26s.
> 
> The torpedo saga was a sad one for the US military in 1942, we can just wonder what would've been the results of B-26s attacking the Japanese with bombs during the battle of Midway, wave-top.


As usual, you are correct on the B-25 and probably on the Pe-2 but both wikipedia and the book "Complete Encyclopedia on World Aircraft" state max airspeed of the Pe-2FT as 360 mph. The Russian say about 328 mph. They should know their own aircraft, so I believe you.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2018)

There were a few odd ball PE-2s that might have been able to hit 360mph, but they came late, were built in tiny numbers and used engines of rather dubious quality even for Russian engines. 
Klimov VK-107 - Wikipedia


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 7, 2018)

With bombers as with fighters one has to ask "which model?"
Tomo mentions that the early B-25s were as fast as the early B-26. This is true, but does not address the fact that the early B-25, B-25A and B-25B were not combat capable. The B-26 MA was right off the assembly line with self sealing fuel tanks, crew armor and a huge capacity for bombs. B-26s went into action April 6, 1942. Contemporary B-25Cs also debuted on this day, but were limited in range due to internal tankage of only 674 gallons. B-25Cs and Ds received upgrades through their production run so the later blocks were far more capable than the earlier blocks. B-26 MAs served from April '42 to January '44 with virtually no upgrades, save a few minor armament changes. B-26Bs on the other hand, saw dramatic changes from their operational debut at Midway, where they were not much different from the original B-26 MA, except for the addition of a revised tail with a twin .50 cal mount, to the introduction of the long wing B-10 and C versions with extended wing span, fuselage gun packs, and hydraulic tail guns.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Apr 8, 2018)

Shortround said "Early A-20s are disliked in the pacific due to short range." I suspect this dislike was at the operations level. From all I have read the pilots really liked the plane.
Here's a neat video on flying the A-20. Good rendition of multi-engine flying and emergency procedures. Interesting accommodations for observer pilots! 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlzSkd9HKEo_

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Apr 8, 2018)

With Donald Douglas, Jack Northrop, and Ed Heinemann on a design team, how could you not have a great aircraft!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 8, 2018)

Glider said:


> My selection would be a Do 217 speed payload and range, but often overlooked.


Might have required some special licensing deal though.


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Might have required some special licensing deal though.


Well the SAAF used the Ju86 so anything is possible


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 8, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Might have required some special licensing deal though.



There would be a massive performance loss when the roundels were painted on.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

Somewhere we had some information on the Do-217. It like many of these bombers, had tremendous changes in performance depending on load. 

The Germans, due to the short distances they sometimes operated over, sometimes listed some rather overweight conditions for their planes compared to the allies. 
For example some during 1940 smoe JU-88s operated with rocket assisted take-off which enabled them to get into the air with a sizeable bomb load and full (or nearly full ) fuel tanks. However ceiling and rate of climb were still both going to suck compared to a bomber that took off several thousand pounds lighter. 
Which performance specification due you use? The bomb load/distance one for the normal plane or the one blasted off the runway with rockets? 

I would note that the Americans are often just as bad. Performance for early (and that can mean E & F) B-17s is often quoted at an absurdly low weight compared to how they operated over Europe in 1942/43. 

Performance figures for the Early B-26 are given in the early manual at 26,734 lbs but that only covers 2000lbs worth of bombs and a very minimal amount of fuel. Plane grossed 28,706lbs with 2000lbs of bombs and just 465 gal of fuel. Max gross was over 33,000lbs.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Performance figures for the Early B-26 are given in the early manual at 26,734 lbs but that only covers 2000lbs worth of bombs and a very minimal amount of fuel. Plane grossed 28,706lbs with 2000lbs of bombs and just 465 gal of fuel. Max gross was over 33,000lbs.


Plus crew for the B-26 and B-25 is listed as 5 when operationally, it was usually 6 or 7. Operationally both American mediums had field modifications to add guns in nose and waist.
A-20, Baltimore, Maryland, Blenheim better classified as light bombers. Beaufort was a torpedo bomber


----------



## davparlr (Apr 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Performance figures for the Early B-26 are given in the early manual at 26,734 lbs but that only covers 2000lbs worth of bombs and a very minimal amount of fuel. Plane grossed 28,706lbs with 2000lbs of bombs and just 465 gal of fuel. Max gross was over 33,000lbs.




Even these early B-26s are impressive. For the attack on the Japanese fleet at Midway, four B-26s were armed with one 2000 lb really lousy torpedo each. Suzie Q serial number 40-1391, one of these bombers, was a baseline early B-26s which had serial numbers 40-1361 through 40-1561. I assume they all were. Flt test of one of these, 40-1361 show an absolute top speed at 14,250 ft was 326 mph which is the approximate top speed of a tested Zero at that altitude. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-26/B-26_40-1361_PHQ-M-19-1184-A.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf 
Accompanying these bombers was six TBF Avengers. To meet these 10 attackers, the Japanese had deployed over 30 fighters. Five Avengers were shot down while one was able to make it home, which makes me wonder if the Navy had the Avengers rather than the TBDs would the outcome of VT-8 been different? Of the four B-26s one was lost right away, Three had made it to weapon release point, one, after receiving devastating damage, tried to ram the Akagi island, which would have killed Nagumo. One escaped into the clouds and one, after flying down the deck of and strafing the Akagi, the pilot “then pushed his airspeed to outrun the Zeros that were pursuing him. They broke off the attack” (B-26s at Midway). There may be a question if this could be done. Given that the B-26 had approximately the same speed of the Zero, and that it was light, having flown 150 miles dragging an external torpedo, and then dropping it, it is not unreasonable for the Zeros to think it would take quite an effort to catch it. Or they may have thought it was no longer a threat and didn’t want to get too far away from the carriers. Both the B-26s made it home heavily damaged. Suzie-Q had over 500 puncture holes in it wrecking most of the subsystems and flattening the tires and disabling one landing gear. Most of the crew were injured. Both planes were scrapped. But, it is a testimony that these planes performed their mission, although no torpedoes from either squadron damaged the Japanese, and after brutal attacks by a large number of opposing forces of some the best trained pilots in the world, were able to bring their crews home. The Zeros were armed with two .30 caliber machine guns and two 20 mm cannon and while there was not much ammo for the cannon, they would surely have used it against these planes. They had to be tough birds. The B-26s did get one Zero, an Avenger got another. Another item of interest is that of comment that the B-26 had leak proof tanks.

The US Army leaves an unwelcome calling card with Admiral Nagumo

I compared these comments to what was written in “Shattered Sword” and it was reasonably close although the book was not as detailed.

If you read about the development of the type 91 Japanese aerial torpedo, compared to the American aerial torpedo, it will make you sick to think how many men died trying to deliver these horrible things. Some one should have went to jail. Won't even talk about the submarine torpedo comparison!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 9, 2018)

davparlr said:


> Even these early B-26s are impressive.
> ...
> Suzie-Q had over 500 puncture holes in it wrecking most of the subsystems and flattening the tires and disabling one landing gear.



Probably not every bomber in this poll could sustain such damage. Pe-2 could not definitely.
One more point for B-26.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 9, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Probably not every bomber in this poll could sustain such damage. Pe-2 could not definitely.
> One more point for B-26.


Both returning bombers were heavily damaged and, as I said, scrapped, yet were able to fly over 100 miles back to Midway!


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 9, 2018)

davparlr said:


> If you read about the development of the type 91 Japanese aerial torpedo, compared to the American aerial torpedo, it will make you sick to think how many men died trying to deliver these horrible things. Some one should have went to jail. Won't even talk about the submarine torpedo comparison!



Inadequate weapon testing certainly didn't end with USN torpedoes in WW2, although one would think that the lesson would not have been forgotten quite so soon.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 9, 2018)

Inadequacies in armament of the B-26 and B-26B used at Midway (namely the ineffectiveness of the .30 cal nose and waist guns, and the excess weight of the 1500 rpg for the tail guns of the B-26B) were addressed with a modification order in July for subsequent aircraft to upgrade all .30 caliber guns to .50 caliber, and the introduction of a fixed nose gun. This gave the B-26Bs deployed to North Africa a total of nine .50 caliber guns (one fixed, eight flexible). B-26s were being phased out of the Pacific theater as early as September 1942, when the 77th BS in Alaska, and the 69th BS in the South Pacific began receiving B-25s. The change over was all but complete in early '43. By mid 1943, only one squadron of the 22nd BG was still operating the type in New Guinea, all initial run B-26s. These were finally withdrawn from service in January 1944. The surviving B-26s from Alaska were repatriated and spent the rest of their days as training ships, but the surviving B-26s and B-26Bs in the South Pacific and Australia were scrapped.
Long wing B-26Bs and Cs began arriving in England in early 1943, and in North Africa around mid-year. Prior to that the short wing B-26Bs were hard pressed against the Germans in North Africa and the two early low level missions over Europe were disastrous. The long wing Marauders, flown in strength at medium altitudes, with adequate escort, from Mid '43 racked up an enviably low combat loss ratio. They were eclipsed by the introduction of the A-26 in late '44. The A-26 was a generation ahead, providing the performance that the Air Force had been seeking when it initially contracted for the B-26 and B-25.
The B-25 was a "good enough" plane that proved very adaptable to the conditions in the Pacific where its conversion to a low level strafer made it the scourge of the South Pacific. Costing about 2/3 the price of a B-26, it was easier to build, maintain and fly. Plus its roomy nose compartment proved accommodating to the various weapons packages devised for its strafer role.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2018)

why aren't the axis mediums represented?

possible contenders might be Ju88, Ju188, G4M, Z1007


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2018)

Not strictly in line with the thread parameters, because it didn't enter service until after 1943, but the JAAF Ki-67 I think is an interesting subject. It was designed in 1941, first flight December 1942. Seemingly carried a lighter offensive war load to the b-25, but unlike the B-25, where range dropped significantly when full load was carried, the 1102 kg warload specified for the "Peggy" was a typical bombload carried at ranges greatly exceeding those of the equivalent US twins. It was relatively fast when loaded, stressed for dive bombing could maintain a good rate of climb on a sustained basis. heavy defensive armament, armour, and had the range to hit US bases in the marianas from the home islands, which it did on several occasions. Strangely the Japanese only built 767 of the type, plus about 20 prototypes. it was manouverable enough to be developed into a high altitude bomber destroyer, in the form of the Ki109.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 10, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Not strictly in line with the thread parameters, because it didn't enter service until after 1943, but the JAAF Ki-67 I think is an interesting subject. It was designed in 1941, first flight December 1942. Seemingly carried a lighter offensive war load to the b-25, but unlike the B-25, where range dropped significantly when full load was carried, the 1102 kg warload specified for the "Peggy" was a typical bombload carried at ranges greatly exceeding those of the equivalent US twins. It was relatively fast when loaded, stressed for dive bombing could maintain a good rate of climb on a sustained basis. heavy defensive armament, armour, and had the range to hit US bases in the marianas from the home islands, which it did on several occasions. Strangely the Japanese only built 767 of the type, plus about 20 prototypes. it was manouverable enough to be developed into a high altitude bomber destroyer, in the form of the Ki109.


Always my second choice


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 10, 2018)

parsifal said:


> why aren't the axis mediums represented?
> 
> possible contenders might be Ju88, Ju188, G4M, Z1007


Possibly because the question was _Allied _medium bombers? Internet Rule 38-11.09 specifies that any German aircraft must _always _win "best of" polls for WWII aircraft.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2018)

Actually for the Allies the PE-2, Martin 167, Blenheim, Beaufort and Hudson could be deleted from the list. 
They are either light bombers or obsolete in 1942-43. Useful as they may be in some other roles or whatever their accomplishments in 1940-41. 
Hampden is iffy. 

By 1943 you better have 1600hp or better engines to be in the running. 

Ki-67 was a very good airplane but it didn't go into service until 1944.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2018)

The first 1000 bomber raid by the RAF was predominantly done with Wellingtons in May 1942 on Cologne. The Wellington was being phased out at the time but in terms of numbers in Europe it was the big player, in front line retirement it carried everything an air plane could be asked to carry.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Possibly because the question was _Allied _medium bombers? Internet Rule 38-11.09 specifies that any German aircraft must _always _win "best of" polls for WWII aircraft.


Groan.....I need to get out more......


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2018)

It was also used in the Med/Italy for considerably longer along the Martin 187/Baltimore.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It [Wellington] was also used in the Med/Italy for considerably longer along the Martin 187/Baltimore.


And the CBI!


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 11, 2018)

Glider said:


> My selection would be a Do 217 speed payload and range, but often overlooked.



Agreed, I recall reading about maritime patrol Do 217's having the speed to outrun interception attempts
by Beaufighters, & carrier-borne FAA Wildcats/Sea Hurricanes too.

( & the thread heading title does not specify 'Allied only', even if the sub-heading does, so yeah, its a tad ambiguous).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2018)

Thread title adjusted to match the poll.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 11, 2018)

Cheers Chief!

Perhaps Greg B would like to start a thread to run a comparo between B-26 & Do 217?

Interesting fact, Martin & the Dornier both (unusually for medium bombers) - featured 4-blade props.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Interesting fact, Martin & the Dornier both (unusually for medium bombers) - featured 4-blade props.



Not always the case for the 217.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Yes Wayne, of Do 217's only the more powerful DB 603 powered machines - had 4-blade props,
& yet the similarly powered - Do 335 - reverted back to 3 bladers.. anyone know why?

(I dunno, unless maybe - it was a gun syncro' matter?)


----------



## davparlr (Apr 12, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> Prior to that the short wing B-26Bs were hard pressed against the Germans in North Africa and the two early low level missions over Europe were disastrous. The long wing Marauders, flown in strength at medium altitudes, with adequate escort, from Mid '43 racked up an enviably low combat loss ratio.


This leaves the impression that the short wing B-26s were unsuccessful while the long wing versions were more so. I think this is misleading. On the first mission against Velsen, Netherlands, on 14 May, 1943, using short wing B-26s, the mission was a success as far as the B-26s were concerned. Bombs fell on target and all B-26s made it back to England, with one crashing on landing killing the pilot. Unfortunately, most of the time-delay bombs failed to explode or were easily disarmed by the Germans (one source said the delay was 30 minutes to give the Dutch workers time to escape). The second mission, on 17 May, 1943, was indeed a disaster for a couple of reasons. First, it was a re-attack only three days after the first attack and the Germans were then ready. A re-attack is always more dangerous. At Pearl Harbor, the Japanese lost 9 aircraft in the first attack, 20 in the second. Second, the mission was off preplanned course exposing the flight to intensive German anti-aircraft fire and extending their time over enemy controlled territory. A sad side note, 1st Lt Edward Norton was the pilot of one of the planes, his twin brother James, was his copilot. Both were killed.

ZZAirwar - 1943-05-17/17. B-26 41-18090 Norton North Sea off IJmuiden

I still believe the 30 mph top speed advantage, which makes catching and targeting more difficult, and the nearly 50 mph cruising speed advantage (cruising speed tends to be a variable), which significantly reduces exposure time over enemy territory, makes the short wing the smart wing and they needed to fix their training not their wing. The B-26 represented the future of higher wing loading and faster aircraft, AAF training was not ready. Wing loading at gross wt of the short wing B-26 was 45lb/sqft, the A-26 was 64lb/sqft, the B-29 was 77 lb/sqft. 



> The B-25 was a "good enough" plane that proved very adaptable to the conditions in the Pacific where its conversion to a low level strafer made it the scourge of the South Pacific. Costing about 2/3 the price of a B-26, it was easier to build, maintain and fly. Plus its roomy nose compartment proved accommodating to the various weapons packages devised for its strafer role.


All valid arguments for a great plane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2018)

Part of the problem with the B-26 is that it's "good" performance only comes at a rather low gross weight (much like many German Bombers).
The very early short wing jobs had the best performance but with rather limited bomb load/ range and defensive armament.On the early ones the bomb load and range could both be increased considerably but only at the cost of performance. 
The very early ones were defended by three .50 cal guns and two .30s although this may have changed in the field. 











Unfortunately, every time they "improved" the wing (made it longer or tilted it) they promptly increased the Gross weight and negated any low speed improvement in take-off/handling. ALthough landing may have gotten easier. 

Please note that the A-26 used double slotted fowler flaps (first plane to do so) so that it's landing characteristics and indeed it's low speed characteristics (whacking big vertical stabilizer) were in no way proportional to it's wing loading.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

The USAAF knew better than to employ B-25 'strafers' against the murderous flak in the ETO. 
Did the 9th AF ever deploy any A-series aircraft post D-day? Even P-38's were suffering prohibitive A2G losses.

& on the subject of the 9th AF, I vaguely recall a disasterous B-26 mission flown during the Ardennes/'bulge' fighting
around Xmas `44, when a strong LW response got through the P-47 escort & savaged the B-26 force.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> The USAAF knew better than to employ B-25 'strafers' against the murderous flak in the ETO.
> Did the 9th AF ever deploy any A-series aircraft post D-day? Even P-38's were suffering prohibitive A2G losses.
> .



I don't know about post D-Day but they were using B-25's to strafe German airfields and sink ships with skip-bombing attacks as late as April 1943 in the med, per Shores in MAW III.

Beaufighters and Hurricane IID's too, it's worth noting.

S


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Yeah, big difference between attacks in the wide wastes of the desert, or on extemporised sea logistics, 
& assaulting 'Festung Europa' the 'Atlantic Wall', or heavily armed flak ships - in large, slow aircraft.

Hurricanes suffered so heavily in anti-V1 A2G attacks before D-day - that they were withdrawn,
whereas the RAF still deemed them capable - against the Nippon forces in Burma.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually for the Allies the PE-2, Martin 167, Blenheim, Beaufort and Hudson could be deleted from the list.
> They are either light bombers or obsolete in 1942-43. Useful as they may be in some other roles or whatever their accomplishments in 1940-41.
> Hampden is iffy.



I'm sure some people would debate the definition of a medium bomber "to death" - the Soviets classified the B-25 as a "light bomber". Fortunately in the OP I specified what I meant, as:

" twin engine bombers which were produced in some numbers (at least a few hundred) and saw action in 1942 and 1943. And not the Mosquito because we already know that is the best."

You have a very specific idea of what a bomber is for, but bombers had a lot of different missions. Including for example destroying tanks, blowing up artillery positions and sinking ships - not just bombing factories or bridges or rail yards or setting cities on fire. Whether a given bomber is obsolete is irrelevant, I'm simply referring to which aircraft were in use.

Of course earlier types carried lighter bomb loads. But the weight of the bomb load isn't the main criteria, it's effectively managing to damage the target. A Ju-87 carried a much lighter bomb load than a Wellington but I guarantee they destroyed a lot more tanks and ships.



> By 1943 you better have 1600hp or better engines to be in the running.



That's your criteria, not mine.

You only _need_ that kind of horsepower in a very heavy aircraft. A B-25H was only making 272 mph with two 1,700 hp engines but an early Pe- 2 managed ~340 mph (or better) with 1,210 hp engines. I know they put larger engines in them later of course.

I'm interested less in opinions or stats and more in concrete things like mission to loss rate, the number of targets actually destroyed, operational limitations like effective range, and overall effect on the battlefield. I know the Soviets tracked mission too loss rates for all the aircraft they used, which was most allied aircraft, anyone have those numbers handy?

The B-25 was clearly effective in a maritime role especially in the Pacific, I'm not sure how effective they were in tactical or operational role against land targets particularly in Europe and the Med. Not saying they weren't - they were in fairly heavy use so I'm sure they had value, I'm just interested in how that compares with other types.

As for the B-26, I'd like to see where it played a substantial role on the battlefield in 1942 or 1943. Can someone cite some examples? Ships sunk, tanks destroyed, aircraft destroyed on the ground that kind of thing?

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Yeah, big difference between attacks in the wide wastes of the desert, or on extemporised sea logistics,
> & assaulting 'Festung Europa' the 'Atlantic Wall', or heavily armed flak ships - in large, slow aircraft.



But this thread is about 1942-1943 specifically. If they hadn't already won the battles like El Alemein in the Med and Midway / Coral Sea in the Pacific and so on, D-Day wouldn't have happened. If the Soviets hadn't won at Stalingrad, the Germans may have already beaten them by June 1944.

I'm talking about the aircraft used in these key pivot points of the war. Not the end or the downslope.



> Hurricanes suffered so heavily in anti-V1 A2G attacks before D-day - that they were withdrawn,
> whereas the RAF still deemed them capable - against the Nippon forces in Burma.



I think Hurricanes actually took heavy losses in Burma to Ki-43 etc.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> The USAAF knew better than to employ B-25 'strafers' against the murderous flak in the ETO.



Did the USAAF even operate B-25s in the ETO (ie, from Britain)?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 12, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Did the USAAF even operate B-25s in the ETO (ie, from Britain)?


Not according to Wiki, the RAF received 900 though.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 12, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Did the USAAF even operate B-25s in the ETO (ie, from Britain)?



They did plenty from Italy, including targets deep into Germany, occupied France, Yugoslavia etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> They did plenty from Italy, including targets deep into Germany, occupied France, Yugoslavia etc.


Gotta laugh at wiki, I just clicked on "Europe" but there is another section for "Middle East and Italy" which also describes operations in Austria The Balkans and Aegean 20 squadrons in total.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> They did plenty from Italy, including targets deep into Germany, occupied France, Yugoslavia etc.


Catch-22 is set in a B-25 squadron in Italy!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2018)

I have doubts that the flak defences in NA were any lighter than in NW Europe. Overall, the numbers might be fewer, though the numbers of flak formations (flak divisions) were greater in the MTO than in NW Europe 9trouble is composition of a flak div was variable). Just from memory (read that as "I should check") there were 11 flak divs in 1942, not including the "Dads army" home based Reich Defences within Germany itself. From memory there were 2 flak divs in NA in 1942 and just one in western Europe. The majority of flak defences in the NA TO were concentrated about high value targets like airfields and ports. Same in the ETO, but there were many more potential targets in the ETO, so less concentration of defences per target in that TO.

Valid only in the 1942-3 period. things changed after the defeats in NA and Sicily.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of the problem with the B-26 is that it's "good" performance only comes at a rather low gross weight (much like many German Bombers).
> The very early short wing jobs had the best performance but with rather limited bomb load/ range and defensive armament.On the early ones the bomb load and range could both be increased considerably but only at the cost of performance.
> The very early ones were defended by three .50 cal guns and two .30s although this may have changed in the field.
> View attachment 489434
> ...


