Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[Shortround6]

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.

Lets see, British order the P-51 in March of 1940, it is first used in combat May of 1942? So following that time scale When does a Western built TU-2 see combat?
First TU-2 prototype doesn't fly until 3 months after the first P-51. While the Prototype shows amazing performance so do more than a few prototypes that don't pan out.
By the way TU-2 Prototype doesn't fly until what, 13-14 months after the Martin B-26.

As to the West having the resources, just what aircraft are you proposing to cut from production to make TU-2s? What engine are you proposing to use to power it ?

ANd what do you get at the end. The version that went into combat in 1944 had this for performance:

" Cruising speed 442 km / h at an altitude of 5800 m, range - 2100 km at an altitude of 3000 m with 1.5 tons of bombs in the store 2700 liters of gasoline (about 2100 kg)."

While this is very,very good it is a far cry from the 4,000kg bomb loads listed on many web sites.

Please also note that this performance is with an engine that did not go into production until Jan. 1943. Earlier versions would have had 150hp less per engine for take off (V-12 prototypes had 350hp less for take-off) .
Looking at this plane from a Western perspective, would you really want to fly from bases in England over France and Western Germany in 1943 at 10,000ft at around 270-280mph in a plane that had three hand operated (Non-turret) 12.7mm MG for defence?

Some early prototypes had TWO 7.62 MGs for rear defence.

Western "improvements" might have included 300-700kg of gun turrets would have reduced the performance of the TU-2. Please note that I use the word " improvements" with reservations

 

[claidemore]

Crusing speed of the Tu-2 of 276 mph is pretty much the same as Spitfires during the same time period and higher than most other medium bombers. Ventura crusing speed was only 260, and pilots flew them across the channel, albeit with high losses. Bostons had a crusing speed of 250, and less armament than the Tu-2 and they were quite popular with crews in cross channel operation. Those crews would have traded their Bostons for a Tu-2 that had a top speed of up to 50 mph faster quite willlingly.

The Blenheim had a turret, and it didn't do it much good. Waist guners in a B17 didn't have turrets, and they did just fine. Turrets are a non issue in a light/medium bomber IMO.

What plane to replace with the Tu-2? Take your pick. Boston, Blenheim, Hampden, Beufort, Wellington, Whitley (was already done in 1942), Ventura, Manchester( but it was replaced by Lancaster), Marauder and Maryland. It also could have done the Beaufighters job as well or better.

The Hercules engine on a Tu-2 would have been a good match, increasing it's range (better fuel economy), and depending on the variant, increasing horsepower.

The other option would be to use resources that were dedicated to any of a number of projects that duplicated other aircraft, such as the B32. Admitedly easier to do in hindsight, but given the option of developing the very practical Tu-2, or pursuing one of the 'fantasy' projects, companies such as Curtiss, Fairchild, Blackburn, Bristol, Martin etc, might have made a more useful contribution to the war effort.

 

[Shortround6]

Crusing speed of the Tu-2 of 276 mph is pretty much the same as Spitfires during the same time period and higher than most other medium bombers. Ventura crusing speed was only 260, and pilots flew them across the channel, albeit with high losses. Bostons had a crusing speed of 250, and less armament than the Tu-2 and they were quite popular with crews in cross channel operation. Those crews would have traded their Bostons for a Tu-2 that had a top speed of up to 50 mph faster quite willlingly. .

Some of those Bostons were doing their cross channel flights in late 1941 weren't they? Not quite the same as 1943. As for 50mph faster, quite a trick, see:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/A20/A20FOICa.pdf

See CRUISING SPEED of 305mph at 12,000ft . I wonder what that old A-20 could do if it used full throttle?

The Blenheim had a turret, and it didn't do it much good. Waist guners in a B17 didn't have turrets, and they did just fine. Turrets are a non issue in a light/medium bomber IMO. .

Well, apparently your opinion wasn't shared by the USAAF. They had B-17s with no turrets, right up until the E model. The later models of the A-20 had a power turret. No operational B-26 flew without one and The B-25 was equiped with at least one from the B model on. 119 B models delivered in 1941. US navy might disagree also. Gruman Avenger used a power turret instead of a hand operated MG for it's upper rear defense. Blenhiem just might have other issues besides it's turret and just which turret are you refering to? the one with a single vickers K gun with it's 100 shot drum or the one with twin belt fed Brownings?

