ANT-20 "Maxim Gorky" propaganda aircraft in the Moscow sky.

The Tupolev ANT-20 (also known as the Maxim Gorky) was a Soviet 8-engine aircraft, the largest in the 1930s.

The ANT-20 was designed by Andrei Tupolev and constructed between July 4, 1933 and April 3, 1934. It was the only aircraft of its kind ever built by the Soviets. The aircraft was named after Maxim Gorky and dedicated to the 40th anniversary of his literary and public activities. It was intended for Stalinist propaganda purposes and, therefore, equipped with a powerful radio set called "Voice from the sky", printing machinery, radio stations, photographic laboratory, film projector with sound for showing movies in flight, library etc. For the first time in aviation history, this aircraft was equipped with a ladder, which would fold itself and become a part of the floor. Also, for the first time in aviation history, the aircraft used not only direct current, but alternating current of 120 volts, as well. The aircraft could be disassembled and transported by railroad if needed. The giant aircraft set a number of carrying capacity world records.

On May 18, 1935 the Maxim Gorky (pilots - I.V.Mikheyev and I.S.Zhurov) and three more planes (Tupolev ANT-14, R-5 and I-5) took off for a demonstration flight over Moscow. As a result of a poorly executed loop maneuver around its wing performed by an accompanying I-5 fighter (pilot - Nikolai Blagin), both planes collided and the Maxim Gorky crashed into a residential neighborhood. There were 45 people killed in the crash, including crew members and 33 family members of some of those who had built the aircraft. (While authorities announced that the fatal maneuver was impromptu and reckless, it has been recently suggested that it might have been a planned part of the show.) Also killed was the fighter pilot, Blagin, who was made a scapegoat in the crash and subsequently had his name used eponymously (Blaginism) to mean, roughly, a "cocky disregard of authority."

A replacement aircraft, designated ANT-20bis was constructed the following year; it was similar in configuration but had only six engines.


Trivia
The day before the crash, French pilot and writer Antoine de Saint-ExupĂŠry, visiting the Soviet Union for the French newspaper Paris-Soir, was the only foreign pilot authorized to board the plane.

The plane's wings were so large they were fitted with bunk beds.


Technical data

Characteristic	ANT-20	ANT-20bis
Span	63.0 m	64.0 m
Length	33.0 m	34.1 m
Height	10.6 m	7.0 m
Wing area	486 m	486 m
Empty weight	31,950 kg
Takeoff weight	42,000 kg	44,000 kg
Propulsion type	eight AM-34FRN (671 kW/900 HP)	six AM-34FRNW (895 kW/1.200 HP)
Maximum speed	245 km/h	275 km/h
Cruising speed	190 km/h	225 km/h
Ceiling	4,500 m	5,500 m
Range	2,000 km	900 km
Crew/passengers	8/72	9/64

Thomas F. Hamilton (July 28, 1894 – 1969) Pioneering Aviator and the namesake of the Hamilton Standard Company.

Since 1930, Hamilton Standard (now Hamilton Sundstrand) was involved with revolutionizing propulsion technology of propeller-driven aircraft, prior to World War II. The introduction of Frank Caldwell’s variable-pitch propeller made Hamilton Standard one of the leading aerospace companies of today. But, there is little known about the first name sake of this company – Thomas Foster Hamilton. Hamilton contributed a great deal in shaping the aviation industry into what it is today. Tom Hamilton was involved in the early beginnings of aviation inventions and development. Tom was gifted at an early age in the understanding of technical concepts and their application into aircraft designs and manufacturing. He was also a very good businessman and marketer, known in social and political settings, and a devoted family man.

Life

Born on July 28, 1894, Tom Hamilton spent most of his childhood in Seattle, Washington. He was the older of two boys (his brother, Edgar Charles Hamilton, born later) to his parents (Thomas Luther & Henrietta Hamilton). Tom Hamilton’s early interests in aviation began when he was around 10 years old. His mother had taken a trip to see the 1904 St. Louis Exposition . Where there was a display of gliders organized by Octave Chanute and, somehow on her return, Tom became more focused on aeronautics. Mrs. Hamilton may have made a connection with Mr. Chanute at the fair since the young Tom Hamilton did not make the long trip with her. Because, some years later, Tom indicated that he often wrote to Mr. Chanuate concerning technical matters related to his early aircraft. However, currently, no record has been found mentioning the young Hamilton in Mr. Chanuate’s letter collection currently located at the Library of Congress and more research is being conducted since the collection is so vast.

During the 1909 Alaskan-Yukon Exposition, held in Seattle (held on the site of the present-day University of Washington) the young Hamilton, now at the age of 14, had a job of repairing hot-air balloons. This job would also allow him to ride what he repaired (possibly a type of insurance policy to insure the balloons were fixed properly) which helped fuel his continuing interest in aviation. Also, during this time, Tom and a school friend, Paul J. Palmer established a partnership and called their company “Hamilton and Palmer”. Their office and factory were located in their respective parent’s garage and kitchen tables. The two built and experimented with various biplane glider designs of the time. The two quickly gained a better understanding of the principles of how aircraft worked and were put together. Three gliders were actually built and flown around the steep hills around their neighborhood in Seattle called Lushi which was on the west shores of Lake Washington. There was only one mishap. The second glider jerked out of the hands of Palmer and soared away and crashing into pieces blocks away. Many years later, Tom Hamilton would recall that even though he got a scar on his left hand from one of the flights, he had learned how to fly from those tests.

In 1910, after finishing their experiments with the gliders they moved on to building propeller-driven aircraft. At this point, there was a disagreement between Palmer and Hamilton and the former was no longer involved with the company and was totally removed from the partnership. It seems this split was so severe that Tom changed the name of the company to the “Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Co”.

Early aircraft designs

In 1911, he teamed up with Ted Geary a young yacht designer to create a number of unique seaplane designs that were seen around Seattle’s Lake Washington and various aerial demonstrations of the day. The total number of known aircraft built by Hamilton’s Seattle Company is estimated to be around 10 to 25 aircraft. Yet more research is required to get a more accurate account of his aircraft built during the 1909 to 1914 period. His designs were a combination of other designs of the era and his own unique ideas incorporated into the aircraft. Those early years for Tom Hamilton were very much building years for this remarkable individual. Even at an early age he was able to comprehend and build complicated flying machines. Although he dropped out of high school, and did not have any formal education after that, he was able to manufacture and sell these aircraft all before he was 16 years old. This was done prior to Mr. William E. Boeing taking his first flight and setting up his operation in Seattle, which is the Boeing Company of today. Incidentally, Tom Hamilton and Bill Boeing became friends during this time and their friendship lasted throughout the years both professionally and personally. It has been recorded that in 1914, Tom Hamilton introduced Bill Boeing to Conrad Westervelt (a young Navy lieutenant commander) at a club in Seattle that was the start of the Boeing Company.

Also in 1914, a number of wealthy businessmen from Vancouver, British Columbia approached Tom Hamilton. They were looking for someone to build airplanes for the non-profit and private “BC Aviation School Ltd.” that would teach their Canadian sons to fly in the Great War being fought over in Europe. Tom accepted the invitation and immediately moved his whole operation up to Vancouver BC and established the “Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Ltd.”. The contract was to build four planes to be used in training purposes for the school. However, only one airplane was ever completed. It was a biplane patterned after a Curtiss tractor design, with two seats, a six-cylinder engine, and a tricycle landing gear. Unfortunately, the aircraft was not successful because it crashed in a muddy field outside of Vancouver. Out of the 12 students, two were able to graduate and went on to fight in the War with the RFC (Royal Flying Corp – the precursor to the RAF). The rest were integrated into other aviation training programs and transferred to the war. In the mean time, Tom Hamilton had become very interested in the physics of propellers and had started making inquires about his possible involvement in the war effort for the United States. This was around 1917; at this point the U.S. just entered the war and needed experienced people, especially in aviation to help the country establish an aviation industry in support of the war overseas in Europe.

Military Interest

The US military was very interested in Tom Hamilton’s background and requested that he come out east. The military leaders at the time wanted to keep most of their aviation resources closer to Washington D.C., and not in the remote Pacific Northwest. A Milwaukee woodworking firm, the Matthews Brothers Furniture Company, needed an experienced person to run their new aviation division since a large military contract was signed to produce wood propellers for the Navy and Army. Tom Hamilton became their director of aviation in 1918. However, once the war ended Tom Hamilton bought their entire inventory of wood propellers and again started his own company called the Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Around this time, Tom Hamilton met and married Ethel Inez Hughes, from Milwaukee. The Hamilton's spent ten years in Milwaukee where it was established as one of the nation’s major aviation hubs in the 1920’s.

Propeller Manufacture

Propellers were the first to be manufactured by the “Hamilton Manufacturing Company” in Milwaukee. Hamilton and his company (as well as others) were aware of specific limitations using wood as a material for aircraft propellers. As the propeller revolutions increased, the wood and laminate would lose their bond at a certain speed and cause the propeller to disintegrate. Pontoons were the second product to be manufactured by the company. Again, wood was also used in the manufacturing of pontoons and again there were specific limitations to this material being used in pontoons as with propellers. The problem with wood and water is that it disintegrates faster even though it floats. Even with all preservatives used to cover and protect the pontoon. It still had a tendency to rot because it attracted worms that would borrow into the wood, especially in the South American and Caribbean climates, and allowed the material to decay faster. It was understood throughout the industry and the scientific community that metal would soon be the choice for these devices. In the mid 1920’s, metal was introduced into the manufacturing processes because the material was stronger but not yet lighter. This changed with the introduction of aluminum. Specifically, an aluminum alloy called Duralumin, which allowed for the material to be lighter and stronger. Duralumin was the biggest technological advantage of the time because it is a high strength aluminum forging alloy with 3.5% copper, 1.25% Iron, 1.25% silicon, & 1.25% manganese, which gave it high strength and a low weight ratio than aluminum. It was also able to take the centrifugal forces a propeller would generate, withstand the strong impacts with landing on water and flying, and would be able to resist some of nature’s pests which could destroy a wood float quickly.

All-metal aircraft

New processes and manufacturing techniques were devised at the factory for these new materials. For in the mid 1920’s, the German company, Junkers Transport Company founded by Hugo Junkers, was the first to manufacture an all metal, mono wing, airplane called the Junkers F.13. In turn, William B. Stout’s (a pioneer builder of all-metal aircraft) company was bought by the Ford Motor Corporation, and developed a similar aircraft called the Ford tri-motor or as it was affectionately called the “Tin Goose”. Like the Junkers aircraft, it too had the same cantilevered high wing and corrugated metal skin design built with the focus of hauling mail and passengers. In response, Tom and a number of shareholders in the Milwaukee community decided to build an aircraft out of metal, too. The result was a new company called the “Hamilton Metalplane Company”. And the first all-metal aircraft built by this company was the Hamilton Metalplane H-18 christened the “Maiden Milwaukee” in 1927. Its design came from the chief designer of the “Metalplane Company” of the time – James McDonnell. Mr. McDonnell had worked for Stout and Ford and incorporated similar features and new ideas into the construction of the metal “Maiden”. The Hamilton H-18 used a tubular frame with corrugated skin, a thick mono wing projecting out of the fuselage underneath the open cockpit, at the front was the 200 HP J-4 Wright Radial engine, and using a Hamilton propeller (metal) as a means of propulsion. The “Maiden Milwaukee” was the first plane produced by the Hamilton Metalplane Company and it achieved a number of awards. It first came in second during the Ford Air Tour of 1927 and it won the Spokane Air Races of the same year. It was also given the distinction of being the first US air certificate for an all-metal airplane in the United States. Specifically, it was a plane designed to haul mail with the passengers as an extra revenue bonus for the airline. The design reflects this for the wing root came right out of the center of the fuselage and hardly any passengers could fit. The aircraft was redesigned and these modifications were introduced in the sequential new models of the Metalplane called the H-45 and H-47. The aircraft now could accommodate passengers and mail. But to do this, they had to specifically change the aircraft such as moving the wing above the fuselage so six seats could be added. Inclosing the cockpit and adding windows and leather padding the interior of the aircraft for the passenger’s comfort. Offering different type of radial engines that could be incorporated per the customer’s request (both Wright and Pratt & Whitney) and different types of landing gear that could be fitted too (such as skis, wheels, and pontoons). Since most of the Hamilton Metalplanes used most of the products generated from the other Hamilton factory it was a cheaper than the Ford Tri-Motor. The Hamilton Metalplanes was definitely a plane of its time. For it was the era when airlines were being developed with cargo/mail in mind instead of passengers. Both the Hamilton Metalplane and the Ford tri-motors started to change this trend. Northwest Airlines started by purchasing a number of Hamiltons to be used in their first passenger run throughout their routes in the Northwest. Ralph Sexton bought a number of Hamiltons to be used for his Panamanian airline called Isthmian Airways. And a few went to Alaska and Canada for use in the Arctic. As with Hamilton’s earlier aircraft in Seattle, it is not known the exact figure of how many Hamiltons were built but it is estimated to be between 27 to 40 aircraft. More research is currently being conducted to get an accurate count and history of each Hamilton Metalplane. Unfortunately, the Hamilton Metalplanes were not as successful as the Ford Tri-Motors. For Ford was successful at their marketing strategy of stating it is safer to fly on three engines than on one. For this reason, the Hamilton Metal plane struggled in the market, for it was a good airplane developed ahead of time and introduced to soon.

Consolidation

In 1929, a holding company called the “United Aircraft and Transport Company” incorporated a number of aviation companies under one control. This resulted in the “Metalplane Company” becoming part of the “Boeing Company” as a separate division for a short time. Eventually, it was absorbed into the “Boeing Company” with all its patents and other assets becoming a part of the Boeing enterprise. It has been suggested that Boeing used these items from the “Hamilton Metalplane Company” in the development of their Boeing 247 (Boeing’s first all metal monoplane) but more research needs to be conducted on this subject.

In the meantime, Tom Hamilton became president of United Airports (a division of UA&T) and he was in charge of building the new Burbank airport in California. He also moved some of his propeller operations out west and established a West Coast propeller factory at that Burbank site. Even his whole family moved to Beverly Hills and eventually built a house out at Lake Arrowhead, California where he established a permanent residence. Meanwhile, the UA&T Company decided to merge the “Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Company” with the Pittsburgh propeller firm “Standard Steel Propeller Company” and the entire Milwaukee operation was moved to that location. Both Hamilton and the owner of Standard Steel had been intense business rivals. According to Eugene Wilson (who took over the propeller operation for UA&T) the “Standard Steel Company” had the patent rights to the Reed propeller design and there was concern about a lawsuit. As a compromise, it was decided to move the propeller operation to Pittsburgh and combined the names of the companies to be called the Hamilton Standard Company. A year later, the propeller operation moved again to Connecticut and as been there since. Incidentally, Tom Hamilton did not receive the news of the merger right away, which was a little unsettling to him. As a compromise, Tom agreed to the merger only if his name took precedence in the new trademark and was called Hamilton-Standard.

Buildup to war

After the Burbank Airport opened with a big fan-fair in 1930, Tom Hamilton then became a foreign representative for the “United Aircraft Export Company” in Europe of which he would become a leading individual for the survival of several aviation companies. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal policies started actively working on an anti-monopoly campaign against the aviation industry. This legislation resulted in the UA&T being reorganized into new companies: United Aircraft (later to be called United Technologies), United Airlines, and the Boeing Company. The timing of this governmental legislation was poor at best for most of the United States and the World was under the black cloud of the Great Economic Depression. United Aircraft had to rely on foreign sales to survive as a company for the domestic market in the US was depressed. Tom Hamilton started with the “United Aircraft Export Company” as a sales representative and was very successful and by 1936 he was president of that corporation. Eugene Wilson described Tom Hamilton as the “Yankee Peddler” and felt that he was a man that was full of “salesmanship” and was a “master-entertainer”. It was this kind of man they needed for the moment to help with the financial situation of the time. Tom had set up his headquarters in Paris’s the George V Hotel and he represented companies like Hamilton Standard, Sikorsky Aviation, Chance Vought Aircraft, and Pratt & Whitney. During the time from 1936-1940, Tom was successful in getting licensing rights for foreign countries to build “Pratt & Whitney” engines and “Hamilton Standard” variable pitch propellers. According to Mr. Wilson, it was a fight for survival as an American company. He also mentioned there was a kind of naivete when it came to dealing with countries like Germany, Japan, and Russia. For example, a deal was set up with BMW (Bavarian Motorin Werken) to license them to build a number of Pratt & Whitney engines and it was approved by the US congress. This was granted because neither the US businessmen nor governmental officials did expect any war in Europe. Because of this thinking, Tom Hamilton was able to successfully sell these wanted aviation goods at the high levels of business because no one expected war. Tom Hamilton knew what was going on, as Mr. Wilson stated, “thanks to Mr. Thomas F. Hamilton moving around through these different ministries, could appraise this situation more clearly than most people. And he came back from one trip and in a meeting of the executive committee of our company he said, ‘Don’t discount this fellow Hitler.’ ‘To you, he’s got a Charley Chaplain moustache, but whatever he may look on the outside, either he or somebody behind him has a strategic insight and a political foresight that is not available anywhere else in the world that I know of’ ”. It has also been suggested that Tom Hamilton also tried to convince the US congress of the seriousness of doing business with countries like Germany, Japan, and Russia. More research is needed to verify some these suggestions. However, at the time business interests came first and Tom was asked to continue in his position until the fall of France in 1940. At which time, Tom Hamilton and his staff had to make an unorthodox route out of Europe through Spain.

Return to the US

Once back in the States, Tom found a different sort of career in the hotel and entertaining business. He started developing a resort on the coast of British Columbia; Canada at the entrance of Princess Louisa Inlet called Malibu (named after his yacht that had been designed by Ted Geary). It officially opened in July 1941 and catered to yachters, the wealthy, and the Hollywood crowd. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor changed Tom’s plans and he again went back into the aviation industry to run Hardman aircraft (which made nacelles for the B-17 bombers) in South California during World War 2 for only a dollar a year. After the War, he reopened Malibu and also started an airline in support of the resort called “Malibu SeaAero” with a war a single surplus Grumman Goose. After a few years, the resort did not become a financial success. And Malibu was abandoned and sold. During his final years, he was involved with the Early Bird Organization where he would attend every function until his death. Tom also loved to paint and spent many years in Paris working on his craft. He was also the technical assistant to the 1966 movie “Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines”.

