Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[Colin1]

And were your 2 or 20 P-47s able to hit a bridge, a Bunker, a boat with a 3300lb (1500kg) bomb from a steep dive at 1200 km from their airfield?

I doubt it
but what is the significance of hitting targets of tactical value so far inside enemy territory? Furthermore, why is it important to hit these targets in a steep dive? P-47s could hit targets like that on the battlefront and everything within a meaningful distance behind it ie those MSRs/lines of communication where resupply was beginning to concentrate.

A Lancaster B Mk I (Special) could destroy a bridge, a bunker or a boat with a 12,000lb Tallboy or 22,000lb Grand Slam and it wouldn't need to hit either of the first two. I don't recollect any bridge names but bunkers would include submarine pens, the V3 site and boats would include the Tirpitz.

On the flipside of your question, could a Pe-2 drop its ordnance, turn into the interceptors and make a fight of it?

 

[Shortround6]

Moreover MiG-1 flew on april 1941, the 5th, and deliveries begun on december 1940. PB-100 flew on the end of the summer 1940, first seial plane, at end of 1940. Without german intervention Tu-2 should have been produced at the end of 1941.

North American had slight problem didn't they? Didn't their contract with the British say that their fighter had to out perform the the P-40? if it didn't they would have to manufacture P-40s? Might be a slight delay while test are carried out.

As for the Mig, you are correct, different circumstances, an intial production run of 100 planes was started before the completion of state trials where the the prototype was unanimously censured for handling characteristics, manoeuverability and stability. Minor modifications to the aircraft on the assembly line slowed production to 20 delieveries by the end of 1940 compared to the planned over 60. Further production after the first 100 was held up while the redesign was completed. Granted this was done very quickly and the first MiG-3 came off the line in Februry of 1941. Should the first 100 aircraft even have been made?

From october 40 to january 41 it makes 3-4 months, not 13-14. Since soviets had no engine to fit on the ANT-58, other requests were made by the NKAP in the meanwhile. That proves NOWAY that the ANT-59 was a better airframe than the 58.

Well, this does get back to which set of plans, when?

B-26 was ordered off the drawing board just like several soviet planes.

If U.S. is given the planes for the ANT-58 in Dec of 1940 how long is it going to take them to turn it into the TU-2?

"Design was revised and became more technological, number of joints was decreased and whole assembly procedure was revised. Cuts were made even on total length of electric wiring."

And isn't there something about changing the corrigations in the underskinning of the wing from a U shape (or square corrigation) to a V shape?
Saved weight but mght have called for a new stress analysis?

Of course this is in addition to redoing the engine installation. Granted the Russians had a few detours but first radial engined prototype doesn't fly until Dec 1941?

THe M-82 first under goes state tests in the spring of 1940. A batch pf protoypes are built May 13,1941 NKAP issues a decree initiating series production even theough M-82 doesn't complete second second series of state tests until May 22 1941. Power rating is 1700HP.

Bristol Hercules, PW R-2800, Wright R-2600...
I would propose to cut from Armstrong Withworth Albemarle, Hudson, Harpoon, Martin Baltimore, Vultee Valiant, NA T-6, Ryan PT-22... (training planes replaced by wooden or mixed planes as Yakovlev UT-2, or some Yak-7V).

Nice to note that you are a time traveler or that you are such an expert that you could identify which aircraft are winners and which ones are losers before they even fly.Another thing to consider is that while many of these aircraft couldn't do what a TU-2 does the TU-2 might have trouble doing the jobs that many of those aircraft did.

Considering that soviet max speed is the max continuous spped at nominal power,)

Really? Mig-1s could fly at 626kph at 7000m is max continous speed? or was max continous more like 550kph for the MIG 1?

I have also seen references to the dive brakes being rmoved from laterprodution TU-2s.

Also refences that suggest the max sized bomb as 1000kg witch would cast doubt about dive bombing attacks with a 1500kg bomb.

What was the capability of the 1940-41 design vrs Western Designs?
Early B-25s were rated for 5200lbs of bombs, later versions swapped guns for bomb load.


Regards

VG-33[/QUOTE]

 

[VG-33]

I doubt it
but what is the significance of hitting targets of tactical value so far inside enemy territory? Furthermore, why is it important to hit these targets in a steep dive? P-47s could hit targets like that on the battlefront and everything within a meaningful distance behind it ie those MSRs/lines of communication where resupply was beginning to concentrate.

A Lancaster B Mk I (Special) could destroy a bridge, a bunker or a boat with a 12,000lb Tallboy or 22,000lb Grand Slam and it wouldn't need to hit either of the first two. I don't recollect any bridge names but bunkers would include submarine pens, the V3 site and boats would include the Tirpitz.

