An even greater inter-Allied cooperation on the technical & tactical matter? (3 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi
The trouble is with building P-47s is that they would have been very late war aircraft. The P-47 first flying on 6 May 1941 (and had its own developmental problems including with the engine, all of that would have to have been sorted out before any license production in the UK), the first Typhoon production machine flying 17 May 1941 (first P-47 production machine in March 1942). By the time the P-47 undertook its first operational missions with the US 8th AF from 13 April 1943 the Typhoon had been shooting down low level raiders and had undertook day and night ground attacks over France, despite its problems, for a year or so. So unless Republic could have got the P-47 operational a year or so earlier it was a non-runner for being a Typhoon replacement, your suggestion would just have been another "too little, too late" in WW2.

Mike
 
Last use in France : AU-1 from Flotille 14F on September 1964.
 
MikeMeech said:
the Typhoon had been shooting down low level raiders and had undertook day and night ground attacks over France, despite its problems, for a year or so.
Click to expand...
The squadron leader of the first Typhoon unit had argued strongly to get the airplane into service (Alan Deere I think it was. I have his book) , despite being told it was not ready. So they put it into service and eventually he admitted they should not have done that; it was too early.

A book by an NZ pilot describes how he washed out of Spits after falling asleep or something and was put on ferrying. He got to like the Typhoon but on one of his first deliveries he landed and was lectured by an officer who told him always come straight in with a Typhoon, don't fly a pattern because the thing is too dangerous.
 
Last edited:
The Typhoons were rushed, not properly debugged, into service in 1941 because they could out-run low flying Fw190s. This is something the early P-47s were unable to do in 1942/43 when they reached service. The P-47 bubble canopies were copied from the later Typhoons' bubble canopies. The P-47s were successful bomber escorts because combat took place at high altitudes where they were grossly faster than the Fw190s. It was worked out that the Fw190 was superior below 15,000ft, and the P-47 above 20,000ft.

The P-47s were successful ground attack aircraft because they got to eliminate experienced Luftwaffe pilots at high altitudes that suited the P-47s.
 
tomo pauk said:
Things that Soviet can adopt for their needs, that originates from the West (bar just using the stuff as-is, like using whole tanks or aircraft)?
Click to expand...
Nothing. The weakness and technological backwardness of Soviet industry did not allow it to produce the most modern Western models. For example, the Merlin was considered too complex for the production in the conditions of the USSR. The B-29 copying project was necessary for the Soviet aviation industry to somewhat reduce its lag behind the West. This project was comparable in scale only to the atomic one.
tomo pauk said:
Soviet stuff interesting to the West?
Click to expand...
Almost all Soviet aircraft engines were descendants of Western ones. The technology for manufacturing metal aircraft in the USSR changed radically before the war, after the purchase of a license for the DC-3.
The West was hardly interested in the technology for manufacturing wooden aircraft.
From the point of view of Western military experts, Soviet tanks had serious shortcomings, primarily low reliability. And in general, the T-34 was a descendant of Christie tanks.
Perhaps automatic submerged arc welding was of some interest, as it increased productivity and reduced the need for highly skilled workers in tank production. But after the Korean War, the Soviets were surprised to discover that the quality of welds on American tanks was higher than on Soviet tanks, even though the latter used manual welding.
 
wuzak said:
The Spitfire XVI was a IX but with a Packad built engine.
Click to expand...
I've read that Canadian units equipped with the Mk XVI LF had a relatively large number of engine problems. The 60 series Merlin originally was designed as a very high altitude engine for operations above 40,000 ft to emulate or intercept the Junkers JU86P. It had to be adjusted to operate at lower altitudes. Makes me wonder if the Canadians jimmied the supercharger controls for still lower altitudes. On Iwo Jima some P-51's had the momentary contact switch that turned the high speed of the supercharger to ON with a regular toggle switch so the pilots could get more boost under the 18,000 ft setting of the controller. The Japanese pilots were not stupid enough to engage the Mustangs at above 18,000 ft where they would be at a major disadvantage. So they flew around at their optimum altitude of 15,000 ft hoping to entice the Mustangs to come down. One P-51 squadron commander had
his airplane modified so he could get extra boost at lower altitudes by throwing the switch.
 
MIflyer said:
Bill Gunston says that the Soviet aircraft guns were always better than the US or UK.
Click to expand...
Yes, no, maybe.
Soviet aircraft guns were high powered for their weight. But they often had short lives. Which doesn't matter so much when the average life of the airframe and engines was not high either. They were also not shipping spare guns and parts 1/2 way around the world.
 
MIflyer said:
Bill Gunston says that the Soviet aircraft guns were always better than the US or UK.
Click to expand...
"Always" is clearly an overstatement. I can only agree that the 11P (NS-37) and the NS-23 had certain advantages and could be of interest to the West. But this would require a complete reorganization of shell production, which is extremely risky in wartime.
The promising MP-6 cannon designed by Taubin and Baburin was successfully "buried" by the Soviets due to the incompetence of the leadership.
 
For ww2 aircraft:
Soviet guns vs. what USA made - Soviet guns better. It took the Americans ages to make the Hispano to work, their 37mm was meh, while the .50 BMG didn't took the synchronization well, and it took copying of the Soviet API bullet to much improve the lethality of the BMG. There was no counterpart to the VYa-23, N-37 or the B-20.
Soviet guns vs. what UK made? Much closer scenario. British had no indigenous HMG in use (matters when a rear LMG will not do well against the armor of a chasing fighter), they have had a working 20mm, even if it was a later affair than the Shvak, the Hispano Mk.V was excellent, and their tank-buster gun was good. Hispano shells were hard hitters when compared to the Soviet 20mm.
Soviet 20mm cannons were suitable for the synchronized mounts, a point rendered moot with the 'West' having better engines so the fighters were able to carry a pair or two without much of the downsides. In ww2, importance of a good engine trumps the importance of a good gun by a wide margin.

