Soviet Aircraft

[Arlo]

As there are for Mediterranean and North African events.

If you're meaning that there are historically accurate skins for Italian bombers in the Med or Africa (and aren't suggesting that the Soviet lend-lease bombers serve just as well in Med or African theater events), you're obviously wrong (and would be in either case). If you're meaning that there are historically accurate skins for German bombers in the Med and in Africa, the same holds true for the Eastern front. Granted, there they are opposing sides but the argument isn't really about overall contribution (WWII in it's entirety) or sides. What's being discussed is what is or isn't the most glaring omission from the AHII plane set. This, obviously, would be from an event pov. The Soviets have tons of lend-lease and, as such, can at least fufill such a role without relying on their allies to fulfill it for them (becaaaaause .... the Soviets actually flew lend-lease bombers and there is no plane subbing required). The Italian plane set doesn't have a significant chunk of it's bombers provided through lend-lease at any given point of the war. In the Med and African theaters the Italians provided more axis bombers than the Germans up until the Italian armistice, the SM.79 being the lion's share. Insisting that the German plane set provide all level bombing duties in all Med or African theater events is not equivalent to the Soviets flying their lend-lease bombers in historically accurate roles in Eastern front events.

Now, one could admit such and perhaps say that the next two planes modeled should be the the SM.79 then the Pe-2 (or better yet, the Tu-2) but such would require a slight swallowing of pride and an ability to compromise and work with other parties. I've done such. I'd be more than happy to support both. Alas .... ummmmm ......

 

[Wmaker]

3. Suddenly all the A-20s sent to Russia were used to drop torpedoes and patrol over water.

Never said that all of them were used by the mine and torpedo regiments, btw. Just a significant amount of them. Nothing sudden about it either. In my short life, I've know that fact for about 15 years now. Maybe you shouldn't casually talk about how lend lease aircraft can cover the Soviet bomber aircraft need when you don't know much about their use in the Soviet Union in the first place?

My point is that there are historically accurate Soviet level bombers available for events (though minus the ShKAS modification).

Germans fought along side with Italians in the MED and as said had a greater impact in that theater. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that Ju88 saw heavy use in the MED and is already in the game. As far as special events go, Ju88 fits right in there, where as B-25 or A-20 isn't as good fit for Eastern Front events. For example, Bostons were out of place in Stalin's Fourth Scenario, where as Ju 88s were right in place and a good fit in the recent Mediterranean Maelstrom-scenario. Niemen (almost 10 years ago) used B-26s. There has been big scenarios with large Soviet bomber involvement that would have very much benefited from historic Soviet bombers.

Since the argument centers on what the most glaring omission is in the AHII plane set (relative size of national air forces not an issue), then the claim of it being a Soviet built bomber is no more glaring (less so if we take the lend-lease bombers into consideration) than the claim of it being an Italian built bomber. Changing the argument to how important the Soviets and the Eastern front was in comparison to Italy in the Med and Africa or which bomber was better (the SM.79 vs. the Pe-2 [or Tu-2] ) doesn't change the hole in the plane set argument.

The relative size of the air force and its impact and scenario potential is totally the issue here! That's the whole point! If the size of the country wouldn't be an issue ,one could make a case for IAR 81 for example. And that would make absolutely no sense what so ever. Niemen, Kurland, Stalin's Fourth all were Eastern Front scenarios with significant bomber involvement. In the MED scenarios, Ju 88 have level bombed, dive bombed and torpedo bombed and have been a historical fit for those scenarios.

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.

[Zacherof]

Il-4 please
 

[Arlo]

Never said that all of them were used by the mine and torpedo regiments, btw. Just a significant amount of them. Nothing sudden about it either. In my short life, I've know that fact for about 15 years now. Maybe you shouldn't casually talk about how lend lease aircraft can cover the Soviet bomber aircraft need when you don't know much about their use in the Soviet Union in the first place?

"As early as September 29, 1939, Douglas received a Soviet offer to purchase ten DB-7s and a license to produce them in Russia, along with a license to build Wright R-2600 engines. Those negotiations were ended by war in Finland and the resulting weapons embargo. In September 1941 the situation changed as the Nazi invasion added the Soviet Union to lend-lease programs.

Since the Havoc was produced to give close support to ground troops, and since the largest Allied army was Soviet, the USSR was allocated 3,125 Douglas Havocs at a promised rate of 100 a month. Of these, 2,908 actually arrived, including 869 flown over the South Atlantic and 550 shipped over to the Persian Gulf, plus 126 shipped to North Russia.

