Best German fighter for the Eastern Front

[tyrodtom]

@ Juha; I read the link, seen nothing about just 'changing the fluids and it ran'. Oxygen deprived or not, I know enough that theres no way the cam/rod/crank bearings survived that environment, and two dissimilar metals, like the valves valve seats, more then likely fused together, as would the piston to the cast iron cyl. wall.

Neat find though.

That's what I meant by my memory ran away from me, I wasn't accurate.
Thru the many articles , but all are from translations. They got the engine to run , what was replaced, is hard to determine. Some say no parts were replaced, some say skate rollers were replaced.
I'm a fairly experienced amature race mechanic ( 20 years), but I still haven't figured out what skate rollers are.

 

[Jenisch]

My sources says nothing for worn out.

From the book Luftwaffe Test pilot, by Hans Lerche.

 

[Juha]

@ Juha; I read the link, seen nothing about just 'changing the fluids and it ran'. Oxygen deprived or not, I know enough that theres no way the cam/rod/crank bearings survived that environment, and two dissimilar metals, like the valves valve seats, more then likely fused together, as would the piston to the cast iron cyl. wall.

Neat find though.

Of course there was nothing on engine running because it was a different recovery, a Valentine not T-34, I put the link because it was the source of my photo and in the article there are more photos on the Valentine recovery. Maybe Tyrodtom means this recovery:
LiveLeak.com - WW2 tank recovery Ukraine

 

[altsym]

Ok, I have to say that T-34 is in remarkable condition. Maybe the engine only needed cleaning and a few parts. Thanks for the link!

@ tyrodtom; I think your right about that V-2 engine

 

[Juha]

View attachment 235525

View attachment 235526

From the book Luftwaffe Test pilot, by Hans Lerche.

So 40-70km/h slower than La-5FN in Soviet tests

 

[Juha]

Ok, I have to say that T-34 is in remarkable condition. Maybe the engine only needed cleaning and a few parts. Thanks for the link!

@ tyrodtom; I think your right about that V-2 engine

Hello Altsym
one important part of the video for me was the mg magazines because I saw same type mags during my milit service

 

[Jenisch]

So 40-70km/h slower than La-5FN in Soviet tests

Yeah. That's something. But any plane would start to lose the specifications after some use . I have doubt if with the wooden ones it was more quickly, and if yes how more. There's also the question if operational data corresponded with the test one.

 

[Civettone]

Usually, production aircraft did not reach projected maximum speed.

Quality control in SU was very limited, especially for aircraft and tanks. Most important was to get it to the front. Same thing happened with German war production towards the end. So many parts missing or malfunctioning. And of course sabotage. In the last months experienced Luftwaffe crews would inspect the delivered aircraft and chose which ones were safe to fly.

Kris

 

[Juha]

That 40-70km/h difference was with production La-5FNs randomly selected for testing, but of course after use and standing long time in open reduced performance of all frontline fighters, and yes wooden ones more than metal planes, I assume. And in combat the habit of many Soviet fighter pilots to fly the cockpit at least partially open also reduced speed.

 

[tyrodtom]

I've seen lots of photos with various pilots cruising out to battle areas with the canopy back, hot weather, and low altitude makes for a hot cockpit.
I'm sure when they could they'd keep the canopy back , but slide it forward when they entered combat.
But sometimes they would be surprised ,cruising unaware with the canopy back. Surely none of them entered combat with it open deliberatelY?
Some pilots could be hard headed, maybe they valued the added visibility of a open canopy more they they thought they needed the added speed with it closed.

 

[Juha]

At least early in the war the quality of Soviet plexiglass was indifferent and in some types the cockpit was at least initially hard to open in higher speeds, these were the main reasons for Soviet fighter pilots´habit to flew with at least partially open cockpit in combat zones, early Italian planes had the same problem. One of the small things which had their effects on actual performance that are not shown in specs

 

[Jenisch]

Other thing are the Russian tactics: they only started to do figher sweeps after mid-1944. Before this, they were not allowed to pursuit German planes. Instead, they shoud only escort strike planes and cover the ground forces. Also, for most of the war only the squadron leader had a radio transmitter. The rest only had a receptor. And early in the war few fighters had radio at all.

 

[Denniss]

Test report states some supercharger problems on this La-5FN but it's not known whether this was a built-in defect or from wear. Even in soviet tests the performance varied a lot.
Airframe, especially wings, was stated to be in good condition though.

