Author Topic: Soviet Aircraft  (Read 2083 times)

Offline Lipwig

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2013, 08:38:23 PM »
With regard to the expansion of the planeset would it be possible to know what further planes are being looked at to expand the current set?

Just which aircraft are still to come would be nice to know - not that bothered about the timeline or when, I think that USA seems mostly complete, Brit has one or two, JP afew more would be nice as would a couple for the Sovs.

The above would mostly be for scenario's though as late war arena is pretty much set.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2013, 06:36:59 AM »
:huh

A casual look at WWII history as compared to AH would reflect that the AH plane set actually has tons of Soviet lend lease aircraft, including bombers - all with accurate skins.  :aok

What it also has is 2 whole Italian planes, neither of which is a bomber.  :D

That is why I mentioned Soviet bomber units. Boston's and A-20's were mostly used by the mine and torpedo regiments. As far as the actual bombing goes, lend-lease bombers like the B-25 were a complete non-entity compared to the domestic Soviet bombers. Biggest battles of the human kind's history were fought on the eastern front which was thousands of kilometers long. It is compeletely rediculous to even imply that a Italian bomber is a bigger hole in the planeset than a Soviet one. I mean those two things are so far apart that it is a total no-brainer which was more influential.

I have nothing against SM.79, it would be a cool and historic bomber, but far less needed than a Pe-2. Pe-2 is the biggest single gap in the planeset at the moment.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2013, 07:20:44 AM »
That is why I mentioned Soviet bomber units. Boston's and A-20's were mostly used by the mine and torpedo regiments. As far as the actual bombing goes, lend-lease bombers like the B-25 were a complete non-entity compared to the domestic Soviet bombers. Biggest battles of the human kind's history were fought on the eastern front which was thousands of kilometers long. It is compeletely rediculous to even imply that a Italian bomber is a bigger hole in the planeset than a Soviet one. I mean those two things are so far apart that it is a total no-brainer which was more influential.

I have nothing against SM.79, it would be a cool and historic bomber, but far less needed than a Pe-2. Pe-2 is the biggest single gap in the planeset at the moment.

My Finnish friend,

Your personal definition of 'non-entity' appears to be somewhat flawed as is your comparative analysis of "biggest single gap."

A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862

"American Douglas A-20 (known by British name Boston in Russia) was most widespread foreign bomber in the Soviet aviation. During the Great Patriotic War years the USSR had more planes of this type, then the USA. About 3000 bombers (3125) were supplied in accordance to Lend-Lease terms. These planes flew over land and sea. Bostons served as bombers, reconnaissance planes, torpedo-bombers, heavy night fighters and high-speed transports. Armies of other countries used many A-20s too, but Soviet Air Force was main user of these planes. Some years after war ending Bostons served with Soviet Air Force, Navy Aviation and Civil Air Fleet. "

" B-25 Mitchell in accordance to Lend-Lease terms were delivered and in other countries of a coalition — Great Britain, Australia, France, Holland, 861 in various modifications were delivered in the USSR.

First machines (B - 25B) were delivered by a sea way in USSR at the end of 1941 year. B-25 in the USSR used for armies support. Further B-25 (modifications C/D, later were delivered and J) were applied for different long-range actions. "

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/uk/gs_uk60.shtml

"The Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero (Italian for "Sparrowhawk") was a three-engined Italian medium bomber with a wood-and-metal structure. Originally designed as a fast passenger aircraft, this low-wing monoplane, in the years 1937–39, set 26 world records that qualified it for some time as the fastest medium bomber in the world.[1] It first saw action during the Spanish Civil War and flew on all fronts in which Italy was involved during World War II.[2] It became famous and achieved many successes as a torpedo bomber in the Mediterranean theater.[3] The SM.79 was an outstanding aircraft and was certainly the best-known Italian aeroplane of World War II.[2] It was easily recognizable due to its distinctive fuselage dorsal "hump", and was well liked by its crews who nicknamed it Gobbo Maledetto ("damned hunchback").[4] It was the most widely produced Italian bomber of World War II, with some 1,300 built, remaining in Italian service until 1952.[5]"

