Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bangsbox on January 12, 2012, 12:29:51 AM
-
the said by 1943 most first rate russian fighters had a rocket built/attached to it for extra speed. and they showed clips of la and yak with rocket booster going off. thoughts, i really don't wanna see lala's getting rocket boosters for take off or emergencies but if true we might have to consider it.
-
Do any research?
I haven't.
i know military history channel is wrong alot but
wrongway
-
I haven't even HEARD of this, yet alone done research on it. But when I was doing some research to compare the jets of the allies/soviets to those of the Germans, I read that they mounted ramjets to a couple of Polikarpov I-153's for expiramental purposes. But I didn't see anything about any other soviet expiraments with mixed propulsion aircraft untill post-war.
-
we have to remember that many russian sources are not translated and the US hates giving Russia credit for anything. i would say look at german sources for confirmation but i cant read greman. the show was secret weapons of russia/stalin (lil drunk) but they where taking about the i16 with the rocket in it and they said " it waisted to much fuel to fast and test pilot died in crash, rocket plane was abandon but many russian front line fighter were equipped with some kind of rocket booster for more speed". now i know this is some what a vague statement but there most be at least something more then an i16 rocket tests to this.
-
No rocket asissted VVS fighters made the front line in the GPW. Its all BS.
In 44/45 there was some investigation into rocket boosted La7's. The weight of the tail mounted boost was not compensated for by the power of the rocket engine. The idea was dropped.
Some wing mounted Rato type solutions were also tried. I can check at home whether any yak protoypes were played with but can ssure you that nothing reached the front line even as a trial basis.
-
we have to remember that many russian sources are not translated and the US hates giving Russia credit for anything.
It's wonderful how alcohol makes you more intelligent. :cheers:
-
Don't know if this site is accurate but shows LA variants with rockets experimental only.....
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/2/Lavochkin%20La%207.htm (http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/2/Lavochkin%20La%207.htm)
-
we have to remember that many russian sources are not translated and the US hates giving Russia credit for anything. i would say look at german sources for confirmation but i cant read greman. the show was secret weapons of russia/stalin (lil drunk) but they where taking about the i16 with the rocket in it and they said " it waisted to much fuel to fast and test pilot died in crash, rocket plane was abandon but many russian front line fighter were equipped with some kind of rocket booster for more speed". now i know this is some what a vague statement but there most be at least something more then an i16 rocket tests to this.
I can remember many many times growing up how Jane's and the western aerospace media credited the USSR with performance
WELL beyond that which was actually capable. Of course your beloved communists don't even like to admit they took Lend-Lease
products, much less used them.
-
Lol, western countries STILL give the USSR (particularly in WWII) too much credit. They always say "well look at the IS-2, it was even better than the Tiger II!"
NO! Thats completly wrong! The Tiger II's actual thickness on the glacis plate (150mm) was thicker than the IS-2's effective thickness (counting slope) of ~140mm on the glacis plate. And theres no comparison on the gun: KwK 43 > D25-T
-
The fanfare over the IS-2 is a joke. It was on par with the Panther, not the King Tiger, or even the Tiger I.
-
Thats getting into some sketchy comparisons, SmokinLoon, the Panther is better than the Tiger I in many areas, but the Tiger I out preforms the Panther in others and under specific conditions. Overall, I would consider the Panther a better tank, even if the IS was a better HEAVY tank.
And I think the IS-2 was better than the Tiger I, even if just barely, and only because of its increased armor. But that a German 1942 tank is comperable to a Soviet 1944 tank is really telling.
-
Also we must remember that german steel sucked during the kingtiger days. It was still to thick for almost anything to penetrate the armor but when hit the steel would crack or send shards flying inside the vehicle killing people. If it was early war german steel it be a different even more unstoppable tank. But for the rocket on las and yaks topic I could def See Russians using "ratos" on planes Russians love short muddy runways (when it's not rainning).
-
Also we must remember that german steel sucked during the kingtiger days. It was still to thick for almost anything to penetrate the armor but when hit the steel would crack or send shards flying inside the vehicle killing people. If it was early war german steel it be a different even more unstoppable tank. But for the rocket on las and yaks topic I could def See Russians using "ratos" on planes Russians love short muddy runways (when it's not rainning).
You mix it up with the IS-2 again. Maybe the tiger2 sucked, but the IS-2 was famous for that.
