Franco-British vs. USSR in 1942

[wiking85]

The RAF in the UK at the beginning of 1942 is smaller than I thought it would be. RAF returns for November 1941 give a total of 4500 first line aircraft on the books and serviceable, of which about 2800 are in the UK. RAF numerical strength doesn't really begin to climb until late 1942.

I wonder, does anyone have VVS fighter and bomber strengths for pre-Barbarossa and strengths for mid-1942? Also production rates for their medium and heavy bombers?

I can project Armee de l'Air figures, but the VVS is a bit of a black hole.

Also, does anyone have Fleet Air Arm figures?

Axis and Soviet air operations during Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

13,000 – 14,000 aircraft

Order of battle for Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The issue is how much of that could be projected into Western Europe in 1942 given Soviet historical disorganization they were overcoming in 1941. The Allies have a lot shorter of a distance to project power and better infrastructure on their side. Plus they can use German ports like Hamburg and Kiel to supply positions in Germany/Central Europe, while the Soviets would have to hide in port from the RN in the Baltic.

Soviet aircraft production by type and year:
Soviet Aircraft Production by Aircraft Type and Factory, 1941-1945 - On Airpower
The only issue is that this is after Barbarossa and the damage that did to Soviet industry in 1941, so numbers would likely be higher.

What ALA figures do you have I can find any

 

[wiking85]

If the Soviets march into Berlin they get German radar tech which was excellent. Companies such as GEMA (Seetakt, Freya, the Jagdschloss PPI radars), Telefunken (Wurzburg series), Lorentz (Hohtenweil sea search and naval PPI radar) and Siemens (Mannheim FLAK radar).

The Germans can deal with microwaves on the receiving side but cant generate powerful ones, the Russians have invented a magnetron but can't process the signals very well. The two technologies might combine.

The Germans also developed a multi-cavity magnetron in 1935, but that didn't help them; IIRC it was better than the Soviet version, so it would likely not get them anywhere. Also it depends on how much the Germans keep in Berlin when the Soviets invade and how much they evacuate/destroy.

 

[wiking85]

The RAF in the UK at the beginning of 1942 is smaller than I thought it would be. RAF returns for November 1941 give a total of 4500 first line aircraft on the books and serviceable, of which about 2800 are in the UK. RAF numerical strength doesn't really begin to climb until late 1942.

I wonder what the loss rate would be if the fight in 1940 continued into 1941 non-stop and no BoB, rather a fight on the continent without the benefit of radar? Numbers might end up being lower.

I think the most likely alternative history that could lead to some sort of conflict between East and west is not as postulated. The most likely might be Hitler removed or assassinated 1939. Germany gets a peace party, restores Polish independence, accept disarmament and occupation. 1940 rolls around and the newly restored Polish Govt is placed under pressure by the Soviets. Soviets back off for a while, whilst they build their red fleet and replace their slaughtered officers. By 1942 they have their fleet, the largest air force in the world, control of the Baltic states, occupation of the whole of Finland, pressure on Sweden and Poland, as well as Rumania, a traditional French client. Yugoslavia sides with the USSR as well as Bulgaria. Turkey and Greece stay neutral. Poland allows French and British troops into her territory.

No way in hell. Stalin wanted to avoid fighting the united west as much as possible and your scenario would ensure that. In my scenario he thinks he can get away with a major expansion while the West has been too bloodied to resist him and would give him some consideration due to helping them beat Germany. But instead he blunders into war, thinking he could present a Fiat Accompli with minimal cost; your scenario ends up with him fighting the Allies without them having to fight at all and being totally unbloodied and ready to resist. Stalin again and again avoiding aggression in the West precisely to avoid dealing with the Allies at full power, plus with defeated Nazis never attacking he never goes for the major military expansion that resulted in historical numbers of a 10 million man army; Nazi aggression prompted that, plus the war experiences in the West caused them to modernize doctrine, otherwise they'd be stuck on the penny packet armor idea once Deep Battle was discredited in the Purges, so wouldn't think a decisive rapid advance was possible, hence making aggression stupid from their perspective.

 

[Koopernic]

The key word there is "developing" as many of the aircraft (and engines) never reached their intended performance. Or achieved it very late. Work started on the VK-107 engine in March of 1940. Granted production was interrupted by the war, however that excuse doesn't work for the the times production was stopped in late 1945 and in 1946 because of problems. The VK-107 only reached it's goal of 100hrs between overhauls in 1946.