Another 1,363 were flown over the Alaska-Siberian (Alsib) route, the first 12 A-20Bs leaving Ladd Field with Soviet pilots on October 6, 1942. Regular deliveries were completed in July 1944, but the last 97 A-20H/Ks were added in May/August 1945, to replenish units to be used against Japan.

The first DB-7Bs for the Soviet Union shipped via the South Atlantic and Persian Gulf, began arriving at Basra in February 1942. Since the first to arrive were 77 Boston III (DB-7B) and 103 IIIA (A-20C) aircraft originally scheduled for Britain; they were designated B-3 in Soviet service, and entered combat on the Southwestern front in May 1942 with the 794th Bomber Air Regiment (BAP). DOUGLAS A-20K-15

When joined by the 57th and 745th BAPs, they formed the 221st Bomber Air Division. Beginning in September 1942, a Soviet UTK-1 turret with a 12.7-mm UBT gun replaced the .30-caliber guns in the open rear cockpit. A-20s replaced the standard Pe-2 light bombers in 12 Red Army (VVS-RK) air regiments, including the 45th, 449th, 860th and 861st BAPs of the 244th Bomber Air Division; the 63rd, 277th, 367th, and 542nd BAPs of the 132nd Bomber Air Division, and the separate 201st BAP.

Cameras were introduced in July 1942 for reconnaissance by A-20Bs of the Baltic Fleet’s 15th RAP and by the Black Sea’s Fleet’s 30th RAP in November. Two torpedoes test launched from a DB-7C in March 1943 showed that a Boston could handle those weapons better than the II-4s then used by Soviet crews, so 36 A-20Bs were modified for torpedo attacks.

While American crews did not use the torpedo provisions added under the A-20G’s fuselage, torpedoes became standard for the five Soviet Navy (VVS-VMF) Mine-Torpedo Air Regiments (MTAP). The 9th Guards MTAP and the 36th MTAP, operating against German convoys near Norway, the 1st Guards and 51st MTAP in the Baltic Sea, and the 5th Guards MTAP in the Black Sea, used A-20Gs modified for four crewmen with windows added in the nose and behind the turret.

A Soviet airborne intercept radar, Gneys-2, was tested on a few Pe-3 night fighters and a Boston III, and production ordered on June 16, 1943. The lend-lease A-20G-1 was considered the best type then available for night fighting because of its forward firepower and the space available for a navigator and an operator of the Gneys-2 sets added to the planes at the Monino modification center. Extra 274-gallon bomb-bay fuel cells were added, but the flexible guns were usually removed.

The 45th and 173rd long-range night-fighter escort regiments (APON), of the 56th Fighter Air Division, each had 32 A-20G-1s. Like the AAF P-70s, they were seldom able to line up their guns on enemy bombers, flying 650 sorties in 1944 without definite result. The German night attack upon the U.S. bombers landed at Poltava showed the limitations of VVS night defense measures.

When the war with Germany neared its end on May 1, 1945, 127 A-20B, 105 Boston III/A, 147 A-20G-1, 115 A-20G-10, 376 A-20G-20, and 65 A-20J/K remained with the Red Army (I count 935 - arlo). Navy units also had 43 A-20Gs with the North Sea Fleet, another 43 with the Baltic Fleet, and 70 with the Black Sea Fleet (I count 156 - arlo). War against Japan in August 1945 involved A-20s of the Red Navy’s 36th MTAP, 49th MTAP, and 50th MRAP regiments. The 36th MTAP was still flying A-20s from Port Arthur on September 4, 1950, when one was shot down by F4U-4Bs from the Valley Forge.

http://www.americancombatplanes.com/a20_5.html



It seems there's more availability for their historically accurate use in a scenario than there is an Italian skinned bomber of any kind.  

(to be cont.)

[Arlo]

(cont.)

Germans fought along side with Italians in the MED and as said had a greater impact in that theater. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that Ju88 saw heavy use in the MED and is already in the game. As far as special events go, Ju88 fits right in there, where as B-25 or A-20 isn't as good fit for Eastern Front events. For example, Bostons were out of place in Stalin's Fourth Scenario, where as Ju 88s were right in place and a good fit in the recent Mediterranean Maelstrom-scenario. Niemen (almost 10 years ago) used B-26s. There has been big scenarios with large Soviet bomber involvement that would have very much benefited from historic Soviet bombers.

I'm not the one ignoring anything.  