Death and legacy

Tom Hamilton died in 1969. He was a businessman and was able to do and influence a number of factors during the beginning and golden years of the aviation industry.

The notoriety that it gained as the backbone of the Luftwaffe's fighter force is barely half the story of Willy Messerschmitt's ubiquitous creation.

By Jon Guttman

Few arguments are more futile--yet more perennially enticing--than the question of which was the greatest fighter of World War II. What criterion does one use to define "great?" Performance? Versatility? Combat record? Don't ask veteran fighter pilots to settle the matter. They have their own opinions, best expressed by the late Soviet ace of aces Ivan Kozhedub's answer to the question: "The La-7. I hope you understand why." The Lavochkin La-7 was indisputably a great fighter. More important, it was his fighter.

One mark of a great fighter was the loyalty it earned from its pilots, and aircraft such as the Hawker Hurricane, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, North American P-51 Mustang, Yakovlev Yak-3 and Mitsubishi A6M Zero still have their die-hard partisans. Aviation enthusiasts' attachment to some planes, like the Supermarine Spitfire, transcends loyalty and can best be described as outright affection.

To that list must inevitably be added the Messerschmitt Me-109. Perhaps it was not the best performer of the war, and even its pilots would admit that it was not the safest or most comfortable plane to fly. But its combat record, from beginning to end, was monumental, and it was the weapon of choice for the greatest fighter pilots in history. Comparing the Me-109G with the Brewster B-239 that he had flown previously, Finnish ace of aces Eino Ilmari Juutilainen said that "while the Brewster was a gentleman's airplane, the Messerschmitt was a killing machine."

That impression was echoed by Eric Brown, a Royal Navy pilot who test-flew an Me-109G in 1944: "The Bf-109 always brought to my mind the adjective 'sinister.' It has been suggested that it evinced the characteristics of the nation that conceived it, and to me it always looked lethal from any angle, on the ground or in the air; once I had climbed into its claustrophobic cockpit, it felt lethal!"

Anyone who flew the Me-109, and anyone who faced it in battle, would be inclined to agree. The P-47 inspired awe. The Zero earned loyalty. The Spitfire gained devotion. The Me-109 commanded respect.

The man behind the machine, Wilhelm Emil Messerschmitt, was born on June 26, 1898, in Frankfurt-am-Main, the son of a wine merchant. By 1931, he was co-manager of the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke Allgemeine Gesellschaft (BFW), which underwent bankruptcy proceedings on June 1 of that year. BFW was eventually revived on May 1, 1933, but by then one of Messerschmitt's chief detractors, Erhard Milch, had become the newly empowered Nazi Party's undersecretary of aviation.

In mid-1933, Messerschmitt began work on a four-passenger light transport of cantilever low-wing monoplane design, with retractable landing gear. Completed in the spring of 1934, the BFW M.37, later redesignated Bf-108 Taifun ("typhoon"), was entered in the fourth Challenge de Tourisme Internationale. Although the Bf-108 did not win any of the events, its performance was impressive, and it earned a production contract.

Even before the Bf-108 had made its first flight, Messerschmitt learned that the RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium, or air ministry) was about to issue a specification for a fighter, to be powered by the Junkers Jumo 210 engine and to be capable of at least 280 mph. Officially, most German airplane manufacturers were invited to submit designs; unofficially, only the established firms like Arado, Heinkel, Fieseler and Focke Wulf could expect serious consideration. Milch did not even inform BFW of the competition, but unknown to him, his superior, Aviation Minister Hermann Göring, had forwarded a confidential message to Messerschmitt, asking him to develop "a lighting-fast courier plane which needs only to be a single-seater." It was obvious to Messerschmitt that Göring was actually alluding to a fighter.

Messerschmitt and the design team at BFW's Augsburg factory--principally Robert Lusser, Richard Bauer and Hubert Bauer--set about incorporating the Bf-108's features into a low-wing monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear, an enclosed cockpit, leading-edge slots and trailing-edge flaps in the wings. While work proceeded on the Versuchs (prototype) Bf-109 fighter, Germany officially established the Luftwaffe on March 1, 1935, and Adolf Hitler publicly renounced the Treaty of Versailles restrictions on German rearmament on March 16.

The prototype Bf-109V-1 was completed in August 1935, and evaluation flights began at the RLM's test center at Rechlin, initially using a 675-hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine in place of the Jumo. The Bf-109V-2, completed in October, introduced the 610-hp Jumo 210A as well as a strengthened undercarriage, and the Bf-109V-3, delivered in June 1936, was the first to be armed with an engine-mounted 7.92mm MG 17 machine gun.

In spite of its high wing loading, which limited its maneuverability at low speeds, the Bf-109 yielded such outstanding performance that the RLM quickly eliminated the Arado Ar-80 and Focke Wulf Fw-159 from consideration. That left only the Heinkel He-112 as a possible competitor. Ten preproduction Bf-109B-0s were ordered, but then two events occurred that would affect the Bf-109's fate.

June 1936 saw the issuance by Britain's Royal Air Force of production contracts for 600 Hawker Hurricane fighters and 310 Supermarine Spitfires. The latter, first flown on March 5, had characteristics similar to the Bf-109V-1's. The potential threat posed by those new British fighters added urgency to Germany's fighter development efforts, and armament on the Bf-109V-4, introduced in November, was increased to three MG 17s.

The other pivotal event was the revolt of Spain's conservative elements under General Francisco Franco y Bahamonde against the Republican government, followed by the dispatch of German aircraft to Franco's aid, all of which occurred in July 1936. The following November, eager Luftwaffe volunteers were formed into the Condor Legion to fight for Franco's Nationalists. By then the Soviet Union had sent aircraft and pilots to aid the Spanish Republic, including the Polikarpov I-15 biplane and the I-16, the world's first low-wing monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear and an enclosed canopy. To the Germans' alarm, both Soviet fighters completely outclassed their Heinkel He-51 biplanes. In consequence, the Germans rushed the Bf-109V-4 to Spain in December, to be followed by Bf-109B-1s (aka "Berthas"), the first of which left the production line in February 1937. Spain would provide a combat environment in which to refine the Bf-109 as a fighter--and the tactics to use it to best effect.

The first operational unit in Spain, 2. Staffel of Jagdgruppe 88 (2.J/88) under Oberleutnant Günther Lützow, began receiving its new fighters in March. Operations were initially plagued by accidents, but its pilots soon overcame the challenge of taking off and landing on a narrow-track undercarriage in an airplane that tended to drop its left wing, by applying plenty of compensation with the rudder. Once they had overcome the Bf-109B's eccentricities, they commenced operations over the Brunete salient on July 10, 1937.

The Bf-109B and its principal rival, the I-16, were at first closely matched. The Bf-109B was faster in level flight and in a dive, while the I-16 had a superior climb rate and maneuverability. Republican ace and fighter squadron leader Andres Garcia Lacalle commented in his memoirs that the I-16 was superior to the Messerschmitt up to 3,000 meters (9,840 feet), but from that altitude upward, the Bf-109B's performance achieved complete mastery over that of the I-16.

The Messerschmitt drew first blood in the air on July 8, when Leutnant Rolf Pingel and Unteroffizier Guido Höness were credited with two Tupolev SB-2 bombers, although the Republicans attributed only one of those two losses to a Bf-109, the other having fallen victim to a Fiat C.R.32. A series of air battles fought on July 12 resulted in the downing of two Aero A-101s by Höness, an SB-2 by Pingel and three I-16s by Pingel, Feldwebel Peter Boddem and Feldwebel Adolf Buhl. Höness was shot down and killed while attacking another SB-2 that same day--the first of thousands of Messerschmitt pilots to die in combat.

During the second Ebro campaign, between July and October 1938, Oberleutnant Werner Mölders of 3.J/88 developed a significant fighter tactic. By combining two Rotte, the basic two-man elements within a Staffel, into a loose but mutually supportive team, he created an infinitely flexible offensive and defensive unit that he called the Vierfingerschwarm ("four-finger formation"). That fundamental concept would become the basis for numerous variations. Mölders himself was the leading ace of the Condor Legion, with 14 victories, and on July 15, 1941, he became the first fighter pilot to pass the 100-kill mark. When he died in a transport plane crash on November 22, 1941, his score stood at 115.

While the Bf-109 was being blooded over Spain, its capabilities were also being demonstrated to the world in Switzerland. At the Fourth International Flying Meeting, held at Zürich in July and August 1937, Bf-109Bs won four first prizes. Back in Germany, the Bf-109V-13, using a boosted 1,650-hp version of the Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine and flown by Hermann Wurster, set a landplane speed record of 379.8 mph on November 11. Ernst Heinkel, whose He-112 was rapidly losing ground to the Messerschmitt, responded with a sleeker design, the He-100. With German fighter-inspector Ernst Udet at the controls, an He-100V-3 achieved a speed of 394.4 mph on June 6, 1938, and an He-100V-8, flown by Hans Dieterle, reached 463.92 mph on March 30, 1939.

Not to be outdone, Messerschmitt undertook a major redesign of his basic fighter, producing the Me-209V-1, with a special DB 601ARJ engine that could boost its power from 1,500 hp to 2,300 hp for about one minute, bringing the maximum speed up to 469.22 mph on April 29. At that point the Bf-109 was in full production, and the Nazi Propaganda Ministry falsely designated the record-making plane the "Bf-109R" (to make it seem like a less-radical variant on an existing fighter type), while the RLM barred Heinkel from trying to outdo the Messerschmitt. As a result, that official piston-engine speed record would stand for the next 30 years.

Guided by lessons learned in Spain, Messerschmitt produced a rapid succession of improved fighters. The Bf-109C-1 ("Clara"), with a fuel-injected Jumo 210Ga engine and four machine guns, arrived in Spain in the spring of 1938, followed by the Bf-109C-2, with a fifth machine gun mounted in the engine. The Bf-109D ("Dora"), five of which joined 3./J88 in August, combined the Bf-109C-1's four-gun armament with the Bf-109B-1's carburetor-equipped Jumo 210Da engine. Meanwhile, Messerschmitt's experiments with the fuel-injected Daimler-Benz DB 600 and DB 601 engines, which were hampered by cooling problems, ultimately resulted in burying two radiators in the plane's wings, leaving only an oil cooler under the fuselage. In addition, the DB 601A-powered Bf-109V-14's armament increased to two MG 17 machine guns in the nose and two 20mm MG FF cannons in the wings, along with a three-bladed controllable-pitch VDM airscrew. The result was put into production in early 1939 as the Me-109E-1, soon to be nicknamed "Emil" by its pilots.

The fighter's revised designation, which has caused confusion and controversy among aviation historians for decades, reflected the complete acquisition of BFW stock by Willy Messerschmitt in late 1938. According to the Luftwaffe's own historical records, the old "Bf" reference was retained for the Bf-108, the Bf-109B through D, and the Bf-110A and B Zerstörer twin-engine fighters. All other Messerschmitt products, starting with the Me-109E and Me-110C, officially used the "Me" prefix, although the issue would continue to be confused in the years to come by the appearance of the "Bf" prefix on stamped plates on various Me-109 components as late as 1945.

Soon after the Me-109E-1 entered production, Messerschmitt designed a naval version with an extended wingspan, a strengthened airframe and an arrestor hook. Designated the Me-109T (for Träger, or carrier), it was intended for use aboard the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin. The project was dropped when construction on Graf Zeppelin was halted in 1940, but some production Me-109T-1s and a fighter-bomber variant, the Me-109T-2, saw operational use with land-based units up to the summer of 1942.

The Luftwaffe had 946 operational Me-109s when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. In addition, some 300 Me-109Es were exported to Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Romania and Spain between April 1939 and April 1940. Three Me-109E-3s were also shipped to Japan for evaluation early in 1941. The Japanese soon abandoned the idea of producing Emils under license, but the Allies took the possibility seriously enough to give the "Japanese Me-109" the code name "Mike."

Two of the export orders were to cause some embarrassment later. In May 1940, three Heinkel He-111s that had strayed into Swiss airspace were shot down by Swiss-flown Me-109Es. Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring reacted by deliberately sending France-bound bomber formations over Switzerland with an escort of Me-110s. The clashes that ensued resulted in the loss of seven more German and three Swiss aircraft, after which Göring prudently relented. When the Germans invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941, the Luftwaffe again had to deal with opposition from its own Me-109Es, fiercely flown by Yugoslav pilots.

The Emil spearheaded German air offensives against Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands and France in 1940, overwhelming such opponents as the Fokker D.XXI, Morane-Saulnier MS.406 and Hawker Hurricane. The German Experten (aces with 10 or more victories) finally met their match over Dunkirk in May 1940, when they first encountered the Spitfire. The rivalry between those two classic fighters would continue throughout the Battle of Britain. The Messerschmitt had the advantage in high-altitude performance, as well as in the ability of its fuel-injected engine to function even while inverted, when a Spitfire's Rolls-Royce Merlin power plant would be starved for fuel. The Spitfire's lower wing loading endowed it with superior maneuverability, but the Messerschmitt's principal disadvantage lay in its limited range. After 20 to 30 minutes over the average British target, a Messerschmitt pilot would have to break off his engagement or he would run out of fuel before he could return to base across the English Channel.

Even before the Me-109Es commenced their ultimately unsuccessful struggle for aerial mastery over Britain, work had begun on a new, aerodynamically refined model in the spring of 1940. One Me-109E was fitted with a 1,300-hp DB 601E-1 engine in a new symmetrical cowling, with the supercharger air intake set farther back to increase the ram effect. A larger, rounded spinner was fitted to the propeller, shallower radiators with boundary layer bypasses were incorporated under the wing and a cantilever tail plane replaced the strut-braced version. After being test-flown on July 10, 1940, the new type was further refined by the addition of new wings with rounded tips, a smaller rudder and a fully retractable tail wheel.

Designated the Me-109F-0, the new Messerschmitt was tested late in 1940 and accepted. The production Me-109F-1, powered by a 1,200-hp DB 601N, with an engine-mounted 20mm MG FF cannon and two cowl-mounted 7.9mm MG 17 machine guns, began to reach operational units in January 1941. The Me-109F-2 version of "Franz," as its pilots called it, replaced the MG FF with a higher velocity 15mm MG 151 cannon, while the Me-109F-3 returned to the DB 601E engine in early 1942.

Franz appeared as the Spitfire Mk.V was getting the better of the Me-109E in the cross-Channel duels that followed the Battle of Britain, and re-established ascendancy over the British fighter, especially at high altitudes. Me-109F-4/Bs, equipped with fuselage racks for a single 551-pound SC 250 bomb, frequently darted across the Channel on hit-and-run Jagdbomber, or "Jabo," missions. In the first year of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the veteran Me-109E and Me-109F pilots ran up astronomical scores against the outdated I-16s, as well as newer Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3s and Yakovlev Yak-1s flown by less experienced Soviet pilots. Me-109F-4/Trop variants, with tropical filters to guard their engines against sand and dust, took an equally heavy toll on British aircraft over North Africa and the Mediterranean. Among the desert Messerschmitt pilots of Jagdgeschwader 27 "Afrika" was the top-scoring German ace in the West, Hans-Joachim Marseille, who piled up 158 victories, including 17 in one day, before his death on September 30, 1942.

The next improvement in the series involved the introduction of the 1,475-hp DB 605A engine in the Me-109G-1, which entered service in the late summer of 1942. The first "Gustav," as the G model was nicknamed, had a basic armament of one 20mm MG 151 cannon and two 7.9mm MG 17 machine guns, but the Me-109G-5 introduced two 13mm MG 131 machine guns in place of the MG 17s. The cowlings of that and subsequent Me-109G models required enlarged fairings over the breechlocks and ammunition feeds that earned them the alternate sobriquet of Beule ("bump").

The Me-109G was the most numerous of the Messerschmitts, with production reaching 725 a month by July 1943, and that year's total reaching 6,418 aircraft. In spite of Allied bombing raids against German industry, Me-109 production for 1944 reached 14,212. In addition to the Messerschmitts produced in Germany, Hungary built about 700 Me-109Gs under license at Budapest and Györ until September 1944. Romania also began licensed production in the IAR plant at Brasov, but completed only 16 Me-109G-6s and assembled 30 others from German-delivered components before its facilities were destroyed by bombers of the U.S. Fifteenth Air Force on May 6, 1944.

Neutral Switzerland acquired 12 Me-109G-6s as part of a deal for destroying an Me-110G-4/R7 equipped with the latest Liechtenstein SN-2 radar and oblique-firing Schräge-Musik 20mm cannons, after the night fighter had accidentally landed at spy-infested Dübendorf on April 28, 1944. The Gustavs, and two other Me-109Gs that were interned after straying into Swiss airspace, were assigned to Fliegerkompagnie 7, but they were unreliable due to deteriorating German production standards at that point in the war, and saw little use.

Although somewhat past its prime as a first-line fighter, the Me-109G remained a foe to be reckoned with right to the end of the fighting, due in part to its fuel-injected DB 605A engine, but primarily due to the expertise and ingenuity of its pilots. The Gustavs were flown at one time or another by all the greatest aces of the Axis powers, including Finland's Eino Ilmari Juutilainen (94 victories), Alexandru Serbanescu of Romania (45), Mato Dukovac of Croatia (40), Dezsö Szent-Györgyi of Hungary (32), Ján Reznak of Slovakia (32), Stoyan Stoyanov of Bulgaria (6) and Spanish volunteer Gonzalo Hevia Alvarez Quiñones (12). A squadron of anti-Stalinist Russians who had allied themselves with the Germans was also equipped with Me-109E-1s; several of its pilots scored 15 or more victories, and one, Leonidas Maximciuc, claimed 52. Some Italian aces added to their scores flying Me-109Gs in 1943 and 1945. The only noteworthy Axis aces who did not put in some flying hours in Me-109s were Japanese.