The PE-8 was built to the tune of 93-96 aircraft (?) and used 4-5 different engine set-ups. The first prototype used four AM-34 engines supercharged by a M-100 engine in the fuselage. This wasn't working so well and production problems(?) with special model AM-34 engines forced a switch to the AM-35A engine. Desire for greater range saw both M-40 and M-30 diesel engines fitted. fuel system controls were rather basic and in the case of the M-40 engine if it cut out due to fuel delivery problems it could only be restarted below 1500 meters. Most planes built had the AM-35s because of greater reliability. Late production aircraft got M-82 radial engines. Speed and range are all over the map due to the different engines. A few of the very last ones got ACh-30B Diesels and while these were much better than the early diesels they still suffered from failures of the compressor bearings and piston rings. in 1943/44 pilots were said to "fondly remember the less powerful and economical but far more reliable AM-35A,"

BTW, range for the Mig-3 is also all over the place as there were several different fuel tank set ups. The Mig-1 started with a 88.8 gallon fuel capacity (that sure gives a vast improvement over a Spitfire-sarcasm) but space for a 54.9 gallon tank was found by repositioning the radiator. Unfortunately for long range escort plans, after the plane was armed with three 12.7mm mg and two 7.62s ( and 821 built that way) the deterioration in speed and handling was such that not only was it recommended to get rid of the under-wing guns but reduce the capacity of the rear tank by about 25 gallons and the center tank by about 11 gallons. Some performance figures for a late production plane are with 102-103 gallons of fuel. That sure isn't going to go far trying to escort PE-8s.

Id argue that in terms of 4 engine bombers the Soviets were not far behind the stage the RAF and USAAF was at the same time. Consider the state of the Manchester/Lancaster, Stirling and B-17D. Obviously with the German advance on the ground the Soviets had other issues to worry about than 4 engine bombers. They continued technical development

The MiG 3 had been optimised as a high altitude fighter. This was not what was needed and its AM38 engine was deemed more useful for the Ilyushin Il-2 stormovik

The Soviet Aircraft did have some irritating problems in 1941 but by mid 1942 they had been solved. A LaGG 5 was not inferior to western aircraft.

I will agree that the MiG 3 clearly had some handling difficulties. The solution might have been slats which have a remarkable effect of increasing the stall angle of a wing by 50%, this was tried experimentally but by then the engine production had been shifted to the Ilyushin Il-2 (Stormovik). It does look like the tail was a little too short as well.

If required the Pe-8 could have been produced. It's armament, range and bomb load was the equal of western aircraft. The Soviets had adequate and reliable engines, they merely needed to apply them.

The diesels did mature, but somewhat belatedly. The 2 engine Yermolayev Yer-2 had a remarkable range of 3,418 miles and might have provided a significant harassment as a night bomber.

 

[Koopernic]

The Germans also developed a multi-cavity magnetron in 1935, but that didn't help them; IIRC it was better than the Soviet version, so it would likely not get them anywhere. Also it depends on how much the Germans keep in Berlin when the Soviets invade and how much they evacuate/destroy.

I've researched this extensively, for an amateur, one day I'll put it all together. The GEMA company's first of what would be come "Seetakt" radars used a split anode magnetron of about 50cm wavelength and 4kW power. I successfully detected both aircraft and ships at 10-15 km. This magnetron wasn't completely stable which used to be irritating a force continuous manual tunning until the temperature had stabilised. The reality is that the multicavity magnetron of Randall Boot was also unstable, they merely developed a receiver that automatically retuned itself.

The actual mutlicavity magnetron was known to the Germans. At that time it was called a 'rad magnetron'. The word 'rad' means wheel, because the cavity was a little like a wagon wheel. I have a academic paper by Doring or Doering in which there is a picture of a 1940 Lorentz multicavity magnetron with the cicular cavities and narrow slots attributed to Randall and Boot.The Lorentz tube was only for generating a few watts of power for signal purposes. There was a 100W continuous tube built in 1939 by the company "Sanitas" who were generally know for their x-ray tubes. If operated in pulse mode with the right cathode coatings it probably would have produced 5kW at 18cm, which is pretty good for 1939 and would have made a good radar.

However German radar didn't go down that path. By 1935 they had switched to using acorn tubes (TS1 was the name) which were built into a resonant circuit made up of ceramic printed circuit board. This meant they could not only send out pulses but control the phase of the pulses, add frequency chirps etc which weren't possible in a magnetron.

