Jump to content
4./JG52_Adler_

Russian planes are made out of ?

Recommended Posts

As always great info Brano. One thing that surprises me though about Soviet production practices is the seemingly great profusions of different versions of the "same" design: For example, a Swedish WW2 analysis of the LaGG listed a number of different solution for rudder and elevator balance and IIRC then different factories were churning out different models. Must have been hell from a logistics standpoint: Which units needed which spares and where were they located? Crew chiefs opening ordered spares only to discover they were for series X and not Y as ordered. OTOH I suppose it gave the Soviet bureaucracy something to do. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,that was typical for same models built by several factories. There was always a motherplant that issued,together with ОКБ,drawings and manufacturing instructions to the others. Not always complete documentation has been transferred. Sometimes there were not enough experienced personel and time to implement needed changes.Motherplant could allready produce LaGGs without rudder balncer,but others continued with them untill change has been implemented.Thats why each Zavod had its own nomenclature for serial numbers and usually spareparts were ordered in factory where the plane has been originaly built. Mass replacements and/or updates for aircrafts could be also done by specialised brigades from given factories in the field conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Holtz No, the exterior was as ordered, but engine parts such as head gasket, piston rings etc. were paper and pilots had to find that out the hard way. Consequetly the entire batch ordered got grounded and decommisioned. So the Emils remained front line fighters for the whole war. If it was parts like tailplanes, I'm sure Pilatus would have been happy exchanging those parts back to something useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without hungarian bauxit,german aviation industry would run dry very quickly in "what if" continuation war scenario.

Not necessarily so. Aluminium was the one resource Germany had plenty of. German clay soil contains aluminium, to a lesser degree than high quality Bauxit, but still enough to be made use of. There's plenty of clay around.

Additionally, towards the end of the war, the Germans had finally figured out that building combat aircraft wasn't a one way street in terms of resources. Recycling became a big business. Recycling old aircraft including whatever went down over German territory did provide a considerable portion of the aluminium necessary for building new aircraft.

 

Getting back to the clay, there's plenty of that clay around Dessau, where you also have coal, and a river, which is all you need to produce aluminium. Dessau was home of Junkers, Germanys (the worlds for some time) largest aircraft manufacturer. At some point the idea arose to use local clay, local water and local coal to create Junkers aircraft pretty much in their entirety from dirt up on that site. It did not materialize, among other reasons, because of the aluminium lobby and lack of local work force. Really, large scale arms manufacturing is an extremely complex system.

 

And getting back to wood, German military was of the opinion that wooden aircraft were best for a war time air force, all metal best for a peace time air force. However, due to politics, the German built their Luftwaffe to peace time standards in quality and war time standards in size. As the war began, they were faced with the dilemma of fielding designs they themselves considered to good (and therefore expensive) for a war time air force. This meant they were not capable of maintaining the numbers they fielded in an ongoing conflict, necessitating at an industrial level swift and decisive campaigns against their opponents. There was no alternative to Blitzkrieg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zach: Paper gaskets huh? Well I guess by that time a lot of German "quality" engineering relied on Ersatz...... ;)

 

xLinde__sErzatz.pagespeed.ic.2OTh_DaXrW.

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip> And getting back to wood, German military was of the opinion that wooden aircraft were best for a war time air force, all metal best for a peace time air force. However, due to politics, the German built their Luftwaffe to peace time standards in quality and war time standards in size. As the war began, they were faced with the dilemma of fielding designs they themselves considered to good (and therefore expensive) for a war time air force. This meant they were not capable of maintaining the numbers they fielded in an ongoing conflict, necessitating at an industrial level swift and decisive campaigns against their opponents. There was no alternative to Blitzkrieg.

 

Really interesting info: Do you have a source and when we say "German military" who was that? Would be surprised if German engineers agreed but if we by "German military" mean people like Göring and Udet with extensive experience of  WW1 kites I could maybe understand why they would think so. :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm basically transcribing Badrass. It's simply an economics game. German engineers would probably not agree to that, but they'd be rating technology, not weapons. You want to rate weapons, ask Soldiers. It's what they did and I recall it wasn't Göring. :)

 

The simplified premise is that an all metal aircraft is good for 25 years of service. Good for peace time, keeps costs low. The average life expectancy in a war is 25 hours of service. You can achieve that cheaper with a mixed wooden construction, which on the other hand wouldn't last 25 years.

Edited by JtD
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I see but you are a bit mean to the engineers I think because I do believe they want the same thing as the soldiers: weapons that work and are better than the enemies and I really wonder how many pilots want to be flying at 750 Km/h IAS in a wooden crate. The long service life of aluminium is just a bonus on top of what would matter even if the life expectancy was low: performance. To put it another way, an aluminium airframe may fly for 25 h before being shot down while a wooden one may disintegrate on first flight while in a high speed dive or be shot down by a better performing aluminium aircraft. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zach: Paper gaskets huh? Well I guess by that time a lot of German "quality" engineering relied on Ersatz...... ;)

 

xLinde__sErzatz.pagespeed.ic.2OTh_DaXrW.

