Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ike 2K# on December 23, 2003, 08:40:50 PM
-
Is Yak-9T normally used as a A2G aircraft or an A2A aircraft?
-
I use it A2A, cause of its big cannon. It can be used A2G, but it wont do much damage to anything except light armor, fuel and ammo, barracks, and ack. Other than that its not much.
Good for A2A cause it turns well, fast, and has the big cannon :)
-
In rl it was an a2a air fighter and didn't normally carry ap rounds.
In ah its a decent a2a fighter on the deck.
-
I think that any Russian fighter would be sent on GA missions if the need arose, but none of them was used primarily for that - they had the Il-2.
The NS-37 had a big range advantage over other a/c guns but it needed to be used by an expert - no point in 'spraying and praying' with only 32 rounds - and the recoil threw off the aim so it was generally only fired in 3-round bursts. I think it was only issued to the best pilots, because it had a claimed kill rate of one every 30 rounds or so.
Of course, loaded with AP rather than HE it could take out just about any tank in a side or rear attack, but I'm not sure that fighter units would have been issued with that ammo.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Is the AH Yak-9T equipped with HE or AP ammo??
-
I'm pretty sure the 37 mm has HE. The 9T is not really meant as a ground attacker. It's much more of a bomber killer.
-
Kweassa, I believe all rounds are equiped with "what's best", meaning that if it hit a tank it's an AP round and if it strikes an airplane or other soft target it's an HE.
-
get 1.7 behind a buff. elevate nose till buff is sighted at top edge of nose(or sight the top of vertical elevator) and let em rip.
-
9T is garbage...9U rules ;)
-
I have killed Panzers with the 9-T, but used nearly all of the 37mm load to do it. It is effective against thin skinned armor, such as the M8, m16 and M3. It will also take out a Flak Panzer with some persistance. The 37mm has good ballistics, so it's an ideal ride for killing swarms of M3s. However, like the 9U, the engine lasts about 2 minutes after a radiator hit.
Against aircraft, you need to be patient, but the reward is a single hit shootdown. WEP is useless above 4k and low-speed handling isn't very good (typical of Russian types, espacially Yaks). A skilled marksman can bring home 6-8 kills with the limited ammo load. Unskilled shooters (or impatient, for that matter) will be fortunate to get 2. Even more so than the 109s or 9U, the 9T will teach trigger control.
All in all, it is an effective, if not inspiring aircraft.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The Yak-9T is a tankkiller. The T stands for tankoviy meaning tank.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Yak-9T is a tankkiller. The T stands for tankoviy meaning tank.
According to my information, it stood for Tyazhelovooruzhenniy = heavily armed.
The Yak-9 was not armoured adequately to survive above the battlefield. That job was intended for the Il-2.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
My info is the same T = Tyazhelovooruzhenniy = heavily armed.
I believe I read on a forum where Emmanuel Gustin listed a source for this info but I can't remember which forum.
The NS-37 had a low rate of fire, but like the Mk 108 a single hit would destroy an aircraft. The recoil was such that pilots were trained to fire three-round bursts.
The yak 9t was normally flown a2a, without AP rounds. However, like Tony said if needed I am sure any soviet aircraft could be forced into a2g work. The Yak 9t was very vulnerable to ground fire compared to the IL2. The 23mm VYa was the "tank buster" and it wasn’t until ‘43 that some IL2s were equipped with the NS-37.
-
If your info is from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol.1, Single-Engined Fighters by Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov"
You need to read the revisions by Ilya Grinberg:
"Page 143, 2nd column. Yak-9T, T should stand for "Tank" (tankoviy), not for "Tyazelovooruzenniy". A.T. Stepanets is quite clear about the menaing of all of the type suffixes in the Yak fighter programme, and 'T' is for 'tankoviy'."
-
WWII Fact book:
The Yak-9T-37 was an extensive modification of the Yak-9D for use as a "tank buster", with the "T" in the designation standing for "Tankovyi", or "Tank Hunting", using an NS-37 37-millimeter Nudelman-Suranov cannon. This weapon fired through the propeller spinner and could penetrate 48 millimeters (1.9 inches) of armor.