The early B-26s entered combat with a crew of seven, a .30 cal in the nose, 3 .30 cals in the waist (left, right and tunnel), a twin .50 top turret, and a .50 in the tail. A single 250 gallon tank could be mounted in the left front bomb bay, increasing fuel load to 1212 gallons. These were originally unprotected steel tanks, though self sealing ones became available later. The 22nd began fitting .50 cals in the waist with sighting windows to improve visibility starting in June '42. Other field mods included a fixed .50 cal in the nose (on one aircraft) or extra sockets for .30 cals in the nose cone to cover the sides. (Guns were rarely mounted due to interference with the bombardier's primary job of dropping bombs.) Some aircraft had the flexible .30 cal in the nose exchanged for a .50 cal, But photo evidence shows that even into late '43 many still had the original .30 cal. The 28th Group in Alaska reduced the crew to four or five and deleted the manual guns due to a lack of aerial opposition. They specialized in torpedo and skip bombing, but the Aleutian weather limited operations. At least one was converted to strafer configuration with a pair of 20mm cannon and a pair of .50 cals poking through the nose cone, so the potential was there.
The 69th and 70th Bomb Squadrons used the very earliest B-26Bs off the production line, from Midway to Feb 1943. These aircraft differed from the B-26s in having a bit more armor, the modified tail for a pair of manual .50 cals and plumbing for up to four 250 gallon bomb bay tanks. These two squadrons also modified their aircraft, the 69th deleting the .30 cal nose gun and adding a fixed and a flexible .50 cal, and .50s at the waist positions. This occurred after Midway, but before being committed to the Solomons. The 70th upgraded the nose and waist guns to .50 cal, and added sockets for .30s in the nose cone sides. They also moved the ammo cans for the tail guns closer to the tail and reduced the ammo for them to 400 rpg. The 70th was the first B-26 unit to be issued package guns in October 1942.
B-26s were flying unescorted daylight missions to Rabaul from April to May 1942. Usually no more than 3-6 aircraft per mission. They were very tough to catch. B-25s could not get there (except photo recon) until improved models became available in late 1943, with fighter escort. After May B-26s were limited to attacking Japanese bases on the Northern New Guinea coast and supporting the fighting on the Kokoda Trail. A few missions were flown out of Darwin to attack Timor in late 1942. The 22nd BG lost 28 aircraft to enemy action between April 1942 and Janaury 1943, Seven of these were lost on the ground to bombing or strafing at Port Moresby. Six were lost to fighters.
To give a picture of the different operational environment between 1942 and the second half of 1943 when only the 19th BS was flying the B-26, the entire 22nd BG managed 841 combat sorties between April 6, 1942 and January 9, 1943. These involved flying from bases in Australia to Port Moresby to refuel followed by a strike against Rabaul, Lea/Salamaua, or Buna. Then a return flight to Port Moresby, followed by a flight back to Oz. Three days for a single mission. From July '43, to 9 January 1944, the 19th BS, based at Port Moresby, and Dobadura, and with the benefit of fighter cover, racked up over 500 combat sorties, losing only one plane to enemy action. 
I have not seen similar stats for the B-25s with the 3rd BG or the 38th BG that were operating at the same time as the B-26s of the 22nd BG, but would love to compare them.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I have doubts that the flak defences in NA were any lighter than in NW Europe. Overall, the numbers might be fewer, though the numbers of flak formations (flak divisions) were greater in the MTO than in NW Europe 9trouble is composition of a flak div was variable). Just from memory (read that as "I should check") there were 11 flak divs in 1942, not including the "Dads army" home based Reich Defences within Germany itself. From memory there were 2 flak divs in NA in 1942 and just one in western Europe. The majority of flak defences in the NA TO were concentrated about high value targets like airfields and ports. Same in the ETO, but there were many more potential targets in the ETO, so less concentration of defences per target in that TO.
> 
> Valid only in the 1942-3 period. things changed after the defeats in NA and Sicily.



AFAIR, among Rommel's regular whinges to Kesselring was a paucity of flak support.
The fluid front situation complicated matters, along with logistic difficulties.

Attacking the 'Atlantic Wall', even from 1942 - was a much more fraught deal..

The RAF thought that the new, fast, Lockheed Ventura - powered by the big R-2800's was worth trying
in a daylight raid on Dutch targets, but it turned out to be a virtual aerial 'Charge of the Light Brigade'
effort - with gongs as big as VC's duly handed out to the poor bloody Kiwis involved.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2018)

Medium bombers did have a lot of missions but you seem to be emphasizing the ground attack mission in direct support of the battlefield.


Schweik said:


> I'm sure some people would debate the definition of a medium bomber "to death" - the Soviets classified the B-25 as a "light bomber". Fortunately in the OP I specified what I meant, as:
> 
> " twin engine bombers which were produced in some numbers (at least a few hundred) and saw action in 1942 and 1943. And not the Mosquito because we already know that is the best."
> 
> ...



Well you also asked for the _BEST _and lightweight, obsolete aircraft are hardly in the running for "best". 
A lot of good work was done at great cost to the Crews of Blenheims in this time period for instance, that hardly means the Blenheim was one of the best bombers of those two years. It was used because it had to be, the other planes had not showed up in sufficient quantity. 
Blenheims had been used for anti-shipping missions for years but four 250lbs or two 500lbs hardly qualifies as ideal armament for a twin engine, 3 man crew aircraft against ships. 







> That's your criteria, not mine.
> 
> You only _need_ that kind of horsepower in a very heavy aircraft. A B-25H was only making 272 mph with two 1,700 hp engines but an early Pe- 2 managed ~340 mph (or better) with 1,210 hp engines. I know they put larger engines in them later of course.



Few B-25Hs made into combat during this period? Most showed up in 1944. Earlir B-25s were quite capable of doing about 284mph and the very early ones could hit 300mph. 

Service PE-2s were lucky they could hit 330mph. They had 3 different upper rear gun positions which did affect speed. The first one was pretty much enclosed and mounted a 7.62mm machine gun. The 2nd used a 12.7mm machine gun but was open to the elements at the rear. SInce this gunner was also the navigator it made working conditions less than ideal. The 3rd also used a 12.7mm gun but was enclosed and offered a wider field of fire, in large part due to the aerodynamic balance used. However the shape was less than ideal from the drag standpoint. Speeds for some of the early 1942 models had fallen as low as 310mph due to poor construction. 
PE-2s as used by the Russians would have been near flops trying to do missions the British and American bombers did. In part due to poor equipment. Late 1941 production saw 1 plane in 3 fitted with a radio compass, later production did away with the radio compass completely for bombers. The Recon version of the PE-2 got them. PE-2s strafed with one 12.7 and one 7.62 machine guns. We have already mentioned the bomb load and the range. It doens't matter if the plane can do 330mph if it can't reach the target area and return. 



> I'm interested less in opinions or stats and more in concrete things like mission to loss rate, the number of targets actually destroyed, operational limitations like effective range, and overall effect on the battlefield. I know the Soviets tracked mission too loss rates for all the aircraft they used, which was most allied aircraft, anyone have those numbers handy?


While mission to loss rate might be able to be found some of the other stuff is very hard to dig out, especially for Russian aircraft. Claims against ground targets are even less reliable that claims against aircraft. See Typhoon claims against tanks using rockets for insance. 
Getting effective range when using external ordinance is also a difficult thing. 



> The B-25 was clearly effective in a maritime role especially in the Pacific, I'm not sure how effective they were in tactical or operational role against land targets particularly in Europe and the Med. Not saying they weren't - they were in fairly heavy use so I'm sure they had value, I'm just interested in how that compares with other types.


B-25s started in North Africa with one Group (four squadrons) In Aug/Sept 1942 and did valuable service before-during- and after El Alamein.By winter spring there were four bomb groups (each with 4 squadrons?) 
DUring the summer of 1943 they began to deploy some locally modified gun ships and during the Fall of 1943 (Aug 10th through Dec 31st) 183 additional gunships were modified at Sidi Ahmed, work continued into 1944. 
SOme of the aircraft had been modified before leaving the states and others were modified as they were turned into gun ships. The lower turret was removed, waist hatches were cut into the fuselage with a gun out each side and tail position was installed with a single .50 cal.
Depending on model the gun ships had either 5 or six .50 cal guns in the glass nose. 
These bombers had under wing racks that could hold up to four 250lb bombs under each wing and could still hold six 500lbs inside although I doubt they operated with such a load. 
B-25s (and some of the other big mediums) could hit targets in Sicily or Italy from bases in North Africa. AND hit them with decent payloads.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

A2G attacks by aircraft approaching the size of medium bombers on heavily defended targets became so costly,
that even the P-38 was ( & in significant numbers, more 'Drip Snots' - ah, sorry - 'Droop Snoots' built, than Whirlwinds!)
expensively modified to take up the defacto medium bomber role, in the ETO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Medium bombers did have a lot of missions but you seem to be emphasizing the ground attack mission in direct support of the battlefield.



Well, there was a lot of that in 1942 - 1943. I was interested in the key turning points of the war like I said.

Med - Malta, El Alamein, Sicily, Sardania etc. - securing the supply lines for the UK
Pacific - Coral Sea, Midway, Milne Bay / Darwin, Solomons etc. - securing the "Pacific flank" of the US
Soviet Union - Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, Kursk etc. - saving Russia from annihilation / collapse

In those campaigns and battles, both *Tactical *and *Operational *bombing were important, i.e ground attack vs. tanks and artillery on the one hand (or sinking ships), and attack vs. communications like rail yards and supply depots on the other. This is mostly what medium bombers did.

Conversely, *Strategic* bombing had not become that effective by 1943, with the possible exception of the Ploesti raid but that was done by heavy (B-24) bombers (even though they could have done it with Mosquitos )



> Well you also asked for the _BEST _and lightweight, obsolete aircraft are hardly in the running for "best". The Blenheim ...



best doesn't necessarily mean the best design, I mean the most effective on the battlefield. Admittedly I never thought the Blenheim was in the running but I included it because it was there and somebody might surprise me.



> Service PE-2s were lucky they could hit 330mph. They had 3 different upper rear gun positions which did affect speed. (snip) PE-2s as used by the Russians would have been near flops trying to do missions the British and American bombers did. (snip) We have already mentioned the bomb load and the range. It doens't matter if the plane can do 330mph if it can't reach the target area and return.



As you noted, they did have some Pe 2s / 3s with suitable navigation kit. It was not unusual even with RAF bombers flying from England to have a pathfinder for longer ranged missions. This was also common with the bombers in the Med - they used to use Venturas for this sometimes. I agree the Pe 2 was not heavily armed with offensive guns, but it wasn't a strafer, clearly there is more than one way to destroy a target. One of the interesting things about the Pe 2 was that it was stressed for dive-bombing and had dive brakes, probably only shallow dives (45 degrees like the Ju 88) but this did probably make it a more accurate bomber than the A-20, B-25 or B-26. The B-25 and A-20s made up for this by using innovative skip-bombing tactics I think developed in the Pacific but also used in the Med. A-20s could also carry torpedoes which is how the Soviets used them to a large extent up in the Baltic and (I think) in the Black Sea.. they could also use parafrags against airbases and so on.

But against ground targets, dive bombing is I think the most effective approach, that is why the Luftwaffe kept using Ju 87s for so long beyond the obvious expiration date of the design.

As for how Pe 2s would have fared in the Med or Pacific, I don't think you actually know any more than i do. The best we can do is make an educated guess, but I think they had some advantages.



> While mission to loss rate might be able to be found some of the other stuff is very hard to dig out, especially for Russian aircraft. Claims against ground targets are even less reliable that claims against aircraft. See Typhoon claims against tanks using rockets for insance.
> Getting effective range when using external ordinance is also a difficult thing.



Yes but now days we can compare German (and Japanese, Italian etc.) records to the claims, and get some idea of effectiveness. I'm interested in the sortie / loss ratios from the Soviets if anyone knows where that is.



> B-25s started in North Africa with one Group (four squadrons) In Aug/Sept 1942 and did valuable service



I would tend to agree from what I've read in MAW so far - the B-25 raids in early 1943 seem to have done some significant damage against Axis shipping and destroyed a lot of enemy aircraft on the ground. They also didn't seem to take very heavy losses, though that is likely in large part due to heavy and effective protection from Spitfires and USAAF P-40F.

The real standout in those records though for maritime bombing and interdiction is the Beaufighter.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2018)

Try substituting, as much as possible, one aircraft for another.

Going back to the PE-2 it has a range in most sources of around 750-800 miles, at 80% of max speed ? According to one source the early ones had 287 US gallons of fuel and later ones got up to 392 gallons by enlarging the fuselage tank and adding extra tanks in the outer wings. The recon versions often carried drop tanks.
It suited Russian needs, especially as their fighters made lousy fighter bombers/close support aircraft.
However it was hardly a "medium" bomber being short of range, bombload and defensive armament.

The "Mediums" could perform a variety of roles and if dive bombing tanks wasn't one of them, then so be it. They could still attack supply dumps, roads/truck convoys, railroads, ports, ships at sea, air fields and other targets in addition to some strategic targets. Even without gun ship noses the later B-25C & Ds had two fixed .50s in the nose and one flexible. 

The Hudson, Blenheim, Maryland and Beaufort just couldn't deliver the payloads the bigger bombers could. Weren't fast enough and didn't really have up to date defensive armament. The Big mediums were hardly invulnerable but a pair of .50s in a power turret beats whatever the others had. 
The Ventura was speedy low down but the early ones had a rather restricted bomb load.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Please note that the A-26 used double slotted fowler flaps (first plane to do so) so that it's landing characteristics and indeed it's low speed characteristics (whacking big vertical stabilizer) were in no way proportional to it's wing loading.


As usual, you are correct. The A-26 did not have as fast a landing speed as wing loading indicated, but the A-26B did have a landing speed of 100 mph, just 3 mph less than the B-26B. The B-25B landed at 90 mph, only 13 mph slower than the B-26B. I am a bit jaded, having trained in the AF in the 70s where ALL AF student pilots trained in the T-38 and learned how to fly in an aircraft that took 10k ft to do a loop and landed at around 160 mph, so I don’t think 10 mph is significant, certainly not enough to make bigger wings. Also, as I have said before, change was in the air. In this time frame the, in addition to the A-26, the B-29 was in flight test and landing at 100 mph, The P-80 was close to first flight and landing at 104+ mph, the F-84 was soon to be on the drawing board and would be flying in couple of years with a landing speed of 129+ mph, and the B-47, which was in the concept stage and would fly within 5 years, had a landing speed of 207 mph. Fast planes require smaller wings. In addition, since lift is function of speed squared, if you want to lift more off the runway, don’t build bigger wings, build faster planes. Faster planes usually need faster landing speeds. So, give me the extra speed of the short wings and I’ll put up with the extra 13 mph on landing but I think 103 on landing would hohum.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2018)

Well, somethings are proportional going from 100 to 110 ia 10%. Going from say 80 to 100mph is a 25% increase. 
Also remember that a lot of the accidents were from engine outs on take-off and the A-26 crossed over the B-26 here, a lot depended on how each plane was loaded but the minimum single engine control speed for the A-26 wasn't much different than the B-26.
Runways were growing length rather rapidly too so what was a tight squeeze for landing and take-off on a 1941 runway might have plenty of room on a 1944 runway (obviously not all runways were the same but the average length sure went up).


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

Most twins of WW2 were pretty lethal ( some still are) in an 'engine out' event - while flying 'low & slow'.

See the F7F, Grumman had to add significant area to the tail, to ensure control authority, 
& even then, the USN strictly limited its carrier clearance profile.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, somethings are proportional going from 100 to 110 ia 10%. Going from say 80 to 100mph is a 25% increase.


I thought about this and pondered it somewhat but I remembered my pilot training days, some 48 years ago, and the changes we went through. For the first couple of months we trained in the T-41 (Cessna 172) (mainly to weed out the incompetent or those prone to air sickness), which had a landing speed of 70-80 mph, then we transition into the T-37 with an approach speed of 100-132 mph, after about four months we transitioned into the T-38 which has an approach speed of up to 200 mph for pattern flying (heavy fuel load)(178 mph minimum). We had very good ground training and excellent flight training. I don't remember any particular difficulties in any of the transitions. I was in the top 25% of my class but I don't remember too many having trouble with the T-38 and most graduated that made it to the T-38. So I still feel that with adequate training, the higher landing speeds should have been no problem.


> Also remember that a lot of the accidents were from engine outs on take-off and the A-26 crossed over the B-26 here, a lot depended on how each plane was loaded but the minimum single engine control speed for the A-26 wasn't much different than the B-26.


This, I think, is a reasonable comment. I suspect the workload of a prop plane is much higher than a jet and general marginal power and asymmetric thrust, along with high torque would cause rough situations. I flew C-141s which were overpowered and engine out approaches were no sweat although you had to be on the rudder at go-around. Now an early KC-135 driver might have a different comment (we had the same power on three engines as they had on four (with water injection) and grossed out at about the same weight).


----------



## Schweik (Apr 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Try substituting, as much as possible, one aircraft for another.



They are all different. An A-20 is a lot like a Pe-2, but a B-25 is not really like a Ju 88 or a Mosquito or a G4M. They all had different capabilities, different strengths and weaknesses, but I would definitely call them all medium bombers personally.

You can of course quibble over the definition of a "light bomber" vs. a "medium bomber" until the end of time, but as I pointed out previously, the same aircraft was often attributed both terms - the B-25 was classified as a "light bomber" by the Soviets. The definitions are not exact and are in fact to some extent subjective. At the risk of repetition, I explained my criteria for this thread in the OP (and by the list of aircraft that I included). It's true for example that the Blenheim carried a small bomb load by 1943 standards, but it was still being used in the role of a medium bomber in 1942 without a doubt, and when it was first deployed, a "light" bomber was something more like a Fairey Battle or a Stuka.

In reality, most twin-engined bombers in WW2 carried a fairly small bomb load if they were expected to operate at any kind of reasonable range.



> Going back to the PE-2 it has a range in most sources of around 750-800 miles, at 80% of max speed ? According to one source the early ones had 287 US gallons of fuel and later ones got up to 392 gallons by enlarging the fuselage tank and adding extra tanks in the outer wings. The recon versions often carried drop tanks.
> It suited Russian needs, *especially as their fighters made lousy fighter bombers/close support aircraft. *



I don't know what you would base that statement on - by 1942 all Russian fighters had 20mm cannons or better (and by 1943 some had 37 or 45mm cannon) and they were carrying rockets back to the I-153 biplanes. And of course they also carried bombs. They tended to be highly maneuverable and structurally solid. So I would say they were quite good fighter-bombers actually.

Whether you want to call it, the Pe-2 was clearly an effective twin engined bomber. And the Soviets found it more useful than the B-25, which was too slow for the Russian front and took prohibitive losses, requiring them to shift it to using it mostly for night bombing.



> However it was hardly a "medium" bomber being short of range, bombload and defensive armament.



Ok, lets compare some stats:

///------------------------------ A-20C /--------/ Pe -2 ///
Speed------------------------- 330 mph /// 340 mph
Cruise speed---------------- 256 mph /// 272 mph
Climb--------------------------
Range with bombs -------- 745 miles /// 721 miles
Ferry Range----------------- 2300 m ///
Bomb load at that range- 1,000 lbs /// 1,323 lbs (internal)
Max Bomb load ----------- 4,000 lbs /// 3,520 lbs
Rockets? ------------------- No /// Yes
Defensive guns ----------- 3 x .30 cal /// 1 x 12.7mm, 2 x 7.62 mm
Turrets ---------------------- No /// 1Turret, 2 manual mounts
Offensive guns ------------ 4 x .30 cal /// 1 x 12.7mm, 1x 7.62 mm
Stressed for Dive bomb-- No /// Yes
Acrobatic -------------------- No /// Yes
Torpedoes ------------------- Yes /// No

To me it looks like the only real difference is the Pe -2 can dive bomb while the A-20 can't, but the A-20 can carry torpedoes while the Pe-2 can't.

Whether you consider these light or medium, they are clearly near-equivalent, while performing somewhat different missions .



> The "Mediums" could perform a variety of roles and if dive bombing tanks wasn't one of them, then so be it. They could still attack supply dumps, roads/truck convoys, railroads, ports, ships at sea, air fields and other targets in addition to some strategic targets. Even without gun ship noses the later B-25C & Ds had two fixed .50s in the nose and one flexible.



Can you refresh my memory what Strategic bombing missions did B-25's perform in 1942 or 1943?

Even in those years, the B-25 was an effective aircraft, but it did have flaws. Lacked a tail gun for one thing, even though it had a lot of guns. Axis pilots very quickly figured this out and it became (almost literally) an Achilles heel.

Level bombing of Operational targets is one way to use a medium (or light) bomber, but there are other ways.



> The Hudson, Blenheim, Maryland and Beaufort just couldn't deliver the payloads the bigger bombers could. Weren't fast enough and didn't really have up to date defensive armament. The Big mediums were hardly invulnerable but a pair of .50s in a power turret beats whatever the others had.
> The Ventura was speedy low down but the early ones had a rather restricted bomb load.



You seem to be assuming that the Anglo-American approach was the only valid one. Lets reassess that. I would describe the following criteria as being important:

*Accuracy*
A lot of people here seem to think bomb load is the only thing that matters, but I disagree. The Germans got more tactical and operational benefit from their Stuka than they did any of their medium bombers, because the Stuka was so accurate. That is why they were still using it to drop bombs on tanks all the way through 1943. The allies basically switched over to fighter-bombers for most Tactical and Operational roles. Accurate bombing from altitude turned out to largely be a wartime myth - accurate bombing tended to be done at low altitude by aircraft with good agility and / or high speed. Prerferably both - like a Mosquito.

*Survivability*
The loss rate of a bomber was also of huge importance. Even in naval combat, attrition mattered, and even if your bombers were able to hit their target, you needed most of them to be able to make it back to base. There were of course, three schools of thought on this, the firepower school and the speed school and the high altitude school. Since high altitude bombing turned out to not really work very well in real world conditions, it came down to firepower vs. speed. Firepower had some merits, but against planes like a Fw 190 with four 20mm cannon,.let alone a heavy fighter armed with high caliber cannons or rockets, it basically proved to be useless. Ultimately (and this was becoming apparent by 1943) speed is life, and that is certainly something the Pe-2 had.

*Versatility*
Another key value was versatiltiy. This is something that most of the best American and Russian bombers had in their favor. It was certainly the saving grace of the B-25. But Russian aircraft tended to get a lot of field modifications and add-ons as well, though perhaps not as much - one key thing they did though was adding rockets to almost all of their fighters and fast bombers very early on. Versatility could be the key to survival, such as by adding guns (up-gunning the Pe-2 to the 12.7mm turret helped a lot, as did adding multiple extra .50 cals to the nose of the B-25 to make it into a strafer) or by developing new attack methods (like skip-bombing for B-25s in the Pacific).

I think what made an aircraft effective was it's ability to accomplish it's mission. Getting into semantic debates about what qualifies as a light or medium bomber is kind of pointless, the real issue is which aircraft could perform it's mission best.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2018)

I would be rather leary of Soviet definitions. How much was motivated by propaganda I don't know.
Definitions did change with time but for the British the Blenheim was always a light bomber and the Mosquito at least to some point in 1944 was a light bomber and any squadron using either one (as bombers) were called light bomber squadrons. In 1944 a list of RAF bomber squadrons has the lend lease A-20s in light bomber squadrons and the B-25s are in medium bomber squadrons as are the few squadrons still equipped with Wellingtons (although one Wellington squadron is a torpedo bomber squadron). 

Russian fighters were lousy fighter bombers because they carried light armament and light bomb loads. There is no escaping that. the V-12 powered fighters had as single 20mm cannon, the 37mm and 45mm cannon get a lot of ink/bandwidth but total production numbers? The Russian 20mm cannon was also a bit limited in power. It sure wasn't the best 20mm at piercing armor and it carried about 1/2 the explosive that the Hispano did. Ammo carried was little on the light side too. 
Hurricane was certainly obsolete as a fighter but for ground attack it could carry twice the bomb load of a Russian fighter (the Russians top out at two 220lb bombs unless you get the Yak with bomb bay behind the pilot) and 120-140 rounds of 20mm ammo don't come close to the Hurricanes 360 rounds of 20mm and the Hurricane carried the least amount of 20mm ammo per gun of any common Allied fighter using the 20mm gun. 
Russians usually had two 12.7mm machine guns with 220-250 rounds per gun. Basically you need two Russian fighters to carry the same ordnance as one Western fighter. 
The Russian rockets are a real hoot. The entire RS-82 rocket weighed 15lbs, that includes everything from the nose fuse to the propellent and tail fins. Actual explosive in the warhead was 360 grams, less than a 75mm artillery shell or 81 mm mortar. 
The British 3in rocket used a 60lb warhead with 12 lbs of explosive (5400 grams), it actually used 11 lbs of propellent. 

So yes, the Russian fighters made poor fighter bombers in that you needed to use a lot of them to get the same effect the Americans and British could get with much smaller numbers. 


Schweik said:


> Ok, lets compare some stats:


Ok lets bu how about we use the right numbers. 

