Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used? (1 Viewer)

[Shortround6]

Thank you.

Now the question is was this armoured locomotive part of an armoured train that engaged in land combat, say anti-partisan. or was it armoured to withstand air attack?

 

[michaelmaltby]

Actually, Shortround6, the question is: "is it a Soviet armoured train or a German?" To my eyes, the men servicing it are in Soviet uniforms. I wasn't aware that they had a Partisan problem

MM

 

[GrauGeist]

That is a Soviet locomotive. They used armored locomotives mostly with armored trains in the earlier years, I have seen some armored locomotives with unprotected stock cars, some having AA flatcars and some without. I posted that to give a fair idea of an armored locomotive from the early years of the war.

Armored trains were actively used by the Finns, Soviets and Germans. I know that the British had armored trains, but they saw little action. The Eastern Front saw more action against enemy troops by both the Soviets and Germans.

The Germans even used a lead flat car that could deploy a "high rail" armored car to sweep ahead of the train. See sunny's post: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation-videos/german-armored-train-18807.html while the video is definately wartime propaganda, it does give some great views of a German armored train (and it's components) in action.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I believe the Poles also had one that they put to good use during the Invasion by Germany.

 

[GrauGeist]

I believe the Poles also had one that they put to good use during the Invasion by Germany.

Good God man, you're right...I'm doing about three things at once here, and was going to post that the Poles in the late 30's had some serious armored trains!

Just a note here: I do not know all that much about armored trains, what I do know, was learned in passing while studying events that they happened to be in.

If anyone's interested in reading a great discussion about them (with excellent photos info) check out this discussion at WW2F: Trains in WWII - World War II Forums

 

[vikingBerserker]

Hack I had no idea the Finns used them.

Dam, that's a pretty good site!

 

[stasoid]

This was, I believe
compounded by Stalin's insistence that all ordnance be fired in anger. This invariably resulted in coming round for that suicidal second pass and straight into a ready and waiting flak barrage that had you ranged.
The Il-2 was not in any way immune to German flak.

From the memoirs of I-16 and Il-2 pilots that I've read, in their ground attack missions they usually split up. One smaller group (two or three planes) was to take the flak out. So, that second pass, was not that much suicidal after all but more accurate, I suppose.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Doesn't matter, I can still find wartime publications that say the Curtiss could do 400mph.
Point is the wartime publications, Newsreels and moves for the folks at home weren't any more reliable then than they are now.

SO I am really questioning the armourded trains/locomotives not which plane was shooting them.

Armoured train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poland used armoured trains extensively and successfully during the Invasion of Poland. One observer noted that "Poland had only few armoured trains, but their officers and soldiers were fighting well. Again and again they were emerging from a cover in thick forests, disturbing German lines"[5]

This in turn prompted Nazi Germany to reintroduce them into its own armies. Germany then used armoured trains to a small degree during World War Two. However, they introduced significant designs of a versatile and well-equipped nature, including railcars which housed anti-aircraft gun turrets, railcars designed to load and unload tanks, and railcars which had complete armour protection with a large concealed howitzer gun. Germany also had fully-armoured locomotives which were used on such trains.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not saying there were NO armoured trains. there certainly were . I have even seen pictures of a small tourist narrow gage train in England armoured and armed for anit invasion duty. A few Lewis guns couple of Boys anti-tank rifles, looks like something at an amusment park.

However the total number of armoured trains wasn't all that many.

See: List of armoured trains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the list may not be complete (no German trains?) I think that we can see that compared to the number or unarmoured trains the numbers are very small.

see: http://www.matadormodels.co.uk/tank_museum/bp4_bp44.htm

This started with the contenttion that P-47s were strafing armoured locomotives:

:"The contemporary film THUNDERBOLTS (made by the Army in 1944) referred to "Armored Locomotives" as among the P-40's common targets. Locomotives pull hundreds of tons......"

Now P-47s did destroy thousasnds of locomotives. but how many of these armoured trains were used on the Western Front or even in Italy where the P-47s were?
How many common frieght or passenger locomotives were armoured?
Putting a coouple of sandbagged flatcars with flack guns on a regular train does not make it an armoured train or mean that the locomotive was armoured.

As for it being a good idea, it might have been absolutly brilliant. Every locomotive armoured against air attack in the last the 2 years of the war means one or two less German armoured cars or halftracks manufactured maybe even three or four.
That sure would have made things a lot easier for the Allies.