The Yak-9T-37 carried 30 rounds of ammunition for the cannon. The additional ammunition storage dictated reduction of fuel tank capacity to 360 liters (95.6 US gallons). To accommodate the cannon, the cockpit was moved 40 centimeters (1.3 feet) towards the rear. This modification was applied to all Yak-9D production in order to simplify the manufacture of the aircraft. A single 12.7 millimeter machine gun was fitted, mostly for targeting the NS-37 cannon.
The Yak-9T-37 first flew in December 1942, and went into combat in the early summer of 1943. It was used not only for anti-tank operations, but for anti-shipping attacks over the Black Sea.
To take on the bigger German Panther and Tiger tanks, the Yak OKB then designed an even more potent tank-buster, the Yak-9T-45 or Yak-9K, where "K" stood for "Krupnyi Kalibr", or "Heavy Caliber", that featured an NS-P-45 45-millimeter cannon with 15 rounds of ammunition. A 57 millimeter gun was also considered, but never fitted to the Yak-9T.
Seems like you need to revise your book Tony ;)
-
http://www.skalman.nu/worldwar2/su-airforce-yak.htm
Your info is from this page by By Greg Goebel
On another page he appears to contradict himself:
The first refinement of the Yak-9 was the "Yak-9T", where "T" stood for "Tyazhelowooruzheny / Heavily Armed", fitted with an NS-37 37 millimeter cannon firing through the propeller spinner instead of the ShVAK 20 millimeter cannon. The variant went through evaluation in early 1943 and was in field service by the spring of that year. It proved very popular, with 2,748 built.
To accommodate the cannon, the cockpit was moved 40 centimeters (1.3 feet) towards the rear. While some sources claim that the Yak-9T was designed as a close-support aircraft, it appears that the fit of the NS-37 cannon was mainly to correct the inadequate firepower that had dogged the Yak-series fighters, and the Yak-9T was primarily used for air combat. The USSR had a better machine for close support, the heavily armored Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avyak1.html
Like I said Emmanuel Gustin listed a source for this info but I can't remember which forum. IIRC it was a Soviet source and the discussion was about this very subject. I believe Tony know Mr. Gustin and can probrably get the info.
Are you still calling Fritz Franz? ;)
-
Well the Yakovlev Design Bureau seems to disagree with you. They list the Yak-9T as:
"Yak-9T (Tankovy) - carried a 37mm cannon. 2748 were built."
All Yak models: http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/
You still believe the BBC Lancaster recording is fake Batz? ;)
-
This kind of historical puzzle is always interesting.
The first point to make is that a large number of references to the meaning of a name doesn't make it right, because these references were probably all quoting the same source; very few authors do original research. A good example of that happening was the 'MG 151 cowling guns in the Bf 109K' myth, which I think originated with William Green in the 1960s but I have seen copied many times since.
So we need to find the original 'core references' to the alternative meanings of the 'T', and make a judgment as to the authority of each. I don't offhand know what these are (I am alerting Emmanuel to this thread so he can join in). I might add that just having an authority say 'that is the meaning' doesn't necessarily make it right, either. One book I have is a brilliant description of RAF aircraft gun development in WW2, by someone who was in charge of the programme, but he goes on to talk about the '40mm Aden'. Ouch. Even the best people make mistakes.
I have to say that I would take some persuading that the Yak-9T (or Yak-9K) was primarily designed for the anti-tank role for three reasons:
1. The references I have seen to its success talk specifically about air-to-air fighting. For instance, that the long range of the gun caused the Luftwaffe to change tactics, and that one plane was shot down for every 30 or so rounds expended. The description of the use of the NS-45 in the Yak-9K also talks about air combat; the plane was given to an elite unit who claimed one plane shot down for every ten rounds fired.