///------------------------------ A-20C /--------/ Pe -2 ///
Speed------------------------- 340*+* mph /// 325 mph
Cruise speed---------------- 253 mph /// 260 mph........For the A-20B it could cruise at 253mph at 12,000ft using 1900rpm in auto lean for a range of 740 miles on 500 gallons of gas. You could run an A-20 at just over 300mph using max continuous power but the range really dropped. 
Climb--------------------------
Range with bombs -------- see above/// 721 miles
Ferry Range----------------- 2300 m ///
Bomb load at that range- 745miles with 1000lbs////
Max Bomb load ? 2000lb internal /// 1320lbs internal, 2200lbs external
Rockets? No /// Yes
Defensive guns ----------- 3 x .30 cal /// 1 x 12.7mm, 2 x 7.62 mm*
Turrets ---------------------- No /// 1Turret, 2 manual mounts*
Offensive guns ------------ 4 x .30 cal /// 1 x 12.7mm, 1x 7.62 mm
Stressed for Dive bomb-- No /// Yes
Acrobatic -------------------- No /// Yes
Torpedoes ------------------- Yes /// No[/QUOTE]

* armament for the PE-2 is screwed up. It started with two 7.62s one behind the pilot and one out the bottom with the radio operator. The came replacing the 7.62 out the bottom with a 12.7 (with limited ammo), then came replacing the gun behind the cockpit with an OPEN 12.7mm mount. at some point they added the 7.62 to the radio operator firing out the side (He/she already was manning the 12.7) that could be switched form side to side to side or held in the arms and fired out a top hatch. The "turret" only showed later and was "powered" by the gunners arms/upper body (and a wind vane). 

Please note the A-20G started coming off the production lines in March of 1943 although the two gun turret did not show up for quite a while. 

Hundreds of B-25s had tail guns added after leaving the factory, some in a modification center in the US and some in the field, I beleive that has already been mentioned. 

The Stuka was bit over rated and you also have to consider what was the Russian scale of issue of AA guns. I would note that the Germans didn't try using Stukas very much in the west in 1943. Too many fighters and British/American AA guns were popping up all over the place.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 16, 2018)

davparlr said:


> Shortround said "Early A-20s are disliked in the pacific due to short range." I suspect this dislike was at the operations level. From all I have read the pilots really liked the plane.
> Here's a neat video on flying the A-20. Good rendition of multi-engine flying and emergency procedures. Interesting accommodations for observer pilots!
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlzSkd9HKEo_



The DB-7/A-20 has always been one of my favorite bombers and from everything I've read, I would agree with your take on the pilot's feelings. Perhaps the range could have been longer but the aircraft was fast and nimble for an early war bomber and gave as well as any could hope to everywhere she was used. 

Thank you for the video. I enjoyed watching it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

@ SR 6: actually, I think you'll find the Hurricane carried more 20mm ammo - than most early war - Spitfires did..


S
 Schweik
, "The Germans got more tactical & operational benefit from Stukas,
than they did from any of their mediums..."

Ah, no...

Check Poltava, in USSR, Bari in Italy, & the destructive raids on Allied airbases in Corsica, by the Kampfgruppen,
& I'm pretty sure, Stukas didn't tote anti-shipping missiles, either..

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> @ SR 6: actually, I think you'll find the Hurricane carried more 20mm ammo - than most early war - Spitfires did..



True, but the Spits, once they got belt feeds had 120rpg not 90RPG Like the Hurricane so they had 240 rounds and not 360. Granted the Hurricane got rid of it's ammo faster. Twice as many shells per firing pass. 
The other major fighter bomber of the years in question (1942-43) was the P-40 Warhawk. The Tomahawks wearing out. The P-40 had the famous six .50s and while not as destructive as 20mm cannon that is not a bad strafing armament as proved by may solid nosed A-20s and B-25/26 with the package guns. Many P-40s could carry a single 500lb under the fuselage and light bombs under the wings. a single 100lb or three 40lb under each wing. Later P-40s could carry more and field modifications allowed for two 250lb bombs instead of the single 500lb. 
at this point in the war the P-38s and P-47s weren't being used that often for ground attack. Some yes but more often they were flying top cover for the ground attack planes. 
My point was that the Russians, because of low powered engines in their fighters (mainly the M-105) had fighters with less armament than the western nations and so needed light bombers (Il-2s and PE-2s) to make up the difference. I am not saying the PE-2 didn't do a lot of good work, just that it didn't have the range and bomb load to do what the Western "mediums" did. The Western Mediums may not have been able to dive bomb but the Western nations had other aircraft for attacking point targets that were less vulnerable to flak.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would be rather leary of Soviet definitions. How much was motivated by propaganda I don't know.



No, you clearly don't, but that doesn't seem to stop you from assuming that Soviet sources are invalid. At the risk of stating the obvious, allow me to point out that _all _sides in WW2, especially the Germans by the way, engaged in Propaganda. But the records which have emerged on sites like the one I linked, are from translations of internal Soviet records and interviews with Russian pilots after the end of the Cold War. They are as valid as any other equivalent documentary evidence and to dismiss them out hand is to intentionally limit your understanding of the history, pure and simple.

The terms "light" and "medium" bomber were not scientific, objective terms but were obviously subjective terms of convenience for bureaucratic offices, and were redefined on an ongoing basis. What qualified as a 'light bomber' in 1940, or 1942, or 1943, or 1944 was different. The later model Mosquito carried a larger bomb load than a B-25 so I don't know what criteria would define the former as a 'light' bomber and the latter as a 'medium', unless it was a reference to what altitude they were flying at..



> Russian fighters were lousy fighter bombers because they carried light armament and light bomb loads. There is no escaping that. the V-12 powered fighters had as single 20mm cannon, the 37mm and 45mm cannon get a lot of ink/bandwidth but total production numbers? The Russian 20mm cannon was also a bit limited in power. It sure wasn't the best 20mm at piercing armor and it carried about 1/2 the explosive that the Hispano did. Ammo carried was little on the light side too.



Any 20mm cannon, even if you think it's "a bit limited in power" Soviet type, hits harder than a machine gun, and more than hard enough to knock out most vehicles on the battlefront. Even heavy tanks can be disabled (blown off wheels and tracks, damaged engines etc.) by 20mm cannon hits, but more importantly the support vehicles, artillery, AA guns, AT guns, armored cars, halftracks, trucks, carts, and so on and so forth are literally torn to pieces in seconds by a few 20mm cannon shells. I don't know exactly how many 23mm, 37mm or 45mm cannon armed aircraft they actually got into the field and I don't think you do either (maybe somebody else knows and can post), but I know it was more than just a handful. And we know how effective a couple of 40mm or 37mm AT guns were on a Hurricane or a Stuka don't we? Even when they werne't made in the tens of thousands.



> Hurricane was certainly obsolete as a fighter



Yes it certainly was, but you are missing a fundamental (and obvious) point about Soviet V-12 fighters, the nose-mounted guns (particularly the spinner-mounted cannon) were more accurate than wing-mounted guns. So you don't need as many of them. I think this is pretty well understood when it came to Me 109s for example. Successful military designs are not all about firepower or the number of guns. The accuracy of the guns matter, just like the accuracy of the bombing. There is more than one way to skin a cat.



> The Russian rockets are a real hoot. The entire RS-82 rocket weighed 15lbs, ... Actual explosive in the warhead was 360 grams, less than a 75mm artillery shell or 81 mm mortar.



I don't know if you have ever seen an 81mm mortar shell go off but it's more than enough to kill people, destroy trucks, disable guns and so on. And if say, 8 of them (the normal load on a Soviet fighter) hit a tank, it's a fairly safe bet the tank is going to suffer some serious damage as well. The Soviets were using rockets on a large scale long before the Anglo-Americans were, and the latter quickly realized how effective rockets could be. Also, as I'm sure you are well aware, the RS-82 was not the only rocket the Soviets used on their fighters and ground attack aircraft. They also used the RS-132 which had more than double the size warhead of the RS-82 (and was tested against Pz IVs which it was able to destroy), the RBS-82 and RBS-132 (AP warheads), the M-8 (RS_82 with double warhead size), the M-13 (10.8 lb warhead) etc..



> So yes, the Russian fighters made poor fighter bombers in that you needed to use a lot of them to get the same effect the Americans and British could get with much smaller numbers.



The objective measure of whether they made good or bad fighter bombers was not based on the size of their rockets (size of ordinance in general seems to be a theme with you) but on how many enemy ground targets they could destroy.

*Soviet fighters in 1942-43*

Were much faster and more maneuverable than say, a Hurricane

Had 20mm cannon 

Had more _accurate _nose-mounted guns, including the 20mm cannon, 12.7mm mg, and fast-firing 7.62mm mg

Had rockets going back to 1938 (including 132mm rockets)
This means thousands of Russian fighters were going on G/A missions armed with rockets - which certainly had an impact by 1942

I.e. they destroyed a lot of German tanks, armored vehicles, unarmored vehicles, and ordinance



> Ok lets bu how about we use the right numbers.
> 
> ///------------------------------ A-20C /--------/ Pe -2 ///
> Speed------------------------- 340*+* mph /// 325 mph



What is your source for this? Are you saying that the top speed for any variant of the Pe-2 is 325 mph? Any variant by the end of 1943?



> The Stuka was bit over rated and you also have to consider what was the Russian scale of issue of AA guns. I would note that the Germans didn't try using Stukas very much in the west in 1943. Too many fighters and British/American AA guns were popping up all over the place.



Au contraire mon frere - the Germans were using large numbers of Ju-87s to bomb allied troops in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy all the way through 1943. They were also using them extensively in Russia as I previously mentioned. I recommend having a look at Shores Mediterranean Air War Vol 3 and Black Cross Red Star to familiarize yourself with the data. If you like I can quote some specific examples.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 16, 2018)

Let me try an analogy on this constantly re-emphasized theme of heavier and heavier ordinance being the key to effectiveness.







in Vietnam, the US armed forces dropped 7 million tons of bombs
But these mostly did not hit the NVA or Vietcong targets. So they were not really militarily effective.They mostly destroyed trees, oxen, and civilians.
Need I remind you, the US lost that war.
A B-52 can carry an incredible 70,000 lbs of bombs (normal bomb load in Vietnam was 84 x 500 lb bombs internally + 24 more on wing pylons for a still staggering 52,000 lbs)
An F-16 by contrast, typically carries "only" 4 Paveway laser-guided bombs, which depending on the type range from 500 to 2000 lbs each, or 8 Mark 83 (1000 lb) or 12 Mark 82 (500 lb) 'dumb' bombs. So a max 'typical' bomb load of ~ 8,000 lbs
Which do you think is a more effective bomber today, an F-16 or a B-52?

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> @ SR 6: actually, I think you'll find the Hurricane carried more 20mm ammo - than most early war - Spitfires did..
> 
> 
> S
> ...



I just read in Black Cross / Red Star that the Luftwaffe destroyed 40 Soviet tanks in one day in dive-bombing attacks by Ju-87s in 1942. That is the kind of day that wins battles, and I don't think they ever accomplished anything close to that with He 111 or Ju 88s.



> & I'm pretty sure, Stukas didn't tote anti-shipping missiles, either..



no but they sunk a lot of ships by dive bombing. And the Germans didn't make that many anti-shipping missiles, cool as they were (I think they made ~1,000 HS-293 right?) With a dive bomber you don't need an expensive, complex guided missile to hit the target, which is my point. That was the value of the Ju 87 in spite of it's many obvious flaws.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 16, 2018)

Just found this interesting excerpt on the Soviet use of the B-25. Even as a night-bomber they found it a little too vulnerable due to the 'achilles heel' tail gun problem. Apparently they added some kind of field-modified tail gun - I would love to see a photo of that because the tail section on the B-25 is so small it would be hard to get a guy in there. Anyway, evidently German night-fighter crews had figured out how to exploit the weakness with a sinister tactic:

“It was a beautiful aircraft”: The Soviet B-25s

_"Soviet aircrews quickly recognized the American bomber’s Achilles heel, and asked the North American aviation company to rectify the issue. As the early-model B-25s lacked a tail gunner, Luftwaffe pilots quickly learned the Mitchell’s blind spots, and German Bf-110 night fighter pilots developed a tactic in which they would follow a B-25 below the bomber until the Mitchell began its landing approach, upon which time the German fighter would attack. As Dudakov explained, the blind spot “enabled the German night fighter Bf-110 to seamlessly adapt to the bottom of the plane and follow it to the landing airfield, where the crew lost vigilance. [This tactic] killed several of IL-4s and B-25s.” A single tail gun was thus added to the Soviet B-25s in an attempt to cover the bomber’s blind spot, and starting in 1944, the VVS received B-25J models complete with two 12.77mm machine guns in the tail."_

So in other words, though they liked the B-25, they found it of somewhat limited practical use on the battlefield. Too slow for low altitude tactical bombing, and a bit too vulnerable even at night. They also found that it required too long of a runway so they couldn't use it from banged up forward fields. They liked the big bomb load, easy handling and navigation kit, and made use of it as a transport and a long range (mostly night) bomber.

Obviously none of this means that the B-25 wasn't an effective bomber, I certainly think it was in the Pacific and I would say in the Med as well. It's just that in spite of their best efforts the Russians found it difficult to adapt to their needs. Not impossible but difficult. This is in part due to their strong need for tactical air power and to their inability to provide escorts for all, or even most of their bombing missions. For this reason they actually preferred the A-20 (as well as the Pe-2) due to it's higher speed.

Not every plane does equally well in all Theaters, clearly. Which is the kind of thing that makes "multi-dimensional" analysis of different aircraft types interesting and fun, instead of evaluating them on just one or two criteria (like bomb load or number of defensive guns for example).

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> No, you clearly don't, but that doesn't seem to stop you from assuming that Soviet sources are invalid. At the risk of stating the obvious, allow me to point out that _all _sides in WW2, especially the Germans by the way, engaged in Propaganda. But the records which have emerged on sites like the one I linked, are from translations of internal Soviet records and interviews with Russian pilots after the end of the Cold War. They are as valid as any other equivalent documentary evidence and to dismiss them out hand is to intentionally limit your understanding of the history, pure and simple.



It would help a lot if you didn't paint things with a broad brush, heck you are using a floor roller at times. Have I discredited that source or claimed that it wasn't accurate? I merely said that how the Russians classified a lead lease bomber may be subject to question. Especially considering that the "light" B-25 went about 26% heavier than the IL-4 twin engine bomber which most people consider a "medium". Now perhaps the Russians also considered it a "light bomber" or perhaps they considered anything less than an a PE-8 a light bomber. Although the Russians assigned B-25s to several Regiments equipped with the 4 engine PE-8s to help bring up the numbers in 1944.






> Any 20mm cannon, even if you think it's "a bit limited in power" Soviet type, hits harder than a machine gun, and more than hard enough to knock out most vehicles on the battlefront. *Even heavy tanks can be disabled (blown off wheels and tracks, damaged engines etc.) by 20mm cannon hits*, but more importantly the support vehicles, artillery, AA guns, AT guns, armored cars, halftracks, trucks, carts, and so on and so forth are literally torn to pieces in seconds by a few 20mm cannon shells. I don't know exactly how many 23mm, 37mm or 45mm cannon armed aircraft they actually got into the field and I don't think you do either (maybe somebody else knows and can post), but I know it was more than just a handful. And we know how effective a couple of 40mm or 37mm AT guns were on a Hurricane or a Stuka don't we? Even when they werne't made in the tens of thousands.



Can we stop with the flights of fancy or "timmy the power gamer" crap? the BEST Russian 20mm shell carried 6.7 grams of HE. It would be extremely lucky to blow the wheel of a MK I let alone a heavy tank. For a reality check the British No 36 hand grenade had about 70 grams of explosives. Please note that German tank hunters wrapped 6 extra grenade bodies around one for 7 charges total of between 42-49 oz (1.2-1.39KG) of TNT and that had to be used in certain places on the tank. Russians used a thrown shaped charge Grenade the RPG-43





against tanks. 420 grams of HE.

Pardon me if I doubt the effectiveness of 6-7 grams of HE blowing wheels off heavy tanks. Apparently the Flyboys knew something the ground troops did not.





> Yes it certainly was, but you are missing a fundamental (and obvious) point about Soviet V-12 fighters, the nose-mounted guns (particularly the spinner-mounted cannon) were more accurate. So you don't need as many of them. I think this is pretty well understood when it came to Me 109s for example. Successful military designs are not all about firepower or the number of guns. The accuracy of the guns matter, just like the accuracy of the bombing. There is more than one way to skin a cat.



Ah yes, the old nose gun accuracy claim. It may work better against ground targets than in the air. Of course in a strafing attack you get a few seconds to aim/lineup and fire and then you have to pull out, so being able to deliver large amounts of projectiles to the target area in a few seconds time is an advantage.

Now the fact that the British 20mm cannon had higher muzzle velocity and a heavier/better shaped projectile that retained velocity better gets trumped by the "nose gun".





> I don't know if you have ever seen an 81mm mortar shell go off but it's more than enough to kill people, destroy trucks, disable guns and so on. And if say, *8 of them (the normal load on a Soviet fighter) hit a tank*, it's a fairly safe bet the tank is going to suffer some serious damage as well. The Soviets were using rockets on a large scale long before the Anglo-Americans were, and the latter quickly realized how effective rockets could be. Also, as I'm sure you are well aware, the RS-82 was not the only rocket the Soviets used on their fighters and ground attack aircraft. They also used the RS-132 had more than double the size warhead of the RS-82, the RBS-82 and RBS-132 (AP warheads), the M-8 (RS_82 with double warhead size), the M-13 (10.8 lb warhead) etc..



On the bolded part, the *only* way that eight rockets form one plane are going to hit one tank is if the plane crashes onto the tank with the rockets still attached.

From Wiki......" Early testing demonstrated that, when fired from 500 m (1,640 ft), a mere 1.1% of 186 fired RS-82 hit a single tank and 3.7% hit a column of tanks. RS-132 accuracy was even worse, with no hits scored in 134 firings during one test. Combat accuracy was even worse, since the rockets were typically fired from even greater distances." To get eight hits you need to fire 727 rockets or about 90 planes worth. Somehow I am not impressed. Putting bigger warheads on the same motor gets you a bigger bang on target (or in the target area) but a bigger warhead means a slower terminal speed and more arched trajectory making it even harder to hit point targets at long ranges. 

target effect, should they actually hit a tank, was poor in the case of the RS-82.





> The objective measure of whether they made good or bad fighter bombers was not based on the size of their rockets (size of ordinance in general seems to be a theme with you) but on how many enemy ground targets they could destroy.



Actually the metric is how many ground targets they could destroyed/neutralized in how many attempts/sorties. Needing to fly more missions to get the same results is poor performance and just counting the total number of targets destroyed/neutralized without knowing missions/sorties flown and ordnace expending actually tells us nothing.

*



Soviet fighters

Click to expand...

*


> Were faster and more maneuverable than say, a Hurricane
> 
> Had 20mm cannon long before Anglo-American fighters did
> Had more accurate nose-mounted guns, inculding the 20mm cannon, 12.7mm mg, and fast-firing 7.62mm mg
> ...


Speed is a bit less important when doing ground attack, there should be accompanying fighters in clean condition to engage enemy fighters while the planes tasked with ground attack do their work.
The 20mm showing up in Russian fighters long before Anglo-American fighters is a bit of stretch. While technically true the planes it showed up in were I-16s.
Limited run batches. The Prototype Yak flew in March of 1940 and about 400 were built by June 22nd 1941, but only 50 had been issued to service squadrons.
While several hundred Lagg-s had been built few were in the hands of service squadrons as numerous defects were being corrected after production and before issue. Spitfire Vs with cannon were flying in the late spring of 1941 although with drum feeds. Somewhere over the winter of 1940/41 170 Spitfire IIbs had been built with a drum feed cannon in each wing. The Hurricane IIc showed up in the fall of 1941 with cannon and by Sept of 1941 the Spit Vc with belt fed cannon was in production.
Yes Russian aircraft destroyed a lot of stuff but you are not coming up with anything that says what it took to do it. Blenheims, Battles and Lysanders managed to destroy stuff in France in 1940, they just took unsustainable losses doing it and accuracy ws not good, doesn't mean they didn't hit something at times.





> What is your source for this? Are you saying that the top speed for any variant of the Pe-2 is 325 mph? Any variant by the end of 1943?


Source is "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazano. Chart on page 169. The prototype PE-2 in 1940 was rated at 335.5 mph but no PE-2 in the next 5 columns goes over 329.3mph and some examples were as slow as 303.2mph. The PE-2B of 1943 is rated at 331mph but the 2B used a wing with a modified airfoil, the wing was larger in area and there were other differences, I don't know if it was a one of prototype or if there was a small number built. There were some very fast versions built in 1944 and 1945 but they used VK-107A engines and those were about as reliable as a nickel rocket.
and speaking of rockets again. the rails for ten RS-132s cost a speed reduction of 15-19mph, with rockets fitted the speed reduction was 22-28mph.
Comment in the book says the weight of fire of the ten rockets was equal to a salvo fired by a light cruiser which is typical of the ridiculous claims made for WW II aircraft rockets. The British being just as guilty. The total weight of 10 rockets is 230kg and even a 6 gun cruiser with the wimpiest 6in guns in the world can beat that. Even a 5 gun British left over from WW I comes close at 227kg.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Let me try an analogy on this constantly re-emphasized theme of heavier and heavier ordinance being the key to effectiveness.
> 
> View attachment 489978
> Which do you think is a more effective bomber today, an F-16 or a B-52?
> ...



If we are going to the absurd (and comparing the effectiveness of laser guided bombs and dumb iron bombs to judge effectiveness of the plane carrying the bombs is absurd). Let's go back to one of the grandaddy's of all ground attack aircraft.




two fuselage mounted machine guns for that all important accuracy, 4 light bombs (25pdrs) for dealing with tanks and hard points. Extreme maneuverability compared to WW II aircraft make aiming and bomb dropping easy and the 605lb of armoured fuselage help insure survivability. 
Yes, Gentlemen the Sopwith Salamander was almost impossible to improve upon but many nations spent decades trying

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

AFAIR, Soviet gunsight tech also ah, lagged.. behind Western standards, which is why VVS
doctrine was to bear in as close as possible, even to ramming proximity - whenever possible.

( Perhaps this was how they got 1/2 decent results - from the P-39's 'howitzer'..)

Edit: Addit: Stuka effectiveness in the MTO by 1943 was predicated on being able
to do surprise attacks on extemporised defence such as in the Dodecanese Is,
or against ships lacking coordinated flak.. but if/when Allied fighters showed up,
the Stukas were 'roughly handled' for sure, which is why they were replaced by
FW 190 JaBos, which at least had a 'fighting chance' in such situations.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> AFAIR, Soviet gunsight tech also ah, lagged.. behind Western standards, which is why VVS
> doctrine was to bear in as close as possible, even to ramming proximity - whenever possible.
> 
> ( Perhaps this was how they got 1/2 decent results - from the P-39's 'howitzer'..)
> ...



Stukas were taking significant losses in the Med by 1943 but they didn't stop using them, let alone replacing them with Fw 190s. They were still flying plenty of stuka missions by the end of Shores MAW vol III in April 1943. They did require an escort, and either MC 202 or Bf 109F would fly with them typically. Bf 109Es were being used the same way incidentally (as bombers) and also suffered maulings if they were caught without an escort.

if you need I can post some examples of Stuka missions in 1943.

S


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Actually the LW did see the Stuka 'writing on wall' & so when, in mid `43,
ADGB interception rates of even their fastest FW 190 JaBos (Achtung! Taifun!)
- which were mounting attacks over the English Channel - became too costly..
& those SKG units were re-directed - to the MTO..


----------



## Schweik (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Actually the LW did see the Stuka 'writing on wall' & so when, in mid `43,
> ADGB interception rates of even their fastest FW 190 JaBos (Achtung! Taifun!)
> - which were mounting attacks over the English Channel - became too costly..
> & those SKG units were re-directed - to the MTO..



