Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[GrauGeist]

The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (the A-10's namesake) was a premier ground attack machine. Heavily armed, capable of carrying a heavy loadout and more than capable of defending itself when attacked, it was in many respects, ahead of the IL-2.

It was also rugged and could absorb heavy damage while remaining airworthy.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Tony Williams is the best, and readily available reference for this question I should think. Penetration is required for that armoured section, which the Mk108 doesn't have (a Mk101/103 would be far better) but certainly a shot or two in the wings or rear fuselage is bound to do quite a bit of damage. The Mk108 has been described as more like a grenade launcher than a gun, it has a hell of a charge said capable of bringing down a B-17 with only a few shots.

That said I've seen photos of an Il-2 with roughly half its tail section completely blown away by sustained FlaK and MG151 fire and a smiling aircrew standing beside it.

edit, also the Mk108 wasn't in production until late 43 and from what I can gather was only very rarely fitted until 1944, only a standardised armament in late 44 and even then by no means universal for the 109.

If the Il-2 could absorb more total punishment than the B-17, I'll screw a sheep. I don't think it could take a shot from the 37mm M4 cannon (the one from the P-39) either.

 

[claidemore]

THe Russians, according to some accounts, had trouble with parts fitting in planes built in the same factory.
Some Western and even Japanese plans to use dispersed manufacture but central assembly points had troubles with sub assemblies not fitting together.
Some accounts speak of troubles with certain Russian planes were parts from one factory don't fit planes from another factory even though they were supposed to be built from the same drawings. ths mass manufacturing is not as easy as some peaple think.

FW190 was made in sub assemblies at 'cottage industry' dispersed factories. They had excellent quality.

Except all the dials on the lathe that control movement are already calibrated in thousands. The micrometers and calipers the the machinest is using to measure the "indicated values" are in thousands and not miillimeters. SO the machinist has to perform calculations a lot more often than he would if the drawings were in imperial units.

Actually the machinist has to make the calculations once, (or someone does), after that he should have the correct measurements written down and has only to refer back to them.

Western factories did not make their own nuts, bolts, screws, rivits, pipe fittings, tubing, etc. it was all bought in from outside suppliers who would not be happy trying to make "batches' of metric parts and then switching back to Imperial measure parts. the time it takes to set up these more automatic machines is time they ae not producing product.

That's the beautiful thing about a capitalist system, someone is going to jump at the chance to get a contract to make metric fasteners (if the producer was too lazy to redraw the plane to SAE standards). Not only would the metric fasteners be used on the western produced Soviet design, but they could be sold to other countries using metric fasteners. Lots of potential for profit there.

I have a close friend who refurbishes parts for helicopters. There is no margin for error, everything has to be perfect. A lot of the techniques and tricks he uses are the same things a farm handyman uses, just a whole bunch fussier about the end result. Basic mechanics being applied to hi tech parts.

Most of the Soviet designs were anything but hi tech. They were simple, rugged, and crude. I don't see any great difficulties in a western manufacturer with availability of better materials, tools etc, producing a Yak or Tu-2. Yes there would be obstacles, but none of them are insurmountable, and the benifits might have outweiged just the addition of another useful aircraft. Better East/West relations comes to mind with attendent reduction in Cold War hostile attitudes etc. Yeah that's a bit of a stretch, but it darn sure couldn't have hurt.

On a different note"
As far as the IL-2 being only useful on the Eastern Front, but not on the Western Front, that seems a little illogical. The opponent was exactly the same on both fronts. It would just be a simple matter of using tactics to which the IL-2 was suited. I'm sure US, Canadian and British infantry and armor would have appreciated it's close support capabilities.

Note: The Soviets were able to stick metic engines and weapons into P40 and Hurricane airframes under field conditions, and make gauges and instruments work somehow. How could it be more difficult for a western manufacturer to do similar (reverse) conversions?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FW190 was made in sub assemblies at 'cottage industry' dispersed factories. They had excellent quality.

In the beginning, yes, toward the end of the war a totally different story.

The problem with "cottage industry" is you don't have the ability to mass produce certain components as if you were to have a whole assembly line available. Additionally you have to have efficient logistics and transportation available to bring everything into one place. With Germany getting bombed 24/7 this presented a problem later in the war. Of course factories in the US and Canada did not have this problem.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Great information Vanir , thanks. I did not mean to depreciate the Sturmavik but I hold to my view that it was very much a unique development of the Eastern Front.

