Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[vikingBerserker]

Maybe a tank or two and some infantry weapons, but really hard pressed on coming up with an aircraft.

 

[claidemore]

It might harder to find a Soviet plane that was better than a similar western type, but I can think of times when equivalent types might have been welcome.
When the USA first got into the fight, they were short of fighters, and they used quite a few Reverse Lend-Lease Spitfire Vs, IXs aned VIIIs (right up till 1944). I would think a few squadrons of Yak fighters would have been just as welcome.
Ditto for the defece of Malta, they were always short of fighters. Not sure how they would get a shipment of Yaks delivered though.

I still like the Tu-2 as a plane that had one or more advantages over any western type. Others might have got the job done, but the Tupolev could have done it better.

I can see the Yak 3 as a good contender too. Had developement and production been shared with western allies thethe Yak 3 might have been in full service several months earlier, not to mention the possibility of solving the problems with the VK107 engine sooner. The Yak 3 is always touted as the best dogfighter of the war, I can't see why any nation wouldn't have liked to have a few squadrons of them. The French certainly were quite happy to get theirs after the war.

 

[VG-33]

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

Or that modified A-26 couldn't do?

Was the A-26 a dive bomber?
Was it able to launch a 2500kg bomb from a 80° dive and recover at 900 km/h?
Dit it made his first flight at january 1941?

And etc...

VG 33

 

[parsifal]

I am not sure if any Soviet aircraft would be of great use in the west. But before writing off the Soviets, its a good idea to look at their strengths. Above everything else, the Soviets were goosd at flying in poor weather. They could get airborne when others could not. Was this just because they didnt worry about attritional losses, or did their aircraft have better than average capability to operate in conditions of extreme cold?

 

[Shortround6]

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.

Seem to have hit a nerve here.

Just which version of the TU-2 was in service in February of 1942?
Prototype ANT-59/103U first flew with with M82 engines instead of AM-37s Nov. 1 1941.
ANT-60/103V first flies Dec 15 1941 and doesn't complete testing until Aug 22 1942.
ANT-61/103S does NII tests from Sept.13 1942 until Oct 28 1942. Goes into production at GAZ-166 by this time. At least one account says dive brakes are eliminated at this time. The two early versions use lower power versions of the M-82 engine than later versions and even then the 192-43 versions use the M-82NV engine compared to the the later versions using the M-82FN.

Production is halted and 15 months lost, large numbers of aircraft not reaching service units until well into 1944.

So WHICH set of plans are you going to give to the West and what performance numbers to convince them to build the plane?
Douglas A-26 first flew July 10, 1942 which means design work started months before.

 

[Shortround6]

This has been covered by Claidmore


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.


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.



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.

NO. 1 has been adressed in previous post.

NO.2 Yes the Blenhhiem was produced too long but the Rusians were in position to supply aircraft to the West in 1941-42-43. Any production by the West would have been at the expense of an aircraft already in production and/or the loss of output while the factory re-tooled and changed metric drawings to imperial measurements. Blenhiem was being phased out and stayed in Front line service only in secondary theaters. PE-2 shows up IN SERVICE late 1941, about a year after the Mosquito first flies. SO by the time it's combat effectiveness can be judged and plans put into place to produce it and get the planes the service squadrons it should be showing up just about the time the Blenheim was replaced anyway.

No.3 I was responding to your statement:

"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."

I took it to mean that the PE-2 would have been better than the Ventura, It may very well have been for some mission but as I pointed out the PE-2 may not have been able to perform some of the Venturas missions.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Parsifal..."Was this just because they didnt worry about attritional losses, or did their aircraft have better than average capability to operate in conditions of extreme cold? .."

In a previous post (WW2 Aviation Movies you like to see) I made reference to my Uncle Aythur who flew in both wars - Ferry Command in # 2. For a time Art was ferrying B-25 Mitchells and complained that he and his colleagues would take great effort to get the planes to the Soviet crews safely (get themselves there safely too ) where upon the Soviets would take off in virtually any weather conditions. This was with US aircraft, not Soviet-made machines. So I think your observation has more to do with training and values than the quality of the aircraft. That said, when you look at the record of Soviet ferry crews from Alaska, they're pretty damn good - especially considering the terrain and general weather - moreso when you think just how short the P-39 legs really were - even with external belly tank.

MM

 

[Glider]

NO. 1 has been adressed in previous post.

Yes it had been covered. Any version of the TU 2 would have been better than the Ventura

NO.2 Yes the Blenhhiem was produced too long but the Rusians were in position to supply aircraft to the West in 1941-42-43. Any production by the West would have been at the expense of an aircraft already in production and/or the loss of output while the factory re-tooled and changed metric drawings to imperial measurements. Blenhiem was being phased out and stayed in Front line service only in secondary theaters. PE-2 shows up IN SERVICE late 1941, about a year after the Mosquito first flies. SO by the time it's combat effectiveness can be judged and plans put into place to produce it and get the planes the service squadrons it should be showing up just about the time the Blenheim was replaced anyway.

