Best German fighter for the Eastern Front

parsifal said:

I notice the Aberdeen tests were undertaken using a 1941 type T-34, with the problematic two man turret and dodgy gearbox.......

Click to expand...

Getting back to part of the original thread skew. Here is part of our question on build quality. Several different factories building pretty much the same tank (at least chassis) over a number of years that range from peace to war to desperate war/factory being moved to winning the war and back to peace and then new production lines set up in peace time ( cold war?) in eastern European countries. "Following the end of the war, a further 2,701 T-34s were built prior to the end of production. Under license, production was restarted in Poland (1951–55) and Czechoslovakia (1951–58), where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made, respectively, by 1956" wiki.
Now, what was the build quality of the T-34???

My part answer----- which factory and WHEN?

On this forum we argue over which factory built better Merlins for crying out loud.
It should be easy to accept that build quality of some Russian equipment was rather variable. It wasn't all to post war quality and it wasn't all late 1941/early 1942 'shove it out the door-anything is better than nothing' desperation.

"Jenisch
The T-34 was certainly improved. I have the impression that the 85 was equal or perhaps better than the Panzer IV."

"vinnye
I would have thought that the T34-85 was more on a par with a Panther?"

Tante Ju said:

No... much weaker gun (ca. on par with the Pz IV's long 75mm), much less armor, smaller ammo load... the Panther was pretty much in a class with itself anyway.

Click to expand...

We are now getting into design vs build quality.

this might be better in a separate thread if one does not already exist?

T-34 factories T-34 Medium Tank Production

First Factory No.183 - Charkovskiy Traktornyj Zawod (ChTZ), Kharkov
Second Factory No.183 - Uralskiy Tankovyj Zawod No.183 (UTZ), Nizhniy Tagil
STZ Factory – Stalingradzkiy Traktornyj Zawod
No.112 Factory – Krasnoye Sormovo, Gorky
No.174 Factory (Voroshilov Plant), Omsk
CzKZ – Czelyabinskiy Traktorniy Zavod (Czelyabinsk Tractor Factory) then Czelyabinskiy Kirovskiy Zawod
UTZM – Uralskiy Zavod Tyazhelogo Mashinostroyenya im. Ordzhonikidze or Uralmash (Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machinery Factory)

There was certainly different build quality depending on the factory. One could tell which factory a T-34 came from for example by the turret.

Shortround6 said:

Getting back to part of the original thread skew. Here is part of our question on build quality. Several different factories building pretty much the same tank (at least chassis) over a number of years that range from peace to war to desperate war/factory being moved to winning the war and back to peace and then new production lines set up in peace time ( cold war?) in eastern European countries. "Following the end of the war, a further 2,701 T-34s were built prior to the end of production. Under license, production was restarted in Poland (1951–55) and Czechoslovakia (1951–58), where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made, respectively, by 1956" wiki.
Now, what was the build quality of the T-34???

My part answer----- which factory and WHEN?

On this forum we argue over which factory built better Merlins for crying out loud.
It should be easy to accept that build quality of some Russian equipment was rather variable. It wasn't all to post war quality and it wasn't all late 1941/early 1942 'shove it out the door-anything is better than nothing' desperation.

Click to expand...

As I wrote earlier, Finns used their war-booty T-34s till 1961. On the other hand Finns thought that T-26 was less reliable than the original Vickers 6 ton tank, which Finns called T-26E after they began use captured T-26s in large scale, after all T-26 was the most common tank in Finnsh service during WWII.

Juha, the Finnish were masters at making due with what they had. Especially amazing what they pulled off during the Winter War when they were short on pretty much anything!
It is also telling that the Finnish used relatively more captured Soviet material than the Germans did. The Germans captured hundreds of fully operational tanks, but it is my impression that they used them until defect and did not care much about repairing them if spare parts were not easily at hand. The Finns did not have this 'luxury'.
Neither did the Germans and they should have set up more extensive repair facilities and spare parts production for the thousands of captured tanks, guns and ... planes.

Kris

We may want to move the "t-34" discussion to:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/russia-marks-anniversary-its-best-tank-22320.html

AS most of what is being posted now has little relation to Soviet fighters let alone German ones.

I concur...