Furthermore: "...As far as the IL-2 being only useful on the Eastern Front, but not on the Western Front, that seems a little illogical. The opponent was exactly the same on both fronts. It would just be a simple matter of using tactics to which the IL-2 was suited. I'm sure US, Canadian and British infantry and armor would have appreciated it's close support capabilities." [Claidemore].

To that I say: geography, scale and defensive barriers/urban centres. The Eastern Front was vast compared to Western Europe. Much fighting on open steppes .... no comparison with the hedgerow country of Normandy or the Italian boot. [I am NOT saying all of Eastern Europe is steppe .. but a lot of it is flat west of the Carpathians].

Typhoons used "cab rank" circling tactics over Normandy and at Falaise to get at German armour - they didn't have supporting fighter cover on two levels backing them as the Il-2's did after the 1942 reorganization. [Vanir]

Claidemore ... it would be the difference between fighting on the plains from Calgary to Winnipeg vs fighting in the farm belt of S. Ontario

No Kursk on the Western Front.

MM

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So you could design a spitfire sized plane that could take multiple 30mm hits and survive just as well as a B-17?

Yeah you could. You are missing the point. The P-47 was not rugged because of its size, but because of its design. You hit a P-47 (or any aircraft for that matter) in the right spot with a single round it is going to go down. It all depends on where the aircraft is hit. NOT because of size!

Again I have personally seen relatively small aircraft come home with over 200 holes in them, and seen large aircraft brought down by one single round.

that's my point. I understand what Alder is saying, but he's being too extreme about it.

No I am not being extreme at all! You said that the aircraft could take more damage because of its size. That is not true, it was because of its design...

S I think without escort a single 30mm from the nose of a 109G would likely blow it out of the sky.

A single 30mm round could blow any aircraft out of the sky.

 

[GrauGeist]

...A single 30mm round could blow any aircraft out of the sky.

Agreed...

The Mk108 with it's minengeschoß rounds were devestating to anything unfortunate enough to be it's target. Didn't matter if it was a B-24 or an IL-2, the m-geschoß packed 4 times as much HE as it's 20mm counterpart.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Agreed...

The Mk108 with it's minengeschoß rounds were devestating to anything unfortunate enough to be it's target. Didn't matter if it was a B-24 or an IL-2, the m-geschoß packed 4 times as much HE as it's 20mm counterpart.

Which is why I would have no use for being in an unescorted Il-2. With a P-39 along to help me (with its' huge cannon of course), I'd be happy, but flying a big slow garbage scow like the Il-2 and waiting for a Messerschmidt to bounce me from above with that cannon? Thanks anyway.

 

[GrauGeist]

I agree with you there!

A Bf109 bouncing an IL-2 would be bad enough, imagine a Fw190A8 having it's way with a Sturmovick....not gonna be pretty...

 

[Tzaw1]

How many from 36000 Il-2's survived the war?
What was the really bomb load?
How good was the bombsight?
How goods was the accuracy of guns?
How good were pilotage properties?

And... In real fighting circumstances P -47 took the greater bomb/rocket load than Pe-2.

The production of the any Soviet plane in USA or Canada would not cause any problem. Only what for?
Surely only for this, it to send to USSR within the lend-lease. 8)

 

[Clay_Allison]

How many from 36000 Il-2's survived the war?
What was the really bomb load?
How good was the bombsight?
How goods was the accuracy of guns?
How good were pilotage properties?

And... In real fighting circumstances P -47 took the greater bomb/rocket load than Pe-2.

The production of the any Soviet plane in USA or Canada would not cause any problem. Only what for?
Surely only for this, it to send to USSR within the lend-lease. 8)

If I was producing an Americanized Yak-1 with an Allison engine, I'd send it to the Soviets, the Australians, the Indians, the Chinese, the New Zealanders, Phillipinos, pretty much anyone who couldn't otherwise get into a fighter plane.

 

[GrauGeist]

Here's a quick comparison between the Jug, the Peshka and the Sturmovik

I still think for it's abilities, the P-47D offered more of everything from a single-seater than any other aircraft that fit in it's role. A fighter, bomber, escort, ground attack and everything in between.

