Top 3 mistakes per country, in field of military aviation

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Was not trying to suggest a development of much more powerful engines than Mikulins that were in production. The AM-38 on board of a Soviet fighter will mean performance similar to the Fw 190 under 4 km, that a fighter powered by M-105 will never match. Even the M-82 will be hard pressed for that. A 2-speed supercharged version of the AM-38 is no rocket science, nor it is a version with 'faster' S/C (so inbetween AM-35A and AM-38 for altitude power).
The Soviets were indeed using plenty of wood in their aircraft, but the fighters were of modest proportions and weights, wing area was closer to the Bf 109/MC 202 than to Spitfire/P-51. Even the small P-39 was bigger than MiG-3. They were also using reasonably thin wing profiles (15-16% at root), so the drag penalties were manageable.
Two Shvak cannons was not installed on Soviet fighters until late 1942. Not world beating, but far better than 1 cannon + 2 LMGs (Yak-1, Bf 109F-early G), let alone what MiG-3 usually carried.
 
For the Italians:
- thinking that maneuverability is the main asset of a fighter, thus not developing fast monoplane fighters with armament better than 2 HMGs in late 1930s
- not developing carrier vessel & aircraft for them
- stopping the develpment and use of V-12 engines in late '30s
 
tomo pauk said:
For the Italians:
- thinking that maneuverability is the main asset of a fighter, thus not developing fast monoplane fighters with armament better than 2 HMGs in late 1930s
Click to expand...

Interesting point. We've discussed the development of British fighter aircraft at some length and I'm sure the same considerations exercised the minds of the Italians as well.

I feel the two primary features traded off by the British were speed and fire power. Other factors like endurance and manoeuvrability were secondary considerations. It was really a happy coincidence that the combination of the quest for speed led to fast monoplane fighters and that the quest for firepower led to the eight gun fighter with a long standing intention to mount cannon armament. It also led to the turret fighter over which we'll draw a discrete veil.

The Germans went for speed too, and early versions of the Bf 109 were very lightly armed (like the Italians with 2 machine guns) compared to a British eight gun fighter. They also developed the 'zerstorer' concept, heavily armed, and in some ways related to the less successful turret concept.

I think that the light armament of the Italian aircraft is understandable, it was the British that were the exception in this area, they carried out a lot of research into practical armament for aircraft. Not emphasising the need for speed as evidence of faster and faster foreign fighters and bombers mounted was indeed a mistake. In their defence, despite all this, they did have a 300mph fighter in 1940.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:

An AM-38 would have normal soviet fighter falling over on it's nose. It is about 500lbs heavier than a M-105 engine. Almost like trying to stick a DB 603 in a 109G.
Yes you could design a new fighter to use the engine but you are back to the wood construction. The Mig 3, despite it small size and light armament, went about 7200-7300lbs. And the Mig had problems due to it's small size. A new, larger fighter to solve some of the problems and to carry heavier armament would be even heavier. MIg was restricted in armament in order to help performance. they built over 800 with an extra 12.7mm UBK under each wing but weight went up over 200kg and performance dropped to where they couldn't use mixed formations of 3 gun and 5 gun fighters. The 5 guns fighters couldn't climb fast enough. Many of the 5 gun fighters had the underwing guns removed in service.
One 20mm Shvak weighed almost double what a 12.7mm UB machinegun weighed and about 4 times what the 7.62mm Shvak machinegun weighed.
I am not sure the reported cycle rates for the synchronized guns vs synchronized guns are 100% accurate either.
 

The 1st is certainly valid, the 2nd is much less so. Italy was actually a poor country and was the least powerful (economically) of the major powers. Having one or two carriers (could she afford anymore?) wasn't really going to change the naval situation in the Med. And like the British found, operating one or two carriers in range of land based air was asking for trouble.
Could Italy really afford to spread it's design talent any further than it did and design special carrier aircraft?

#3 is also questionable. Italy only had two families of V-12 engines in the 30s and they were of a similar age/concept to the Hispano in some ways. They were better in some ways but the existing engines of the early and mid 30s needed to be thrown out and a new designs started/developed. Does Italy really have the resources to do that plus develop air-cooled engines?

The Fiat and Isotta V-12 engines were separate cylinder engines. They did not use one piece cylinder blocks for each bank but 6 individual cylinders with sheet meat cooling jackets. The cylinder head was in one piece with the cylinder barrel and the valve gear was held in a separate "box" that bolted to the top of the cylinders.
They were light weight, slow running engines for their displacement (Fiat A.30 an exception).
 

The MiG-3 was tested, 2 prototypes, with AM-38, wasn't doing any falling over the nose. Soviets, however, forgot that more HP demands more cooling capacity, so the engine overheated with cooling system left over form AM-35A engine. There was a small series of MiG-3 with two synchronised cannons, so that armament is also not a long shot for 1941, even for 1940.
If 1600 CV (nominal, not short-burst power) is not enough for 2 cannons that are much lighter than Hispano, with lighter ammo, I'm not sure what power is needed.
The La-5 didn't do much of falling over the nose either, when VK-105PF from LaGG-3 was replaced with heavier M-82, while also loosing the cooling system that was aft the CoG.