This latter facility, highly valued, drove German radar researchers down the desire to make tuneable magnetrons or devices. It was this 'ambition' which held them back. The German microwave program headed by General Martini involved using disk triodes for wavelengths of around 20cm-27cm and other devices such as magnetrons or klystron like devices at 5cm. They never tried to produce a 9cm device till they recovered a H2S device. In the USA the ceramic disk triodes had an equivalent called the lighthouse valve which used glass instead of ceramic, they tended to be a bit less powerfull. The Lorentz company, according to Fritz Trenkle, was ready to introduce a 27cm radar in 1942 but its was rejected for economy reasons or rather the lack of capacity, the appreciation of how easy it was to jam a wide beam radar wasn't there.

There were about 100 "Rotterheim" sets delivered for service in 1944: basically a 3m dish Mannheim FuMG64 dish system with a 9cm 16kW magnetron. A new radar using Wurzburg technology called FuMG 68 "Ansbach" with a 4.5m diameter aerial had been built but not produced: its feature was that it was portable on a truck by folding the dish and that the dish could be operated by remote control with the operators protected in a bunker. Equipped with microwave technology from the improved Rotterheim the radar was called FuMG 76 "Marbach". If Marbach was combined with a microwave PPI set called FumG 74"Kulmbach" to combine fire control and search it was called Egerland. It was this radar which would have been guiding German SAM missiles had they made it.

The Germans would have spared themselves a lot of misery and would have inflicted serious hurt on Bomber Command had they pushed ahead with their 27cm radars. These were called "Mannheim K" if on a 3m dish and also on the 4.5m dish. They would have been hard to Jam.

If the Russians are in Berlin they get a lot of German radar tech: including coherent pulse Doppler technology and PPI.

 

[wiking85]

I've researched this extensively, for an amateur, one day I'll put it all together. The GEMA company's first of what would be come "Seetakt" radars used a split anode magnetron of about 50cm wavelength and 4kW power. I successfully detected both aircraft and ships at 10-15 km. This magnetron wasn't completely stable which used to be irritating a force continuous manual tunning until the temperature had stabilised. The reality is that the multicavity magnetron of Randall Boot was also unstable, they merely developed a receiver that automatically retuned itself.

The actual mutlicavity magnetron was known to the Germans. At that time it was called a 'rad magnetron'. The word 'rad' means wheel, because the cavity was a little like a wagon wheel. I have a academic paper by Doring or Doering in which there is a picture of a 1940 Lorentz multicavity magnetron with the cicular cavities and narrow slots attributed to Randall and Boot.The Lorentz tube was only for generating a few watts of power for signal purposes. There was a 100W continuous tube built in 1939 by the company "Sanitas" who were generally know for their x-ray tubes. If operated in pulse mode with the right cathode coatings it probably would have produced 5kW at 18cm, which is pretty good for 1939 and would have made a good radar.

However German radar didn't go down that path. By 1935 they had switched to using acorn tubes (TS1 was the name) which were built into a resonant circuit made up of ceramic printed circuit board. This meant they could not only send out pulses but control the phase of the pulses, add frequency chirps etc which weren't possible in a magnetron.

This latter facility, highly valued, drove German radar researchers down the desire to make tuneable magnetrons or devices. It was this 'ambition' which held them back. The German microwave program headed by General Martini involved using disk triodes for wavelengths of around 20cm-27cm and other devices such as magnetrons or klystron like devices at 5cm. They never tried to produce a 9cm device till they recovered a H2S device. In the USA the ceramic disk triodes had an equivalent called the lighthouse valve which used glass instead of ceramic, they tended to be a bit less powerfull. The Lorentz company, according to Fritz Trenkle, was ready to introduce a 27cm radar in 1942 but its was rejected for economy reasons or rather the lack of capacity, the appreciation of how easy it was to jam a wide beam radar wasn't there.

There were about 100 "Rotterheim" sets delivered for service in 1944: basically a 3m dish Mannheim FuMG64 dish system with a 9cm 16kW magnetron. A new radar using Wurzburg technology called FuMG 68 "Ansbach" with a 4.5m diameter aerial had been built but not produced: its feature was that it was portable on a truck by folding the dish and that the dish could be operated by remote control with the operators protected in a bunker. Equipped with microwave technology from the improved Rotterheim the radar was called FuMG 76 "Marbach". If Marbach was combined with a microwave PPI set called FumG 74"Kulmbach" to combine fire control and search it was called Egerland. It was this radar which would have been guiding German SAM missiles had they made it.

The Germans would have spared themselves a lot of misery and would have inflicted serious hurt on Bomber Command had they pushed ahead with their 27cm radars. These were called "Mannheim K" if on a 3m dish and also on the 4.5m dish. They would have been hard to Jam.

If the Russians are in Berlin they get a lot of German radar tech: including coherent pulse Doppler technology and PPI.