"In November 1940, moved the X. Air Corps to Sicily, to neutralize the British base ofMalta. On 12 January 1941 were about 60 ready Ju88 A-4 and some reconnaissance Ju 88 D. In addition to the machine itself Malta convoy attacked with supplies for the island, and British bases and ports in North Africa as well as ships in the Mediterranean.

After the hijacking on Yugoslavia and Greeceon 6 April 1941 flew Ju 88s of KG 30 attacks on Zagreb and Piraeus, as well as against Allied ships in Crete. They sank or damaged many ships, with about 55 Ju 88 lost to the occupation of Crete went.

From late 1941 to early May 1942, flew from Bf 109 Ju 87 and Ju 88s escorted back attacks on Malta. The base was hit hard, many of the defending fighter aircraft from Hawker Hurricanes were destroyed. On 17 March 1942 brought the carrier HMS Eagle, the first fifteen Spitfire to defend the island, on 20 April started another 45 Spitfire from the aircraft carrier USS Wasp to Malta. Some of the new machines were destroyed immediately after their landing in the bombing, but the rest received represented a gain of defenders After the 10th May 1942, the bombing of Malta was set, they wanted the island now cut off from supplies.

On 11 May 1942 attacked two waves of Ju 88 a destroyer Association of the Royal Navy at that would intercept an Italian convoy to North Africa: at sank HMS Lively, HMS Kipling, HMS Jackal, but the HMS Jervis escaped with 630 survivors of other ships board.

Now Ju 88 flew at night attacks on British bases in North Africa, often attacked by the radar RAF night fighters using Bristol Beaufighter, and by day close support for the German Afrika Korps. The attacks on supplies for Malta went on, the convoys “Harpoon” and “Vigorous” were almost completely destroyed. Beginning of August 1942 under the codename Operation Pedestal took a convoy of thirteen freighters, the tanker SS Ohio and strong security forces break through to the besieged island: nine freighters, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the carrier HMS Eagle fell to attacks from all available Ju 88 and He 111, German and Italian submarines, an association of Italian cruisers and machinery of the Regia Aeronautica. The SS Ohio reachedMaltaand the defender could provide much-needed fuel.

After the defeat of the Afrika Korps (DAK) at el-Alamein flew the Ju 88 attacks against the British 8th Army. Although on the landing of the Anglo-American troops 8th November1942 in Tunisia, North Africa was no longer tenable, the High Command sent another troop transport across the Mediterranean. The Ju 88s were increasingly used in defense of convoys against enemy ships, but suffered heavy casualties in attacks by fighters. After the fighting in North Africa after the surrender of the Afrika Korps had been discontinued, many units of the Air Force were transferred to the eastern front, others to Sicily and southern Italy to fight the now expected Allied landing.

http://desertwar.net/junkers-ju-88.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61808520/SSP-In-Action-016-Junkers-Ju-88

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWat_VuorRc

"In 1940, well over 1/2 of Italy’s 1,000 bombers were SM.79s, which also turned out to be one of the best land based torpedo bombers of the war. The SM.79 was used to bomb Malta and, in the summer of 1942, had one its best successes against Operation Pedestal, the Royal Navy effort to relieve Malta. The SM.79II also saw extensive service in North Africa, the Balkans and the Mediterranean. After the armistice, the series III was built for use by the pro-axis Italian Air Force."

http://www.comandosupremo.com/sm79.html

The relative size of the air force and its impact and scenario potential is totally the issue here! That's the whole point! If the size of the country wouldn't be an issue ,one could make a case for IAR 81 for example. And that would make absolutely no sense what so ever. Niemen, Kurland, Stalin's Fourth all were Eastern Front scenarios with significant bomber involvement. In the MED scenarios, Ju 88 have level bombed, dive bombed and torpedo bombed and have been a historical fit for those scenarios.

Relative size? Really? So the fact is that the relative size (strength/number of) JU-88s versus the relative size (strength/number of) SM.79s, as used in the Mediterranean and the scenario potential of such is important? I'm glad to hear you admit that. So we can agree that it would be beneficial to the AHII community to model the SM.79 then the Tu-2 (or Pe-2, if you prefer). Even better if both are released in the same patch but, if not, in that order?

We're talking about what is and isn't a glaring omission in the AHII plane set. This would be a focus on plane types per sub-category for event use, specifically bombers. Your argument is the Soviets need a bomber in AHII more than the Italians because the Soviets played a larger role on the Eastern front than the Italians had down South is merely rationalization for your preference. The JU-88 is not an Italian lend-lease bomber that satisfactorily fulfills the role of the SM.79. That's not a logical counter-argument against Soviet lend-lease bombers. This isn't about the Romanian IAR 81 or the French Dewoitine D.520. This is about how much more "desperately" the Soviet sub-set deserves a bomber than the Italian sub-set. It doesn't.  