"Almost 600 SM.79-I and –II aircraft were in service when Italy entered World War II, and these aircraft were deployed in every theatre of war in which the Italians fought. The 12° Stormo (Wing) was the first to be equipped with the SM.79, starting in early 1936. 12 Wing was involved in the initial evaluation of the bomber, which continued throughout 1936. The Wing went operational on 1 May 1936 with the SM.79 successfully completing torpedo launches from a target distance of 5 km (3.1 mi) in August 1936. The torpedo bomber variant was much more unstable and harder to control than the civilian version (and much less precise than its successor, the SM.81). Its capabilities were still being explored when the Spanish Civil War broke out, and a number of SM.79s were dispatched to support the Nationalists. By 4 November 1936, there were only six SM.79s with enough crew to fly them operating in Spain. At the beginning of 1937, there were 15 SM.79s in total, and they went on to be used in Spain throughout the conflict, with very few losses. Around 19 of the total sent there were lost. Deliveries to 12 Wing and other units involved numbered at least 99 aircraft.

The first recorded interception of an SM.79 formation took place on 11 October 1937 when three aircraft were attacked by 12 Polikarpov I-16s. One of the SM.79s was damaged but its defensive armament prevented close-up attacks. All bombers returned to base, although one had been hit by 27 bullets, many hitting the fuel tanks. Other interceptions occurred in the conflict without any SM.79s being lost.[20]

Combat experience revealed some deficiencies in the SM.79: the lack of oxygen masks for high altitude operation, instability, vibrations experienced at speeds over 400 km/h (250 mph) and other problems were encountered and sometimes solved. General Valle, in an attempt to answer some of the criticisms about the ability of the aircraft to operate at night, took off from Guidonia and bombed Barcelona, a journey of six hours and 15 minutes. On this occasion the aircraft proved it had a useful range (around 1,000 km/620 mi with eight 100 kg (220 lb) bombs, for a total gross weight of around 1,000 kg/2,200 lb). SM.79s operated from the Balearic Islands and later from mainland Spain. Hundreds of missions were performed in a wide range of roles against Republican targets. No Fiat CR.32s were needed to escort the SM.79s, partly because the biplane fighters were too slow.

After serving in the Spanish Civil War, the Sparviero came into use with 111° and 8° Wing. By the end of 1939, there were 388 Sparvieros in service, with 11 wings partially or totally made up of this aircraft. They also participated in the occupation of Albania in autumn 1939.[21]

By the beginning of World War II 612 aircraft had been delivered, making the Sparviero the most numerous bomber in the whole of the Regia Aereonautica, assigned to a total of 14 wings (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41 and 46).[21] Not all of these wings had Gruppi (groups) entirely equipped with the SM.79. Every squadron had around nine to 10 aircraft, but this included second line aircraft, so the force of each squadron consisted on average of around seven to eight bombers, and every wing had around 30 bombers. Among these units; 8, 9, 11, 12, 30, 32, 36, 41 and 46 Stormi (Wings) were based in Italy, and participated in the Battle of France. They were equipped with a total of around 350 SM.79s, including those used in training squadrons."

^ Arena et al. 1994, p. 7.
^ a b Angelucci and Matricardi 1978, p. 198.
^ a b Arena et al. 1994, p. 9.
^ "Savoia-Marchetti SM.79/" Aviation History On-Line Museum. Retrieved: 26 December 2011.
^ a b Mondey 1996, p. 236.
^ Sgarlato 2002, p. 13.
^ a b Sgarlato 2002, p. 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The AHII "Italian plane set" consists of 2 variants of the C2 series fighter. There is no bomber. There is no lend-lease bomber. There is nothing to fill the bomber role for the Italians in a Mediterranean (or any other) setting. The claim that the lack of a Soviet built level bomber for the AHII plane set is the most glaring omission is both biased and false. While I've nothing against adding a Soviet built level bomber (I, myself, being an advocate of the TU-2), such modeling work should not be a precursor to the SM.79. Game events have at least some suitable historical level bombers for the Soviets without substitution.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2013, 08:26:00 AM »
Arlo,

If what Wmaker says about the Soviet use of the A-20 is true than those 2908 examples can be dismissed as they aren't relevant.  That leaves the 862 B-25s, which I think we can agree were vastly out numbered by domestic Soviet bombers.  What he said is true.