Where can I read more about German radar tech?
Also can't the Germans blow up a bunch of it to prevent the Soviets from getting it? Plus how far had they come in 1941 when the Soviets would be closing in? I imagine that the war situation would cause them to evacuate a lot and delay development as the East Front collapsed.

 

[Koopernic]

Where can I read more about German radar tech?
Also can't the Germans blow up a bunch of it to prevent the Soviets from getting it? Plus how far had they come in 1941 when the Soviets would be closing in? I imagine that the war situation would cause them to evacuate a lot and delay development as the East Front collapsed.

GEMA: Birthplace of German Radar and Sonar
by Harry von Kroge

A Radar History of WW II; Technical and Military Perspectives, Brown Luis
(Not only about German radar but Brown gives it a fair non triumphalist explanation)

Foundation for German communication and related technologies
Introduction page

Radar development to 1945
R. W. Burns (quite expensive but original source material by German, Japanese and Allied Engineers of the time)

There is a lot of stuff in German language of course. Fritz Trenkle for instance and the "Blitz und Anchor" series in German.

Tube collectors often have snippets of information.

 

[Shortround6]

Id argue that in terms of 4 engine bombers the Soviets were not far behind the stage the RAF and USAAF was at the same time. Consider the state of the Manchester/Lancaster, Stirling and B-17D. Obviously with the German advance on the ground the Soviets had other issues to worry about than 4 engine bombers. They continued technical development

The Russians tried for a technically advanced bomber (so was everybody else), but failed in the initial set up, one M-100 engine in the fuselage driving a big supercharger to feed air to the four engines out on the wings. Both the Germans and French tried similar set ups. I am not sure if they tried turbo superchargers on the main engines, but they replaced the M-34FRN engines with M-35A engines for the production versions. These engines did not give the performance wanted even if they were the most reliable engines used on the PE-8, since these were the same engines used in the Mig-3 that is saying something right there.
This points out something the Russians had trouble with for the entire war. They had no trouble thinking up new things (or thinking outside the box) or coping ideas from other countries. What gave them trouble was turning these ideas/concepts into reliable mass produced weapons.

The MiG 3 had been optimised as a high altitude fighter. This was not what was needed and its AM38 engine was deemed more useful for the Ilyushin Il-2 stormovik

That and politics. The Mig-3 had a rather light armament and there was no good way to change it. The "high altitude" part needs a little clarification also. It's "nominal" altitude (rated height?) was 6,000 meters, which while not bad is not what some other countries thought was high altitude in mid to late 1941. They did try putting a AM-38 engine in one but the radiator and oil cooler were too small so more work was needed. The Mig had the misfortune to be built at Zavod 1, the Soviet show piece aircraft factory and the idea of producing a less than successful aircraft at the show piece factory did not sit well with some people.

The Soviet Aircraft did have some irritating problems in 1941 but by mid 1942 they had been solved. A LaGG 5 was not inferior to western aircraft.

well that is certainly an interesting way of looking at it. "irritating problems" like landing gear collapsing, Canopies that won't open in emergencies, canopies that are not really transparent. Assorted engine problems. And no, they weren't all solved by 1942. And the LaGG-5 was judged by the Russians themselves as not being equal to the Bf 109. This lead to the LA-5F and the LA-5FN.

I will agree that the MiG 3 clearly had some handling difficulties. The solution might have been slats which have a remarkable effect of increasing the stall angle of a wing by 50%,

Magic slats? In order for slats to increase the stall angle of a wing by 50% you need full span slats, NOT slats in front of the ailerons. The short slats can do wonders for retaining aileron control at low speeds or high angles of attack but slats that only cover about 40% of the span (not including the fuselage) are not going to give you anywhere near that increase in stall angle. The majority of your wing will stall at the same angle, the slats will allow the pilot to keep control (mostly) and keep the plane from spinning.

If required the Pe-8 could have been produced. It's armament, range and bomb load was the equal of western aircraft. The Soviets had adequate and reliable engines, they merely needed to apply them.

The Russian engines were not adequate and reliable needs a good looking at, they were much shorter lived than western engines but that may be a product of substandard lubrication and poor maintenance/poor materials. The M-100 series was low in power, the M-35/38 had adequate power but was overweight, some of it's versions were only about 60-90kg lighter than a DB 603. The M-82 was the best of the bunch and later ones achieved an overhaul life of up to 150 hours.

 

[tomo pauk]

The La-5 was barely better than LaGG-3, the speed was about what Spitfire II was managing.
A series of 52 MiG-3 was produced with 2 synchronized Shvak cannons, an easy way to overcome light armament problem. Too bad that armament was no specified from day 1.