On the flipside of your question, could a Pe-2 drop its ordnance, turn into the interceptors and make a fight of it?

The problem is that if the P-47 could attack targets he probably would miss them, in circumstances when a Tu-2 (or a Stuka) would hit them. This is a hudge difference, in precision result.

The same for the Lancaster with it's 12,000 bomb. Since bombe efficiency is decreasing at square low, a tallboy at 1 000 yards from the targed would be 100 times less efficient than a 2200lb bomb at 200 yards from the target. And i am not overstating dispersion values, one from the other. A dive bomber is supposed to put more than 50% bombs in a 50m circle. In carpet bombing method you may have some kilometers error: it's only for targets like big factories or towns.

It's like hitting a tank with 40 mm Vickers gun at 400-500 by direct trajectory yards or with a 120 mm mortar from parabolic trajectory. Simply, you will never hit your bunker at Omaha Beachat from a Lancaster, except from an accident. You will not miss your bunker at the same place from a Pe-2 or (with good weather conditions and highly trained crew), except from an accident. That makes some difference.
As i said before verify how many ships were hitted (and sunked) from vertical and from horizontal bombing.

And what is the proportion of real hits, from 100 lauched bombs by the two methods?

Regards

VG-33

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The problem is that if the P-47 could attack targets he probably would miss them, in circumstances when a Tu-2 (or a Stuka) would hit them. This is a hudge difference, in precision result.

Do you have data to show that the Tu-2 (or Stuka) was a more accurate (or for that, less accurate) attack aircraft than a P-47?

 

[Shortround6]

A dive bomber is supposed to put more than 50% bombs in a 50m circle.

You will not miss your bunker at the same place from a Pe-2 or (with good weather conditions and highly trained crew), except from an accident.

VG-33

Which is it?

50% of bombs missing 50 meter bunker (the size of 1/2 a football field) or only missing by "accident" in good weather and a highly trained crew?

How highly trained?

By the way, Dive bombing land targets kind of went out of fashion when large numbers of automatic cannon started showing up with the defenders. The dive bombing approach gave too much time for the AA gunners to line up and the pull out gave too easy a target to guns not directly being bombed.
Shallow angle diving attacks, while not quite as accurate, tended to be a little easier on the attacking airplanes.

 

[GrauGeist]

Just for the record, the P-47 was known for it's accuracy against armored targets and structures like railroad tunnels and successfully used a skip-bombing method (with 500 pounders). Even a near miss against armored targets such as Tigers and Panthers, a 500 pounder would knock the tank over.

 

[vikingBerserker]

And were your 2 or 20 P-47 able to hit a bridge, a Bunker , a boat with a 3300lb (1500kg) bomb from a step dive at 1200 km from their airfield?

Regards

Does which method employed really mater as long as "a bridge, a Bunker, a boat" is destroyed?

 

[VG-33]

Hello

As for the Mig, you are correct, different circumstances, an intial production run of 100 planes was started before the completion of state trials where the the prototype was unanimously censured for
handling characteristics, manoeuverability and stability. Minor modifications to the aircraft on the assembly line slowed production to 20 delieveries by the end of 1940 compared to the planned over 60. Further production after the first 100 was held up while the redesign was completed. Granted this was done very quickly and the first MiG-3 came off the line in Februry of 1941. Should the first 100 aircraft even have been made?

No, not exactly. The first production batch was composed from 50 MiG-1, the secund from 50 MiG-3, and then 50 more MiG-1. All following planes were MiG-3. It means that both planes were produced in parallel assembly lines. The main difference between a MiG-1 and MiG-3 is an extra 250 litres tank behind the pilot's seat. Due to extra 200-250 kg and the aft CG, handling characteristics, manoeuvrability and stability of the MiG-3 were much worse than MiG-1 one's. The only reason for transformation was the 1000 km range NKAP request issued in the meantime instead of the previous 600 km at 0.9 V max speed. Exactly as for the LaGG-1/LaGG-3 and Yakovlev I-26/I-28 family. But it's just a detail.

Really? Mig-1s could fly at 626kph at 7000m is max continous speed? or was max continous more like 550kph for the MIG 1?

Look, we spoke about that question several times


Ôîðóì ñàéòà www.airforce.ru: Ñòàòüÿ

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-yak-1-vs-hurricane-17485-4.html#post532071

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-yak-1-vs-hurricane-17485-4.html#post533425


Soviet rules and procedures are were very simple: the nominal engine power is the max continuous power (means with no time limits). In the opposite case it was indicated "forsage".
Moreover measurements of the max speed ware to be validated only at conditions of
-constant speed
-constant height
-constant power
-constant engine heat (no oil, water, cylinder head temperature increase)

Really? Mig-1s could fly at 626kph at 7000m is max continous speed? or was max continous more like 550kph for the MIG 1?