The Italians were a minor power despite their desire to play with the big boys and if the major player Soviets can be argued to get by with the B-25C then there is an even stronger argument that the Italians can make do with the Ju88 and He111.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2013, 08:41:00 AM »
As said, the sheer scale of the Eastern Front compared to the small role of Italy (as compared to Soviet Union) in WWII makes your suggestion utterly laughable. The sheer difference in impact of these countries in WWII is nicely illustrated when comparing the production numbers of these bombers (~1350 SM.79s vs. ~11400 Pe-2s). MTO in general was much smaller show than the eastern front and in that smaller show German involvement was clearly larger than the Italian. You conveniently like to forget that the Ju 88s were operating in the same theater as the SM.79s and at the same time say that Soviet bomber gap can be covered using lend lease bombers. As said, Special Events-wise which is more important is a no-brainer. Ju-88 certainly give the look and feel of the MTO especially with Greebo's excellent skins. Lend lease bombers certainly don't have the look and feel of the Eastern Front as their use was minuscule as bombers compared to domestic Soviet bombers.


Your personal definition of 'non-entity' appears to be somewhat flawed as is your comparative analysis of "biggest single gap."

A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862

"American Douglas A-20 (known by British name Boston in Russia) was most widespread foreign bomber in the Soviet aviation. During the Great Patriotic War years the USSR had more planes of this type, then the USA. About 3000 bombers (3125) were supplied in accordance to Lend-Lease terms. These planes flew over land and sea. Bostons served as bombers, reconnaissance planes, torpedo-bombers, heavy night fighters and high-speed transports. Armies of other countries used many A-20s too, but Soviet Air Force was main user of these planes. Some years after war ending Bostons served with Soviet Air Force, Navy Aviation and Civil Air Fleet. "

" B-25 Mitchell in accordance to Lend-Lease terms were delivered and in other countries of a coalition — Great Britain, Australia, France, Holland, 861 in various modifications were delivered in the USSR.

First machines (B - 25B) were delivered by a sea way in USSR at the end of 1941 year. B-25 in the USSR used for armies support. Further B-25 (modifications C/D, later were delivered and J) were applied for different long-range actions. "

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/uk/gs_uk60.shtml

Your quote just reinforces my point. As your quote mentions A-20, were involved in a lot of other roles other than bombing like (as I already mentioned) being the main type of mine and torpedo regiments. This is nicely illustrated when looking at the numerical strength of the Soviet bomber aviation at the beginning of March 1944:

Pe-2 1293
Il-4 543
Boston III 348
Li-2 309
B-25 100
Pe-8 68
DC-3 45
SB-2 10

(Source: Hannu Valtonen: LENTO-OSASTO KUHLMEY ISBN 978-952-99989-0-6)

Rather telling numbers.


The AHII "Italian plane set" consists of 2 variants of the C2 series fighter. There is no bomber. There is no lend-lease bomber. There is nothing to fill the bomber role for the Italians in a Mediterranean (or any other) setting. The claim that the lack of a Soviet built level bomber for the AHII plane set is the most glaring omission is both biased and false. While I've nothing against adding a Soviet built level bomber (I, myself, being an advocate of the TU-2), such modeling work should not be a precursor to the SM.79. Game events have at least some suitable historical level bombers for the Soviets without substitution.

Like I mentioned, you conveniently forget that Germans were operating in the same theater with Ju88 and had generally bigger impact in that theater than the Italians. Ju88 fits right into the MTO Special events as it was heavily used in the said theater. Soviets didn't use lend-lease bombers heavily in the bomber role compared to the domestic bombers which they had far bigger numbers of.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Soviet Aircraft NEEDED versus AN Italian bomber?
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2013, 08:46:48 AM »
Arlo,

If what Wmaker says about the Soviet use of the A-20 is true than those 2908 examples can be dismissed as they aren't relevant.  That leaves the 862 B-25s, which I think we can agree were vastly out numbered by domestic Soviet bombers.  What he said is true.

