Soviet purchase programs, logistics and everything, alternatives and realities 1937-43

Similar to the German and Japanese threads, just that Soviet war booty is just a blip on the scope.
Anything of military use is a fair game - tanks and trucks, aircraft and ships, guns and boots. Soviet were not shy to pick up the foreign stuff (mostly legally in this time) and run with it - perhaps they could cast their net even wider this time?

To start the ball rolling - don't go from the high level of ballistics from the 76.2mm Model 1936 (F-22) to the moderate on the USv, ZiS-3 and F-34, but keep it up.

I like the word logistics in this context, because "logistics" was not a term popular in the Soviet-Russian language until late XX century and 100 years ago or so, it was interchangeable with "logic".

So, the logistics.
The Soviets did very well in certain fields as they equipped the armor corps with many tractors. And failed in other fields, for example, building the world's largest (pre WW2) fleet of submarines without the supportive infrastructure, auxiliary fleet, repair/maintenance and training facilities.
The doctrine of naval supply convoys was either absent or rudimentary, - one of the reasons why Sevastopol defence crumbled in 1942.
Efficiency of the rail network.
Inventory management - one of the less studied problems.
One can add more to the list and suggest that the Soviets should do better this or that. But the more I think about the underlying reasons, the more I believe that "it was what it was" and hardly could be improved in the existing system.
You can make "cosmetic" changes to your logistic system with the help of imported(stolen) tech or invited professionals. But if you purge the whole class of intellectuals and then did it again in just 20 years...

Dimlee said:

So, the logistics.
The Soviets did very well in certain fields as they equipped the armor corps with many tractors. And failed in other fields, for example, building the world's largest (pre WW2) fleet of submarines without the supportive infrastructure, auxiliary fleet, repair/maintenance and training facilities.

Click to expand...

In the 1930s, Soviets have gotten a knack to over-produce stuff. Like the 10300 (yes, more than 10K) I-16 fighters, 6600+ SB bombers, 12000 (!!) of T-26 and the siblings - mind-boggling indeed. Yes, some of these were made in 1940-42, but still.
They probably produced more tanks and aircraft than the world combined between 1935 and 1940?

The over-production had some merit - Soviets were of opinion that it was them against the whole world? - but the use of material and manpower resources to made all that was badly taxing on the Soviet economy, and was oblivious to the fact that aircraft or a tank that is modern yesterday can easily became obsolete tomorrow, with all the shortcomings coming from that.

Some sort of balance between mass and modernity will be needed to implement ASAP.

I think that over-production was caused by many factors, among them:
- the ideology (a sieged fortress surrounded by The Capitalists)
- war plans that included bold advances in the first days of any conflict, after the invasion of foreign powers
- poor stock management exacerbated by the fear and the lack of initiative (the popular Soviet saying: "initiative is punishable")
- admiration of the machines in general. It was a typical Soviet tradition to sacrifice a human to save a piece of equipment.

My suggestions wrt. combat aircraft:
- Mikulin's big V12s should be the best bet wrt. total engine power and power at altitude, by the virtue of being, well, big and heavy (but not too heavy). So I'd focus on the development, debugging and production of these, even if the price to pay is less of Klimov's V12s.
- Once the M-82 is to be had, it will not take a genius to figure out that it is a much better engine than the M-88. So focus on the M-82s. Historically, Soviets wasted the best part of 1942 to figure out how to use the M-82, that finally gave good service on the La-5/-7 and Tu-2 - this time around, they need to be faster on the ball.
- The M-71 engine warrants the look.
- By the time 1000+ HP engines are around, minimum armament for the fighters should've been two 20m cannons. 1500 HP -> at least three 20mm cannons.
- The fast bomber with a good bomb bay might've been a good asset - Pe-2 high wing lookalike (to use up these M-105s), and also the pre-Tu-2 with the big V12s.
- A big-ish fighter (for the Soviets, that would've been something size of Spitfire or Mustang) that can do well when bombed-up?