Well yes, as you alluded, in 1943 newer British aircraft like the Typhoon and the Spit IX basically robbed the Germans of air superiority over the UK, and the Stuka could not operate in the West without air superiority. Over the UK the short range of most of those British fighters was not as much of an issue, thanks to radar and integrated air defense and early warning, and a ubiquity of airfields - they could cover the whole island pretty well.

In the Med in 1943 airfields were much more widely dispersed, early warning nets were crude or non-existant, and battlefields were sometimes beyond the range of Spitfires. The Luftwaffe could still achieve local air superiority temporarily, if at some cost. In Russia in 1942 German bombers and FBs did not always need to be escorted. By 1943 pressure was increasing but with an escort Stukas were still clearly useful.

Like I said, I don't particularly like the Stuka myself, I think they should have replaced it with a faster and more versatile aircraft - but after a long time of wondering _why_ they kept the Stuka in production for so long, reading day to day battle accounts gave me the answer - the Stuka could hit their targets, particularly tanks but also ships and artillery batteries and so on, so much more frequently than other bombers - or fighter bombers, that it must have been hard to give up. Stuka attacks were decisive in many tank battles particularly in Russia, but going back to the Battle of France.

They also didn't suffer the kind of losses you might expect, unlike in the Battle of Britain in the Med and Russian Front while they did bleed a steady attrition, they didn't just get wiped out in huge numbers typically. I attribute this to the high maneuverability and general toughness of the aircraft. In the hands of an experienced pilot (like that creep Rudel) they could survive surprisingly well. Quite often in MAW you see where the DAF claimed 8 or 10 Stukas but the Germans only actually lost 2 or 3, with another 3 or 4 returning to base damaged or crash-landing with moderate (but repairable) damage. They also seem not to have taken very heavy losses to flak though I'm at a loss to explain why.

In the Med the Stuka squadrons were quick to jettison bombs (even over their own troops sometimes) and flee if they saw fighters coming and had no available escort.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Can we stop with the flights of fancy or "timmy the power gamer" crap?



Timmy the power gamer? We don't even know each other. You wound me sir!



> the BEST Russian 20mm shell carried 6.7 grams of HE. It would be extremely lucky to blow the wheel of a MK I let alone a heavy tank.



Lets try to ground this in reality, the Russians had API ammo available for their 20mm guns (96 grams of solid steel @750 meters per second), and AP 20mm can punch right through any part of the armor of a Mk I or a Mk II, or any halftrack, armored car, self-propelled artillery gun and so forth, and regular 20mm HE can shred any truck, primary mover, etc. not to mention tearing apart the poor horses and horse-drawn carts which were the main transportation method of the _Heer_. This is in fact the main way that Tactical air attacks impacted ground forces, either in Russia or in the West - destroying the lighter and softer targets.

For the heavy tanks, the planes with the heavy guns were used - and as I already pointed out, the Russians also had 23mm, 37mm and 45mm guns in their fighters for just that reason. Much as Western forces put 40mm guns in the Hurri IID or 75mm cannon in later model B-25s.

Now i don't know precisely how many joules of energy it takes to knock the wheel off of a Pz IV or a Panther, but I was in the military myself and I do know from personal experience that it's disappointingly easy to knock the track off of an armored vehicle. And a pain in the arse to put it back on. I also know that a 20mm AP round can punch through the top armor (or back engine grille) on a Pz IV or StuGG III, though it's not easy to hit that in a strafing attack.

The analogy of a grenade to a 20mm shell is ludicrous. Aircraft aren't tossing a single 20mm shell onto a tank. It's a shower of shells and solid AP bullets slamming into the target at 2,600 fps- even a supposedly inferior ShVAK was an automatic weapon shooting 800 rounds per minute/ 13 rounds per second. A two or 3 second burst from one of those can give you quite a headache.

An example of a similar auto-cannon firing for 6 seconds:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9E8_ZuESQ_




> Ah yes, the old nose gun accuracy claim.



We seem to be stuck in a quality vs. quantity debate. I'm not saying that quantity isn't helpful, I'm saying that quality helps too - and there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is why for example when they added guns to 'strafer' B-25s they put them in the nose and the fuselage rather than way out on the outer wings, since it was widely understood that widely spaced wing guns were less accurate. It's also one of the reasons why the Soviets removed the wing guns from the P-39s (even though they got them for free).



> From Wiki......" Early testing demonstrated that, when fired from 500 m (1,640 ft), a mere 1.1% of 186 fired RS-82 hit a single tank and 3.7% hit a column of tanks.



True - rocket accuracy wasn't great. *Ground attack accuracy of any kind was not great in WW2.* As you so bitterly pointed out, we are not talking about laser-guided bombs here. With rockets, we know this was also true with Typhoons and P-47s. Again - the_ size _of the rocket doesn't matter if you can't hit. But I don't think you are considering the actual math. Even though the Anglo-Americans also knew that rockets were not accurate, that didn't stop them from adding them to every aircraft that was flying ground attack missions, from Corsairs to Typhoons and Thunderbolts, Lightnings and Mustangs, as quick as they could sort it out. The Russians just sorted it out earlier.

But I don't think you are thinking through that math. Even if it's 1% accuracy (a rate which I believe got better with experience both for Typhoon pilots an LaGG-3 or I-16 pilots, but lets put that aside for a moment). Even assuming the worst, think about the math.

1% per rocket. 8 rockets per fighter per sortie. Lets say on the front the VVS has ~500 fighters available that can carry rockets, and we know that in some cases they flew 2 or 3 sorties per day. But the Luftwaffe intervenes, many Russian fighters have to fly escort or CAP. Weather and flak and poor navigation intervene. So lets say 100 sorties on a typical a day with 8 rockets each, that means - 800 rockets fired in a day. That means 80 hits per day. Lets say very conservatively one quarter of those hits cause serious damage. 20 damaged vehicles per day. 560 per month if the weather holds - lets say the weather is bad so there are only 15 flying days per month. That's still 300 damaged or disabled vehicles per month - just from fighters, not Sturmoviks or "light" but very accurate dive-bombers like the Pe-2. That is a serious problem if you are the Germans.

And that is just in a typical month. If there is a major battle going on, the Soviets can easily manage 300 sorties a day or more. As in fact they did for example at Kursk.



> Speed is a bit less important when doing ground attack, there should be accompanying fighters in clean condition to engage enemy fighters while the planes tasked with ground attack do their work.



Should be but often there wasn't. Sometimes there are no fighters available for escort, sometimes they get involved in combat and fly out of sight, sometimes they get shot down. Speed is very important in _surviving_ ground attack.



> Yes Russian aircraft destroyed a lot of stuff but you are not coming up with anything that says what it took to do it. Blenheims, Battles and Lysanders managed to destroy stuff in France in 1940, they just took unsustainable losses doing it and accuracy ws not good, doesn't mean they didn't hit something at times.



I think I can prove, if necessary (though it really should not be necessary) that Russian fighters destroyed vastly, vastly more tanks than all the Blenheims, Battles and Lysanders combined. Plus I'll throw in all the French bombers too gratis.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Lets try to ground this in reality, the Russians had API ammo available for their 20mm guns (96 grams of solid steel @750 meters per second), and AP 20mm can punch right through any part of the armor of a Mk I or a Mk II, or any halftrack, armored car, self-propelled artillery gun and so forth, and regular 20mm HE can shred any truck, primary mover, etc. not to mention tearing apart the poor horses and horse-drawn carts which were the main transportation method of the _Heer_. This is in fact the main way that Tactical air attacks impacted ground forces, either in Russia or in the West - destroying the lighter and softer targets.



The Russian 20mm was just not that good, yes it had AP ammo but the ammo had about 36,600 joules at the muzzle which is certainly better than German 20mm ammo, however the 20mm Hispano had about 47-49,000 joules depending on exact load and projectile. The Hispano retained velocity/energy better over distance. The Russian 20mm may not have been any better than the Russian 12.7mm machine gun (which was about 10% more powerful than the US .50cal using AP) 



> For the heavy tanks, the planes with the heavy guns were used - and as I already pointed out, the Russians also had 23mm, 37mm and 45mm guns in their fighters for just that reason. Much as Western forces put 40mm guns in the Hurri IID or 75mm cannon in later model B-25s.
> 
> Now i don't know precisely how many joules of energy it takes to knock the wheel off of a Pz IV or a Panther, but I was in the military myself and I do know from personal experience that it's disappointingly easy to knock the track off of an armored vehicle. And a pain in the arse to put it back on. I also know that a 20mm AP round can punch through the top armor on a Pz IV or StuGG III, though it's not easy to hit that in a strafing attack.



The 23mm WVa was rarely used on a single engine fighter. it was about 26kg heavier than the 20mm gun with a much larger breech section. 
Yes it was used in prototypes or small trial batches (russians tended to build dozens or even a hundred planes at a time for operational trials) 
I haven't looked at the Yaks yet but they built about 20 Lagg-3s with the 37mm Sh-37 gun (which weighed 200- 300kg, sources differ) and got them into action in early 1942, their next action was in Sept of 1942 when they attacked a formation of german bombers and shot 13 (claimed) for a loss of only 7 Laggs, the low rate of attrition for the Laggs was credited to the escorting Yak fighters. By Dec 1942 they were changing to the lighter (170kg) NS-37 gun that fired faster and allowed for ammo. 
I have no idea of the total production numbers. but only 240 of the Sh-37 gun were supposed to have been built including the ones on IL-2s. 
The use of light 20mm guns against tanks needs a good looking at, top armor on a MK IV was 10mm, if you are attacking in a 30 degree dive (30 degrees from horizontal) the armor is going to act about 3 times thicker than than at a 90 degree impact. This varies a bit with exact projectile and impact velocity but as the impact angle gets more acute the tendency to ricochet increases. Unless you are diving at over 30 degrees the chances of going through the top armor at pretty slim. 
American 75 mm was pretty lousy against tanks as the rate of fire was poor (2-3 shots per firing pass) with large changes in range between shots. 





> We seem to be stuck in a quality vs. quantity debate. I'm not saying that quantity isn't helpful, I'm saying that quality helps too - and their is more than one way to skin a cat. This is why for example when they added guns to 'strafer' B-25s they put them in the nose and the fuselage rather than way out on the outer wings, since it was widely understood that widely spaced wing guns were less accurate. It's also one of the reasons why the Soviets removed the wing guns from the P-39s (even though they got them for free).



Sometimes they put the guns in the fuselage because it was easier or sometimes because other 'stuff' like fuel tanks got in the way. I would note that the A-26 could be fitted with under wing gun pods although the ammunition was contained in the wing. 





> True - rocket accuracy wasn't great.........................
> 
> But I don't think you are thinking through that math. Even if it's 1% accuracy..................* think about the math.*
> 
> 1% per rocket. 8 rockets per fighter per sortie. Lets say on the front the VVS has ~500 fighters available that can carry rockets, and we know that in some cases they flew 2 or 3 sorties per day. But the Luftwaffe intervenes, many Russian fighters have to fly escort or CAP. Weather and flak and poor navigation intervene. So lets say 100 sorties on a typical a day with 8 rockets each, that means - 800 rockets fired in a day. That means 80 hits per day.



No. the math says *8* hits out of 800 fired not 80. 



> I think I can prove, if necessary (though it really should not be necessary) that Russian fighters destroyed vastly, vastly more tanks than all the Blenheims, Battles and Lysanders combined. Plus I'll throw in all the French bombers too gratis.



Well, I would hope that tens of thousands of russian fighter could destroy vastly more tanks (I will even through in soft vehicles) than 5-600 British bombers, ground attack aircraft. But the disparity in numbers used really points to the uselessness of just comparing the total number of targets destroyed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> No. the math says *8* hits out of 800 fired not 80.



My bad on the math, I was a little too hasty there - I still think 2 vehicles a day from the fighters alone is a big problem for the Germans. 

I'm also certain that the DAF would have loved to have had rocket capability on their fighters if it was available in 1942.

S


----------



## davparlr (Apr 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> No. the math says *8* hits out of 800 fired not 80.


 Looks like your having fun, Shortround!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> This is why for example when they added guns to 'strafer' B-25s they put them in the nose and the fuselage rather than way out on the outer wings, since it was widely understood that widely spaced wing guns were less accurate.



Wasn't that a case of convenience?

As in, there was a lot of space in the nose of the B-25 and it was relatively easy to mount gins in a modified nose. Wing guns, on the other hand, would require modification of the wings to fit the guns inside or hang gun pods, which probably werne't available either.

Note that the Beaufighter had 4 x 20mm near the centreline of the aircraft, but 6 0.303" mgs mounted in the wings - 4 on one side and 2 on the other.




Schweik said:


> It's also one of the reasons why the Soviets removed the wing guns from the P-39s (even though they got them for free).



Or was that to improve performance?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 17, 2018)

wuzak said:


> [P-39 wing guns]
> 
> Or was that to improve performance?



Weren't those 0.30 in machine guns? I've seen reports that the Soviet pilots thought those were useless.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2018)

The whole wing guns vs Fuselage guns has showed up in numerous threads with, sad to say, no real documentation. A few aces comments aside most of us are left guessing. I can certainly understand some fighters perhaps having problems with with wing flex, other fighters not so much.
Unfortunately many of these discussions get caught up in long range fire( without anybody actually say what long range is in yds/meters) and most pilots had no idea what ranges they were really shooting at. The British did a study of pilots firing at towed target sleeves ( and the study may have been fawed, I don't know) but nobody was shooting back and the only pressure was who bought first round at the pub that night. 
They were instructed to fire at 300yds. Ground observers and gun camera film analysis showed many of the pilots were opening fire at 800 to 1200 yds which of course makes a mockery of any reasonable cross over distance. Of course any fuselage mounted gun would be shooting dozens of feet below the target and considering the time of flight to 1000 yds is well over 3 times the time of flight to 300yds any attempt at deflection shooting is going to be a total failure. At those ranges tracers will tell you where you _should have been shooting *3 seconds ago!*_
Assuming your ammo even has tracers that last 1000yds.

If the pilot fires at anywhere near the appropriate range they shouldn't be that much of a problem. Take a P-47 with it's guns just over 12 ft apart. Set the guns to cross at 300yds and the bullets will be 8 ft apart at 100yds (maybe you can squeeze a small fighter between the bullet streams?) at 200 yds the bullet streams are 4 feet apart. Big deal. At 300 yds they are crossing, at 400yds back to 4 ft apart, at 500yds 8 ft and at 600yds back to the full 12 feet. If you are shooting at bombers, large trucks, railroad cars, barges, etc it doesn't amount to anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Wasn't that a case of convenience?
> 
> As in, there was a lot of space in the nose of the B-25 and it was relatively easy to mount gins in a modified nose. Wing guns, on the other hand, would require modification of the wings to fit the guns inside or hang gun pods, which probably werne't available either.



I don't think it was harder to mount gun-pods under the wings 






vs. along the side of the nose 











But if you did mount them on the wings, you would either have to put them outside of the prop arcs (and probably way out which equals a wider spread) or put a synchronizer on them which reduces the ROF. If outside like on the Beaufighter .... 



> Note that the Beaufighter had 4 x 20mm near the centreline of the aircraft, but 6 0.303" mgs mounted in the wings - 4 on one side and 2 on the other.



...the extra wide spread makes the effectiveness of the wing guns marginal



> Or was that to improve performance?



I think so. But the accuracy is a factor too - the Russians specifically preferred nose guns to wing guns. The only Russian fighters with wing guns (IIRC) were the I-16 and possibly some versions of the I-153. One of the reasons they preferred the P-39 to the P-40 was specifically nose guns only (once they took out the wing guns) vs. wing guns. It's also one of the reasons they didn't really like the Spitfire.

S


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> ...
> I think so. But the accuracy is a factor too - the Russians specifically preferred nose guns to wing guns. The only Russian fighters with wing guns (IIRC) were the I-16 and possibly some versions of the I-153. One of the reasons they preferred the P-39 to the P-40 was specifically nose guns only (once they took out the wing guns) vs. wing guns. It's also one of the reasons they didn't really like the Spitfire.
> ...



Any sources to back up all of these claims?


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Any sources to back up all of these claims?



yes various interviews with Russian aces on that lend-lease.ru site. This is news? I thought that was a fairly well-known fact. It would take me a while and a little effort but I could go through and pull excerpts from a few of them.

The German pilots also noted that they preferred the nose cannon (even the original light 15mm one) on the Bf 109F to the wing-cannon on the Bf 109E. This too is available from various interviews. 

S


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> yes various interviews with Russian aces on that lend-lease.ru site. This is news? I thought that was a fairly well-known fact. It would take me a while and a little effort but I could go through and pull excerpts from a few of them.
> 
> The German pilots also noted that they preferred the nose cannon (even the original light 15mm one) on the Bf 109F to the wing-cannon on the Bf 109E. This too is available from various interviews.
> 
> S



About the 109F with a single cannon - that was a thing of individual preference. Some people (Galland, Oesau) judged that move as a loss of firepower, Galland going as far as having two MG FFM cannons installed in his 109F. 
Soviets, apart from a handful of 4-cannon Hurricanes and 8-HMG P-47s received, never have had opportunity to fly a real performer with 4 cannons, or with 6-8 HMGs. So it is a thing of what one has more experience with, and that is a 'central battery'. I doubt that armament of two cannons, even if those were wing-mounted, was a thing that disqualified the Spitfires in Soviet eyes. The same Spitfires that Stalin was clamoring for.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2018)

Sometimes prejudice will trump actual testing (and if testing is not done?) 
Please note on the P-39 that the ammo for the under wing guns was held in the wing, pretty much where the .30 cal ammo went. Trying add an under wing pod to a P-40 or P-51 is going to be a lot harder or need a much bigger pod. 
Getting the guns and ammo out of the wing increased roll response (but not peak roll rate?) in addition to improving climb. 

It was usually no great trick to angle the guns slightly inward so all bullet streams would intersect at a give point. Often times it was NOT doctrine to do so (British especially had a number of different "patterns" the guns were aligned for so at least one gun would hit even if all the others missed.) 



at 300yds you only have to point a gun 15 feet out on the wing inwards by about 1 degree to get it to hit on the centerline, Please note on the P-39 that each wheel is 5'8'' from the center line so guns are how far out? 

Russians tried under wing gun pods on the Mig-3 but the change in performance meant that the planes with pods often could not keep formation with the planes without pods. The Mig 3 had one synchronized 12.7mm machine gun (not through the hub) and two 7.62mm machine guns so if any modern (post I-16) Russian fighter needed more guns it was the Mig-3. I don't know if there were operational problems (guns freezing at altitude). 

as far as ace's comments go, I once had a rifle coach I knew well make this comment about Gary Anderson who used to tilt/cant his rifle to one side when shooting (two time Olympic gold medal winner)




which was contrary to all accepted wisdom of the time. Many shooters started copying him.
This Coach I knew said " Did Gary Anderson win those gold medals _because _he tilted the rifle or _in spite_ of tilting the rifle?"
Without knowing _why _Gary Anderson tilted/canted the rifle we are left guessing. 

This coach had coached an NCAA national record setter, and number of kids who got NCAA scholarships. He didn't have dogma that he preached, He figured that since all shooters were not the same height, weight, build (arm length, neck length, etc) no one position/technique was the "best". He figured it was up to the shooter and coach working together to figure out what was best for each shooter. 

I will note that if you are going to cant the rifle you had better cant it _exactly_ the same each time  

People in many sports or endeavours will copy the equipment or _style_ of most successful without fully understanding the effects of the equipment or the reason for the _style_.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> About the 109F with a single cannon - that was a thing of individual preference. Some people (Galland, Oesau) judged that move as a loss of firepower, Galland going as far as having two MG FFM cannons installed in his 109F.



I think that is explainable by the targets - if you were dealing with 4 engined bombers or heavily armed Sturmoviks, yes more cannon are probably necessary and the gunpods are worth the sacrifice. If you are dealing with enemy fighters or light / medium bombers (i.e, in the Med / Africa), not so much.

Please note, I didn't say that nose guns were necessarily better across the board, I said they were widely believed to be more accurate which sounds similar but is not the same thing. I think nose guns were more accurate at comparatively short range specifically. I think they were used much less for deflection shooting (though there were notable exceptions - Marseille for example)

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, just as there between 20mm cannon in general vs. heavy machine guns.

From reading a lot of pilot interviews, I would say nose guns are better for close range and carefully aimed shots, large numbers of wing guns are better at long range and snap shots. The former can be much more precise, getting kills with as few as 2-3 carefully aimed shells, while the latter can be better at snap shots, head-on passes, and leading in wildly turning fights, and also at very long range. In MAW, Russell Browns desert warriors, and various Pacific Theater accounts there are several cases where P-40s, Wildcats, Hellcats, P-47s or P-51s got kills from very long range. Clive Caldwell shot down the famous experten Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt from 800 meters below, as witnessed by Hans Joachim Marseille among 3 other pilots. This is something you can do with multiple .50 cal macine guns but not so easily with a single nose-cannon.



> Soviets, apart from a handful of 4-cannon Hurricanes and 8-HMG P-47s received, never have had opportunity to fly a real performer with 4 cannons, or with 6-8 HMGs. So it is a thing of what one has more experience with, and that is a 'central battery'. I doubt that armament of two cannons, even if those were wing-mounted, was a thing that disqualified the Spitfires in Soviet eyes. The same Spitfires that Stalin was clamoring for.



Well they had Spitfires which could be configured I think for either 2 or 4 cannon, or at least, I know Spit V could be.

It's not a mystery what happened with Soviet spitfires. They used their ~150 Spit Vs in the Kuban region, basically until they were mostly all wiped out. They didn't do that well with them in spite of taking a fairly elaborate training and familiarization period like they did with the P39, though there could be a number of reasons why. Their ~1200 Spit IX from what I understand were mostly used for PVO, basically combat air patrol units, where their high altitude performance was valued since they could prevent attacks by higher flying medium bombers. The Germans did do some serious damage for example to aircraft factories early in the war so there certainly was a need. But the Russians didn't like them or get as much use out of them as you might think they would have.

They clearly liked the P-39 better and they got more kills (and had many ore aces and HSU recipients) with P39s and with their P-40s.

But by late 1943 in general they preferred their Yak and La 5 series most of all, with a few exceptions (some pilots did seem to prefer P39s). The Anglo American fighters were very important, critical even, during the period of mid- 1942 to mid -1943. But declined in importance after that.

S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'm sure some people would debate the definition of a medium bomber "to death" - the Soviets classified the B-25 as a "light bomber".
> 
> S



Definitions are always open to debate 
But let me make this small correction: Soviets did not classified B-25 as *light* bomber. Actually, it was mostly used in night/long range operations as replacement of Il-4. "Long" range - in VVS terminology, yes - definitions again.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Sometimes prejudice will trump actual testing (and if testing is not done?)
> Please note on the P-39 that the ammo for the under wing guns was held in the wing, pretty much where the .30 cal ammo went. Trying add an under wing pod to a P-40 or P-51 is going to be a lot harder or need a much bigger pod.


I don't think we were talking about adding gun pods to P40s or P51s, they already have multiple wing guns.



> Russians tried under wing gun pods on the Mig-3 but the change in performance meant that the planes with pods often could not keep formation with the planes without pods. The Mig 3 had one synchronized 12.7mm machine gun (not through the hub) and two 7.62mm machine guns so if any modern (post I-16)



True but the MiG 3 was already being phased out as a front-line fighter (relegated increasingly to PVO and the Far East) by 1942. By 1943 almost the entire Soviet arsenal (of Russian made planes) was armed with 20mm nose cannon (LaGG -3, La 5, Yak 1b, Yak 7, Yak 9). The P-39 of course had either 20mm or 37mm.



