WW2 non-combat aircraft that saw combat?

Eastern Front some more...

K-5
Civilian transport originally considered as a "backbone"of early Aeroflot. Used by VVS during the war.

MP-1 (passenger), MP-1T (transport).
Design is almost identical to MBR-2 marine bomber/recon so often confused with the latter. (Note MBR-2 Wiki picture actually shows MP-1).
However it was designed and produced separately and exclusively as civilian.
Have been used to replace losses of MBR-2 as a stop gap measure until arrival of lend leased equipment.

Sh-2
Designed in 1929. Considered obsolete already in early 1930s, production stopped in 1934, almost disappeared before WWII.
Production resumed in 1941 and output divided between military and civilian needs.
Trivia: produced until 1952, operated until 1964. Quite an achievement for 1920s design.

PS-35(ANT-35)
"High speed" airliner. Operated by Aeroflot in domestic and international lines. In VVS service as liason and transport aircraft in 1941-1944.

Some great responses there, folks. I'm going to throw in the Malayan Volunteer Air Force comprising:

Avro Avian
Avro Cadet
Avro Tutor
BA Eagle
DH Dragon/Rapide
DH Hawk Moth
DH Hornet Moth
DH Leopard Moth
DH Moth Major
DH Moth Minor
DH Tiger Moth
Miles Falcon
Miles Whitney Straight


Incidentally, if there were any notably actions involving any of the aircraft y'all are mentioning, please feel free to include them. I think it takes a particular kind of bravery to fly aircraft of the types we're discussing in a combat environment.

Does this count?

Tieleader said:

Does this count?

Click to expand...

Absolutely! That's a classic example of where my head was going when I started this thread. The Bucker Bestmann is even more extreme than the MVAF example I posted. Strapping Panzerfausts onto a fixed-undercarriage trainer is clear evidence of the desperation being felt in Germany towards the end of the WW2...and certainly was not in the designer's mind back in the late-30s when the Bestmann was being imagined.

Not sure if strapping Panzerfausts to a Bücker is last ditch as much as it is innovative.

Remember, Lt.Col. Carpenter did the same thing with his Piper J-3 Cub (L-4 Grasshopper).

Nordyn Norse probably fits here as well.

Dimlee said:

Li-2 (former PS-84, originated from DC-3). Most probably there were no plans for military use before June 1941. After the German invasion, some 1,100 of militarised version were produced. Used in various roles, including night bomber.

Click to expand...

Now, I was wondering when someone would mention the PS-84. The statement that there were no plans for military use before 1941 is not true, sorry Dimlee. Military versions were proposed almost immediately on the type being used in the Soviet Union. The first military version to be built was a pure transport, in 1939, but the first combat variants, i.e. a bomber was proposed as early as 1937, although metal was not cut for some time afterwards.

The Li-2 night bomber evolved into more than just a mere conversion of a civil airliner that had already rolled off the production line. Again, like the Polikarpov U-2/Po-2 that we discussed earlier, the PS-84 was built as a bomber, well, actually a bomber transport (like the Ju 52/3m). The earliest bomber conversions had their bombs on racks under the centre section, but during the war a more ambitious bomber design was built, the first being completed in late 1944. The Li-2VP had an internal bomb bay, defensive turret and a bomb aimer's station just aft of the captain's seat. The bombs were stored in two cartridges just aft of the flight deck that exited the aircraft ahead of the wing with opening doors in this position. There were also pylons mounted on the centre section. The bomb aimer aimed his bombs through glazing in the small baggage loading door behind the captain's seat. The door could be opened concertina like to provide a space where a crude bomb sight could be swung to view below the aircraft.

Probably the best source of info on this much misunderstood (in the West anyway) aircraft is Yefim Gordon, Sergey and Dmitiry Komissarov's excellent book Lisunov Li-2; the Soviet DC-3.

On the subject of DC-3s in the Soviet Union, this aircraft below is not what it seems; it was built as a C-47 in the USA but saw service in the Soviet Union, being reengined with AS-62 engines, which warranted a change in designation to TS-62. Numerous DC-3s were imported to the Soviet Union during the war and many of them were so modified; this one ending up in China.

DSC_6667

nuuumannn said:

Now, I was wondering when someone would mention the PS-84. The statement that there were no plans for military use before 1941 is not true, sorry Dimlee. Military versions were proposed almost immediately on the type being used in the Soviet Union. The first military version to be built was a pure transport, in 1939, but the first combat variants, i.e. a bomber was proposed as early as 1937, although metal was not cut for some time afterwards.

The Li-2 night bomber evolved into more than just a mere conversion of a civil airliner that had already rolled off the production line. Again, like the Polikarpov U-2/Po-2 that we discussed earlier, the PS-84 was built as a bomber, well, actually a bomber transport (like the Ju 52/3m). The earliest bomber conversions had their bombs on racks under the centre section, but during the war a more ambitious bomber design was built, the first being completed in late 1944. The Li-2VP had an internal bomb bay, defensive turret and a bomb aimer's station just aft of the captain's seat. The bombs were stored in two cartridges just aft of the flight deck that exited the aircraft ahead of the wing with opening doors in this position. There were also pylons mounted on the centre section. The bomb aimer aimed his bombs through glazing in the small baggage loading door behind the captain's seat. The door could be opened concertina like to provide a space where a crude bomb sight could be swung to view below the aircraft.