IMO one of the most important things for Soviet fighter aircraft is keeping Polikarpov in the design business. The MiG that was formed in his absence made disappointment after disappointment, and when they finally got their act together with the I-220 series, they had no need for the aircraft anyways.
By contrast, the excellent I-185 which first flew in 1941 could be argued to be one of the best fighter aircraft in the world until 1944, and the ITP was no slouch either.
If the M-71 actually gets put into production (along with Yakovlev not being a jealous bastard), the I-185 would be an extreme headache for the Germans and help put the VVS on a more level playing field with the Luftwaffe.

TM06 said:

IMO one of the most important things for Soviet fighter aircraft is keeping Polikarpov in the design business. The MiG that was formed in his absence made disappointment after disappointment, and when they finally got their act together with the I-220 series, they had no need for the aircraft anyways.

Click to expand...

The MiG-3 with some type of emergency canopy release (pyrotechnical, like the Fw 190?) and a pair of 20mm cannons (like it was the case for the small series made in 1942) wouldn't be a bad fighter, IMO.
If Mikulin is required to make a 2-speed supercharged AM-35A/38/38F in 1941/42 instead of the historical AM-38/-38F, that would've gave both the bombers and fighters a lot of oomph to battle the Luftwaffe, catering both for low and high altitudes. A 2-speed S/C drive on an aero engine was a better thing than the Polikovskiy's swirl throttle that Mikulin used in the 1940s, despite the modern-days fame of the Polikovskiy's device.

tomo pauk said:

The MiG-3 with some type of emergency canopy release (pyrotechnical, like the Fw 190?) and a pair of 20mm cannons (like it was the case for the small series made in 1942) wouldn't be a bad fighter, IMO.

Click to expand...

The MiG-3 was a fundamentally flawed aircraft from the beginning, being a development of the absolutely atrocious MiG-1. The teething problems, torrid reliability, poor quality, complete lack of armament standardization and mediocre performance point against the MiG-3 being anything other than a bad fighter.
But to be entirely fair, it was designed to be a high-altitude interceptor first and foremost. Of course it also wasn't very good at high-altitudes anyways due to the stalling and spin characteristics along with several other defects.
Even with a better Mikulin in the front and cannons as standard, I can't imagine that a hypothetical 2-speed MiG-3 would be a very competent combat craft.

TM06 said:

The MiG-3 was a fundamentally flawed aircraft from the beginning, being a development of the absolutely atrocious MiG-1. The teething problems, torrid reliability, poor quality, complete lack of armament standardization and mediocre performance point against the MiG-3 being anything other than a bad fighter.
But to be entirely fair, it was designed to be a high-altitude interceptor first and foremost. Of course it also wasn't very good at high-altitudes anyways due to the stalling and spin characteristics along with several other defects.

Click to expand...

Reliability and quality - perhaps we should blame a factory (Factory No1 or whatever)that was producing them, rather than to the design bureau (MiG)?
I've addressed the armament in one of the posts above.
I've also addressed the issue with the cockpit canopy not being well suited for emergency opening/release. Historically, pilots preferred to fly with the open canopy because of the fear that they might've get trapped in an aircraft that has no chances to land well. Flying with open canopy added heaps of drag and thus robbed the speed, and it also messed with airflow going towards tail. Also, flying with open canopy at 6-7 km at high speed will be very taxing for the pilots.
Stalling and spin characteristics - flying with closed canopy, how do these compare with I-16 or P-39? Or with I-180 and I-185?

Soviet fighters will also need to have the 2-seat trainer version from get go, so the novices can get more smoothly into operating the high-performance A/C.

