Various Aircraft Specifications for a Video Game Mod

Wurger · Jun 14, 2021

It looks llike. The FAB 1000 bombs were attached to the external racks only.

the pic source: the net.

MiTasol · Jun 15, 2021

There is a very good site for Russian WW2 (and other periods) aircraft manuals Aviarestorer.ru It is part of the Monino museum complex.
It has great material but is solely in Russian so makes searching very difficult for me.

Dimlee · Jun 15, 2021

Darthtabby said:
I was wondering why the bis designation showed up in both Italian and Soviet aircraft designations...

Speaking of which, what sources would people recommend for Soviet WWII aircraft? Not only for specifications, but just getting an overview of what models/variants existed and when they entered service.

If you can survive Google translation:
Уголок неба - Большая авиационная энциклопедия
It is old and a bit chaotic in the descriptions of variants of the base models, but still good.

Darthtabby · Jun 17, 2021

Wurger said:
I see. Here is a chart from the Medved and Khazanov book " Дальний бомбардировщик Ер-2 - самолет несбывшихся надежд". It says that the bombload was the standard one - 1000kg and the maximal one - 3000kg. However please note the small digit "1" at the DB-240 line. Below the chart there is a note that these are the calculated data. In the text it is stated that the bomb bay was designed for 2000kg load that what was 1000kg more than the DB-3F could take. What is more, the description of the DB-240 trials says that the 1000kg load was used for all tests in flight. Generally the Russian sources state that the 1000kg load was the basic one for all the Yer-2 variants. The 3000kg was the maximal one for them, except of the late variant powered by the ACh-30B engines that is said to be of the 5000kg although the standard load was still the same. Well, according to the book, the bombload depended on the amount of the fuel that was going to be taken. And this determinated the range. I guess that the 4000kg could be attached as the overloading with decreased amount of fuel drasticly. Although the AM-37 engines could give the possibility very likely. But the M-105 engines used for the DB-240 and the first series of 71 Yer-2s ( it was the same like the DB-240 prototypes ) were of too less power to provide the possibility of the larger bombload. Therefore the 2000kg bomb as the maximal bombload for the DB-240 sounds good and the additional 1000kg if overloaded with already decreased range for the initail Yer-2s as well. Of course there is still a problem of the distance for the aircraft starting up. The one for the DB-240/Yer-2 wasn't quite too short for an airfield during the war as memo serves.

View attachment 627337

Here is a diagram of the configuration of the bombload ...

View attachment 627353

and here is the same but showing the fuel amount with the range for the Yer-2 powered by the ACh-30B engines.

View attachment 627354
the source: the mentioned above book.

Thank you, those are very detailed sources! I've been able to figure out what most of the munition types on the first chart are through google though I'm still not sure what the П designation refers to and whether the АБК-240 is a cluster bomb or a dispenser.

There's something I'm wondering about regarding some of the rare late war Pe-2 variants. Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War talks about a high speed version of the Pe-2 called the Pe-2I. It says the Pe-2I had a two man crew, an internal bomb bay capable of carrying bombs larger then 100kg, and a maximum bomb load of 1500kg. However the data tables at the end of the book list two versions of the Pe-2I: a 1944 version that matches the one in the write up, and a 1945 version with a crew of three and a 3000kg maximum bomb load (the data table also lists the Pe-2M variant as having a 3000kg bomb load). I am wondering if there was actually a versions of the Pe-2I with a three man crew that could carry a 3000kg bomb load or whether the data table is in error. Do you have any sources about the Pe-2I and Pe-2M?

Wurger · Jun 17, 2021

If you meant the " П " = P used for the bomb ( eg.. П-40, П-250 ) it is an abbreviation for "практическая" - learning/training. Usually the kind of bomb had the concrete body.

The 43kg P-40 training bomb ...

Wurger · Jun 17, 2021

Just a note.. I was thought that the Pe-2 bombload was 500/600-1000kg but never 3000kg. It has to be mistake IMHO.