2. Almost all of the pictures I have seen of the ammo show it with HE rather than AP shells. I have never seen ANY reference to the NS-45 being loaded with anything but HE.
3. Ground attack was very hazardous as it attracted masses of ground fire, so planes designed or adapted for it needed and received extra armour protection. I have seen no reference to this with the Yak-9T or Yak-9K.
So, let's track those prime sources!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
The following is quoted from 'Notes of An Aircraft Designer', by Alexander Yakovlev himself -- translated from Russian by Albert Zdornykh and publiced by Arno Press in 1972.
The large-calibre 37 mm. aircraft cannon was a wonderful creation by the aircraft armament designers and made its appearance in 1942. It was intended to be mounted in fighter-planes and the taks of the day was to develop a heavy cannon fighter.
We put in a lot of intensive work and turned out the Yak-9T (T stands for heavy) in record time. It was the first heavy fighter armed with a cannon. It went through its official trials and then its trials in the Air Force practically without a hitch and was put into mass production.
It made life hot for the German bombers: direct hit by a 37 mm. shell reduced any fascist plane to a heap of flying rubble.
End quote. The account is typical Yakovlev (he was known almost as much for his political manoeuverability as for his engineering skills) in that it skips over the work of his competitors -- Bell and LaGG were ahead of him in installing the 37 mm guns -- and the need for structural reinforcements in the Yak-9T. He also fails to mention the Yak-7-37. Still, it is clear from his account that the Yak-9T was primarily a fighter.
Yak-9Ts were also used in the air-ground role, but the primary motivation behind the design, and most of their use, was for air-air combat. This was even true for the Yak-9K.
Emmanuel Gustin
-
The last link you provided lists infomation directly from A.T.Stepanets not the "Yakovlev Design Bureau". On that site they simply provide a link to the A.S.Yakovlev coporate site.
You listed the same source 2 times ( "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol.1, Single-Engined Fighters by Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov" with revisions by Ilya Grinberg who use A.T.Stepanets as their source) and 1 source that contradicts itself.
It really doesn't matter what we want to call it but as Tony said and if you look into it the yak 9t was mostly an "a2a" fighter. It wasn't a "tank buster". It carried HE rounds normally. Same with the yak 9k. The Soviets calculated that on average 31 rounds were fired to down an aircraft; 147 rounds of 20mm fired to down an aircraft; 10 rounds from the NS-45 fired to down an aircraft.
While there are murky points in the documentation for almost every aircraft, trying to track down some odd details for Soviet aircraft is an exercise in frustration and contradiction.
As we agree to dis-agree we should keep this in mind.
And no I still don't believe that lanc recording to be 100% authentic.
YMMV
-
Oops,,,,,,,
Was posting at the Same time as Mr. Gunstin.
Thank you for your reply.
-
I concede the point.
___
So that TigerStolly got the recording verified by the Imperial War Museum wasn't enough to satisfy you Batz, not really surprising. I must agree with Furball: "It's funny when these dweeb armchair expert geeks get proven wrong, and they just don't bother replying."
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97116
-
I did reply
I think I am sticking to this as being "fake". Despite GScholz's great research there’s no way to tell if this wav is actually the aircraft he linked.
Nothing has changed so any further reply was pointless. There is a whole host of folks in another forum unconvinced as well. As I stated in the thread it's not any thing new and had been thoroughly discussed before. So TS purchased a full copy, so what. I pointed out early in that thread that it had been for sale for sometime.
The fact you and a few others maybe convinced isn't evidence of anything except one of us is wrong.
Calling me a "dweeb" for not agreeing with you in that thread, or for you being wrong in this one means very little to me.
-
Nothing has changed eh?
Originally posted by TigerStolly
Hi Guys,
Well i finally got the CD from the IWM. The whole recording is over an hour long but is totally amazing from end to end.
The highlight of course is the nightfighter attack.
I've taken 3 parts from the recording, the start, the attack, and the end. I cannot post all of it due to it being too big and it being under BBC copyright. If you want the whole thing the IWM will put it on CD for £20. I also wouldn't want to take money from the IWM by posting all of it.