> as far as ace's comments go, I once had a rifle coach I knew well make this comment about Gary Anderson who used to tilt/cant his rifle to one side when shooting
> 
> People in many sports or endeavours will copy the equipment or _style_ of most successful without fully understanding the effects of the equipment or the reason for the _style_.



Interesting philosophical observation but I think you are probably aware in saying that nose guns aren't more accurate than wing guns you are taking an outlier position. Not only most pilots, but most Air Force staff seemed to recognize this was the case, particularly for widely spread (as opposed to closely grouped) guns. It's not just a matter of the convergence point (and therefore estimating range etc.) but it's just the fact that each gun shoots bullets outward in a cone, and those cones diverge more and more.

I think for an outlier position you should do a little more to support your claim.

I would concede though, certainly in part this also has to do with the culture and training of the pilots. And that is a complex can of worms.

EDIT Also... gyrostabilized gunsight (I think available in 1944?) clearly made a big difference.

S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> From Wiki......" Early testing demonstrated that, when fired from 500 m (1,640 ft), a mere 1.1% of 186 fired RS-82 hit a single tank and 3.7% hit a column of tanks. RS-132 accuracy was even worse, with no hits scored in 134 firings during one test. Combat accuracy was even worse, since the rockets were typically fired from even greater distances." To get eight hits you need to fire 727 rockets or about 90 planes worth. Somehow I am not impressed. Putting bigger warheads on the same motor gets you a bigger bang on target (or in the target area) but a bigger warhead means a slower terminal speed and more arched trajectory making it even harder to hit point targets at long ranges.
> target effect, should they actually hit a tank, was poor in the case of the RS-82.



I am sceptic about RS effectiveness as well, especially against armour. 
By the way this Wiki article, neither English nor Russian version, doesn't mention the aircraft. As far as I remember those tests were done with Il-2s flown by test pilots. We can assume that accuracy in combat conditions with less experienced pilots and (especially) fighters was worse.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> I am sceptic about RS effectiveness as well, especially against armour.
> By the way this Wiki article, neither English nor Russian version, doesn't mention the aircraft. As far as I remember those tests were done with Il-2s flown by test pilots. We can assume that accuracy in combat conditions with less experienced pilots and (especially) fighters was worse.




I found this old post on the Ubisoft forum, which gives a bit more detail on the data from the wikis:

RS-82 (High Explosive Rocket)

The RS-82 was Russia's best early rocket and could be found on many of her aircraft, such as the LaGG-3 pictured above. It was available for use by aircraft in 1937, and it was first used in combat against the Japanese on August 20, 1939, by an experimental fighter group engaged over Nomonhan. With five I-16 "Ratas" carrying 4 rockets each, the Russians claimed the rockets destroyed 2 Japanese aircraft, although this has been widely discredited. While the air-to-air effectiveness of the RS-82 was questionable, the psychological impact was not: Japanese intelligence concluded the Russians were equipping their aircraft with 76mm guns, which had many Japanese aircraft designers scratching their heads. 

Unlike the Katyusha, the RS-82 was not used during the Great Patriotic War until late 1941. This was because most of the Soviet air force was smashed during the German invasion, and because rockets were not sent to front line aviation units out of fear that the rockets would be captured. It wasn't until the German advance was slowed that major Russian rocket use began. The RS-82 had a high-explosive warhead and was good for destroying un-armored vehicles and small fortifications. *Another variant with a shaped charge armor piercing warhead was also developed, named the BRS-82, and could penetrate 65mm of armor *- but it had to impact at or near a 90 degree angle. The stats and weights of the two rockets are identical.

In a Russian study of rocket effectiveness vs. enemy armor, 182 rockets of the type RS-82 were fired at a stationary tank 500 meters away with only 7 hits, none of which caused any damage. *The next test moved the firing distance forward to 300 meters* and the target was a vehicle column. *Accuracy improved slightly, up to 3.7%,* but the only *damage observed were direct hits on light tanks and half-tracks*. Near misses of 1 meter or more did no damage to any armored or semi-armored vehicles.

RS-132 (High Explosive Rocket)
While the RS-82 was Russia's premier rocket early in the war, its power wasn't strong enough to knock out heavy fortifications and tanks. In 1942 the 132mm RS-132 rocket appeared, although it had been in existance since 1932 for experimental purposes, it wasn't available for regular use until after the war began. It was too heavy to be carried by many of the smaller fighter aircraft that could mount the RS-82, so this 132mm rocket was mostly carried by the IL-2 "Shturmovik" and other attack / bomber aircraft. 

The RS-132 came in three varieties: the standard high explosive (RS), high explosive fragmentation (ROFS), and a shaped charge armor piercing version (BRS). *The BRS-132 could penetrate 110mm - 160mm of armor*, but had the same problems as other HEAT weapons, with a narrow impact angle needed to work properly.

In the same Russian study mentioned above, 182 of the type RS-132 rockets were launched against a similar stationary target at 500 meters range. No rockets hit the target. Again the launch range was decreased and the target became a column of vehicles. Against this column, at 200 meters range and with 134 launches, only 2 rockets found targets, both of which were medium tanks and both of which were deemed out of action. The results of these tests proved to the Soviet high command that rockets were useless in attacks against tanks, and it encouraged the development of PTAB bomblet cases - which proved much more effective.

*Source: "Shturmovaiya aviaciya Krasnoy Armii". Petrov, Rastrenin. *

So here is my take-away from this, assuming it's correct (maybe Russian speakers on the forum can check the source:

65mm penetration HEAT warhead penetration could kill most light and quite a few medium tanks in 1942 and most of 1943 (i.e. with side hits).
110-160mm penetration HEAT warhead from the RS 132 could kill I think any tank in 1942 or 1943, and probably until the end of the war with side or rear hits.
Obviously rate of successful hits would be pretty low but with dozens or hundreds of sorties per day it would certainly add up.
Also not sure if RS 132 was carried by fighters, maybe just Il2s
The initial test at 500 meters range had poor results, but the 300 meter test was more successful. Anecdotally, Soviet fighter pilots, particularly I-153 pilots would shoot rockets from much closer than that. 

Maybe that is why they used I-153 so much for ground attack
S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2018)

I would be a bit more sympathetic to the fuselage gun theory *if *the main practitioners didn't immediately compromise the whole thing by using ammo of widely different ballistic properties out of the same guns let alone grouping guns of different calibers/ballistic properties in the nose and then claiming better accuracy. 

Which is more _accurate_, a pair of .50 cal guns 10 ft apart but set to cross at 300yds or one .50 cal and one .30cal one foot apart and trying to hit a target 300yds away? target is moving 440fps. Bullets don't arrive at the same time. 

The famous German quote is when they changed from a pair of guns in the wings with 55-60 rounds firing at about 530rpm (or less) to a gun through the prop with 200 rounds firing at 700rpm. The other change was the wing guns fired shells at 585m/s (normal shells but include tracer) to 700m/s (mine shell) while the through the prop gun fired shells with a 960m/s velocity (HE), making it much easier to hit with. 
Germans then changed to a gun firing heaver shells but at almost the same rate of fire, with lower velocity. Then they stuck a similar cannon under each wing to go bomber busting. Please note than a number of the 5 gun 109s wound up in North Africa and Russia and were not reserved for use against the 8th AIr Force only. 

Russians have almost the same problem. While at close range the 20mm is 70-100m/s slower than the 12.7mm the further from the muzzle you get the longer it takes for the 20mm shell to get there due to it's short, stubby shape compared to the 12,7mm projectiles. 

Machine guns do fire in cones but the cone _can _be much smaller than many people realize if the gun is properly set up and properly mounted. Please remember the earlier example. 1 degree is roughly 5 ft at 100yds (it isn't but this keeps the math simple) and 10 feet at 200yds. A good shooting gun rigidly mounted in a wing is going to have to have the wing flex/twist by one full degree to miss by 15 ft at 300 yds. I could be way wrong, but at what point (how much twist) do you have to have to get into aileron reversal? Forces from Aleron twist wing enough to wind up having the opposite effect? and please note that guns are not at the tips but are at pretty much mid span (Spitfire and few other excepted?).

Some countries deliberately set up their guns to shoot "loose" or large cones to increase dispersion but this was, again, to try to make up for poor marksmanship. 
Deliberately setting guns up to shoot shoot big cones and then pointing the cones in different directions _and then _blaming the results on "wing mounting" seems a bit disingenuous to me.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Some countries deliberately set up their guns to shoot "loose" or large cones to increase dispersion but this was, again, to try to make up for poor marksmanship.
> Deliberately setting guns up to shoot shoot big cones and then pointing the cones in different directions _and then _blaming the results on "wing mounting" seems a bit disingenuous to me.



Yeah I guess but who are you debating with? Armorers from 1942? You would need a time machine for that showdown. 

If you are arguing that wing guns _could have been_ more accurate than nose guns if they had done A,B,C etc., then my answer is "maybe?"

I do think that all things being equal, wings without guns perform a bit better than wings with guns. I can tell you that based on Shores MAW III, Bf 109G-6 took more losses in the Med than G-2 or F-4

S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I have no idea of the total production numbers. but only 240 of the Sh-37 gun were supposed to have been built including the ones on IL-2s.
> .



I think we can forget about Soviet 37mm cannon of any type as a "tank killer". 
_Sh-37(ShFK-37)_: 10 IL-2s, 75 flights. Pilots *claimed* as destroyed: 2 tanks, 4 aircraft on airfields, about 50 trucks, 1 ammo depot, 2 flak batteries (type unknown).
Ш-37 (ШФК-37) 37-мм авиационная пушка
_NS-37_ was better. But accuracy against ground targets during the tests was just 2.98%. Not much better then RS rockets discussed earlier. And no hits* at all* achieved in *57%* of test flights. Production of NS-37 equipped IL-2s lasted for just several months with around 1,000 a/c produced.
НС-37, Н-37 37-мм авиационная пушка


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2018)

> So here is my take-away from this, assuming it's correct (maybe Russian speakers on the forum can check the source:
> 
> 65mm penetration HEAT warhead penetration could kill most light and quite a few medium tanks in 1942 and most of 1943 (i.e. with side hits).
> 110-160mm penetration HEAT warhead from the RS 132 could kill I think any tank in 1942 or 1943, and probably until the end of the war with side or rear hits.
> ...




Thank you for that. 

Now as far as killing a tank goes. Just making a hole in the armor doesn't kill the tank. While extra, unexpected ventilation is always a bit disconcerting to the crew shaped charges always needed a bit of "overkill" in order to knock out the tank or kill, wound the crew.
AN AP projectile that penetrates an amour plate not only has itself but a large amount of the metal from the hole flying around inside the tank. even a projectile that gets stuck in the hole may cause some damage as illustrated by the desk top toy.





Shaped charges work a bit like a very high speed cutting torch, and the hole commonly gets smaller the deeper it goes. You may make a hole 65mm deep but the hole may only be a few millimeters across and the amount of hot metal and flame that penetrates the tank might not do significant damage. Against 30-40mm plate you get a lot more metal and hot gases blown into the tank and the chances of damage and casualties goes way up. 

You also have to have the right rockets on the plane. Shaped charge rockets make a nice bang but they usually have crappy fragmentation for taking out personal in the open or in concealment. So you load up with what you hope is the right rocket for the target that will be there when you arrive. 

Normal fighter installation was 6 rockets, not 8. 

Anecdotes are usually going to be from successful operations. People don't usually record "Ivan and Igor fired from 800 meters while dodging lots of tracer from ground guns but missed."


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I do think that all things being equal, wings without guns perform a bit better than wings with guns. I can tell you that based on Shores MAW III, Bf 109G-6 took more losses in the Med than G-2 or F-4


The 109 did perform better without the wingguns. But then a pair of 20mm guns with 135 rpg was a heavy load to hang on a 109, 215 kg 

I Believe the under guns started on the F-4s and not all G-6s had them either?


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Soviets, apart from a handful of 4-cannon Hurricanes and 8-HMG P-47s received, never have had opportunity to fly a real performer with 4 cannons, or with 6-8 HMGs. So it is a thing of what one has more experience with, and that is a 'central battery'. I doubt that armament of two cannons, even if those were wing-mounted, was a thing that disqualified the Spitfires in Soviet eyes. The same Spitfires that Stalin was clamoring for.



Was 4 cannon Hurricane a performer? 
My opinion is the same: experience did matter and Soviet pilots had too little of it outside of their domestic production. Memoirs of aviation designers and politicians mentioned many "central vs wing" debates at various levels up to Stalin's office. But they were theoretical and were based sometimes on little better than anecdotal evidence as newspaper articles about BoB.

By the way, P-47-D-10 was proclaimed by Soviet test pilot (experienced one and iconic figure, kind of Winkle Brown) Mark Gallay as: "_...not a fighter. Steady, good cockpit, comfortable but - not a fighter_". Different experience, different doctrine, tactics, etc.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you for that.
> 
> Now as far as killing a tank goes. Just making a hole in the armor doesn't kill the tank. While extra, unexpected ventilation is always a bit disconcerting to the crew shaped charges always needed a bit of "overkill" in order to knock out the tank or kill, wound the crew.
> AN AP projectile that penetrates an amour plate not only has itself but a large amount of the metal from the hole flying around inside the tank. (snip)
> Shaped charges work a bit like a very high speed cutting torch, and the hole commonly gets smaller the deeper it goes. You may make a hole 65mm deep but the hole may only be a few millimeters across and the amount of hot metal and flame that penetrates the tank might not do significant damage. Against 30-40mm plate you get a lot more metal and hot gases blown into the tank and the chances of damage and casualties goes way up.



Yes I'm aware of all that. Unfortunately for the tank crew, tanks were full of fuel, main gun ammo, machine gun ammo, various other flammable fluids and so on, which could often fairly easily be ignited or cooked off. Penetration certainly didn't guarantee a K/O (in my numerically flawed analysis I assumed 20% of hits might disable or destroy, though that is just a guess) but being hit by salvoes of rockets with 65mm penetration, or whatever the regular AP warhead could do, was bad news for a halftrack or truck, or even (I would suggest) a Pz II or Pz III, Marder etc. Most German armored vehicles in other words.



> You also have to have the right rockets on the plane. Shaped charge rockets make a nice bang but they usually have crappy fragmentation for taking out personal in the open or in concealment. So you load up with what you hope is the right rocket for the target that will be there when you arrive.



They were often sent out specifically to destroy tanks.



> Normal fighter installation was 6 rockets, not 8.








I am not sure that is the case - do you have some kind of source? It's hard to find much about standard practices in the VVS but you can find images of both 6 or 8 rockets on various fighter aircraft. I suspect it varied by squadron.



> Anecdotes are usually going to be from successful operations. People don't usually record "Ivan and Igor fired from 800 meters while dodging lots of tracer from ground guns but missed."



There are however day to day logs of actions, which are now increasingly compared to records from both sides such as in Black Cross / Red Star series and others. So we don't have to just speculate. We know in spite of how some people seem to think they never lost a battle, the Germans in fact did lose a very large number of armored vehicles in Russia.

S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 65mm penetration HEAT warhead penetration could kill most light and quite a few medium tanks in 1942 and most of 1943 (i.e. with side hits).
> 110-160mm penetration HEAT warhead from the RS 132 could kill I think any tank in 1942 or 1943, and probably until the end of the war with side or rear hits.
> Obviously rate of successful hits would be pretty low but with dozens or hundreds of sorties per day it would certainly add up.
> Also not sure if RS 132 was carried by fighters, maybe just Il2s
> ...



I tend to agree with everything but just to add to this:
"_110-160mm penetration HEAT warhead from the RS 132 could kill I think any tank in 1942 or 1943, and probably until the end of the war with side or rear hits._"
under the most favourable conditions as proper distance and angle of attack and very high qualification of the IL-2 pilot with nerves of steel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

Well, like an "old man veteran" of 22 years old who had survived say 3 months on the battlefield probably pretty good by then 

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

By the way, this is off topic but in some other thread we had been debating if it would have made sense for the Germans to switch to '5 Series' Italian fighters, which was dismissed on the basis that they were slower than Fw 190 and not as good. Just read this on the G.55 wiki:

"The Fiat G.56 was basically a Fiat G.55 with a larger German Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine. Two prototypes were built, flight tests starting in March 1944.[12] On 30 March, Commander Valentino Cus reached speeds of 690/700 km/h (430/440 mph).[19] Official maximum speed was 685 km/h (426 mph) and the aircraft was armed with three 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon, one firing through the propeller hub, the other two installed in the wings.[20] Performance was excellent, the aircraft proving superior to both the Bf 109K and Bf 109G and Fw 190A, outmaneuvering [3] all types in testing. Production, however, was not allowed by the German authorities.[12]"

The main reason they didn't do it apparently was it took 3 times as much production time as a Bf 109G whatever, and weren't sure if they could streamline the production line. Then I guess they got distracted by the collapse of their entire universe...

But I think it's a inch the G.55/56 could have helped them. Not as revolutionary as an Me 262 but it was at least a significant incremental improvement over what they had. 

S


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 18, 2018)

This thread got hijacked way back.
We're supposed to be discussing MEDIUM BOMBERS!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah I guess but who are you debating with? Armorers from 1942? You would need a time machine for that showdown.
> 
> If you are arguing that wing guns _could have been_ more accurate than nose guns if they had done A,B,C etc., then my answer is "maybe?"
> 
> ...



Wings without guns would help the Bf109 "perform better" - survive in combat - against aggressive enemy fighters,
- but not in attacking bombers or other larger, slower moving targets requiring more shooting time to destroy,
while the 109 is itself, a target of defensive fire - for a longer period.

Also, having multiple wing guns allows for some gun stoppages, yet keeping a fair firing capability,
- if your sole main cannon jams, then the pilot of that 109 - is in a 'jam', too..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Wings without guns would help the Bf109 "perform better" - survive in combat - against aggressive enemy fighters,
> - but not in attacking bombers or other larger, slower moving targets requiring more shooting time to destroy,
> while the 109 is itself, a target of defensive fire - for a longer period.



Both very good points. I definitely agree multiple guns make a lot of sense when attacking heavy bombers, because more guns can more quickly silence defensive gunners. And on say, a B-24 or a B-17, there are a lot of those! Or alternatively a fusilade of four cannons can tear off a wing or blow up an engine or something in a flash and then you can dive away.

And hell, if you can 'afford' it in terms of the weight and the drag, more guns is almost always better.

Multiple guns also makes sense for a 'strafer' like those A-20 and B-25 strafers which were intended to silence AAA, -but the more concentrated the better so put them in the nose.

But if you _can't _afford it, and you are dealing with enemy fighters a lot, it poses some problems too. The Germans had to escort their bomber killers with more lightly kitted-out fighter-killers.

I don't think you need multiple wing guns to shoot down a Stuka or a Ju 88 or even a B-25 (bringing it back to medium bombers).



> Also, having multiple wing guns allows for some gun stoppages, yet keeping a fair firing capability,
> - if your sole main cannon jams, then the pilot of that 109 - is in a 'jam', too..



This is also true though one advantage of nose guns (as distinct from guns in the prop spinner) is that you can put the charging handles inside the cockpit to make it easier to manually recharge guns with stoppages. This was appreciated by Ki-43, P-40B, MC 200 and 202 etc. pilots (in spite of the overall low firepower of those types). 

Early 4 and 6 gun American fighters had problems with wing-guns experiencing stoppages especially while shooting in the midst of high-G maneuvers. They had some kind of hydraulic or electric system for recharging the guns in the event of a stoppage but it didn't always work.

Eventually this was mostly corrected by improved ammo storage / feed systems.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> This thread got hijacked way back.
> We're supposed to be discussing MEDIUM BOMBERS!!!



My bad! The Peshka is one. And it could have been great in the Med! I can't believe it only got one vote in my poll.

S


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

IMO, the unexpected appearance of the Mosquito - kind of flummoxed the British, medium bombers-wise.

They'd entered the war with a pretty motley collection of differing medium bomber modes, from the
'flighty' H-P Hampden, which was supposed to be quick & agile enough - not to need much gun defence,
the Wellington, which with its vaunted power-turrets - was expected to be a British 'Flying-Fortress',
& the stolid Whitley, with no pretentions as either.. & they were all, to be fair.. mediocre..

On the way - were ultra modern 'light-heavyweight' twins to be powered by big 2,000hp mills, the Manchester,
& Warwick ( a Wellington 'on steroids'), both of which fell over, due to lack of enough, reliable hi-power mills ..

So the Brits settled on the serendipitous Mosquito as their indigenous 'medium' ( among its multiroles)
& picked up the multitudes of US machines on offer - for 'regular' medium bomber duties..

A missed opportunity, ( again due to British politico-industrial failure in producing enough high hp,
- over 2,000hp engines) were the proposals for a Super-Mosquito ( those 'steroids', again)
& the Hawker all-metal equivalent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> My bad! The Peshka is one. And it could have been great in the Med! I can't believe it only got one vote in my poll.
> 
> S


 Great in the Med, gives a lot of employment to the air/sea rescue boys

It just didn't have the range wanted. The A-20 went from 400 gallons to 540 gallons to 725 gallons. The B-25 went from 670 gallons on early C & D to 974 gallons in later C &D and all later aircraft in the wings, various ferry tank/combat tanks fitted later. B-26s started with 962 gallons in the wings with different arrangements of ferry tanks in the aft bomb bay. 
Early B-26s were _rated_ as carrying 3000lbs 1000 miles at 265mph. I don't know if they could do it in practice. 
Granted many missions did not call for these kinds of ranges but when you are sending planes thousands of miles from home and sending hundreds/thousands of ground crew you want planes that give the most flexibility. 

And as we have found out, it wasn't a Mosquito _lite. _It didn't really have the speed to keep it out of trouble. 

Bombers are essentially bomb trucks, how much tonnage over what distance. 
If you can't reach the target it is useless. IF it requires 3 trips to do the same damage as another plane can with one it doesn't look good either.
Other missions (recon, strafing, transport interceptor, etc) are icing on the cake. 
Being difficult to fly isn't in the plus column.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 18, 2018)

Since the Italians switched to the Allied side, how about the Savoia-Machetti SM.79?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Great in the Med, gives a lot of employment to the air/sea rescue boys
> 
> It just didn't have the range wanted. The A-20 went from 400 gallons to 540 gallons to 725 gallons. The B-25 went from 670 gallons on early C & D to 974 gallons in later C &D and all later aircraft in the wings, various ferry tank/combat tanks fitted later. B-26s started with 962 gallons in the wings with different arrangements of ferry tanks in the aft bomb bay.



So what? The Mosquoito only carried 458 gallons and had a far better range than any of those. The P-51D only carried 186 gallons and it flew further than any of them. Part of the reason was a much higher cruise speed! You analysis here is crude, war isn't so simple - aeronautics aren't so simple..

More to the point, Hurricanes were doing most of the tactical bombing in the Med and the Pe 2 out-ranged those significantly.



> And as we have found out, it wasn't a Mosquito _lite. _It didn't really have the speed to keep it out of trouble.



Well speed is a factor. It's not the only factor, but it's a factor. I suspect speed is the main reason why the Pe 2 had a much lower loss rate than an A-20 in Soviet use (or an Il2)

According to this, the rate of missions per loss was:

Su-2 80
Pe-2 54
IL-2 (two seat) 26
A-20 19
IL-2 (single seat) 13

(source)

So given that the A-20 was a successful "light" bomber for the Desert Air Force in 1942 and 1943, that they had similar range and bomb loads, and given that the Pe-2 was (as a dive bomber) more accurate, and based on the above statistics - *could survive almost three times as many missions in a row before being shot down.* And it could carry rockets!... I think it's a safe bet that the Pe-2 would have been pretty useful in the Med.

Maybe then they could have used their A-20s more for torpedo bombing though they already had the excellent Beaufighter for that.



> *Bombers are essentially bomb trucks, how much tonnage over what distance. *
> If you can't reach the target it is useless. IF it requires 3 trips to do the same damage as another plane can with one it doesn't look good either.