Regarding the Pe-2I... which one are you interested in? As memo serves there were two or three modifications marked with the "I" . The first one was created by the factory no.22 in August 1941. They used the Pe-2 plane no.5 of the 33 series just from assembling line. It was quite similar to the Pe-3 fighter but armed much heavy. Instead of the bomb bay there was installed a gun pod with 2x 20mm ShVAK cannons with 160 rounds per a gun. The nose armament was the same like for the serial Pe-2. The bombload about 700 kg. It was two seater like the Pe-3. There was installed a 240 l fuel tank at the radio operato's compartment. The capacity of the fuel tanks in the wing middle section was increased of 70l. It appeared that it wasn't enough to get the range 2000 km. Therefore they used two 180l additional external fuel tanks mounted to the two middle bomb racks jettisoned when empty. The air brakers were remove and the "fighter" type radio set was installed like for the Pe-3. Also the bottom ShKAS MG was replaced with fixed BT heavy MG. According to the factory no.22 the variant was slightly better than the Pe-3 but it appeared that during the trials for speed, ascent and altitude , the plane was tested without the external fuel tanks. As a result the lack of the external fuel tanks and decreased weight caused the less aerodynamic drag while the Pe-3 was tested with the full taking off weight and the same configuration. During the dogfight trials the Pe-2I appeared not too maneuverable at the horizontal fight and got in trouble with the MiG-3 fighter. So the plane never intorduced the assembling lines.

Here the data for the 1941 plane ...

the source: Петляков Пе-2И

and here for the model 1944 ... which was a different plane designed by V.M Myasishchev but not by Petlyakov although it was very similar to the Pe-2 as it was based on ..

the source: Мясищев ПЕ-2И Пикирующий бомбардировщик | World Of Man Dreams

Darthtabby · Jun 18, 2021

Thanks. I also think the 3000kg bomb load listed for the 1945 (but not 1944) Pe-2I and Pe-2M is probably a mistake, but I also thought the 4000-5000kg bomb load for the Yer-2 was a mistake and it turned out to be true (at least in the case of the later ACh-30b powered aircraft) so I thought I'd check if you'd ever come across anything about it.

Apologies for not specifying which Pe-2I I meant: I was referring to the high speed bomber version with the VK-107 engines. And I think I just figured out why the data table I'm using has both a 1944 sample and 1945 sample for the Pe-2I: the write up mentions that a small series of five were built in February-May 1945 so the 1944 data is probably for the prototype (which largely matches the data chart you posted) and the 1945 data for the series aircraft. Though I'm starting to think if the game ends up including a VK-107 powered Pe-2 bomber it should be the Pe-2M just to avoid confusion between the fighter and bomber Pe-2I!

One other Pe-2 related question: since your sources mention some specific aircraft used in development, is there any mention of a No.15/95? The data tables in my source use it as example for 1942 production Pe-2s, but its unclear whether the aircraft is a FT or whether it has the Torov/VUB-1/B-270 turret (I also suspect that the aircraft is equipped with rocket rails due to its low top speed but I'm not entirely sure).

Again, thank you very much for you help so far!