So here are the 3 excerpts.
Take off, feet wet (http://www.stolly.org.uk/1-001.mp3)
Under attack (http://www.stolly.org.uk/2-001.mp3)
Home safe. Notice the reference to F for Freddie. (http://www.stolly.org.uk/3-001.mp3)
-
What additional information has TS provided other then he purchased a copy from the IWM? You claim, "that TigerStolly got the recording verified by the Imperial War Museum" which is nonsense. He simply spent £20.
I pointed out early in that thread that the CD with that recording had been available for sometime.
I refer you to Dowding's post in that very thread
It could be a studio based reconstruction of the original recording - that was done very often back then. Churchill's speeches were re-done using an actor for instance; the 'never surrender' speech we often hear tends to be a recording done after the fact by a well-known imitator.
Why does it bother you that I don’t share your opinion on that recording? Is it because your ego is so fragile that being proven wrong here you are forced to deflect and resort to name-calling? Please tell me I am wrong about this as well.
Do I need to state again that I still don't believe that lanc recording to be 100% authentic? Other then repeating this over and over I don't see what point there would have been if I continued in that thread.
-
Originally posted by Batz
it is a fake and has been posted many times on many boards. Even on this board. Search you may find the answers.
Originally posted by Batz
bs, that is as fake as it can be. You can chose not to believe it but dont make excuses as to why its "real".
You hear guns firing but not the eng? you believe that?
This thing is old and has beaten to death. Its not real. If you think that cant be made without a studio you are nuts. Theres lotsa 3 party audio for games like eaw and even il2 that sound about like that.
Originally posted by Batz
theres one real give away as well
bombadier?
Brits used "Bomb Aimer"
crew photo
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-heroes/lancaster_crew.htm
another
http://www.feltwellnorfolk.freeserve.co.uk/lancaster_crew.htm
another
http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/lancaircrew.html
Read through the photo captions. in all 3 the bombadier is listed as "bomb aimer".
Originally posted by Batz
You can blindly except it as "real" if you want but dont try to tell folks who know it isnt real that it is. Its 100% fake. Its not new, its been around many times. Its been shown to be a fake many times.
But whatever gets you through.
Originally posted by Batz
if the side gunner is firing why do you hear the guns firing while the "skipper" is talking. The side gunner sits right behind 2 engines. If you here 303s firing you damn sure would hear the eng. You arent in an enclosed insolated space.
Hell jug and p51 pilots never or rarely heard their 6 / 8 50s fire over the eng.
"Sounds about right to me" lol gimme a break. Its fake.
ps I have read and heard various raf bomber crews being interviewed not once did I hear or read any reference to bambadier, its been "bomb aimer". I linked 3 lanc crew links and I can link more.
Originally posted by Batz
it wasnt the tail gunner it was the "mid gunner" which was just a typo on my part. Either way its still fake.
Tiger is that your site its on? or your squads?
http://www.stolly.org.uk
If so tell us where you got it. I mean if its real amd on the web then where the story behind it.
This was on this board way back, you will have to search because this forum changed over and it may have been lost, it was on simhq a long time agao as well and that forum has changed so you may not find it.
Go post it on AAW or at nightbomer.com they will tell you its fake, because it is. No typo I made will make it real.
Originally posted by Batz
I blame Chris ....... :p
That settles that, good find GScholz.
:p
Note: That was a very lame excuse.
Originally posted by Batz
wwiiol (http://www5.playnet.com/bv/wwiiolhq/dg_message.jsp?group_id=8863&parent_id=3308938&BV_SessionID=@@@@1138909372.1064900386@@@@&BV_EngineID=dadcigkhmhekbjjcgmcggichhl.0)
Stolly cross oposted this over at wwiiol.
I think I am sticking to this as being "fake". Despite GScholz's great research theres no way to tell if this wav is actually the the aircraft he linked.
