Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[claidemore]

We all know that the Soviet Union used a lot of western aircraft via lend-lease during WWII and there's plenty of discussion in this forum about them.

What about reverse lend lease? What Soviet planes might the western allies have been able to put to good use, either by outright purchase, trade, or licence built in North America or Britain?
And what further developments might have ensued?

cheers
Claidemore

 

[Tzaw1]

According to my knowledge, no.
The only case about which I heard, it is considering about the purchase of the equipment in USSR in September 1939.
But naturally nothing doing and no one did undertake in this direction any activities.

 

[The Basket]

I think MiG 17 and MiG 21 could have been sold in the early days as they were good cheap fighters.

WW2 fighters would have been limited due to short range nature of Soviet fighters.

Pe-2 would have sold maybe. I-15 and I-16 but would the I-16 passed by a British test pilot? Maybe not.

 

[Njaco]

If any aircraft I would pick the IL-2 but I don't think the US would understand the 'quality' of Russian aircraft. The word 'utilitarian' comes to mind.

 

[Colin1]

We all know that the Soviet Union used a lot of western aircraft via lend-lease during WWII and there's plenty of discussion in this forum about them.

What about reverse lend lease? What Soviet planes might the western allies have been able to put to good use, either by outright purchase, trade, or licence built in North America or Britain?
And what further developments might have ensued?

Nothing high-altitude
Nothing at night
Nothing for strategic bombing
At low-level, we had the Typhoon, Tempest, Allison-P-51, P-40 and P-47
Heavy fighters and multi-role, the Mosquito and P-38
Maritime, we had the Beaufighter and Mosquito
Naval, we had the F4U and F6F
Strategic bombing, we had the Lancaster, B-17 and B-24
Medium bombing, we had the B-25, A-26,
Long-range escort, the Merlin-P-51, P-38
Interception, we had the Spitfire
Reconnaissance, we had high-flying anything really

The Soviet Union had some useful aircraft but we'd covered all the bases, I don't think we would have enhanced our options/capabilities with any of them.

 

[imalko]

Nothing high-altitude

MiG-3 early in the war (later phased out of the production), but basically this type was not needed due of the nature of air operations on eastern front

Nothing at night

Ilyushin Il-4 bomber and number of night harassment light aircraft

Nothing for strategic bombing

Ilyushin Il-4 (used in raids on Berlin and Konigsberg for example), Petlyakov Pe-8

The Soviet Union had some useful aircraft but we'd covered all the bases, I don't think we would have enhanced our options/capabilities with any of them.

Agree. Soviets produced aircraft best suited for their own needs and somewhat unique operational requirements of the Eastern front.

 

[Njaco]

I think he was making the point that although the Russians did have aircraft for those special duties, the US already had good aircraft for those roles.

I said the IL-2 cause it may have a better aircraft than what we had at the time and I'm thinking mid-41 to mid-42. Could be wrong.

 

[michaelmaltby]

It's an interesting topic, Claidemore. I think the West got it's value from men who quit the Soviet Union - men like Seversky and Sikorsky - came to America and proceeded to influence the aircraft industry. I do not believe there was a single Soviet aircraft that was so unique or efficient to outclass its western counterpart(s). Tanks - a different story. Infantry weapons - same.

Post cold war, I acknowledge the situation has changed - Kamov helicopters and the big Anatov transports being good examples.

MM

 

[claidemore]

What about the Tu-2? Considered one of the best medium bombers of WWII, saw service in Korea, and was flown by the Chinese until the 1970s. 340 mph, 8800 lbs of bombs, 1-46 loss per sortie survival rate on the Eastern Front.

 

[VG-33]

What about the Tu-2? Considered one of the best medium bombers of WWII, saw service in Korea, and was flown by the Chinese until the 1970s. 340 mph, 8800 lbs of bombs, 1-46 loss per sortie survival rate on the Eastern Front.

Tu-2 was not exactly a medium bomber but a full a dive-bomber, intended to replace the Pe-2.

VG 33

 

[michaelmaltby]

A good plane, no doubt about it but its best feature may well be it's large bomb bay. We get into the light bomber-medium bomber go round, but I'd still take an A-26 Invader or a B-26 Marauder myself, thanks.

MM

 

[Shortround6]

What about the Tu-2? Considered one of the best medium bombers of WWII, saw service in Korea, and was flown by the Chinese until the 1970s. 340 mph, 8800 lbs of bombs, 1-46 loss per sortie survival rate on the Eastern Front.

What as it going to do that the A-26 couldn't do?

Or that modified A-26 couldn't do?

 

[Glider]

In the first few years I believe that the Pe 2 would have been welcomed as a replacement for the Blenhiem and would have been better than the Ventura.

As for Tu 2 and what could it do compared to the A 26 the reply is simple, everything until late 1944 when the A 26 entered service.