That is certainly one way to look at it, but I don't think it's the only way. You did a good job of articulating the essence of our disagreement though. "Bomb Truck" is basically how the US approached heavy bomber missions in WW2 and in the Korean War and Vietnam, with limited and diminishing effectiveness. But it's not just about tonnage and range - to me it is a very simplistic way to evaluate a bomber.

Range and bomb load matter, of course. But accuracy, speed, survivability, performance, and versatility also matter. There is more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target. There is more than one type of threat.

And more than one way to accomplish a mission.



> Other missions (recon, strafing, transport interceptor, etc) are icing on the cake.
> Being difficult to fly isn't in the plus column.



I think the Pe-2 was _easier _to fly (and more maneuverable than the others), maybe you are thinking of the B-26?  Pe-2 was qualified for acrobatics: loops, rolls, steep bank turns etc., according to that USAAF film you posted earlier, the A-20 wasn't rated for that. I know the B-26 wasn't!

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 18, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> Since the Italians switched to the Allied side, how about the Savoia-Machetti SM.79?



Love the SM 79. I think it peaked before the Italians saw the light and got rid of Il Duce, but it certainly sunk some ships in it's day. I gather Italian torpedoes were pretty good.

Planning to build a model of and SM 79 soon...


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So what? The Mosquoito only carried 458 gallons and had a far better range than any of those.



The Mosquito had 536 UKG of internal fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV-merlin21_ads.jpg

The PR versions could have some more (auxiliary fuel tank in bomb bay).


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The Mosquito had 536 UKG of internal fuel.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV-merlin21_ads.jpg
> 
> The PR versions could have some more (auxiliary fuel tank in bomb bay).



I think it varies by type right? I got my figure from wikipedia.

By the way, as a side topic (maybe I should open a new thread for this) what are some good books for general WW2 airplane statistics like that? When i was a kid I poured over books by guys like Bill Gunston and Martin Caiden with all the stats on WW2 planes, and I have a few from that era (sadly, "when I was a kid" was many decades ago now) but they are outdated, with a lot of incorrect information and cliches. We have learned a lot since the 80's and 90's. 

What are y'alls favorite books / authors when it comes to generalized (but up to date) guides on WW2 fighters and bombers? I mean, aside from the Osprey books I still keep up with those. And I also have the Black Cross / Red Star series and Christopher Shores books but those are more about day to day operations.

I know these days online is often the best source, but I'd like to update my 'hard' library.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So what? The Mosquoito only carried 458 gallons and had a far better range than any of those. The P-51D only carried 186 gallons and it flew further than any of them. Part of the reason was a much higher cruise speed! You analysis here is crude, war isn't so simple - aeronautics aren't so simple..


Mosquito carried 646 US gallons and no the Mustang with 186 gallons of fuel did not fly further than the bombers. A Mustang with 160 gallons (allow something for warm up and take-off) could fly around 890 miles at 15,000ft at 290mph true. (no combat no reserve.) 
A B-25C/D with 900 gallons (allowing 70 gallons for warm up and take off, neither plane needs quite that much) at 15,000ft can fly a mere 660 miles at 280mph true but that is at max continuous power which would never happen. Backing the plane down to an economical 247mph true the range jumps to 1110 miles (no combat, no reserves) You can get a B-25 to fly over 1500 miles while carrying 3000lbs using the wing tanks alone if you slow down enough. 

You are quite right, war is not simple and aeronautics isn't so simple. But comparing the most aerodynamic piston engine fighter of WW II to not particularly aerodynamic radial engine bombers doesn't tell us much either does it? 



> More to the point, Hurricanes were doing most of the tactical bombing in the Med and the Pe 2 out-ranged those significantly.



Sort of is the point isn't it? Are you going to replace the Hurricanes with PE-2s or replace the A-20s and B-25s? 
The Hurricanes were better strafers than the PE-2 and while the PE-2 carried more bombs (2-3 times) they required 3 times the aircrew, twice the fuel, twice the maintenance time for the engines. 
The PE-2s needed less fuel than the A-20 and B-25 and less aircrew than the B-25 but it wasn't any better at strafing. Bomb load for most of 1942-43 was similar to the A-20 but you need 3 PE-2s to equal 2 B-25s at best. at worst it is closer to 3 to 1. 

The PE-2 doesn't have the range or bomb load to really justify it's logistical footprint. 





> Well speed is a factor. It's not the only factor, but it's a factor. I suspect speed is the main reason why the Pe 2 had a much lower loss rate than an A-20 in Soviet use (or an Il2)
> 
> According to this, the rate of missions per loss was:
> 
> ...


https://www.worldcat.org/title/soviet-combat-aircraft-of-the-second-world-war/oclc/40494691

The figures could stand closer examination or perhaps expansion?

The figure for the SU-2 is for the 270th bomber regiment operating during the Stalingrad defensive operations in 1942. Aug 42 to Feb 43? Dates not given in book cited. there were only 889 SU-2/4s built before production stopped in March of 42. One wonders if the loss rate was truly that low in general and not for a small quantity of planes why production was discontinued? 
Likewise the loss rate for the A-20 is for the 221th bomber regiment (or division)? using early models of the A-20. Timing is not easy to sort out. for instance 
we have "By the end of July, the 221st’s crews had flown 876 sorties, and claimed the destruction of 171 tanks and 617 trucks and automobiles (along with other important targets). However, during this time, the 221st suffered heavy losses, with 46 of their Havocs shot down in the same time period."
However the Russians were getting a mix of A-20Bs and A-20Cs at this time and the A-20Bs had no (or little) armor and did not have self-sealing fuel tanks. The A-20Cs did. I think we can all agree that a force of planes with all self-sealing tanks would have a lower loss rate. Also under 900 missions might not be enough to get a really good statistical base to work from? 

I would also note that the same source claims that the PE-2s loss rate hit that number of 54 sorties per loss *after *the upper rear gun was changed from a single had operated 7.62 machine gun to a single hand operated 12.7mm machine gun. Before the change they had a loss rate of one plane per 20 sorties. Those are the numbers but do we really believe such a small change in armament could make that big a difference? The slower IL-2 didn't get that big a difference going from _no gun at all _(or even some body in back seat shouting a warning) to the same 12.7mm machine gun the PE-2 used. 
Later A-20s replaced the twin .30 cal guns (compared to the single 7.62/.30cal in the early PE-2s) with a hand aimed .50 cal. SHould we assume that they also then achieved a loss rate 2 1/2 times lower than the older Bombers? 



> So given that the A-20 was a successful "light" bomber for the Desert Air Force in 1942 and 1943, that they had similar range and bomb loads, and given that the Pe-2 was (as a dive bomber) more accurate, and based on the above statistics - *could survive almost three times as many missions in a row before being shot down.* And it could carry rockets!... I think it's a safe bet that the Pe-2 would have been pretty useful in the Med.



Answered above, but please note the A-20Gs were coming into service at the end of 1943. if a single hand aimed 12.7mm/50cal can almost triple the survival rate what do a pair of such guns in a power turret do? 




> That is certainly one way to look at it, but I don't think it's the only way. You did a good job of articulating the essence of our disagreement though. "Bomb Truck" is basically how the US approached heavy bomber missions in WW2 and in the Korean War and Vietnam, with limited and diminishing effectiveness. But it's not just about tonnage and range - to me it is a very simplistic way to evaluate a bomber.
> 
> Range and bomb load matter, of course. But accuracy, speed, survivability, performance, and versatility also matter. There is more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target. There is more than one type of threat.
> 
> And more than one way to accomplish a mission.



Bomb load and range are not the only way to evaluate a bomber but they should be the basis or start of such an evaluation. Bringing in the later wars just confusing things as more and more the overriding consideration was the reduction in casualties of the bomber crews and the high command (and politicians) were much more willing to trade massive losses in effectiveness for few casualties for political reasons. 

Versatility does matter but it can also be overstated. For example the P-38 fighter was versatile, but it's usefulness as a recon plane (and hundreds were built without guns and served as photo recon planes in all theaters) or as a substitute bomber (bomb under one wing drop tank under the other or the drop snoot experiment) have little bearing on it's usefulness as a _fighter, _however useful it may have been as an airframe/aircraft in general. 
A lot of the desert war bombing was from low and not medium altitude with somewhat greater accuracy so the difference between the "level" dive bombers and the dive bombers should not be quite as great. I would note that all air forces over claimed considerably on ground targets, see above quote for the A-20 in Russian service, 171 tanks? It is quite possible that single German panzer division didn't even have 171 operable tanks in the summer of 1942. 
You did mention "more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target." and while the PE-2 might be good at some it rather fails at others like attacking ports or flying from NA to Sicily or southern Italy. 







> I think the Pe-2 was _easier _to fly (and more maneuverable than the others), maybe you are thinking of the B-26?  Pe-2 was qualified for acrobatics: loops, rolls, steep bank turns etc., according to that USAAF film you posted earlier, the A-20 wasn't rated for that. I know the B-26 wasn't!



do not confuse acrobatic ability with being easy to fly. The PE-2 had some rather nasty low speed characteristics. SOme of the Women pilots needed the assistance of the navigator/rear gunner helping to pull on the stick to get them off the ground at times. The wing section/airfoil while quite good for a dive bomber (little trim change needed over a large speed difference) stalled at about an 11 degree angle of attack and the stall was often sudden and asymmetrical.
The PE-2B of 1944 had a slightly larger wing of changed airfoil to improve take-off and landing performance and "lessened the tendency of the PE-2 to fall into a corkscrew at low speeds"


----------



## wuzak (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think it varies by type right? I got my figure from wikipedia.



Bomber types had 536 UKG.

The FB types may have had the number you used.

The PR types maybe had more.

But the bomber types are the only ones relevant for this discussion.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Mosquito carried 646 US gallons and no the Mustang with 186 gallons of fuel did not fly further than the bombers. A Mustang with 160 gallons (allow something for warm up and take-off) could fly around 890 miles at 15,000ft at 290mph true. (no combat no reserve.)



Per this, 536 internal 657 gal with the bomb bay full of fuel - but that pretty much rules out a heavy bomb load right?

Per this B-25 had a combat radius of 625 miles with a normal (4,000 lb) bomb load and a (one way) combat range of 1325 miles. Not so great. Mosquito mk IV is 1620 / 2040 (or 1360/1720 at higher speed) with 2,000 lbs of bombs. Per this P-51D has a range of 920 miles with internal fuel / 1660 with drop tanks or 2190 with bigger drop tanks.

According to this, the Pe-2 had a 'typical' range of 817 miles, 1100 max (which would mean using the bomb-bay fuel tank, I suspect). It could still of course carry bombs externally as it usually did. As far as i can tell that out-ranges the B-25 and most of the others on the list in the poll.



> You are quite right, war is not simple and aeronautics isn't so simple. But comparing the most aerodynamic piston engine fighter of WW II to not particularly aerodynamic radial engine bombers doesn't tell us much either does it?



Actually that is exactly what I'm talking about. The like the Mosquito, the Pe-2 is a more aerodynamic aircraft with in-line engines, which is why it's so much faster than a B-25. That is the main difference - smaller lighter more agile vs. bigger heavier and better armed. Each has it's pros and cons, but you are basically saying that the criteria that you like (bomb load and range) are the only ones that matter.

A bomber that hits 5% of it's targets with 4,000 lbs of bombs isn't as useful as a bomber that hits 20% of it's targets with 2,000 lbs. See Douglas Dauntless vs. TBD Devastator. An aircraft which loses half the squadron with every sortie (again, see TBD Devastator) isn't as useful as one which loses 5%. And so on.



> Sort of is the point isn't it? Are you going to replace the Hurricanes with PE-2s or replace the A-20s and B-25s?


I think they could have done both. If the A-20 was useful, since the Pe-2 is similar but a little better, it may have actually been_ more_ useful. But of course that is just speculation.



> The PE-2s needed less fuel than the A-20 and B-25 and less aircrew than the B-25 but it wasn't any better at strafing. Bomb load for most of 1942-43 was similar to the A-20 but you need 3 PE-2s to equal 2 B-25s at best. at worst it is closer to 3 to 1.



Not if the PE-2 is hitting twice as many targets with each sortie and suffering half the loss rate.



> The figure for the SU-2 is for the 270th bomber regiment operating during the Stalingrad defensive operations in 19 (snip) SHould we assume that they also then achieved a loss rate 2 1/2 times lower than the older Bombers?



All very interesting but pure guesswork. From what I understand, Pe-2s were often flown at low altitude and therefore typically attacked from above (where a speed advantage from diving would help Bf 109s catch them more quickly) thus the main vulnerability was from above - and a 12.7mm gun does make a big difference there, since it has about the same range as the guns on the fighter. 

Anecdotally I think the Pe-2s were just a bit faster and more agile which helped with their survivability, though even for those it wasn't that high.



> Bomb load and range are not the only way to evaluate a bomber but they should be the basis or start of such an evaluation. Bringing in the later wars just confusing things as more and more the overriding consideration was the reduction in casualties of the bomber crews and the high command (and politicians) were much more willing to trade massive losses in effectiveness for few casualties for political reasons.



:Lol Wut?  8th AF and Bomber Command didn't take enough casualties!? how much is enough? To what point in the "later war years"? 



> You did mention "more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target." and while the PE-2 might be good at some it rather fails at others like attacking ports or flying from NA to Sicily or southern Italy.



Unless something is off in the range calculations I think it could reach Sicily, and the dive bombing capability it's quite useful against ships (B-25s and A-20s also good against ships). But certainly - some missions work better for 'bomb truck' type attacks and some for dive bombers. I specifically mentioned the Med / North Africa for the Pe-2 because they did so much tactical bombing.

As for the Hurricanes they should have replaced those with Yak-1Bs or Yak 7s 



> do not confuse acrobatic ability with being easy to fly. The PE-2 had some rather nasty low speed characteristics. SOme of the Women pilots needed the assistance of the



I'm well aware of the difference between handling and agility. The Pe-2 was a bit tricky on takeoff and landing, and not to be sexist but some of the women pilots were simply too small as people to fly an aircraft of that size - Pe 2 isn't the only aircraft in WW2 that would be hard to fly for a 120 lb person.

But from what I have read, the Pe-2 actually had good handling. So did the B-25 and A-20 to be fair. not so much the B-26 though I know some people get hot under the collar when you say that!

The *Tl DR* for me is while you have claimed categorically that the Pe-2 wouldn't have been worth the fuel to fly in the Med, but I don't think you made your case.

The numbers do not bear this up nor do the accounts. You can imply all kinds of things about the Soviet records but it's hard to get other than Russian stats on a Russian plane. More to the point, all the aspersions and Boris Badinov tropes aside, Russian records don't look any more or less trustworthy to me certainly than Nazi German records, and to be honest, no more than RAF or USAAF records either.

That is my $.02. Your mileage may vary,


S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Well speed is a factor. It's not the only factor, but it's a factor. I suspect speed is the main reason why the Pe 2 had a much lower loss rate than an A-20 in Soviet use (or an Il2)
> 
> According to this, the rate of missions per loss was:
> 
> ...



The source book was written by reputable authors. But it's just too old (1998-1999). I suspect that they took their numbers from the only official summary available in Soviet period. It was called (translated) "Soviet aviation in Great Patriotic War in numbers" and published in 1960s in limited quantity (less 100 copies allegedly) and remained classified until 1990s. Probably never translated but it can be found in Russian, for example:
ВВС в цифрах
ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА --[ Военная история ]-- Советская авиация в Великой Отечественной войне 1941-1945 гг. в цифрах (with link to archived version in Excel format).
There were two problems with Soviet summary documents: 1) Propaganda bias 2) Low quality of primary data.
While 1) is self explanatory, let me illustrate the 2) with this: according to loss tables in the above mentioned summary there were *no losses* of IL-4/DB-3 in 1941. None at all - despite tons of evidence of the contrary. Why so? The answer is simple: another document which was primary source for the loss table did not have breakdown by bomber type in the field "1941", just total number with small print "no data by aircraft type". Other years 1942-1945 were filled in correctly. So, negligence of some unknown clerk in statistics office led to errors in subsequent reports and to wrong assumptions in further books, articles, etc.

Back to the numbers of IL-2 missions per loss (2-seat). According to stats published in 2000s-2010s, 26 was average figure in 1942-1943. 1944-1945 figures were much higher, up to 85-90.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> The source book was written by reputable authors. But it's just too old (1998-1999). I suspect that they took their numbers from the only official summary available in Soviet period. It was called (translated) "Soviet aviation in Great Patriotic War in numbers" and published in 1960s in limited quantity (less 100 copies allegedly) and remained classified until 1990s. Probably never translated but it can be found in Russian, for example:
> ВВС в цифрах
> ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА --[ Военная история ]-- Советская авиация в Великой Отечественной войне 1941-1945 гг. в цифрах (with link to archived version in Excel format).
> There were two problems with Soviet summary documents: 1) Propaganda bias 2) Low quality of primary data.
> While 1) is self explanatory, let me illustrate the 2) with this: according to loss tables in the above mentioned summary there were *no losses* of IL-4/DB-3 in 1941. None at all - despite tons of evidence of the contrary. Why so? The answer is simple: another document which was primary source for the loss table did not have breakdown by bomber type in the field "1941", just total number with small print "no data by aircraft type". Other years 1942-1945 were filled in correctly. So, negligence of some unknown clerk in statistics office led to errors in subsequent reports and to wrong assumptions in further books, articles, etc.



Interesting but I can show you nearly identical errors in US War Department documents that you can find on WWII Aircraft Performance on aircraft like the P-40 and P-39 and so on.



> Back to the numbers of IL-2 missions per loss (2-seat). According to stats published in 2000s-2010s, 26 was average figure in 1942-1943. 1944-1945 figures were much higher, up to 85-90.



Well that figures, by 1944 there were a lot more very good quality Russian fighters in the field, La 5FN, Yak-9 and (later in 1944) Yak-3, can provide good protection against an increasingly shaky and demoralized Luftwaffe (despite and in contradiction of all of _their _propaganda which hardly anyone ever seems to recognize as such).

S


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> But from what I have read, the Pe-2 actually had good handling. So did the B-25 and A-20 to be fair. not so much the B-26 though I know some people get hot under the collar when you say that!


HERETIC!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Back to the numbers of IL-2 missions per loss (2-seat). According to stats published in 2000s-2010s, 26 was average figure in 1942-1943. 1944-1945 figures were much higher, up to 85-90.



Can you post the rest of the numbers? Whatever they've got?

S


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2018)

Surely some distinction must be made for the theatre of operation. Until after D-Day and bomber leaving the UK faced a radar guided integrated defence system with increasingly strong anti aircraft defences. There were comparatively few tactical targets within easy reach and the people living there were generally not the enemy, by contrast almost everything in the desert was put there by the military so if it wasn't "ours" it was "theirs".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Surely some distinction must be made for the theatre of operation. Until after D-Day and bomber leaving the UK faced a radar guided integrated defence system with increasingly strong anti aircraft defences. There were comparatively few tactical targets within easy reach and the people living there were generally not the enemy, by contrast almost everything in the desert was put there by the military so if it wasn't "ours" it was "theirs".



True, I never said anything about operations in the English Channel. That is a pretty dangerous zone. But then so was Stalingrad...

S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 19, 2018)

About Su-2.


Shortround6 said:


> One wonders if the loss rate was truly that low in general and not for a small quantity of planes why production was discontinued?


This is interesting question. Su-2 vs IL-2 is good subject for another endless discussion. 
In my very humble opinion, IL-2 was finally chosen due to those reasons:
1. More lobbying efforts of Ilyishin.
2. Logistical and other issues caused by evacuation of Kharkov factory which was main production site of Su-2.
3. Obsession of top brass with idea of "fully armoured flying tank" - IL-2 looked like the one, at least on paper.
Also, according to some evidence, Sukhoi has fallen in favour with Stalin in 1942. Sukhoi was given the offer to head Pe-2 development team after the death of Petlyakov but was reluctant to accept it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> True, I never said anything about operations in the English Channel. That is a pretty dangerous zone. But then so was Stalingrad...
> 
> S


Schweik, it was a general comment, it may have followed a post of yours but it wasn't in answer to it. To me, as far as UK operations were concerned, once formations needed air escort and had to fly at a certain height to avoid flak you may as well use bombers carrying the biggest pay load possible.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Schweik, it was a general comment, it may have followed a post of yours but it wasn't in answer to it. To me, as far as UK operations were concerned, once formations needed air escort and had to fly at a certain height to avoid flak you may as well use bombers carrying the biggest pay load possible.



yeah but Mosquitoes were still able to do precision raids in the ETO right?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> yeah but Mosquitoes were still able to do precision raids in the ETO right?


They did, but they also suffered quite high losses at times and most of the famous raids were not what anyone would consider a target before they were made. When a Mosquito made a precision raid it wasn't a medium bomber it generally carried 4 x 250 Kg bombs. The maximum bomb load was a 2,000kg "cookie" but that is basically a drum. The Halifax and Manchester (became the Lancaster) were originally ordered as "medium" bombers. If the Mosquito is called a "medium" and the Lancaster actually was ordered as a "medium" there is a 9 ton and 900% difference in bomb load. The maximum bomb load of a Typhoon and the normal conventional bomb load of a Mosquito were almost the same, the difference being the Mosquito's load was internal.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Can you post the rest of the numbers? Whatever they've got?
> 
> S


I wish I could. But they are all messy. There are two types of problems with IL-2 stats:
1. Period of data. Most of the sources mention full year (Jan-Dec), but some researchers argued that it was done on different basis: July to June (next year).
2. Incomplete raw data. For example, when figure 85 flights per loss in 1944 was mentioned in one article, critics said that that figure was based on Nov 1944 statistics only.
Loss figures are more or less known with some margin error due inclusion of IL-10 losses in 1945. Also production numbers are OK. But number of flights are still debatable, differences are in many thousands.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Interesting but I can show you nearly identical errors in US War Department documents that you can find on WWII Aircraft Performance on aircraft like the P-40 and P-39 and so on.



I have no doubt. Mistakes are found everywhere. 
But please keep in mind that WWII history research in USSR was done only by few authorised institutions. No competition, no independent authors, no cooperation with foreign peers outside of Warsaw Pact block (and very limited within), virtually no possibility to cross check and compare sources and to correct mistakes done in official publications. And a lot of secrecy and classified data which began to open only in 1990s/early 2000s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Per this, 536 internal 657 gal with the bomb bay full of fuel - but that pretty much rules out a heavy bomb load right?


Those are imperial gallons. Converting to US gallons to make comparison to US aircraft easier you get the 646 gallons I mentioned, your conversion may vary a gallon or two. 

[QUOTEPer this B-25 had a combat radius of 625 miles with a normal (4,000 lb) bomb load and a (one way) combat range of 1325 miles. Not so great. Mosquito mk IV is 1620 / 2040 (or 1360/1720 at higher speed) with 2,000 lbs of bombs.[/QUOTE]

Please read your own sources a bit more carefully. That sheet gives ranges in *Nautical Miles. * Multiple times 1.15 =718 mile radius with 4000lb of bombs. One way is 1513 miles, all speeds on the chart are in kts, please multiply by 1.15. 

This is also for a B-25J which was carrying *TWELVE .50 cal machine guns and 1380lbs of ammo. *And a 6 man crew. Granted this model was carrying 1137 US gallons of fuel all in protected tanks. 



> According to this, the Pe-2 had a 'typical' range of 817 miles, 1100 max (which would mean using the bomb-bay fuel tank, I suspect). It could still of course carry bombs externally as it usually did. As far as i can tell that out-ranges the B-25 and most of the others on the list in the poll.


Why don't you use good source instead of bouncing around to whatever one seems to support your position? 
You quoted the loss rates from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" put it's performance numbers don't support you position so you find a website that will? 

