East Front - Expansion

[Zanadu]

Yes, the Breda 88 and FW200 were both listed, and for the reasons mentioned.

Trying to catch up on quality in minimum time, the US both AF and Navy made it policy to buy a/c 'off the drawing board' by giving contracts to the two most promising for a few hundred a/c, in the expectation that at least one would work out okay. Sometimes they got two winners: the B25 and B26, the F6F and F4U. With the SB2C and SB2A they basically got a couple of duds, but ended up producing the less bad of the two as production of the SBD had already been ended.

[Zanadu]

I've noticed that after the last download, the FW190 in the game is labeled as a 'D' and the firing stats have been adjusted, although the graphics is still for a '190A.

[Guest Mike]

Yeah - I'd argue that while some of these planes weren't as good as they had hoped they were still quite good.

The SB2C is an example - it's initials being used for it's nickname "Son-of-a-Bitch 2nd Class", and yet these a/c went on to do more damage to Japanese shipping than any otehr US a/c.

Sure it was a little underpowered, not as accurate a bomber as the SBD, and heavy, but it did the job at least adequately, and by the end of the war was regarded with much more affection than when it wentered service!

It doesn't deserve to be in any list of "worst a/c in the world" - a lot of a/c got bad reps because they were high performance machines that were not as easy to fly as the a/c they replaced - that's a problem with pilot training, not with the a/c.

[Guest Mike]

Had a quick look through my book on Sov fighters today and was interested to note that hte Mig-1 & -3 had similar handling problems to hte LaGG 1 & -3 - heavy controls, hard to land, flipped into a spin unexpectedly in tight turns - so much so that pre-war some fighter regiments refused point blank to fly them - instead continuing in their old I-152's or -16's!!

Again it wasa training issue - the elite regiments had no trouble, but hte ordinary regiments were crewed with pilots who might have as few as 40-90 hours, and they just weren't well enough trained. Again the designer had to do a tour showing off the aircraft's capabilities.

In addition they had even lighter armament than the LaGG's and short range!

Needless to say when the war came the undertrained VVS pilots were pretty easy meat - moreso because hte a/c was designed as a high altitude interceptor and performed best above 20,000 feet where almost no combat took place!!

In it's designed role it was supposedly quite good, but high altitude capability was a luxury in 1941.

Mig's were replaced in the "Frontal fighter" role by Yak-1's and LaGG-1's as soon as possible, but continued in use in their original role with IA-PVO - the "Home defence" fighter force protecting cities and strategic locations where it was more useful - until at least 1944.

[Sixxkiller]

Boy I cant wait till the expansion pack(s) come out! As my computer cord died I actually thought about this more. Its hot here in the summer but the bikini watching may suffer!

-Ray

[Zanadu]

The original SB2C-1 was a total write off. 'Jocko' Clark was the original Navy project officer for it, and left Curtiss with a seven page, single spaced list of changes needed in the a/c when he left for his next assignment. The first deployment aboard ship was to the YORKTOWN (Essex Class) with Clark as Captain. On the first landing, one of the a/c hooked the wire, and its entire rear fuselage and tail came off just behind the radio op/gunner's seat.

They all went back to Curtiss for rebuilding, and Clark's VS and VB squadrons went back to SBDs. The Curtiss's returned several months later as the SB2C-3, which was at least fairly safe to fly. Still lacked the dive stability and total dependability of the SBD, and was harder to land aboard.

[Guest Mike]

Which does not make it one of the world's worst a/c.....IMO of course

[Zanadu]

Perhaps not, but within a few months of the SB2C replacing the SBD, the number of fighters on the carriers was radically increased, and the a/c they replaced were mostly SB2Cs.

Standard CAG, Jun. '44: 36VF, 4VFN, 36VSB, 18VT

Jan. '45: 72VF, 4VFN, 18VSB, 12VT

Clark (by then an Admiral) was one of those who wanted to eliminate the '2Cs entirely, in favor of more TBMs and fighters.

[Zanadu]

I'm not sure that the argument that an a/c that is difficult and dangerous to fly in the way necessary to perform it's mission isn't a problem because more pilot training will fix it, is valid.