I'm not sure what the podded HMGs have to do with my proposal.
 

In 1940, Britain, Germany and USA were producing 350 mph fighters. French and Japanese started production & service of 320-330 mph fighters. Not just that, all of those are equally or better armed (Germans have cannons before 1939 on Bf 109), and are better suited for high altitude work.


The carrier aircraft around means that biplane bombers don't have a field day over the surface fleet. The Italians developed the version of Regianne fighter for carrier vessel service, and were the 1st to embrace mast-height bombing with Re.2002.


Even going with Asso XI and L.121 means a performance gain over Fiat A.74. As for resources - stop developing a dozen of V-12 and radial engines of 600-1000 HP, and plenty of resources can go into V-12s of 1000-1500 HP.
 
tomo pauk said:
French and Japanese started production & service of 320-330 mph fighters. Not just that, all of those are equally or better armed (Germans have cannons before 1939 on Bf 109), and are better suited for high altitude work.
Click to expand...

The Macchi C.200 is comparable to those fighters.

The Bf 109 E-3 did get the wing mounted cannon, but it was a maturing design and it had originally been more lightly armed, ignoring the motorkanone which the Germans couldn't get to work and abandoned for the early series aircraft.
The MG FF cannon was first tested in a Bf 109 wing in October 1937. Problems with the wing structure meant that the C and D series were equipped with MG 17s in the wings. It was not until after a substantial reworking of the wing that the cannon armament was cleared for fitting to the E-3 in May 1938.
The point is that the Bf 109 was not designed around wing cannons, and the motorkanone installation didn't work until the F series leaving early versions with armament comparable to many of their contemporaries. The Germans did realise this was a problem and did make efforts to up arm the aircraft before the war, before, strangely, reducing the armament on the F series.

Cheers

Steve
 
I was trying to point out that MC.200 was some 2 years behind the curve, both in performance and armament vs. what the major players were producing.
The Italians were very much in position to have a monoplane fighter that uses I-F Asso IX and has 2-3 HMGs in production in 1935. That they passed on this opportunity was their own fault. Ditto for a fighter that uses L.121 and has 3-4 HMGs in 1938.
 
It seems alot of times that these discussions tend to focus on the main Allies/Axis nations, but could the smaller nations' airforces (Axis/Allied) have made an impact early on?

Let's take the Polish Airforce for example. Had they focused on a more modern air wing, coupled with better communications, forced the Luftwaffe to alter their plans or caused a delay in the Blitzkreig?

How about the Netherlands? Had the RNAF invested more in outfitting their units, could they have forced a delay in Germany's attacks? The Fokkers were very capable aircraft, but sadly, outnumbered and again, communications played a large factor.

And a certainly not a small nation, but often overlooked in discussions: the French...there is a laundry list of mistakes that can be brought up...
 
For the Italians:
- not developing carrier vessel & aircraft for them

Not developing a carrier actually made sense for the italians. The assumption was that Italy was a giant aircraft carrier, and adequate support would be provided by the RA. As for nearly every other nation, no such co-operation, or rather effective co-operation was forthcoming until a dedicated specialised wing or arm of the airforce was formed for the specific task of attacking ships. The italaians finally did this in the latter part of 1940, and even then their efforts were fitful and patchy. Even so, in 1941, the italians managed to sink with their air arm a considerable amount of british shipping, and this continued into 1942.

It wasnt a carrier that the italians needed, it was an effective doctrine and a separate force specially trained for the purpose of fleet co-operation. Effective carrier operations for the italians was an unattainable goal that would have sucked out a lot of resources for not much gain for them.
 
Italy, at least theoretically, had the capacity to base aircraft not only on the Italian mainland and islands but also Libya on the southern shores, and, at the eastern end, in Albania. It could have done this before entering WW2 'proper', which could have allowed Italian air power to dominate the MTO.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
Cheers
Steve
 
Then how will the Italians provide fighter cover for their surface units when those are more than 200 miles from airbases? Hopefully more than 15 minutes worth a day.
 
I'd quote Parsifal's last paragraph above. They needed a coordinated approach to develop the aircraft and tactics to match their strategic aims, hardly likely in 1930s Italy, but there you go.
Cheers
Steve
 
tomo pauk said:
Then how will the Italians provide fighter cover for their surface units when those are more than 200 miles from airbases? Hopefully more than 15 minutes worth a day.
Click to expand...
Many Italian single engine fighters had auxiliary fuel tanks that extended range to 600 miles or more. 30-45 minutes on station.
More seriously they had built the Fiat C.R. 25 in small numbers and the later I.M.A.M. 57 had nothing that could not have been made earlier.
It should have been no great trick to build an Italian version of the Blenheim fighter which would have been good enough for fleet protection against Swordfish and Albacores around 400-500 miles from shore.
 