P-47D
Max. speed: 433 mph @ 30,000 ft.
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft.
Range: 800 miles
Weight empty: 10,000 lb.
Weight loaded: 17,500 lb.
8 - .50 in. M2 Browning MG
Max. bomb loadout - 2,500 lb.
10 - 5 in. rockets

Pe-2b
Max. speed: 360 mph
Service ceiling: 28,870 ft.
Range: 721 miles
Weight empty: 12,952 lb.
Weight loaded: 16,639 lb.
2 - 7.62mm fixed ShKAS MG nose mounted, 12.7mm Berezin UB replaced 1 ShKAS on later versions.
2 - rear firing 7.62mm ShKAS.
1 - Berezin UB MG, upper bombardier turret - '42 onwards.
1 - Berezin UB MG, gunner's ventral hatch - '42 onwards
1 - ShKAS MG, operated by a gunner from port, starboard or upper mountings - '42 onwards.
Max. bomb loadout - 3,520 lb
Some pe-2s were equipped with DAG-10 launcher, launching AG-2 parachute grenades w/timed fuses.

IL-2m3
Max. speed: 257 mph
Service ceiling: 18,045 ft.
Range: 450 miles
Weight empty: 9,612 lb.
Weight loaded: 13,580 lb.
2 - 23mm VYa-23 cannons
2 - 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns
1 - 12.7mm Berezin UBT MG, rear gunner
Max. bomb loadout - 1,320 lb
OR
8 - 82mm RS-82 rockets
OR
4 - 132mm RS-132 rockets

 

[Altea]

Hello,

I'd be surprised if it it took less than six, even with a large team of draughtsmen.

Wow! Only 102 days to design/create a complete sophisticated plane like the Mustang, and 6 full months only to make draws for a soapbox like a Yak-1? Even with a large team of draughtsmen and about ¾ europeans metric engineers from Sikorsky-Kartvelli-Seversky design bureaus.

There is something "strange" in your estimations I think.

A few years ago I worked for a British company that had an American parent company, they sent us the drawi….etc

….It's a very big deal and not one that's particularly "fun" or profitable.
Even ten years later that design is one of the least well regarded inside the company

Your experience in itself is indisputable, and there is nothing to discuss about. But how far could it be applied to the Yak-1/7/9 airframe conversion from metric to imperial system?

Ask any design engineer: the worst job in the world is working on stuff that isn't your own.
Give me a clean sheet of paper and a set of specs every time. It's far less hassle.

Time is the key factor, you're right. How hassle is it or not is an insignificant factor. What-if soviets have had ready Yak-1 with Merlin XX or Allison engines in the early 1942 spring, after the good thrashing got by the allies in the North Africa or Pacific TOW?

I have no doubt on what would have been said to you from Jeffrey Quill or "Chuck" Yeager about the use of your clean sheet of paper, if you were a Hurricane or P-40 designer/supporter/representative, after comparative trials in Moscow (between soviet 109E3, F2, merlin engined Yaks and Hurricanes, and Allison fitted P-40's and Yaks...). And so for the Kiwis, the "Aussies", Free-frenchs, Afrikaners, Flying-dutchmans, Polaks, Aliens….

In final worlds the customer-pilot is the King. He decides. And j'm not persuaded that you will convince him that your own project:
-would be far superior
-faster available in front line units,
than a join-ventured Yak 1A or 7A (america) assembly line.

Regards

 

[GrauGeist]

...Wow! Only 102 days to design/create a complete sophisticated plane like the Mustang, and 6 full months only to make draws for a soapbox like a Yak-1? Even with a large team of draughtsmen at ¾ Europeans engineers from Sikorsky-Kartvelli-Seversky design bureaus.

There is something "strange" in your estimations I think.

Actually, they're right:

British issued a MAP order for NA-73X project, March 1940. Prototype NA-73X was rolled out just 117 days after the order was placed, and first flew on 26 October 1940, just 178 days after the order had been placed—an uncommonly short gestation period.

NA-73X was the original designation of the Mustang Mk.I (P-51)

 

[Clay_Allison]

Once again I'd like to point out that it sure would be nice to be able to make soviet cannons under license. Replacing the M2 .50 with the Berezin UB (chambered for the American .50 BMG) would have halved the weight and doubled the rate of fire of american aircraft guns.

Edit: same rate of fire, I was comparing the UB to the M2HB, not the AN/M2.

 

[parsifal]

Not much I can add here. But according to one website (Zenos) the Il-2 had the lowest loss rate of any Soviet built bomber. If that is true, then the armoured bath concept had some merit.

Soviets used simlar tactics to the Allied "Cabranks". They called them "stateroom", basically circling and attacking targets of opportunity....helped to slow down the movement of reserves at the point of schwerepunkt.