In a war, many of the pilots are going to be of limited skill and experience. The thing that made the Grumman F4F and F6F really excellent a/c is the fact that they were intentionally made very easy to fly.

A WW2 Royal Navy test pilot described the Wildcat as: "the easiest monoplane to land on a flight deck that was ever built," and considered the Hellcat a fairly close second. These qualities saved a lot a a/c and a lot of pilot's lives during the war, and that meant more a/c in the air and in combat.

Conversely, the tricky handling of the MiGs and LaGGs destroyed a lot of a/c and killed a lot of pilots just as surely as the Luftwaffe would have, without putting the Germans to the actual effort to do the job themselves.

[Guest Mike]

The SB2C was not difficult nor dangerous to fly for the vast majority of the thousands who flew it. It was not AS EASY as others had been, but that's nto teh same thing.

The increase in fighters is unsurprising - the dive bomber was an obsolete concept on its way out - fighter-bombers could do the same job and more besides.

And I'm not arguing that is was not difficult nor dangerous to fly at he start of its career. However teh faults were mostly designed out of it, and it went on to be a successful dive bomber, so I don't see how it can be one ofthe WORST aircraft in the world.

To be one of the WORST aircraft in the world would require some sort of problem that made the aircraft unsuitable as an aircraft - not merely tricky to fly.

Spitfires and Me-109's were also tricky to land, however they were very successful aircraft - even the Seafire, which was almost completely unsuited for carrier ops and "saved" only by virtue of being a very good fighter.

The genteel handling characteristics of other aircraft are irrelevant - keepign them in service with their inadequate combat abilities would have been more of a crime.

[Zanadu]

I think it can be argued that the 'worst' military a/c aren't those that are totally evil, they're just scrapped, but those that are just bad enough to keep killing pilots without being quite bad enough that they have to be taken out of service entirely. Example: the C109 transport. Essentially a B24 converted to transport aviation fuel to China from India. Nothing wrong with it except that, every so often, for no appearant reason, one of them would just explode. The pilots called it the "Cee-One-Oh-Boom."

[Zanadu]

By the way, since you mention the Seafire, the RN test pilot I mentioned, Capt. Eric Brown, flew all Brit and US carrier types and many enemy types. He considered the Spit XIV the best land fighter of WW2, but the Seafire he rated only sixth best carrier fighter, behind all the US VFs (including the F4F), and also behind the Zero and Sea Hurricane. He considered that the combination of bad deck landing qualities and poor range made it little better than useless.

[Guest Mike]

I tend to agree - for example I would never put an aircraft into teh "worst" category because of obsolescence - such as the Fairey Battle or the TBF in 1940-42 - both were pretty much sitting duck targets for fighters and flak, but both were good aircraft.

Similarly to me an aircraft that has problems with initial production or prototypes doesn't qualify because I expect aircraft to be developed - even the Yak-1 was not liked by the first service pilots converted to it because of the radical new properties it had compared to I-16's and I-153's.

Being difficult to fly isn't enough either IMO. Good miitary combat a/c are high performance by definition, and that means levels of instability (because stable a/c are not manouvreable) that would be unaceptable at any other time.

the SB2C was an attempt to cram as much ordnance as possible and as big an engine as possible into an airframe small enough for carrier ops at the time, and in a tactical role that was already obsolete - so it was bound to be "on the edge" - there was no "safe" way to design a carrier-borne dive bomber any more.

IMO truly "worst" aircraft are those that are inadequate for any role, but are put into them anyway, and so there are very few of them.

[Guest Mike]

I just read a review of het Typhoon on hte Fleet Air Arm page - they reckon that betwen July and September 1942 1 Typhoon per sortie failed to return because of one defect or another, and more were lost from engine or airframe failure than enemy action - yet another a/c that went into service under-developed and more dangerous to its pilots than the enemy was - yet not a failure.

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/

[Zanadu]

No, not a failure. It was certainly effective in the a2g role, but with a single liquid cooled engine, its combat loss rate was considerably higher than that of the P47s the US used for the same job.

