Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito

[Schweik]

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]

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.

 

[Schweik]

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]

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.

 

[Dimlee]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[Dimlee]

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 note 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.

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[swampyankee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[John Frazer]

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...

 

[Shortround6]

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?

 

[Schweik]

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...

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]

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]

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...

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.

 

[Schweik]

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.