Wurger · Jun 18, 2021

Actually the work on the Pe-2I started in 1943 and lasted to the 1944 what resulted in 5 planes built in that year. The Russian sources didn't say that the Pe-2I of 1944 was a high speed bomber. It was a modified diving bomber. The high speed bomber was the Pe-2M. The work on it started in 1944 and ended in the same year as memo serves. In the Spring of 1945 there were 4 planes made. The difference was that the plane was re-designed slightly. It was because of the attempt to fit the FAB-1000 bomb to the bomb bay . The serial Pe-2 had a small bomb bay rather where you could rack 4xFAB 100 bombs and it wasn't possible to put there a longer load. In order to do it Myasishchev changed the fuselage cross section form the round to the oval. The wing spar got its hight reduced in a half and was strengthened with a couple of steel strips. Additionally the fuselage was made longer. All that allowed to rack the FAB-1000 bomb into the bay. The other changings were introduced in order to get a better speed. The wing got the new aerofoil and became slightly larger to get the better lift. The serial Pe-2 had two bomb bays in each of the engine nacelles where it was possible to carry FAB-100 bombs. Myasishchev removed them what resulted in getting less weight. The external racks for bombs were left as the ordinary Pe-2 had. It means that there were two racks at the wing root with ability of attaching two FAB-500 bombs on each of the racks. And two racks between the engine nacelles and the wing root racks. There could be attached two FAB-250 bombs. As you may noticed the bombload for the serial Pe-2 was 4x FAB-100 in the central bomb bay + 2x FAB-100 in the nacelles +2x FAB-250+2x FAB-500 what is 2100kg. But not all bombs could be carried at the same time. The configuration depended on the target and way they wanted to destroy it. I have had a such chart with Pe-2 configurations for both the diving bombing and horizontal one. But I have to find it fistly.

There is a similar chart for the Pe-2I. As you may notice it could carry either 1xFAB-1000 or 2xFAB-500 or 2xFAB-250 or 9xFAB-100 in the bomb bay. But the bombload never was larger then the maximal one for the plane that was the 1500kg. However , according to a couple of Pe-2 plane books the second Pe-2I prototype was allowed to attach 2xFAB-250 or FAB-500 to the external racks. In the case the maximal bombload was increased to 2000kg. But all tests are said to be made either with the 500kg or 1000kg load.

And here the Pe-2M data ..

theh source: http://авиару.рф/aviamuseum/aviatsi...ik-pe-2/pikiruyushhij-bombardirovshhik-pe-2m/

Wurger · Jun 18, 2021

BTW.. why are you interested in the Pe-2 no. 15/95? The FT version started with the 110 serie.

Darthtabby · Jun 19, 2021

Wurger Thanks for the additional info on the Pe-2M. My referring to the Pe-2I as a "high speed bomber" is because my main source for Soviet bombers (Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War by Gordon Yefim and Dmitri Khazanov) mentioned it being likened to the British De Havilland Mosquito. Here's what that book says about the I and M variants:

P.128-129 said:
Myasishchev then devised a radical modernisation, the Pe-2I, which promised great advances in performance and combat characteristics, in addition to subtle improvement of the production Pe-2 by a considerable number of minor modifications. There was no connection between this version and the Pe-2I (Istrebitel -fighter, or literally 'destroyer') designed in August 1941. Myasishchev's Pe-2I was clearly a further development of the Pe-2F, and repeated the latter concept in its general features: more powerful engines (VK-107As in 1944) and a bigger bomb load (bombs of up to 220lb/100kg in the internal bays), owing to the adoption of the mid-wing configuration. But other componenets and systems of the Pe-2I were also changed. The aircraft became a two-seater, a mounting for a remote-controlled UBK machine gun (from the VI) was installed in the tail, and the wing structure was changed to that of the last version of the Pe-2B, giving it a significantly higher angle of tattack.
The Pe-2I's performance was impressive. It had a maximum speed of 407mph (656km/h) at altitude and 343mph (552km/h) at sea level, climbed to 16,400ft (5000m) in 7.1 minutes and had a range of 1,317 miles (2120km). It was often described as the 'Soviet Mosquito' or the 'Pe-2I Mosquito', likening its operational versatility to that of the celebrated high speed British fighter/bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. Its poor take-off and landing performance was a drawback, as was the non-completion of the remote-control gun mount, series production of which was achieved only with great difficulty.
Being preoccupied with this significant aircraft, Myashishchev and the leaders of the People's Commissariat of the Aircraft Industry missed the opportunity to introduce the new F3 cockpit canopy into series production. This was a big mistake. More than a year was lost hoping for a quick introduction of the Pe-2I into production. Throughout 1944 and even at the beginning of 1945 the military specialists of the NII VVS insisted on the necessity of the F1 conversion, as well as the adoption fo the cockpit as fitted to aircraft No.7/187, but the People's Commissariat of the Aircraft Industry and the leadership of Plant No.22, as though hypnotized by anticipation of the Pe-2I entering large scale production, deferred this requirement and did not take the necessary measures. But production of the Pe-2I never became a flood; there was only a trickle of five aircraft in a small series completed during February-May 1945. These aircraft did not reach the Front and were never used in combat.
The next intended production version became the simplified Pe-2M, which had significantly more powerful defensive armament (in response to the requirements of the military) combrpising one fixed UB-20 cannon and two of the same weapons in the navigator's turret and in the newly introduced gunner/radio operator's position. This variant was short-lived; an edict requiring that work on combat version of the Pe-2 should cease sealed it's fate in June 1945.