And even after the Sabre engine was de-bugged, and the external re-inforcement plates ended the problem of the tail seperating in flight, combining a very high-torque engine with flight controls that weren't effective below about 100 mph made for some really 'interesting' take offs, and a non-combat loss rate higher than most combat a/c of the period.

[Guest Mike]

And again - the I-16 was roundly condemned by initial service pilots - it would stall from a glide, or if the landing flaps were lowered without care, it bounced far too much on landing - basically at the lower end of its performance it was "unforgiving", and the Type 1 wasn't accepted for service.

Even the improved Type 5 was roundly condemned by service pilots and apparently bought "near rebellion" among VVS pilots - earnign the nickname "widow-maker".

As with many other a/c experienced test pilots went on tours giving aerobatic displays to help convince pilots that it could be flown safely, but it wasn'tuntil hte introduction of 2-seat versions from 1936 that the training problems began to be overcome.

This info is from "Soviet Airforce Fighters 1939-1945" by Green & Swanborough, which is where I get most of my info from.

[bartbert]

I just wanted to say that I've been enjoying this discussion. Very interesting stuff. Thanks guys.

[Sixxkiller]

Man this board is getting to be like CM:SF. Too much learnin, not enough killin! But atleast there is no Peng thread!!!

-Ray

[ March 10, 2006, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Sixxkiller ]

[Zanadu]

I'd never point to the I16 as an example of flying virtue. Which makes the fact that so many pilots preferred them to the LaGGs and MiGs that much more of an indictment.

By the way, the Typhoon wasn't supposed to be a2g. It was intended to be a Hurricane replacement. A general purpose fighter-interceptor to suppliment, and possibly replace the Spitfire. Due to lack of performance at higher altitudes, the RAF used 'em for what they could do. That considered, they made a major contribution.

[bartbert]

A little preview:

Polikarpov I-15

Originally designed in 1933 by Nikoli Nikolay Polikarpov, the I-15 "Chato" was maybe the best biplane to ever see combat. While the early versions had problems maintaining level flight at high speeds, the I-15 also could make a complete turn in 8 seconds, making it much more agile than any plane in its class. With a gulled upper wing it also had an improved pilots forward field of vision. The trade off was that pilots had a hard time seeing the horizon both during flight and especially during landing.

In 1936, Russia sent a squadron to support the Spanish Republic. It was a hit with the pilots because of its ease of take off and landing made it a plane even inexperienced pilots could use. This convinced the Russians to continue with production.

In 1938, the new 1-15bis was sent to Manchuria to support the Chinese Nationalists. With improvements to the plane including a conventional wing, a new 750hp engine, a greater fuel capacity, and upgraded from 2 7.62mm forward guns to 4, the I-15bis truly set itself apart from the rest of the pack.

The I-15bis was used in Spain, Mongolia, Finland, Russia, and even during the Japanese campaign in 1945. While better fighters were being developed to replace it, the I-15bis still protected the USSR’s borders in a small role until 1941 and served in various roles through the end of the war.

[Guest Mike]

Sweeeeeettttt!!!!!

But you've described the wrong plane!!

The I-15bis (I-152) didn't have gull wings!!! The original I-15 did, and the I-15ter (I-153) returned to them, but the I-152 had a straight top wing in response to the complaints about the visibility effects of hte gull wing.

The gull wing was reintroduced to the I-153 because of the lessened drag it had compared to the straight wing.

The I-153 was produced in response to complaints that the I-16 wasn't manouvreable enough, and so it was the ONLY biplane fighter to be introduced new to an airforce after that airforce had adopted monoplanes.

The I-153 had a major advance in firepower over the I-152 too - it mounted ShKAS machineguns firing at 1800 rpm compared to the 780 rpm of hte I-152's PV-1 machineguns - both a/c mounted 4 guns of 7.62mm calibre. The ShKAS also weighed 4.5 kg less than the PV-1!

So what you've got here is the I-153, not the I-152.