There was a edited version (actually just a snipped version) of this wav on earthlink's sounds of ww2. They were selling the full version. It was put on that sitedated 2000. I believe thats around the same time this first made the rounds.
Feel free to believe what you want but theres a number of things that arent right. The lack of eng noise is one for me but this recording had to made from the intercom. The crew most likely were wearing masks. I am not sure what type of mic was used or how they were keyed (push to talk, voice activated or what). The gun noise just doesnt seem right.
Read the link above if you can.
YMMV
The Imperial War Museum and BBC did verify that this recording was the recording Vaughan-Thomas made in 1943, there was even a reference to F for Freddie in the full recording.
(http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/Northoltberliners.jpg)
L-R: Charles Stewart (F/E), Ken Letford (Pilot), Wynford Vaughan-Thomas (BBC Correspondent), Bill Bray (B/A). These were some of the principal guests of those who met at RAF Northolt in September 1983 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the BBC recording made of EM-F's trip to Berlin on 3 Sep 1943. George Mitchell, of 207 Sqn at Northolt, can be seen on the left. It was on this occasion that the idea of forming an Association took firm root. [source: Ron Winton]
Do you think these gentlemen got together 40 years later to commemorate a lie? You do realize you're calling these people liars?
I think I have lost the last shred of respect for you Batz.
-
I think I have lost the last shred of respect for you Batz.
I never respected you to begin with so I guess nothing is lost.
I read the thread the first time so there's no need to quote it here.
I guess my opinion about your fragile ego is correct.
-
Ah of course, the inevitable ad hominem attack. Furball was right.
-
inevitable ad hominem attack? You must mean the one you initiated.
It wasn't until your use of dweeb that I said anything of a personal nature. You also brought up "respect".
If you don't like the "inevitable ad hominem attack" maybe you should not resort to such behavior.
-
LOL didnt realise i had been quoted.
It was not really a personal attack, i was generalising the type of person that gets proven wrong in a thread they argue so passionately about, then rather than hold their hands up and say "ok im wrong, nice job researching" they conveniently forget the thread is there.
Originally posted by Furball
its funny when these dweeb armchair expert geeks get proven wrong, and they just dont bother replyin :)
So... you admitting to being a dweeb armchair expert geek that doesn't like being proven wrong? or am i just making assumptions?
BTW: here is the link to prove me wrong http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97116&perpage=50&pagenumber=3
-
Prove you wrong?
I don't care anything about you. What's to prove other then GScholz is a bit insecure? I didn't quote you or respond to you in anyway. As I said above other then going back and forth with:
"Its true"
"Not its not"
what is there to discuss? I didn't conveniently forget anything. I made it 100% clear when I left the thread what I thought:
I think I am sticking to this as being "fake".
Nothing posted since then has changed that. But that thread has no bearing on this one. GScholz is trying to deflect attention from his error here with "I may have been wrong here but you were wrong there". I thought it was a friendly discussion but he doesn't seem to take being wrong all that well.
-
Deflect what? I've already conceded this argument. When I know I'm wrong I actually say so (I know it must be hard to understand).
-
Then why did you hijack this thread and bring up a post that is some months old that has nothing to do with the topic?
You and I both know I am right in this opinion as well:
GScholz is trying to deflect attention from his error here with "I may have been wrong here but you were wrong there".
As for me not admitting when I am wrong that’s pure bs. Even your own quotes from the other thread show that when you presented seemingly quality evidence I conceded you may have been right all along. It wasn't until another discussion on another forum that I returned to my original opinion. I then stated so. Nothing since then has convinced me to change it.
You can play the clown all you want but you brought up the whole mess.
-
Actually you were the one to use the "you were wrong there" tactic.
Originally posted by Batz
Are you still calling Fritz Franz? ;)
I'm just amazed how you can be so disrespectful towards those people, especially considering you have not provided a single shred of proof that the recording is somehow fake.
-
Actually you were the one to use the "you were wrong there" tactic.