What plane to replace with the Tu-2? Take your pick. Boston, Blenheim, Hampden, Beufort, Wellington, Whitley (was already done in 1942), Ventura, Manchester( but it was replaced by Lancaster), Marauder and Maryland. It also could have done the Beaufighters job as well or better. .

For now let's leave the Boston In.
Blenheim, fine replace it... oh, thats right by 1943 it was out of production.
Hampden, fine replace it....oh, thats right production ended in March of 1942. Handley page had stopped production at their factory in 1940.
Beaufort, fine replace it....it takes Bristol from Aug 1943 to Nov 25 1944 to make the last 250 (out of 1428 British built) Beauforts.
Whitley, out of bomber service by the end of April 1942, Production doesn't end for over another year however, something to do with Coastal Command and Anti-sub patrols.
Manchester???? you are really reaching with this one. Lancaster Deliveries start at the end of Dec 1941 using parts left on Manchster production line. 10 days after first flight of a TU-2 protoype using radial engines.
Maryland????365 built total, in service Jan 1941. Already replaced by Baltimore by the time the 103V was even called the TU-2. In fact Baltimores are ORDERED as follow up to Marylands on MAY 18, 1940.

I think I am seeing a pattern here, replace old, obsolete aircraft that were going out of service anyway with new modern bomber that won't be available till Early 1943 (and in real numbers summer or fall of 1943) no matter what is done, then claim how much better new higher powered bomber is.
Continuing:
Wellington.... true the Wellington carried on in production until till October of 1945 but then a Wellington, while slow, had a claimed range of 1325 miles with a 4,500lb bomb load. Same range as TU-2 but with 50% more bombs, Of course the Wellington was retired from Bomber Command in Oct 1943 so again the TU-2 would be replacing a plane already on it's way out.
Ventura...Well you could replace the Ventura but there is the timing thing. First Venturas are ordered May of 1940, second order for 375 placed later the same year. First flown July 31 of 1941, first delivery to RAF in Sept 1941, first issued to squadron in May of 1942, first combat in Nov 1942. Over two years from order to combat and this is for an airframe that was already in production as a civil airliner. Now just when does the West order the TU-2 "off the Drawing Board" ? And how many Venturas are on hand when the "production line" switches over?
That leaves the Marauder and the Boston.

The Hercules engine on a Tu-2 would have been a good match, increasing it's range (better fuel economy), and depending on the variant, increasing horsepower. .

Yes, except depending on variant decreasing the horsepower. Just what Hercules made over 1800hp before the end of the war?

The other option would be to use resources that were dedicated to any of a number of projects that duplicated other aircraft, such as the B32. Admitedly easier to do in hindsight, but given the option of developing the very practical Tu-2, or pursuing one of the 'fantasy' projects, companies such as Curtiss, Fairchild, Blackburn, Bristol, Martin etc, might have made a more useful contribution to the war effort.

Yes, much easier to do in hindsight. There were very real fears the B-29 program would be a failure and since a large part of the stratagy against Japan depended on the B-29 (or a replacement for it=B-32).
And the "very practical Tu-2" has only proved to be so in hindsight. Given it's lack of combat except in a few isolated incidences until the summer/fall of 1944 pursuing it "off the drawing board" instead something like the B-28 or B-33 doesn't seem like a much better bet. Some of those fantasy projects were shut down but one does wonder how much of the work on pressure cabins and remote sighted turrets carried over to the B-29?

 

[vikingBerserker]

I think I'd wrather have 2 x P-47s then 1 x Tu 2.

 

[claidemore]

Shortround6:
They were using Bostons over France in 1944. (some with a turret). Boston max speed was 317mph-340mph, depending on variant.
BTW, post war variants of the Tu-2 had turrets.

And you are right, there is a pattern, replace planes that aren't up to snuff with one that is.

