Yak-9T....

[Batz]

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?

[GScholz]

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?

[Tony Williams]

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 and Discussion forum

[Emmanuel Gustin]

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

[Batz]

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

[Batz]

Oops,,,,,,,

Was posting at the Same time as Mr. Gunstin.

Thank you for your reply.

[GScholz]

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

[Batz]

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.

[GScholz]

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

Under attack

Home safe.  Notice the reference to F for Freddie.  

[Batz]

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.

[GScholz]

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 .......

That settles that, good find GScholz.

Note: That was a very lame excuse.

Originally posted by Batz
wwiiol

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.



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.

[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.

[GScholz]

Ah of course, the inevitable ad hominem attack. Furball was right.

[Batz]

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.

[Furball]

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