I would like to know on what world the 1513 mile range of the B-25J is_ out-ranged_ by the 1100 mile PE-2? 

for a reality check on the PE-2 try comparing it to a Messerschmitt Bf 110F. 
Wings within a few sq ft, Bf 110 has smaller fuselage, Is roughly the same weight (If the PE-2 is NOT carrying bombs) The Bf 110 has slightly more powerful engines and yet is _slower?_
or trying to compare to the P-38. A P-38L can do about 344mph at 12,500ft (340 at 10,000, 348 at 15,000) using 1100hp per engine. The engines in a PE-2FT were good for about 1180hp in that altitude band? 

I also love how the carrying of external bombs does nothing to the range, best of both worlds? 





> Actually it does, and furthermore, that is exactly what I'm talking about. The like the Mosquito, the Pe-2 is a relatively thin profiled, relatively light, much more aerodynamic aircraft with in-line engines, which is one of the main reasons it's so much faster than a B-25. That is the chief design difference - smaller lighter more agile vs. bigger heavier and better armed, basically. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages, but you are basically saying that the criteria that you like (bomb load and range) are the only ones that matter. Well as far as i can tell *B-25 actually loses out on range *too but my point is that other factors like bombing accuracy and survivability matter just as much as bomb load. A bomber that hits 5% of it's targets with 4,000 lbs of bombs isn't as useful as a bomber that hits 20% of it's targets with 2,000 lbs. See Douglas Dauntless vs. TBD Devastator. An aircraft which loses half the squadron with every sortie (again, see TBD Devastator) isn't as useful as one which loses 5%. And so on.


Wrong on range by a large margin. I would also note that the PE-2, at least the early ones, did very little dive bombing. The Air brakes tended to stick in the 
extended position leaving the plane rather vulnerable to German fighters. 




> I think they could have done both. If the A-20 was useful, since the Pe-2 is similar but a little better, it may have actually been_ more_ useful. But of course that is just speculation.
> Not if the PE-2 is hitting twice as many targets with each sortie and suffering half the loss rate.



You have yet to prove the PE-2 was as good, let alone better, than the A-20 and you are using very suspect numbers as to bomb accuracy and loss rates as explained above. 




> :Lol Wut?  8th AF and Bomber Command didn't take enough casualties!? how much is enough? To what point in the "later war years"? To kill more civilians and destroy more centuries old buildings?



Try reading the passage again. I said " later wars " NOT "later war years" against your argument of bringing in Korea and Vietnam. Now you are trying to twist it? 




> The *Tl DR* for me is while you have claimed categorically that the Pe-2 was all-but-useless and wouldn't have been worth the fuel to fly in the Med, but I don't think you made your case.



Pot meet kettle. If you are going to use numbers that don't make sense and take very limited sample data and apply it to large numbers of aircraft then meeting in the middle gets very hard.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2018)

My nomination fails one of the selection criteria, in that it never entered mass production. My opinion is that in this case, there is a special exception applicable. The type had had all its developmental issues solved though its development times were fitful and not proceeded with with any urgency. The reason for this is that by the time the prototype was ready for series production, the RAAF, for which the aircraft had been developed, was being supplied with aircraft from overseas, either for no cost or at dumped excess production costs. I don’t think that was the intent of the original thread parameters.

The aircraft I would like to nominate is the CA4/CA11 woomera .

The CAC Woomera, also known as the CAC CA-4 and CAC CA-11, was an Australian bomber aircraft, which was designed and manufactured by the CAC.. The order for the Woomera was cancelled before it became operational with the RAAF, though it was ready for service by late 1941..

Late in 1940, a mock-up of the Wackett CA-4 Woomera was constructed at CAC and several radical features were revealed. A Sperry automatic pilot was fitted and accommodation was provided for pilot, navigator/bomber, and wireless/air gunner. On completion, the Woomera was numbered in the prototype range, A23-1001, and the first flight was carried out by Flight Lieutenant 'Boss' Walker on 19 September 1941.

Subsequent tests by CAC pilot K. Frewin revealed that the aircraft's performance was superior to contemporary bombers (it was tested against a Beafort then just entering service with the RAAF). In addition, it was judged to possess a greater armament capability. Four 0.303 guns in the nose were operated by the pilot and two power-operated turrets, each with two 0.303 guns at the rear of both engine nacelles, were remotely controlled from the rear of the cockpit canopy, which was fitted with a sighting periscope.

The engine nacelles also served as bomb-bays, each housing two 250 lb bombs. Two torpedos could be carried below the centre section and four 25 lb bombs under each outer wing. Either of the torpedoes could be replaced by a 293 gallon drop tank or two 500 lb bombs (total bombload being 2200lb). Thus the aircraft possessed a considerable strike capability and, with drop tanks, a very useful range. In fact, the design showed so much promise that, early in 1942, the War Cabinet ordered 105 production models under the designation CAC CA-11 Woomera.

Plans were made for production to begin in January 1943, with a delivery rate of 20 aircraft per month. Meantime, A23-1001 was handed over to the RAAF on 20 April 1942, and military trials continued with emphasis on dive-bombing aspects. Unfortunately, on 16 January 1943, the aircraft suffered an explosion and fire in the air while being flown by Squadron Leader J.H. Harper.

The Wackett CA-11 Woomera, A23-1, was delivered in 1944 and differed in detail from the prototype CA-4. The canopy was extended and the gunner sat in a moulded perspex sighting turret to operate the remotely-controlled rear nacelle guns. Forward armament consisted of two 20 mm cannons and two 0.303 guns, whilst a flexible-mounted Vickers G/O gun was installed below the fuselage. The fin and rudder were completely redesigned and the tailplane was given 12 degrees of dihedral. Otherwise, the CA-4 and CA-11 were of similar construction. Initially the CA-11 was powered by two 1,200 hp Pratt and Whitney R1830 Wasps, but was later fitted with two 1,300 hp Pratt and Whitney R2000 Wasps and re-designed CA-11A.

After exhaustive CAC trials, the CA-11A was transferred to the RAAF on 22 November 1944, but by this time American bombers were in plentiful supply and further production of the Woomera was discontinued in favour of the Mustang fighter. Finally, on 16 January 1946, approval was granted for A23-1 to be converted to components.

*DESCRIPTION (CA-4):*
Three-seat strike-reconnaissance and dive-bomber. Metal, plywood and fabric construction.

*POWER PLANT:*
Two CAC (licence-built Pratt and Whitney) 1200 hp Wasp R1830 radial engines.

*DIMENSIONS: *
Span 18.04 m (59 ft 2.5 in); length 11.35 m (37 ft 3 in); Height 4.11 m (13 ft 6 in).

*WEIGHTS:*
Empty 5786 kg (12 756 lb); loaded 10 109 kg (22 287 lb).

*PERFORMANCE:*
Max speed 435 km/h (270 mph); Range 3218 km (2,000 miles) (with torpedoes); Initial climb 579 m (1,900 ft)/min; Absolute ceiling, 22,000 ft (6705 m).

*ARMAMENT:*
4 x 0.303 nose guns, 4 x 0.303 rear guns; 2 x 21 ft. torpedoes, 4 x 250 lb bombs, 8 x 25 lb bombs; or 4 x 500 lb bombs, 4 x 250 lb bombs, 8 x 25 lb bombs; or 2 x 293 gal tanks, 4 x 250 lb bombs, 8 x 25 lb bombs. 

*CA-11A (A23-1) *
*DESCRIPTION:*
As for CA-4

*POWER PLANT: *
Two CAC (licence-built Pratt and Whitney) 1,300 hp Wasp R2000 radial engines.

*DIMENSIONS: *
Span 18.04 (59 ft 2.5 in); length 12.06 m (39 ft 6.75 in); height 3.96 m (13 ft).

*WEIGHTS:*
Empty 6387 kg (14 080 lb); loaded 9128 kg (20 124 lb).

*PERFORMANCE:*
Max speed 282 mph; Range 3580 km (2225 miles) (with torpedoes); Initial climb 637 m (2090 ft)/min; Absolute ceiling 23,500 ft (7162 m).

*ARMAMENT:*
2 x 20 mm cannon and 2 x 0.303 guns in nose; Flexible gun beneath fuselage; Remainder as for CA-4

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> They did, but they also suffered quite high losses at times and most of the famous raids were not what anyone would consider a target before they were made. When a Mosquito made a precision raid it wasn't a medium bomber it generally carried 4 x 250 Kg bombs. The maximum bomb load was a 2,000kg "cookie" but that is basically a drum. The Halifax and Manchester (became the Lancaster) were originally ordered as "medium" bombers. If the Mosquito is called a "medium" and the Lancaster actually was ordered as a "medium" there is a 9 ton and 900% difference in bomb load. The maximum bomb load of a Typhoon and the normal conventional bomb load of a Mosquito were almost the same, the difference being the Mosquito's load was internal.



The 4,000lb High Capacity bomb was the 4,000lb bomb most used by the Mosquito, but it wasn't the only type used.

Mosquitoes also dropped a handful of a 4,000lb Medium Capacity bombs. The 4,000lb MC bomb was shaped like regular bombs, and had about 50% charge-to-weight. Production of the 4,000lb MC bomb was about 1/3 of the 4,000lb HC. The 4,000lb MC had the same dimensions, give or take a small amount, as the 4,000lb HC.

Another 4,000lb bomb was the incendiary bomb. It was a similar size to the other 4,000lb bombs.

After the universal wing was introduced (late 1942/early 1943?) with the FB.VI, the Mosquito B.IV could carry 3,000lb bombs - with 2 x 500lb bombs under the wing. Or it could carry drop tanks in place of the wing bombs.

Many of the precision raids, such as the Amiens Prison raid and the Shelhus raid were performed with FB.VIs, which limited the load to 4 bombs - 2 in the fuselage and 2 under the wings.

Certainly, the bomb size used for the Shelhus raid was determined by the fact that Danish prisoners were held in the upper floors of the building, as well as considering collateral damage. 500lb bombs would have been overkill for the mission.

When the Manchester and Halifax were ordered as "medium" bombers, the proposed bomb load was 8,000lb. Considerably more than the 1,000lb the Mosquito was originally designed for, but not 9 tons different.

It is an interesting question as to what constitutes a medium bomber. For the USAAC/F it seems that the operating altitude was what defined the B-25 and B-26 as medium bombers.

And the Mosquito certainly started out as a light bomber, as in its bomb load was light.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 19, 2018)

Both the B-25 and B-26 were designed to the same specification, which sought a bomber which would operate at medium altitude (15,000'), carrying a max bomb load of 4000 lbs, and range of 3000 miles. The B-26 won the competition by a large margin, and North American got a consolation contract when Martin balked at additional production, already heavily involved with export production of the Maryland and Baltimore light bombers. The Douglas B-23 was another entry that received a contract because it was basically an evolutionary upgrade of the B-18 then in service. 
Germans referred to the B-26 as "Halbdicke", "half fat" in comparison to the B-17, which they referred to as "dicke Autos" "fat cars". 
NAA scaled up their NA-40 light bomber design for the B-25, while Martin started from scratch with the highly streamlined B-26, which met the bomb load requirement by copying the bomb bay layout of the B-17. The B-25 flew first, but went through several modifications before the first combat worthy B-25C/D models were produced. Martin's B-26 was modified on the fly, and more B-26s were ready in Dec 1941 than B-25s. 2/3rds of the initial production B-26s were committed to combat theaters (Alaska and SWPA) before any US purchase B-25s left the States. (The 3rd BG had to fly Dutch export B-25Cs when it began ops.) The redesign of the wing and sorting out other issues slowed production for Martin, and North American gained the edge in production and never looked back.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 20, 2018)

Just my two penny's worth to discussion about *Pe-2 diving capabilities*.

It's difficult to determine how often Peshkas were used for dive bombing. I failed to find any good research on this topic. The best sources so far are reports of few regiments/divisions (one can read that pilots were not qualified for diving even in 1944) and memoirs of pilots. Some pilots had extensive diving experience, others said they never did it at all.
My assumption is that once Pe-2 was adopted in the field and teething problems resolved, diving technique implementation was up to regiment commanders. Those who were innovative, good pilots and good tacticians, who were not afraid to disagree with top brass, - they trained their "greener" comrades accordingly and requested to dive on target whenever conditions were right for that. Others preferred to be on the safe side and stuck to conventional methods.
Whenever one tries to search for "Pe-2, diving" in Russian, he/she ends up with information about General Polbin who was major proponent of diving methods and used them personally until the end (KIA in 1945, Breslau). Polbin was appointed as head of 1BAK (1st bomber corps) in March 1943 and he could (in theory) implement diving in at least six regiments (over 300 bombers, probably?). But I have no statistics to support this theory.

There was interesting interview with Timofei Punyov. His WWII career: 1st SBAP - SB bombers, 36th BAP - Pe-2 bombers, 1942-1945 in combat. Detailed and informative but should be taken with grain of salt - as all personal accounts. According to him, diving was used in about 20% of all attacks. Yet he mostly blamed the weather (low cloud cover) and tactical considerations. Typical requirements: clouds not lower 3000m, diving angle 70%, diving brakes mandatory, bombing altitude 1800 m. Standard bomb load 8x100kg. Max bomb load 4x250kg during assault on Breslau in 1945, 2x250kg for diving, 2x250kg for level bombing in the second go.
Беседы с Тимофеем Пантелеевичем Пунёвым. «Ни у каких ВВС не было бомбардировщика, подобного Пе-2»

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Please read your own sources a bit more carefully. That sheet gives ranges in *Nautical Miles. * Multiple times 1.15 =718 mile radius with 4000lb of bombs. One way is 1513 miles, all speeds on the chart are in kts, please multiply by 1.15.
> 
> Why don't you use good source instead of bouncing around to whatever one seems to support your position?



It's not so diabolical: I was googling ranges for multiple aircraft and posted the first numbers I could find. Unfortunately wwIIaircraftperformance.org doesn't (yet) have anything on Russian planes so that was the first site I could find with range figures for the Pe 2. I have agreed to ignore the wikipedia page on it which says it goes 360 mph partly due to your objections and for sake of argument. The loss rates I quoted earlier were from the Wiki page on the Su-2 (which I blundered across at random) and they sourced the numbers from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" but I don't own that book and couldn't find a searchable version online.

I'm sure you have also looked for data online on the Pe 2 during this conversation and found, as I did, that it's hard to come by. I have numerous books on WW2 aircraft but they are mostly old and they all say more or less what the wikipedia article says (360 mph speed etc.)

Frankly, I'd love to find a good, updated English-language source on Soviet military aircraft in WW2 (like a book published in the last 10 years say) but I have had no luck. I ordered a few books from Amazon as the result of this discussion but they have not arrived yet. None of them looked that promising though.



> I would like to know on what world the 1513 mile range of the B-25J is_ out-ranged_ by the 1100 mile PE-2?



No, I was comparing the 625 (or 718 mile) combat radius of the B-25 to the stated 817 (or 939?) mile radius from the source I linked upthread that annoyed you so much. I think in both cases those are combat radius ranges with a "regular" bomb load. 1100 miles (1265?) is with a fuel tank in the bomb bay and only external bombs. 1513 for the B-25 is one way from my understanding.

External bombs certainly would affect performance by the way but once you _drop_ the bombs and go 'clean' performance still matters (a lot) for the bomber trying to escape.



> The engines in a PE-2FT were good for about 1180hp in that altitude band? (snip) I also love how the carrying of external bombs does nothing to the range, best of both worlds?



Let me remind you of the OP in this thread - it's for 1942 and 1943. You keep referring to traits of a Pe-2 in prototype or early production (i.e. 1941) with all it's flaws. From mid 1942 the heavy machine gun was put into the rear cockpit. It also got more powerful engines in 1942 and in 1943 (going up from 1,100 to 1,300 hp from my understanding). Precisely what effects this had on performance etc. I don't know and I don't think I've seen credible numbers on. The dive brake problems were resolved by 1942 from what I read (admittedly on an Ubisoft forum).

Conversely, you keep comparing it to late model B-25 characteristics, tail guns in 1944, uprated engines, increased fuel capacity and so on. All the bugs ironed out in other words.

And yet even with all of that the B-25 does not stand out as vastly superior to the Pe-2. I also agree with the others that in WW2, the USAAF classified 'medium' bombers based on their typical operating altitude. Pe-2s flew at both low and medium altitude.



> You have yet to prove the PE-2 was as good, let alone better, than the A-20 and you are using very suspect numbers as to bomb accuracy and loss rates as explained above.



I posted the only loss rates I was able to find. I asked our Russian speaking friend Dimlee to translate any other ones he found online in Russian but he demurred. Any estimates of bomb accuracy were just guesses / placeholders - I never quoted any hard numbers nor claimed to do so. I think it is widely understood that dive bombing was more accurate than level bombing.



> Try reading the passage again. I said " later wars " NOT "later war years" against your argument of bringing in Korea and Vietnam. Now you are trying to twist it?
> 
> Pot meet kettle. If you are going to use numbers that don't make sense and take very limited sample data and apply it to large numbers of aircraft then meeting in the middle gets very hard.



I am not using "limited sample data" i was simply quoting what were apparently Soviet sortie to loss rate figures. You can go back in time and take it up with them, while you are on your journey to dress down USAAF armorers and whoever else did things you find "don't make sense."

I don't know you so i don't want to make broad generalizations about you, but in this thread and one other, if anything, you seem to reject or question the numbers if they don't fit your preference and then accept numbers from the same source if they do. You also seem to be getting kind of emotional about the whole debate.

This discussion has been useful to me because it highlights the strengths of the Pe-2 relative to other Allied bombers like the A-20, Wellington, and B-25. I think the Mosquito is still clearly the star bomber of the war (and definitely could have bombed Ploesti in 1942) but my original notion that the Pe-2 was one of the best of the second tier, along with the others mentioned above,

I would also add that for maritime activities particularly, the Beaufighter is an excellent "bomber" as well as a fighter. This is increasingly clear from Shores books - they racked up a very high rate of kills and for whatever reason, seemed to do comparatively little overclaiming.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Just my two penny's worth to discussion about *Pe-2 diving capabilities*.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> ...



That is interesting thanks for posting. 70 degree dive angle is true dive bombing so that is news to me, I had only previously read 45 degree "shallow dive" bombing. 70 degrees would mean more accurate bombing.

I agree the use or lack thereof would depend on the unit, but I think that would be dictated by the mission requirements.

I read an article on my phone last night about a "Guards" (elite) Russian Pe-2 unit which said they would alternate dive bombing with level bombing tactics to confuse the German AAA. I'll try to find it as it was a pretty good (relatively comprehensive compared to most of the ones I found) article.

I think more generally, some units were assigned to Tactical / support missions and would probably do more dive bombing, while some others were used for more long range / Operational type bombing and therefore more level bombing. Some were doing maritime strikes, some were doing recon, and some even doing night fighter duties and other things.

Units also got moved around to different parts of the front so their missions changed.

Hopefully more to come.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

Definitions changed with time and with country.

In 1940 the British, at least in list/s in "The British Bomber" by Francis Mason in 1940 has Wellington and Whitley squadrons marked as (H) and Hampden squadrons marked as (M) also Wellesley squadrons. Battle and Blenheim squadrons are marked as (L)as is a single Vickers Vincent squadron in the mid east.

In 1944 the 4 engine bombers are all in (H) or (HPF) squadrons. The Wellingtons (and B-25s) are in (M) squadrons as is one B-26 squadron in Algeria. (L) squadrons have Mosquitoes (and LPF squadrons), A-20s and Martin Baltimores.

The (TB) squadrons have Wellingtons, Beauforts, and Albacores.
(DB) squadrons in India/Ceylon have Vultee Vengeance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 20, 2018)

The Pe-2 bomber versions rarely, if ever carried any fuel in bomb bay, range being 1100-1200 km with ~1400-1500 L of fuel (depending on whether the self-sealing type tanks were used or just the metalic ones; ~400 US gals). The Pe-2I and Pe-3 were using the bomb bay tanks (my guess), their range going to 2200 km.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> That is interesting thanks for posting. 70 degree dive angle is true dive bombing so that is news to me, I had only previously read 45 degree "shallow dive" bombing. 70 degrees would mean more accurate bombing.
> 
> I agree the use or lack thereof would depend on the unit, but I think that would be dictated by the mission requirements.
> 
> ...



Is this article written by Khazanov? Good author who contributed to 2 or 3 books about Pe-2. His weak spot since 1990s was heavy reliance on Soviet docs exclusively and somewhat ignorance of other (German, etc.) materials. In all other respects his works were solid. See "Dmitriy Khazanov" on Google Books and Amazon.

As for night fighters, Pe-2 role was negligible, IMHO. Pe-3bis were used more extensively in that role, some - with Gneiss radars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Frankly, I'd love to find a good, updated English-language source on Soviet military aircraft in WW2 (like a book published in the last 10 years say) but I have had no luck. I ordered a few books from Amazon as the result of this discussion but they have not arrived yet. None of them looked that promising though.



Your best bet is the two volume set, "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov. They are older than you would like (1998) and perhaps there are newer more up to date ones. However even these authors say that many older (especially war time) accounts that were for public consumption are not reliable. But neither were many allied wartime accounts. 





> No, I was comparing the 625 (or 718 mile) combat radius of the B-25 to the stated 817 (or 939?) mile radius from the source I linked upthread that annoyed you so much. I think in both cases those are combat radius ranges with a "regular" bomb load. 1100 miles (1265?) is with a fuel tank in the bomb bay and only external bombs. 1513 for the B-25 is one way from my understanding.
> 
> External bombs certainly would affect performance by the way but once you _drop_ the bombs and go 'clean' performance still matters (a lot) for the bomber trying to escape.



The web site for the PE-2 you uplinked to said range (one way) not radius. The range listed makes no mention of nautical miles for the PE-2. 
The B-25 chart that you linked to is from 1950 and they were changing the standards they used by then. and states nautical miles for distances and kts for speed. 





> Let me remind you of the OP in this thread - it's for 1942 and 1943. You keep referring to traits of a Pe-2 in prototype or early production (i.e. 1941) with all it's flaws. From mid 1942 the heavy machine gun was put into the rear cockpit. It also got more powerful engines in 1942 and in 1943 (going up from 1,100 to 1,300 hp from my understanding). Precisely what effects this had on performance etc. I don't know and I don't think I've seen credible numbers on. The dive brake problems were resolved by 1942 from what I read (admittedly on an Ubisoft forum).
> 
> Conversely, you keep comparing it to late model B-25 characteristics, tail guns in 1944, uprated engines, increased fuel capacity and so on. All the bugs ironed out in other words.



in reverse, you are the one who linked to the B-25J Characteristics summary. 
And for the record. In 1943 _as already mentioned _some (certainly not all) B-25C & Ds were getting the belly turret pulled out, waist guns installed and a tail position for a seated gunner (not prone like the first B-25 installation) with a _single _.50 cal gun manually aimed. Cs came of the production line with one fixed and flexible .50 in the nose and most Ds (different factory) had two fixed and one Flexible .50 in the nose. 
The older B-25s carried way less ammo than the 4600 rounds listed for the "J" but a lot more than the PE-2 carried. 
The B-25 never really got uprated engines. There were newer dash number engines with improved or different components but they started with a 1700hp for take-off engine and ended production with 1700hp for take-off engines. These engines had 1450hp at 12,000ft military power. 
The early planes were a bit faster than the later ones due to a lot less weight and fewer bumps/lumps on the airframe. 

The PE-2 had two engines at the time/s in question. The M-105RA and the M-105PF. The RA used a different reduction gear to the prop than the PA used on the single engine fighters but seems (no difference in book I have available "Russian Piston Aero Engines" by Vladimir Kotelnikov) to be the same otherwise. The M-105PF was beefed up a bit to stand up to higher power but used slightly different supercharger gears (?)
Power chart (in German?) form game website, better one certainly welcome.




