Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito

[parsifal]

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

 

[wuzak]

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.

 

[Greg Boeser]

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.

 

[Dimlee]

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»

 

[Schweik]

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]

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

(snip)

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»

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]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Dimlee]

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

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

Thank you Tomo, much appreciated.

 

[Schweik]

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]

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

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

 

[Dimlee]

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]

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]

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

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.