I think we are almost agreeing. The PE 2 might have been made available sooner rather than later and it would have been a lot better than the Blenhiem. The plane that would have been replaced in production would have been the Blenhiem because as you say it was produced for far too long. As for the time taken who knows how long it would have taken. Engine could have been replaced with Merlins and the actual airframe fairly easily converted to Imperial measurements.

To a certain degree this is a fantasy as there is no way Russia would have given us this aircraft and lets be honest, a T34/KV1 design handed over in 1940 would have been of far greater benefit to the UK.

The question was simply was their any Russian aircraft that would have been of use to the West and the awnser is Yes. The fact that we would never have been given it is not the point.

 

[vikingBerserker]

NO. 1NO.2 Yes the Blenhhiem was produced too long but the Rusians were in position to supply aircraft to the West in 1941-42-43.

That does not make sense to me. If that was the case, then why did the allies continue to supply aircraft such as the B-25 and A-20 via Lend-Lease until 1945?

 

[Marshall_Stack]

How about the cannons that the Soviets used? They claim it to be better than those of the West.

 

[Shortround6]

That does not make sense to me. If that was the case, then why did the allies continue to supply aircraft such as the B-25 and A-20 via Lend-Lease until 1945?

My appoligies, I ment to say the soviets were in "NO" position to supply aircraft to the west during that time.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes it had been covered. Any version of the TU 2 would have been better than the Ventura.

Again it depends on what mission. Can someone please post a good reference for the TU-2 because some web sites seem to be using fantasy numbers. See:Tupolev Tu-2 - bomber

Please add 4000kg bomb load to the empty weight and see what you get

I think we are almost agreeing. The PE 2 might have been made available sooner rather than later and it would have been a lot better than the Blenhiem. The plane that would have been replaced in production would have been the Blenhiem because as you say it was produced for far too long. As for the time taken who knows how long it would have taken. Engine could have been replaced with Merlins and the actual airframe fairly easily converted to Imperial measurements.

Well, any new airframe that required Merlins in 1941-42 might not have gotton very far. That might have been a reason to keep making Blenhiems, no Merlins needed.
As far as "airframe fairly easily converted to Imperial measurements" goes one source claims the Russians needed 1500 drawings to convert the TU-2 from V-12 engines to Radials. The other aspect is that while you can change the numbers on the drawings that doesn't help a lot when your metal skinning doesn't come from the rolling mills in metric measurement, none of your tubing or other "stock" structural materials (like rivits) come in metric sizes and so on. So you can either redraw the prints ( and do weight/stress calculations) to use Imperial sizes or you can get suppliers to furnish "special batches" of materials in between normal production.

The question was simply was their any Russian aircraft that would have been of use to the West and the awnser is Yes. The fact that we would never have been given it is not the point.

There were Russian Aircraft that the West could have used but only if they didn't really interupt the delivery of the Wests own designs. Since Many Russian aircraft seem to lack range compared to Western Aircraft (talking 1941-43?) they might not have been as useful as they first appear. ON the Eastern Front were airfields were close to the front this was of little importance but even in the Med there was some over water flying.

 

[Vincenzo]

for soviet plane and not only, in russian but google language it's enough for understand number
13-ÿ áàçà

here googled table of charateristics for tu-2
http://translate.google.com.au/tran...ext/shavrov2/t.htm&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

inlucky it can't link the googled table only the home page of book
on index page click in TU-2, after on Options TU-2 anf finally on Table of characteristics

 

[VG-33]

Seem to have hit a nerve here.

Just which version of the TU-2 was in service in February of 1942?
Prototype ANT-59/103U first flew with with M82 engines instead of AM-37s Nov. 1 1941.
ANT-60/103V first flies Dec 15 1941 and doesn't complete testing until Aug 22 1942.
ANT-61/103S does NII tests from Sept.13 1942 until Oct 28 1942. Goes into production at GAZ-166 by this time. At least one account says dive brakes are eliminated at this time. The two early versions use lower power versions of the M-82 engine than later versions and even then the 192-43 versions use the M-82NV engine compared to the the later versions using the M-82FN.


So WHICH set of plans are you going to give to the West and what performance numbers to convince them to build the plane?
Douglas A-26 first flew July 10, 1942 which means design work started months before.

I think we should do not make confusion between technical and historical facts. It's not because soviets had no reliable and powerfull engine and no production facilities for the ANT-58 in 1941 that americans or british should have had the same problem.
Even if satisfactory, it was still a prototype with all usual defects. The only way to save it, was to create a partnership with some western firms to develop the plane further. And to make a kind of deal, some extra light alloy deliveries against a part of finished airframes...

A lot of what ifs anyway, i think...

 

[drgondog]

The fundamental question to be answered is "which Soviet aircraft, in production quantities at the time, would have been superior to the Commonwaelth/US aircraft for the roles they played."

Second question "which Soviet aircraft, if available in numbers, would have altered the Missions (Tactical, strategic) supported by Commonwaelth/US aircraft.

