The best Russian bomber?

[Wurger]

... the 3rd photo down appears to be a Tu-2 (note radial engines and four blade propellors).

It is not a Tu-2 and it isn't a bomber at all. It is a Mikoyan-Gurevich's fighter called ДИС-200 (МиГ-5, ИТ) ... DIS-200/ MiG-5 (IT), 1940. The plane was powered by the Mikulin AM-37 ( the T version ) and the Shvetsov ASh-82 ( M-82) engine ( the IT sub-type). The IT one with the Shvetsov M-82F engines was assembled a year later. At least two prototypes were built. According to the russian sources the shot was taken in 1941. The project was cancelled in 1943 because of the NKAP decision that the plane performance was very similar to the Pe-2 that was already on assembling lines.

 

[tomo pauk]

People can check out the data sheets for the Pe-2 and Tu-2, including the prototypes that were significantly diffeent than serial examples:
Pe-2 (the last column is range in km; Pe-2M featured a new airframe)
Tu-2

Pages are in Spanish, translated from Shavrov's 'bible', can be translated, there are some typos though. One asterisk (*) mean the aircraft was in some production, two asterisks mean the model was in mass production.

 

[Shortround6]

the fact is that the normal bombload of Pe-2 was 600 kg (1,323 lb) so it didn't have the load carrying capacity of the Tu-2, which usually carried 1,350kg load and could carry 500 kg and 1,000 kg bombs which Pe-2 was unable to carry. The production of Tu-2 was handicapped because of the difficulties to find out suitable powerplant for it and its production really got off the ground only late 1943.

Juha

I believe the Pe-2 was rated to carry either four 250kg bomb or two 500kgs bombs on external racks. While this seems to be beloved by model box cover artists and computer gamers it is hard to find actual photos of this arrangement although museum aircraft have the racks (or parts of them). Lack of supply or the loss of speed and range made this arrangement unpopular compared to the four/six 110kg bombs internal.?

I am also not seeing much love for the DB-3/IL-4

The main work horse of the Soviet bomber fleet.

 

[parsifal]

Best soviet bombers of the war weren't even of soviet manufacture. A-20, B-25 and (stretching things) Tu-4 were all preferred to the locally manufactured stuff

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans | HistoryNet

 

[Timppa]

Best soviet bombers of the war weren't even of soviet manufacture. A-20, B-25 and (stretching things) Tu-4 were all preferred to the locally manufactured stuff

Tu-4 was post war (B-29 copy).
Pe-2 was similar to A-20 (Boston III) in regard of performance and bomb load.

Tu-2 was better than any of those, comparable to A-26.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tu-2 was far better than Pe-2, A-20, DB-3/Il-4. Not such a bomb truck as the B-25, but much faster.

 

[Shortround6]

Russia got around 2900 A-20s. Not all were the same, internal fuel varied from 400 US gallons to 540 gallons (yes 140 gal tank in the bomb bay but in the upper part of the bomb bay and did not affect large bomb storage) and finally 725 gallons of internal fuel that did not block the normal bomb storage.
The early 400 gal planes might not have been much better than Pe-2s as far as payload/range goes although they could carry a max of four 500lbs inside instead of outside (what did that do the Pe-2's speed/range?) American bombers may have had a problem using Russian bombs? and not carried the full loads?
the 540 gal aircraft could pretty well match the Pe-2 for pay/laod and range if both are clean.
The 725gal aircraft walk all over the Pe-2 when it comes to payload and range and had the added benefit of under wing racks for another four bombs of up to 500lbs each if you want to play the outside bomb rack game.

The later A-20s also had vastly heavier firepower for strafing than the Pe-2 did.

 

[tomo pauk]

Much that I like the Pe-2, the A-20 carried far better firpower. Soviets also managed to turn it into an useful torpedo bomber, not the case for Pe-2.

 

[Timppa]

Best soviet bombers of the war weren't even of soviet manufacture.

Following the same logic:

Best british long range fighter: P-51
Best british maritime bomber/long-range heavy day bomber: B-24
Best british early war naval fighter: F4F
Best british late war naval fighter: F6F/F4U
Best british torpedo bomber; Grumman TBF
Best british tank: Sherman "Firefly"
etc..

 

[tomo pauk]

The best Soviet bomber might actually be the Pe-8, perhaps also the best bomber in the world in 1941?

 

[GrauGeist]

The best Soviet bomber might actually be the Pe-8, perhaps also the best bomber in the world in 1941?

At less than 100 units made and a juicy target for Luftwaffe interceptors, I might question the title for "best in the world". At one point, the VVS was losing them faster than they could be built.

The Short Stirling had a higher warload, longer range, higher speed and two more defensive weapons (8 versus 6) than the Pe-8.