Tu-2 specs.
Tu-2 (1942 model) ANT 60 ASh 82 (1330/1700 hp) 80 built
Max speed: 521 kmh/325 mph
Internal bomb load: 1000 kg (2200 lbs)
External bomb load: 2000 kg (4400 lbs)
Total max bomb load: 3000 kg (6600 lbs)
Optional armament 10 x RS132 rockets
Armament: 2 x 20mm ShVAK, 1 UBT, 3 ShKAS (replaced by UBTs in service)
Range:2020 km (1262 miles)
Ceiling: 9000 m (29,500 ft)

Tu-2s (1943 model) ANT 61 Ash82FN (1460/1850 hp - 4 blade prop)
Max speed: 550 khm/ 344 mph
Internal bomb load 1000kg
External bomb load 2000 kg
Total max bomb load 3000 kg (6600 lbs)
Range: 2100 km (1312 miles)
Ceiling 9500 m (31,000 ft)
Armament: 2 x 20mm ShVAK, 3 x UBT

Brief comparisons:
Faster than B26 or B25
2200 lbs greater bomb load than B26 or A20
Greater range than A20, B26
Higher ceiling that A20, B26 or B25
Better climb rate than B25 or B26
You can see why various sources claim that the Tu-2 was the best medium bomber of WWII.

archival video footage on YouTube.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLs2qeDuuC8

 

[Vincenzo]

imho can't actually load 3 tonnes of bombs (the russian book that i linked show a load of 3.9 tons, need count crews, ammo, fuel i think no more of 2 tonnes of bombs)

 

[Shortround6]

I am not saying the TU-2 wasn't a very,very good bomber, it might have even been the best. What I am saying is that it was too late in timing for the west to get into service in any numbers.

IF the Boston could do "317mph-340mph, depending on variant." how is the TU-2 at 325 to 344mph a whopping 50MPH faster?

"And you are right, there is a pattern, replace planes that aren't up to snuff with one that is."

Gee, I thought that is what the Western allies were doing?

Marylands replaced Blenheims, Baltimores replaced both.
Bostons replaced Blenheims.
Whitleys and Welliingtons were more twin engined heavy bombers and were replaced by 4 engine bombers and so on.

"Brief comparisons:
Faster than B26 or B25
2200 lbs greater bomb load than B26 or A20
Greater range than A20, B26
Higher ceiling that A20, B26 or B25
Better climb rate than B25 or B26"

All true except that the speed was bought at the cost of crappy defensive armament, the fixed forward firing 20mm guns are going to be mighty hard to defend the loaded bomber with.

From the figures the TU-2 had just under 4000kg of useful load.
so 1500kg of bombs, 2100kg of fuel leaves under 400kg for crew,ammo, oxogen etc.
Now you certainly can trade fuel for bomb load but that does tend to shorten the range.
By the way the early B-26s were rated to carry 2 1600lb armour peircing bombs AND a 2000lb torpedo. 5200lb "bomb" load. Never used and totally useless combination but there is that "book" number.
The TU-2 may very well have been able to cary more bombs further than the B-26 or A-20. the question is weither it could carry ENOUGH more bombs ENOUGH further to make it worth while to start production. Some sources state the INternal Load of the TU-2 was 1500kg. so any heavier load is going outside where the extra drag might cut into range more than simply trading fuel for bomb weight.

By the way, the idea that the TU-2 could do the Beaufighters job was a good joke.
If you think that TU-2 would have been good nightfighter in late 1940 itmeans you have a time machine in yourTU-2s.
You might also ask yourself how the TU-2 would perform caring the guns and ammo the Beaufighter did.

 

[river]

Hi,

The Tu-2 does nothing for me. It looks like a Buckmaster or Brigand to me.

It's stats look good on paper, but unless there is some good testimony on how it performed its job in war, how it was liked//not liked by the crews, reliability, accuracy, toughness etc, then I can't see it having any advantage over the existing allied aircraft. And if it did have an advantage, it would need to be so vast that it would be worth tooling up the allies to operate and support the aircraft.

A 1000kg of bombs internally is less than the B26. I know the Tu-2 could carry more weight with external racks, but I can't see that being a viable option in war, unless you have total air superiority, as external bombs would make the plane slower and more vulnerable.