I agree, but point out that the sub debate arose because claims were being made that Soviet build quality was so bad that the difference between design speed of the factory made La5 and the theoretical design specs was as much as 70 KPH.

parsifal said:

I agree, but point out that the sub debate arose because claims were being made that Soviet build quality was so bad that the difference between design speed of the factory made La5 and the theoretical design specs was as much as 70 KPH.

Click to expand...

Posts 168 and 169.

This is somewhat borne out by some Russian writers. Unfortunately, like many other Russian items, there were a number of different 'series' of aircraft produced with somewhat different detail specifications but with the same designation. Not ALL LA-5s before the LA-5F was built were built to exactly the same standard. And so on through the rest of the designations.

From page 41 of "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" vol. 1 by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov;

" Series production aircraft were considerably inferior to the prototype in speed, being some 28.4 to 31mph ( 40 to 50km/h) slower. On the one hand this is understandable as the LaGG-3 M-82 prototype lacked the radio antenna, bomb carriers, and leading edge slats fitted to the production aircraft. But there were other contributory causes, particularly insufficiently tight cowlings." It goes on to say that the openings were found and and eliminated.

From page 42: " Many defects in design and manufacture had not been corrected."

" In combat the Soviet pilots flew the LA-5 with the canopy open, the cowling side flaps fully open and the tailwheel down, and this reduced its speed by another 18.6 to 24.8mp ( 30 to 40 km/h). as a result, on 25th September 1942 the State Defence Committee issued an edict requiring that the La-5 be lightened, and that its performance and operational characteristics be improved."

On Page 44 (although it is not entirely clear if these tests apply to the 5F or the 5, using 4 series produced aircraft a number of test were done resulting in the following modifications:
"
* the engine cowling joints were sealed;
* the shape of the oil cooler ducts was improved;
* a new inlet pipe was fitted;
* the area of the exhaust pipe cross-section was increased;
* the tailwheel doors were stiffened."
The test results showed that speeds equal to the those of the LaGG-3 M-82 prototype, which the series-built aircraft had failed to match, could be attained."

It goes on to describe modifications to the M-82 engine BEFORE the fuel injected M-82FNV engine.

Now if you take an aircraft that was 40kph slower than the prototype and fly it with the canopy and cowl flaps open and tail wheel down you can easily be 70kph slower than the prototype although a fair part of the speed difference is NOT to build quality.

Reading this book ( and it's companion volume) you will find that MANY Russian aircraft did not meet the performance numbers of the prototypes.

And regarding build quality it was found on some LaGG-3s that 30kg of adhesive could be stripped away without any negative effect on structural strength and that is just in the tail, rear fuselage and fin area. (page 36)

This is very interesting, Shortround. The LW report seems to be correct therefore. I actually underestimated the report prepared by the LW for it's pilots. The data obtained in the test with the captured Lavochkin was certainly cross checked with operational estimatives of it's performance.

Shortround6 said:

This is somewhat borne out by some Russian writers. Unfortunately, like many other Russian items, there were a number of different 'series' of aircraft produced with somewhat different detail specifications but with the same designation. Not ALL LA-5s before the LA-5F was built were built to exactly the same standard. And so on through the rest of the designations.

From page 41 of "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" vol. 1 by ;

" Series production aircraft were considerably inferior to the prototype in speed, being some 28.4 to 31mph ( 40 to 50km/h) slower. On the one hand this is understandable as the LaGG-3 M-82 prototype lacked the radio antenna, bomb carriers, and leading edge slats fitted to the production aircraft. But there were other contributory causes, particularly insufficiently tight cowlings." It goes on to say that the openings were found and and eliminated.

From page 42: " Many defects in design and manufacture had not been corrected."

" In combat the Soviet pilots flew the LA-5 with the canopy open, the cowling side flaps fully open and the tailwheel down, and this reduced its speed by another 18.6 to 24.8mp ( 30 to 40 km/h). as a result, on 25th September 1942 the State Defence Committee issued an edict requiring that the La-5 be lightened, and that its performance and operational characteristics be improved."