The power difference once you get to around 3500 meters doesn't amount to much. Mention is also made that since the M-105PF engine used a reduction gear more suited to the single engine fighters that the PE-2 didn't get all the benefit it might have. I may have not worded that well. 



> Pe-2s flew at both low and medium altitude.


So did all of the medium bombers. 



> I am not using "limited sample data" i was simply quoting what were apparently Soviet sortie to loss rate figures. You can go back in time and take it up with them, while you are on your journey to dress down USAAF armorers and whoever else did things you find "don't make sense."



I gave you explanations based on the narrative in the book/s named at the top of this post. Time periods or campaigns if known and the using regiment/s that listed the losses, if given in the book. 
I would note that "USAAF armorers" who were almost entirely enlisted men, didn't decide how many guns went into an airplane or where to put them. Even in the field some officer is going to have to sign-off or approve modifications even if it is just the pilot flying the modified aircraft. 



> You also seem to be getting kind of emotional about the whole debate.


Excuse me, I like numbers to make sense and I like to compare like to like, not range to radius or statute miles to nautical miles or imperial gallons to US gallons. 



> This discussion has been useful to me because it highlights the strengths of the Pe-2 relative to other Allied bombers like the A-20, Wellington, and B-25. I think the Mosquito is still clearly the star bomber of the war (and definitely could have bombed Ploesti in 1942) but my original notion that the Pe-2 was one of the best of the second tier, along with the others mentioned above,



Unfortunately for the PE-2, so far (better numbers will be welcome) it doesn't look like it can do the job. This is not surprising as we are trying to compare an 18-19,000lb aircraft to aircraft that went from around 23-27,000lbs (A-20s) to over 35,000lbs (B-25s, B-26s, Wellingtons) Bigger is not always better but the smaller aircraft is going to be limited in some roles just due to it's size, everything being equal, which it often wasn't. It may be better at others.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Is this article written by Khazanov? Good author who contributed to 2 or 3 books about Pe-2. His weak spot since 1990s was heavy reliance on Soviet docs exclusively and somewhat ignorance of other (German, etc.) materials. In all other respects his works were solid. See "Dmitriy Khazanov" on Google Books and Amazon.
> 
> As for night fighters, Pe-2 role was negligible, IMHO. Pe-3bis were used more extensively in that role, some - with Gneiss radars.



I have his "Pe-2 Guards units of World War 2" on order. Looking forward to reading it! Still trying to find the article...

What about this guy Peter C Smith? he has two books on the Pe-2 published in 2003

Petlyakov Pe-2 Peshka

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Unfortunately for the PE-2, so far (better numbers will be welcome) it doesn't look like it can do the job. This is not surprising as we are trying to compare an 18-19,000lb aircraft to aircraft that went from around 23-27,000lbs (A-20s) to over 35,000lbs (B-25s, B-26s, Wellingtons) Bigger is not always better but the smaller aircraft is going to be limited in some roles just due to it's size, everything being equal, which it often wasn't. It may be better at others.



Debating the finer points of somewhat mysteriously sourced online stats when there is obviously some room for interpretation is fruitless. Suffice to say I don't agree with your interpretations as written.

I'll post more stats on Pe-2s when books arrive or we can find something more definitive online. In the mean time I'll hold off on commenting on the hard numbers.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

Peter C Smith has written a great many books over a number of decades 

However he has never seen even a picture of a dive bomber he didn't like


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The PE-2 had two engines at the time/s in question. The M-105RA and the M-105PF. The RA used a different reduction gear to the prop than the PA used on the single engine fighters but seems (no difference in book I have available "Russian Piston Aero Engines" by Vladimir Kotelnikov) to be the same otherwise. The M-105PF was beefed up a bit to stand up to higher power but used slightly different supercharger gears (?)
> Power chart (in German?) form game website, better one certainly welcome.
> ...
> The power difference once you get to around 3500 meters doesn't amount to much. Mention is also made that since the M-105PF engine used a reduction gear more suited to the single engine fighters that the PE-2 didn't get all the benefit it might have. I may have not worded that well..



Germans noted that reduction was 1.5:1 for engines without a prop gun capability, and 1.7:1 for those with that capability. The S/C was geared the same on all M/VK-105 engines in series production, I don't know why German chart shows difference in altitude power - perhaps it was due to the individual engines they've tested and draw conclusions? Soviet chart:


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

Thank you Tomo, much appreciated.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Just read this on a modeling website. I know the guy who made it Tom Cleaver (I'm on another forum with him) who is also an author of several books on WW2 Aviation himself, so can ask him his source. Apparently Pe-2s did a raid on Ploesti!

"*On the southern front, a bombing mission against Ploesti by six Pe 2s, led by Capt. A. Tsurtsulin, resulted in the destruction of 552,150 gallons of petroleum. The Romanians claimed that at least 100 Soviet aircraft had participated in the attack. A German pilot shot down by a Pe-2 stated the Pe 2 “... is a fast aircraft, with good armament, and it is dangerous to enemy fighters." Pe 2 crews complained about insufficient defensive armament and survivability, due to insufficient armor and fire risk, especially for the navigators and gunners as German pilots soon discovered the limited sighting angles of the ventral gun mount. On average, ten Pe 2 gunners were wounded for every pilot, and two or three were killed for the loss of one pilot. The design was steadily refined and improved throughout 1942, in direct consultation with pilots who were actually flying them in combat. Improved armor protection and a fifth ShKAS machine gun were installed and the fuel tanks were protected. *

*The resulting sub-type has been called the Pe 2FT for production series after 83 (FT stands for Frontovoe Trebovanie - Frontline Request), although no official Soviet documents use this identification." *

From what I understand the defensive gun and navigator / rear gunner armor were all improved in 1942.

S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I have his "Pe-2 Guards units of World War 2" on order. Looking forward to reading it! Still trying to find the article...
> 
> What about this guy Peter C Smith? he has two books on the Pe-2 published in 2003
> 
> ...


Sorry, no idea. I did not read those books.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Peter C Smith has written a great many books over a number of decades
> 
> However he has never seen even a picture of a dive bomber he didn't like


Dangerous affection. Shared by someone on this forum, I bet 
His History of Dive Bombing was good.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Dangerous affection. Shared by someone on this forum, I bet
> His History of Dive Bombing was good.



It was, but he has also devoted one book to the Blackburn Skua 
A labor of love if ever there was one with less than 200 built even if it did score a few "firsts"


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Just read this on a modeling website. I know the guy who made it Tom Cleaver (I'm on another forum with him) who is also an author of several books on WW2 Aviation himself, so can ask him his source. Apparently Pe-2s did a raid on Ploesti!
> 
> "*On the southern front, a bombing mission against Ploesti by six Pe 2s, led by Capt. A. Tsurtsulin, resulted in the destruction of 552,150 gallons of petroleum. The Romanians claimed that at least 100 Soviet aircraft had participated in the attack. A German pilot shot down by a Pe-2 stated the Pe 2 “... is a fast aircraft, with good armament, and it is dangerous to enemy fighters." Pe 2 crews complained about insufficient defensive armament and survivability, due to insufficient armor and fire risk, especially for the navigators and gunners as German pilots soon discovered the limited sighting angles of the ventral gun mount. On average, ten Pe 2 gunners were wounded for every pilot, and two or three were killed for the loss of one pilot. The design was steadily refined and improved throughout 1942, in direct consultation with pilots who were actually flying them in combat. Improved armor protection and a fifth ShKAS machine gun were installed and the fuel tanks were protected. *
> 
> ...


Wait for those Khazanov/Medved books, you should find more details of improvements there. 
About 1942. On one hand the designs were improved indeed. On the other hand, production quality dropped considerably which resulted in more non combat losses, lower serviceability rates and max speed reduction down to 505 kmh in May 1942 (according to Khazanov). Probably the worst period for Pe-2 (except the summer 1941) as speed of LW fighters continued to rise. Quality issues were addressed later when more skilled workers were given draft exemptions and Pe-2 (and some other aircraft) production lines were manned with adult men instead of undernourished teenagers. And when lend leased food supplies finally began to reach industrial centres. And foreign machine tools became available, etc... Sinews of war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Wait for those Khazanov/Medved books, you should find more details of improvements there.
> About 1942. On one hand the designs were improved indeed. On the other hand, production quality dropped considerably which resulted in more non combat losses, lower serviceability rates and max speed reduction down to 505 kmh in May 1942 (according to Khazanov). Probably the worst period for Pe-2 (except the summer 1941) as speed of LW fighters continued to rise. Quality issues were addressed later when more skilled workers were given draft exemptions and Pe-2 (and some other aircraft) production lines were manned with adult men instead of undernourished teenagers. And when lend leased food supplies finally began to reach industrial centres. And foreign machine tools became available, etc... Sinews of war.



How about 43?

S


----------



## wuzak (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think the Mosquito is still clearly the star bomber of the war (and definitely could have bombed Ploesti in 1942)



There was some doubt that a Mosquito could have performed a raid on Ploesti at the time of Operation Tidal Wave, though they certainly could have later from Italian bases, as was done by P-38s.

But there is no way for Mosquitoes to bomb Ploesti in 1942. The range wasn't there to fly from North Africa.

And there weren't enough bomber Mosquitoes in 1942.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

wuzak said:


> There was some doubt that a Mosquito could have performed a raid on Ploesti at the time of Operation Tidal Wave, though they certainly could have later from Italian bases, as was done by P-38s.
> 
> But there is no way for Mosquitoes to bomb Ploesti in 1942. The range wasn't there to fly from North Africa.
> 
> And there weren't enough bomber Mosquitoes in 1942.



Yeah my bad i meant 43, the week after they captured Palermo.

I mean apparently 6 Pe-2s caused a buttload of damage in Ploesti so a few dozen Mosquitoes should be able to burn it down.

S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> How about 43?
> 
> S


It seems that common view is that in 1943 and further on the quality problems were mostly resolved. And development were mostly positive, except not very successful experiments with radial engines. Max "advertised" speed of 540 km/h has never been reached though but the later modifications were better protected and armed and (the most important in my view) pilots training and tactics improved considerably since 1941. 
By the way, my "wishful thinking" is that Pe-2 could be more radically modified by its original designer Petlyakov. Myasishev who took the helm after Petlyakov's death has chosen safe but conservative path of "a bit here, a bit there". Petlyakov was innovator and good team leader.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah my bad i meant 43, the week after they captured Palermo.
> 
> I mean apparently 6 Pe-2s caused a buttload of damage in Ploesti so a few dozen Mosquitoes should be able to burn it down.
> 
> S


Who knows, Ploesti was better protected in 1943.
Could Mossies fly Palermo-Ploesti with some bombload and then land on Soviet territory to refuel/rearm, I wonder. Shuttle raids scenario of alternate history.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

A problem the PE-2 had (shared by the Russian aircraft industry) was the lack of good engines. The M-106 and M-107 were never sorted out until the very end of the war so unlike the British with a stream of ever improving Merlins they were "stuck" with an engine equivalent to an early Allison for the duration of the war.

2nd problem was the lack of aluminium alloy, The PE-2 had to, at times revert to some wooden components. Which did nothing for weight and the poor surface finish, especially after several months of Russian weather, did nothing for speed.

One needs to be _really_ innovative when saddled with an engine (and no good alternatives) that never improves and material shortages AND demands for higher production so you can't do any extensive revision that would interrupt production.

The PE-2 while not designed to be so, was turned into the replacement for the SB bomber.
Same bomb load, same guns (to start) same engines (basicly, newer versions) but with a wing 2/3rds the size and with much shorter range.
The last was probably not a big deal as the range of the SB was pretty much unusable by 1941-42 for daylight bombers without escort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Who knows, Ploesti was better protected in 1943.
> Could Mossies fly Palermo-Ploesti with some bombload and then land on Soviet territory to refuel/rearm, I wonder. Shuttle raids scenario of alternate history.


 Between the Soviet raid in 1941 and the 1942 small raid by nine? B-24s the Germans were fully aware of the vulnerability of Polesti and had moved in several hundred AA guns and several fighter squadrons. 
1943 Mosquitos are going to be carrying four 500lbs apiece (about 1/2 of what the B-24s carried).

I would also note, for all of the "the Mosquito _could have_......" schemes that as of Jan 1st 1944 the British had eight bomber squadrons of Mosquitos. 3 with Mosquito IVs (two of those were pathfinder squadrons) , two with Mosquito VIs (fighter bombers with 1/2 the bomb bay occupied by guns) and three with Mosquito IXs (all pathfinders.) 

Where ANY Mosquitos were going to come from for special duties/missions over and above what they already did is a mystery.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> A problem the PE-2 had (shared by the Russian aircraft industry) was the lack of good engines. The M-106 and M-107 were never sorted out until the very end of the war so unlike the British with a stream of ever improving Merlins they were "stuck" with an engine equivalent to an early Allison for the duration of the war.
> 
> 2nd problem was the lack of aluminium alloy, The PE-2 had to, at times revert to some wooden components. Which did nothing for weight and the poor surface finish, especially after several months of Russian weather, did nothing for speed.
> 
> ...



Agree about the engines. Achilles' heel of aviation and other industries through all life of USSR. By the way, I still don't understand why the Soviets did not go ahead with ordering foreign engines. This question was raised continuously through the war. Initial production issues could be compensated with better performance and longer service life.

Alloys problem was very complex. I think, the core issue was not the deficit, at least not since end 1942 when lend leased supplies stabilised, but fierce competition between two ministries: of aviation and tank industries. T-34 tank has acquired a kind of "life saver" status and its engines required aluminium as well. The head of tank ministry V.Malyshev was called by some historians "Zhukov of industry" due to his ruthless character and political talents. He was obviously more successful in Kremlin internal politics than his counterpart Shakurin of aviation ministry. The latter was sent to prison in 1946.

Innovations - probably in developments of other variants than light bomber. Further work on Pe-3 as night fighter and long range fighter for Navy as examples. Both types were critically needed and could protect the factories (aviation as well) from German bombing and to cover convoys in North and in the Black Sea (Sevastopol was lost because of failed logistics). Or long range recon plane - another segment where VVS was behind LW. I think that Pe-2 "platform" was left without its main driver after Petlyakov's death and hence was doomed just for small modernisations based on front line's feedback.
As for the Pe-2 as a bomber I agree that there was hardly any room for real breakthrough without new engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

It might depend on actual need as to what would be done the the PE-2s. Several hundred (at the very least) were built as reconnaissance aircraft, but here again you have an engine problem. The high altitude engines needed for long range deep reconnaissance missions never made it into service (AM-35 aside and that production was turned into the AM-38 for the IL-2 which became a sacred cow) 
I have no idea how many A-20Bs the Russians got but according to this (and it could be wrong) a number of them were turned into recon planes. 

The Douglas A-20 Havoc/Boston in Soviet Service

"More involved alterations were carried out on a number of A-20Bs to convert them into reconnaissance platforms. As mentioned above, B variants lacked self-sealing fuel tank and armor, and could thus fly higher and faster than the Cs, leading the Soviet brass to select B models for reconnaissance operations. The A-20Bs were fitted with a variety of Soviet-built aerial camera installations for day and night photography, and an additional fuel tank was installed in the bomb bay to increase the aircraft’s range. Such modified Havocs were used by both the Soviet Air Force and the Navy. The converted B reconnaissance platforms served adeptly throughout the course of the war, and often times flew alongside Soviet-built Petlyakov Pe-2Rs towards the end of hostilities. Georgiy Ivanovich Lashin, an A-20 pilot who flew both bomber and reconnaissance missions, was awarded the Gold Star Hero of the Soviet Union for his skills as a pilot, specifically while flying reconnaissance sorties. During the war, Lashin took aerial photographs of six European capitals (Bucharest, Sofia, Athens, Belgrade, Budapest, and Vienna), each time under attack from enemy fighters and anti-aircraft fire. Lashin was credit with photographing 150,000 square kilometers of enemy-held territory, including 160 airfields, 150 railway junctions, and thousands of other military targets, all while flying an A-20."

While some of the details are interesting it does not say when these missions were flown or over what ranges.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 21, 2018)

One possibility as to why they didn’t order foreign engines is that neither the US nor UK would sell them. Lend-Lease seemed to be for finished goods —aircraft, ships, trucks, etc — and spares, but not components.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> One possibility as to why they didn’t order foreign engines is that neither the US nor UK would sell them. Lend-Lease seemed to be for finished goods —aircraft, ships, trucks, etc — and spares, but not components.



I know there was a shortage of engines (and spare parts) for most of the early Lend-Lease aircraft like the Hurricane and P-40. Possibly later rectified with the P-39 though I'm not sure.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> One possibility as to why they didn’t order foreign engines is that neither the US nor UK would sell them. Lend-Lease seemed to be for finished goods —aircraft, ships, trucks, etc — and spares, but not components.


According to Wiki the British sent £1.15 worth of aircraft engines, but from reading the Russian web site their biggest problem was wrecked propellers.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> According to Wiki the British sent £1.15 worth of aircraft engines, but from reading the Russian web site their biggest problem was wrecked propellers.



I wonder what would have happened if the Soviets had taken all of the engines out of their Hurricanes and put them in Yak-7s...

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I wonder what would have happened if the Soviets had taken all of the engines out of their Hurricanes and put them in Yak-7s...


well,
A, you would have immediately lost the the through the prop cannon ( the Merlin could not use a through the prop gun nor could it be modified to do so with a very extensive rework)B, followed very quickly by either the prop being shot off by the cowl guns or the cowl guns being removed and hung under the wings (no Merlin ever used synchronized guns, at the least you have to cut holes in the back of the cam covers, fabricate a mount for the synchroniser unit, attach an extension shaft to the cam/s to drive the gun synchronizers.) 






Note the fuel tanks go pretty much out to the beginning of the ailerons which in those rather tapered wings, doesn't leave much room for guns.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Frazer (Apr 21, 2018)

I voted the Pe-2, though there's a lot of variation among those planes.

I cannot understand enthusiasm for he A-20, unless this has been debunked, or is simple not known.


in 1944 USAAF warns pilots that A-20 is not at all an aerobatic plane. Stalls nice and straight ahead with power-off, but don't *DO NOT* try a power-on stall because it spins viciously.
Stalls at over 200mph in a steep bank.
If you find yourself in a spin at 5000 feet or less, hit the parachute. But first, stop and feather both props and make sure they're stopped (or you might as well ride it down.)
Sounds like a horrible death-trap and easy meat for anything but a bigger less maneuverable bomber. Lousy flying characteristics probably killed a lot of crews. But we have the Red Army as the often-cited source of glowing performance reports, and of course the Army and contractors touted how well the crews loved it...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

We also have the Russians claiming it flew well on one engine, something the PE-2 was not supposed to do for very long, at least according to one account.
One also has to look at many of it's contemporaries. Blenheims and Beauforts (and Hampdens early Wellingtons) struggled to stay in the air on one engine and often didn't. Many other early war twin engine bombers could not maintain height on one engine. 
Which twin is more of a death trap, a plane that has bad spin characteristics or one that won't stay in the air with one engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

John Frazer said:


> I voted the Pe-2, though there's a lot of variation among those planes.
> 
> I cannot understand enthusiasm for he A-20, unless this has been debunked, or is simple not known.
> 
> ...




I had the same reaction to watching that video but it could also be the Military being overly cautious- spins were forbidden on P-40s but pilots spun them anyway and found it easy to get out of them. I suspect how well the A-20 performed depended a lot on how heavily loaded it was. The Soviets and British certainly liked the plane a lot.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

John Frazer said:


> I voted the Pe-2, though there's a lot of variation among those planes.



Hey did you vote in the poll? I still only show one vote for the Pe-2 (mine). i was excited to hear somebody else voted for it!


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 21, 2018)

John Frazer said:


> I cannot understand enthusiasm for he A-20, unless this has been debunked, or is simple not known.
> 
> 
> in 1944 USAAF warns pilots that A-20 is not at all an aerobatic plane. Stalls nice and straight ahead with power-off, but don't *DO NOT* try a power-on stall because it spins viciously.
> ...




This is a training film for pilots unfamiliar with the type. By 1944 the Air Force had wised up about putting inexperienced kids in high performance aircraft and letting them figure things out on their own. The B-26 got a rep as a widowmaker, but the A-20 crash rate was 2 1/2 times higher.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> This is a training film for pilots unfamiliar with the type. By 1944 the Air Force had wised up about putting inexperienced kids in high performance aircraft and letting them figure things out on their own. The B-26 got a rep as a widowmaker, but the A-20 crash rate was 2 1/2 times higher.



To be fair to the B-26 and the A-20 (even though I'm not really a fan of the former) the higher speed (especially for landing and takeoff) of "modern" WW2 era fighters and bombers was too much for a lot of recruits, especially in the early years of the war when they often had very little training on the specific type. I think something like half of the early P-40s were destroyed in landing accidents and they weren't exactly difficult to handle. Just a_ lot _faster than say a stearman.

This was a big problem for the Pe-2 as well.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We also have the Russians claiming it flew well on one engine, something the PE-2 was not supposed to do for very long, at least according to one account.
> One also has to look at many of it's contemporaries. Blenheims and Beauforts (and Hampdens early Wellingtons) struggled to stay in the air on one engine and often didn't. Many other early war twin engine bombers could not maintain height on one engine.
> Which twin is more of a death trap, a plane that has bad spin characteristics or one that won't stay in the air with one engine?


A twin that needs both engines to maintain level flight is worse than a single; as twin-engine aircraft are slightly more likely to have a single engine failure than an aircraft with one engine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

True, but many early twins (of a number of nations) were underpowered and the British managed to keep the march of time (and fully feathering propellers) at bay for a few more years. I have no idea if the PE-2 had fully feathering props or not. NOT all constant speed props were fully feathering. 

I have sometimes wondered if the Lockheed Hudson was called "old boomerang" ,supposedly because it always came back, because it was really so tough or because it had a decent power to weight ratio AND fully feathering propellers (at least after the first 250?) and could fly one engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 22, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> One possibility as to why they didn’t order foreign engines is that neither the US nor UK would sell them. Lend-Lease seemed to be for finished goods —aircraft, ships, trucks, etc — and spares, but not components.



I'm not aware of any restrictions in that respect unless I'm missing something.
US and UK did supply engines for lend leased aircraft. I saw numbers from 3 to 7.5 thousands. And there were other engines purchased specially for evaluation purposes. R-2800 was considered for La-5, for example.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 22, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We also have the Russians claiming it flew well on one engine, something the PE-2 was not supposed to do for very long, at least according to one account.
> One also has to look at many of it's contemporaries. Blenheims and Beauforts (and Hampdens early Wellingtons) struggled to stay in the air on one engine and often didn't. Many other early war twin engine bombers could not maintain height on one engine.
> Which twin is more of a death trap, a plane that has bad spin characteristics or one that won't stay in the air with one engine?



Indeed. I like Pe-2 a lot but have to acknowledge that B-25 and A-20 were more robust and could bring crew back home on one engine, that was confirmed by VVS pilots. Pe-2 could do aerobatics as barrel rolls. OK, nice. Was it useful in combat? I'm not sure.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Indeed. I like Pe-2 a lot but have to acknowledge that B-25 and A-20 were more robust and could bring crew back home on one engine, that was confirmed by VVS pilots. Pe-2 could do aerobatics as barrel rolls. OK, nice. Was it useful in combat? I'm not sure.



Is there actual data saying that the Pe-2 couldn't fly on one engine or is that just an anecdote?

S


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Is there actual data saying that the Pe-2 couldn't fly on one engine or is that just an anecdote?
> 
> S



Valid question. As far as I remember it was not possible to keep altitude with one engine. But you are right, actual confirmation is required. I'll try to find something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (May 2, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Is there actual data saying that the Pe-2 couldn't fly on one engine or is that just an anecdote?
> 
> S



Done in separate thread. Enjoy. 
Petlyakov Pe-2/one engine flight

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