If we were talking about AFV, then I'd certainly say the Russians had a couple of superb tanks the allies could of used, but as far as aircraft go, the allies had all the types they needed.

river

 

[claidemore]

I am not saying the TU-2 wasn't a very,very good bomber, it might have even been the best. What I am saying is that it was too late in timing for the west to get into service in any numbers.

IF the Boston could do "317mph-340mph, depending on variant." how is the TU-2 at 325 to 344mph a whopping 50MPH faster?

It wasn't, I listed the speed of the Boston as a correction.

"And you are right, there is a pattern, replace planes that aren't up to snuff with one that is."

Gee, I thought that is what the Western allies were doing?

Exactly, hence the question, could they or should they have looked at 'eastern' types?

Marylands replaced Blenheims, Baltimores replaced both.
Bostons replaced Blenheims.
Whitleys and Welliingtons were more twin engined heavy bombers and were replaced by 4 engine bombers and so on.

"Brief comparisons:
Faster than B26 or B25
2200 lbs greater bomb load than B26 or A20
Greater range than A20, B26
Higher ceiling that A20, B26 or B25
Better climb rate than B25 or B26"

All true except that the speed was bought at the cost of crappy defensive armament, the fixed forward firing 20mm guns are going to be mighty hard to defend the loaded bomber with.

The two 20mm guns were used in the interceptor role, and against enemy fighters after dropping the bomb load. They were not defensive armament, they were offensive. Defensive armament was 3 x UBT 12.7 mm heavy machine guns, which Tu-2 crews considered much better than the 2 gun defensive armament of the Pe-2.

From the figures the TU-2 had just under 4000kg of useful load.
so 1500kg of bombs, 2100kg of fuel leaves under 400kg for crew,ammo, oxogen etc.
Now you certainly can trade fuel for bomb load but that does tend to shorten the range.
By the way the early B-26s were rated to carry 2 1600lb armour peircing bombs AND a 2000lb torpedo. 5200lb "bomb" load. Never used and totally useless combination but there is that "book" number.
The TU-2 may very well have been able to cary more bombs further than the B-26 or A-20. the question is weither it could carry ENOUGH more bombs ENOUGH further to make it worth while to start production. Some sources state the INternal Load of the TU-2 was 1500kg. so any heavier load is going outside where the extra drag might cut into range more than simply trading fuel for bomb weight.

Every source I have seen shows 1000 kg internal, 2000 kg external, with a few sources showing 3000 kg external, which should only apply to post war variants. It might be convenient for purposes of discussion/debate to subtract "loaded weight' figures from 'empty weight' figures, but the best sources on Soviet planes state clearly, 1000 kg internal BOMB LOAD, etc.

By the way, the idea that the TU-2 could do the Beaufighters job was a good joke. If you think that TU-2 would have been good nightfighter in late 1940 itmeans you have a time machine in yourTU-2s.
You might also ask yourself how the TU-2 would perform caring the guns and ammo the Beaufighter did.

No joke. The Beaufighter did a lot more than just night fighter duties in 1940. I have an aquantance (Dallas Schmidt) who flew them in Malta and then Northern Europe in 1944 on anti-shipping duties. It's one of my favorite planes, but it was a bit slow, and as Dallas said, it was barely above stall speed with one engine out. Tu-2 had room for more guns in the nose, could carry rockets, or 2 torpedos,(Beau caried one) and do it 24 mph faster. Two less crew if the plane isn't being used as a bomber, no defensive guns needed (Beau had none), so those 3 guns and ammo are replaced by forward firing ones. It's definately capable of doing the Beaufighters job from 1943 on. The Beau has the edge in range though.

river: Crew liked the Tu-2, it had a high survivability rate for Eastern Front. Commanders in the Bomber Regiments pressed Stallin to put it back into production as they wanted it's greater bomb load capacity (compared to Pe-2). The plane was good enough that they kept on building it after the war, (over half of total production), and used it into the 60's (possibly 70's). Post war they put powered turrets on them, as well as used them in scientific research. It was fast enough to be used in the Recon role, though a Mosquito or P38 would be a better choice IMO.