Would an aircraft like the TU-2 replace a B-17? or a B-26? or a Mosquito?

Would a Mig-3 replace the P-40 in North Africa or in the Solomons?

etc, etc

 

[Shortround6]

for soviet plane and not only, in russian but google language it's enough for understand number
13-ÿ áàçà

here googled table of charateristics for tu-2
Google Translate

inlucky it can't link the googled table only the home page of book
on index page click in TU-2, after on Options TU-2 anf finally on Table of characteristics

Thank you.

 

[Glider]

The fundamental question to be answered is "which Soviet aircraft, in production quantities at the time, would have been superior to the Commonwaelth/US aircraft for the roles they played."

Second question "which Soviet aircraft, if available in numbers, would have altered the Missions (Tactical, strategic) supported by Commonwaelth/US aircraft.

Would an aircraft like the TU-2 replace a B-17? or a B-26? or a Mosquito?

Would a Mig-3 replace the P-40 in North Africa or in the Solomons?

etc, etc

Totally agree.

My position is clear in that I would prefer the PE 2 to the Blenhiem and the TU 2 to replace the Ventura. If there is an time overlap I would prefer the PE 2 to the Ventura until the TU 2 comes along.

Does anyone truly believe that they would rather go into combat in a Ventura or a Blenhiem?

 

[VG-33]

Again it depends on what mission. Can someone please post a good reference for the TU-2 because some web sites seem to be using fantasy numbers. See:Tupolev Tu-2 - bomber

Please add 4000kg bomb load to the empty weight and see what you get

Probably: ??????? ??-2

So Claid was not far from the truth, first serial machines were produced in march 1942 at factory 166, but provided unsatisfactory.

Well, any new airframe that required Merlins in 1941-42 might not have gotton very far. That might have been a reason to keep making Blenhiems, no Merlins needed.

Maybe Allisons (for the Pe-2), Hercules (for the Tu-2).

As far as "airframe fairly easily converted to Imperial measurements" goes one source claims the Russians needed 1500 drawings to convert the TU-2 from V-12 engines to Radials.

For wooden or mixed planes as Yak-1, MiG-3, LaGG i think so. No much accuracy required. But from C-47/Li-2 experience ! It's fairly as much work as creating a new aircraft

There were Russian Aircraft that the West could have used but only if they didn't really interupt the delivery of the Wests own designs. Since Many Russian aircraft seem to lack range compared to Western Aircraft (talking 1941-43?) they might not have been as useful as they first appear. ON the Eastern Front were airfields were close to the front this was of little importance but even in the Med there was some over water flying.

Maybe Allison or Merlin fitted Yak-9D or MiG-3D should have been just ok!

VG 33

Regards

 

[Shortround6]

I think we should do not make confusion between technical and historical facts. It's not because soviets had no reliable and powerfull engine and no production facilities for the ANT-58 in 1941 that americans or british should have had the same problem.
Even if satisfactory, it was still a prototype with all usual defects. The only way to save it, was to create a partnership with some western firms to develop the plane further. And to make a kind of deal, some extra light alloy deliveries against a part of finished airframes...

A lot of what ifs anyway, i think...

I mean no disrespect to the Russian designers and workmen. It is just that by the time ANY design had proved itself in combat it was at least two years from start up if not more. So if you go back two-three years why would any country think that another country's DRAWING board or PROTOTYPE airplane was any better than their own DRAWING board or PROTOTYPE airplane?

And by the time a plane had proved itself in combat there were any number of up and coming designs that PROMISED to be better. Weither they fufilled that promise is another matter.

As a for instance the Northrop P-61 Black Widow was being worked on over 14 months BEFORE Pearl Harbor and 8-9 Months before the Soviet Union was invaded. That means the US had about 20 different designs of fighter plane on drawing boards or under construction to replace the P-40 before the P-40 ever equipt a service squadron.

It is easy now to say what planes should have been stopped before they got off the drawing board or to pick winners, it might have been a bit harder to predict the future in 1940-41.

 

[claidemore]

I mean no disrespect to the Russian designers and workmen. It is just that by the time ANY design had proved itself in combat it was at least two years from start up if not more. So if you go back two-three years why would any country think that another country's DRAWING board or PROTOTYPE airplane was any better than their own DRAWING board or PROTOTYPE airplane?

Great Britain did exactly that when they ordered the P51. Unproven, no plans, no prototype, just a concept. That worked out pretty good.

Packard ( a car manufacturer) had a re-engineered Merlin running only 11 months after the agreement to produce them was made.

There's no reason a Tu-2 couldn't have been re-drawn, (and no doubt improved) in a timely manner. The west had the resources, the Soviets didn't, so they shelved the project for 15 months. A western manufacturer, or a co-operative east/west venture, could have had it in full production during that window.

Remember, the question is, "coulda/shoulda"; not woulda. We all know the answer to 'woulda'.

My dentist hit a nerve today. But that was not his intention.