 

[wiking85]

Historically the British didn't go all that high altitude compared to the US. At night they were operating in the 16-22k feet range, which the Soviets could reach with their aircraft, right? Soviet night defense will be rudimentary at best though of course, but during the day I don't know if the RAF will go high to operate like the USAAF did, so it might be moot. Maybe Mosquitos would though. How would Soviet logistics hold up against the RAF/ALA?

 

[Shortround6]

Except for the AM-35 engines in the Mig-3 and PE-8 most other Soviet engines had FTH of 5400 meters or less, sometimes much less. The Graph provided by Tomo in the other thread shows FTH of 1330hp/5400 meters and 1430hp/4650meters. The M-105PF had a FTH of 2700 meters in high gear. A Merlin XX had a FTH of 5600 meters in high gear.
The French engines are somewhat conjecture but they were playing with the H-S 12YZ when France collapsed in 1940 and G-R was flying the 14R engine with the center bearing in a few prototypes. Some of the announced figures for them are a bit on the unbelievable side ( and not claimed post war with 100/130 fuel) but the French would NOT be fighting with 1940 engines in 1942.
We are not talking about FTH of 25,000ft and up as provided by the turbo chargers on American planes. The 1430hp/4650meters of the ASh-82FN is 15,345ft or about the FTH of an Allison with 9.60 gears.

Lets also remember that the ASh-82FN is not a 1942 engine, it only entered production in Jan of 1943 so large numbers of planes using it won't show up for a number of months more. The ASh-82F entered production in Dec of 1942. the earlier ASh-82 (or more properly the M-82) had 1700hp for take off although it's high altitude performance may not be much different. One book claims the M-82 was only allowed boosting in low gear. This may have something to do with the 95 octane fuel.

 

[Shortround6]

. How would Soviet logistics hold up against the RAF/ALA?

Things get real iffy here. The WA (western Allies) have got a pretty good road network and a very good rail network. They also have their existing motor vehicle industries (and rail shops). How much of the German vehicle fleet and factories they take-over is certainly in question. The Poles (and eastern Europe in general) had a poorer rail net (which used a different gauge than the Russians) and a much poorer road network. Western Russia has the worst network. Eastern Europe has a tiny motor industry compared to western Europe so sources of trucks are tiny. Russians have truck factories but historically some of their production was converted to war materiel with the arrival of Lend Lease trucks. In this scenario the Russians need to keep production at the least and actually increase truck production if they are to keep dozens of ground divisions (and air divisions) supplied in what was Poland, eastern Germany and Eastern Europe. This affects war material production.
Historically the Russian supply lines grew longer at about the same time the the lend lease supplies really kicked in. In this scenario the Russians are starting with the longest supply lines they ever had, granted their truck and rail fleets are not shattered like they were historically but then there is no help coming (locomotives/rail cars, rail road rail) either.

The Western Russia/Eastern European rail and road network is much more susceptible to choke points because of the lack of infrastructure.

 

[wiking85]

Things get real iffy here. The WA (western Allies) have got a pretty good road network and a very good rail network. They also have their existing motor vehicle industries (and rail shops). How much of the German vehicle fleet and factories they take-over is certainly in question. The Poles (and eastern Europe in general) had a poorer rail net (which used a different gauge than the Russians) and a much poorer road network. Western Russia has the worst network. Eastern Europe has a tiny motor industry compared to western Europe so sources of trucks are tiny. Russians have truck factories but historically some of their production was converted to war materiel with the arrival of Lend Lease trucks. In this scenario the Russians need to keep production at the least and actually increase truck production if they are to keep dozens of ground divisions (and air divisions) supplied in what was Poland, eastern Germany and Eastern Europe. This affects war material production.
Historically the Russian supply lines grew longer at about the same time the the lend lease supplies really kicked in. In this scenario the Russians are starting with the longest supply lines they ever had, granted their truck and rail fleets are not shattered like they were historically but then there is no help coming (locomotives/rail cars, rail road rail) either.

The Western Russia/Eastern European rail and road network is much more susceptible to choke points because of the lack of infrastructure.