 

[Condora]

North American designed and had a prototype P51 flying in 178 days

Claide
closer to 117 days if I recall

To be more accurate, rollout in 117 days, first flight in 178 days.

I have to agree with River, if it was armour, the russians had some stuff that could be used by other allies.

As for aircraft, they had airplanes that suited their purposes, geography, way of fighting... and the western allies had already suitable stuff for themselves.

 

[Colin1]

To be more accurate, rollout in 117 days, first flight in 178 days

Ah yes
thanks for the correction, if I recall, they had to borrow the main undercarriage wheels from an AT-6 Texan for the occasion.

 

[Shortround6]

"Exactly, hence the question, could they or should they have looked at 'eastern' types? "

They certainly should have "LOOKED" at them. They certainly could have "LOOKED" at them.

The question is did any 'Eastern' type really display any performance advantages so great to cause the west to modify their production plans to integrate an eastern type into the production schedule.

While the Mustang did set those 117 and 178 day records it was over another year before the first production version was delivered. SO unless the west decides to take a Russian plane 'off the drawing board'
you are looking at 1 1/2 to 2 years from flight testing of the Russian plane till it would be produced in the west.

And the Russian plane might have to conform to Western ideas of plane design/mission. Like gun turrets for defence on medium bombers (Mosquito excepted) or Western ideas of fighter armament. Western ideas of minimum required range might have stopped the adoption of some Russian types. British Already had the short ranged Spitfire, they didn't need another short ranged single engined fighter.

"The two 20mm guns were used in the interceptor role, and against enemy fighters after dropping the bomb load. They were not defensive armament, they were offensive. Defensive armament was 3 x UBT 12.7 mm heavy machine guns, which Tu-2 crews considered much better than the 2 gun defensive armament of the Pe-2. "

Nice story but that means that the TU-2 had NO defense from the front. And the idea of using a plane such as a TU-2 to INTENTIONALLY hunt enemy single engine fighters is a joke. Hunt Bf-110s maybe. Please note that even the Lockheed Ventura shot down at least one German single seat fighter using fixed nose guns and Hudsons shot down several German planes with their fixed twin .303 MGs but nobody is claiming that they went LOOKING for enemy fighters to attack as SOP.
The "Defensive armament was 3 x UBT 12.7 mm heavy machine guns" was the large part of the "crappy" defesive armament. One book claims the Nav/bomb aimer behind the pilot had 200-250 rounds for his gun. the Radio operator (upper rear) had 250 rounds and the lower rear gunner had 250 rounds. THis gunner used a ventral periscope for sighting which probably didn't work any better than the western sights of this type. This book is from pre Iron curtain falling days and might be in error.
Compare this with an early B-26 which had either a .30 or .50 cal MG with 600 rounds( for the .30) in the nose and a similar gun with the same ammo in the ventral tunnel, twin manual .50s in the tail with 1500rpg and the power top turret with 400 rpg. Starting with the 431st B model the ventral gun was replaced by two .50s (one each side) lower beam guns with 240rpg. From the B-26B-10 block the nose gun was standerized as a .50 cal with 270 rounds with another .50 fixed in the nose with 200 rounds. the 4 "package" .50s with 200-250 rounds each are added at this time but then they aren't defensive armament either. Good for ground straffing though and used to good effect on German transport planes over the Mediterranean. On the B-26-20-MA series and all later aircraft the manual twin .50s were replaced by a power mounting with 400rpg.
Even with this armament the B-26 proved unable to operate over Western Europe in the spring-summer of 1943 without strong fighter escort. Later tatics (including operating at night and short range tatical support duties) helped the Maurauder achieve it's record low loss ratio. The idea that TU-2 could have operated with any better success using the same tatics in the spring-summer of 1943 by mearly cruising 50mph or so faster doesn't seem to make sense.
Given the losses that Western aircraft were suffering with their much heavier defensive armament I doubt the idea of using a bomber with just 3 hand operated MGs would have appealed to the production planners.

As for wither the TU-2 could carry 1000kg or 1500kg inside it doesn't make a lot of difference to this arguement except for the note that at 1000kg (2200lbs) it really couldn't carry anymore inside the plane than an A-20 could.