As Vanir points out, Soviets were also effective at keeping the German fighters at bay. They did this by sending the fighters ahead and above the Il-2s. The idea was to keep the germans so busy with numbers, that the bombers could go to work as unhindered as possible. There are a lot of people in this place who argue that the VVS was no match for the Luftwaffe, to a point this is true, but in reality the VVS worked out tactics that worked for them. And in the end it was not the case that the Luftwaffe wa turning the VVS into mincemeat every time. Truth is, from Kursk onward, the Soviets were achieving quite competitive exchange rates, more to the point they tailored their air force not as an air superiority weapon, but as a ground support weapon, and in this they were palpably successful. People can argue all they like about how good the Luftwaffe was, fact is, that on the eastern front putting effective fighters into the air is less important on a front that long to getting your bombers over the target, getting the mission done, and then getting the hell out. The Soviets worked this out, eventually, and got to be exceptionally good at it to boot.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...If I was producing an Americanized Yak-1 with an Allison engine, I'd send it to the Soviets, the Australians, the Indians, the Chinese, the New Zealanders, Phillipinos, pretty much anyone who couldn't otherwise get into a fighter plane....."

I know it's not intentional, Clay, but every time you get on this "budget" fighters for the Allies it sound condescending as Hell.

The Russians CLONED the B-29, the Americans DIDN'T clone the Yak ... does that tell you something Clay? Give your head a shake.

MM

 

[Civettone]

Not much to add to the excellent posts of Vanir and Parsifal.

Perhaps I could also repeat that this discussion is not about the Il-2 being better than the P-47, they were simply different concepts. I read a lot of comments on how good the P-47 was, and I agree. But all in all ... Western Allies never operated heavily armoured attack aircraft like the Germans and Russians did. The Russians used I-16s and Yak-9Ts for ground support and the Germans used Fw 190Fs. The fact that they kept using the slower but more heavily armoured Il-2, Ju 87D and Hs 129 gives an indication that these older variants were in a league of their own. Looking at the loss figures for both Il-2, Ju 87D and Hs 129 at the Eastern Front it is striking to see how low the losses actually were. First of all, hardly any from enemy fighters as they operated directly above the frontline which means they had to be engaged before they reached it which would be a lucky encounter. Second, they were often met heavy ground fire, especially the Russians who even shot at them with infantry weapons or even with tank guns. Yet ... losses were low.

One guy - perhaps it was at the LEMB forum - said that the Fw 190F was less effective than the Ju 87D it replaced: less accurate and more vulnerable to enemy ground fire.

Kris

 

[michaelmaltby]

Interesting post, Civettone, I agree.

In the West, Typhoon losses to flak were quite high [Closterman] ... and that's with air superiority.

I think it is simplistic to consider the two fronts as inter-changeable. I have no issues with the appropriateness of Soviet aircraft for the theatre. But Churchill wasn't asking the Soviets for technological "aid" - he was quire content that Soviets were committed in the flesh. Whereas, Stalin wanted aid AND a second front [ASAP]. Who came out of WW2 with who's atomic and industrial secrets...?

With no disrespect for anyone of any persuasion on this site - the history of the USSR industrially is the history of technology transfer from WEST to EAST. Whether Ford, Austin, Douglas or Autocar...

Wishful thinking about Yak assembly lines in Sydney, Lahore, or wherever is fantasy .... which is one reason I have no time for sims. When I want to improve my hand-eye co-ordination I use a chainsaw It's real ... with real consequences.

 

[GrauGeist]

I think the comparison regarding the P-47D was to prove that the allies didn't need a Soviet ground attack aircraft, as the P-47 was up to the task.

The western front did in fact evolve differently than the eastern front, for a number of reasons. Geography was one, also the Allied designs were of a different school of thought, based on thier individual needs.

I would suppose that rather than being condescending, Clay was suggesting that an inexpensive fighter be supplied to nations who weren't able to afford high-end machines, and rather than give them obsolete aircraft, provide them with a proven machine that could be produced quickly enough. At least that was the way I saw it.

I enjoy running combat sims because it's pretty difficult these days, to climb into a Fw190A8 and tangle with an adversary. Besides the fact that Fw190A8s just aren't laying around, the FAA has fairly strict rules about flying unplanned routes at wildly diverse altitudes and of course, shooting down another plane. They really frown on that. So a quality combat sim is far more practical, plus you have the ability to research missions and the aircraft that operated on those missions. Think of it as a 3D model that you not only build and paint, but can actually use. I'm sure there's one or two other folks in this forum that feel the same.

As far as a chainsaw, yeah...I can operate one of those too...except I used to go up 40-50-60+ foot connifers and top them, wearing a belt and a pair of corks. That had a serious set of circumstances.

I'll stick to sims