That little winky emoticon mean anything? Also this thread had not reached a conclusion. In fact you replied with your own winky. But it wasn't until after Mr. Gustin replied and you were clearly wrong that you went off about the lanc recording.
Through out that thread and in the thread I linked it is perfectly clear how I arrived at my opinion. That fact you don’t agree is not evidence of anything.
I have made my opinions clear on this forum on what I think of Lancaster’s and their terroristic dehousing policy carried out against civilians. Why you would think I would offer blind respect to those who carried out this pogrom is beyond me.
-
I see. Your "opinion" is colored with your distain for what they did. Sure, I can understand that. I'm no fan of Harris or his methods myself, but I'm not going to stoop down to calling these people liars and accuse them of fraud without any evidence for doing their duty no matter how disdainful that duty may be. End of discussion.
-
I have said and will repeat it one more time for you,
I still don't believe that lanc recording to be 100% authentic
It's up to you how you want to interpret my reply. If it makes you feel better to believe that I am calling them liars so be it. It's completely irrelevant to me.
My reasons are stated with in that thread. Failure to accept that recording as true, or by not agreeing with your opinion on it is not in any way related to how I may feel about those fellows and their wartime activity.
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
So we need to find the original 'core references' to the alternative meanings of the 'T', and make a judgment as to the authority of each. I don't offhand know what these are (I am alerting Emmanuel to this thread so he can join in). I might add that just having an authority say 'that is the meaning' doesn't necessarily make it right, either. One book I have is a brilliant description of RAF aircraft gun development in WW2, by someone who was in charge of the programme, but he goes on to talk about the '40mm Aden'. Ouch. Even the best people make mistakes.
So, let's track those prime sources!
I have found an alternative source for the T designation, here is the quote:
Yak-9T: This Tankovyi (tank) designation was applied to the specialized anti-tank model that entered service early in 1943 with the cockpit moved back some 1 ft 3.75 in (0.40 m) to preserve the center of gravity in the right position despite the introduction of the heavy anti-tank cannon, the fuel capacity
reduced to 95.1 US gal (79.2 Imp gal; 360 liters), a moteur-canon installation of one 20, 23 or 37 mm cannon firing armor-piercing projectiles, and provision for underwing containers of 5.5 lb (2.5 kg) PTAB hollow-charge anti-tank bomblets.
The first Yak-9T flew in December 1942 with an armament of one 37 mm 11P-37 cannon with 30 rounds and two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) UBS machine guns with 100 rounds per gun, and the other production versions had one 20 mm MP-20 and two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) UBS machine guns, or one 23 mm VYa-23 cannon and one 0.5 in (12.7 mm) UBS machine gun, or one 23 mm MP-23-VV cannon and one 0.5 in (12.7 mm) UBS machine gun.
The Yak-9T was built only in modest numbers, and its details where different from those of the Yak-9D included a length of 27 ft 11.5 in (8.52 m) increasing to 28 ft 4.5 in (8.65 m) with the 37 mm cannon, empty weight of 6,063 lb (2750 kg), maximum take-off weight of 6,746 lb (3060 kg), maximum level speed of 320 kt (368.5 mph; 593 km/h) at 9,845 ft (3000 m) declining to 287 kt (330.5 mph; 532 km/h) at sea level, and range of 421 nm (485 miles; 780 km).
This quote was written by Christopher Chant, a well known aviation author and published through the Wings Discovery Channel. Not a primary source, I know, but at least it serves to show how this conflict of opinion may have originated.
Badboy
-
fair enough! believe what you want! i only joined in because i had been quoted! :D
Round 5, weighing in at a dweeby 110lbs and being 5ft 5"... in the red corner "I am never wrong" Batz!
And...
In the Blue corner weighing in at a puny 108lbs and being 5ft 6" .... Gunther "Im a stinking luftweenie" Scholtz!
LETS GET IT ON!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If your info is from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol.1, Single-Engined Fighters by Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov"
I think what is interesting is that such errors can be found in the work of Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov..........