Leading them all, of course, were the Germans themselves. The all-time ace of aces, Erich Hartmann, scored all of his 352 victories in the Me-109, preferring to stay with it rather than take the time to familiarize himself with more advanced types. Gerhard Barkhorn, the Luftwaffe's second-ranking ace with 301 victories, considered the Me-109F his favorite fighter. Günther Rall, the third-ranking German ace with 275 victories, flew all variants of the Me-109 from E to K, as well as putting in a brief stint in the Focke Wulf Fw-109D. Rall echoed Hartmann's sentiments: "I liked the 109 most because I was familiar with it."

Not everyone who flew the Me-109 liked it. Walter Nowotny, the leading Austrian ace, scored his first successes in Me-109Es but soon moved on to the Fw-190A, in which he gained most of his 258 victories. For every German who preferred the familiarity of the Me-109 there was another who was happier flying the Fw-190, the Me-262 jet or anything else.

By mid-1943, the Allies were fielding a new generation of fighters equal or superior to the Me-109G, such as the Spitfire Mk.IX and XIV, P-51B Mustang, P-47D Thunderbolt and Yak-9D. British Captain Eric Brown said that the captured Me-109G-6/U2 he test-flew in 1944 was "delightful to fly" at its cruising speed of 240 mph, but in a 400-mph dive, "the controls felt as though they had seized!" On the whole, he concluded that "providing the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (i.e., above 25,000 feet/7,620 meters), it performed efficiently both in dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations."

Even when outclassed, the Messerschmitt could surprise its adversaries. Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., a P-51 ace of the 357th Fighter Group with 8 1/2 victories, recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control.

Allied pilots who had the opportunity to sit in the Me-109's cockpit claimed it to be so narrow that they could barely work the control column between their knees. "The windscreen supports were slender and did not produce serious blind spots," said Eric Brown, "but space was so confined that movement of the head was difficult for even a pilot of my limited stature." The British and their American colleagues were also appalled at its minimal instrumentation. Soviet ace Vitali I. Popkov, who scored 41 victories in LaGG-3s and La-5FNs, flew a captured Me-109 and, like his Western colleagues, came away amazed that its pilots had been able to perform as well as they did.

It has been said, however, that where you sit is where you stand, and German Me-109 pilots saw things from a decidedly different perspective. Franz Stigler, a 28-victory Experte, test-flew captured American fighters and commented: "I didn't like the Thunderbolt. It was too big. The cockpit was immense and unfamiliar. After so many hours in the snug confines of the [Me-109], everything felt out of reach and too far away from the pilot. Although the P-51 was a fine airplane to fly...it too was disconcerting. With all those levers, controls and switches in the cockpit, I'm surprised [American] pilots could find the time to fight."

As the war turned against Germany, Me-109Gs carried a variety of armament to counter the growing armadas of Allied bombers. One such weapon was the 210mm Nebelwerfer 42 rocket, two of which were mounted in Wfr.Gr.21 Dodel launchers under the wings of Me-109G-6/R2 Pulk Zerstörer ("formation destroyers"). Although inaccurate, the rockets were capable of throwing bomber groups into disarray. The Germans added two 20mm MG 151 cannons in Rüstsatz 6 underwing-mounted gondolas on the Me-109G-6/R6, and 30mm MG 108s on the Me-109G-6/U4. Although devastating against American bombers, the Kanonenboote ("gunboats"), as their pilots called them, were unable to outmaneuver or outrun the Allied fighter escorts.

In 1943, JG.1's Me-109G pilots began dropping 551-pound bombs on American bomber formations in hopes of dispersing them. The Me-109G-6/N, equipped with a variety of navigation equipment, including an FuG 350 Naxos Z receiver in a small glass dome aft of the cockpit for homing in on the H2S radar of RAF Pathfinders, was briefly employed by JG.300 early in 1944 for lone Wilde Sau ("wild pig") attacks on British bombers at night. A spate of landing accidents at night and in bad weather led to the abandonment of the night-fighting Gustavs. In the Mistel ("mistletoe") project, Me-109Fs and Fw-190As were mounted on the backs of unmanned Ju-88s packed with explosives. When they neared a target, the manned fighters would separate from the Ju-88s, and the pilots would guide the flying bombs to the targets by radio.

In the fall of 1944, a series of boosted DB 605 engines gave the Me-109 another new lease on life. The DB 605D featured a GM1 nitrous oxide injection system, while the DB 605ASM, ASB, ASC, DB and DC variants had MW 50 methanol injection systems that briefly boosted its power from 1,550 to 2,000 hp. The engines were installed in the Me-109G-6AS, G-10 and G-14. The Me-106G-10, which also eliminated the Beule by covering the machine-gun breechlocks under a more carefully streamlined cowling, was the fastest of the Gustavs, with a speed of 428 mph at 25,000 feet.

Late-model Me-109G-6s, G-10s and G-14s featured a new, taller, unbalanced wooden tail and rudder assembly, as well as a modified canopy offering better pilot visibility, known as the Galland hood. Training versions of the Me-109 were considered as early as 1940, but serious work on such an airplane did not begin until 1942, resulting in the Me-109G-12, essentially a lengthened, two-seat conversion from Me-109G-1, G-5 and G-6 fighters. A twin of a different and more literal sort was the Me-109Z Zwilling, a pair of Me-109Fs joined by a central wing and tail plane extension, with the right cockpit faired over to carry extra fuel. A production version, based on the Me-109G, would have carried five 30mm MG 108 cannons or up to 1,102 pounds of bombs. The Me-109Z prototype was completed in 1943 but was damaged in an Allied air attack before it could be flight tested. The project was dropped in 1944, before the prototype could be repaired, but by a curious coincidence, the Zwilling concept was successfully applied by the Americans to their North American P-51, leading to the development of the P-82 Twin Mustang in April 1945.

A small number of Me-109H-0 and Me-109H-1 high-altitude interceptors, featuring an enlarged wingspan of 39 feet 1 1/4 inches and a DB 601E-1 engine with GM 1 power boost, were tested in the spring of 1944. The H model could reach an altitude of 47,000 feet but displayed serious flutter in dives, and development was canceled in favor of the Focke Wulf Ta-152. There was no Me-109I, and the Me-109J was a proposed Spanish version to be licensed out to Hispano-Suiza. The experimental Me-109L was to use a 1,750-hp Junkers Jumo 201E engine. The Me-109S would have featured blown flaps to improve its low-speed handling characteristics. The Me-109TL project envisioned jet power, but so many modifications were necessary that it was dropped in favor of the Me-262A.

The final production wartime variant was the Me-109K, powered by a 1,550-hp DB 605 ASCM/DCM engine with MW 50 methanol injection. Standard armament consisted of one engine-mounted 30mm MK 103 or MK 108 cannon and two 15mm MG 151 cannons in the cowling. Its maximum speed reached 452 mph at 19,685 feet. The Me-109K-2 and Me-109K-4 made their combat debuts during Operation Bodenplatte, a last desperate mass Jabo strike against British and American air bases in France on January 1, 1945. By then, they were too few and too late to have any more effect on the war's outcome than the more advanced fighters that had been developed by a desperate Nazi war machine.

May 8, 1945, marked the end of Hitler's Reich but, curiously, not the end of the Me-109 story. Between 1939 and 1945, 45 Bf-109Bs, 15 Me-109Es, 10 Me-109Fs and 25 Me-109Gs were delivered to Spain. After the war, Hispano Aviación installed 1,300-hp Hispano Suiza 12-Z-89 engines in the Me-109G airframes, the first of which, designated the HA-1109JIL, debuted on March 2, 1945. The company subsequently produced its own version of the Messerschmitt, powered by a Hispano-Suiza 122-17 engine. The HA-1109-KIL first flew in March 1951, and 200 were eventually built. A two-seat trainer version, the HA-1110-KIL, was added in October 1953, and the HA-1112-KIL had a combination of two wing-mounted cannons and underwing rockets. A final version, the HA-1112-MIL Buchon ("Pigeon"), used a 1,400-hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 500/45 engine driving a Rotol four-bladed propeller. Ironically, the Spanish-built Me-109, which used the same engine as its old enemy, the Spitfire, represented its German forebear in the 1969 film The Battle of Britain.

The story of the Czechoslovakian-built version of the Messerschmitt involves yet another twist of fate. The Avia factory at Prague-Cakovice was to have built the Me-109G-14 under license but had not begun production before the fall of the Reich. With the resurrection of the Czechoslovakian Republic, Avia proceeded with production of that same design, calling it the C-10, along with a two-seat trainer, the C-110, which were respectively designated S-99 and CS-99 by the Czechoslovakian air force.

As supplies of DB 605 engines dried up, Avia was compelled to use another German engine that it was already producing, the 1,350-hp Junkers Jumo 211F, thus reverting to the Me-109's original power plant. Unfortunately, the Jumo 211F was heavier, yet less powerful, than the DB 605. Using a broad, paddle-bladed propeller, the C-210 displayed mediocre performance in the air, but its takeoff and landing characteristics were positively vicious. Pressed into military service as the S-199 fighter and CS-199 trainer, the Jumo-engine Avia became known as the Mezec ("mule") to its unhappy pilots, although it served with the Czech National Security Guard until as late as 1957.

In 1948, with the Jews of Palestine about to declare statehood in the face of their hostile Arab neighbors, the Czechoslovakians found an outlet for their unloved Mezecs. Ignoring the United Nations-mandated embargo on arms to the Middle East, Czechoslovakia made a deal in early April to sell 10 S-199s to the Jews at the exorbitant rate of $44,600 per fighter, plus $6,890 for equipment, $120,229 for ammunition and a $10,000 ferrying charge. By the time Israel's statehood was declared on May 14, a mixed bag of foreign volunteers and indigenous Jews, the latter including Mordechai "Modi" Allon and Ezer Weizmann, were hastily striving to master the new fighter.

The Israelis dubbed their first fighter the Sakin ("knife"), but most of the pilots regarded its unofficial Czech sobriquet as more appropriate. Lou Lenart, a former U.S. Marine Vought F4U Corsair veteran of the Pacific War, described the S-199 as "probably the worst airplane that I have ever had the misfortune to fly...you had that monstrous propeller and you had a torque and no rudder trim."

Nevertheless, the Sakins were rushed to Tel-Nof Air Base near Tel Aviv, and on May 29, Lenart led Allon, Weizmann and South African volunteer Edward Cohen on a bombing and strafing attack against some 10,000 Egyptian troops advancing on Tel Aviv. The Sakins inflicted some damage, but Eddie Cohen was shot down.

When two converted Douglas C-47s of the Royal Egyptian Air Force (REAF) tried to bomb Israeli headquarters at Ramat-Gan outside Tel Aviv on June 3, Allon scrambled up to intercept and shot down both. Ironically, the first recorded aerial victories for the Chel Ha'Avir (Israel Defense Force/Air Force, or IDF/AF) were scored in a postwar variation of a German fighter design. A total of seven victories were claimed in S-199s, including one of the Me-109's traditional adversaries, a Spitfire, by Allon on July 18. The last ace to fly a Messerschmitt variant was Rudolf Augarten, a Jewish American who had scored his first two victories--both Me-109s--in World War II while flying P-47Ds with the 406th Fighter Squadron. Augarten was flying S-199 serial No. D-121 when he downed an REAF Spitfire on October 16, on the same day that Modi Allon, the most successful Sakin pilot, fatally crashed near Hertzeliya. Rudy Augarten later downed three more Egyptian aircraft while flying Spitfires and P-51Ds.

A total of 25 S-199s served in the IDF/AF, of which three were destroyed by groundfire and eight wrecked or damaged in crashes. By May 1949, Israel had acquired enough Spitfires to render the Sakins unnecessary, and by the end of the year all but one of them had been relegated to the scrap heap. The survivor served as a "gate guardian" at Hatzerim Air Base until April 1988, when it was rescued for restoration and given the status it deserved as an historical relic of the IDF/AF's desperate formative years.

The Me-109's long operational career ended where it had begun--in Spain. The last HA-1112-MIL emerged from Hispano's Seville plant in late 1956, and the Spanish Messerschmitts soldiered on into the 1960s.

Although Allied bombing made it difficult to calculate an exact figure, it has been estimated that as many as 33,000 Me-109s of all models were built, making it second only to the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik as the most mass-produced warplane in history. Moreover, the ubiquitous Me-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare. Although not the most aesthetically pleasing airplane ever built, the Messerschmitt earned its place among the aviation classics--and, if not affection, at least respect.

The ANT-14 arriving at Bucharest on 27 October 1935 on its only journey outside the USSR.

The sole ANT-14 shows its size with a line up of parachutists underneath.

Essentially conceived as a much larger version of the ANT-9, Tupolev developed it as a thirty-six-seat passenger airliner with a crew of five. To speed up the programme, the wings and undercarriage of the ANT-6/TB-3 were used, with the only major change being lengthened undercarriage legs because of the ANT-14's high wings. Power came from five 480hp Gnome-Rhone Jupiter VI engines, with two mounted on each wing and the fifth in the aircraft's nose. It was one of the biggest aircraft of its time - which was to be its undoing, because its size was beyond the then needs of Soviet air transport.

The programme was headed by Vladimir Petliakov, in a programme which worked particularly well, for when Mikhail Gromov flew it for the first time on 14 August 1931, less than a year after the start of design work, very little adjustment was needed to anything. Its test programme was completed by spring 1932. But a short evaluation by Dobrolet/Aeroflot, then flying the eight-passenger Kalinin K-5 and just beginning to receive the nine-passenger ANT-9, revealed no worthwhile routes for a thirty-six-seat airliner, so the AGOS/TsAGI-built prototype remained the sole example of the ANT-14.

Its life was not over; shortly after its test flying was completed, the idea of forming an agitation, or propaganda, squadron was approved by Stalin and it was established on 17 March 1933. It was named after Maksim Gorki, the famous Russian writer who had begun his writing career forty years earlier in 1891. Gorki was Stalin's favourite writer, which added to the support for the idea. The available ANT-14 was the first lead aircraft of the squadron, which named each aircraft after a newspaper or magazine of the time. As leader, the ANT-14 was given the name Pravda (truth) after the nation's leading daily newspaper.

For the next ten years, the ANT-14 served the squadron well. It made well over 1,000 flights, and carried over 40,000 passengers. These included officials and workers being rewarded for their services as well as fare-paying passengers on tourist flights over Moscow. It operated mainly within Russia and, to a lesser extent, the wider Soviet Union. It flew two tourist flights from Moscow to Kharkov in the Ukraine, and one to St Petersburg, then called Leningrad. Its only journey outside the USSR was in October 1935 when it visited Bucharest, the Romanian capital, to mark a festival being held there at the time. During its service no major technical snags were experienced, a remarkable tribute for the time. With the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War in 1941, the squadron's days drew to a close. In 1942, after its withdrawal from service, the fuselage of the aircraft was parked in a children's playground, where it continued its propaganda work for a short while.

ANT-14

Type: passenger transport

Maker: Tupolev Design Bureau

Span: 40.4 m (132 ft 6 1/2 in)

Length: 26.49 m (86 ft 11 in)

Height: 5.4 m (17ft 8 1/2 in)

Wing area: 240 m2 (2583 sq ft)

Weight: maximum 17530 kg (38 646Ib); empty 10828 kg (238711b)

Powerplant: five 480-hp Gnome-Rhone 9AKX ]upiter VI 9-cylinder air-cooled radial engines

Performance: cruising speed 195 km/h (121 mph); range 900 km (559 miles)

Payload: seats for 36 passengers

Crew: 3

Production: 1

The success of the H6K and H8K flying boats in the transport role lead Kawanishi and the Japanese Navy to develop a new flying boat optimized for transport duties. Taking the H8K as a base, the aircraft was re-engined with four Nakajima Ha-54 engines developing 3,800 horsepower, more than twice the output of the earlier engines. The wings were enlarged by approximately 30 percent and mated to a modified fuselage. This was wider and flatter than that of the H8K and had a single vehicle deck rather than two passenger decks as on the H8K. However, its added size increased the usable cargo space by about 20 percent. In order to keep the wing high enough above the water, it was mounted across the top of the fuselage, being covered by a fairing that gave the H11K its popular nickname of “Hunchback”. The greatest change though was in the nose. This consisted of a pair of clamshell doors with an integral loading ramp that could be extended and retracted to land the aircraft’s cargo.

The JU-322 "Mammut" (Mammoth) was Junkers response to the Luftwaffe's order for a giant assault glider that could carry heavy equipment into combat areas. The flying wing-style craft was made entirely of wood and had a clamshell door in its nose to accommodate the loading and unloading of cargo.

The Nazis ordered the Junkers company to produce 200 all-wood assault gliders, they were to be used in the invasion of Britain in the same role as the Messerschmidt 321. Junkers had to start from scratch; the company had abandoned wood construction years before. They wound up with a 203 foot flying wing with a conventional tail that loaded cargo through the "nose". Unfortunately, the glider proved highly problematic. First, stability problems forced the builders to put two 4000 litre water tanks in its forward section to make it more nose-heavy.

During loading tests a light tank crashed through the floor and it had to be strengthened, reducing payload by 20 percent. On its first flight test a Ju 90 tow plane laboured to pull it into the air, barely making it before the end of the runway. The Mammut then jettisoned its wheeled take-off trolley, which smashed itself into fragments. The poor pilot had other things to worry about as the unstable glider began to pitch up violently, putting the tow plane into a full-power dive. In desperation the Mammut pilot cut loose the tow and the glider straightened out and landed in a field nearby. Two weeks later it was towed back to the flying field by the tanks it was supposed to carry. The project was cancelled and the rest of the 98 gliders being built were cut up for firewood.

Mirage 2000-5 Mk2

The most advanced version in the Mirage 2000 family.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 is a new-generation advanced multirole combat aircraft, descending from the Mirage 2000 lineage, already proven under operational conditions with the air forces of eight countries.

Operational experience, especially within multinational forces, has shown the need for an increased fuel capacity and firepower. This requirement has been fulfilled with the introduction of the Mirage 2000-5 in operational service in 1997.

As new markets were conquered by the Mirage 2000-5, the users of the earlier versions became interested in the aircraft new capabilities.

New Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 aircraft complete existing fleets, and operational aircraft are modernised to gain the same operational capabilities.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 incorporates new technologies and functionalities often derived from the experience gained in the RAFALE aircraft development.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 is ideally suited to interception and air superiority missions.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 is entirely suited to high-altitude interception operations at high supersonic speeds (Mach 2.2 at 50,000ft) thanks to its aerodynamic qualities and its engine, thus allowing it to counter high-performance hostiles. Thanks to a new external load configuration, with air-to-air missiles fitted on the side fuselage hardpoints, the new aircraft offers a much-enhanced firepower.

With these new characteristics, the Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 offers outstanding multirole capabilities and ranks among the best in its category, as demonstrated by its success on the export market.

The Mirage 2000-9, ordered by the United Arab Emirates, belongs to the family of the new Mirage 2000-5 Mk2, purchased by Greece.

The Mirage 2000 is a French-built multirole fighter jet manufactured by Dassault Aviation. Designed in the late seventies as a lightweight fighter for the Armée de l'Air, it evolved into a successful multirole aircraft now in service in 9 countries with more than 600 airplanes built.

Development

The Avion de Combat Futur(ACF) was developed for the French Air Force in the early 1970s. After the ACF was cancelled on 18 December 1975 due to its growing cost and complexity, Dassault offered the Mirage 2000 as an alternative. This was the return to first generation Mirages, but with several important innovations that tried to solve their shortcomings. Chief projectist were B.C. Valliéres, J.Cabrière, J.C. Veber and B.Revellin-Falcoz[1].

Development of this small aircraft would also give the company a competitor to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, which had defeated the Dassault Mirage F1 in a contest for a new fighter for the air forces of Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway. Small single-engined fighters were clearly the most appreciated by foreigner customers, as experience with the larger, twin-engined Mirage 4000 would show.

The prototype made its first flight in March 10, 1978 with test pilot Jean Coreau at the controls. Despite the new technologies applied, basing the new aircraft on the Mirage III allowed the development of a flyable prototype in only 27 months from the program start to the first flight, even if active service status needed another six years.

In that summer, at Farnbourgh airshow this machine displayed not only excellent handling capabilities, but also a full control at 204 km/h and 26 AoA. This was totally unexpected by a delta-wing fighter, and proof how CCD controls were capable to override the delta wing shortcomings, related with bad low-speed control, while retaining the advantages, as low-drag, low RCS, ideal high speed aerodynamic and simplicity, being without horizontal tail surfaces. Mirage 2000 was one of the star of that edition and became the direct adversary for F-16, which shared the CCD control and relaxed stability [2]. 02 followed in 18 September 1978 and 03 in 26 September 1979 After 400 hours of flight, they were sent to CEV (Centre Experimental du Vol). 04 Prototype was a demonstrator made by Dassault for own purposes, and finally the first dual-seat M.2000B flew in 11 October 1980.

The first production example flew in November 20, 1982 and the aircraft went into operational service in 1984. They were practically pre-production aircraft, because they had no SARH missiles (RDM-1 radar) and the first model of SNECMA 'Super Atar'. M-53-2. The last Mirage 2000 was delivered on November 23, 2007.[3]

The Mirage 2000 is scheduled to be replaced in French service by the Dassault Rafale, which became operational with the French Air Force on June 27, 2006. The Mirage 2000 production line was shut down in November 2007 after the last aircraft had been delivered to the Hellenic Air Force.

Design

Using the concept of the delta wing interceptor seen on the Dassault Mirage III, Dassault built a new design but still using a delta wing. This configuration is not ideal with regard to maneuverability, low-altitude flight, and distance required for take-off and landing, but has advantages in high-speed flight characteristics, simplicity of construction, low radar signature and internal volume.

Features

Low-set thin delta wing with cambered section, 58 degrees leading-edge sweep (4 at the exit wing border) and moderately blended root; area-ruled; two small canard wings, fixed, placed just behind the air intakes. The flight commands on the wing are: four elevons (+15/-30°), four slats, four airbrakes (2 above and 2 below each wing.)

Parachute brake is on the tail, just above the engine exhaust.

The aircraft's center of lift was moved in front of its center of gravity, giving the fighter a degree of instability that enhances maneuverability.

A runway arresting hook or fairing for a brake parachute can be fitted under the tail. The landing roll was reduced by robust carbon brakes. The backward-retracting, steerable nose gear features dual wheels, while the main gear features single wheels and retracts inward into the wings.

An airbrake is fitted on top and below each wing in an arrangement very similar to that of the Mirage III. A noticeably taller tailfin allows the pilot to retain control at higher angles of attack, assisted by small strakes mounted along each air intake.

First fighter jet with negative static stability. [4]

Structure

Multi-spar metal wing; elevons have carbon-fiber skins with AG5 light alloy honeycomb cores; carbon-fiber/light alloy honeycomb panel covers avionics bay; most of the tailfin and all of the rudder are skinned with boron/epoxy/carbon; the rudder has a light alloy honeycomb core.

Flight control system

The aircraft has a redundant fly-by-wire automatic flight control system, providing a high degree of agility and easier handling, together with stability and precise control in all situations. Fighter's Airframe is naturally unstable, and so it is coupled with FBW commands to obtain the best agility; however, in override mode it is still possible to exceed a 270 deg/sec roll rate and allows the aircraft to reach 11 g (within the 12 g structural limit), instead of nine when engaged. The system is reliable with no known losses due to its failure.

Landing gear

The aircraft uses a retractable tricycle type landing gear by Messier-Bugatti, with twin nosewheels and a single wheel on each main gear. Hydraulic retraction, nosewheels rearward, main units inward. Oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers. Electrohydraulic nosewheel steering (+/-45 degrees). Manual disconnect permits the nosewheel unit to caster through 360 degrees for ground towing.

Cockpit

The fighter is available as a single-seat or two-seat multi-role fighter. The aircraft has hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) control. The pilot sits on a SEMB Mark 10 zero-zero ejection seat, a license-built version of the British Martin-Baker Mark 10. Contrary to the F-16, the pilot sits in a conventional position, without the heavy slope that the F-16 seat has. The cockpit is quite small, and there is no bubble canopy. Despite this, the cockpit visibility is quite good, but less than the F-16, especially at 'six O' clock' (rear) position.

The instrument panel(in Mirage 2000 C) is dominated by a Heads Up Display (HUD) with the VMC 180 radar screen located centrally below it. To the lower left is a stores management panel. Above the stores management panel are the navigation instruments and altimeter. The right half of the instrument panel houses the engine and systems displays. Located on the left side of the cockpit, just ahead of the throttle, are controls for the communications equipment, including the Have Quick secure radio.

Avionics

Standard avionics for the Mirage-2000B/C include:

Sagem ULISS 52 inertial navigation system (INS), TRT radio altimeter.

Sextant TMV-980 data display system (VE-130 head-up and VMC-180 head-down) (two head-down in 2000N/D). The combined head-up/head-level display is collimated at infinity, and presents data relating to flight control, navigation, target engagement and weapon firing. Sensor and system management data is presented on two colored lateral displays.

Dassault Electronique Type 2084 central digital computer, Digibus digital databus (2084 XR in 2000D) and Sextant Avionique Type 90 air data computer.

LMT NRAI-7A IFF transponder, IO-300-A marker beacon receiver, TRT ERA 7000 V/UHF com transceiver, TRT ERA 7200 UHF or EAS secure voice communications.

Radar

Thomson-CSF RDM multi-mode radar or Dassault Electronique/Thomson-CSF RDI pulse-Doppler radar for the Mirage 2000C/D, each with an operating range of 54 nm (100 km / 62 miles). This unit was an evolution of Cyrano radars, with more modern processing units and look-down/shoot-down capabilities. The effective range is around 60-70 km with modest capabilities against low-level targets. It is linked with Super R.530F missiles, and equipped the first 37 aircraft delivered to the French Air Force (Armeé de l'Air) and most exported Mirages. It has multirole capabilities that enable its use in air-to-surface tasks, including anti-ship roles. The very early RDM were still not linked with the Super R.530F missiles, but it was solved quickly.

RDI interception radar. A specialized radar for air-to-air tasks delivered mainly with the Mirage 2000C for the Armée de l'Air. It has a much improved range of about 150 km, and is linked to Super R.530D missiles; much improved compared to the "F". Look-down/shoot-down capabilities are much improved as well, but this radar is not usually used for air-to-surface roles.

Dassault/Thales Antelope 5 Radar with terrain avoidance capability for Mirage 2000N Nuclear Strike variant.

The Thales multimode RDY (Radar Doppler Multitarget) developed for the Mirage 2000-5. Third generation radar, with multiple target capabilities (comparable to the AWG-9) and MICA missiles. This radar equipped many of the most recently exported M.2000s, as-well as the first Mirage 2000RDM updated to 2000-5 standard.

Countermeasures

Thales Serval Radar warning receiver (RWR) with antennas on the wingtips and on the rear of the top of the tailfin.

Dassault Sabre RF jammer in a pod below the bottom of the tailfin, with an antenna in a fairing on the front of the tailfin.

Dassault Eclair dispenser system under the tail. This was eventually replaced by a pair of Matra Spirale dispensers, one fitted on an extension behind the rear of each wingroot, giving a total capacity of 224 cartridges.

Engines

The Mirage 2000 is equipped with a SNECMA M53-5 (first 37 airplanes), or SNECMA M53-P2 low-baypass ratio turbofan engine, depending on the aircraft version, which provides 64 kN of thrust dry and 98 kN in afterburner. The air intakes are fitted with an adjustable half-cone-shaped centerbody, which provides an inclined shock of air pressure for highly efficient air intake. Total internal fuel capacity is 3,978 litres in the Mirage 2000C and E, and 3,904 litres in the Mirage 2000B, N, D and S. There are also provisions for a jettisonable 1,300-litre centerline fuselage fuel tank and for a 1,700-litre drop tank under each wing.

Armament and payload

The Mirage 2000 can carry up to 6.3 tons (13,900 lb) of stores on nine pylons, with two pylons on each wing and five under the fuselage. A fixed removable refuelling probe can be attached in front of the cockpit, offset slightly to the right of center.

Primary armament of the Mirage 2000 includes

Built-in armament consisted of twin DEFA 554 (now GIAT 30-550 F4) 30 mm revolver-type cannons with 125 rounds each. The cannons have selectable fire rates of 1,200 or 1,800 rounds per minute. Ammunitions weight 275 g and have a muzzle velocity of around 800 m/s. Even if this is not an impressive value (due to the 30x113 ammunition standard) this gives the noticeable capability to fire up to 16 kg/second, while the M61 Vulcan reaches only (at maximum theoretical ROF) 6 kg (ammunitions weights around 100 gr).

Matra Super 530 medium-range semi-active radar-guided air-to-air missile on the inboard wing pylons and underbelly one.

MICA missiles are replacing the previous. They are available only on the Mirage 2000-5 and further models. They have multiple advantages over previous missiles such as their weight, only 110 kg compared to 250-270 kg. This allows to carry up to 5 missiles under the belly. The data-link, active radar and auto-pilot make these weapons comparable to the heavier AMRAAM. The range is around 60 km, even more than the Super R.530D. So a Mirage 2000-5 with 4 MICA can engage four targets at the same time up to 60 km range, while a Mirage 2000 RDI can engage only two (not at the same time) within 40 km.

Matra Magic short-range infrared-seeking AAM on the outboard wing pylons. Other missiles are compatible, because Magic itself was meant as 'Sidewinder compatible', so AIM-9J/P/L are often used on exported Mirages, and often other IR missiles are also in the Mirages panoply.

The Mirage 2000C can carry air-to-ground stores such as the Matra 68 mm rocket pods (18 each), iron bombs (both French 250, 400, 1000 kg and Mk 80s series), and cluster bombs like Belouga or foreigner models. Some sub-version, especially those equipped with RDM (mainly used in export models) have the capability to use the Exocet anti-ship missiles.

Combat history

French Mirage 2000s saw operational use during the Gulf War although little combat action. UAE Mirages also flew in the Gulf War, but saw little action.

French Mirage 2000s were prominent participants in U.N. and NATO air operations over the former Yugoslavia, with one aircraft shot down over Bosnia by a heat-seeking surface-to-air missile in 1995, prompting efforts to obtain improved defensive systems.

AdA Mirage 2000Ds served in the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, operating in close conjunction with international forces and performing precision attacks with LGBs.

In summer 2007, after the Rafale fighters have been removed from the theater of operations, 3 French Mirage 2000's were deployed to Afghanistan in support of NATO troops.

Kargil War, 1999: India has assigned the nuclear strike role to their Mirage 2000s. In 1999 when the Kargil conflict broke out, as all the Russian aircraft in the IAF (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27) were having problems operating at high altitudes or were vulnerable to enemy MANPADs, the Mirage 2000 proved ideal for high altitude bombing. The Mirage 2000 performed well during the whole conflict, even though the Mirages supplied to India had limited air interdiction capability and had to be heavily modified to drop dumb and laser-guided bombs. The two Mirage squadrons flew a total of 515 sorties, and in 240 strike missions dropped 55,000 kg of ordnance. Easy maintenance and a very high sortie rate (compared to the Russian fighters in service with the IAF) made the Mirage 2000 the most efficient fighter of the Indian Air Force in the conflict.[citation needed]

Variants: Mirage 2000C

French Mirage 2000C

The first Mirage 2000 to go into service was the single-seat Mirage 2000C interceptor. There were four single-seat prototypes, including the initial Mirage 2000 prototype. The first production Mirage 2000C flew in November 1982. Deliveries began in 1983. The first operational squadron was formed in 1984, the 50th anniversary of the French Air Force. A total of 124 Mirage-2000Cs were obtained by the AdA.

The first 37 Mirage 2000Cs delivered were fitted with the Thomson-CSF RDM (Radar Doppler Multifunction) and were powered by the SNECMA M53-5 turbofan engine. The 38th Mirage 2000C had an upgraded SNECMA M53-5 P2 turbofan engine. The Radar Doppler Impulse (RDI) built by Thales did not enter service until 1987.

Latest upgrades include:

Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NTCR) mode in RDI Radar allows identification of airborne targets not responding on IFF.

Integration with the new Matra MICA (Missile d'Interception, de Combat et d'Autodefense) IR heat-seeking missile. The radar-guided version of the MICA will not be able to support earlier versions of the Mirage 2000.

Mirage 2000B

Mirage 2000 family used by French Air Force.

The Mirage 2000B is two-seat operational conversion trainer variant which performed its initial flight on October 11, 1980. The AdA acquired 30 Mirage 2000Bs, with all three of the AdA fighter wings obtaining a few each for conversion training.

Mirage 2000N and 2000D

The Mirage 2000N is the nuclear strike variant which was intended to carry the Aerospatiale Air-Sol Moyenne Portee (ASMP) nuclear stand-off missile. Initial flight tests of two prototypes began on February 3, 1983, and the Mirage 2000N entered operational service in 1988. A total of 75 were built.

The Mirage 2000D is a dedicated conventional attack variant developed from the Mirage 2000N. Initial flight of the Mirage 2000D prototype, a modified Mirage 2000N prototype, was on February 19, 1991. The first flight of a production aircraft occurred March 31, 1993, and service introduction followed in April 1995. A total of 86 were built.

Mirage 2000-5

By the late 1980s, the Mirage 2000 was beginning to age compared with the latest models of U.S. F-16 fighters, so Thomson-CSF began work on a privately funded update of the Mirage 2000C which was to be named the Mirage 2000-5. A two-seat Mirage 2000B prototype was extensively modified as the first Mirage 2000-5 prototype, and it first flew on October 24, 1990. A Mirage 2000C prototype was then reworked to a similar standard, making its initial flight on April 27, 1991.

Features:

The Thales multimode RDY (Radar Doppler Multitarget). The RDY radar is the heart of the upgrade, providing true multitarget tracking. It can simultaneously detect up to 24 targets and track the eight highest-priority threats while guiding four MICA EMs to different targets simultaneously.

The updated ICMS 2 countermeasures suite and the Samir DDM missile warning system. ICMS 2 incorporates a receiver and associated signal processing system in the nose for detection of hostile missile command data links. The aircraft’s self-protection equipment can be interfaced to a new programmable mission-planning and post-mission analysis ground system.

A new glass cockpit layout borrowed from the Rafale program with three-color MFDs, a dual-linked wide-angle HUD / head-level display, and HOTAS controls. The cockpit is NVG-compatible.

Targeting systems included the Thales TV/CT CLDP laser designation pod which provides the capability to fire laser-guided weapons by day and night.

A two-seater version was developed as well. The back-seater has the HUD but not the associated head-level display, and as with first-generation two-seaters, there are no built-in cannon (although cannon pods can be carried).

The Mirage 2000-5 can also carry the oversized drop tanks developed for the Mirage 2000N, greatly extending its range.

In 1993, the AdA decided to upgrade 37 of their existing Mirage 2000s to the 2000-5 specification as a stopgap before the arrival of the Rafale in AdA service. The upgraded aircraft were redesignated Mirage 2000-5F, and became operational in 2000. They retained the old countermeasures system with the Serval/Sabre/Spirale units and did not receive the ICMS 2 system.

The AdA is now considering upgrades for the type, including the MIDS datalink, MICA IR support, and the Thales Topsight helmet-mounted display / sighting system.

Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2

Dassault extended the improvements of the Mirage 2000-5 a bit further with the Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2, which is an enhanced, fully multirole version of the Mirage 2000-5. It is currently the most advanced version of the Mirage 2000.

Features:

Thales RDY-2 radar. This radar system is similar in configuration to the original RDY, but features two new air-to-ground modes, including a high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging mode with a moving target indicator (MTI) capability to provide an all-weather, day/night targeting capability. The radar features low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) operation, with the output pattern varying in a seemingly random pattern that prevents an adversary RWR from recognizing that it has been targeted.

The high-power Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU) designed for the Rafale.

A new Thales Totem 3000 INS with ring-laser gyros and GPS capability, providing much greater accuracy, higher reliability, and shorter alignment time replaces the older ULISS 52 system. It works in conjunction with a terrain-following system.

An improved, classified ICMS 3 digital countermeasures suite.

An on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS).

The cockpit was updated as well, retaining the same general layout but with larger color displays and other modernizations. The Thales Topsight helmet-mounted display / sighting system is offered as an option.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2 includes a datalink for the targeting of MICA ER missiles and can carry the Damocles targeting pod.