(The increased bomb size of 100kg is clearly an error, though I'm surprised it was supposed to be 1000kg -the write up on the earlier Pe-2F prototype said its enlarged bomb bay could take two FAB-250s or one FAB-500. Your source indicates the Pe-2I could carry even more then that internally.)

The book is also one of several sources I've read that suggested dive bombing with the Pe-2 was phased out though unlike some it does not claim that the air brakes were deleted on later aircraft (except for recon models):

P.119 said:
The peculiarities of the VISh-61B control system caused overspeeding of the propellers on entry into a dive, giving rise to unpleasant experiences for pilots. The slowness of the emergency undercarriage extension was also frustrating, but the badly designed air brake flap emergency retraction mechanism turned out to be the most dangerous fault. Although this deficiency might have been quite tolerable in peacetime, it assumed sudden importance with the beginning of war, and was one of the reasons why Pe-2 crew stopped using the aircraft as a dive bomber. If the air brake flaps could not be retracted using the main system after recovery from a dive, the aircraft became easy prey to fighters and flak, being unable to exceed 260-280km/h.

I generally considered the write ups in the book pretty good, it was more the accuracy of the data tables at the end of the book I was worried about. It does seem to be in disagreement with your sources in a few places though, such as the year the five series Pe-2Is were built. It also said that the FT mount was an improvised mount installed on the 87 Series Pe-2s (the book doesn't actually mention the 110 Series, another source I found indicated the 110 series used the VUB-1). Can you see anything else your sources disagree with?

P.122 said:
Together with three employees from of the bureau, Selyakov designed a new mounting with a 12.7mm UBT machine gun, using components of the MV-2 hatch mounting. The design was given the official marking 'FT' (Frontovoye Trabovaniye, or 'front requires'. The Pe-2 with the FT or 'Front Task' gun mounting (see the later section on the experimental versions of the Pe-2) differed in shape owing to the absence of the navigator's retractable screen, or 'tortoise.' The turret with its large calibre machine gun replaced the TSS-1 mounting, and fuselage station F2 above the fuel tank was covered by a door.
Although the wind blew strongly into the permanently opened navigator's cockpit, especially in winter, this had to be tolerated. But the UBT quickly taught German fighter pilots not to approach the Pe-2 too closely from behind. The FT allowed the same firing angles as the TSS-1: elevation 45°, right to left movement of 45°, and downward to 6°. The ammunition load of 200 rounds was contained in two removable boxes.
The main advantage of the FT mounting was the ease with which it could be installed in aircraft on site, requiring onl four to six working hours by two specialists. Aircraft built at Plant No.22 began to come of the assembly line with the FT mounting from the 87th series batch.
Everybody realised that the FT mounting was far from ideal, and could be considered only as a temporary measure. By the spring of 1942, Special Plant No.22 had devised its own version of the upper movable mount for the Pe-2, with the UBT machine gun and a constant belt feed; the so called 'Torov mounting' (also designated VUB-1 or B-270). The UBK machine gun with pneumatic recharging was installed on the production VUB-1 instead of the UBT, because the long belt of 200 cartridges often broke during the first shots owing to the increased drag in the feed tube. THe mounting rested upon a cast iron gear wheel and was covered with a movable tower like screen, and theoretically offered significantly greater angles of fire compared with the FT; 110° to the left, 88° to the right and up to 55° upwards. Later it became clear that even physically strong gunners were unable to deflect the machine gun more than 45 to 50° to either side because of the pressure of the airflow on the barrel. Some time later an aerodynamic balance comprising two and later one 'petal' positioned above the screen was installed in the turret. The prototype turret was installed for the first time in the Pe-2F, and a similar firing position was then fitted to a Pe-3bis from Plant No.39. During the test programme of the Pe-3bis it became evident that the VUB-2 mounting reduced the 'Pawn's' maximum speed by 4.9 to 7.4mph (8 to 12km/h) compared with the TSS-1 mounting installed in earlier production aircraft.