Beaufighter

"No joke. The Beaufighter did a lot more than just night fighter duties in 1940. I have an aquantance (Dallas Schmidt) who flew them in Malta and then Northern Europe in 1944 on anti-shipping duties. It's one of my favorite planes, but it was a bit slow, and as Dallas said, it was barely above stall speed with one engine out. Tu-2 had room for more guns in the nose, could carry rockets, or 2 torpedos,(Beau caried one) and do it 24 mph faster. Two less crew if the plane isn't being used as a bomber, no defensive guns needed (Beau had none), so those 3 guns and ammo are replaced by forward firing ones. It's definately capable of doing the Beaufighters job from 1943 on. The Beau has the edge in range though."

Just pointing out the difference in timing again.
You need more than just room to mount guns, you need the ability to carry weight and you need the ability to place the weight in regard to the CG of the airplane. THe Beaufighter was carring 334kg worth of guns and another 498kg worth of ammo before they load the torpedo under it. And that is not including that pathetic little peashooter some of the coastal cammand types carryed firing out the back.

You might want to check that speed advantage again also. Just how fast is the Tu-2 while carring TWO torpedoes OUTSIDE the plane. and you might need that time machine again , see:
Tu-2T and 62T by A.N.Tupolev

 

[claidemore]

Shortround:
315 mph for the Tu-2 with one torpedo is only 5 mph slower than the Beaufighters top speed 'clean'.

Turrets are all well and good, but even the big 4 engine bombers couldn't defend themselves without fighter escort. Can't expect a B26 or a Tu-2 to do it if the B17 and B24 can't. Soviet doctrine called for close escort (usually Yaks), top cover, and/or a fighter sweep ahead (usually La5 or P-39).

I don't see why a western producer would need to duplicate the flight testing already done by TSAGI, or the combat evaluation done on the Kalinin Front in 1942. In Canada we produced Hurricanes, Mosquitos, Lancasters and Blenheim IVs (we called them Bolingbrokes), and we didn't have to go through exhaustive flight tests to determine if they could fly! We just got the plans, tooled up, and started building the darn things. Instead of 600 or so Blenheim IVs, we could just as easily have built 600 Tu-2s. And if the west didn't want to use them, I'll bet the Soviets would have welcomed the extra production.

BTW, it'd be a slmple thing to correct the CG of a Tu-2 that gets a few hundred kgs of guns and ammo up front, particularly as it is designed to carry a bomb load in excess of 10 times that amount in bombs. They did it in the Beaufighter, which was after all basically a Beufort with a skinny fuselage. The Pe-3 did it as well, and it's a lot lighter than a Tu-2,(and slower).

As far as relying on speed for surviving bombing missions, the Mosquito did it. But the Tu-2 would not have been quite fast enough to pull that one off. So no replacing Mosquitos with Tu-2s. sigh.

 

[Vincenzo]

the alone Tu-2 with torpedo flying in march '45, the after little series it's a variant of after war Tu-2 variant

 

[Shortround6]

Shortround:
315 mph for the Tu-2 with one torpedo is only 5 mph slower than the Beaufighters top speed 'clean'. .

Since one source says a Beaufighter could do 308mph with a torpedo, that cuts the TU-2 advantage to 7mph not 24mph with 2 torpedos that you claimed. Tu-2 is better but is it by enough to change over the production line?
ANd this is the heart of the question, Was an Eastern aircraft ENOUGH better than a Western aircraft to make the effort at starting production worthwhile.

Turrets are all well and good, but even the big 4 engine bombers couldn't defend themselves without fighter escort. Can't expect a B26 or a Tu-2 to do it if the B17 and B24 can't. Soviet doctrine called for close escort (usually Yaks), top cover, and/or a fighter sweep ahead (usually La5 or P-39) .

Very true but it doesn't address the question of what the West was looking for at the time. If they were looking for bombers with multipule power gun turrets even a Western designer couldn't have sold them a plane with 3 hand held MGs.

