Russian planes are made out of ?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

even under stall speed its pretty controllable, even above 5k its outclimbs a 109(even F4) magic flaps, and many many more...

 

I don't know what you're smoking but that hasn't been my experience at all.

 

You sure you're not just grinding an ax?

[Lusekofte]

 

 

even under stall speed its pretty controllable, even above 5k its outclimbs a 109(even F4) magic flaps, and many many more...

 

Can you please one time actually fly it 

[Gambit21]

Well, what did you find!?

It was in good order.

Due for an oil change after another 6 hours.

[Scojo]

It was in good order.

Due for an oil change after another 6 hours.

Russian bias! Over modeled!

 

Everyone knows all Russian planes need an oil change after every hour of flight!

[Monostripezebra]

What are russian planes made of? Wood, off course!

 

[BubiHUN]

Can you please one time actually fly it 

can you fly against it? :D

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

can you fly against it? :D

 

Been there, done that, time and time again... That's why I'm finding it difficult to relate to your experience...

[Willy__]

even under stall speed its pretty controllable, even above 5k its outclimbs a 109(even F4) magic flaps, and many many more...

 

 

Been there, done that, time and time again... That's why I'm finding it difficult to relate to your experience...

 

 

It is pretty stable, but it will not outclimb the F4. There was a time when the russian flaps were way too much effective, but it was patched and I never had any troubles with someone using flaps nowadays.

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

Flaps Point is disscussed to death but still intressted, like to dogfight Yaks and dont run away  (Idiotic i know)

When the Yak turns in clean condition a the Edge of Stall this normaly limited by the Angle of Attack.

Specially with Split Flaps like the Yak the increassing Wing Angle with the Flaps deployed AOA should be decreassing.

In Game say something around 18 Degree and and 15 Degree in Landing Configuration..

In Game in Flight i can Pull more on the Stick with Flaps deployed nearly to is max Stick Deflection at high Speed then without Flaps.

Is this behavior correct?

[MrNoice]

they have to fix the german 20mm HE round... its not realistic made and deals to few damage

[VeryOldMan]

Might sound strange to most people, but wood deals better than  aluminum with  projectile.  Wood structural force is more dependent on LOCALE integrity while  aluminum  can easily collapse  if under tension with even a small part bent.

 

Besides that,  wood is more resilient to fire.. yes MORE. Wood  fire cannot keep  burning at  400 km/h, there is not enough thermal troughput, onother hand  Aluminum burns like HELL, literally..  and   the wind around the plane is no where near enough to extinguish it.

 

 

 

 

[JtD]

Odd you mention bent aluminium in a sentence that states wood can take more damage. The ability to bend under stress is one of the reason aluminium is more damage resistant than wooden materials, because wood breaks and cracks up under loads where aluminium just bends, for instance when subjected to projectiles or splinters.

 

Neither aluminium nor wooden aircraft burn without extreme external input, in form of fuel or oil fires or really large amounts of incendiary materials, which were not used in WW2 projectiles. The least fire resistant construction in widespread service were fabric covered structures, and even there it was rare for fires to keep burning without external input.

Edited July 24, 2017 by JtD

[VeryOldMan]

Odd you mention bent aluminium in a sentence that states wood can take more damage. The ability to bend under stress is one of the reason aluminium is more damage resistant than wooden materials, because wood breaks and cracks up under loads where aluminium just bends, for instance when subjected to projectiles or splinters.

 

Neither aluminium nor wooden aircraft burn without extreme external input, in form of fuel or oil fires or really large amounts of incendiary materials, which were not used in WW2 projectiles. The least fire resistant construction in widespread service were fabric covered structures, and even there it was rare for fires to keep burning without external input.

Wood  breaks under load yes, but wood is stable, completely stable until break up. Aluminum on other hand  aluminum bends and that is BAD. Bending means the force  transfer suddenly works in a way it was not designed too.

 

Just   roll up a paper sheet and try to compress it from the sides of the roll, it is HIGHLY resistant. As soon as you make ANY bending  it collapses IMMEDIATELY, it suddenly loses 99% of its resistance to pressure.  Wood pieces, for starters are always thicker and when damaged if they did nto shatter immediately they  will not collapse until  excessive force is applied into it. That results in wood planes keep more or less intact longer (Although it is in reality in a bad shape just waiting for  someexcessive force to break it).