It is repeated in the book "Yakavlovs piston engined fighters"
I have to admit that my original understanding was the same as GScholz............ that the heavy cannon was originally mounted for A to G stuff and latterly found to have a high "kill per round" average A to A.
I have read many excerpts from Yakevlovs memoirs but never had access to the whole book,,,,,,,,,,,, it would be an interesting read,
-
Furball, that would have been fun ... I'm 6' 5", 215 pounds. :D
-
and im 9' and 300 lbs, and thats just my willy.
-
You're not allowed to use THAT in the ring! ... I hope not!
-
These comments from the book, "Russian Aircraft since 1940" by Jean Alexander
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/Yak9Tinfo2.jpg)
Badboy
-
The Yak-9T was preceded on the production lines by a small number of Yak-7-37 fighters. The Yak-7-37 was conceived as a heavy fighter, to attack "close air support aircraft, bombers, and ground targets." (Kosminkov) It was a modified Yak-7B. A small series of 22 aircraft was completed, with the more reliable Nudelman-Suranov NS-37, and leading edge slats to improve low-speed handling.
In August '42 these were assigned to the 42nd regiment, commanded by F.I. Shinkarenko. Shinkarenko is quoted as follows by Konstantin Kosminkov (in Le Fana de l'Aviation of October 1994, I translate the French translation of the Russian original to English):
The 37mm cannon had been intended by the engineers to destroy enemy bombers, and it was more difficult to use it against smaller and more agile fighters. Nevertheless, on the North-Western Front, we only rarely encountered bombers, and we more often escorted ground attack missions or flew cover above ground troops. The gun of the Yak-7B proved to be a very effective and reliable weapon against enemy fighters... At first, when we only had machine guns and 20 mm cannon, we tried to approach enemy aircraft very closely and opened fire from a very short distance, almost point-blank range. With the new cannon we could aim with confidence at a distance of several hundred meters. One or two hits were sufficient to make the fascist fighter explode.
For the Yak-9T Kosminkov cites firing distances of 100 to 400 m against fighters and 500 to 600 m against bombers, with a maximum range of 1000 to 1200 m.
The Yak-7-37 did not enter large-scale production, because the better Yak-9T came along. Production of the Yak-9T began in March 1943. One of the pilots of the type was Shinkarenko, then commander of the 133rd Guards regiment, evidently a satisfied customer:
The entirety of the personnel of my unit wishes to thank the designers of this new armament (...) Our pilots flying the Yak-9T have downed 49 enemy aircraft in four days of combat, losing only four of our own.
According to Kosminkov (in Le Fana de l'Aviation, December 1994):
The arrival in substantial numbers on the front of the Yak-9T made a big impression on the Germans and forced them to modify their tactics, especially those of the Fw 190A. The latter had a very reliable air-cooled BMW engine, effective armour and very powerful 20mm cannon. As they were slower and much less manoeuverable than the Yak-1, -7 and -9, their pilots preferred to attack the Yak head-on, because they had better chances to win that way. But the arrival of the Yak-9T with its impressive firepower forced the Germans to quickly abandon head-on attacks against all Yak fighters, because it was very hard to distinguish between those armed with 37mm cannon and the others.
Emmanuel Gustin
-
Incidentally, the LaGG-3 was also built with the 37 mm cannon. One of the original trio of designers, Gudkov, completed a few "K-37" fighters with the Sh-37 cannon as early as August 41. It is claimed that Lt. Pereskokov used one of these to shoot down two Bf 110s with an expenditure of only 12 rounds.
Lavochkin reconsidered the project in early 42 and completed a small number of LaGG-3-37, still with the Sh-37 cannon; these were sent to Shinkarenko's 42nd regiment, evidently to be evaluated alongside the Yak-7-37. The small series claimed 50 enemy aircraft and 5 tanks during the test period, but the Sh-37 was not satisfactory. In December 42 the production began of a version with the NS-37, in time to operate over Stalingrad. However, the production of the LaGG-3 was about to be halted in favour of the superior Yak-7.