 

[Shortround6]

And even those Pe-8 were actually several different models, Some with diesel engines. Early Pe-8s used a M-100 in the fuselage to supercharger the AM-34FRNV engines in the wings. 2 prototypes and 4 production planes had this arrangement. with no more M-100 engines they built the next 2-4 planes with just the AM-34FRNV engines and accepted the loss in performance. The next batch of planes (9-18?) were built using AM-35A engines like were used in the Mig-3. This was followed by a batch of 9 (?) planes powered by Charomskiy ACh-30 and Charomskiy M-40aircraft Diesel engines.The diesels were so reliable (sarcasm) that the crews welcomed the return of the AM-35A engines. Given the reliability and overhaul life the AM-35A demonstrated in single engine fighters their use in a bomber capable of 6-10 hour missions speaks volumes about the diesel engines. Very slow production continued using AM-35A engines from storage as it was out of production. Finally the plane was fitted the ASh-82 radial and performance and reliability improved but the
engine installation required the removal of the gun positions in the rear of the nacelles. Production ended with a few diesel powered special transports.

Picking the "best" out of that mish-mash is hard enough and trying to figure out what it's speed/range/bomb load was aside the maximums is really hard. BTW it may be doubtful if any of the gun stations were power operated.

 

[GrauGeist]

...BTW it may be doubtful if any of the gun stations were power operated.

From what I've seen, they were manned weapons

To the Pe-8's credit, though...they at least used the 20mm in two of the 6 positions.

 

[parsifal]

Following the same logic:
Best british long range fighter: P-51
Best british maritime bomber/long-range heavy day bomber: B-24
Best british early war naval fighter: F4F
Best british late war naval fighter: F6F/F4U
Best british torpedo bomber; Grumman TBF
Best british tank: Sherman "Firefly"
etc..


P-51
I agree. except at night. in which case its the mosquito again.

B-24
ah no, probably Lancaster. Remove the word "heavy" and its a no contest winner in the mosquito

F4F
Not until August - December 1941. had too many teething problems until then. Even then, it was too specialised in that early war period. only after aircrews became more abundant, 1942+ was the F4F able to be considered superior to the Fulmar

F6F/F4U
probably not, but a matter of opinion. depends on the role the carrier characteristics, the weather and the role. With the BPF in '45, the firepower of the Seafires and their low level performance made them the weapon of choice by Adm Fraser against Kamikaze attack. problem with the Seafire in 45 was similar to that facing the F4f in 41, too specialise, not enough multi role.

TBF
probably not, at least for British operating conditions. in rough weather, flying often in blind conditions on small escort carriers it was a no contest, Swordfish fitted with ASV radar. For larger fleet carriers, but still with poor weather and rough seas, probably step up to the barracuda. In the relatively calm waters of the Pacific, TBF and its marginally better performance, less the cr8ppy bliss Levitt torpedo, probably yes.

Best British Tank (of the war)
It really gets down to how "Best is defined". In terms of pure gunpower, its the (british) 17 pounder hanging off the front of it that makes the firefly a contender. If we are going for most verstile and adaptable, probably the Churchil later marks in particular. Best all round tank probably the Comet, but if we are including those deplyed, but not in combat, it really is a no brainer, Centurion all the way.

 

[Shortround6]

Following the same logic:
Best british long range fighter: P-51
Best british maritime bomber/long-range heavy day bomber: B-24
Best british early war naval fighter: F4F
Best british late war naval fighter: F6F/F4U
Best british torpedo bomber; Grumman TBF
Best british tank: Sherman "Firefly"
etc..


P-51
I agree. except at night. in which case its the mosquito again.

B-24
ah no, probably Lancaster. Remove the word "heavy" and its a no contest winner in the mosquito

F4F
Not until August - December 1941. had too many teething problems until then. Even then, it was too specialised in that early war period. only after aircrews became more abundant, 1942+ was the F4F able to be considered superior to the Fulmar

F6F/F4U
probably not, but a matter of opinion. depends on the role the carrier characteristics, the weather and the role. With the BPF in '45, the firepower of the Seafires and their low level performance made them the weapon of choice by Adm Fraser against Kamikaze attack. problem with the Seafire in 45 was similar to that facing the F4f in 41, too specialise, not enough multi role.

TBF
probably not, at least for British operating conditions. in rough weather, flying often in blind conditions on small escort carriers it was a no contest, Swordfish fitted with ASV radar. For larger fleet carriers, but still with poor weather and rough seas, probably step up to the barracuda. In the relatively calm waters of the Pacific, TBF and its marginally better performance, less the cr8ppy bliss Levitt torpedo, probably yes.

Best British Tank (of the war)
It really gets down to how "Best is defined". In terms of pure gunpower, its the (british) 17 pounder hanging off the front of it that makes the firefly a contender. If we are going for most verstile and adaptable, probably the Churchil later marks in particular. Best all round tank probably the Comet, but if we are including those deplyed, but not in combat, it really is a no brainer, Centurion all the way.

Well, since nobody except the Americans really had a good long range fighter (except the Japanese?) number 1 seems a bit picky.

Long range day bomber without escort is a target. Not sure the British ever used their B-24s in long range unescorted day light roles except for special missions?