I don't see why a western producer would need to duplicate the flight testing already done by TSAGI, or the combat evaluation done on the Kalinin Front in 1942. In Canada we produced Hurricanes, Mosquitos, Lancasters and Blenheim IVs (we called them Bolingbrokes), and we didn't have to go through exhaustive flight tests to determine if they could fly! We just got the plans, tooled up, and started building the darn things. Instead of 600 or so Blenheim IVs, we could just as easily have built 600 Tu-2s. And if the west didn't want to use them, I'll bet the Soviets would have welcomed the extra production.

quite true, you don't have to do all the flight testing already done by the Russians. You do however either have to build the factory to build the planes or convert an existing factory, convert all the drawings amd anglisize some of the parts, build jigs and fixtures and so on. you know, that part that took over a year from first flight of the Mustang until first production delivery.
I am really getting tired of the time machine the TU-2 seems to possess, Why not just have it time travel back to 1938 and bomb Hitler before the war even starts. Bolingbroke production started in 1939 with the first plane delivered in Nov of 1939. quite trick to build hundreds of TU-2s instead of Bolingbrokes while Tupolev is still doodling the intial design on paper?

BTW, it'd be a slmple thing to correct the CG of a Tu-2 that gets a few hundred kgs of guns and ammo up front, particularly as it is designed to carry a bomb load in excess of 10 times that amount in bombs. They did it in the Beaufighter, which was after all basically a Beufort with a skinny fuselage. The Pe-3 did it as well, and it's a lot lighter than a Tu-2,(and slower).

Several points here.
1. Tu-2 that gets a few hundred kgs of guns and ammo up front, dosn't come close to carring the Beaufighters armament. not unless you think "a few hundred" equels over 700kg. and that is allowing for the guns already firing out the front.
2. GOLLY!!!! the TU-2 was designed to carry over 8000kg of bombs??? might be news to Tupolev.

OK I apologise, you never said you were going to equel the Beaufighters armament. Just add a few hundred KG of guns and ammo to the nose of the TU-2 while pulling a hundred KG out of the tail. which does leave you way short of the Beafighters armament.
3. the whole "Balance" thing. Nose heavy or tail heavy aircraft don't fly very well. "They" corrected the the "CG" of the beaufighter by monting the 20mm guns and ammo about were the bomb bay was on the Beaufort thus keeping the weight about where the CG was to begin with. Guns mounted in the wing tend to be close to the CG to begin with.
Now if you want to mount the guns inthe bomb bay or in a "pack" under the bomb bay I don't have an arguement for that.

Could the TU-2 do the Beaufighters job? well, after 1943 I guess it could. Could it do it "enough" better to be worth loosing several months or more of production? Could it do enough better than later types of Western aircraft promised to? like "what if" they speeded up development of the Bristol Brigand/ Buckingham series?

As far as relying on speed for surviving bombing missions, the Mosquito did it. But the Tu-2 would not have been quite fast enough to pull that one off. So no replacing Mosquitos with Tu-2s. sigh.

 

[claidemore]

Shoutround:
The Bolingbroke 1 was produced in Britain in 1939. The Canadian Bolingbroke was actually a Blenheim Mk IV and was produced 'late war' by Fairchild in Quebec. No tiresome time machine there.

 

[Waynos]

Shoutround:
The Bolingbroke 1 was produced in Britain in 1939. The Canadian Bolingbroke was actually a Blenheim Mk IV and was produced 'late war' by Fairchild in Quebec. No tiresome time machine there.

The British Bolingbroke was also the Blenheim IV. We just changed the name back to Blenheim, whereas Canada did not. Your post seems to suggest they were two different types.

 

[Shortround6]

Shoutround:
The Bolingbroke 1 was produced in Britain in 1939. The Canadian Bolingbroke was actually a Blenheim Mk IV and was produced 'late war' by Fairchild in Quebec. No tiresome time machine there.

Try again.