Really, the range from soviet us and coutumes for fighters was given at 0.9 Vmax (0.9 x 626-657 = 560-580 km/h for the MiG-1) for soviet planes and at 0.8 V max for bombers.

So i don't understand where is it taken from that 0.8 V max of the Tu-2 (and Pe-2, Yer 2, Il-4...) should be the max cruse speed?

Well, this does get back to which set of plans, when?
B-26 was ordered off the drawing board just like several soviet planes.
If U.S. is given the planes for the ANT-58 in Dec of 1940 how long is it going to take them to turn it into the TU-2?

-Why are you so obsessed by plans? From driving boards to the real plane it's far from being a simple formality but a real challenge. Both P-51 and ANT-58 encountered success, but it is not a general law.
Then prototypes should be satisfactory enough to be commanded and serial builded. Both of them won that secund challenge.

-Why do you absolutly want to transmit plans and to change the ANT-58 to the 59? The lower firing point? It coasts the bomb load reduction. ANT-58 was intended to carry 3000 kg of bombs inside the fuselage, latter reduced to 2500.

"Design was revised and became more technological, number of joints was decreased and whole assembly procedure was revised. Cuts were made even on total length of electric wiring."

All that could have been modified progressivly on the assembly lines, exactly as for the other planes of the world.

Of course this is in addition to redoing the engine installation. Granted the Russians had a few detours but first radial engined prototype doesn't fly until Dec 1941?
THe M-82 first under goes state tests in the spring of 1940. A batch pf protoypes are built May 13,1941 NKAP issues a decree initiating series production even theough M-82 doesn't complete second second series of state tests until May 22 1941. Power rating is 1700HP.

And why americans and britishs should have been waiting for soviet radial engines? The deal was just to go to Moscow (Ramenskoyé in fact). Study and test the ANT-58. Built or not a joint venture if being interested with the plane. I'd rather see american or english help on mounting a factory in USSR, in exchange of a part of produced airframes.

Nice to note that you are a time traveler or that you are such an expert that you could identify which aircraft are winners and which ones are losers before they even fly.Another thing to consider is that while many of these aircraft couldn't do what a TU-2 does the TU-2 might have trouble doing the jobs that many of those aircraft did.

Nobody knows, even it the Pe-2 or a Tu-2 could have been praised by allied pilots. For instance soviet comission made a lot of trials with the Martin B-26, disliked it, every time making a rough opposition to american proposals to include it to LL deliveries.

Also refences that suggest the max sized bomb as 1000kg witch would cast doubt about dive bombing attacks with a 1500kg bomb.

The FAB 1500 bomb was simply not a serial one, only small experimental parts were delivered, from Ozerov memories even mock-ups of FBB 2500 kg bombs were dropped from the plane. (Toupolevskaya sharaga)

What was the capability of the 1940-41 design vrs Western Designs?
Early B-25s were rated for 5200lbs of bombs, later versions swapped guns for bomb load.

On paper, all kind of planes are looking good. In order to estimate performance evolution of the Tu-2 with american engines, look at La-5FN TsaGI calculations.


Regards

 

[VG-33]

Do you have data to show that the Tu-2 was a more accurate attack aircraft than a P-47?

Dear FLYBOJ, all that questions to the Wechmacht or the Kriegsmarine . After every battle they were sending files to the allies and to the soviets, to show them the results of the aerial attacks and some congratulations from time to time, didn't they?

Serioulsy, we could found polygone experimental test results (from 6/7 to 25/30 times less dispersion in a dive attack ???)*, but how close was it to the real combat conditions? (Stress, FlaK, errors, meteo...)

Regards

*Statistical numbers from a VVS booklet printed in 1940. Some other theoretical numbers were founded in Aviation Navale archives in France, but contradictory from one to another.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Dear FLYBOJ, all that questions to the Wechmacht or the Kriegsmarine . After every battle they were sending files to the allies and to the soviets, to show them the results of the aerial attacks and some congratulations from time to time, didn't they?

Serioulsy, we could found polygone experimental test results (from 6/7 to 25/30 times less dispersion in a dive attack ???)*, but how close was it to the real combat conditions? (Stress, FlaK, errors, meteo...)

Regards

*Statistical numbers from a VVS booklet printed in 1940. Some other theoretical numbers were founded in Aviation Navale archives in France, but contradictory from one to another.