Future Upgrades: Thales AIDA visual identification pod; technology used in the Rafale will be also integrated into the Mirage 2000, including infrared and optical sensors for IFF and targeting. It will be used by AdA Mirage 2000-5Fs. Further development of the second-generation type is expected to include a GPS receiver, MIDS datalink, and unspecified long-range sensors.

Topsight E helmet-mounted sight

Mirage 2000E

"Mirage 2000E" was a blanket designation for a series of export variants of the Mirage 2000. These aircraft were fitted the M53-P2 engine and an enhanced "RDM+" radar, and all can carry the day-only ATLIS II laser targeting pod.

Mirage 2000M (Egypt)

Egypt was the first foreign buyer, ordering 16 single-seat Mirage 2000M and four Mirage 2000BM trainers in late 1981, with deliveries beginning in 1986. The Egyptians also purchased ATLIS II pods and a wide range of appropriate munitions, including Magic and Super 530 AAMs, AS-30L laser-guided ASMs, and Armat anti-radiation missiles.

Mirage 2000H (India)

India have acquired a total of 49 examples, including 42 single-seaters and 7 Mirage two-seaters. The IAF named the Mirage Vajra (Thunderbolt). India also purchased appropriate stores along with the fighters, including ATLIS II pods and laser-guided weapons.

Since India wanted the fighter quickly, the first part of an initial batch of 26 single-seaters and 4 two-seaters was shipped to the Indian Air Force (IAF) beginning in 1985 with the older M53-5 engines. These aircraft were given the designations of Mirage 2000H5 and Mirage 2000TH5.

The second part of this initial batch consisted of 10 more single-seaters with the M53-P2 engine, with these aircraft designated Mirage 2000H. All the first batch was reengined with the M53-P2, with the single-seaters re-designated "Mirage 2000H" and the two-seaters re-designated Mirage 2000TH.

A second batch of six Mirage 2000H single-seaters and three Mirage 2000TH two-seaters was shipped in 1987-1988.

Recent orders:

In 2004, the Indian government approved purchase of ten more Mirage 2000Hs, with these machines featuring improved avionics, particularly an upgraded RDM-7 radar.

The Mirage 2000-5 was the front-runner for a planned Indian Air Force 124+ fighter procurement in which it was competing with the Mikoyan MiG-35, F-16 Falcon and JAS 39 Gripen. However, Dassault announced that Mirage 2000 will be replaced by the Rafale as the contender for the deal since the Mirage 2000 production line is to be closed.

India has announced a $1.9 billion program to arm 52 of its Mirage 2000 aircraft with the MBDA ASRAAM dogfighting missile beginning in 2007. Installation will require new radar, electronic warfare equipment, and updates to the cockpit and data bus. Pilot helmets will require addition of a helmet-mounted sight. These will be the first Mirage aircraft to carry the British missile and Dassault, Thales, and MBDA are to participate in the effort[5].

Mirage 2000P (Peru)

Peru placed an order for 10 single-seat Mirage 2000Ps and 2 Mirage 2000DP trainers. The Peruvians ordered a set of munitions similar to that ordered by Egypt, along with ATLIS II targeting pods.

Mirage 2000-5EI (Taiwan, ROC)

ASTAC pod

In 1992, the Republic of China Air Force ordered 48 single-seat Mirage 2000-5EI interceptors and 12 Mirage 2000-5DI trainers, with introduction of the first squadron in 1997 and the last fighters delivered in 1999. The Taiwanese ordered a set of ASTAC electronic intelligence (ELINT) pods for their Mirages.

France announced in 1992 that it would offer Dassault Mirage 2000-5 fighters to Taiwan. The number of aircraft considered had been rumoured to be 120, but the deal was finalized as 60 aircraft (48 single-seat 2000-5EIs and 12 two-seat 2000-5DIs) on November 17 of the same year. This marks the first ROCAF purchase of French fighters since the arrival of 24 Dewoitine D.510C piston-engine monoplanes in 1937. The program was given the codename "Fei Lung" (Flying Dragon).

The ROCAF also obtained 960 MICA medium-range and 480 Magic II short-range air-to-air missiles from Matra. The former provides the Mirage with the BVR capability needed for its role as front-line interceptor. A number of centerline twin gun pods with DEFA 554 cannons were also acquired and fitted on the two-seaters, as they do not have an internal gun armament. Other support equipment, such as auxiliary fuel tanks, helmets, and G-suits, have also been procured.

The first batch of ROCAF Mirage 2000-5s, consisting of five aircraft, arrived at Hualien Harbor on the east coast of Taiwan by sea on 1997-05-06. After being unloaded, they were towed to Hualien AB, where they were unpacked and checked, and then flown to Hsinchu AB. Subsequent deliveries also followed the same procedure. The last ROCAF Mirage 2000-5 was delivered in an official ceremony on 1998-11-26.

All Mirage 2000-5s are operated by the 499th TFW at Hsinchu. The first unit to convert to the type, the 41st TFS, was commissioned on 1997-12-01. Subsequently the 42nd TFS was commissioned on 1998-11-26. The 499th TFW achieved the IOC (Initial Operational Capability) status on 2001-05-10, and the 48th TFS was commissioned on the same day.

On 2004-11-01, the 41st and 42nd TFSs were upgraded to the "Tactical Fighter Group" status, while the 48th TFS became the 48th Training Group, in the largest restructure undertaken by the ROCAF since 1999. At the same time, the original 11th TFG went into history. Each of the new TFG/TG is commanded by a Colonel, but the number of aircraft assigned is not much different from that for a Squadron. Although their official English designation is Tactical Fighter Group, the Chinese designation literally means Operations Group.

Weapon Testing & Exercises

On 1998-05-08, a two-seat DI fired one MICA missile and successfully hit a target drone 67 km away. It was the first launch of the said missile outside France. The second MICA live-firing exercise took place off the east coast of Taiwan on 2000-03-29, in which 2051 (right side image) fired a single MICA missile from its left inner pylon.

On 2004-07-21, two Mirage 2000-5s from the 2nd TFW landed on the wartime reserve runway located at the Jenteh section of Highway No. 1 as part of the annual Han Kuang No. 20 Exercise. Mirage 2000-5DI 2051, piloted by Maj. Wei-Kuang Chang and Lt. Col. Juei-Chi Duan, and 2054, piloted by Lt. Col. Bin-Fu Wu and Capt. Jien-Liang Chen, took off from their home base Hsinchu Air Base at 0540 hrs. 2051 landed on the highway at 0620 hrs, followed by 2054 at 0622 hrs. The two jets then taxied to the other end of the reserve runway to be refueled and re-armed with two Magic air-to-air missiles, respectively. At 0712 hrs, 2051 took off again and 2054 followed one minute later. Both landed at Hsinchu at 0736 hrs.

Mirage 2000-5EDA (Qatar)

In 1994, Qatar ordered nine single-seat Mirage 2000-5EDAs and three Mirage 2000-5DDA trainers, with initial deliveries starting in 1997.

Mirage 2000EAD/RAD (UAE)

In 1983, the UAE purchased 22 single-seat Mirage 2000EADs, 8 unique single-seat Mirage 2000RAD reconnaissance variants, and 6 Mirage 2000DAD trainers, for a total order of 36 machines. The order specified an Italian-made defensive avionics suite that delayed delivery of the first of these aircraft until 1989.

The Mirage 2000RAD reconnaissance variant does not have any built-in cameras or sensors, and the aircraft can still be operated in air combat or strike roles. The reconnaissance systems are implemented in pods, including the Thales "SLAR 2000" radar pod, Dassault "COR2" multi-camera pod with visible and infrared imaging capability, and the Dassault "AA-3-38 HAROLD" telescopic long-range optical camera pod. The UAE is the only nation operating such a specialized reconnaissance variant of the Mirage 2000 at this time.

Mirage 2000-9

Mirage 2000-9 is the export variant of Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2.

The UAE was the launch customer, ordering 32 new-build aircraft, comprising 20 Mirage 2000-9 single-seaters and 12 Mirage 2000-9D two-seaters. Initial deliveries of the UAE Mirages began in the spring of 2003. A further 30 of Abu Dhabi's older Mirage 2000s will also be upgraded to Mirage 2000-9 standard.

The UAE's Mirage 2000-9s are well-equipped for the strike mission, since they are being provided with the Shehab laser targeting pod (a variant of the Damocles) and the Nahar navigation pod, complementing the air-to-ground modes of the RDY-2 radar. They are also equipped with a classified countermeasures system designated "IMEWS", which is comparable to the ICMS 3. The UAE is also obtaining the "Black Shaheen" cruise missile, which is basically a variant of the MBDA Apache cruise missile similar to Storm Shadow.

On 4 April 2005, a Mirage 2000-9 crashed after take-off from Istres AB in southern France during a test flight before its delivery to Abu Dhabi. The two pilots, Dassault chief test pilot Eric Gérard and a pilot from UAE, ejected safely and remained unhurt. An engine failure during take-off was the cause. The aircraft crashed over a deserted part of the airbase.[6].

Mirage 2000EG (Greece)

Beginning in March 1985, the Greeks ordered 36 single-seat Mirage 2000EGs and 4 Mirage 2000BG two-seat trainers.

They feature an ICMS 1 defensive countermeasures suite, which is an updated version of the standard Mirage 2000C countermeasures suite and is characterized by two small antennas near the top of the tailfin. These Mirage 2000s were later modified in the field to carry the Aerospatiale AM39 Exocet anti-ship missile.

In 2000, Greece ordered a batch of 25 Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 fighters, which feature the SATURN secure radio. The order included 15 new-build aircraft and 10 upgrades of existing Greek Mirage 2000EGs. Apparently the Greek order does not include any upgrades of two-seaters.

Mirage 2000BR (Brazil)

Dassault competed for a Brazilian deal with the Mirage 2000BR, another variant of the Mirage 2000-9. Due to Brazilian budget problems, the competition has dragged on for years until it was suspended in February 2005.

In July 2005, however, Brazil agreed to purchase 12 ex-AdA Mirage 2000C aircraft.

First two Mirage 2000C and Mirage 2000B delivered to Brazilian Air Force(FAB) on September 4th 2006 . Aircraft were delivered to 1o GDA in Anápolis, Goiás to replace Mirage IIIEBR/DBR. Aircraft will be named F-2000 in FAB service.

Operators

Operators of the Mirage 2000

List of users and variants

France

Variant Purpose Number

2000C Single-seat fighter 124

Updated to 2000-5F specs 37

2000D Two-seat conventional strike 86

2000N Two-seat nuclear strike 75

2000B Two-seater with 2000C kit 30

Total 315

India

2000H Comparable to 2000C 52

2000D 10

2000TH Two-seat trainer 7

Total 69

United Arab Emirates

2000EAD Single-seat multirole 22

2000-9 Single-seat 20

2000-9D Two-seat trainer 12

2000RAD Unique reconnaissance variant 8

2000DAD Two-seat trainer 6

Total 68

Republic of China (Taiwan)

2000-5EI Similar to 2000-5 48

2000-5DI Similar to 2000-5D 12

Total 60

Greece

2000EG Similar to 2000C 36

2000-5 Mk 2 Multirole fighter 15

2000BG Two-seat trainer 4

Total 55

Egypt

2000EM Similar to 2000C 16

2000BM Two-seat trainer 4

Total 20

Qatar

2000-5EDA Single-seat fighter 9

2000-5DDA Two-seat trainer 3

Total 12

Peru

2000P Single-seat multirole fighter 10

2000DP Two-seat trainer 2

Total 12

Brazil

2000C Single-seat fighter 10

2000B Two-seat trainer 2

Total 12

Specifications (2000C)

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 14.36 m (50 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 9.13 m (29 ft)

Height: 5.30 m (17 ft 5 in)

Wing area: 41 m2 (441.32 ft2)

Empty weight: 7,600 kg (17,000 lb)

Loaded weight: 13,800 kg (30,420 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 17,000 kg (37,500 lb)

Powerplant: 1× SNECMA M53-P2 afterburning turbofan, 95 kN (21,400 lbf)

Performance

Maximum speed: (Mach 2.2) altitude

Range: 1,850 km (770 NM, 890 mi)

Service ceiling: 18,000 m (59,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 285 m/s (56,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 337 kg/m2 (69 lb/ft2)

Thrust/weight: 0.91

Max sea level speed: 1,480 km/h

Climb to 9,700 m: 1,75 min

Climb to 15,000 m: 4 min

Turn rate at 5 g: 12°/sec

Turn rate at 9 g: 24°/sec.

Max g: normal 9 g, overloaded 11 g, break 13.5 g.

Armament

Guns: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannons

Missiles: 4× MBDA MICA air-to-air missiles

Comparable aircraft

F-16 Fighting Falcon

HAL Tejas

IAI Lavi

JF-17 Thunder

Mikoyan MiG-29

Mitsubishi F-2

With its 40m wingspan and an all-up-weight of 20280kg, design of the six 450hp Napier Lion-powered Tarrant Tabor began in the latter stages of World War I. It was intended to carry a 700kg bombload to Berlin from an English airfield. Estimated to have had a top level speed of 170km/h, F 1765, the sole example of the Tabor built, was readied for its maiden flight from the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough on 26 May, 1919. The pilot and co-pilot selected to make the flight were Captains F.G. Dunn and P.T. Rawlings. For whatever reason, it was decided that the first take-off run would be attempted with only the lower four engines at full throttle. However, as the colossal machine rolled across the airfield, the pilots brought both of the upper engines to full power, causing the aircraft to nose over into the ground and to inflict fatal injuries on both men.

The problem seems not to have been with the size but with the need to change the engine layout and wing structure. Originally this was a 4 engined bi-plane but the intended engines were not available and had to supplanted with 6 less powerful versions, at the same time the third wing was added and that is when the problems came about. Had it been built as originally intended it would have been an elegant type for the time.

Breguet 693

Type Ground attack
Manufacturer Breguet, SNCAC
Designed by Georges Ricard
Maiden flight 1938
Introduced 1939
Retired 1942
Primary user French Air Force
Produced 1939-1940
Number built approx. 230

The Breguet 690 and its derivatives were a series of light twin-engined aircraft that were used by the French Air Force in World War II.

The aircraft was well designed, easy to maintain, pleasant to fly and could fly at 480 km/h at 4,000 metres (13,000 feet). The type’s sturdy construction was frequently demonstrated and the armament was effective. Like the Bloch 175 light bomber and the LeO 451 and Amiot 351 medium bombers, the Breguet 693 showed that French designers were as good as any in the world. Unfortunately, French rearmament began two full years later than that in Britain and all of these fine aircraft were simply not available in sufficient numbers to make a difference in 1940.

Development

The 690 had begun life in 1934 as Breguet’s response to the same, quite far sighted strategic fighter specification that resulted in the eventual winner, the Potez 630. Both were attractive twin-engined monoplanes with twin tailplanes, powered by Hispano-Suiza 14AB radial engines of modern design and, for the time, good performance. Breguet considered the weight limits of the specification, that required a twin-engined, three-man aircraft to be lighter than 3,000 kg (later 3,500 kg) to be overly restrictive and ignored them. Instead, the design was advertised as particularly versatile, with reconnaissance, ground attack and level bombing derivatives proposed that required no structural changes. Unsurprisingly, Breguet lost out in the competition to Potez, but confident in the 690’s potential, nevertheless began building a prototype on its own funds.

After considerable debate and delay the French Air Staff decided to acquire modern ground attack aircraft. Engineless for nearly a year, the 690-01 prototype displayed such promise that 100 two-seat attack bomber versions known as the Breguet 691 AB2 were ordered in mid 1938, an order soon doubled. For the ground attack role, the 691’s equipment included a 20 mm cannon and a pair of light machine guns firing forward, as well as an internal bomb rack that could be used in a shallow dive attack and was typically loaded with eight 50 kg-class (110 lb) bombs. Rear defense was provided by one flexible light machine gun, while a fixed, rearwards firing weapon of the same type was fitted under the fuselage to discourage low-flying attacking fighters or ground fire from behind. A set of armour plates protected the crew, and fuel tanks had rudimentary self-sealing capability, but in spite of this the Breguet 690’s protection proved very insufficient in combat.

Breguet established an assembly line with remarkable speed: the first production aircraft flew less than a year after being ordered and was in service before the end of 1939.

As with the Potez 630, the Bre 691 was beset with engine difficulties. Hispano-Suiza had decided to concentrate on its V12 liquid cooled engines and the 14AB engine was unreliable. The French authorities decided to order a new version, the Bre 693 powered by Gnome-Rhône 14M radials. Apart from the changed engines, which were of slightly smaller diameter, the two types were virtually identical. Orders for the Bre 691 were switched to the new type and more than 200 of the latter had been completed by the time of France’s defeat.

Late production versions of the Bre 693 introduced propulsive exhaust pipes that improved top speed by a small margin as well as, according to some sources, a pair of additional light machine guns in the tail of each engine nacelle. Belgium ordered 32 licence built copies but none were completed before the Belgian collapse. In the haste to get the Bre 693 into production the opportunity was lost to specify a low-level version of the Gnome-Rhône 14M, but in time no doubt this would have been remedied.

Variants

Breguet Bre.690 - The Bre.690.01 prototype flew for the first time on 23 March 1938 powered by two 680 hp (507 kW) Hispano-Suiza 14AB-02/03 counter-rotating engines. Delivered to the CEMA for official trials in the summer of that year, the Bre.690 was found to have a performance superior to that of the Potez 630, but in late August it was returned to Breguet for modification of the landing gear.

Breguet Bre.691 - The Bre.691.01 prototype flew for the first time on 22 March 1939 powered by two 700 hp (522 kW) Hispano-Suiza 14AB-10/11 radial engines. Configured especially to satisfy the attack role, featuring twin end-plate fins and rudders, and a retractable tailwheel.

Breguet Bre.693 - The Bre.693.01 prototype flew for the first time on 25 October 1939. With the Hispano-Suiza engines proving unreliable, modifications were made to incorporate the 700 hp (522 kW) Gnome-Rhône 14M-6/7 Mars 14-cylinder two-row radial engines. 234 examples being built.