The Italians were a minor power despite their desire to play with the big boys and if the major player Soviets can be argued to get by with the B-25C then there is an even stronger argument that the Italians can make do with the Ju88 and He111.

The Russian source I quoted is at odds with his claim. *ShruG*

Do you have a source where Germany gave Italy any He-111s to use? I know most don't like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111 as a source for anything.

As for the JU-88:

"But for the most part A-4, were supplied Italian Air Force, which did not have time to enter them into operational service before the armistice, they were destined to 9 ° and 10 ° Stormo and Groups 38 ° and 51 ° BT. "

"Junkers Ju 88 in operational condition not only the Luftwaffe. Regia Aeronautica ordered in mid-1940, 200 aircraft Ju 88, which should ‘have entered service Italian bomber parts, because Italy was not a modern bomber. The Germans were in no hurry to supply-only in 1943 tested two machines: Ju 88A-4 and Ju 88A-7. The first German aircraft were 9, 10, 30 and 35 Stromo BT (Shelves land bombers). Preparation of the Italian pilots were carried out in LG 1 (Eleusis, Greece) and KO 30 (Rhodes, Greece). Pilots 9 Stromo B.T. were trained at the airport of Montpellier, where the training was based V1./KG 77. Pilots from 10 Stromo B.T. internships in VI. / KG 30 (airfield Aalborg, Denmark) and in Wiener Neustadt. April 10, 1943 the Italians had four Ju 88A-7 (W.Nr. 55078, 55079, 55082 and 55086), as well as 12 brand new Ju 88A-4 (W.Nr. 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1223, 1246 and 1247). By the time of the surrender of Italy, no re-parts did not have time to achieve readiness. Total Italian Air Force received six Ju 88A-7, and 25 Ju 88A-4 (from, 25 of these aircraft were in use)."

Read more: http://authspot.com/poetry/ju-88-combat-service/#ixzz2aFm0Jdhs

Which isn't remotely comparable to the Allied lend-lease bomber use of the Soviets.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 11:15:28 AM by Arlo »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Soviet Aircraft NEEDED versus AN Italian bomber?
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2013, 08:48:10 AM »
Your quote just reinforces my point. As your quote mentions A-20, were involved in a lot of other roles other than bombing like (as I already mentioned) being the main type of mine and torpedo regiments.

No it doesn't. You try to make it sound as if that was all they were used for. My quote illustrated all their uses on all fronts.

This is nicely illustrated when looking at the numerical strength of the Soviet bomber aviation at the beginning of March 1944

A snapshot of later in the war is not making the case of what you claim to be the most obvious gap in the AHII plane set.

The Italian sub-set retains that, hands down. Any number of lend-lease Soviet bombers at any time in the war is going to be a greater number than 0 (or 25 JU-88s, for that matter  ;) ).
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 11:15:41 AM by Arlo »

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2013, 09:21:33 AM »
I am not saying the German bombers flew in Italian colors, I am saying that they work just fine as stand ins, or in the colors of the Germans who were flying them alongside the Italians.

The scale of the two conflicts are simply not comparable.  The Soviet Union was one of the two most powerful nations in the world by 1944 and Italy was never in contention.  Ethiopia put up a hard fight when the Italians invaded, they couldn't take Greece without German help, they only declared war on the UK when they thought it was safe, and then when forced to fight the UK in north Africa got soundly trounced until rescued by the Germans.

Yes, the Italian planeset is spare and additional Italian planes would be nice to have, higher priority than any American plane and all but a small handful of British, German and Japanese planes.  The Russians though have a significant number of aircraft that are higher priority than any Italian aircraft.  While the Russian fighter stable is almost to the point where it can be said to have coverage, just need one or more of the LaGG-3, MiG-3 or Yak-1, its bomber forces are completely unrepresented.  Yes, the B-25C and Boston work as stand ins for early war, but neither is as survivable as the Pe-2 and neither comes close to the Tu-2's capability.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2013, 09:26:18 AM »
No it doesn't. You try to make it sound as if that was all they were used for. My quote illustrated all their uses on all fronts.