As for No.15/95, the reason I am interested in that aircraft is because my source uses it as a representative 1942 production aircraft in its data tables, but I'm not sure which production Series it was part of or whether it had the FT mount or VUB-1 turret. Though perhaps I'm worrying a little too much about little details at this point.

Thank you very much for your help so far.

Wurger · Jun 19, 2021

I see. There is a couple of books by Khazanov and Medved about the Pe-2. No wonder these are almost of the same info due to their authors. The mistakes can happen while translating just as the 220lb/100kg typo. Of course it should have been the 2200lb/1000kg. Also the "2xFAB250 or FAB500" .. it is a kind of interpretation of the sentence. It may mean 2x250 or 1x500 but it can also mean 2x250 or 2x500. In the second case the external racks could carry 2x500kg=10000kg what with the FAB1000 in the bomb bay, would give the 2000kg totally. And in the same way you may translate the sentence of the Pe-2F bombload. So either 1xFAB500 or 2xFAB250 or 6xFAB100 could be racked in the bomb bay. But it doesn't mean that the configuration was used. Especilly the they had to give up the engin nacelle bays.
As a result the old basic 600kg bombload was still used for the main bomb bay. However it was possible to use the outer underwing racks where it was possible to attach 2xFAB500. And this gave the 1500kg ( 600+2x500 ) bombload that was the overweight actually.

Darthtabby · Jun 19, 2021

Wurger I tried running a few pages from that Russian online aviation museum you linked to through google translate. According to the translations the Pe-2F could carry 1xFAB-500, 2xFAB-250, or six "hundred parts" (I presume that means a 100kg bomb) while the Pe-2I has a lengthened bomb bay that could accommodate 9xFAB-100, 2xFAB-250 or 1x FAB-500M43 or FAB-1000M43 (the FAB-500M43 and FAB-1000M43 apparently required clipped stabilizers to fit -the Pe-2M had a further enlarged bomb bay that could accommodate an "uncut" FAB-1000M43). Perhaps that illustration of the Pe-2I with two bombs in the bomb bay is for FAB-250s?

The site also suggests that the Pe-2FT designation was never actually official. Maybe that's why some sources seem to indicate it referred to the improvised dorsal 12.7mm mount and others to the VUB-1 turret?

The pages on that online air museum you linked to actually look like they could be very useful, especially when I start getting to aircraft that the Yefim and Khazanov book I've been using doesn't cover (the book is actually the second part of a two volume set but I don't have the first volume which covers single engine fighters).

MiTasol · Jun 19, 2021

Look on bookfinder.com for the missing volume and compare book prices, including shipping, from over 100,000 booksellers worldwide.

Surprisingly you can often find a new copy of what you seek for less (even very much less) than used copies

Wurger · Jun 20, 2021

Darthtabby said:
Wurger I tried running a few pages from that Russian online aviation museum you linked to through google translate. According to the translations the Pe-2F could carry 1xFAB-500, 2xFAB-250, or six "hundred parts" (I presume that means a 100kg bomb) while the Pe-2I has a lengthened bomb bay that could accommodate 9xFAB-100, 2xFAB-250 or 1x FAB-500M43 or FAB-1000M43 (the FAB-500M43 and FAB-1000M43 apparently required clipped stabilizers to fit -the Pe-2M had a further enlarged bomb bay that could accommodate an "uncut" FAB-1000M43). Perhaps that illustration of the Pe-2I with two bombs in the bomb bay is for FAB-250s?