 

[Colin1]

Every locomotive armoured against air attack in the last the 2 years of the war means one or two less German armoured cars or halftracks manufactured maybe even three or four.
That sure would have made things a lot easier for the Allies.

I don't quite get the arithmetic behind your logic
it might have put a dent in production numbers but more heavily armoured trains would have been more survivable; hence more of the historically destroyed payloads would have gotten through

 

[Shortround6]

I don't quite get the arithmetic behind your logic
it might have put a dent in production numbers but more heavily armoured trains would have been more survivable; hence more of the historically destroyed payloads would have gotten through

Give the size of a locomotive it would require ALL of the armour from several non-tank type vehicles to cover ONE locomotive.
Armmour steel is not regular steel. it requires certain elements in small amounts for alloying purposes, of course when you are talking about thousands if not tens of thousands of tons even small percentages add up. it also requires heat treament and is difficult to work with.
Trying to armour thousands of locomotives from air attack would have put a real dent in production numbers. try picturing a 251 half track next to a locomotve. ANd how much good does it really do to armour the locomotives if the rolling stock is unarmoured.

 

[Altea]

A plane whose losses to 'other means' competed quite briskly with losses to combat ops, to the point in 1944 where losses to other means outstripped combat losses by more than half.

Remind me, why is this a 'Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?'

Have you got numbers for the P-51, the B-17, the P-47?

About 35 000 Il-2 produced 23 000 lost (12 000 in combat) , 12 000 remainding in service, that mean inevitably a 100% complete accountancy balance, and ordinary wear an tear losses comprised in the loss list.

I think you have confused book-keeping losses and accidental losses...

Altea

 

[Colin1]

1. Have you got numbers for the P-51, the B-17, the P-47?

2. About 35 000 Il-2 produced 23 000 lost (12 000 in combat) , 12 000 remainding in service, that mean inevitably a 100% complete accountancy balance, and ordinary wear an tear losses comprised in the loss list.

3. I think you have confused book-keeping losses and accidental losses...

1. Comparing apples with oranges, surely?

P-47 and Il-2 are like comparing boats with cars by saying they're both transports

2. Three cheers for your 100% accountancy balance, nice to know that of 23,000 planes lost, 11,000 of them weren't to enemy action. Very reassuring.

3. I was going by the list VG-33 submitted, the figure in brackets being losses to combat, unless I've misinterpreted it.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I am not saying there were NO armoured trains. there certainly were . .

Is that not what you bascially stated in your post 284????

Armour costs money, much more than regular steel.
Armour is almost always in short supply in war time.
a single ton of armour would be almost worthless on a locomotive.
20lbs per sq ft for 1/2in steel (armour or soft steel) (12.7mm) or 100sq ft to the ton.
How big are these locomotives? even if you don't armour the lower 3-4 feet you need 200-300sq ft or more.
Steam locomotives need maintence and inspections, armour shrouds would make this difficult and reduce availibity of locomotives.

If you really believe war time propaganda films I can find books printed in WW II that say Curtiss P-40 Warhawks could do 400mph.

 

[Vincenzo]

simply that many of locomotives were not armoured (obv. imho)

 

[Altea]

1. Comparing apples with oranges, surely?

J'm not comparing anything, for the moment i'm just looking for statistics.

This was, I believe
compounded by Stalin's insistence that all ordnance be fired in anger. This invariably resulted in coming round for that suicidal second pass and straight into a ready and waiting flak barrage that had you ranged.
The Il-2 was not in any way immune to German flak.

Stalin has nothing to do with this. She standard soviet Il2 tactic was at least 3-4 passes on the target; one with bombs, one with rockets, the others for the straffing and the last one for the camera for fixing the results. With unsatisfactory results, a secund wave of Il2 was launched. If not, a third one and so on, until the moment when ground forces were estimating that ennemy was weakened enough.

Difficult to hope on any surprise effect in that case, like the P-47 or Typhoons or P-51's did. Moroever Il-2 were usually working on the front contact line, where Flak was particulary dense. P-47s typical mission was 20-25 km behind the front lines, where Flak concentration was much weaker.

2. Three cheers for your 100% accountancy balance, nice to know that of 23,000 planes lost, 11,000 of them weren't to enemy action. Very reassuring.