[Wmaker]

"As early as September 29, 1939, Douglas received a Soviet offer to purchase ten DB-7s and a license to produce them in Russia, along with a license to build Wright R-2600 engines. Those negotiations were ended by war in Finland and the resulting weapons embargo. In September 1941 the situation changed as the Nazi invasion added the Soviet Union to lend-lease programs.

Since the Havoc was produced to give close support to ground troops, and since the largest Allied army was Soviet, the USSR was allocated 3,125 Douglas Havocs at a promised rate of 100 a month. Of these, 2,908 actually arrived, including 869 flown over the South Atlantic and 550 shipped over to the Persian Gulf, plus 126 shipped to North Russia.

Another 1,363 were flown over the Alaska-Siberian (Alsib) route, the first 12 A-20Bs leaving Ladd Field with Soviet pilots on October 6, 1942. Regular deliveries were completed in July 1944, but the last 97 A-20H/Ks were added in May/August 1945, to replenish units to be used against Japan.

The first DB-7Bs for the Soviet Union shipped via the South Atlantic and Persian Gulf, began arriving at Basra in February 1942. Since the first to arrive were 77 Boston III (DB-7B) and 103 IIIA (A-20C) aircraft originally scheduled for Britain; they were designated B-3 in Soviet service, and entered combat on the Southwestern front in May 1942 with the 794th Bomber Air Regiment (BAP). DOUGLAS A-20K-15

When joined by the 57th and 745th BAPs, they formed the 221st Bomber Air Division. Beginning in September 1942, a Soviet UTK-1 turret with a 12.7-mm UBT gun replaced the .30-caliber guns in the open rear cockpit. A-20s replaced the standard Pe-2 light bombers in 12 Red Army (VVS-RK) air regiments, including the 45th, 449th, 860th and 861st BAPs of the 244th Bomber Air Division; the 63rd, 277th, 367th, and 542nd BAPs of the 132nd Bomber Air Division, and the separate 201st BAP.

Cameras were introduced in July 1942 for reconnaissance by A-20Bs of the Baltic Fleet’s 15th RAP and by the Black Sea’s Fleet’s 30th RAP in November. Two torpedoes test launched from a DB-7C in March 1943 showed that a Boston could handle those weapons better than the II-4s then used by Soviet crews, so 36 A-20Bs were modified for torpedo attacks.

While American crews did not use the torpedo provisions added under the A-20G’s fuselage, torpedoes became standard for the five Soviet Navy (VVS-VMF) Mine-Torpedo Air Regiments (MTAP). The 9th Guards MTAP and the 36th MTAP, operating against German convoys near Norway, the 1st Guards and 51st MTAP in the Baltic Sea, and the 5th Guards MTAP in the Black Sea, used A-20Gs modified for four crewmen with windows added in the nose and behind the turret.

A Soviet airborne intercept radar, Gneys-2, was tested on a few Pe-3 night fighters and a Boston III, and production ordered on June 16, 1943. The lend-lease A-20G-1 was considered the best type then available for night fighting because of its forward firepower and the space available for a navigator and an operator of the Gneys-2 sets added to the planes at the Monino modification center. Extra 274-gallon bomb-bay fuel cells were added, but the flexible guns were usually removed.

The 45th and 173rd long-range night-fighter escort regiments (APON), of the 56th Fighter Air Division, each had 32 A-20G-1s. Like the AAF P-70s, they were seldom able to line up their guns on enemy bombers, flying 650 sorties in 1944 without definite result. The German night attack upon the U.S. bombers landed at Poltava showed the limitations of VVS night defense measures.

When the war with Germany neared its end on May 1, 1945, 127 A-20B, 105 Boston III/A, 147 A-20G-1, 115 A-20G-10, 376 A-20G-20, and 65 A-20J/K remained with the Red Army (I count 935 - arlo). Navy units also had 43 A-20Gs with the North Sea Fleet, another 43 with the Baltic Fleet, and 70 with the Black Sea Fleet (I count 156 - arlo). War against Japan in August 1945 involved A-20s of the Red Navy’s 36th MTAP, 49th MTAP, and 50th MRAP regiments. The 36th MTAP was still flying A-20s from Port Arthur on September 4, 1950, when one was shot down by F4U-4Bs from the Valley Forge.

http://www.americancombatplanes.com/a20_5.html



It seems there's more availability for their historically accurate use in a scenario than there is an Italian skinned bomber of any kind.  