 

I do not know about all amunitions,  but  US .50 in the planes used  incendiary rounds at least. They used phosphorous EXACLTY because it reached the  conditions to set aluminum on fire. I woudl need to   research for other nations but I am too lazy for that.

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

The Ignition Temperatur of Aluminium in his solid Form is away over the Melting Temperatur plus Aluminum form a Oxidation layer with could withstand over 2000 Degrees, pretty hard to belive you burn aluminium down.

On the other Side for Aluminium/Steel construction you use elasticity stregth combination to withstand dynamic Load give good resitance on fatique Fractures.

They can handle alot of overtress with constant deformation before Aluminium break, thast why German Skip Fragment rounds because they dont do enough Damage to the structual Parts self supporting Aluminium Fighter design and go instead for internal Damaged.

On the when you overlook the development of Wood Fighter Designs there was alot of research to deal with the Brittlenes of Wood in example of Rivet holes humidity of the Air.

And the Lagg as example was descriped as burning fast (my Grandfather was Figther Pilot on the Eastern Front) because the Fabric cover ignited very fast.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Just to be pedantic, the LaGG-3 only had fabric on the control surfaces from what I recall. It's likely that your grandfather meant Yak.

 

Also, talking about wood and its qualities is as accurate as saying metal. Different types of wood, under different treatments and employment, will have different reactions to different forces. The so-called delta wood laminate widely used in Soviet aviation in the 1940s had better torsion resistance than most forms of aluminium, while only slightly less resistant than age-hardened aviation duralumin. It was also nearly non-flammable, had an operational life of a few decades years without degradation or rotting. That is not the same as the IKEA laminate used in our kitchen cupboard.

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

Just to be pedantic, the LaGG-3 only had fabric on the control surfaces from what I recall. It's likely that your grandfather meant Yak.

 

Also, talking about wood and its qualities is as accurate as saying metal. Different types of wood, under different treatments and employment, will have different reactions to different forces. The so-called delta wood laminate widely used in Soviet aviation in the 1940s had better torsion resistance than most forms of aluminium, while only slightly less resistant than age-hardened aviation duralumin. It was also nearly non-flammable, had an operational life of a few decades years without degradation or rotting. That is not the same as the IKEA laminate used in our kitchen cupboard.

Yes I agree but after non is here to say exactly the dimensions of the Parts they use, and the force they pass of the certain parts is fishing in the Dirt.

And saying aluminuin/wood dont withstand the same force, more pub flanel then acctual truth

Edited July 25, 2017 by 9./JG27MAD-MM

[Holtzauge]

Well the merits of wood have been up for discussion a number of times now (not a least earlier in this thread!) and while there is no question that wood is a good material for lower speed airplanes it does not do so well a higher dynamic pressures. True, the way the Russians used wood in WW2 was in many ways ingenious and they did overcome many of its basic limitation like a lower E- and G-modulus but that does not change the fact that aircraft grade aluminium is a better material for the type of fighters we have in BoX. A sanity check is why did the Russians start using more aluminum for aircraft later on in the war if deltawood was better? Is it not so that deltawood was used in the early versions due to a shortage of aircraft grade aluminium rather than it being a better choice? Again they did a very nice job in the LaGG, Yak and La-5 and the way the used it is reminiscent of modern composite structures but a solution based on wood and phenolic resins cannot compete with modern materials like carbon fibre and epoxi. As to resistance to battle damage, I think aluminium would be more tough but in order not to repeat myself I'll link to this post that covers my view anyways. That being said, would be great if someone could come up with some solid data like a WW2 report on wood damage resistance. Maybe our colleagues in the Russian speaking forum could help out?

Edited July 25, 2017 by Holtzauge

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I'll see if I can find some more detailed info on it. This article covers it generically.

 

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A//mash-xxl.info/info/434065/

[Holtzauge]

Great! It's always nice to discuss and exchange ideas but nothing beats actual data if you can find it!