So VG seriously, there is no way you could support that claim.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Blueprints and airframes for a Yak-1 would have been a great help in the early war. American companies like Hughes and Fairchild were doing impressive things with duramold plywood. We could have had an Allison engined Yak-1A (A for America) to lend least back to Russia, to the Aussies (so they wouldn't have to cobble together the CAC Boomerang), and to the Chinese. I think our composite bonded wood would be more resistant to the problems other wood planes had in the Asian heat and humidity. In any case, considering the

If we had enough aluminum we could make an all-metal version. I'd sure rather have a Yak-3A than a P-40. We could have used it ourselves in an interceptor/defense role similar to the Spitfire.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Blueprints and airframes for a Yak-1 would have been a great help in the early war. American companies like Hughes and Fairchild were doing impressive things with duramold plywood. We could have had an Allison engined Yak-1A (A for America) to lend least back to Russia, to the Aussies (so they wouldn't have to cobble together the CAC Boomerang), and to the Chinese. I think our composite bonded wood would be more resistant to the problems other wood planes had in the Asian heat and humidity. In any case, considering the

If we had enough aluminum we could make an all-metal version. I'd sure rather have a Yak-3A than a P-40. We could have used it ourselves in an interceptor/defense role similar to the Spitfire.

You don't build aircraft with blueprints, you build them with production tooling. All the blueprints in the world aren't going to build an aircraft unless you have a way to mass produce airframes, and that's done with production jigs and fixtures.

 

[Clay_Allison]

You don't build aircraft with blueprints, you build them with production tooling. All the blueprints in the world aren't going to build an aircraft unless you have a way to mass produce airframes, and that's done with production jigs and fixtures.

So you are saying that it would have been impossible to licence build the Yakovlev because we couldn't have made our own tooling?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So you are saying that it would have been impossible to licence build the Yakovlev because we couldn't have made our own tooling?

Oh we could have made our own tooling, but by the time you consider that in producing some one other country's aircraft the increased cost and time will factor in. Tooling needs to be supplied with drawings when having someone else build your aircraft.

Has any one considered the metric conversion or some of the different operating systems that would have required specially trained pilots and ground crews to operate any soviet aircraft in the west during WW2? It was all do-able but IMO not worth the time and effort to get the same end result.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Oh we could have made our own tooling, but by the time you consider that in producing some one other country's aircraft the increased cost and time will factor in. Tooling needs to be supplied with drawings when having someone else build your aircraft.

Has any one considered the metric conversion or some of the different operating systems that would have required specially trained pilots and ground crews to operate any soviet aircraft in the west during WW2? It was all do-able but IMO not worth the time and effort to get the same end result.

Don't ground crews and pilots have to be trained on any new airplane?

Anyway, blueprints, tools, drawings, a completed airframe, everything we needed to produce it under licence could have been had and it would have been worthwhile even if we just used it for export.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Don't ground crews and pilots have to be trained on any new airplane?

They do - but consider having a whole contingency using metric tools and having to maintain the aircraft with entirely different general practices for say welding, safety wiring, fabric application, safetying hardware, and I could go on and on.

Anyway, blueprints, tools, drawings, a completed airframe, everything we needed to produce it under licence could have been had and it would have been worthwhile even if we just used it for export.

I disagree - while the aircraft might have offered better performance in some cases to what we were operating, I think in the long run we were better off producing our own aircraft to our own standards and guidelines. In the end, I believe we produced better aircraft that had longevity, quality and maintainability built into them. From what I've seen of Soviet WW2 aircraft, they sometimes were lacking in those areas.

 

[Clay_Allison]

They do - but consider having a whole contingency using metric tools and having to maintain the aircraft with entirely different general practices for say welding, safety wiring, fabric application, safetying hardware, and I could go on and on.

I disagree - while the aircraft might have offered better performance in some cases to what we were operating, I think in the long run we were better off producing our own aircraft to our own standards and guidelines. In the end, I believe we produced better aircraft that had longevity, quality and maintainability built into them. From what I've seen of Soviet WW2 aircraft, they sometimes were lacking in those areas.

Would you rather have a P-40 than an American built Yak?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Would you rather have a P-40 than an American built Yak?

Depends where....

 

[Clay_Allison]

Depends where....

Mainland China/Burma/India, and I mean an all-metal yak (I'm assuming you are an American and thus we can afford the aluminum for you.)

 

[vikingBerserker]

P-40 was a stronger fighter bomber IMO which was useful in that theatre.


If there was excess capacity to produce the Yak-1, why not just make more P-38's which was already in production?