On the question of armament for the VVS in general.
The 20mm stuff and under was good, if not great. The bigger guns, like the VYa-23 and N-37 were perhaps too much of a good thing, with excellent ballistics, and for the calibre, the RoF, but were perhaps too big and powerful, the 37mm also having a big recoil. I'd suggest that the medium-power 23 and 37mm auto-cannons are made instead, with focus on air fighting (German tanks are a threat, but Luftwaffe is a scourge), with anti-tank job being of secondary concern. So basically something like the post-war 23 and 37mm ammo types, even if the RoF does not need to be as good for the starters. Talk 700+ m/s MV, shells of 200 and 735-750g respectively. Perhaps a 50 kg 23mm gun, ~600 rd/min, that can be synchronized, as well as a 100 kg 37mm gun, 300 rd/min, no synchronization?
Either should do well as a motor cannon, two can be installed on a Il-2 and on the 2-engined A/C. Make the 'arrowhead' cored projectile for the 37mm gun for AT job, might be as good as the MK 101/103 in that?

tomo pauk said:

My suggestions wrt. combat aircraft:
- Mikulin's big V12s should be the best bet wrt. total engine power and power at altitude, by the virtue of being, well, big and heavy (but not too heavy). So I'd focus on the development, debugging and production of these, even if the price to pay is less of Klimov's V12s.
- Once the M-82 is to be had, it will not take a genius to figure out that it is a much better engine than the M-88. So focus on the M-82s. Historically, Soviets wasted the best part of 1942 to figure out how to use the M-82, that finally gave good service on the La-5/-7 and Tu-2 - this time around, they need to be faster on the ball.
- The M-71 engine warrants the look.
- By the time 1000+ HP engines are around, minimum armament for the fighters should've been two 20m cannons. 1500 HP -> at least three 20mm cannons.
- The fast bomber with a good bomb bay might've been a good asset - Pe-2 high wing lookalike (to use up these M-105s), and also the pre-Tu-2 with the big V12s.
- A big-ish fighter (for the Soviets, that would've been something size of Spitfire or Mustang) that can do well when bombed-up?

Click to expand...

I think that one of the fundamental issues in everything engine-related was that the production culture was too low to implement the designer's good ideas. And that led to another missed opportunity: more direct imports of foreign engines. The desire of the Soviet leaders to be self-reliant was reasonable, especially in their ideological dogma, but they overestimated the ability of their subordinates to learn and adapt. Since the end of the 1920s, they tightened restrictions on the exchange of information with the outer world, depriving the industrial sector of vital information. More imports of everything, especially engines, would be a wiser policy.

Agree on the early Tu-2. The prototype was flown in January 1941. Do not arrest Tupolev (and many others) and the prototype would probably be ready earlier. Can we equip the Tu-2 with US radial engines and improve it?
Also, accept Ar-2 as a stopgap and mass produce them before Tu-2 appears in numbers.

Big-ish fighter was contrary to the whole school of thought, probably. If not of the designers, then of the leadership and Stalin himself. "P-47 a good aircraft but not a fighter", etc.

Dimlee said:

I think that one of the fundamental issues in everything engine-related was that the production culture was too low to implement the designer's good ideas. And that led to another missed opportunity: more direct imports of foreign engines. The desire of the Soviet leaders to be self-reliant was reasonable, especially in their ideological dogma, but they overestimated the ability of their subordinates to learn and adapt. Since the end of the 1920s, they tightened restrictions on the exchange of information with the outer world, depriving the industrial sector of vital information. More imports of everything, especially engines, would be a wiser policy.

Click to expand...

Soviets were eager recipients of the foreign technical knowledge come 1930s. Shetsov bureau dealt with Wright engines, Tumanskiy was with G&R, Mikulin with BMW, and Klimov with Hispano Suiza. All of them either improved, or much improved the foreign designs, and were making even better engines come late 1930s/early 40s.
On the other hand, there was barely anything that Western engine makers could've learned from the Soviet engine makers in the 1930s.

It does not require some great science to figure out that a 45L V12 will be making a better power and will have more 'stretch' than a 35L V12 (ie. Mikulin vs. Klimov), nor that 1600 HP M-82 is a much better engine than the 1100 HP M-88B. So I'd point the finger on the top brass, that failed to push more towards the more powerful engines type ASAP, rather than on the factory workers making the respective engines.
Soviets also wasted best part of 1942 to figure out what to do with the surplus of M-82 engines - again, not something that factory workers were guilty about.