It looks like Warsaw is a massive choke point, pretty much along with the couple of rail bridges over the Vistula. Someone I was arguing this with on another thread mentioned that the Soviets could disguise bridges via Maskirovka, but I'm not buying it. However they could saturate an area with 85mm AAA. Smashing the Warsaw marshalling yards though would be a pretty heavy blow it would seem. Could the British hit it at 20k feet or at night in 1942 without hitting the city? How about getting help from the Home Army or was the NKVD much better at squashing dissent?
Home Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cursed soldiers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koopernic]

The Russians tried for a technically advanced bomber (so was everybody else), but failed in the initial set up, one M-100 engine in the fuselage driving a big supercharger to feed air to the four engines out on the wings. Both the Germans and French tried similar set ups. I am not sure if they tried turbo superchargers on the main engines, but they replaced the M-34FRN engines with M-35A engines for the production versions. These engines did not give the performance wanted even if they were the most reliable engines used on the PE-8, since these were the same engines used in the Mig-3 that is saying something right there.
This points out something the Russians had trouble with for the entire war. They had no trouble thinking up new things (or thinking outside the box) or coping ideas from other countries. What gave them trouble was turning these ideas/concepts into reliable mass produced weapons.

Wouldn't you agree that the PE-8 Had a fundamentally sound airframe and aerodynamics, it had heavy armament stations including a rear gun position. Any of the Soviet Inline or Radial Engines that were used successfully in their single engine types would have made it work. The PE-8 wasn't prioritised for these engines because the Soviets were engaged in a ground war and the western allies had a major bombing campaign.

If the Russians are on the German or Polish Border this bomber lets them bomb all of the UK and France with bombloads of around 3-4 tons. The Soviets are going to be interested in carrying the fight to the enemy rather than just engaging in a ground war with the allies. The engines will then be supplied to the PE-8.

That and politics. The Mig-3 had a rather light armament and there was no good way to change it. The "high altitude" part needs a little clarification also. It's "nominal" altitude (rated height?) was 6,000 meters, which while not bad is not what some other countries thought was high altitude in mid to late 1941. They did try putting a AM-38 engine in one but the radiator and oil cooler were too small so more work was needed. The Mig had the misfortune to be built at Zavod 1, the Soviet show piece aircraft factory and the idea of producing a less than successful aircraft at the show piece factory did not sit well with some people.

It was a design essentially cut out in 1941 given proper development I think a solution would be found.

well that is certainly an interesting way of looking at it. "irritating problems" like landing gear collapsing, Canopies that won't open in emergencies, canopies that are not really transparent. Assorted engine problems. And no, they weren't all solved by 1942. And the LaGG-5 was judged by the Russians themselves as not being equal to the Bf 109. This lead to the LA-5F and the LA-5FN.

These were problems that had to be reworked in the field. By 1942 most of the problems had gone and by the end of 1942 new types with sound handling were on line.

Being not judged as good as a Me 109F4 or G1 is no great shame. Up to Mid 1942 these aircraft are the best fighters in the world.

Magic slats? In order for slats to increase the stall angle of a wing by 50% you need full span slats, NOT slats in front of the ailerons. The short slats can do wonders for retaining aileron control at low speeds or high angles of attack but slats that only cover about 40% of the span (not including the fuselage) are not going to give you anywhere near that increase in stall angle. The majority of your wing will stall at the same angle, the slats will allow the pilot to keep control (mostly) and keep the plane from spinning.

That's not quite the full story. The highly tapered wings the Soviets used, like any tapered wing, tends to stall at the tips first. The 'cure' for this is to introduce a negative angle of about 2 degree to 2.5 even 3 degrees at the wing tips. It's essential. Most wing cross sections of this type stalled at around 14 degrees. This washout angle or geometric twist means that the tips are easily loosing 16% of their potential lift worth about 8% across the whole wing. A wing which stalls at 14 degrees when given slats will stall at 21 degrees. This means the ailerons remain effective even in dire situations. The Me 109 might have been known for finicky ground looping problem but in the air its slats and long tail moment meant it had a very benign stall and spin recovery.

The Russian engines were not adequate and reliable needs a good looking at, they were much shorter lived than western engines but that may be a product of substandard lubrication and poor maintenance/poor materials. The M-100 series was low in power, the M-35/38 had adequate power but was overweight, some of it's versions were only about 60-90kg lighter than a DB 603. The M-82 was the best of the bunch and later ones achieved an overhaul life of up to 150 hours.

It's probably more a matter of how the engines are serviced, philosophical. The Russian engines were designed to be field serviced with more frequent bust smaller services rather than sent back home.

Either way they have an aircraft that can bomb the UK and France. A 1000 bomber raid, the VVS has absorbed German radar tech so they have a FuG 217 tail warning radar, radar altimeter and an aircraft big enough to drop a ton of chaff and windows.

 

[wiking85]

Would Soviet industry not being badly disrupted by Barbarossa make a difference, plus anything captured in Central Europe? The Daimler factory where the majority of DB601/5 engines would be captured in Berlin, along with some Jumo facilities.