-
Can I get RATO for my A20?? Seen film of it!
Oh man, that would be too cool..
-
The LA9 got the rocket and possibly a couple of I153.
-
Also we must remember that german steel sucked during the kingtiger days. It was still to thick for almost anything to penetrate the armor but when hit the steel would crack or send shards flying inside the vehicle killing people. If it was early war german steel it be a different even more unstoppable tank. But for the rocket on las and yaks topic I could def See Russians using "ratos" on planes Russians love short muddy runways (when it's not rainning).
Lol.... no, not quite. Later Tiger II's had this problem, but then again, so did every german tank. And also lets remember that Soviet quality inspection wan't the benchmark of its day either.
And I can see hitler beating Russia, but that doesn't mean its what happened in real life.
-
Yeah I'm sure they loved their short, muddy runways. *facepalm*
-
Thats getting into some sketchy comparisons, SmokinLoon, the Panther is better than the Tiger I in many areas, but the Tiger I out preforms the Panther in others and under specific conditions. Overall, I would consider the Panther a better tank, even if the IS was a better HEAVY tank.
And I think the IS-2 was better than the Tiger I, even if just barely, and only because of its increased armor. But that a German 1942 tank is comperable to a Soviet 1944 tank is really telling.
Point taken. I cringe every time I see or hear comparisons of the IS-2 vs the King Tiger, or Tiger I. You're exactly right in saying the Panther (G) was superior to the Tiger I in many ways, and that the Soviets finally in 1944-45 made something on par with 1941 German Tiger is telling in itself. Of course, there will be some knee-jerkers that will say "what about the early way T34 vs German tanks? That was more of a case of tank doctrine than tank vs tank issues there. Once the Pzr IV F/2 arrived, the T34/76 was left behind because from that point on all it was was sheer numbers. Even the T34/85 was behind the curve, the Pzr IV H has a superior AP round. Again, sheer numbers won the day for the Soviets. Ah well... life (and the eternal debate) goes on. ;)
-
most first rate Russian fighters
This is a very general term. May depend on the definition "first rate" at the time of writing.
Heck most WWII fighters could go supersonic. Just that the recovering part wouldn't be to successful.
-
Loon, in regards to the T-34 in early war, I think you're confusing things. Soviets had terrible doctrine, but better tanks, not the other way around. The only reason the T-34 and KV tanks gave the Germans trouble was that the German's best gun at the time was the 50mm L'60, which could penetrate ~80mm of armor with standard PzGr. 39 ammunition.
On paper, thats adequete, but combat rarely gives you a shot at 100m.
-
we have to remember that many russian sources are not translated and the US hates giving Russia credit for anything. i would say look at german sources for confirmation but i cant read greman. the show was secret weapons of russia/stalin (lil drunk) but they where taking about the i16 with the rocket in it and they said " it waisted to much fuel to fast and test pilot died in crash, rocket plane was abandon but many russian front line fighter were equipped with some kind of rocket booster for more speed". now i know this is some what a vague statement but there most be at least something more then an i16 rocket tests to this.
Google translate- Copy & Paste into English ie:
Jakowlew Jak-9
Typ: russisches Jagdflugzeug aus dem 2.Weltkrieg. Manche auch Jagdbomber, Panzerjäger oder Langstrecken-Begleitjäger.
Geschichte: Die Jakowlew-Jäger waren das am häufigsten verwendete russische Jagdflugzeug in Korea und dem 2. Weltkrieg, und das bekannteste war die Jakowlew Jak-9.
Auch der zahlenmäßig am stärksten vertretene Typ der Jakowlew-Jagdflugzeuge, die Jak-9, wurde in einer Reihe von unterschiedlichen Versionen bis in die 50er Jahre des vergangen Jahrhunderts hinein produziert. Die Jak-9P, die letzte und beste Version, wurde von den Nord-Koreanern zahlreich im Korea-Krieg eingesetzt.
Yakovlev Yak-9
Type: Russian fighter plane from World War 2. Some even fighter-bombers, tanks and long-range fighter-escort fighters.
History: The Yakovlev-hunters were the most frequently used Russian fighter in Korea and the second World War II, and the most famous was the Yakovlev Yak-9.
The numerically most abundant type of Yakovlev fighters, the Yak-9 was produced in a number of different versions until the 50s of last century. The Yak-9P, the latest and greatest version, was abundant from the North Koreans during the Korean War used.