The number of times british carrier based strike aircraft hit the Italians more than 200 miles from a land base was rar3e, moreover the majority of airstrikes that were made were delivered at night (against stationary or slow moving targets) or in conditions of half light or poor weather. it was a rare, but not unheard of event for swordfish to make air attacks in broad daylight, and when they did, the results were usually not pretty.

Defending against Swordfish attacks was more than just a matter of getting fighters over your convoys or task gps. You needed fighters with the legs as you point out, but also the ability to fly in all manner of conditions. Good luck finding an aircraft anywhere in 1940-1 able to fill that brief .

The biggest handicap facing the Italians in 1940 wasn't a carrier, or a long range fighter, or even effective airborne strike capability. it was a lack of effective fleet co-operation that could provide its fleet with effective and timely warning of the location, diposition and intentions of the RN forces. In 1940, in the Med, the RM was stronger, better equipped and full of fight, despite the propaganda weve been subjected to postwar. but it was a force vulnerable and ineffective because it was unable to see and anticipate the enemy moves. give them that capability, and you have a game changer.
 

MIG was designed for the AM -35 engine and shows the problem/s rather nicely. The Mig-3 weighed within 100lbs or so of a MK IX Spitfire clean ( depending on individual aircraft and exact equipment). The MIG has a smaller wing for higher wing loading, higher stall speed, worse turn. Weight of engine and wood construction of the smaller airframe leaves much less weight allowance for armament. Which was the point of bringing up the podded guns. The addition of two guns, each about 1/2 the weight of a 20mm and around 145 RPG of 12.7 mm ammo had a noticeable effect on performance.
As the Russians were able to Incorporate more metal onto some of their fighters they added more fuel or more armament for about the same total weight.
 
The lousy installation of canopy in the MiG-3 (in most cases unable to be opened in flight, so the pilots prefer to fly with canopy open) was a far worse thing. The podded guns were also a drag penalty, that synchronised cannons avoid. Part of lack of performancec was a single speed supercharger, that restricted engine power down low (despite the swirl throttle contribution), where most of combats happened in USSR - something that AM-38 in the nose avoids easy.
The MiG-3 have had lower wing loading than the lightest version of Fw 190 (one with just 2 cannons and removed protection). The version with podded guns (yes, it was a lemon) was with same wing loading as that Fw 190.
 
A lot of Russian aircraft suffered from poor details or finish. The Mig also suffered from a number of handling problems, The Mig 3 being better than the Mig 1 but the Mig was still a handful compared to the other new soviet fighters.
The usual Russian response to trying to improve performance, given the limited power of the engines, was to lighten the load (basically armament). Economics also had something to with it as the Shkak 7.62mm machine gun was expensive to manufacture. The 12.7mm UB was cheaper (fewer man hours) so one 12.7 often replaced two 7.62s. Cost of the 20mm Shvak is unknown but it may be cheaper than western weapons. Russians still needed them in large quantities. 10000 fighters with one 20mm each or 5000 fighters with two 20mm guns each?
Both the M-106 and M-17 were prewar projects, It was the failure of both engines that meant the M-105 had to be retained in production despite low power and less than ideal solutions found to keep performance within competitive limits.

The AM-35/38 series were large slow turning engines. They really needed bigger airframes than the existing Russian fighters.
But with the wood construction the airframes were heavy for their size.
Using the weight comparison of the ASh-82 doesn't take into account the physical size of the engines or were the center of gravity of the engine is in relation to the center of gravity of the aircraft.

Please note that the cylinders/crankcase is under the pretty much cylindrical part of the cowl and the tapered/curved part is pretty much empty (long nose case and fan) so the engines real weight is pretty close to the leading edge of the wing.
Sticking in a AM-35/38 engine that is both longer and heavier than the M-105 engine may be a lot harder.
 

This would have put the Italians weelllll ahead of the "curve". The two existing 12.7mm machine guns were the equal of 4-6 rifle caliber machine guns in firepower. 4 12.7mm guns would be equal to 8-12 rifle caliber guns.
Russians are using (mostly) 2-4 fast firing RCMGs in the I-16s. French are using one slow firing (470rpm?) cannon, there is a lot of confusion as to when the HS 404 first showed up, and two RCMG in the MS 406. . Americans are using ONE .50 cal and ONE .30 cal.
in the P-35 and P-36 (later got two extra .30 cal) and Navy Grumman Biplanes.

The Italians certainly did have too many engine projects going on. But should they have concentrated on one to three better radials or tried to develop a brand new V-12? The old V-12s needed new crankshafts, new crankcases, new cylinder blocks and so on. Really a Brand new engine.
I don't know why the Fiat company dropped the A 76 which was only a bit larger than the A 74 but rated at 1000hp at altitude. It would have helped. Better cowlings, use of exhaust thrust would also have helped. development of a two speed supercharger would have helped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
8K
RCAFson
R
Top of the World (1955)
Replies
8
Views
1K
special ed
S
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
424
CHen10
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register