Breguet Bre.694 - A single Bre.694.01 prototype, intended initially as a three-seat tactical reconnaissance aircraft, and later as a two or three-seat version for use in a bomber/reconnaissance role, and which had appealed respectively to Belgium and Sweden, was delivered to the Aeronavale on 1 June 1940. This was generally similar to the original Bre.690, with the navigator’s compartment restored, and powered by two 710 hp (529 kW) Gnome-Rhône 14M-4/5 engines.

Breguet Bre.695 - The Bre.695.01 flew for the first time in early 1940 powered by Two 825 hp (615 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SB4G Twin Wasp Junior 14-cylinder two-row radial engines mated with a Bre.693 airframe. This type resulted from a new French policy to ensure that if French engine plants were overrun, engines of foreign design could be used instead. 50 examples were built.

Breguet Bre.696.01 - A single prototype first flown on 3 November 1939 and modified (slightly enlarged weapons bay) for use as a two seat light bomber. Never put into production.

Breguet Bre.697 - A single pre-prototype first flown on 19 October 1939 designed for use as heavily armed ‘destroyer’ which would have become the Bre.700. It was powered by two 1,070 hp (798 kW) Gnome-Rhône 14N-48/49 radial engines. The single example was destroyed by the French to prevent it from falling into German hands.

Fewer than 250 Breguet 690 series aircraft were completed. The Armée de l’air received only 211 examples: 75 Bre.691s, 128 Bre.693s, and 8 Bre.695s, but the Germans captured a few dozen complete or near-complete aircraft at the factories.

Operational Service

A small experimental unit had been experimenting with ground attack tactics since 1937, initially in outdated biplanes such as the Potez 25, then in ANF Les Mureaux 115 monoplanes. Eventually, the Armée de l’Air concluded that low-altitude level-bombing was more suitable than dive-bombing for engaging enemy vehicles and artillery over the battlefield. The chosen tactic consisted in a nap-of-the-earth approach at maximum speed, followed by a strafing run or the delivery of time-delayed bombs directly over the target. French commanders widely considered this tactic as safe for the attackers, as anti-aircraft weapons then in service would be inefficient. It should be noted that the French army was not using anti-aircraft autocannons at the time (the 25 mm Hotchkiss and 20 mm Oerlikon guns were only issued later), but only rifle-calibre machine guns and slow-firing 75 mm cannons.

In late 1939, two squadrons staffed with volunteers from level bomber units were gathered in the small airfield near Vinon-sur-Verdon, where they began their operational training. As Breguet 691s were not available yet, the crews flew the Potez 633 light level bomber. When they were eventually delivered, the little Breguets were popular with their crews, although the unreliable engines in the Bre 691 caused headaches and undercarriage failures proved especially troublesome. Only in March 1940 were the first combat-worthy Bre. 693s delivered, and there were now five squadrons to equip: GBA I/51, GBA II/51, GBA I/54, GBA II/54, and GBA II/35 (GBA stands for Groupe de bombardement d’assaut - assault bomber squadron), with a theoretical complement of 13 aircraft each.

Because of this late delivery, crews were still working up their new machines and developing tactics when the Germans attacked. On May 12, GBAs I/54 and II/54 performed the Breguet’s first operational sorties, against German motorized columns in the Maastricht-Tongeren-Bilsen area. German anti-aircraft fire was so devastating that only eight of the 18 Bre.693s returned.

The disastrous results of this first engagement forced the French commanders to reconsider their tactics. Until May 15th GBA crews performed shallow dive attacks from higher altitude, which resulted in reduced losses, but the attacks had clearly been inaccurate, as the Breguets lacked a bombsight, and they increased vulnerability to enemy fighters. On the following missions the GBAs re-introduced low-level attacks, but with smaller formations. As the battle quickly evolved towards the collapse of the French armies, the assault groups were engaged daily, still enduring losses to the AAA, but also to enemy fighters.

In late June, the Armée de l’Air tried to evacuate its modern aircraft to North Africa, out of German reach, from where many hoped to continue the fight. Unfortunately the short-ranged Breguets were not able to cross the Mediterranean. Unlike other French modern types, the Breguet 690 family saw its combat career end with the Armistice.

At this point in time, 119 aircraft had been lost, including 68 to direct enemy action, and a further 14 were written off as too heavily damaged. The five GBAs had therefore endured a matériel loss rate of 63%, while crew casualties accounted for nearly 50%.

After the Armistice, the Vichy authorities were allowed to maintain a small air force in mainland France, and its assault bomber pilots flew rare training flights in the Bre.693 and Bre.695. After the Germans occupied all of France in late 1942 some of the survivors were transferred to Italy for use as operational trainer aircraft.

Specifications (Bre.693 AB2)
General characteristics

* Crew: two, pilot and rear gunner
* Length: 9.67 m (31 ft 9 in)
* Wingspan: 15.37 m (50 ft 5 in)
* Height: 3.19 m (10 ft 6 in)
* Wing area: 29.2 m2 (314 ft2)
* Empty weight: 3,675 kg (8,101 lb)
* Useful load: 5,420 kg (11,949 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,125 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Gnome-Rhône 14M-6/7 , 522 kW (700 hp) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 490 km/h (304 mph)
* Range: 1,350 km (839 miles)
* Service ceiling: 8,500 m (27,885 ft)
* Rate of climb: 555 m/min (1,822 ft/min)

Armament

* 1x fixed forward-firing 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon
* 2x fixed forward-firing 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine guns
* 1x flexible, rearward-firing 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine gun in rear cockpit
* 1x fixed, rearward-firing 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine gun in ventral position
* 460 kg (1,014 lb) of bombs

General Lee’s troops had been fighting here for three days. At around 3 p.m., July 3, 1863, the final stroke was about to begin. The three Confederate brigades of Pickett’s division, joined by six more from Hill’s corps—15,000 to 17,500 men—dressed ranks in a line 1,000 yards long and marched, rifles on their shoulders, toward the Union positions on Cemetery Ridge about a half-mile away.

Regimental battle flags fluttered in the breeze, as the troops marched in time with their drums. Robert E. Lee watched the steady lines admiringly, confident that his “invincible” troops would pierce the Union center and end this dreadful war.

A few minutes later, the steady lines, most of the regimental colors and all of the drums were gone. In their place was a panicked mob of about 7,000 men. Pickett’s division, which had led the charge, had lost two thirds of its men.

Histories give much of the credit to the destruction of Pickett’s Charge to the Union artillery, which had held its fire to save ammunition during the artillery duel that preceded the charge. But a much more potent force was the weapon in the hands of the common infantry soldier: the minie rifle. Because of the invention of Captain Charles Claude Etienne Minié of the French Army, rifles could at last be loaded as fast as smoothbores. In all modern armies, the infantry was equipped with rifles, called rifle muskets to show that they were basic military weapons, able to take bayonets, not the specialized rifles of the past, which were basically hunting weapons.

Rifles had been around since the 16th century, but they were so slow to load that the military had ignored them. The lead bullet had to be large enough to force the “lands,” the raised portion of the spiral rifling, to cut into the bullet. That was necessary to impart a spin to the projectile as it traveled down the barrel. And that meant the slug had to be literally hammered down the barrel. Later, sportsmen discovered that, if the bullet was wrapped in a greased piece of cloth or leather, the rifling would spin it if the twist were not too rapid. But even using a greased patch, loading was still far slower than loading a smoothbore. Besides, black powder, the only propellant available at the time, left a lot of solid residue in the barrel. After a few shots, this black gunk filled the rifling grooves and made loading practically impossible.

What Captain Minié did was invent a bullet that was considerably smaller than the bore, so there was no trouble loading it, but that when the charge was fired, expanded into the rifling grooves and spun as it left the muzzle. Minié’s first bullet had an iron cup inserted into the hollow base of the conical lead bullet. When the powder charge exploded, it drove the cup into the bullet, which forced the sides of the bullet into the grooves. Later ordnance experts discovered that the iron cup was not necessary: the explosion alone was enough to expand the base of the bullet. Because the Minié bullet was longer than a round ball, it was also heavier. That meant it had greater “sectional density,” which resisted retardation by the atmosphere and gave it greater penetration. The close fit of bullet to the bore greatly increased accuracy. The bullet of a smoothbore, being smaller than the bore, literally bounced around inside the barrel as it traveled through the gun. And, of course, the spin imparted gyroscopic stability and prevented unequal air resistance on the front of the bullet.

A British officer in the Revolutionary War, Major George Hanger, said, “A soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him.” Hanger also said that only if a musket were perfectly bored, as few of them were, would a soldier be likely to be hit at 80 yards.

The rifled musket would hit man-sized targets at 800 yards.

The American Civil War was a good—and gory—example of how generals fight the previous war and what happens when they do. Lee’s tactics at Gettysburg would have seemed quite familiar to his fellow Virginian, George Washington. Pickett’s troops lined up, dressed ranks, shouldered their rifles, and marched up to the enemy. But where soldiers in the 18th century might wait to see the whites of the enemies’ eyes, the Yankees began picking off Pickett’s men almost as soon as they began to march.

In the 1860 census, the population of the United States was 31,443,321. In the Civil War, there were 364,512 Union deaths and 133,821 Confederate deaths— although Confederate figures are almost certainly incomplete. Even with the grossly inadequate Confederate figures, that 498,333 death toll amounts to l.6 percent of the entire population. In World War II, U.S. forces suffered 407, 316 deaths; the U.S. population was 132,164,569 in the 1940 census. The American Civil War remains in both proportionate and absolute term the bloodiest war in our history.

That was the result of the universal use of rifled weapons and smoothbore tactics.

Besides the slaughter of infantry, the Minié bullet—“minnie ball” to the troops—also meant the end of the traditional cavalry charge. A man on horseback makes a big target, and he can seldom lie down or take advantage of cover provided by the terrain. After a few bloody lessons, the generals adapted cavalry tactics to the new conditions more quickly than they changed infantry tactics. Most of the cavalry fighting in the Civil War was done by dismounted troopers. Cavalry were used mostly as mounted infantry and some mounted infantry outfits, like Wilder’s “Lightning Brigade,” were used as cavalry.

Towards the end of the Civil War, American infantry occasionally modified the traditional charge by increasing the use of skirmishers and advancing by rushes. On the defensive, they used trenches and other field fortifications to an extent unseen until World War I. It took a long time for the lessons to really sink in, though, especially in Europe. In South Africa, the British had to relearn the lessons in 1881 and in 1899 when faced with improved rifles. And in World War I, there were still cavalry units on the Western Front preparing to exploit the breakthroughs that never came.

LINK

LINK

Recent reconstructions and computer simulations reveal the operating principles of the most powerful weapon of its time

by Paul E. Chevedden, Les Eigenbrod, Vernard Foley and Werner Soedel

Centuries before the development of effective cannons, huge artillery pieces were demolishing castle walls with projectiles the weight of an upright piano. The trebuchet, invented in China between the fifth and third centuries B.C.E., reached the Mediterranean by the sixth century C.E. It displaced other forms of artillery and held its own until well after the coming of gunpowder. The trebuchet was instrumental in the rapid expansion of both the Islamic and the Mongol empires. It also played a part in the transmission of the Black Death, the epidemic of plague that swept Eurasia and North Africa during the 14th century. Along the way it seems to have influenced both the development of clockwork and theoretical analyses of motion.

The trebuchet succeeded the catapult, which in turn was a mechanization of the bow [see “Ancient Catapults,” by Werner Soedel and Vernard Foley; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, March 1979]. Catapults drew their energy from the elastic deformation of twisted ropes or sinews, whereas trebuchets relied on gravity or direct human power, which proved vastly more effective.

Recovering Lost Knowledge

The average catapult launched a missile weighing between 13 and 18 kilograms, and the most commonly used heavy catapults had a capacity of 27 kilograms. According to Philo of Byzantium, however, even these machines could not inflict much damage on walls at a distance of 160 meters. The most powerful trebuchets, in contrast, could launch missiles weighing a ton or more. Furthermore, their maximum range could exceed that of ancient artillery.

We have only recently begun to reconstruct the history and operating principles of the trebuchet. Scholars as yet have made no comprehensive effort to examine all the available evidence. In particular, Islamic technical literature has been neglected. The most important surviving technical treatise on these machines is Kitab aniq fi al-manajaniq (An Elegant Book on Trebuchets), written in 1462 C.E. by Yusuf ibn Urunbugha al- Zaradkash. One of the most profusely illustrated Arabic manuscripts ever produced, it provides detailed construction and operating information. These writings are particularly significant because they offer a unique insight into the applied mechanics of premodern societies.

We have made scale models and computer simulations that have taught us a great deal about the trebuchet’s operation. As a result, we believe we have uncovered design principles essentially lost since the Middle Ages. In addition, we have found historical materials that push back the date of the trebuchet’s spread and reveal its crucial role in medieval warfare.

Historians had previously assumed that the diffusion of trebuchets westward from China occurred too late to affect the initial phase of the Islamic conquests, from 624 to 656. Recent work by one of us (Chevedden), however, shows that trebuchets reached the eastern Mediterranean by the late 500s, were known in Arabia and were used with great effect by Islamic armies. The technological sophistication for which Islam later became known was already manifest.

The Mongol conquests, the largest in human history, also owed something to this weapon. As a cavalry nation, the Mongols employed Chinese and Muslim engineers to build and operate trebuchets for their sieges. At the investment of Kaffa in the Crimea in 1345– 46, the trebuchet’s contribution to biological warfare had perhaps its most devastating impact. As Mongol forces besieged this Genoese outpost on the Crimean peninsula, the Black Death swept through their ranks. Diseased corpses were then hurled into the city, and from Kaffa the Black Death spread to the Mediterranean ports of Europe via Genoese merchants.

The trebuchet came to shape defensive as well as offensive tactics. Engineers thickened walls to withstand the new artillery and redesigned fortifications to employ trebuchets against attackers. Architects working under al- Adil (1196–1218), Saladin’s brother and successor, introduced a defensive system that used gravity-powered trebuchets mounted on the platforms of towers to prevent enemy artillery from coming within effective range. These towers, designed primarily as artillery emplacements, took on enormous proportions to accommodate the larger trebuchets, and castles were transformed from walled enclosures with a few small towers into clusters of large towers joined by short stretches of curtain walls. The towers on the citadels of Damascus, Cairo and Bosra are massive structures, as large as 30 meters square.

Simple but Devastating

The principle of the trebuchet was straightforward. The weapon consisted of a beam that pivoted around an axle that divided the beam into a long and short arm. The longer arm terminated in a cup or sling for hurling the missile, and the shorter one in an attachment for pulling ropes or a counterweight. When the device was positioned for launch, the short arm was aloft; when the beam was released, the long end swung upward, hurling the missile from the sling.

Three major forms developed: traction machines, powered by crews pulling on ropes; counterweight machines, activated by the fall of large masses; and hybrid forms that employed both gravity and human power. When traction machines first appeared in the Mediterranean world at the end of the sixth century, their capabilities were so far superior to those of earlier artillery that they were said to hurl “mountains and hills.” The most powerful hybrid machines could launch shot about three to six times as heavy as that of the most commonly used large catapults. In addition, they could discharge significantly more missiles in a given time.

Counterweight machines went much further. The box for the weight might be the size of a peasant’s hut and contain tens of thousands of kilograms. The projectile on the other end of the arm might weigh between 200 and 300 kilograms, and a few trebuchets reportedly threw stones weighing between 900 and 1,360 kilograms. With such increased capability, even dead horses or bundled humans could be flung. A modern reconstruction made in England has tossed a compact car (476 kilograms without its engine) 80 meters using a 30-ton counterweight.

During their heyday, trebuchets received much attention from engineers— indeed, the very word “engineering” is intimately related to them. In Latin and the European vernaculars, a common term for trebuchet was “engine” (from ingenium, “an ingenious contrivance”), and those who designed, made and used them were called ingeniators.

Engineers modified the early designs to increase range by extracting the most possible energy from the falling counterweight and to increase accuracy by minimizing recoil. The first difference between counterweight machines and their traction forebears is that the sling on the end of the arm is much longer. This change affects performance dramatically by increasing the effective length of the throwing arm. It also opens the way for a series of additional improvements by making the angle at which the missile is released largely independent of the angle of the arm. By varying the length of the sling ropes, engineers could ensure that shot left the machine at an angle of about 45 degrees to the vertical, which produces the longest trajectory.

At the same time, so that more of the weight’s potential energy converts to motion, the sling should open only when the arm has reached an approximately vertical position (with the counterweight near the bottom of its travel). Observations of the trebuchet may have aided the emergence of important medieval insights into the forces associated with moving bodies.

Swinging Free

The next crucial innovation was the development of the hinged counterweight. During the cocking process, the boxes of hinged counterweight machines hang directly below the hinge, at an angle to the arm; when the arm of the trebuchet is released, the hinge straightens out. As a result of this motion, the counterweight’s distance from the pivot point, and thus its mechanical advantage, varies throughout the cycle.

The hinge significantly increases the amount of energy that can be delivered through the beam to the projectile. Medieval engineers observed that hinged counterweight machines, all else being equal, would throw their projectiles farther than would fixed-weight ones. Our computer simulations indicate that hinged counterweight machines delivered about 70 percent of their energy to the projectile. They lose some energy after the hinge has opened fully, when the beam begins to pull the counterweight sideways.

Although it exacts a small cost, this swinging of the counterweight has a significant braking effect on the rotating beam. Together with the transfer of energy to the sling as it lifts off and turns about the beam, the braking can bring the beam nearly to a stop as it comes upright. The deceleration eases the strain on the machine’s framework just as the missile departs. As a result, the frame is less likely to slide or bounce. Some pieces of classical-era artillery, such as the onager, were notorious for bucking and had to be mounted on special compressible platforms. The much gentler release of the trebuchet meant that engineers did not have to reposition the frame between shots and so could shoot more rapidly and accurately. A machine of medium size built by the Museum of Falsters Minder in Denmark has proved capable of grouping its shots, at a range of 180 meters, within a six-meter square.