The I-153 was an instant combat failure vs the Japanese at Nohoman in 1939 - it was easy prey for the Japanese Type 97 monoplane fighters. Stories of I-153's imitating I-152's by flying with their gear down then retracting it when the Japs came close enough are inherently unlikely as the gear was handcranked up - something difficult to do while executing high-g manouvres!!

But 2 factories were set up to produce it and like the British 2 pdr a year later it had to be kept in production until something better was available.

It had a production life of 18 months, during which is was produced at an average rate of 48 per week for a total of 3437.

Later variants had slightly more powerful engines that gave better climb characteristics and top speed at altitude, but no better top speed at sea level and which used more gas resulting in shorter range. The wing was redisgned with "wet points" to accomodate auxiliary tanks.

A few replaced the 7.62mm machineguns with the excellent 12.7mm BS machinegun - considered by many to be as effective as a 20mm cannon, while a very small number replaced the quartet of machineguns with 2 synchronised 20mm ShVAK cannon.

the aircraft was ideal as initial equipment for the brand new fighter regiments being formed in 1940, as it was simple to fly, but it was entirely unsuitable for combat against the Luftwaffe and the low-time pilots flying it were sitting ducks in combat.

It remained in service with the VVS in "front line" ground support roles in quieter areas, and in some rear areas as interceptors until mid-1943. After that it was withdrawn to second line duties.

The last combat with I-153's was possibly in August 1944 when 4 of them in Finnish service encountered 9 VVS P-39 Aircobras over Kollaanjarvi-Tolvajarvii area, with no loss to either side.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Zanadu:

I'd never point to the I16 as an example of flying virtue. Which makes the fact that so many pilots preferred them to the LaGGs and MiGs that much more of an indictment.

No more than cavalry regiments preferring horses to tanks, RAF squadrons preferring Spitfires to Meteors, etc.

The military are usually very conservative.

By the way, the Typhoon wasn't supposed to be a2g. It was intended to be a Hurricane replacement. A general purpose fighter-interceptor to suppliment, and possibly replace the Spitfire. Due to lack of performance at higher altitudes, the RAF used 'em for what they could do. That considered, they made a major contribution.

Sure - it was a failed interceptor that managed to find a role........a common enough occurrance for warplanes to find they are better suited to somethign they were not initially designed to do!

[bartbert]

Well, I'll let Dan and Ray digest the information on the I15 versus the I153. Here's the info on the I153:

I-153

The I-153 Chaika was a reintroduction of the I-15 with the gulled wing being brought back. It was the fastest of all bi-planes with a top speed of about 280mph. In addition to being fast, its maneuverability was almost unmatched in out turning his opponent.

Its first production started in 1938 and 3047 were produced by 1941. It served with the I-15 in Manchuria against the Japanese and their new monoplane fighter, the Ki-27 “Nate”. At first they were severely over matched until the Soviet pilots employed a strategy, which at the beginning was particularly effective. The I-153 approached an enemy with extended undercarriage and at about 250kph. The Japanese were expecting a familiar I-15 and made the usual military preparations. Not until the last minute before combat was engaged, did the Soviet pilots retract the undercarriage, give full throttle and surprise the Japanese with their speed and fire efficiency.

Also serving in the Finnish war, the I-153 was used in front line service against the Luftwaffe during Operation Barbarossa in June of 1941.

[Guest Mike]

phew

Yesh sorry I didn't click that the I-15 illustrated had fixed undercart so it is the I-15.

the I-152 should have a straight top wing.

Both are sweet

[Sixxkiller]

Yes Mr Stalin. Those write ups were mine and i used quite a few sources to do it. I think you just got lost in the kiwi to yankees translation. But we will spare you being grounded as you help me work on the secret stuff! Dont tell kindred though. (He thinks I tease him too much cause we arent allowed to tell players in Portugal any secret information).

Oh and kindred, the Bomber Command 41 campaign is going to be released soon. You can blame Dan for it not coming out sooner! If you can get him fired, Portugese players will have much more information than at present!!! Only bad thing is you will have to do the animations as Dan will tell you, even my curved lines i draw on a map are not meant for public consumption.

-Ray