 

[Shortround6]

It looks like Warsaw is a massive choke point, pretty much along with the couple of rail bridges over the Vistula. Someone I was arguing this with on another thread mentioned that the Soviets could disguise bridges via Maskirovka, but I'm not buying it. However they could saturate an area with 85mm AAA. Smashing the Warsaw marshalling yards though would be a pretty heavy blow it would seem. Could the British hit it at 20k feet or at night in 1942 without hitting the city? How about getting help from the Home Army or was the NKVD much better at squashing dissent?

There is only so much "Maskirovka" you can use when you are talking about a bridge.

From Wiki "This widened to include concealment, imitation with decoys and dummies, manoeuvres intended to deceive, denial, and disinformation".

Who is going to believe a captured prisoner who tells you "that bridge you think you see at Tczew isn't really there, it is actually 10km south. what you see and and the 10s of KM of railroad track on either side of it are really dummies. you should bomb the bridge that is just under the surface of the water 10km south"

It is one thing to "hide" troop deployments or intended avenues of advance using such methods of deception. It is another to try to hide bridges and rail lines that have been in existence and shown on maps for years. You can build a dummy bridge, you can paint the bridge in dull waterlike colors. You can put smoke generators on the banks to hide the bridge in smoke clouds during air attacks.

Rail lines can be camouflaged but depending on the terrain rail lines can become terrain features themselves. Most main line rail systems like to keep grades under 2% and in fact they like to keep them under 1%. this means a lot of cutting into hills and building up low spots and even things like this.

The rail line has been closed since 1961. or this

Now areas in Poland may be much flatter but trying to hide bridge locations with such "pointers" isn't going to work well. Not to mention keying off of city locations or bends in the river.

Try google mapping "Tczew, Poland" and check out the bridges there.

 

[tomo pauk]

...The M-105PF had a FTH of 2700 meters in high gear. A Merlin XX had a FTH of 5600 meters in high gear.

The FTH of 2700 m for the M 105PF is for overboost; 5600 m was for 'military power' for the Mk.XX/V-1650-1. For less agressive boost, it was at 4 km. The power at all altitudes is lacking, though - even the V-1710 was better than Klimovs, let alone with 9.60:1 S/C. With any version of M-105, battle against Spitfire V is a loosing proposal above 10000 ft. For emphasis at 0-15000 ft of combat altitude, Spitfire can use low-level Merlin to the advantage.

We are not talking about FTH of 25,000ft and up as provided by the turbo chargers on American planes. The 1430hp/4650meters of the ASh-82FN is 15,345ft or about the FTH of an Allison with 9.60 gears.

The Allison with 9.60 gearing will have 300 HP less at that altitude, though. Higher drag for the ASh-82 will mean that such advantage in power will be mostly felt in combat climb, rather than in level flight.

Lets also remember that the ASh-82FN is not a 1942 engine, it only entered production in Jan of 1943 so large numbers of planes using it won't show up for a number of months more. The ASh-82F entered production in Dec of 1942. the earlier ASh-82 (or more properly the M-82) had 1700hp for take off although it's high altitude performance may not be much different. One book claims the M-82 was only allowed boosting in low gear. This may have something to do with the 95 octane fuel.

From what I can gather, the ASh-82F have had more relaxed time limits for aggressive boost settings (or the overboost was factory allowed for 82F, but was used on the 82 nevertheless?), the overboost was alloved for low gear only. A graph from 'The TsAGI book' does show ~100 HP more for the -82F than for -82 due to the over-boosting (max of 1600 CV at ~1,7km, vs. 1500 CV); power was equal above 2 km.
The altitude performance over ~5500m was supposed to be equal for all -82 engines, ie. some 1330 CV at around that altitude. The -82FN has have more power in high gear, between 3 and ~5,5 km (boost of up to 1040 mm Hg instead of 1000 mm Hg). The La-5 might have had the smallest performance disadvantage vs. Spitfire V in level speed (and equal in climb?), unless Mikoyan fixes the MiG-3.

 

[Shortround6]

Wouldn't you agree that the PE-8 Had a fundamentally sound airframe and aerodynamics, it had heavy armament stations including a rear gun position. Any of the Soviet Inline or Radial Engines that were used successfully in their single engine types would have made it work. The PE-8 wasn't prioritised for these engines because the Soviets were engaged in a ground war and the western allies had a major bombing campaign.