The site also suggests that the Pe-2FT designation was never actually official. Maybe that's why some sources seem to indicate it referred to the improvised dorsal 12.7mm mount and others to the VUB-1 turret?

The pages on that online air museum you linked to actually look like they could be very useful, especially when I start getting to aircraft that the Yefim and Khazanov book I've been using doesn't cover (the book is actually the second part of a two volume set but I don't have the first volume which covers single engine fighters).

Which picture of the Pe-2I with the bomb you meant? Also what book?

And yes the Pe-2I had the lengthened bomb bay comparing to the Pe-2F. Below the extract from the Medved/Khazanov's book (Armada 18) vol2 for the Pe-2 plane. It says exactly the same you did above. Because of the longer/ larger bomb bay the Pe-2I could take 9xFAB100 instead of the 6xFAB100 for the Pe-2F. Also I agree that the FAB1000 bomb had to be shortened slightly by clipping of the "tail". However, according to the text below, the FAB500 had to be trimmed too. Additionally there was possible to attach 2xFAB500 on the outside MDZ-40 racks or smaller bombs.

Also I agree with you that the Pe-2M had more lenghtened bomb bay and the FAB1000 didn't have to be shortened. In the drawings for both variants it can be noticed that the bomb bay was slightly longer for the M version at about a section between the two bulkheads of the fuselage.

the source: Мясищев Пе-2М

Regarding the FT variant... as memo serves the abbreviation has meant either the "фронтовой тяжелый" - front-line heavy or "фронтовое требование" - front-line demand. IMHO the second translation is more relevant to the idea of the modification of the Pe-2. It wasn't any new plane but just a modification of existed weapon mount with changing of the armamaent. Below an extract from the Medved/Khazanov's book (Armada 13) vol1 for the Pe-2. According to them the FT mount was started to be attached in limited number with the 83 serie by the factory no.22. With the 87 series it was attached for all planes. But the factory no.39 didn't start mounting them because in the Spring 1942 they , earlier than the no.22, started attaching of the VUB-1. Because the factory no.22 made about 1000 FT mounts and another factory made 1010 of them , the part of FT mounts was attached to the Pe-2s of early series. Also they prepared a number of the FT sets for attaching in the field workshops of all VVS units. Therefore the 110 series of the Pe-2FT seems to be correct although the 87th one sounds good too. I would say it may depend on the factory.

Vic Nighthorse · Jun 20, 2021

Darthtabby said:
Hello All,

I'd recently started helping to do some aircraft research for a Hearts of Iron IV (video game) mod called Ultra. Ultra's raison d'etre is providing a more historically accurate industry model, but it also aims to replace the base game's generic air units with nationally unique, more historically accurate ones. Since I'm likely to have to seek information on a lot of different aircraft over the course of my research I thought it would be best to make a single general thread rather then one for each specific type of plane.

HOI4 is quite a moving target. You are ambitious to put the effort into a mod. I play it about once a year and my mods are almost all non-compatible every time I play. It is even worse if you layer it with Black Ice. Good luck though. Guys like you make the game better even if only temporarily.

Darthtabby · Jun 26, 2021

Sorry for the long gap in my replies. Got a bit busy.

Vic Nighthorse said:
HOI4 is quite a moving target. You are ambitious to put the effort into a mod. I play it about once a year and my mods are almost all non-compatible every time I play. It is even worse if you layer it with Black Ice. Good luck though. Guys like you make the game better even if only temporarily.

Thanks, although I'm actually just a researcher so I'm not involved with the programming side of things. There has been some discussion about how they're going to handle the upcoming Barbarossa update though. Which among other things is promising a new logistics system and tank designer...