(The source for this is Jacques Marmain, the Le Fana de l'Aviation of January 1993).
Emmanuel Gustin
-
Thanks for this thread guys.
Over the past year I've been addicted to the Yak9U, and have been having a lot of fun with it, flying in low and fast, hitting the furballs hard and getting out again.
But it never really occured to me to give the 9T a shot, assuming that it was meant for the AT role. The low number of cannon rounds was also prohibative, as I have possibly the worst aim in the game.
But since reading this thread, I took a 9T up for a few sorties and was pleasantly surprised. You only need to hit once most of the time. I took the wing off of a P-47 with a single hit, Watched a 109 just dissapear in front of me, and racked a B-17 down the middle (although I did run into a drone at that point lol).
Anyhow, I'm having more fun that I have in AH in a long time, thanks in a large part to this thread.
-Sik
-
Sikboy it is a nice plane. Below 5 k it’s faster then the g6.
Brady and I are planning a scenario that will include the 9t as well as the 9u. I hope you get a chance to fly in it.
The one thing I learned in ah flying the 109s with the 3cm is gunnery. Before I stopped flying AH regularly I was able to turn off tracers. This helped a lot because before the bad guy realized he was being fired upon the he would have 3cm Rheinmetal shoved up his arse. The NS 37 has better ballistics then the Mk 108. I remember a snapshot where Zigrat killed me at d700 with the NS 37. I was in a g6.
Eventually I would like to see some more variants of the yak included in AH, Yak 1 yak7 9m or 9d. However I think the next VVS aircraft introduced (other then the 9m) would be the pe 2.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Sikboy it is a nice plane. Below 5 k it’s faster then the g6.
Brady and I are planning a scenario that will include the 9t as well as the 9u. I hope you get a chance to fly in it.
The one thing I learned in ah flying the 109s with the 3cm is gunnery. Before I stopped flying AH regularly I was able to turn off tracers. This helped a lot because before the bad guy realized he was being fired upon the he would have 3cm Rheinmetal shoved up his arse. The NS 37 has better ballistics then the Mk 108. I remember a snapshot where Zigrat killed me at d700 with the NS 37. I was in a g6.
Eventually I would like to see some more variants of the yak included in AH, Yak 1 yak7 9m or 9d. However I think the next VVS aircraft introduced (other then the 9m) would be the pe 2.
That's good news, I hope I'll be able to get a group together for your scenario. I'm trying something "new" for a Squadron, and a Scenario would give us a perfect oppotunity to fly the 9T. (the Squad is slowely coming together at http://www.warszawa.hailcesarz.com/index.php It will probably never really work out, but it's worth a shot.
Flying the 9U has improved my Gunnery Considerably (although it's dropped since I went back to school, and had kid). I turned my tracers off not long after I started flying it. I figure I need to be inside 250 to hit, so no need to give them any warning lol.
I too would like to see some earlier Soviet planes get some attention, and the Yak-7 and 9D (or even DD) would be nice to see.
-Sik
-
Interesting audio on the nightfighter attack, I will have to compare it to a tape my father had sent to him back in the '70's
My father was the pilot.
Regards, Ian Letford
Originally posted by GScholz
Note: That was a very lame excuse.
The Imperial War Museum and BBC did verify that this recording was the recording Vaughan-Thomas made in 1943, there was even a reference to F for Freddie in the full recording.
(http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/Northoltberliners.jpg)
L-R: Charles Stewart (F/E), Ken Letford (Pilot), Wynford Vaughan-Thomas (BBC Correspondent), Bill Bray (B/A). These were some of the principal guests of those who met at RAF Northolt in September 1983 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the BBC recording made of EM-F's trip to Berlin on 3 Sep 1943. George Mitchell, of 207 Sqn at Northolt, can be seen on the left. It was on this occasion that the idea of forming an Association took firm root. [source: Ron Winton]
Do you think these gentlemen got together 40 years later to commemorate a lie? You do realize you're calling these people liars?
I think I have lost the last shred of respect for you Batz.