The PE-8 may very well have had sound airframe and aerodynamics, it may have been a bit dated but so was the B-17. It's defensive gun armament was heavy only in comparison to other Russian or German bombers. Plenty of British, American and Japanese bombers had tail gun positions. They help but certainly don't change the need for either escorts or flying by night. I am sorry but of the 4 major Russian aircraft engines if WW II only 2 are going to work. The PE-8 is a big airplane that weighed about 2 tons more than a B-17G did empty and had about 42% more wing area. Trying to use M-105 engines is simply not going to work, you can the plane off the ground and fly it but speed (both top and cruise) are going to be dismal and ceiling is going to be very low. The M-88 radial might offer a bit more ceiling but it too, is too small for the job. Both engines are going to have to be flogged to get any performance out of a PE-8 and that will lead to short service life and unreliability. Using a pair of M-88s on a 20,000lb bomber (IL-4) is a bit different than using four of them on a 60-70,000lb bomber. That leaves the AM-35/38 family and the M-82 radial for major engines and the Diesels as outsiders. Since planes built with the diesels had them yanked out and replaced with AM-35s that should tell us all we need to know about the diesels. There is a reason the Germans built DB603 engines instead of using hot rodded DB 605s in Some of the Do 217s. Bombers need engines that have high climb and sustained power ratings, not engines with high 1-3-5 minute ratings.

If the Russians are on the German or Polish Border this bomber lets them bomb all of the UK and France with bombloads of around 3-4 tons. The Soviets are going to be interested in carrying the fight to the enemy rather than just engaging in a ground war with the allies. The engines will then be supplied to the PE-8.

The bombing campaign would have to be at night (no escort fighters) and use the AM35/38 engines or M-82 engines. Trying to bomb France may be doable on a sustained basis. Trying to bomb the UK is a lot harder, they have much more advanced notice. The North Sea is not a semi neutral route the Russians can use like the RAF used it. PE-8s vrs British 1943 night fighters? Neither of the available engines will give the PE-8 the ceiling that was originally hoped for with the fuselage mounted supercharger booster engine.

It was a design essentially cut out in 1941 given proper development I think a solution would be found.

solution, such as it was, was using a pair of ShVAk cannon instead of the single 12.7 and pair of 7.62s.
that is still a rather light armament.

Being not judged as good as a Me 109F4 or G1 is no great shame. Up to Mid 1942 these aircraft are the best fighters in the world.

Perhaps but by fall of 1942 they get demoted. Aug 1942 sees 3 squadrons of MK IX Spitfires in action. Sept of 1942 sees the 500th Typhoon delivered. Several squadrons of Allison Mustangs were also in service in Aug of 1942.

and the LA-5 was the best Russian fighter. Spitfire Vs could handle any other Russian fighter and the Spitfire packed much more firepower.

That's not quite the full story.

it's close enough.

A wing which stalls at 14 degrees when given slats will stall at 21 degrees.

only if the slats extend the full span of the swing.

It's probably more a matter of how the engines are serviced, philosophical. The Russian engines were designed to be field serviced with more frequent bust smaller services rather than sent back home.

It can also have a lot to do with the quality of the lubricating oil, the quality of the bearings, how often the oil was changed and checked for metal particles.

Hercules engines were able to give the power they gave and last as long as they did in part, due to the fact that their main bearings were imported from Sweden. British built bearings would work as well.

Either way they have an aircraft that can bomb the UK and France. A 1000 bomber raid, the VVS has absorbed German radar tech so they have a FuG 217 tail warning radar, radar altimeter and an aircraft big enough to drop a ton of chaff and windows.

Russians might do better to have the German electronics industry (or as much as the captured) simply build them decent radios for their aircraft and tanks. German industry might also be able to provide water proof feild phone wire so Russian field phone networks don't short out when it rains (or heavy dew). doesn't do much good to have tail warning radars and radio altimeters if not all your aircraft have radios (or radios that work).

 

[Juha]

...Either way they have an aircraft that can bomb the UK and France. A 1000 bomber raid, the VVS has absorbed German radar tech so they have a FuG 217 tail warning radar, radar altimeter and an aircraft big enough to drop a ton of chaff and windows.

Now Germans got 5 FuG 217 equipped 190s for test use in Channel Front in autumn 43, stopped that in Dec 43 for security reasons and next during early 44 35 190s and 109s were equipped with it and underwent operational trials. That according to Aders' History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945. When you think the Soviets would have been able to deploy FuG 217 operationally?

 

[Koopernic]

Now Germans got 5 FuG 217 equipped 190s for test use in Channel Front in autumn 43, stopped that in Dec 43 for security reasons and next during early 44 35 190s and 109s were equipped with it and underwent operational trials. That according to Aders' History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945. When you think the Soviets would have been able to deploy FuG 217 operationally?

The FuG 216R1 and FuG 217R2 were tail warning radars, you are referring to experimental versions of the "Neptune" series radars for single engine fighters.