(to be cont.)

Yes, part of the were assigned to bomber regiments. Just like I said. Significant part were however used as mine laying and as torpedo bombers by the Navy air forces. The recorded combat losses go roughly 50/50 between the Navy and Army air forces which means the portion of the A-20s doing 'regular' bombing sorties as usually seen in scenarios, is much smaller than the delivered numbers would lead to believe. I've said the same thing over and over again. You being obtuse and googling single sentences which you high light out of context won't change facts in anyway.

(cont.)

I'm not the one ignoring anything.  

"In November 1940, moved the X. Air Corps to Sicily, to neutralize the British base ofMalta. On 12 January 1941 were about 60 ready Ju88 A-4 and some reconnaissance Ju 88 D. In addition to the machine itself Malta convoy attacked with supplies for the island, and British bases and ports in North Africa as well as ships in the Mediterranean.

After the hijacking on Yugoslavia and Greeceon 6 April 1941 flew Ju 88s of KG 30 attacks on Zagreb and Piraeus, as well as against Allied ships in Crete. They sank or damaged many ships, with about 55 Ju 88 lost to the occupation of Crete went. snip

Yes, I'm so impressed on your googling and cut-pasting.

Relative size? Really? So the fact is that the relative size (strength/number of) JU-88s versus the relative size (strength/number of) SM.79s, as used in the Mediterranean and the scenario potential of such is important? I'm glad to hear you admit that. So we can agree that it would be beneficial to the AHII community to model the SM.79 then the Tu-2 (or Pe-2, if you prefer). Even better if both are released in the same patch but, if not, in that order?

Nope. Relative sizes of the countries, production numbers and relative impact in the war. Being childishly obtuse won't make you sound anymore convincing.

We're talking about what is and isn't a glaring omission in the AHII plane set. This would be a focus on plane types per sub-category for event use, specifically bombers. Your argument is the Soviets need a bomber in AHII more than the Italians because the Soviets played a larger role on the Eastern front than the Italians had down South is merely rationalization for your preference.

LOL no, actually, that's history. And history dictates which planes are beneficial for Special Events that are based on...history.

[Arlo]

Significant part were however used as mine laying and as torpedo bombers by the Navy air forces.

Your math and my math aren't matching. I'm getting about 10% (is that significant to you?)  

Yes, I'm so impressed on your googling and cut-pasting.

AKA attempting to back one's claim with a source both can verify.  

Nope. Relative sizes of the countries, production numbers and relative impact in the war. (snipped the personal and emotional part)

What an interesting way to claim that the Soviet sub-set always takes precedence when it comes to modeling planes in AHII. Again, when it comes to triage estimation or order of importance, you appear to be attempting to use numbers to make an emotional argument. That generally fails. So does your lack of ability to win allies in the Wishlist. I met you more than halfway in a logical manner.  

LOL no, actually, that's history. And history dictates which planes are beneficial for Special Events that are based on...history.

Interesting theory. Prove this retroactively. List each Aces High plane (or vehicle, for that matter) modeled in order as they relate to your version of how they were added to 'support history.'  Or, for that matter, in what order you would have had them modeled (if even modeled) to support such.

Now, having said that, HTC has six sub-categories of plane-set: U.S. (35 aircraft - 9 bombers and ... 5 or 6 models received as lend-lease, as well), British (17 aircraft - 3 bombers [many of which were lend-lease aircraft to various nations] and 4 or 5 lend-lease they took, themselves), German (21 aircraft [3 of which are jet or rocket propelled] - 5 bombers, if you include the JU-87), Italian (2 aircraft - no bombers), Japanese (11 aircraft - 4 bombers, if you include the D3A) and Soviet (8 aircraft - 1 bomber if you consider the Il-2 acceptable for that category - 4 lend-lease bombers ... well, technically even more than that).

Doesn't math come into play at all when you present your relative historical rationalization as it relates to what actually has or hasn't been modeled in AHII so far?  Where does lend-lease deserve scribbling out of your history books? (And no, I'm not into the emotional how much I'm supposed like and respect the Soviets more than the Italians and how important that is to making my claim thing.)

[Wmaker]

Ok, time to stop feeding this troll.

[Arlo]

Ok, time to stop feeding this troll.

Okie dokie. Don't let pride stand in the way of discussion.  

[Daddkev]