It's two different missions, Stormoviks were sometimes coming back with 200-300 holes in the airframe. With a mid loss rate of 1 plane for 36 missions, the statistics of the 3rd aerial army give that 1 plane was hit every 2 or 3 missions by Flak. More than 90% KO (immobilised to damages) planes wre returning back to combat.

Even in a "calm" secundary front as Carpatian Mountains, one plane was hit every 4 or 5 missions.

That mean simply, that with soviet total-war, mid-kamikaze methods, 12 000 Il-2 from 36 000 produced managed to survive. On the same work conditions, i think it would be 200-300 P-47 from 15 000 or something like that.

In fact NO allied plane would survive,operating the way that soviets were using their Stormoviks.


So considering the high Il-2 loss rate to the other planes, we're comparing apples with oranges


Regards

Altea

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... in fact NO allied plane would survive,operating the way that soviets were using their Stormoviks... '

I have to agree with you on that point, Altea However, it's as much the MISSION as it is the PLANE ... and this thread is basically about planes.
I doubt the Allies would ever have had a scenario that called on operations of the scale that the Il-2 was tasked on - and had they - with their resoucres, tactics, training and VALUES .. they would have used P-47's and Typhoons.

So where is this thread getting us ...? I still see no evidence that their is any Soviet warplane that the Allies would/should have used in WW2.



MM

 

[Civettone]

A bit of a side note, but perhaps interesting to some. The Germans had a few Kampf-units specialized in "train busting" (the so called 'Eis'-units). What's surprising is that they used Ju 88C Zerstörers armed with light MGs for the job! No cannons, no bombs.

Also the American fighters were very succesful in train busting, and you know what armament they had.

Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Is that not what you bascially stated in your post 284????

I was responding to this:

"The contemporary film THUNDERBOLTS (made by the Army in 1944) referred to "Armored Locomotives" as among the P-40's common targets. Locomotives pull hundreds of tons. Adding armor would be easy, inexpensive, and if it did some good infinitely valuable. What is a TRAIN load of supplies worth to your troops? The Germans would have been stupid not to put a ton of rolled steel on the locomotive and I don't think they were stupid."

Which I don't believe was referring to armoured military combat trains but to normal (commercial) freight or passanger trains and locomotives.

The fact that there were Armed and armoured trains in use by various countries in WW II in numbers that could be in the hundreds if the Russian numbers are to be believed doesn't mean that there was a capablity to armour thousands if not tens of thousands of locomotives in western europe in the last 2-3 years of the war.
A number of Railroads tried light weight streamlined shrouds on some express locomotives, most were gotten rid of becasue of maintence issues and they dodn't coer up as mutch as those armoured train pictures show.

I was aslo trying to get this thread a little more back on track rather than this train diversion.

I agree with Mr. Maltby. I have seen little evidence of any Soviet plane that would have made much difference to the weatern allies to use or manufacture.
I also think that any attempt to manufacture a Soviet aircraft in the west would entail at least a one year delay if not closer to two yars and so any comparison of Soviet types would have to be against Western types that were also 1 to 2 years from entering squadron service.

 

[vanir]

A bit of a side note, but perhaps interesting to some. The Germans had a few Kampf-units specialized in "train busting" (the so called 'Eis'-units). What's surprising is that they used Ju 88C Zerstörers armed with light MGs for the job! No cannons, no bombs.

Also the American fighters were very succesful in train busting, and you know what armament they had.

Kris

Although KG50 did use dirty big Mk101 sticking out the nose of their He177s for "flak suppression duties" in concert, go figure.
I'd say if the target were an armoured train with AAA it'd get a slightly different response from the local Fliegerführer than a regular troop transport. I dare say they'd list it as an "assault train" rather than a "train" judging by the way Soviets used their armoured trains around Charkov, Vyazma and Stalingrad.

Soviets are weirdos anyway (I mean that in a nice fashion here), they armoured up their river barges and trains and stuck 3" T-34 turrets on them and 25mm AAA, then used them as mobile assault weapons.
When the 16th Pz of the XXIV PzKorps reached the Volga in September 42 they used up most of their ammunition exchanging turret fire with bloody river barges, whilst being targeted by Flak guns near the tractor factory aimed by women from the local university.

I think it was at Vyazma they used armoured trains as assault guns to good effect.


Hey you know what I reckon'd be interesting. Disappear Germany and put the Allied Western Front up against the Soviet Eastern Front. Attack the Red Army with P-47s and the GI's with Il2s. Mustangs versus La-5s.
What would happen there?