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Indeed! Sadly I've had no luck though, all I found was a tangentially related long post from the Russian forums using memoirs and unit log books to demonstrate that the biggest threat to aircraft were AP rounds hitting critical parts (engines, crew, control cables), while HE rounds caused more aesthetically prominent damage but didn't bring aircraft down usually. Conversely, AP rounds that missed critical components made small holes and did f- all to the target.

 

EDIT: On a second read, it appears the argument is that overall cannon damage is overrated. Aircraft fall from critical damage, but can remain in flight after receiving several hits of either HE or AP ammunition so long as the engine is running and the pilot is capable of flying the aircraft, but players expect cannon fire to destroy any aircraft without taking in account what are they hitting.

Edited July 25, 2017 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[JtD]

Wood breaks under load yes, but wood is stable, completely stable until break up. Aluminum on other hand aluminum bends and that is BAD. Bending means the force transfer suddenly works in a way it was not designed too.

Wood has an elasticity just like any metal has, it's just less. That's why trees move in the wind, same principles apply to all wooden structures. Deformation of wood is higher for the same force than for aluminium, up to the point where wood breaks and aluminium starts to bend. Between a homogeneous aircraft quality wooden structure and an aircraft quality aluminium structure of the same weight and external proportions, the wooden structure collapses first because aluminium can take the higher load. A wooden structure designed to take one singular load (one direction) can be stronger than an aluminium design of the same weight, but this does not apply to aircraft because aircraft are subjected to more than a single load direction in almost any load bearing structure.

 

Just roll up a paper sheet and try to compress it from the sides of the roll, it is HIGHLY resistant. As soon as you make ANY bending it collapses IMMEDIATELY, it suddenly loses 99% of its resistance to pressure.

Compare it to an aluminium roll of the same weight, which one collapses first? These rolls are basic elements of tubular frameworks, used on aircraft of the era. You can also find them on modern day bicycles. I can tell you for sure aluminium frame tubes can take a higher load than a paper roll can, and even while this a fairly wood friendly application, good wooden frames (bamboo is the latest fashion) are heavier than comparable aluminium frames.

 

Wood pieces, for starters are always thicker and when damaged if they did nto shatter immediately they will not collapse until excessive force is applied into it. That results in wood planes keep more or less intact longer (Although it is in reality in a bad shape just waiting for someexcessive force to break it).

Broken wood is less strong than bend aluminium. The same energy that breaks a wooden spar will just bend an aluminium one, so while the wooden aircraft loses the wing, the aluminium aircraft of similar weight and size will lose a couple of rivets and go on.

I'm a huge fan of wood, but there's no magic to it. Overall, it's worse for aircraft than aluminium is and that's particularly true for durability and damage resistance. Like Holtzauge said, we've had a couple of discussions on the subject already. If you want to follow Lucas' link, you can find information on the most important material properties given as a function of the angle of force / moment application. You'll find that nominal values, say 70% of the strength of aluminium at 50% the weight, only hold true for special cases like forces acting in parallel to the layers. Against forces acting rectangular to the layers, the same delta wood achieves 15% the strength of aluminium, still at 50% the weight. Damage takes the way of the least resistance, and in order to compensate, you'll have to use laminates with delta wood sheets alternating between 90° and 0°, and you end up with 85% strength for 100% of the weight.

 

The amount of incendiary in the 0.50 cal rounds was not enough to sustain an aluminium fire. If you look at guncam footage, of which plenty exists, you'll find the vast majority of fires being cause by oil or fuel. All nations had incendiary rounds available for most of their weapons, but even weapons far larger than the 0.50 did not carry enough incendiary material to even remotely reliably cause sustained aluminium fires. Along with phosphor, aluminium was the most common incendiary material used (thermite). So yes, temperatures were obviously reached, still, to no noteworthy result.

[Holtzauge]

Indeed! Sadly I've had no luck though, all I found was a tangentially related long post from the Russian forums using memoirs and unit log books to demonstrate that the biggest threat to aircraft were AP rounds hitting critical parts (engines, crew, control cables), while HE rounds caused more aesthetically prominent damage but didn't bring aircraft down usually. Conversely, AP rounds that missed critical components made small holes and did f- all to the target.