It's this easy... PS I found nothing which said Booster rockets=Booster-Raketen, or Raketenantrieb anywhere on the Yak-9/9U
http://weltkrieg2.de/Waffen/Kampfflugzeuge/Jagdflugzeuge/russische/Jakowlew/Jak-9.htm (http://weltkrieg2.de/Waffen/Kampfflugzeuge/Jagdflugzeuge/russische/Jakowlew/Jak-9.htm)
-
Loon, in regards to the T-34 in early war, I think you're confusing things. Soviets had terrible doctrine, but better tanks, not the other way around. The only reason the T-34 and KV tanks gave the Germans trouble was that the German's best gun at the time was the 50mm L'60, which could penetrate ~80mm of armor with standard PzGr. 39 ammunition.
On paper, thats adequete, but combat rarely gives you a shot at 100m.
No, I was correct in saying what I said. The T34 only had armor going for it in the EW, that is it. So I hesitate to give the Soviets the nod for having "better tanks", they certainly had better armor but that is only 1 attribute. Most people forget the Soviets had a pathetic AP round for its 76mm gun, it was even less effective than the US M4/75mm. The German's tank doctrine was still divided when they invaded the Soviet Union, they STILL used separate tanks to engage the enemy. The Panzer III's 50mm Kw.K. 39 L/60 had to get too close in order to be effective vs the T34. Once the Pzr IV F/2 arrived on scene the T34 was behind the curve. There certainly is a gray area for when the Germans completely switched from the infantry support tank/anti-tank tank to the "MBT" doctrine, too bad for them it took too long.
The Ost Front offered sort of a circus for both side when it came to tank doctrine. Both sides had shot themselves in the foot in multiple ways. Each went different ways to correct their problems. Tank for tank, the Germans were better for a multitude of reasons. The Germans just couldn't replace the losses like the Soviets could.
-
Looking at it that way, I guess its a matter of doctrine. I thought you were talking about the tacticle doctrine, as in the actual tactics and manuvers used in combat, where the germans were years ahead of the soviets.
-
Lol.... no, not quite. Later Tiger II's had this problem, but then again, so did every german tank. And also lets remember that Soviet quality inspection wan't the benchmark of its day either.
And I can see hitler beating Russia, but that doesn't mean its what happened in real life.
it is known that because of lack of certain metals the germans were not able to make steel of same quality by the end of the war. there are many reports of enemy shells not penetrating the tiger 2 and panthers armor, but the armor would crack or big flacks of steel would fly of inside the tank killing people. in either case allied investigations into these occurrences determined it was inferior steel do to lack of chromium if i recall correctly
-
Spalling (this is what you're refering to) will still occure even with good steel. The Afrika Korps noted that even though their 50mm weapons wouldn't always penetrate the British tanks, hitting them was usually sufficent to either incapacitate the crews, or make them bail out, due to spalling.
My point is that spalling isn't a phenomenon unique to the late war German tanks. It was more of a problem, yes, but it was not isolated to just them. Odds are the only reason you don't hear more about spalling in allied tanks was that the German guns just usually penetrated the armor.
-
On German armour and cracking in the late war (post 1943):
Tank Net had an interesting discussion on the subject, with lots of photos of wholesale cracking and/or large areas of plate scabbing (not just spalling) of German high hardness face-hardened armour.
There is a 1945 analysis of the armour of a Panther done by the Waterton Arsenal Laboratory (the armour piece was cracked off by a 75 mm HE round...). It goes a long way to supporting the proposition that German armour quality degraded in the later part of the war.
Some choice phrases from the report include:
"The cross-rolled homogenous armour was processed from steel of relatively poor quality with respect to non-metallic segregations"
"The extremely poor shock properties are traceable to the non-martensitic micorstrucuture resulting from hardenability inadequate to permit full hardening upon tempering.
"The very poor shock qualities are... traceable to the lack of hardenability occasioned by the elimination of molybendium"
"Inferior toughness as evidenced by brittle fractures and low impact resistance has been reported in several investigations of German armour that were 2" and greater in thickness"
"The impact properties... have been repeatedly found to be very poor"
"The quality of the steel is not as satisfactory as that of the average German armour previously investigated at this arsenal."