A lot depends on what were the actual needs, and same goes for the timing. It will take probably a full year for any foreign gun to be in production in a different country, even if the dire need arises in ww2.

Another thing - both VYa-23 and the N-37, preferably with the heavier barrels fitted, would've been great AA guns.
 
Well, the USSR guns being "better" does not take into account the tasks associated with transferring production.

I do note that the USSR did not seem to get interested in 37MM aircraft guns until the P-39 showed up.

The disappointing thing is how the Japanese made a 20MM based on the American .50 caliber gun. In the A&SM they have one of each displayed near each other. Our "experts" supposedly said that upscaling the .50 to 20MM was not possible.
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
VYa-23, N-37 or the B-20.
Click to expand...
The VYa had very strong recoil and problems with feeding the shell belt—the feed was jerky, and the problem was never fixed. The VYa shell had excessive power and was replaced with a less powerful one for the NS-23, which can be considered almost ideal for a fighter at the end of World War II. The B-20 was a modification of the Berezin's machine gun for the ShVAK cartridge - this shell was hopelessly outdated by 1945. In addition, the B-20 had a fairly low service life, as a result of which in 1944-1945 the Soviets continued to install the ShVAK on Lavochkin's fighters, and the B-20 went mostly into storage.
Production of the N-37 began in 1947.
As a result, only the NS-37 (11P) - the legacy of the repressed Taubin and Baburin - and the NS-23 remain on the list.
 
MIflyer said:
I do note that the USSR did not seem to get interested in 37MM aircraft guns until the P-39 showed up.
Click to expand...
This is not true. The history of 37 mm aircraft guns in the USSR is discussed in detail in the books by Rastrenin (and Shirokorad, whom I dislike intensely). The K-37 cannon designed by Shpitalny was tested as early as 1938, but failed the tests. New assignments for the design of a 37 mm motor cannon were issued to Shpitalny and Taubin at the end of 1940.
 
yulzari said:
Just out of curiousity where did the story start? Not from the Royal Navy. But I suspect from a journalist who conflated assorted titbits of wartime comments into the myth.
Click to expand...

Lordy, it's so old I can't remember where I first read it. But it's like folks think that the F4U was the first Navy plane with crappy approach visibility and no gold-winger ever thought of a curved approach ... when that approach dates back to at least the early 1930s if not before.

No, these dumb Americans needed to be taught how to use their own airplanes.



 
One of the, admittedly, small number of things the West, and again indirectly the East might've benefited wrt. the technical exchange would've been the introduction of the swirl throttle for the Western engines.
Eg. in case of the 1-speed S/Ced Merlins, that mostly removes the need for the separate low-altitude models (that historically meant than Spitfires/Seafires powered by lo-altitude engines were much inferior above 10000 ft or so), and would've allowed than Mk. 46 & 47 are still useful in the lower altitudes. The take-off powers for these engines also goes up, not a bad thing to have, especially for the naval versions.
For the 2-speed engines, mostly used on bombers and Hurricanes, again the incraese of the take-off power without increse of boost would've been a good thing.
For the 2-stage supercharged engines, again this removes the need to have separate low-, mid- and high-altitude models. Probably ~1900 HP down low on 130 grade, dry?

Similar would apply to the V-1710 - the improved 1-stage models from late 1942 will still be the excellent low-altitude performers, despite the supercharged gearing being increased. The 2-stage models might've been making 1900-1950 HP already in 1944 with 130 grade and ADI, or ~1550 HP without ADI.
(granted, this still does not remove the need for the better superchargers for the V-1710 as early as possible).

Application of the swirl throttle on the radial engines engines might've also been interesting, and also on any type of the turboed engines.

Copying the additional curved impeller vane for the Western radials from the ASh-82 should add to the power at any altitude.
(I'm not sure how well informed the UK and USA were about the excellent S/C from the G&R 14R engine, that was better with a better intake vane than even the ASh-82)

Going in the opposite direction, the Western 2-stage superchargers - especially from RR - would've been a major boon on the Soviet engines.
 
tomo pauk said:
Going in the opposite direction, the Western 2-stage superchargers - especially from RR - would've been a major boon on the Soviet engines.
Click to expand...
Increasing engine power at high altitudes was not a priority for the Soviets—on the Eastern Front, bombers and attack aircraft did not fly above 6,000 meters. The M-82 had much more serious problems than the lack of a two-stage supercharger—the Soviets were unable to ensure the quality of the carburetors (IIRC, copied from Holley models), and only direct injection (copied from the Bosch system) helped to achieve the required performance. Throughout the war, the USSR had a problem with gear production—there weren't enough machine tools. Taking into account the above factors, Western two-stage supercharger technology did not play a significant role for the Soviets. It was only after the war, when the B-29 became the main threat, that the Soviets began to look seriously for a solution to the high-altitude fighter problem. And they found it - in the UK at RR, but it had nothing to do with superchargers..
The Soviets did not need high-tech, which they could not implement, but rather basic technologies and machine tools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Similar threads

Getting the best mileage from the squeeze-bore guns?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
1K
tomo pauk
1939 Tactical Bomber
2 3
Replies
41
Views
7K
GrauGeist
Fictional challenge! The H-1 Racer was approved as an American fighter in 1936.
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
_PabloSniper_
W
Making the Uralbomber work
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
3K
wiking85
W
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
TM06
Menu
Log in
Register