 

[Shortround6]

But then the TU-2 didn't enter service in any real numbers until Spring and Summer of 1944 according to some accounts.

SO the West is supposed to figure out how good it is, get the plans, tool up a factory, build the planes and get them to combat units ALL in about 6 months?

Or just get the Soviets to deliver large numbers of their best bomber to the West before re-equiping their own squadrons?

Sort of the same thing with the PE-2. Doesn't show up in any numbers until fall/winter of 1941.

Is it better than a Blenhiem? sure, but by Dec of 1941 the British had figured out the Blenhiem had had it's day so any Western production by Bristol would have been at the expense of Beaufighters.

As far as replacing Venturas. I wonder what the bomb load of the PE-2 would have been if it had to fly as far as a Ventura?

 

[GrauGeist]

I think the western allies could have used the YaK-9, as it was a decent fighter in many respects.

But I'd compare the IL-2 to the P-47D as far as a successful ground attack workhorse (single engined). The difference would be that the P-47 could break off it's ground attack and stand and defend itself as a fighter when threatened, something the IL-2 wasn't really capable of.

 

[claidemore]

But then the TU-2 didn't enter service in any real numbers until Spring and Summer of 1944 according to some accounts.

SO the West is supposed to figure out how good it is, get the plans, tool up a factory, build the planes and get them to combat units ALL in about 6 months?

Or just get the Soviets to deliver large numbers of their best bomber to the West before re-equiping their own squadrons?

Sort of the same thing with the PE-2. Doesn't show up in any numbers until fall/winter of 1941.

Is it better than a Blenhiem? sure, but by Dec of 1941 the British had figured out the Blenhiem had had it's day so any Western production by Bristol would have been at the expense of Beaufighters.

As far as replacing Venturas. I wonder what the bomb load of the PE-2 would have been if it had to fly as far as a Ventura?

The Tu-2 first saw service in February 1942 during Operation Uranus at Stalindrad, and was very successful. Production was halted for a short time later on, then resumed in 1943.
North American designed and had a prototype P51 flying in 178 days, and had them in combat 18 months later, so it would have been simple enough to take existing plans of a Tu-2 and put them into production for late 1943, early 1944.

The Tupolev Tu-2 was 50-60 mph faster than the B-26 Marauder. The B-26 had a high accident rate, earned several unflattering nicknames (Widowmaker, B dash crash, etc), and was not well liked by aircrew. It was actually phased out before the war ended.
Tu-2 on the other hand, besides being much faster, was well liked by pilots and crew, was easy to handle (same wingloading as a 109G6), and had a reputation (and sufficient armament) for engaging single engined fighters once their bombs were dropped.
The A-26 had about half the bomb load of a Tu-2. It was about 15 mph faster though.

 

[Colin1]

North American designed and had a prototype P-51 flying in 178 days...

Claide
closer to 117 days if I recall

 

[river]

Hi,

The B26 was an outstanding medium bomber. It had the lowest loss rate of any allied bomber in the war.

It was not a plane for novices and that is why there were a lot of crashes during training. However, once the pilots understood the aircraft it provided admirable service. It wasn't popular among some pilots, but that's applicable to most aircraft.

The Marauder was phased out in March 1945... yes, before the end of the war by a few weeks.

I don't think the Soviets had anything so outstanding in their aircraft inventory that wasn't covered by existing allied aircraft.

river

 

[Glider]

But then the TU-2 didn't enter service in any real numbers until Spring and Summer of 1944 according to some accounts.

This has been covered by Claidmore

SO the West is supposed to figure out how good it is, get the plans, tool up a factory, build the planes and get them to combat units ALL in about 6 months?

Or just get the Soviets to deliver large numbers of their best bomber to the West before re-equiping their own squadrons?

The question was were there any Soviet aircraft that the West could or should have used, all I am saying is yes the PE 2 followed by the TU 2 replacing the Blenhiem and the Ventura.

Sort of the same thing with the PE-2. Doesn't show up in any numbers until fall/winter of 1941.

Is it better than a Blenhiem? sure, but by Dec of 1941 the British had figured out the Blenhiem had had it's day so any Western production by Bristol would have been at the expense of Beaufighters.

Not quite, the Blenhiem was in production for years after its sell by date and in front line service almost to the end of 1943. So any PE 2 production could have replaced Blenhiem Production.

As far as replacing Venturas. I wonder what the bomb load of the PE-2 would have been if it had to fly as far as a Ventura?

Wrong aircraft. The introduction of the Ventura was more in the timeline of the TU 2 with the first RAF Ventura missions taking place in Nov 1942. Given the choice, I would take the TU 2 over the Ventura any day.

 

[cherry blossom]

Slightly off topic but the Tu-2 must be the best aircraft ever designed in a prison!