-
Of course the quality degraded! How the hell can you mass-produce uber quality steel when your country is bombed to the dirt?
Btw t-34. That tank existed in 1941. Consider this, and you get the world's best tank of the period. (True, it wasnt on the frontline in large numbers that time)
47 mms of heavily sloped armor, 75mm main gun with about 80mm of penetration at 1km, fast like crazy... an unbeatable beast for the PanzerIIIs.
At relative close ranges, it still performs well against the Panzer4F-2. Looking at their upgrades, the 1944 Panzer4H is still inferior to the t34/85.
Also consider how incredibly simple the T34 was, easy to repair or replace parts.
Saying the t-34 was crappy is just dumb. It was the worlds very best tank when it came out. Other thing the german heavy tank designs were much better than the russians. Considering the Panther as a heavy by its weight, gun, and low production number
-
Saying the t-34 was crappy is just dumb. It was the worlds very best tank when it came out.
Agreed on both points.
I've often thought that even in 1945, if you were commanding an army on the offense, you wanted that army to be equipped with T-34s (the 1945 version, of course!). The combination of range, protection, gun, mobility, reliability and ease of production was just not matched by any other tank of that war.
- oldman
-
This is a very general term. May depend on the definition "first rate" at the time of writing.
Heck most WWII fighters could go supersonic. Just that the recovering part wouldn't be to successful.
Incorrect.... No WWII vintage fighters could get even remotely close to Mach 1. The first truly transonic fighter was the XP-86/F-86. Even the MiG-15 was incapable of attaining Mach 1.
-
Btw t-34. That tank existed in 1941. Consider this, and you get the world's best tank of the period. (True, it wasnt on the frontline in large numbers that time)
47 mms of heavily sloped armor, 75mm main gun with about 80mm of penetration at 1km, fast like crazy... an unbeatable beast for the PanzerIIIs.
At relative close ranges, it still performs well against the Panzer4F-2. Looking at their upgrades, the 1944 Panzer4H is still inferior to the t34/85.
Also consider how incredibly simple the T34 was, easy to repair or replace parts.
Saying the t-34 was crappy is just dumb. It was the worlds very best tank when it came out. Other thing the german heavy tank designs were much better than the russians. Considering the Panther as a heavy by its weight, gun, and low production number
Skill beats quality, debrody. T-34's in 1941 still got their arses handed to them because they were incredibly stupid with their tanks, and because they were undercrewed.
T-34 kept its edge for less than a year, the Tiger I, and Panther kept their edge for well over a year and a half, and 3 years respectivly.
And saying the T-34/85 is superior to the Panzer IV H is only true if you look at it from a maintinance and production standpoint as well. Its gun is inferior (without HVAP at close range, and at long range regardless of amunition), hull armor at LOS thickness is also inferior. Purely tank vs tank, the T-34/85 is only better in turret armor and manuverability.
-
Skill beats quality, debrody. T-34's in 1941 still got their arses handed to them because they were incredibly stupid with their tanks, and because they were undercrewed.
True, what you think why the first offense over the Ostfront was that much successful for the Germans? Couse they were experienced and led by highly superior commanders, while the whole Soviet leadership was executed by Stalin between 1937-39. Still, technically speaking, the T34 was the worlds very best tank til the Panzer4F2 came out.
T-34 kept its edge for less than a year, the Tiger I, and Panther kept their edge for well over a year and a half, and 3 years respectivly.
Dont be dumb, bro, the Tiger was a super heavy tank in 1942 and only was produced in very small numbers (maybe like 1500 overall?? not sure)
Sure it kicked butt, but was based on a failed doctrine. Also compare the Tiger1 to the 1943 Soviet heavy tank design, the IS-2/1943, and you will see they are about equal. A one year advantage for the germans.
The Panther is an other tale, an 1942 design what arrived to the fronts in 1943. That was an awsome medium/heavy tank and highly superior to any T34. Still, keep in mind, the T34 was designed in 1940.
And saying the T-34/85 is superior to the Panzer IV H is only true if you look at it from a maintinance and production standpoint as well. Its gun is inferior (without HVAP at close range, and at long range regardless of amunition), hull armor at LOS thickness is also inferior. Purely tank vs tank, the T-34/85 is only better in turret armor and manuverability.