Dimlee said:

Agree on the early Tu-2. The prototype was flown in January 1941. Do not arrest Tupolev (and many others) and the prototype would probably be ready earlier. Can we equip the Tu-2 with US radial engines and improve it?
Also, accept Ar-2 as a stopgap and mass produce them before Tu-2 appears in numbers.

Click to expand...

I agree on not arresting people on a whim, as well as to make the Ar-2.
What Western radial do you have in mind for the Tu-2, and when?

Dimlee said:

Big-ish fighter was contrary to the whole school of thought, probably. If not of the designers, then of the leadership and Stalin himself. "P-47 a good aircraft but not a fighter", etc.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the big-ish fighter to be size of the Spitfire or Mustang. Soviet fighters were much smaller than these two.

tomo pauk said:

Reliability and quality - perhaps we should blame a factory (Factory No1 or whatever)that was producing them, rather than to the design bureau (MiG)?

Click to expand...

Alright, how about the things we can blame MiG for; namely the absolutely abhorrent manoeuvrability, unnecessarily high weight, poor high-speed stability and previously mentioned underpowered armament. 3 out of the 4 of which come from the basic design of the aircraft.
I love the MiG-3, but saying it was anything other than a massive failure is just wrong.

tomo pauk said:

I've also addressed the issue with the cockpit canopy not being well suited for emergency opening/release. Historically, pilots preferred to fly with the open canopy because of the fear that they might've get trapped in an aircraft that has no chances to land well. Flying with open canopy added heaps of drag and thus robbed the speed, and it also messed with airflow going towards tail. Also, flying with open canopy at 6-7 km at high speed will be very taxing for the pilots.

Click to expand...

The canopy could be fixed yes, but the high altitude performance would still be poor due to the insufficient oxygen supply along with the faulty oil and fuel pumps which often failed at high altitudes. Things that are not easy to solve for early-war Russia.

tomo pauk said:

Stalling and spin characteristics - flying with closed canopy, how do these compare with I-16 or P-39? Or with I-180 and I-185?

Click to expand...

Considering the one of the early high-altitude sorties (9,000 m I think?) the MiG-3 participated in resulted in all 3 pilots being caught in an irrecoverable spin and having to bail out - one of which died - I'd say the spin characteristics are definitely worse than those 4. As for stall characteristics, I'm not sure. However I find it unlikely that it would be superior to the I-185 or P-39 in stalls.
Keeping up with the comparisons, the MiG-3 would get stomped by all 4 in a dogfight owing to its terrible manoeuvrability and high weight, and given that Boom-N-Zoom wasn't really practised by the Soviets around the time, the MiG-3 would be totally outmatched by almost every fighter it comes into contact with.
It's an interceptor, not a fighter. Trying to make it one is a fool's errand.

About the Soviet armor. Modern tanks were with thick armor, reasonably powerful guns and engines. What seems to be lacking was reliability (until 1942?), 'human interface' (Yugoslav tankers commented that going from the T-34-85 into Sherman 76 was like going from a tractor into a taxi), crew visibility. German guns from early 1942 have had no problems in killing Soviet tanks at the normal combat ranges (while Soviets were pretty much in 1942 and 43 with what they had in 1941, bar the APCR ammo), and the German sights seem to be better than what the Soviets had.

Older Soviet tanks were easy prey for the German AT means.

I'm not sure how much is realistic to expect better reliability and everything considering the Soviet way of doing things and the effects of the invasion and relocation of the industry.

How much the KV-2 and T-28 were actually worth it?

What was also lacking was a good self-propelled platform for the combat vehicles that are not supposed to slug it out in direct fire. Germans with Pz-III and -IV bases, as well as the Americans with M3 medium and M4 bases were much better here, IMO. A good SP platform can be armed with heavier field artillery, as well as with capable AA guns. Tank units (and other) were in dire need for the SP AA to protect them, while the SU-76 (when finally available) was not something good in cracking German defenses.