"Ersatz-Gasket". But only the best of that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JtD,

 

 Yes,there are other means how to get to resources,but question remains. Is it economical? Can I get what I need for costs,time and manpower available? I guess they abandoned the idea because they couldnt  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I see but you are a bit mean to the engineers I think because I do believe they want the same thing as the soldiers: weapons that work and are better than the enemies and I really wonder how many pilots want to be flying at 750 Km/h IAS in a wooden crate. The long service life of aluminium is just a bonus on top of what would matter even if the life expectancy was low: performance. To put it another way, an aluminium airframe may fly for 25 h before being shot down while a wooden one may disintegrate on first flight while in a high speed dive or be shot down by a better performing aluminium aircraft. ;)

Well, that's pretty much the classic engineers perspective, and no offence meant by that. I don't think soldiers (including higher ranking ones) do share this point of view. I'm pretty sure most front liners would prefer a wingman over 5% better performance and prefer team spirit over 10% more individual confidence. The guys behind the desks would probably prefer an armament that allows them to maintain a war for more than a month and to have reserves available when they need them.

 

You've got to keep in mind that the Luftwaffe expected to lose 30% of their operational strength per month in case of war (1000 lost aircraft per month), while production of front line aircraft was at around 200 aircraft per month pre war. Germany simply didn't have the resources (manpower, tools) to produce 1000 all metal aircraft per month. They did, however, have plenty of resources for mixed wooden construction pre war, which, supported in a way all metal aircraft production eventually was, could have supplied several hundred extra aircraft/month.

 

If you have an economy that has no shortage of skilled labour or find a way to produce all metal aircraft without the need for skilled labour, and have all the other goodies available, too, you might just find all metal aircraft to be more economic or at least economic enough even in case of war.

Hi JtD,

 

 Yes,there are other means how to get to resources,but question remains. Is it economical? Can I get what I need for costs,time and manpower available? I guess they abandoned the idea because they couldnt  :salute:

Abandoned because of politics and because aluminium became easily available at lower costs from elsewhere. Edited by JtD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do yo know what kind of mineral was considered for processing alumina?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. IIrc it contained half to two thirds as much aluminium as bauxit. As you may know, the bottleneck with aluminium is not the raw material, but the energy needed for the processing. Typically, water energy was used (Norway and US (Niagara falls)). Germany had its plants near coal mines.

There are good books available about aluminium history, but that's not really my cup of tea.

 

Anyway, I found they actually had the plant in place. It processed imported high(er) quality material and wasn't owned by Junkers, so the new stuff would have been using local minerals and attaching it to an aircraft manufacturer.

 

(Edit: Complete rewrite.)

Edited by JtD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Soviets decided to process nephaline after war when renewing production at Volkhov. Before the war,there were 4 alumina production sites in USSR. At very first bauxit deposits found at Tikhvin,nearby Volkhov,in Ukraine's Dnepropetrovsk and near another deposite of bauxite found in Ural mountains at Nadeidinsk. German occupation of western parts of USSR in 1941 was a heavy blow for aluminium production. All facilities except the one in Ural,had to be evacuated. Soviets started to build new processing plant at Bogoslavsk, equipped with technology from evacuated sites. In june 1943 they produced first alumina,but full production including smelting didn't start earlier then april 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Thanks ^_^  it's not a big deal really, just spending a couple of hours shotting at that AI hehe, fighting the aggresive Ju 88 that spawns in between the 109s and hoping that nobody shows up and decides to join in the shooting. About the IL-2 sadly nope, only mixed belt available.

 

Well I finished the Hispano test:

 

FcYtN57.gif

 

So you can see they are very close in terms of effectiveness (how many shells are needed to shoot down a 109 hitting the mid-wing), and they are very variable (high standard deviation in relation to the averages) so the difference between the averages definitely gets covered several times by the SDs. The Hispano and MG 151 had the same average but given the dispersion I think it's just pure coincidence. Imho all three cannons have pretty much the same damage and their differences aren't significant (in this situation), but at least one thing you can notice is that the MG 151 is kinda the most "reliable" (less dispersion), the VYa-23 is in the middle, and the Hispano the less.

 

pzgP4GQ.png

 

So in my conclusion at least in HE vs HE comparing these cannons and their effectiveness in game, the damage of each shell doesn't matter that much. Imho other factors like ballistic trajectory and stability of the gun platform are more important, as they help in getting more hits in the target. In this regard the VYa-23 and Hispano have the advantage because of their faster and heavier rounds plus the LaGG-3 and Spit are more stable than the 109, although this difference might fade out once the new FM arrives. AP might be a different story

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...