Panzer4H: turret front 50mm, hull front 80mm straight vertical. Its gun had 136-115-98mm penetration at 0-1-2K yards (almost equal to kilometers)
T34/85: Turret front: 90mm, hull front 47mm sloped at like 55 degrees (!) The gun had 180-120-94mm penetration using the appropiate rounds, 120-104-94mm using standard AP.
Where are we going bro? Closer than 1.5K they both could kill each other with one, at most two pings. From 2K they are about equal, mostly the aiming skill of the crew and the optics decide the fight.
Show me any documents about WW2 tanks shooting each other over 3K. Also the T34 is much faster than the Panzer4, much more suitable for offensive operations, also can knock out a Tiger from 700m with one ping.
Personally i stil would chose the panzer4, but its only my sillyness.
-
The Tiger was about 10 tons heavier than the IS-2 (the 122mm armed version), which entered service in 1944. But it was much more comfortable for the crew (comfortable crew = well-preforming crew), and had room for more ammunition. From everything I've heard, the accuracy and balistics of the KwK 36 were superior, as were its reload time and optics.
About ~1500 Tiger I and II's were produced overall, which roughly matches the number of IS2 tanks produced. The IS-1 (IS-85) which was produced and saw service in 1943 was still inferior to the Tiger, mostly because of its Zis-S-53, the same gun that armed the T-34/85.
And 47mm of armor at 55 degrees slope provides only 81mm of protection at LOS. I'm not sure what the actual protection values would be against a 75mm caliber round, so unless someone can provide a chart *cough*lusche*cough*, we'll have to go by cosine thickness.
Also, theres something wrong with either your standard AP round numbers or your HVAP round numbers, because standard AP becomes more effective than AP at somewhere around 1200m, your numbers show it becoming equal at 2000m
PzGr.40 ammunition for the KwK 40 was able to pentrate 165mm of armor at cosine thickness (143mm at 30 degrees slope).
And again, you're ignoring reload time and optics. Who wins largely depends on who hits first, and the Panzer has the advantage both in the initial shot and the follow up shot.
-
That 1500 number for IS-2 is 1945 production. Before that some 2350 had been produced.
-
I can't find any sources that state ~2300 total, that don't also say that it was able to knock a Tiger II's turret off at 2300yds or that the IS3 was used against the Germans in may of 1945 (both are false).
-
The Soviets were not interested in deploying a super tank that could defeat a Tiger or Panther in a 1v1 duel. They were interested in deploying armored divisions and armored brigades in as much quantity as they could. To that end their overall strategy worked while the Germans were fatally fascinated to war's end by producing ultra expensive AFVs that left many of their fighting formations short of armor and short of motorisation. Expensive Tiger IIs just hastened their demise. How many Marders or StGs or towed AT Guns could you make with the industrial cost of a Tiger II platoon?
For what the vehicles cost per unit? I would give the Russians the highest marks in WW2 for bang-for-buck despite the drawbacks of some designs. A strategy of anything but creating the best weapons of war for the industrial output that they had at the time was the best course for them. That goes for the small arms, aircraft, ships, artillery, and shoe laces...as well as importing anything they could from the Western Allies to bolster it all. They had no time for waste or excess but more importantly for them they realised their wartime limitations.
Was a JS-2 as good as a King Tiger? too sum up; fortunately for the Russians, no, it was not. It was a heavy tank they could afford to build in 1944 and deploy in meaningfull numbers (I have 3800 during the war) to be usefull to their war aims. Of course that pales in comparison to the 29,500 wartime built T-34/85s or the production totals on all the rest...
JS-3 likely did not see much action in Berlin (proving or disproving being both impossible and rather academic I think). Its usefull to remember that bragging rights about "best anything" means precious little when your capital has been overrun by enemy grenadiers. A lesson the Third Reich learned much too late. All that said I won't argue that a Tiger II was likely the most single formidable fighting tank deployed in the war in any reasonable number.
-
I can't find any sources that state ~2300 total, that don't also say that it was able to knock a Tiger II's turret off at 2300yds or that the IS3 was used against the Germans in may of 1945 (both are false).
What do you mean you can't find any sources? One second using Google, http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-heavy/is-2.asp
-
We're getting a ton of snow here in washington. Our power was out for almost 8hrs, and internet connection wasn't great when it was on.
wwIIvehicles wasn't loading at the time of posting.
-
Testbed only.
(http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/h200106rocketbk_485_2.jpg)