Capturing the Trebuchet’s Lessons

Later engineers attempted to capture the great power that trebuchets represented. Some of these efforts are made visible in historical records by the proliferation of counterweight boxes in the form of the mathematical curve called the saltcellar, or salinon. The counterweight boxes of the more elaborate trebuchets took this shape because it concentrated the mass at the farthest distance from the hinge and also reduced the clearance necessary between the counterweight and the frame. The same form reappeared on later machines that incorporated pendulums, such as pendulum- driven saws and other tools.

Most attempts to extend the trebuchet’s principles failed because the counterweight’s power could not be harnessed efficiently. Success came only in timekeeping, where it was not the trebuchet’s great force but rather its regular motion that engineers sought. Pendulums were a dramatic step forward in accuracy from earlier controller mechanisms.

Although the pendulum is usually associated with the time of Galileo and Christiaan Huygens, evidence for pendulum controllers can be traced back to a family of Italian clockmakers to whom Leonardo da Vinci was close. Indeed, da Vinci explicitly says some of his designs can be used for telling time. His drawings include a hinge between the pendulum shaft and bob, just as advanced trebuchets hinged their counterweights, and show notable formal resemblances to fixed counterweight machines as well. In the case of earlier clockwork, there is a marked similarity both in form and in motion between the saltcellar counterweight and a speed controller called the strob. The strob oscillates about its shaft just as the counterweight does before quieting down at the end of a launch.

Trebuchets also appear to have played a role in the greatest single medieval advance in physical science, the innovations in theoretical mechanics associated with Jordanus of Nemore. The key to Jordanus’s contribution is his concept of positional gravity, a revival in the Middle Ages of the idea of a motion vector, or the directedness of a force. Jordanus held that for equal distances traveled, a weight was “heavier,” or more capable of doing work, when its line of descent was vertical rather than oblique. In particular, he compared cases in which the descents were linear with those that followed arcs. Eventually this understanding led to the notion that work is proportional to weight and vertical distance of descent, no matter what path is taken.

The connection is clear. Engineers knew that machines with hinged counterweights, in which the weight descends essentially straight down during the first, crucial part of the launch cycle, would throw stones farther than would their fixed counterweight equivalents, in which the mass travels in a curve.

Other aspects of Jordanus’s work may show military connections as well. The suspension of the hinged counterweight, with the constantly changing leverage of its arm, may have spurred Jordanus’s related attempts to analyze the equilibrium of bent levers and to emphasize that it was the horizontal distance between the mass on a lever arm and its fulcrum that determined the work it could do. Observations of the differing distances to which fixed and hinged counterweight machines could throw their stones may have helped Jordanus in his pioneering efforts to define the concept of work, or force times distance. Jordanus’s observations are usually studied as an example of pure physics, based on the teachings of earlier natural philosophers, such as Archimedes. The closeness of his mechanics to trebuchet function, however, suggests that engineering practice may have stimulated theory. Closing the circle, Galileo later incorporated such Jordanian ideas as virtual displacement, virtual work and the analysis of inclined planes to support such newer mechanics as his famous analysis of the trajectory of cannon shot.

Galileo’s theoretical innovations came only after the replacement of trebuchets by cannon, a process that took nearly two centuries and was not fully accomplished until metallic shot replaced stones. The last instance of trebuchet use comes from the New World, at the siege of Tenochtitlán (Mexico City) in 1521. As ammunition was running critically low, Cortés eagerly accepted a proposal to build a trebuchet. The machine took several days to build, and at the first launch the stone went straight up, only to return and smash it. In view of the tremendous power of these devices, and the finesse required to make them function properly, would-be replicators should take careful note.

Further Reading

TREBUCHETS. Donald R. Hill in Viator, Vol. 4,

pages 99–115; 1973.

CHINA’S TREBUCHETS, MANNED AND

COUNTERWEIGHTED. Joseph Needham in

On Pre-Modern Technology and Science: Studies

in Honor of Lynn White, Jr. Edited by Bert S.

Hall and Delno C. West. Undena Publications,

1976.

BESSON, DA VINCI, AND THE EVOLUTION

OF THE PENDULUM: SOME FIND-INGS

AND OBSERVATIONS. Vernard Foley, Darlene

Sedlock, Carole Widule and David Ellis in

History and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pages

1–43; 1988.

ARTILLERY IN LATE ANTIQUITY: PRELUDE

TO THE MIDDLE AGES. Paul E.

Chevedden in The Medieval City under Siege.

Edited by Ivy Corfis and Michael Wolfe. Boydell

& Brewer, 1995.

SCIENCE AND CIVILIZATION IN CHINA,

Vol. 5: CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL

TECHNOLOGY, Part 6: MILITARY TECHNOLOGY:

MISSILES AND SIEGES. Joseph

Needham and Robin D. S. Yates. Cambridge

University Press, 1995.

Breguet-Richet Gyroplane No.1 (France)

When it rose vertically from the ground with its pilot in the late summer of 1907, the Gyroplane No.1 built by Louis and Jacques Breguet in association with Professor Charles Richet had to be steadied by a man stationed at the extremity of each of the four arms supporting the rotors. It cannot, therefore, take the credit for being the first helicopter to make a free flight, even though the ground helpers contributed nothing towards the lifting power of the rotors; but it was the first machine to raise itself, with a pilot, vertically off the ground by means of a rotating-wing system of lift. Basically, the Breguet machine consisted of a rectangular central chassis of steel tubing supporting the powerplant and the pilot; from each corner of this chassis there radiated an arm, also of steel tube construction, at the extremity of which was mounted a fabric-covered 4-blade biplane rotor, making a total of 32 small lifting surfaces. One pair of diagonally opposed rotors rotated in a clockwise direction, the other pair moving anti-clockwise. The pilot, M.Volumard, was reputedly chosen at least partly because of his small stature - he weighed only 68kg. Authorities differ over the date of the Breguet machine's first flight at Douai, 24 August and 19 September 1907 being quoted with equal assurance; on this occasion the aircraft rose to about 0.60m. Take-off to some 1.50m was achieved during a test on 29 September, and similar heights were reached in several subsequent tests, but the Breguet-Richet aircraft was neither controllable nor steerable in a horizontal plane.

In 1908 the Breguet-Richet collaboration produced a No.2 Gyroplane, powered by a 55hp Renault engine and having two forward-tilting 2-blade rotors with a diameter of 7.85m and, in addition, fixed wings giving an extra 50m2 of lifting surface. This machine made a number of successful flights in the summer of 1908, but was severely damaged in a 'heavy' landing on 19 September. In rebuilt form as the No.2bis it was displayed statically at Paris in December 1908 and made one test flight in the following April, but a month later the Breguet premises were wrecked by a hurricane. This, and the shortage of contemporary engines with an adequate power/weight ratio, caused Breguet to abandon rotary-winged development until the appearance of the Breguet-Dorand design in the 1930s.

At last, after the turn of the century, a new lightweight power plant became available. Fitted to the early automobiles and box-kite airplanes, the gasoline engine began to prove itself. In 1907, four years after the Wright brothers had flown the first controllable airplane, French designer Louis Breguet built a primitive helicopter that could lift a man into the air.

It was a time of the flowering of arts and sciences in France. Although the first airplane had been flown in the United States, for the first decade the French, with Gallic passion and enthusiasm, led the world in aviation research and progress. The helicopter was a case in point, for the first machines to fly were French. The inspiration stemmed, perhaps, from the "Trium-virat Helicoidal" of fifty years before.

A purist might scorn the first hops in the year 1907 as not actually being flights, since the machine was held steady by four assistants to prevent any erratic movement. But the Breguet-Richet Gyroplane No.1 did take a Monsieur Volumard — chosen for his light weight — into the air for the first time on August 24, 1907. The machine rose only to a height of about two feet, remaining in the air for one minute. Unhappily, it was not sufficiently steady or controllable for free flight, and eventually testing was discontinued in favor of building a completely new machine.

The following year Breguet produced his second helicopter. It was furnished with twin 25-foot rotors, powered by a 55-horsepower Renault engine, with a set of biplane wings for good measure. On July 22, 1908, it rose vertically to the respectable height of 4.5m and flew for a short period of time, apparently under control, but the machine was completely wrecked upon landing.

It appeared more-or-less contemporarily with the airplane, when Volumand — chosen as pilot largely on account of his modest weight of 64kg — was lifted clear of the ground at Douai in France on 29 September 1907, in the elaborate Gyroplane built by Louis and Jacques Breguet under the guidance of Professor Charles Richet. The aircraft achieved a height of only 60 cm (2 ft) and was totally uncontrollable, to the extent that it had to be steadied by four assistants. But it was the first time a mechanical device had raised itself vertically from the ground with a man on board, using a rotary wing system, even if it could not be described as a free flight.

The Breguet-Richet craft had a 45hp Antoinette engine and the rotors, only the rotation speed of which could be controlled, were 8m in diameter. A year later, Gyroplane No.2 appeared, with a more powerful 55hp Renault engine and two forward-tilting two-blade rotors, of slightly smaller diameter than the main lifting surfaces, which provided the thrust for forward movement. In the late summer of 1908, this aircraft was badly damaged by a heavy landing, but was rebuilt and flew again next spring.

Paul Cornu Helicopter (France)

The first true flight, free of any tie-down ropes, apparently was made by Paul Cornu, in another French machine later the same year, on November 13. His helicopter had two rotors mounted in tandem, one behind the other. The pilot sat between them, in intimate proximity to the little 24-horsepower Antoinette engine. The helicopter rose no more than 2m, and the longest flight lasted only a third of a minute. Nevertheless, it flew, completely free of any attachment to the ground. Today it would be said that the pilot "had not gotten out of ground effect". To steer, to rock the ship from side to side, or to nose up and down, there were movable flat surfaces—control vanes—mounted under the rotors so the airflow would push against them. The system on the Cornu machine was ineffectual, though control vanes were used with better effect on later aircraft.

The Breguets were not alone, however, in that their record was challenged by Paul Cornu, a bicycle maker from Lisieux, whose machine, powered by a small 24 hp engine, could only have been called the "flying bicycle," consisting as it did of two large, spoked wheels on to which short, paddle-shaped wings were splined to form twin two-blade rotors about 6m in diameter. The rotors were belt-driven and contra-rotating. The central frame supported the engine, pilot seat and fuel tank, and the whole contraption weighed just over 250kg. Various flights were made, including the notable occasion when Cornu succeeded in remaining airborne for about 20 seconds at a height of 30cm on 13 November 1907. Thus it was he who was officially recognised as having made the first free flight.

The first aeroplane to take off vertically with its pilot and make a free flight entirely without assistance from or connection with the ground was the 'flying bicycle' designed and built by Paul Cornu in 1907. It achieved this feat at Coquain-villiers, near Lisieux, on 13 November 1907, though the distinction is a slightly academic one since the aircraft remained in the air for only some 20 sec. at an 'altitude' of about 0.30m. The chassis was in the form of an open 'Vee' supporting the engine, fuel tanks and pilot's seat in the centre and resting on a four-wheeled landing gear. The rotors were paddle-shaped and fabric-covered, mounted on large horizontal, bicycle-type wheels situated one at each end of the machine and turned by a belt drive from the engine. The design followed that of a small scale model made by Cornu a year or so previously with 2.25m rotors, a 2hp Buchet engine and a weight of 13kg. The full-scale machine made its second flight with Cornu's brother hanging on to the framework, increasing the total weight to 328kg, and take-offs to about 2m were made later carrying the pilot only. However, the helicopter's transmission system was suspect, its framework too flimsy, and - despite the movable fore and aft vanes - its controllability was largely ineffectual; and these factors, combined with a lack of funds, caused Cornu to forsake the further development of his historic but impractical design.

Ellehammer (Danmark)

Jacob Christian Ellehammer must surely rank among the most versatile of aviation's early pioneers. First apprenticed as a watchmaker, he then qualified as an electrical engineer; he made one of the earliest motor-cycles built in Denmark, and also designed his own internal combustion engines. His 3-cylinder piston engine of 1903 was perhaps the world's first radial engine, and his experiments in aviation, started two years later, embraced monoplanes, biplanes, triplanes, flying boats and helicopters.

Ellehammer's first studies of rotary-winged flight began in 1910, and various experiments were carried out in 1911 with a scale model helicopter. The full-sized machine that he built in the following year would today be defined as a compound helicopter, for its 6hp engine (also designed by Ellehammer) drove both the rotor system and a conventional propeller. The lifting rotors were of an ingenious pattern, consisting of two contra-rotating rings, each of 5.97m diameter, the lower one being covered with fabric to increase the lift. At regular intervals round the perimeter of the wings were six vanes, each about 1.50m long and 0.66m wide and pivoting about its horizontal axis. The rotor system was driven via a hydraulic clutch and gearbox, all designed by Elle-hammer, and the rotor vanes' angle could be altered in flight by the pilot — an early example of cyclic pitch control. After several successful indoor take-off tests, during which the machine was probably tethered, Ellehammer's machine made a free vertical take-off later in 1912, in front of witnesses who included H.R.H. Prince Axel. Tests with the 1912 helicopter continued until late in September 1916, when it overturned after a take-off and the machine was wrecked when the rotors spun into the ground.

Ellehammer then put aside his helicopter experiments until about 1930, when he began to evolve some new projects. One of these was, in effect, a parasol monoplane in whose wings was a huge circular cut-out with two contra-rotating rotors turning inside it. Even more novel was a proposal in the mid-1930s for a helicopter driven by compressed air. As with the previous project, only a working model was built, powered by a vacuum cleaner motor. In the full-sized aircraft Ellehammer proposed to have a radial engine driving a powerful air compressor. A substantial pylon over the fuselage was topped by a metal disc, made to rotate by the reaction from expelling compressed air through slots in its underside. The centrifugal force of the rotating disc was sufficient to unsheath four spring-loaded rotor blades; when take-off had been accomplished, these were retracted back into the disc and the compressed air stream diverted to an efflux at the rear of the aircraft to give it forward movement.

Oehmichen (France)

Etienne Oemichen, a young engineer with the Peugeot motor car company, began to experiment with rotating-wing designs in 1920, and in all designed and built six different vertical take-off machines. When the first of these failed to develop enough lift from its twin rotors and 25hp engine to rise off the ground, he added a hydrogen-filled balloon on top of it to give it added stability and lift. The most noteworthy - and most striking - of his aircraft was the helicopter No.2, which had no less than 4 rotors and 8 propellers, all driven by a single 120hp Le Rhone rotary engine when it flew for the first time on 11 November 1922. A 180hp Gnome engine was substituted later. The Oemichen No.2 was basically a steel-tube framework of cruciform layout, with 2-blade paddle-shaped rotors at the extremities of the four arms. The angle of these blades could be varied by warping. Five of the propellers, turning in a horizontal plane, served to stabilise the machine laterally; another propeller mounted at the nose was for steering the helicopter; and the remaining pair acted as pusher propellers for forward propulsion. The opposing pairs of rotors were of slightly different diameters. The Oemichen No.2 exhibited, for its time, a considerable degree of stability and controllability, and in all made more than a thousand test flights during the middle 1920s. By 1923 it was able to remain airborne for several minutes at a time, and on 14 April 1924 it established the first-ever FAI distance record for helicopters of 360m. Three days later it increased this to 525m and on 4 May was airborne for 14 min, flying more than a mile and completing in the process the first 1km closed-circuit flight by a helicopter in 7 min. 40 sec. Oemichen was, however, dissatisfied with the modest heights to which No.2 was able to fly, and from the third machine onward he adopted a single main rotor layout, accompanied by two smaller anti-torque rotors. His last design, in 1938, reverted to the balloon-assisted principle of his first aircraft.

In France, Etienne Oemichen, a young engineer at Peugeot, began rotary wing experiments in 1920, building a total of six different machines. His second machine flew unassisted on 11 November 1922. The Oemichen No. 2 had an "X"- shaped, tubular frame with a wide two-bladed rotor at the end of each arm. For control and lateral movement, eight small propellers were used: five horizontal propellers with variable and reversible pitch for lateral stability, another propeller at the nose for steering, and another pair of pushers for forward motion. By 1923, the Oemichen No. 2 was able to remain airborne for several minutes and on 14 April 1924, it established the first rotary wing distance record: 360m. On 4 May, it completed the first 1km closed circuit flight by a rotary wing vehicle in 7 minutes 40 seconds to win a 90,000 franc prize. Maximum endurance was 14 minutes. Despite the fact that it was able to demonstrate sufficient controllability and power in ground effect for this historic flight, it was not a practical flying machine. In recognition of the impracticality of the machine, Oemichen began pursuing a series of aircraft with a single-main rotor and two anti-torque rotors, but had little success.

Pescara No.3 (Spain)

It is unfortunate that more complete records have evidently not survived of the later Pescara helicopters, for despite their apparent clumsiness they represented for their time an important step forward in helicopter design technology that deserves recognition. The Spanish Marquis Raul Pateras Pescara built his first helicopter in Barcelona in 1919-20. It was a clumsy machine, weighing some 600kg without fuel or pilot and powered by a 45hp Hispano engine. Each of the 2 co-axial rotors had a diameter of 6.40m and was made up of 6 biplane pairs of blades giving a total of 24 lifting surfaces, but the little Hispano was not powerful enough to raise the machine off the ground. A modified form of this aircraft, with a 170hp Le Rhone rotary engine, did just get off the ground in May 1921, but it was far from being a stable or satisfactory design. In 1922 Pescara moved to France, where the No.2 did succeed in rising some 1.5m during tests carried out for the Service Technique de I'Aeronautique.

Pescara's most successful helicopter was the No.3, which was built in 1923 and by January 1924 was capable of making flights of some 10 minutes' duration. The same co-axial rotor system was employed, larger twin rotors each with 4 pairs of blades turning around a 'totem pole' rotor mast. A 180hp Hispano-Suiza engine, for which the Lamblin radiator was situated at the rear of the craft, provided the power. Although a heavy and cumbersome machine the Pescara No.3 was a simple design when compared with its closest contemporary, the Oemichen No.2, and makes an interesting comparison with the Breguet-Dorand of some ten years later. On 18 April 1924 Pescara flew the No.3 at Issy-les-Moulineaux for a distance of 736m, handsomely beating the record set up by the Oemichen only the day before.