 

EDIT: On a second read, it appears the argument is that overall cannon damage is overrated. Aircraft fall from critical damage, but can remain in flight after receiving several hits of either HE or AP ammunition so long as the engine is running and the pilot is capable of flying the aircraft, but players expect cannon fire to destroy any aircraft without taking in account what are they hitting.

 

Well I would be surprised if the Germans recommend loading up with Mingeschoss purely for the aesthetics? IMHO the give away that Mingeschoss are very effective against fighter type targets is twofold: One, the Germans had access to AP as well but still elected to load up with Mingeschoss. Two: For fighters they recommended a belting with MORE not less Mingeschoss. But yes, looking at it from an aethetic perspective, the black puffs in-game look nice. Just wish they caused a bit more catastrophic structures failures than we see today since in a deflection shot 80% of target area is structures and I would expect Minen to be better at shedding wings and empennages than AP but I don't think that is what we are seeing currently......

[JtD]

Indeed! Sadly I've had no luck though, all I found was a tangentially related long post from the Russian forums using memoirs and unit log books to demonstrate that the biggest threat to aircraft were AP rounds hitting critical parts (engines, crew, control cables), while HE rounds caused more aesthetically prominent damage but didn't bring aircraft down usually. Conversely, AP rounds that missed critical components made small holes and did f- all to the target.

The Germans came to the same result. AP rounds did the trick. However, that result came from WW1 when all they had were rifle sized rounds against canvas covered wooden frames.

 

EDIT: On a second read, it appears the argument is that overall cannon damage is overrated. Aircraft fall from critical damage, but can remain in flight after receiving several hits of either HE or AP ammunition so long as the engine is running and the pilot is capable of flying the aircraft, but players expect cannon fire to destroy any aircraft without taking in account what are they hitting.

Which is exactly the point the German Minen-round was supposed to address. Studying the potential lethality of their guns, it was found that AP round had a very small chance of destroying something instantly critical, classic HE rounds did not do sufficient structural damage to add any valuable benefit to bringing down the enemy sooner. Statistically, they were still requiring a critical hit in order to bring the enemy down as quickly as AP did. The shotgun approach of the splinters increased the chance for critical hits against everything not massive or armoured and they did do more damage to aircraft they didn't bring down quickly. But if it statistically took AP 10 hits to kill a specific plane, standard HE needed roughly the same, and 10 were not enough to do it with structural damage. These odds were established for aluminium monocoque design aircraft, other design principle were found structurally less resistant to splinter damage, slightly increasing the relevance of structural damage.

The added HE content in the Minen-shell, however, took advantage of the typical designs of the day, mostly the aluminium monocoque designs. The gas shock and pressure would deform and destroy large enough parts of the structure to actually tip the balance between critical vs. structural damage towards the structural damage side and it was estimated, that the Minen round would destroy sufficient structure to quickly kill the enemy before an AP round had achieved a critical hit to do the same. The mine would need less than 10 hits if going with the above figure, and the aircraft would go down because it was structurally destroyed.

[Brano]

Soviets used wood/plywood/deltadrevesina not due to critical lack of the aluminium but mostly due to lack of machinery/tools/workforce to process it. There was not enough of them for rapidly growing aircraft industry in 1939-41. Few factories experienced with metal processing were occupied by production of bombers (like all metal SB and Pe-2,Tu-2...) . All metal fighters in VVS are in general post-war production,which has been significantly boosted by machinery and tooling taken as spoils of war from german factories. 

[Holtzauge]

Soviets used wood/plywood/deltadrevesina not due to critical lack of the aluminium but mostly due to lack of machinery/tools/workforce to process it. There was not enough of them for rapidly growing aircraft industry in 1939-41. Few factories experienced with metal processing were occupied by production of bombers (like all metal SB and Pe-2,Tu-2...) . All metal fighters in VVS are in general post-war production,which has been significantly boosted by machinery and tooling taken as spoils of war from german factories. 

 

Ok, good to know. I thought the switch later on to aluminium was simply due to it becoming available in sufficient quantity. However, if I interpret what you say they did however switch to aluminium when they had the choice, i.e. when sufficient production means were available which still seems to indicate that they preferred it over aluminium as an aircraft construction material.