It explains the uses of A-20 in SU. Vast majority was used in other roles than regular bombing which AH events are mostly about.

"The USSR received 2,908 Douglas twin-engined attack aircraft; more than one in three Havocs produced. The Soviet Air Force (VVS) often modified the aircraft using Soviet gun turrets and armament.
Nearly every anti-shipping aircraft in the Soviet Naval Air Service was a Havoc A-20G fitted to drop torpedoes and mines."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Douglas_A-20_Havoc_operators


A snapshot of later in the war is not making the case of what you claim to be the most obvious gap in the AHII plane set.

Actually it is far more relevant than anything you've managed to post so far. I'll post a table later which gives yearly delivery numbers for Pe-2, Il-4, B-25 and A-20. They tell the exact same story.


The Italian sub-set retains that, hands down. Any number of lend-lease Soviet bombers at any time in the war is going to be a greater number than 0 (or 25 JU-88s, for that matter  ;) ).

Erm, what exactly are you trying to prove comparing German aid to Italy with the allied lend-lease? Completely apples to oranges as they have nothing to do with each other except showing that Italy was, like karnak said, a small player compared to SU and therefore much more important regarding any new plane additions. I was talking about the Ju88s as in Lufwaffe Ju88s which were operating in the same theather as Regia Aeronautica. As karnak said, if you think that most significant bomber of a country of the size of SU can be subbed using little used lend lease aircraft, He111 is more than capable of subbing SM.79.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 10:23:15 AM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Soviet Aircraft NEEDED versus AN Italian bomber?
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2013, 09:37:20 AM »
Survivability isn't the issue anymore than how many bombers the Soviets built would be. I addressed the claim that most obvious gap in the entire AHII plane-set is the lack of a Soviet built bomber. That apparently didn't take into account the Italian plane-subset at all nor does it acknowledge the Soviet use of lend-lease in high numbers (as well as historical skins being available for use in AHII that supports such). While I can understand the oversight, I don't understand the stubbornness to stand behind such a claim once that oversight has been brought up.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 11:15:52 AM by Arlo »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Soviet Aircraft NEEDED versus AN Italian bomber?
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2013, 09:40:27 AM »
Erm, what exactly are you trying to prove ...

That a claim of the lack of a Soviet built bomber in AHII is more of a glaring gap that the lack of an Italian built bomber (or attack plane or even a couple of more fighters) is erroneous. While it may be your opinion, it's a poor one. I'm not hard-pressed to prove it at all. It's as simple as that.  When your argument devolves to subbing aircraft to play the role of another, well, the Soviet built bomber argument becomes a moot point. :)
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 11:16:05 AM by Arlo »

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23946
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2013, 09:41:34 AM »
That a claim of the lack of a Soviet built bomber in AHII is more of a glaring gap that the lack of an Italian built bomber


Which it absolutely is. I'm totally with WMaker, by the facts that are obvious.  :aok
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Soviet Aircraft NEEDED versus AN Italian bomber?
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2013, 09:42:16 AM »

Which it absolutely is. I'm totally with WMaker, by the facts that are obvious.  :aok

Not so much ..... as the 'argument' shows.  :)
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 11:16:14 AM by Arlo »

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23946
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Soviet Aircraft
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2013, 09:43:40 AM »
Not so much ..... as the 'argument' shows.  :)

Actually it's shows exactly that. To such an extend that I once more am not sure if you are just trolling (which I hope)
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Soviet Aircraft NEEDED versus AN Italian bomber?
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2013, 09:45:00 AM »
Actually it's shows exactly that. To such an extend that I once more am not sure if you are just trolling (which I hope)

I presented facts, not massaged facts. Wmaker can't honestly say the same, even with your wholehearted support.  :salute
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 11:16:22 AM by Arlo »