Early war British F4Fs didn't have folding wings which rather limited their use on British carriers. First folding wing Martlets delivered in Aug 1941 (one month after the Sea Hurricane MK Ib went to sea on the HMS Furious) If you can't deploy the Martlets on the first 3 Illustrious carriers due to elevator restrictions it does tend to put a damper on the claim it was the RNs best carrier plane. Early Martlets also used engines with single stage two speed superchargers so altitude performance was somewhat less than the American early F4Fs (mostly). The first Martlet to be built to the same standard (two stage supercharger) as the American F4F-4 was the Martlet V and these were actually General Motors built FM-1s. which don't really qualify as early war aircraft.

We could have whole thread on the Seafire vs F6F/F4U ( or multiple threads) staying out of this one for now.

Avenger is a bit of problem. RN only equips 1st squadron in Jan/Feb of 1943 goes into action in July of 1943 against the Japanese from the deck of an American carrier, Barracudas show up in late 1943. Granted it took until 1944 to solve the problems with the MK 13 torpedo but for most of 1943 torpedo attacks were a small part of the planes duties in the Atlantic and Med. The majority of missions flown by Avengers in RN service outside the Pacific in 1943 may have been anti-sub. Avengers were used for artic convly escorts.
Saying the TBF had marginally better performance than a Barracuda is like saying a P-51D Mustang had marginally better performance than P-40C.

The Comet was a bit late but was arguably the best western allied tank to be used in numbers exceeding a dozen or so.
The Firefly made it's reputation with it's British gun, which reversed the trend of British tank gunnery and lead to the British leading the west (if not the world) in tank guns for the next few decades.

 

[tomo pauk]

IIRC the Avenger was not the best British torpedo bomber beacuse it could not carry the British torpedo, since that torpedo was too long?
The 17 pdr was a fine AT gun, as a tank gun it fired a bit too light the HE shell when compared with 85-90 mm guns. What made British tank guns excellent in AT job was the APDS ammo.

 

[Shortround6]

The Avenger was the better airplane, yes it was let down by the American torpedo until 1944 after which it became a rather formidable weapon or combination. The Avenger could be used as an attack plane using bombs better than any British Torpedo plane. It was capable of carrying four 500lbs inside the bomb bay. Twelve 100 lb bombs, single 1000lb GP or 1600lb AP bomb. It could carry a rather formidable load for anti-sub work. A homing torpedo, two 500lb or under depth charges, underwing rockets and other equipment all at the same time. The Barracuda may have been a better torpedo bomber because it's torpedo worked but it wasn't as good at many of the other roles that the "torpedo" bombers had to under take.

The 17 pounder is a rather confusing gun because in true British fashion they hobbled it with cheap ammo or with simplified firing procedure for too long. When finally given ABCBC ammo in 1944 it was pretty much equal to the German Panther gun and didn't need APDS for anything short of a King Tiger. The ABCBC ammo was roughly 20% better at penetration at longer ranges than the earlier AP and APC shot. It could out penetrate the German 88/56, the American 90mm and the Russian 85mm guns.
The difference was such that the Comet's 77mm gun firing the APCBC projectile ahd roughly the same penetration as teh 17 pounder using AP Or APC projectiles despite the 300fps lower MV.
APDS just pushed things to the next level and demonstrated that 105-122mm guns firing full bore projectiles were not needed.
The early HE round was not satisfactory for several reasons, including the high velocity which was the same as the AP rounds, simple fire control for the gunners (same aiming point) but high velocity HE rounds need thick walls (or good steel or both) to stand up to the firing stresses. A later HE round had the velocity dropped to 1800fps and allowed thinner walls and higher HE content. Better bang on target but gunner had to use different aiming marks and remember different trajectory or lead on moving target. Granted not as good as the German and US 88-90mm shells but better than the US 3in/76mm HE round. Russian HE ammo was a little light on HE content for shell size.

 

[Shortround6]

Getting back on subject the Pe-8 was replaced (or heavily supplemented) by lend lease B-25s in 1944 in the Air division using it.

The AM-35A powered version was credited with a range of 3600km (2236m) with a 2000kg bomb load.
With diesels this went to 5469km (3392m) and with M-82s it went to 5800km (3604M). The M-82 version was allowed 2500kg more gross weight, more fuel?? or bigger bomb load at short distance? max bomb load went from 4000kg to 6000kg.
The M-82 engines never got flame damping exhaust which was a bit of problem for night bombers.

The TU-2 equipped one air division, the 334th from the spring.summer of 1944 until the winter when a second air division was added, the 326th and the 47th long range reconnaissance regiment. were the main units equipped with the Tu-2. The air divisions having 90 to 110 or so planes.

 

[tomo pauk]

The early M82 offered perhaps 250 HP extra for take off vs. AM-35, and a bit of weight saving. With 4 engines per aricraft, it is a substantial improvement.

 

[Shortround6]

It is an improvement but hardly earth shaking. And for some reason the Engines used in some (all?) of the Pe-8s were M-82s and not the M-82FN or M-82FNV.
Top speed with the M-82 is given as 420kph. instead of the 443kph with the AM-35A, altitudes are not given which makes comparison difficult. Ceiling is given as 8,000 meters vs the 9300 meters of the AM-35A version. Due to extra weight or M-82 engines not giving power at high altitudes as well as the AM-35A or both?