When looking at improving Soviet programs, starting with the wildly successful F-34 / zis-3 / etc. sounds strange. And same for the follow up 85 mm zis-s-53 that was used on the t-34/85. They're not winning any MV competitions, but so what? The 76.2x385 was a good compromise between barrel life, compactness, useful HE load and good enough armor penetration until heavier tanks like the Panther starts showing up in numbers.

I think we've had several threads on how to fix the t-34, and it seems the biggest opportunities were a 3 man turret with radio from the start. And better vision and ergonomics. The guns by themselves were fine enough. Perhaps one could blame them for not introducing the t-34/85 earlier.

As for aero engines, did the Soviets ever introduce fuel injection (single point good enough..?) or the pressure carburetor during WWII? Seems they persisted with trying to make float carburetors work for quite a long time. Of course, not a uniquely Soviet failing..

Also a lot of blame can probably placed at pilot training and air to air doctrine. The Finns racked up spectacular K/D scores using one of the arguably worst fighters of the war, the Buffalo. Finnish pilots were good, but not superhuman either.

z42 said:

When looking at improving Soviet programs, starting with the wildly successful F-34 / zis-3 / etc. sounds strange. And same for the follow up 85 mm zis-s-53 that was used on the t-34/85. They're not winning any MV competitions, but so what? The 76.2x385 was a good compromise between barrel life, compactness, useful HE load and good enough armor penetration until heavier tanks like the Panther starts showing up in numbers.

I think we've had several threads on how to fix the t-34, and it seems the biggest opportunities were a 3 man turret with radio from the start. And better vision and ergonomics. The guns by themselves were fine enough. Perhaps one could blame them for not introducing the t-34/85 earlier.

Click to expand...

As far as hole-punching, the F-34 and Zis-3 were good in 1941 and still useful in 1942. Thing was that Germans were not good sports here, and they upped the game come early 1942 with the powerful and long-barreled 75mm guns, both towed and in the AFVs/tanks. Result were lopsided exchange ratios in the best part of 1942 and whole 1943.
The 76.2x385 for the F-22 was rated for the much hotter loading (max of 1400g of propellant, vs. 1080g for the old Russian/Soviet guns, as well as the new guns, like the F-34), combined with extra barrel length (10 cal or so), it had greater stretch in the AP role. Will not be as good as the pak 40 or kwk 40, but it should provide an extra AP capability to the Soviet tankers and artillerymen.

I'm all for the 85mm gun to be introduced earlier, hopefully a full year earlier, ditto for the better turret.

z42 said:

As for aero engines, did the Soviets ever introduce fuel injection (single point good enough..?) or the pressure carburetor during WWII? Seems they persisted with trying to make float carburetors work for quite a long time. Of course, not a uniquely Soviet failing..

Click to expand...

Seems like the only engine worth speakaing of that, was with direct injection, was the ASh-82FN radial (N - neposredny - direct). Not great shakes power-wise vs. the ASh-82F just because the fuel metering system was changed - the valve overlap probably remained unchanged.
Direct fuel injection on the V12s might've been interesting, getting rid of handful of carbs per each engine, and if the valve overlap is incraesed, it can make better power. Soviet carbs seem to be meh, AFAIK, so another increase of power might be in order with fuel injection.

It's worth remembering that the improved T-34M was just a couple months from possible production when Operation Barbarossa occurred, which would've been a substantial upgrade to the base T-34 models up to that point. A 3-Man turret, better armour, better and more powerful engine, torsion bar suspension, a gearbox that didn't require a hammer and superhuman strength to shift gears, an enlarged turret ring, the whole nine yards. I think 5 hulls were built when war broke out?
Given the overall improvements, larger size and enlarged turret ring, I'd imagine the T-34M would take better to the 85 mm than the base T-34 did.