On Page 44 (although it is not entirely clear if these tests apply to the 5F or the 5, using 4 series produced aircraft a number of test were done resulting in the following modifications:
"
* the engine cowling joints were sealed;
* the shape of the oil cooler ducts was improved;
* a new inlet pipe was fitted;
* the area of the exhaust pipe cross-section was increased;
* the tailwheel doors were stiffened."
The test results showed that speeds equal to the those of the LaGG-3 M-82 prototype, which the series-built aircraft had failed to match, could be attained."

It goes on to describe modifications to the M-82 engine BEFORE the fuel injected M-82FNV engine.

Now if you take an aircraft that was 40kph slower than the prototype and fly it with the canopy and cowl flaps open and tail wheel down you can easily be 70kph slower than the prototype although a fair part of the speed difference is NOT to build quality.

Reading this book ( and it's companion volume) you will find that MANY Russian aircraft did not meet the performance numbers of the prototypes.

And regarding build quality it was found on some LaGG-3s that 30kg of adhesive could be stripped away without any negative effect on structural strength and that is just in the tail, rear fuselage and fin area. (page 36)

Click to expand...

As I wrote, series production La-5FN, with fuel-injection M-82FN engine, was clearly faster in Soviet tests than the LW figures, all this can be found in the Yefim Gordon's and Dmitri Khazanov's book, in text and on the tables at the end of the book or in Gordon's newer Lavochkin's Piston-Engined Fighters (2003). The La-5FN proto achieved 595km/h at s.l. and 648km/h at 6,300m and

Juha said:

As I wrote earlier, Finns used their war-booty T-34s till 1961. On the other hand Finns thought that T-26 was less reliable than the original Vickers 6 ton tank, which Finns called T-26E after they began use captured T-26s in large scale, after all T-26 was the most common tank in Finnsh service during WWII.

Click to expand...

the Fins were successful with buffalos too...i dont know what kind of fairey dust they sprinkled on their equipment but they seemed to have it by the ton.

for the best german fighter you would have to decide whether you want speed or agility or a compromise of both. and that boils down to taste. personally i like an old 109F. it might not have the speed as a G but but it was more nimble.

Their success might stem from the greater levels of technical proficiency and standards of education. Finn soldiers could read and write, and knew they had to check the oil and water levels in their tanks before using them. Russian equipment had to be simple and able to put up with the most horrendous levels of abuse because of the low levels of education in tyheir society (and lots of other reasons too).

"technical proficiency" extends to the support system. Keeping tanks and aircraft going requires parts and mechanics. Parts can be made (sometimes) by skilled machinists in small numbers in small shops, like cottage industries. Such a system could not keep hundreds or thousands of tanks going but could keep a few dozen going.

parsifal said:

Their success might stem from the greater levels of technical proficiency and standards of education. Finn soldiers could read and write, and knew they had to check the oil and water levels in their tanks before using them. Russian equipment had to be simple and able to put up with the most horrendous levels of abuse because of the low levels of education in tyheir society (and lots of other reasons too).

Click to expand...

Wasn't there a similar issue with the SVT-40?

Juha said:

As I wrote, series production La-5FN, with fuel-injection M-82FN engine, was clearly faster in Soviet tests than the LW figures, all this can be found in the Yefim Gordon's and Dmitri Khazanov's book, in text and on the tables at the end of the book or in Gordon's newer Lavochkin's Piston-Engined Fighters (2003). The La-5FN proto achieved 595km/h at s.l. and 648km/h at 6,300m and

Click to expand...

Speed figure is from a modified variant, called La-5 "Doubler", production a/c were at 573/620 km/h. With standard power sealevel speed was 530 to 545 km/h (early/later production).

Civettone said:

Wow, that would be awesome !!

Click to expand...

Sadly, Theo's wife Ilse passed away and I didn't feel it was appropriate to ask about the flight characteristics of the G-14/AS.

Rightly so !



Kris

Denniss said:

Speed figure is from a modified variant, called La-5 "Doubler", production a/c were at 573/620 km/h. With standard power sealevel speed was 530 to 545 km/h (early/later production).

Click to expand...

La-5 "dooblyor" was the 2nd proto, and was close to the production La-5FN, which however didn't have the metal spars like the dooblyor had, but as already mentioned also in the case of La-5FN the production machines were slower than the protos. The reason why I gave the specs of dooblyor was to show that the proto was even faster than production La-5FNs and significantly faster than the speeds attained during LW test on the captured La-5FN.