[Holtzauge]

In addition to what JtD said above, it could be good to add that the Germans did not see the Mingeschoss as some sort of "Wunderwaffe": For bombers (4-mots) they recommended a lower percentage of Minen (I'm talking about 20 mm Minen here) presumably because a large structure like a B-17 wing or fuselage could probably absorb the Minen overpressure better than a small fighter sized target. You can't really get away from the fact that they loaded up the way they did for fighters though, with a larger percentage of Minen and less AP which I for sure would not do in-game if given a choice and since yet another redo of the Minen efficiency does not seem to be in the works then why not allow custom belting in BoX? Given the way the DM works now AP seems to be "the thing" not only for taking out single point of failure items such as engines and pilots but also for sawing off wings so why not?

Edited July 25, 2017 by Holtzauge

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Mixed, all AP or all HE are options for the VYa-23 and the 37mm cannon in game, not sure if that's the case for the Luftwaffe ones too.

 

From memory German fighter-on-fighter missions loaded more HE, Il-2 hunting more AP, and bomber intercepts took an even mix, yes? It could be made an option for sure. Soviet aircraft used a standard 60/40 AP to HE ratio for general A2A duties.

 

A good idea is to do two tests for weapon efficiency and damage resistance in game. Get a Ju-88 and Pe-2 as target, without gunners, and fire at four different points from behind (wing tip, engine, wing root, fuselage) one at a time, two runs - one from 250m and 100m. Take the Bf-109G-2 or F-4 and the Yak-1 since they both fire one 20mm gun and a pair of 7.62mm. That should give us an objective view on the resistance of each bomber's structure and engine, plus the general efficiency of similar types of cannons and machine guns.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I'm doing a bit similar test using the straight flying Bf 109 F-4 AI in the 72 AG training server, aiming at the center wing around the LW roundel from straight 6 o'clock, firing one round at a time, from quite close range and slow speed (100/150m away at 300 km/h), comparing the HE performance of different cannons (how much shots are needed to tear the wing off).

I did it with the MG 151, VYa-23 and i'm halfway done with the Hispano (10 planes shot down for each canon), but it takes time specially for the mixed belt guns because I have to time firing the HE shell (miss the AP ones on purpose then aim knowing when the HE will come out), and I fail sometimes, plus with the wing mounted Hispanos it's a bit tricky to get only one on target (playing with long convergence and short range shooting). Maybe today I can finish it. I tried to include the ShVAK as well but I don't have the La-5 (which can use full HE belt) and with the ShVAK it's hard to time the HE shell in the other planes becuase it's 2 AP/1 HE ratio + usually 2 rounds come out in one single press, ruining the prediction of when the HE will be shot.

 

Here are my results so far.  You will notice sometimes the plane went down by other reasons other than ripping the wing, like dead engine and loss of control. Also this is likely a "worst case scenario" for HE damage, I think the faster the attacking plane is going and the more perpendicular impact on a wing the HE is going to be more effective. It really surpised me how in almost all of the cases the engine was damaged by firing at the middle wing.

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

That's great work, SE. Does the regular Il-2 have a belt option for the ShVAK?

[Brano]

Ok, good to know. I thought the switch later on to aluminium was simply due to it becoming available in sufficient quantity. However, if I interpret what you say they did however switch to aluminium when they had the choice, i.e. when sufficient production means were available which still seems to indicate that they preferred it over aluminium as an aircraft construction material.

All metal Yak-3 never went into serial production and only 48(?) were built after war. The only war design produced in significant quantities after war was Yak-9U ,as it allready had been slowly upgraded first with metal wing spars,then full metal wing (Yak-9P of 1946)and at the end full metal including fuselage of 1947 production. La-7 went only as far as metal wingspars and post war La-9/11 were in fact brand new designs.

It wasnt as much a question of which material was more favourite then the other. It was about not to interfere significantly with war production of well established technological processes,even lifetime and quality of production was not on par with metal designs.

After war it was on the other hand all about the need to produce fighters more suitable for peace time usage,where the quality/safety and longevity of the design was a priority = all metal construction.