Canada decided to adopt the the Blenheim/Bolingbroke in 1937. First prototype did fly in England on Sept 24,1937. Intial contract for 18 aircraft. 4 out of 9 planed British planes for evaluation and pattern use actually make it to Canada. Bristol does send drawings and proprietary items and components. Work was also undertaken to adopt the Bolingbroke to American structural and equipment standards and for Canadian conditions. Like fitting de-icing boots on wing and tail, fitting dinghies and more radio equipment. Interchangable wheel and ski undercarraiges also planned.
Production was slow with first Canadian built plane reaching the R.C.A.F Nov 15, 1939 and the 18th plane delievered Aug. 28, 1940. that is for the Bolingbroke I.
first Bolingbroke IV taken on charge Jan 30, 1941 with 134th aircraft delivered March of 1942.
after the first contract for 18 aircraft a further contract for 200 was placed at the end of 1939. The final 50 were canceled but were reinstated as Bolingbroke IVT trainers at the end of the production run. Further contracts for Bolingbroke IVT trainers continued production into 1943.
Is that late war or mid-war?
Bolingbrokes serving with the 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 31 Bombing and gunnery schools and the 1,5,7,8,31,34,and 35 Operational training units.
SO while the Bolingbrokes might not have destroyed much of the enemy directly I beleive they contributed to the war effort at least as well as stockpiling aluminium and other materials for over 3 years while waiting for the plans of the TU-2 to show up.

 

[Glider]

There seems to an ephasise as to how much of an impact the design/tooling and construction effort to produce the Russian types would have had on designs that were used to fight or train for the war.

An alternative is that the effort needed to produce the Tu 2 and Pe 2 could have come from those types that were failures examples being the Botha and Albermarle or were almost no additional increase in performance such as the Albercore.

In short there was plenty of capacity for this effort it was more a case of diverting it to better aircraft designs.

 

[Shortround6]

Not really.


Yes the Botha was real dog and proved to be rather lethal to the men she was supposed to be training after being deemed totally unsuited to combat. Trouble is that production started in 1939 and only 580 were built. This might be 575 too many but how many were built AFTER the Soviet Union was invaded?
Or how many were built after the plans for the PE-2 and TU-2 could resonably have been expected to arrive in England?
SO aside from helping to prevent a stckpile of aluminium being built up just how did the Botha suck up production capacity that could be used for building better Russian aircraft that didn't exist when many of the Bothas were made?
maybe they could have been scrapped earlier to provie raw material but that is not the same thing.


Albermarle is sort of the same thing. only 600 produced, first fight in March of 1940,. Again rather before the Russians needed any aircraft. only the first 32 even had guns. Since it was built of steel and wood instead of aluminium it didn't use that much material that could have been used for these Modern Russian aircraft anyway. Even if it was a lousy transport you still might have needed a couple of hundred C-47s to replace 550 or so Albermarles so the total saving might not be a great as you think.

Same situation for the Albacore: first contract for 100 planes place in 1937-38 with second prototype delivered June of 1939. Second contract for 300 aircraft and first aircraft from this batch delievered Aug, 1940. 100 planes later cancelled. Another 100 plane contract placed and first aircraft from this batch delivered April 1941. So far 1/2 of all Albacores delivered are on order before Soviet Union is attacked. Or before more than a prototype of either Russian twin had even flown.
Another 250 Albacores are odered under contract no. B35944/39 ( is this contract really placed in 1939?) with first delivery in Aug 1941, most are delieved in 1942 with a few straglers showing up in 1944. another contract for 100 aircraft completes the tale with delivers starting in March of 1942.
While the fusalge was all metal the wings were fabric covered.

Could production have been stopped? probably.
Would stopping production in even the the Fall of 1941 really have freed up production resources for large numbers of Russian designed Aircraft? Assuming you could build one Russian twin for every two Albacores, what are you going to get, 200 planes? and when are you going to get them? And what are the workers going to be doing while the Russian plans ae redrawn and anglisized and the factory re-tooled.

Sorry, the "IDEA" that large numbers of Russian designed aircraft could have been made in the West "IF ONLY" the West had stopped producing all those 'DUD" aircraft doesn't seem to hold up very well.

It is not a question of whither or not the Russsian planes were any good. they were, they were very good. The qustions are when were the "DUD" aircaft produced in relation to the Russian Aircraft, how many "dud" aircraft were produced and how many Russian aircaft could have been built instead, and how much trouble it would have been to re-engineer the Russian aircraft for Western production.
Another question, with about 11,400 PE-2 built by the Russians just what difference would another 600 or so made? A little over 5%. That is cutting about 400 Albacores and 400 Albermarles.