 

[davebender]

IMO instances of wartime sabotage were greatly exaggerated. Typically it's the excused used for defective equipment when nobody wants to take responsibility. The excuse was especially common in Soviet Union where failure to deliver required quantities of operational equipment would get you killed.

 

[tyrodtom]

If you've done much reading at all on restoration of wartime German equipment, one thing you'll hear often is reports of faults found that were suspected sabotage.
A lot of the slave workers didn't have much hope of surviving the war, lots of times the Germans would execute substitute people as a example, not those guilty of sabotage.
So if you were a slave worker, it didn't matter if you commited sabotage or not, you could be hung because someone commited sabotage, and you were chosen to pay for it.

Not a lot of critical thought put into it, like a lot of the 3rd Reichts policies toward non-Germans.

 

[davebender]

A lot of the Soviet workers didn't have much hope of surviving the war, lots of times Stalin would execute substitute people as a example, not those guilty of sabotage.

Now the statement makes more sense. Stalin sent thousands to die in the Gulag for being "economic wreckers". A few American engineers even went to the Gulag charged with this crime.

 

[tyrodtom]

A lot of the Soviet workers didn't have much hope of surviving the war, lots of times Stalin would execute substitute people as a example, not those guilty of sabotage.

Now the statement makes more sense. Stalin sent thousands to die in the Gulag for being "economic wreckers". A few American engineers even went to the Gulag charged with this crime.

Evidently to you, that excuses the German's methods. To you hard labor, and hanging are equal treatment.

Dave it's always been strange to me that you seem to think you can whitewash the 3rd Reichts excesses with Stalin's.

 

[altsym]

wrong thread lol

 

[Jenisch]

I can be wrong, but I have the impression that the conditions of Soviet workers were worse in the first 2 years of the war. From 1943 onwards, with victory more secure and plenty of LL aid (including food) the things should have improved (altought maybe not to the point of Western countries).

 

[parsifal]

this is simply not true. Soviet tanks suffered from horrible reliability. I cannot even begin to count how many accounts I have read of Russian (and German) tankers. What is more, there are a lot of Soviet technical reports, from factories and test centres, which show that the quality of these machines was the bare minimum as they were not expected to have a long lifespan. You can check some of these reports out on the 'russian battlefield' website. Also, you will find accounts of Soviet tankers praising those British and American tanks for their superior quality (in operation).

You say that these Soviet tanks were still being used 35 years after the war. This is also not true. Most of the tanks which have survived for so long were either build after the war or brough up to the new standard. But during the war Soviet tanks and aircraft had serious quality deficiencies which were overlooked due to their expected low life expectancy. And that proved to be the correct way.

Pulling a tank out of a riverbed and making it work is impressive but is no evidence that these were extremely reliable vehicles. Rugged, yes
Kris

I dont doubt there were instances of poor workmanship in Soviet equipment. But it is a long way from saying there weer QA issues here and there, and then claiming this was a problem of strategic significance, or that the T-34 was an unrelaibale tank, or even your claim that they were not expected to last that long.

by comparison, German equipment failures were of strategic significance, and quite horrible, whether you want to measure that "horribleness on an isolated or in comparsison to the Soviets. The relief effort of Stalingrad failed because of equipment failures in German equipment, the assault on Moscow faltered in part because of the numerous breakdowns and failures of German equipment, I have already mentioned the Panther failures at kursk. The initial deployments of Tigers outside of Leningrad saw failure after failure of the tanks, and the list goes on and on. I have yet to find evidence of equipment failures of Soviet that were of strategic significance, or at least on the same scale as those I have mentioned on the German side.

Some years ago I had the honour of looking over an ex-soviet Whiskey class SS. I was struck by the high quality workmanship. Terrible design, (it was based on a German Type VII after all) but as well made as any conventional sub that I have ever seen. Doesnt prove anything other than to say that at least some Soviet manufactures were of good quality. then again, I had a friend who had the misfortune of owning one of those lada Nevas, terrible design AND a terrible construction as well. So on my own observation I would have to say that at bes Soviet equipment was patchy. But thats a ling way from saying all Soviet equipment was poor. And the historical records show that. Especially for the T-34.

With regard to the 35 year claim, I was thinking of the Syrian Army, which retained their T-34/85 in frontline service until after the 1973 Yom Kippur....thats about 30 years, which is not a bad service record. They retired their PzkPfw IVs after the 1967 war