[Holtzauge]

All metal Yak-3 never went into serial production and only 48(?) were built after war. The only war design produced in significant quantities after war was Yak-9U ,as it allready had been slowly upgraded first with metal wing spars,then full metal wing (Yak-9P of 1946)and at the end full metal including fuselage of 1947 production. La-7 went only as far as metal wingspars and post war La-9/11 were in fact brand new designs.

It wasnt as much a question of which material was more favourite then the other. It was about not to interfere significantly with war production of well established technological processes,even lifetime and quality of production was not on par with metal designs.

After war it was on the other hand all about the need to produce fighters more suitable for peace time usage,where the quality/safety and longevity of the design was a priority = all metal construction.

 

Well in addition to gains in quality, safety and longevity, all metal construction also improves performance which I'm sure also factored into the decision to transition to all metal construction in the La-9 and 11. In Sweden, there was a shortage of aluminium during the war and what little there was was tagged to be used by SAAB. However, in order to bolster the weak SwAF, a project was started in parallel with the intention to built a fighter that did not use aluminium but built using wood and steel. This resulted in the J22, a Swedish "mini" Fw-190 which had quite decent performance given it only had around 1000 hp to work with. So sure, wood and steel can be used but I think you would be hard pressed to find a designer who would favour it over alumimium if given the choise.

[Brano]

 Ofcourse aluminium would be a designers choice. Only if they had a chance to use it fully according to army specs. It was not a case for specs of I-26,I-200 and I-301 fighter prototypes. They were ordered as mixed construction designs using non-deficit materials as much as possible . Each new aircraft was planned for given manufacturing plant and according to its abilities in terms of technology and know-how.Yakovlev had all-metal I-30 prototype of heavy fighter/interceptor ready in february 1941. But there was no available factory to produce it after war broke out. Development cancelled and abandoned.

 

Hitlers final gamble in the east - operation Fruhlingserwachen was nothing more then futile attempt to save the last strategic material sources on Eastern front = oil fields SW of lake Balaton and bauxit ore mining facilites in Vertes hills west of Budapest (one of the largest in the world). Without hungarian bauxit,german aviation industry would run dry very quickly in "what if" continuation war scenario.

[Holtzauge]

Well attacking the Soviet Union was a dumb move in the first place: Not only because its enormous resources, but also willingly opening up a two front war. Must have been a few facepalms done at the OKH when that order came through. OTOH I guess it was a logical result of the hubris that surrounded Hitler and his closest circle. Another "smart" move was to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The list goes on and on.....

 

Interesting info on the planning and manufacturing: Took a while for the Soviet industry to get up and running producing modern equipment but with that and the US production ramping up the outcome was inevitable.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Well attacking the Soviet Union was a dumb move in the first place: Not only because its enormous resources, but also willingly opening up a two front war. Must have been a few facepalms done at the OKH when that order came through. OTOH I guess it was a logical result of the hubris that surrounded Hitler and his closest circle. Another "smart" move was to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The list goes on and on.....

 

Interesting info on the planning and manufacturing: Took a while for the Soviet industry to get up and running producing modern equipment but with that and the US production ramping up the outcome was inevitable.

 

 

Sort of off topic, but I think this video is really good despite the enormous accent :D

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-dYaZKxwU

[ZachariasX]

Two front? I'm counting 25 declarations of war ("some country against an Axis country" and vice versa) from invading Poland together with Stalin up to the point where Adolf finally went to do the only real thing he ever wanted to do, namely "securing Lebensraum in the east" (now THAT'S something for a good facepalm), something he even annonced in his writings and what should have been known to anyone that can read (even obscenely bad books) since the twenties. Everything that was before and after that was just BS that just happened to him because of his way of getting there and he dealt with it, as well as his great ally Italy being unable to make anything right (for him) except maybe preparing a decent dinner.

It was much rather "the" front.

Edited July 26, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Holtzauge]

@Dreizehn: About the accent, you should hear some Swedish people speak English: It’s no better.