Probably the best source of info on this much misunderstood (in the West anyway) aircraft is Yefim Gordon, Sergey and Dmitiry Komissarov's excellent book Lisunov Li-2; the Soviet DC-3.

Click to expand...

Although, I have a feeling that if Stalin asked the question "Can it do X?", then the answer was "Yes".
So most aircraft would have been 'designed' as military aircraft.

Shortround6 said:

C-47 gun ports.
View attachment 536496
They allowed the troops on board to fire their personal weapons out the windows.

I am sure it was done on a few occasions.

Click to expand...

And the RAAF had a Dakota Order or Instruction to fit two 303 Brownings in the nose.

gumbyk said:

So most aircraft would have been 'designed' as military aircraft.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. No question about that. The DC-3 was a world away from what the Soviets were building in the mid 1930s and the Soviets benefitted enormously from its advances once it got on the production line. it was only natural that military variants be considered. It's interesting to note that the Li-2 was slower and with Russian built engines less reliable than the DC-3 and US built variants often joined Li-2s in transport units and they were always far more reliable, faster, easier to maintain, hardier in rough weather etc, the last one slightly ironic all things considered.

nuuumannn said:

The DC-3 was a world away from what the Soviets were building in the mid 1930s

Click to expand...

One of the aircraft mentioned by Dimlee in post #21 is the Tupolev ANT-35. I'd never heard of it before, but it looks quite impressive for 1936. Although it's not quite up to the DC-3, it's at least in the same ballpark as the DC-2, Boeing 247 etc. Certainly I wouldn't say it's a world away from the DC-3.

KiwiBiggles said:

Certainly I wouldn't say it's a world away from the DC-3.

Click to expand...

yes indeed, it certainly did incorporate modern features, but it wasn't so much the design or even what it was made of, but the manufacturing process itself. Also, the ANT-35 was not your typical Soviet airliner. Only 9 were initially built in 1937 with a further 11 two years later. Not exactly mass production.

To add to that, Tupolev was certainly the leader in Russia in terms of all metal construction and production techniques, with a few others attempting such designs. The introduction of modern production techniques resulted in ill-starred types, such as the ANT-43, which was an advanced all metal 7 seat high speed monoplane, but it was considered dangerous and the research institutes refused to certify it. It didn't help that by this time Tupolev was in a gulag!

Junkers also built all metal aircraft that served in Russia for many years, but by and large, by the mid 1930s, the basic welded steel tube, with wooden wings and covered in fabric resembling Fokker F.VIIbs etc was the norm for aircraft design. When the DC-3 was licence built, it took the company a long time to sort out manufacturing techniques, resulting in production not yielding results until a few years later. Nevertheless, the Russian system being the way it was, the research institutes shared accumulated knowledge to the extent that the impact the DC-3 had meant that manufacturers could now/then build modern designs using mass production techniques whereas beforehand they had not been able to do so.

Certainly the likes of Ilyushin and Petlyakov were working on metal designs at the time the DST first flew, as was certainly the trend, but production was slow because the aircraft were hand made; each one being quite different to one another, rather than true series production. The DC-3 also offered avionics that Russian aviation had never heard of before. Of course modern direction finding networks also relied on ground based radio transmitters, which the Russians certainly didn't have.

Contrary to popular belief, Russian aviation was not backward in concept, but was in application and basic technology. Stalin, for all his wickedness introduced modernity and industrialisation to a largely agrarian state, although it did come at enormous cost. Nevertheless, designers were as clever and capable as anywhere else in the world. Thriving in a society like that of Stalinist Russia was particularly fraught with difficulty, however. The B-29 saga is an example of just how much the Russians had to learn about the West, to the extent of stifling her own designers' abilities. The unlicence building of the B-29 was a huge leap in knowledge for the Russians and almost every post WW2 big aircraft has a small element of B-29 DNA.

GrauGeist said:

Not sure if strapping Panzerfausts to a Bücker is last ditch as much as it is innovative.

Remember, Lt.Col. Carpenter did the same thing with his Piper J-3 Cub (L-4 Grasshopper).

View attachment 536528

Click to expand...

She was recently acquired by the Collings Foundation from a museum in Austria and will be restored to flying condition in the near future. Her final home will be at the AHM in Stow. Massachusetts. Cool thing his granddaughter,who is a commercial artist, will be doing the artwork. Damn, was looking forward to doing that one myself...

Sorry that I beat ya' to it.

But there's others very much like it *hint*

Oooo, saw this:


Like the first comment: "Recon plane on recon plane violence has GOT TO STOP."

That Grasshopper was lucky as hell that the Fi156 wasn't a "C" model, as those had the MG15 facing to the rear for defense.

GrauGeist said:

That Grasshopper was lucky as hell that the Fi156 wasn't a "C" model, as those had the MG15 facing to the rear for defense.

Click to expand...

Didn't all Storchs at least have stowage for MP40s? Better than nothing!

GrauGeist said:

Sorry that I beat ya' to it.

But there's others very much like it *hint*

Click to expand...

?