Wurger said:
Regarding the FT variant... as memo serves the abbreviation has meant either the "фронтовой тяжелый" - front-line heavy or "фронтовое требование" - front-line demand. IMHO the second translation is more relevant to the idea of the modification of the Pe-2. It wasn't any new plane but just a modification of existed weapon mount with changing of the armamaent. Below an extract from the Medved/Khazanov's book (Armada 13) vol1 for the Pe-2. According to them the FT mount was started to be attached in limited number with the 83 serie by the factory no.22. With the 87 series it was attached for all planes. But the factory no.39 didn't start mounting them because in the Spring 1942 they , earlier than the no.22, started attaching of the VUB-1. Because the factory no.22 made about 1000 FT mounts and another factory made 1010 of them , the part of FT mounts was attached to the Pe-2s of early series. Also they prepared a number of the FT sets for attaching in the field workshops of all VVS units. Therefore the 110 series of the Pe-2FT seems to be correct although the 87th one sounds good too. I would say it may depend on the factory.

View attachment 629190

My main source indicated that "Special Plant No.22" came up with the turret but that could well be an error. It does not it was installed on a Pe-3Bis from Plant No.39 for testing. My general impression from various sources was that work on the turret was already underway but it didn't become a production standard until after the FT mount.

Do you know anything about how common dive brakes were on the Tu-2? I've read that on the Tu-2S they were changed from standard to optional equipment. But I've also read that they were removed even earlier in production. (Some sources also indicate that dive brakes were eliminated on later production Pe-2s as well.)

Also do you know if the Tu-2 employed torpedoes during WWII? My understanding is that the torpedo bomber versions of the aircraft did not go into production, but I've also read that torpedoes were used. I'm wondering if maybe standard Tu-2s aircraft were fitted with torpedo bombing equipment, kind of like how modified Tu-2S were used as scout planes before the development of the Tu-2R/Tu-6 variant.

Wurger · Jun 26, 2021

Regarding the turret made by the factory no.22... the idea of the Pe-2 armed with the UB heavy MG was just invented in the factory. But, the FT wasn't the turret but actually the MG mount only. They started arming Pe-2s with the UB MG mount with the 83rd series and continued with the 87th one and next.

Here is a shot of the FT mount ...

However beginning the 110th series the rear gunner station got a rotary glass "hood" and became the turret that was marked as the VUB-1. Below the turret.

The next turret was the experimental VUB-2 turret open partially that was abandoned for the VUB-1 one.

And the Pe-3bis got the VUB-3 ...

Wurger · Jun 26, 2021

Regarding the air brakers ... as memo serves the Tu-2 prototypes , I mean the 103, 103U, 103V, 103VS had them for sure. The 103VS became the serial made Tu-2. The initail assembled planes by the factory no.166 in Omsk had them too. They made about 80 planes in 1942/1943 only. See the pic below...

the pic source: the Internet.

However here is a shot of the 103V during the state trials in June 1942. It can be clearly noticed that the air braker was remove and its slot was covered with a rectangular plate. According to my notes in a notebook I made years ago, the OKB found them unnecessary. What is more they considered them harmful ( deterioration of the aircraft maneuverability, increased drag, weight, cost, maintenance complexity ). As a result the air brakers were removed from the next Tu-2 versions.

the pic source: the Internet.

The Tu-2 employed torpedoes during WWII ... to be honest I haven't heard or found any info about the using. The Tu-2 was introduced in a small number initially and all the new bombers were sent to Army or VVS regiments firstly. If I remind myself correctly , at the beginning of the war , the Soviet Navy used SB, DB-3F(IL-4), DB-3, AR-2. From 1942 the DB-3T and Il-4T as the torpedo planes. But the Tu-2 was used as a bomber. At the end of war the Aviation of the Soviet Navy consisted of 10% torpedo planes, 8% bombers, 17% sturmoviks, 50% fighters ,15% scaut planes.

MiTasol · Jun 26, 2021

That is a much larger aircraft than I thought it was.
This thread is a great source of info on a number of types I knew only by name.
Thank you to all the participants for expanding my knowledge.