 

Regarding the video, I enjoyed watching it but IMHO there are many simplifications: One that sticks out especially is the analysis of the Finnish winter war: I read a good (Well IMHO!) book on it by Robert Edwards, White death, Russia’s War on Finland 1939-40 and according to him the Russian army was way more modern and had embraced and implemented mechanical warfare to a higher degree. However, Finland’s infrastructure, snow and nature hampered mobility and tied the Russians to the roads while the Finns could shop up the Russian forces into “motti” (pieces) at their leisure with mobile ski equipped units.

 

And to be frank, I think the video also carries a bit of hubris in it but as you say, all this is off topic but interesting nonetheless!

 

@Zach: Yup, two front is an understatement for sure and in some ways I'm surprised we (Sweden) kept out of it but then we were quite helpful supplying steel ore and allowing German divisions to transit Sweden so there was no reason to attack really. It was only after Stalingrad that another tune was whistled. Another interesting fact is that Sweden knew about Barbarossa since German traffic from occupied Norway transited Sweden and while the Germans thought the Geheimschreiber traffic was secure we had actually cracked it.

 

Edit: Actually there is a good story about the traffic: Apparently there Swedish government was planning to say no but when the Swedish intelligence community heard about it they said "For God's sake say yes!!!!!" and the rest is history.......

Edited July 26, 2017 by Holtzauge

[ZachariasX]

Neutral coutries had to be a bit flexible to stay out of the worst of that mess. But it really helped being circumstancial rather than central to Adolfs delusions. Like that, they could make a step back when the insanity train roared by.

 

More on topic, the Swiss bought some Bf109G made from "alternative" materials, mainly engine parts like gasket etc. Made from paper. Unlike stated just above in this thread, it wasn't a very durable choice to put it mildly... The next batch of aircraft were P-51, and they lasted about 10 years (instead of 10 minutes) until crankshafts broke in flight. At the time, smashing aircraft into common peoples houses obviously wasn't regarded as unneccesarily problematic, as they kept on doing that until they seemingly started to run out of aircraft.

 

I love wood as building material, but I'd be careful in using it, if an alternative is available.

Edited July 26, 2017 by ZachariasX

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

@Holtzauge: Yes, lots of simplifcations. I think the main point it carries, that in 1940 attacking the SSSR wasn´t as bad an idea as it appears in hindsight to many people.

Edited July 26, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Holtzauge]

@Dreizehn: Well my military experience is limited to a 1 year stint as a conscript but even so I would be hesitant to start a two front war. In addition, Sweden fought a number of wars with Russia during the 17-19th century and I don't think we have quite the same perspective as the speaker in the clip but for sure, I understand what you are saying about going with the info you have but still, the top German WW2 leadership could have benefited by stretching their analysis at bit further back than WW1 to include an analysis of how Napoleon's and Karl XII's Russian excursions ended as well.

 

@Zach: So did the Swiss get the Me-109's with the wooden tailplanes? I heard they had issues with those but that this was most likely due to poor workmanship (Maybe slave labour aren't to keen on quality control.......). Anyway, I would be hesitant to fly at really high speeds with a wooden tailplanes since you can get problems similar to aileron reversal if the stabilizer/elevator assembly is not stiff torsionally.

[Brano]

Interesting info on the planning and manufacturing: Took a while for the Soviet industry to get up and running producing modern equipment but with that and the US production ramping up the outcome was inevitable.

 

Each ОКБ (opytno-konstruktorskoe biuro=experimental design bureau) has been asigned to given factory (Zavod) They were all competing to get to the best plants available. Not everywhere they had protoshop available to build and test the prototypes,enough experienced specialists and workers. Lavotchkin fought hard not to be moved from Gorki Zavod nr.21 because it was clear to him that moving his ОКБ to Tbilisi in Georgia ment simply to be cancelled. Yakovlev,as Stalins favourite designer and at the same time deputy of НКАП (National Comissariat of Aviation Industry) comissar A.I.Schachurin,usually got better of what was available,but was still second to Ilyushin. IL-2 was top priority,always.

 

 It is also interesting to remark,that not all aviation factories under НКАП were built as such right from the begining. As example,Zavod nr.292 in Saratov,motherplant of Yak-1,has been producing agricultural harvesters/farm machinery before the war. Similarly, Zavod nr.153 in Novosibirsk,motherplant of Yak-7/9 after evacuation from Moscow,has been producing mining equipment before the war.