A similarly quashed project of note was the KV-3 heavy tank. While it would probably be a logistical headache and likely nowhere near as viable as the IS-2, it would be a seriously tough target until the Germans fielded the more powerful long 75's and long 88's. Being based on the KV hull (up-armoured KV-220 specifically), it has the advantage of being ready a good bit before the IS series come into play, and the ZiS 107 mm was a devastating gun.

A lot of subjects/topics

Soviet single engine fighters vs Bf 109

Plane.................wing area sq/ft.................normal T-O weight lbs
109-4...........................174..........................................6400
I-16 24........................160..........................................4220
LaGG-3.......................188..........................................6940
MiG-3..........................188..........................................7390
Yak-1............................184..........................................6270
Yak-7 (1941)..............184..........................................6530

Yes, I rounded off a little bit. Soviet weights tend to be rather variable.
Now for the I-185 fans.
I-185............................167.......................................7710-8230 (depends on version and source)
Basically the M-71 engine was a crude long stroke (and extra 14.5mm?) Wright R-3350 ( a R-3640 if you will). One can imagine the handling problems in a small fighter, 2 feet less wingspan and 30 sqft less area than a FW 190. Or compare to a LA-5.

Soviets have a problem with their design/doctrine/philosophy.
They put the monster motor in the MiG-3 but only at the cost of weight, which impacted the armament.
The planned M-106 engine replacement for the M-105 suffered, shall we say from development problems. The Prototype I-26 fighter was supposed to have flown with an M-106 engine.
The I-26 was supposed to meet a 74mph (120kph) landing speed requirement.
The Soviet aircraft were often overweight and the engines had trouble making the desired power. Desired was often higher than the rated power. The Soviets were working on improved M-105s, the M-106 (work started in 1938) and even the M-107 (work started in 1940).
The AM-35A engine was roughly 250kg heavier than the M-105 engine, about 44% heavier. Which means you need a somewhat beefier airframe (and landing gear?).

If you want a better all-around fighter with two 20mm guns you need a bigger wing (more drag + higher weight) which means lower performance (speed and climb) and you get into the design spiral. If you have to meet a certain wing loading (landing speed) every weight gain means you need a larger wing (or a more complicated one) which means that wing itself gains more weight which means you need to make the wing larger which means....................................

Maybe it would have worked out better but the soviets were trying desperately to keep the speed and climb and turn that they had.

Soviets got rid of the 7.62mm machine gun for several reasons, not the least of which was it was very expensive to make and needed a lot of skilled labor.

Soviets also had production shortages of guns at times. Airframe production was not always constant (weather).

Soviets might have loved a 650kg engine that gave 1200hp at low level (8000ft) and 1100hp at 15,000ft in 1941-42 and lasted for 200 hours. But they didn't have it.

The main failing of Soviet tanks was not the basic stuff (guns/armor/speed), but the poor training, communications, vision/tactical awareness.
Soviets were not alone with these problems in 1941-42-43.

Soviets had little use for 85mm gun tanks (let alone 107mm guns) in 1941-42.
The German tanks did not require 85mm to destroy them until pretty much the Spring/summer of 1943.
If the Soviet commanders/gunners cannot hit MK IVs at much over 1000yds with 76mm guns giving them 85mm guns does not solve the problem/s.
The soviet tankers cannot identify targets at long range, and/or estimate range and engage effectively. Poor training, poor optics, poor ergonomics, poor communications to use maneuver/terrain and/or get support from other tanks in the unit.

Shortround6 said:

MiG-3..........................188..........................................7390
...
Yes, I rounded off a little bit. Soviet weights tend to be rather variable.
Now for the I-185 fans.
I-185............................167.......................................7710-8230 (depends on version and source)
Basically the M-71 engine was a crude long stroke (and extra 14.5mm?) Wright R-3350 ( a R-3640 if you will). One can imagine the handling problems in a small fighter, 2 feet less wingspan and 30 sqft less area than a FW 190. Or compare to a LA-5.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that we are allowed to criticize the I-185 in any way, shape or form.