Darthtabby · Jun 29, 2021

Wurger said:
Regarding the air brakers ... as memo serves the Tu-2 prototypes , I mean the 103, 103U, 103V, 103VS had them for sure. The 103VS became the serial made Tu-2. The initail assembled planes by the factory no.166 in Omsk had them too. They made about 80 planes in 1942/1943 only. See the pic below...

View attachment 629974
the pic source: the Internet.

However here is a shot of the 103V during the state trials in June 1942. It can be clearly noticed that the air braker was remove and its slot was covered with a rectangular plate. According to my notes in a notebook I made years ago, the OKB found them unnecessary. What is more they considered them harmful ( deterioration of the aircraft maneuverability, increased drag, weight, cost, maintenance complexity ). As a result the air brakers were removed from the next Tu-2 versions.

View attachment 629976
the pic source: the Internet.

The Tu-2 employed torpedoes during WWII ... to be honest I haven't heard or found any info about the using. The Tu-2 was introduced in a small number initially and all the new bombers were sent to Army or VVS regiments firstly. If I remind myself correctly , at the beginning of the war , the Soviet Navy used SB, DB-3F(IL-4), DB-3, AR-2. From 1942 the DB-3T and Il-4T as the torpedo planes. But the Tu-2 was used as a bomber. At the end of war the Aviation of the Soviet Navy consisted of 10% torpedo planes, 8% bombers, 17% sturmoviks, 50% fighters ,15% scaut planes.

Thank you for your answers.

Part of the reason I asked about the dive brakes is because of some pages from the online aviation museum you linked to earlier that I tried translating with google. This page on the Tu-2S indicated that the dive brakes were no longer standard equipment, but could be fitted as optional equipment. I am wondering if the optional dive brakes were ever actually fitted in the field.

Another page on the same site suggests dive brakes may have been removed even on earlier aircraft however.

Google Translate said:
The order forced the OKB to start urgently designing a new propeller-driven group and a number of associated units. The work of about 1,500 drawings was completed by January 1942. By December 1, the Design Bureau sent to the plant to take the necessary measures "Considerations for the construction of production aircraft" 103 "with M-82A engines". They gave a detailed list of changes for individual units. Here are some of them in general:
- engine mounts and engine nacelles are radically changing;
- the cannon compartment is separated by a bulkhead from the rest of the caisson, due to the placement of a gas tank there;
- due to the broadening of the engine nacelle, the hinged panel and landing flaps are shortened;
- the landing gear lift cylinder increases in diameter due to ski positioning;
- brake grilles are lost from the 6th car;
- the scheme of the gas line and drainage is being changed in connection with the installation of new tanks;
- the system of water cooling and air cooling is removed.
The following units remain unchanged: the central and tail parts of the fuselage, empennage, lights, tail wheel.

Though I guess there's nothing really contradictory about both Tu-2 and Tu-2S not having air brakes. It just seemed a bit odd to list the removal as a change on the Tu-2S if the brakes were already removed on the Tu-2.

I agree it's very unlikely the Tu-2 was being used as a torpedo bomber by naval aviation if all the Tu-2s were going to the VVS. So the blog that claimed they were being used as torpedo bombers was probably wrong. Thank you for clarifying. Also thanks for the breakdown on the composition of naval aviation.

Do you know if the DB-3T and/or IL-4T carried extra fuel compared to their standard bomber counterparts? Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War lists the range of the DB-3T as 1800km while I've found a figure of 3800km for the Il-4T online. The first figure is much lower then the range figures listed for standard DB-3s and makes me wonder if someone made an error while typing, while the later figure is actually a little higher then the range usually listed for a standard Il-4.

A very different question: was it common for Soviet fighters to use bombs and rockets to support ground troops, or was that mission left to the bombers and shturmoviks?

Various Aircraft Specifications for a Video Game Mod

Siggy Master

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Airman

Siggy Master

Siggy Master

Airman

Siggy Master

Siggy Master

Airman

Siggy Master

Airman

2nd Lieutenant

Siggy Master

Airman

Airman

Siggy Master

Siggy Master

2nd Lieutenant

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads