- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Axis and Soviet air operations during Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe RAF in the UK at the beginning of 1942 is smaller than I thought it would be. RAF returns for November 1941 give a total of 4500 first line aircraft on the books and serviceable, of which about 2800 are in the UK. RAF numerical strength doesn't really begin to climb until late 1942.
I wonder, does anyone have VVS fighter and bomber strengths for pre-Barbarossa and strengths for mid-1942? Also production rates for their medium and heavy bombers?
I can project Armee de l'Air figures, but the VVS is a bit of a black hole.
Also, does anyone have Fleet Air Arm figures?
Order of battle for Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia13,000 – 14,000 aircraft
If the Soviets march into Berlin they get German radar tech which was excellent. Companies such as GEMA (Seetakt, Freya, the Jagdschloss PPI radars), Telefunken (Wurzburg series), Lorentz (Hohtenweil sea search and naval PPI radar) and Siemens (Mannheim FLAK radar).
The Germans can deal with microwaves on the receiving side but cant generate powerful ones, the Russians have invented a magnetron but can't process the signals very well. The two technologies might combine.
I wonder what the loss rate would be if the fight in 1940 continued into 1941 non-stop and no BoB, rather a fight on the continent without the benefit of radar? Numbers might end up being lower.The RAF in the UK at the beginning of 1942 is smaller than I thought it would be. RAF returns for November 1941 give a total of 4500 first line aircraft on the books and serviceable, of which about 2800 are in the UK. RAF numerical strength doesn't really begin to climb until late 1942.
No way in hell. Stalin wanted to avoid fighting the united west as much as possible and your scenario would ensure that. In my scenario he thinks he can get away with a major expansion while the West has been too bloodied to resist him and would give him some consideration due to helping them beat Germany. But instead he blunders into war, thinking he could present a Fiat Accompli with minimal cost; your scenario ends up with him fighting the Allies without them having to fight at all and being totally unbloodied and ready to resist. Stalin again and again avoiding aggression in the West precisely to avoid dealing with the Allies at full power, plus with defeated Nazis never attacking he never goes for the major military expansion that resulted in historical numbers of a 10 million man army; Nazi aggression prompted that, plus the war experiences in the West caused them to modernize doctrine, otherwise they'd be stuck on the penny packet armor idea once Deep Battle was discredited in the Purges, so wouldn't think a decisive rapid advance was possible, hence making aggression stupid from their perspective.I think the most likely alternative history that could lead to some sort of conflict between East and west is not as postulated. The most likely might be Hitler removed or assassinated 1939. Germany gets a peace party, restores Polish independence, accept disarmament and occupation. 1940 rolls around and the newly restored Polish Govt is placed under pressure by the Soviets. Soviets back off for a while, whilst they build their red fleet and replace their slaughtered officers. By 1942 they have their fleet, the largest air force in the world, control of the Baltic states, occupation of the whole of Finland, pressure on Sweden and Poland, as well as Rumania, a traditional French client. Yugoslavia sides with the USSR as well as Bulgaria. Turkey and Greece stay neutral. Poland allows French and British troops into her territory.
The key word there is "developing" as many of the aircraft (and engines) never reached their intended performance. Or achieved it very late. Work started on the VK-107 engine in March of 1940. Granted production was interrupted by the war, however that excuse doesn't work for the the times production was stopped in late 1945 and in 1946 because of problems. The VK-107 only reached it's goal of 100hrs between overhauls in 1946.
The PE-8 was built to the tune of 93-96 aircraft (?) and used 4-5 different engine set-ups. The first prototype used four AM-34 engines supercharged by a M-100 engine in the fuselage. This wasn't working so well and production problems(?) with special model AM-34 engines forced a switch to the AM-35A engine. Desire for greater range saw both M-40 and M-30 diesel engines fitted. fuel system controls were rather basic and in the case of the M-40 engine if it cut out due to fuel delivery problems it could only be restarted below 1500 meters. Most planes built had the AM-35s because of greater reliability. Late production aircraft got M-82 radial engines. Speed and range are all over the map due to the different engines. A few of the very last ones got ACh-30B Diesels and while these were much better than the early diesels they still suffered from failures of the compressor bearings and piston rings. in 1943/44 pilots were said to "fondly remember the less powerful and economical but far more reliable AM-35A,"
BTW, range for the Mig-3 is also all over the place as there were several different fuel tank set ups. The Mig-1 started with a 88.8 gallon fuel capacity (that sure gives a vast improvement over a Spitfire-sarcasm) but space for a 54.9 gallon tank was found by repositioning the radiator. Unfortunately for long range escort plans, after the plane was armed with three 12.7mm mg and two 7.62s ( and 821 built that way) the deterioration in speed and handling was such that not only was it recommended to get rid of the under-wing guns but reduce the capacity of the rear tank by about 25 gallons and the center tank by about 11 gallons. Some performance figures for a late production plane are with 102-103 gallons of fuel. That sure isn't going to go far trying to escort PE-8s.
The Germans also developed a multi-cavity magnetron in 1935, but that didn't help them; IIRC it was better than the Soviet version, so it would likely not get them anywhere. Also it depends on how much the Germans keep in Berlin when the Soviets invade and how much they evacuate/destroy.
I've researched this extensively, for an amateur, one day I'll put it all together. The GEMA company's first of what would be come "Seetakt" radars used a split anode magnetron of about 50cm wavelength and 4kW power. I successfully detected both aircraft and ships at 10-15 km. This magnetron wasn't completely stable which used to be irritating a force continuous manual tunning until the temperature had stabilised. The reality is that the multicavity magnetron of Randall Boot was also unstable, they merely developed a receiver that automatically retuned itself.
The actual mutlicavity magnetron was known to the Germans. At that time it was called a 'rad magnetron'. The word 'rad' means wheel, because the cavity was a little like a wagon wheel. I have a academic paper by Doring or Doering in which there is a picture of a 1940 Lorentz multicavity magnetron with the cicular cavities and narrow slots attributed to Randall and Boot.The Lorentz tube was only for generating a few watts of power for signal purposes. There was a 100W continuous tube built in 1939 by the company "Sanitas" who were generally know for their x-ray tubes. If operated in pulse mode with the right cathode coatings it probably would have produced 5kW at 18cm, which is pretty good for 1939 and would have made a good radar.
However German radar didn't go down that path. By 1935 they had switched to using acorn tubes (TS1 was the name) which were built into a resonant circuit made up of ceramic printed circuit board. This meant they could not only send out pulses but control the phase of the pulses, add frequency chirps etc which weren't possible in a magnetron.
This latter facility, highly valued, drove German radar researchers down the desire to make tuneable magnetrons or devices. It was this 'ambition' which held them back. The German microwave program headed by General Martini involved using disk triodes for wavelengths of around 20cm-27cm and other devices such as magnetrons or klystron like devices at 5cm. They never tried to produce a 9cm device till they recovered a H2S device. In the USA the ceramic disk triodes had an equivalent called the lighthouse valve which used glass instead of ceramic, they tended to be a bit less powerfull. The Lorentz company, according to Fritz Trenkle, was ready to introduce a 27cm radar in 1942 but its was rejected for economy reasons or rather the lack of capacity, the appreciation of how easy it was to jam a wide beam radar wasn't there.
There were about 100 "Rotterheim" sets delivered for service in 1944: basically a 3m dish Mannheim FuMG64 dish system with a 9cm 16kW magnetron. A new radar using Wurzburg technology called FuMG 68 "Ansbach" with a 4.5m diameter aerial had been built but not produced: its feature was that it was portable on a truck by folding the dish and that the dish could be operated by remote control with the operators protected in a bunker. Equipped with microwave technology from the improved Rotterheim the radar was called FuMG 76 "Marbach". If Marbach was combined with a microwave PPI set called FumG 74"Kulmbach" to combine fire control and search it was called Egerland. It was this radar which would have been guiding German SAM missiles had they made it.
The Germans would have spared themselves a lot of misery and would have inflicted serious hurt on Bomber Command had they pushed ahead with their 27cm radars. These were called "Mannheim K" if on a 3m dish and also on the 4.5m dish. They would have been hard to Jam.
If the Russians are in Berlin they get a lot of German radar tech: including coherent pulse Doppler technology and PPI.
Where can I read more about German radar tech?
Also can't the Germans blow up a bunch of it to prevent the Soviets from getting it? Plus how far had they come in 1941 when the Soviets would be closing in? I imagine that the war situation would cause them to evacuate a lot and delay development as the East Front collapsed.
Id argue that in terms of 4 engine bombers the Soviets were not far behind the stage the RAF and USAAF was at the same time. Consider the state of the Manchester/Lancaster, Stirling and B-17D. Obviously with the German advance on the ground the Soviets had other issues to worry about than 4 engine bombers. They continued technical development
The MiG 3 had been optimised as a high altitude fighter. This was not what was needed and its AM38 engine was deemed more useful for the Ilyushin Il-2 stormovik
The Soviet Aircraft did have some irritating problems in 1941 but by mid 1942 they had been solved. A LaGG 5 was not inferior to western aircraft.
I will agree that the MiG 3 clearly had some handling difficulties. The solution might have been slats which have a remarkable effect of increasing the stall angle of a wing by 50%,
If required the Pe-8 could have been produced. It's armament, range and bomb load was the equal of western aircraft. The Soviets had adequate and reliable engines, they merely needed to apply them.
. How would Soviet logistics hold up against the RAF/ALA?
It looks like Warsaw is a massive choke point, pretty much along with the couple of rail bridges over the Vistula. Someone I was arguing this with on another thread mentioned that the Soviets could disguise bridges via Maskirovka, but I'm not buying it. However they could saturate an area with 85mm AAA. Smashing the Warsaw marshalling yards though would be a pretty heavy blow it would seem. Could the British hit it at 20k feet or at night in 1942 without hitting the city? How about getting help from the Home Army or was the NKVD much better at squashing dissent?Things get real iffy here. The WA (western Allies) have got a pretty good road network and a very good rail network. They also have their existing motor vehicle industries (and rail shops). How much of the German vehicle fleet and factories they take-over is certainly in question. The Poles (and eastern Europe in general) had a poorer rail net (which used a different gauge than the Russians) and a much poorer road network. Western Russia has the worst network. Eastern Europe has a tiny motor industry compared to western Europe so sources of trucks are tiny. Russians have truck factories but historically some of their production was converted to war materiel with the arrival of Lend Lease trucks. In this scenario the Russians need to keep production at the least and actually increase truck production if they are to keep dozens of ground divisions (and air divisions) supplied in what was Poland, eastern Germany and Eastern Europe. This affects war material production.
Historically the Russian supply lines grew longer at about the same time the the lend lease supplies really kicked in. In this scenario the Russians are starting with the longest supply lines they ever had, granted their truck and rail fleets are not shattered like they were historically but then there is no help coming (locomotives/rail cars, rail road rail) either.
The Western Russia/Eastern European rail and road network is much more susceptible to choke points because of the lack of infrastructure.
Wouldn't you agree that the PE-8 Had a fundamentally sound airframe and aerodynamics, it had heavy armament stations including a rear gun position. Any of the Soviet Inline or Radial Engines that were used successfully in their single engine types would have made it work. The PE-8 wasn't prioritised for these engines because the Soviets were engaged in a ground war and the western allies had a major bombing campaign.The Russians tried for a technically advanced bomber (so was everybody else), but failed in the initial set up, one M-100 engine in the fuselage driving a big supercharger to feed air to the four engines out on the wings. Both the Germans and French tried similar set ups. I am not sure if they tried turbo superchargers on the main engines, but they replaced the M-34FRN engines with M-35A engines for the production versions. These engines did not give the performance wanted even if they were the most reliable engines used on the PE-8, since these were the same engines used in the Mig-3 that is saying something right there.
This points out something the Russians had trouble with for the entire war. They had no trouble thinking up new things (or thinking outside the box) or coping ideas from other countries. What gave them trouble was turning these ideas/concepts into reliable mass produced weapons.
It was a design essentially cut out in 1941 given proper development I think a solution would be found.That and politics. The Mig-3 had a rather light armament and there was no good way to change it. The "high altitude" part needs a little clarification also. It's "nominal" altitude (rated height?) was 6,000 meters, which while not bad is not what some other countries thought was high altitude in mid to late 1941. They did try putting a AM-38 engine in one but the radiator and oil cooler were too small so more work was needed. The Mig had the misfortune to be built at Zavod 1, the Soviet show piece aircraft factory and the idea of producing a less than successful aircraft at the show piece factory did not sit well with some people.
well that is certainly an interesting way of looking at it. "irritating problems" like landing gear collapsing, Canopies that won't open in emergencies, canopies that are not really transparent. Assorted engine problems. And no, they weren't all solved by 1942. And the LaGG-5 was judged by the Russians themselves as not being equal to the Bf 109. This lead to the LA-5F and the LA-5FN.
That's not quite the full story. The highly tapered wings the Soviets used, like any tapered wing, tends to stall at the tips first. The 'cure' for this is to introduce a negative angle of about 2 degree to 2.5 even 3 degrees at the wing tips. It's essential. Most wing cross sections of this type stalled at around 14 degrees. This washout angle or geometric twist means that the tips are easily loosing 16% of their potential lift worth about 8% across the whole wing. A wing which stalls at 14 degrees when given slats will stall at 21 degrees. This means the ailerons remain effective even in dire situations. The Me 109 might have been known for finicky ground looping problem but in the air its slats and long tail moment meant it had a very benign stall and spin recovery.Magic slats?In order for slats to increase the stall angle of a wing by 50% you need full span slats, NOT slats in front of the ailerons. The short slats can do wonders for retaining aileron control at low speeds or high angles of attack but slats that only cover about 40% of the span (not including the fuselage) are not going to give you anywhere near that increase in stall angle. The majority of your wing will stall at the same angle, the slats will allow the pilot to keep control (mostly) and keep the plane from spinning.
It's probably more a matter of how the engines are serviced, philosophical. The Russian engines were designed to be field serviced with more frequent bust smaller services rather than sent back home.The Russian engines were not adequate and reliable needs a good looking at, they were much shorter lived than western engines but that may be a product of substandard lubrication and poor maintenance/poor materials. The M-100 series was low in power, the M-35/38 had adequate power but was overweight, some of it's versions were only about 60-90kg lighter than a DB 603. The M-82 was the best of the bunch and later ones achieved an overhaul life of up to 150 hours.
It looks like Warsaw is a massive choke point, pretty much along with the couple of rail bridges over the Vistula. Someone I was arguing this with on another thread mentioned that the Soviets could disguise bridges via Maskirovka, but I'm not buying it. However they could saturate an area with 85mm AAA. Smashing the Warsaw marshalling yards though would be a pretty heavy blow it would seem. Could the British hit it at 20k feet or at night in 1942 without hitting the city? How about getting help from the Home Army or was the NKVD much better at squashing dissent?
The FTH of 2700 m for the M 105PF is for overboost; 5600 m was for 'military power' for the Mk.XX/V-1650-1. For less agressive boost, it was at 4 km. The power at all altitudes is lacking, though - even the V-1710 was better than Klimovs, let alone with 9.60:1 S/C. With any version of M-105, battle against Spitfire V is a loosing proposal above 10000 ft. For emphasis at 0-15000 ft of combat altitude, Spitfire can use low-level Merlin to the advantage....The M-105PF had a FTH of 2700 meters in high gear. A Merlin XX had a FTH of 5600 meters in high gear.
We are not talking about FTH of 25,000ft and up as provided by the turbo chargers on American planes. The 1430hp/4650meters of the ASh-82FN is 15,345ft or about the FTH of an Allison with 9.60 gears.
Lets also remember that the ASh-82FN is not a 1942 engine, it only entered production in Jan of 1943 so large numbers of planes using it won't show up for a number of months more. The ASh-82F entered production in Dec of 1942. the earlier ASh-82 (or more properly the M-82) had 1700hp for take off although it's high altitude performance may not be much different. One book claims the M-82 was only allowed boosting in low gear. This may have something to do with the 95 octane fuel.
Wouldn't you agree that the PE-8 Had a fundamentally sound airframe and aerodynamics, it had heavy armament stations including a rear gun position. Any of the Soviet Inline or Radial Engines that were used successfully in their single engine types would have made it work. The PE-8 wasn't prioritised for these engines because the Soviets were engaged in a ground war and the western allies had a major bombing campaign.
If the Russians are on the German or Polish Border this bomber lets them bomb all of the UK and France with bombloads of around 3-4 tons. The Soviets are going to be interested in carrying the fight to the enemy rather than just engaging in a ground war with the allies. The engines will then be supplied to the PE-8.
solution, such as it was, was using a pair of ShVAk cannon instead of the single 12.7 and pair of 7.62s.It was a design essentially cut out in 1941 given proper development I think a solution would be found.
Being not judged as good as a Me 109F4 or G1 is no great shame. Up to Mid 1942 these aircraft are the best fighters in the world.
That's not quite the full story.
A wing which stalls at 14 degrees when given slats will stall at 21 degrees.
It's probably more a matter of how the engines are serviced, philosophical. The Russian engines were designed to be field serviced with more frequent bust smaller services rather than sent back home.
Either way they have an aircraft that can bomb the UK and France. A 1000 bomber raid, the VVS has absorbed German radar tech so they have a FuG 217 tail warning radar, radar altimeter and an aircraft big enough to drop a ton of chaff and windows.
...Either way they have an aircraft that can bomb the UK and France. A 1000 bomber raid, the VVS has absorbed German radar tech so they have a FuG 217 tail warning radar, radar altimeter and an aircraft big enough to drop a ton of chaff and windows.
Now Germans got 5 FuG 217 equipped 190s for test use in Channel Front in autumn 43, stopped that in Dec 43 for security reasons and next during early 44 35 190s and 109s were equipped with it and underwent operational trials. That according to Aders' History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945. When you think the Soviets would have been able to deploy FuG 217 operationally?