The significance of this achievement lay in the fact that Pescara's machine, unlike the Oemichen or any other rotorcraft up to that time, did not rely on conventional propellers rotating in the vertical plane to give the aircraft forward motion. Instead, the pitch of the 16 lifting surfaces could be altered in flight by warping them, and the rotor head could be tilted to give the blades a degree of forward thrust. The speeds thus achieved were extremely modest, but the Pescara No.3 exhibited the first convincing demonstration of the principles of cyclic and collective pitch control. Autorotation of the rotors was also provided for in the event of engine failure.

Reference is made in some quarters to the Pescara No.3F, which was possibly a modification of the No.3 and not a new machine. This appeared in the early part of 1925 and had a 250hp engine, with a cut-down propeller fulfilling a cooling function only. It offered no great improvement over the No.3, and later that year Pescara returned to Spain and entered the motor car industry. He seems to have been discouraged from further serious helicopter development by the emergent success of Cierva with the autogiro, though he was associated with the little French-designed Pouit S-4 later in the 1920s.

Pescara's No. 3 machine, completed in 1923, used four 7.2m diameter 4-blade biplane rotors and no other propulsion mechanisms: the pitch of the 16 lifting surfaces could be altered in flight by wing warping. This was the first credible use of cyclic and collective pitch control, the essential ingredients of a helicopter. The rotor hub could be tilted for some measure of forward motion, but speed was only about 13km/h. This slow speed was one of the main reasons that the early "helicopters" used auxiliary propellers for forward propulsion. In September 1923, Pescara almost became the first person to complete a 1km circuit, but the machine crashed and was severely damaged. The next spring, four days after Oemichen's first FAI distance record, Pescara doubled it to 736m.

The Luftwaffe's most serious shortcoming was the lack of an efficient heavy-bomber fleet. The Dornier Do.19 was an intriguing possibility that, due to several causes, never panned out. Generalleutnant Walther Weaver, the Luftwaffe's first Chief of Staff was the most persistent advocate of a German long-range strategic bomber fleet, like the ones being developed in Britain and the USA. Largely because of Weaver, the RLM Technisch Amt issued a specification for a four-engine heavy bomber. The V1 prototype flew on the 28th of October, 1936. When Generalleutnant Weaver died in an airplane crash, the heavy bomber program lost its momentum, and was not to recover. When the Luftwaffe was given its heavy blow over the skies of England, the error of not having heavy bombers became apparent. But by then it was too late in the day to develop the bombers required. Albert Kesselring, Weaver's successor, believed that what Germany required was more fighters and tactical bombers. Therefore the V2 and V3 prototypes were scrapped. The original V1 became a transport in 1938. The Dornier Do.19 was only built in prototype form, yet it was a promising design that could have yielded not only a useful long-range bomber, but the desperately needed experience in a field where the Luftwaffe failed to shine.

Aeronautical research was established as an institutionalized science in the years between the turn of the century and the First World War. In 1904, the experimental physicist Ludwig Prandtl - later called the ‘father of aerodynamics’ – presented his discovery of the boundary layer theory to a scientific audience. More and more anomalies had become apparent in fluid dynamic theory in the second half of the nineteenth century. Traditional theory could offer little more to the technicians in fluid dynamics. Prandtl opened the discipline up to new research in aerodynamics and with his explanation of turbulence he created an entirely new research field.

His work was as applicable to fluid dynamics as it was to aerodynamics. There was no scientific reason for Prandtl and his colleagues to concentrate on aerodynamics; it was rather political reasons that made aerodynamics the central focus of aerospace research. It was the demand from the infant civil and military aviation branch that forced the pace of science. On the eve of the First World War, there were four indicators of the future (Mehrtens 1996: 92–5; Rotta 1990; Trischler 1992: 34–88):

– the foundation of the Motorluftschiff-Studiengesellschaft (Society for the Study of Motor Airships) in 1907, which one year later established an Experimental Institute. The institute served as the birthplace of the world-famous Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (Aerodynamical Research Establishment, henceforth AVA) in Göttingen during the First World War;

– the foundation of the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (German Research Centre for Aviation, henceforth DVL) in 1912;

– the formation of a personal network of aeronautical experts from state, science and industry in the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Luftfahrt (Scientific Society for Aviation, henceforth WGL);

– the institutionalization of aeronautics within the curricula of major German universities.

England and France followed the same pattern. The sharpening tensions within Europe forced the Entente to follow suit and fund the rapidly expanding aviation sector (Walker 1971; Chadeau 1985). The national crisis of the war accelerated the establishment of research institutions and structures. Everywhere aviation research was expanding. Politicians and soldiers realized more clearly than before the importance of science for the development of weapons of war. Metal aircraft construction, exhaust-driven superchargers and balloon bombers showed that the way from basic research to technical application could be drastically shortened by the concentration of resources (cf. Ziegler 1994).

Other developments in aeronautical research in Germany were deeply influenced by the political situation in Europe. The expansionist policy of the war had been seriously curtailed by the Treaty of Versailles. Military aviation was completely forbidden, and civil aviation was severely limited in its possibilities until the mid-1920s. This resulted in industry’s refusal to support research programmes and left the sciences to fight for survival during the inflationary period between 1918 and 1923. However, the inflation proved to be of great importance for science. The devaluation of the capital of private research organizations forced the state to come to their aid. From the beginning of the 1920s, the Reich placed annual subsidies at the disposal of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft as well as the DVL. Aeronautical sciences, supported financially by the Reich, were revived during the inflation crisis and were thus able to make plans for the future (Witt 1990; Trischler 1992: 120-34).

Prandtl had for a long time planned to found an institute for aerodynamics attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft which would work alongside the AVA. After long negotiations in the spring of 1924, immediately after the currency reform, building began on the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Strömungsforschung (Kaiser- Wilhelm-Institute for Hydrodynamics). The institute began work in July 1925. Göttingen developed in the 1920s into a much-visited international Mecca for aerodynamic research. The institute which was directed by Ludwig Prandtl and Albert Betz became the nursery for similar aerodynamic research institutes all over the world. Göttingen was also at the head of conceptual research work. The Göttingen wind tunnel with its closed wind stream proved itself to be a superior instrument for testing scientific theories through experimental methods and led to many technical innovations. Prandtl’s airfoil theory, a general theory of lift and drag published in 1918, and the pathbreaking investigations into axial-flow compressors by Albert Betz and Walter Encke during the 1920s and 1930s, show the fertility of Göttingen’s system (Hanle 1982: 23–52; Constant 1980: 99–116; Rotta 1990).

Peter Fritzsche (1992) has rightly characterized the German public of the 1920s as strongly air-minded. Precisely because of the Allied restrictions on the building of aircraft, German aviation technology became a symbol of national greatness and a compensation for the loss of national sovereignty resulting from the Treaty of Versailles. It was for this reason that Charles Lindbergh’s single-handed crossing of the Atlantic in 1927 was a sobering experience for the Germans, for it seemed to demonstrate the technological superiority of the Americans. German scientists believed that an important reason for the American strength in aviation lay in the fact that the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was directly under the responsibility of the President. They wanted a similarly direct control system for German research. Even those scientists who felt that these high-flying plans were unrealistic, conceded that in Germany there was no effective coordination of aviation research. In Stuttgart, Darmstadt, Munich and elsewhere new research institutions had been set up which were working autonomously, and there was no sign of coordination in research and industry. In order to use financial resources more effectively, the Reichsverkehrsministerium (Reich Transport Ministry) proposed a cooperative research programme under the leadership of the quasi-state-run DVL. The scientists, however, were worried about their independence and proposed an alternative. They offered to set up a commission which would work in close cooperation with the ministry to set up projects across individual institutes, determine the work programmes of the institutes and coordinate the research with the development work in industry (Trischler 1992c: 145–50).

Leaving this political experiment to the self-regulation of the scientists paid off for the government. The Deutscher Forschungsrat für Luftfahrt (German Research Council for Aviation), which had been set up in 1928, succeeded in improving the academic agreement among scientists, as well as coupling the scientists’ goals to those of the state and industry. It was important that the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft (Emergency Association in Aid of German Science), a state-financed organization founded in 1920 to support academic research, was involved in this new definition of the relationship between state, science and industry. Research on highaltitude flying was one of the priorities of the Notgemeinschaft (cf. Marsch 1994).

Just before the Nazi seizure of power a corporatist research policy was evident in aviation. All three parts of the research system pursued their own interests. This corporatist research policy is all the more remarkable as at the same time the presidential regime and the rise of National Socialism were wearing away the basis of political corporatism in its liberal variant (cf. Abelshauser 1984). The world economic depression hit the aviation industry particularly hard. Those firms with a weak capital base, which were dependent on demand from the state, had only survived the 1920s thanks to generous public subsidies. When these were cut back as part of the deflation policy of governments after 1929, many companies faced bankruptcy (cf. Budraß 1998: 273–91). The cuts in state development programmes also affected aviation research. The ambitious expansion programme of the DVL was a victim of the Reichssparkommissar (Reich Savings Minister) cuts. The AVA also suffered under the financial crisis. It had to do without the large 6-metre-diameter wind tunnel which had been planned since the middle of the 1920s. However, the idea that aeronautical research was robbed of its chance to develop is exaggerated. In comparison to the existential crisis that was facing industry, research survived the crisis relatively unscathed. Reich subsidies only sank in 1932/3 to 75 per cent of their 1928/9 level. Up to 1931 the level of personnel was actually increased and thereafter redundancies were kept below average (Trischler 1992c: 161–9, and for the following: ibid. 174–206 ).

However, the scientists perceived the policies of the Reich government in a completely different way. They got the impression that the parliamentary democratic state was generally not in a position to meet their demands. Parliament and state bureaucracy seemed to be unable to see the necessity of supporting an improvement of research installations and facilities. Scientists generally tend to judge themselves against their colleagues at home and abroad. The German aeronautical science community looked to America, which since the 1920s had been a shining example of well-equipped and organized research. The German scientists were forced to sit in silence while in Great Britain, France, and particularly in the United States the foundations for excellent research opportunities were laid, while in Germany, working with obsolete equipment, it was hardly possible to conduct model tests on new aircraft types. In consequence, and as a reflection of what was happening in German society as a whole, scientists ceased to accept the Weimar Republic as a valid form of government and began looking for alternatives.

Thus, the destruction of parliamentary democracy by the National Socialists was largely well received in the aeronautical scientific community. With undisguised satisfaction the scientists noted that aeronautics was granted autonomy in the new Third Reich. With the appointments of the former director of Lufthansa, Erhard Milch, to undersecretary and Adolf Baeumker as the head of the research department of the newly formed Reichsluftfahrtministerium (Reich Aviation Ministry, henceforth RLM), hopes increased that the importance of research would finally be recognized by the state. Baeumker had gained the trust of the scientists in the 1920s as the official responsible for aviation research in the Reichsverkehrsministerium (Reich Transport Ministry). The son of a well-known Munich philosophy professor, he seemed to guarantee the autonomy of science and an unbureaucratic approach to new ways of organizing research.

Prandtl and his colleagues were not to be disappointed. Only weeks after the Nazi seizure of power, the AVA got permission to construct the large wind tunnel, a request the centre had petitioned for in vain for almost a decade. The increase of the budget for aviation by more than 40 million Reichsmark from the job-creation programme made it possible for the DVL to carry out plans for expansion which had been gathering dust since the late 1920s. Aeronautical scientists soon discovered that even their most outrageous demands were met. Research installations which had previously been unthinkable were suddenly approved without question. The financing problem, which had always been the limiting factor of research, no longer seemed relevant.

The expansion of the DVL alone consumed over 28 million Reichsmark by the beginning of the Second World War, a huge amount, inconceivable by the standards of the Weimar era. At the outbreak of the war the institute had highly modern research facilities, of which only two of the most spectacular need to be mentioned here. The big wind tunnel opened in 1934, had eliptical dimensions of 5 × 7 or 6 × 8 metres and enabled coolers, transmission, propellors and engine casings of large dimension to be tested. Another technological innovation was the Trudelwindkanal of 1934/5 which was shaped like an enormous egg. In a vertically rising air stream of 4 metres in diameter and 40 m/s hung a model in free movement in front of a camera. The huge dimensions of this wind tunnel were trumpeted by Nazi propaganda. This was the expression of a sort of technological romanticism and the production ethic of National Socialism (cf. Rabinbach 1976; Friemert 1980). The staff of the centre increased threefold within a two-year period. On the eve of the Second World War, the centre had almost 2,000 employees, an expansion in personnel which strained its internal structure. In 1936, the facility was expanded both horizontally and vertically. Between the management and the departments new intermediate hierarchical levels were installed. The autonomy of the departments was cut back, thus enabling the DVL to take on larger projects, so that there was an improvement in the quality as well as the quantity of research.

The AVA in Göttingen expanded just as rapidly. Before the Second World War it looked like a building site. Its new wind tunnel was so enormous that Lufthansa and Luftwaffe pilots used it as an aid to navigation. Hardly was the first cold tunnel for testing icing on highflying aircraft ready than work began on an even bigger icing tunnel. In this tunnel an altitude temperature of minus 60 degrees Celsius und 0.1 bar pressure could be simulated. Its insulation required the entire annual Portuguese cork harvest (Wüst 1982: 33–4). With the purchase of the nearby disused limestone quarry and aircraft hangars including testing equipment, the centre spread right across the middle of Göttingen.

In 1937, after a long, acrimonious debate, the RLM and the Kaiser- Wilhelm-Gesellschaft agreed to make the AVA independent and separate from the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Strömungsforschung. As a terminological compromise the name Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt in der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft was adopted. In return for generous financial support from the RLM, the centre now had to work exclusively on aeronautics. The staff grew from 80 employees in 1933 to over 450 by 1936, and to approximately 700 in the last year of peace. Albert Betz had to admit that he could no longer run such a rapidly expanding research concern and in 1939 a separate administrator began to work at his side. Within half a year the AVA had changed fundamentally. Out of a straightforward institute of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft there had grown a varied and complex research undertaking. Highly modern research facilities were being used or built. In order to be able to handle the rush of orders from the aircraft industry, the wind tunnels were being used in shifts around the clock. Like the DVL, the AVA corresponded to a large degree in size, structure and working methods to the criteria by which we judge big science. The ministry withdrew the scientific head, Albert Betz, from the administration and replaced him with someone they trusted.

The ‘great scientific expansion’ of the pre-war period (Simon 1947: 24) remained decentralized. Besides the expansion of existing centres, new centres were planned in the mid-1930s. In March 1935, with the proclamation of German air sovereignty, the Nazi government stopped pretending it had no air force (Luftwaffe) and thereby broke the bonds of the Versailles Treaty. The Air Ministry dictated the goal to be attained: Göring’s insistence that ‘German aeronautical research will have to reach the production levels of the leading foreign nations at the latest by 1938 and then take the lead in several important areas’ gave the research department of the RLM new room for manoeuvre. In the internal struggles for power and influence as well as in the negotiations with experts from the military, industry and science, and with competing departments of the polycratic regime, Göring’s stated goal was used as a trump card. The personal support of the second most powerful man in the Nazi regime overcame all those obstacles which faced the research department (Baeumker 1944: 31).

Decentralization remained the characteristic of German aviation research. The effort of the DVL to concentrate everything except the AVA in Berlin-Adlershof would have had many advantages. The building of completely new centres absorbed resources and energies which might have been more effectively used by concentration. The Air Ministry had other concerns, however. The AVA and DVL were reaching their physical limits and could not be protected from enemy air attacks within cities like Berlin or Göttingen. The DVL was anyway considered to be too big to guarantee effective research. A ‘healthy decentralization of research across the whole Reich territory’ would allow cooperation with regional industries and the full exploitation of personnel resources (Baeumker 1944: 43–4). Hence new establishments were set up, among them the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Luftfahrt (German Research Establishment for Aviation, henceforth DFL).

Apart from the building of new centres there was a second model for institutional growth. An existing group of researchers could be taken as the core around which a diversified institute was built. A third variant appeared after 1939. Thanks to the Blitzkriege, Germany gained control of important foreign research centres. The potential of these establishments, among them the Etablissement d’Expériences Techniques des Chalais Meudon near Paris, which housed Europe’s largest wind tunnel, was channelled into the research landscape of Nazi Germany.

The biggest and most important of these new or extended centres was the DFL. Whereas the DVL was devoted to applied research, the DFL was planned as a centre for basic research. A huge research centre shot up on the green fields outside Brunswick. Wind tunnels of various sizes in the classical Göttingen design were added to research instruments that had hitherto not been able to measure the parameters and phenomena in ballistics and aerodynamics. A crosssection wind tunnel, for example, allowed the study of the influence of side winds up to a speed of 200 m/s on flight to be tested (Blenk 1941: 465). Within just a few short years, the DFL grew into an array of highly advanced laboratories and facilities. Adolf Baeumker, head of the Air Ministry’s research department, hit the nail on the head, when in 1942 he stated that the DFL was the largest research project so far realized in Germany (cit. after Trischler 1992a: 174).

The foundation, building and running of the centre in Brunswick were the basic model of research policy in Nazi Germany. The Air Ministry set the long-term goals: accelerated basic research in those areas of use to military aviation like high-speed engine research and weapons. The building of the research centres showed obsessive concern for secrecy and protection against air raids. The setting of the scientific goals, however, was the responsibility of the scientists. The fact that the state controlled the organization of science but not its actual processes meant that scientists enjoyed a high degree of autonomy. The precondition for this cooperation between state and research was the readiness of the scientists to go along with the general political line of the national regime. In fact an analysis of the research work at the DFL shows the high degree to which this new centre fitted in with the rearmament aims of the regime (Trischler 1992c: 213–22).

Even more impressive than the DFL were the regime’s plans for the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt München (Munich Aeronautical Research Establishment, henceforth LFM). As the Stuttgart aircraft firm of Ernst Heinkel began work on jet engines in 1936, research into engines looked like being taken over by industry. The research centre in Brunswick was still under construction and thus was not able to realize its function of producing new ideas and technical innovations in this revolutionary area of aircraft construction. In the Air Ministry, plans were drawn up for a new research establishment in the south of Germany which was to be dedicated to basic research into jet engines. After the Anschluß with Austria, Munich was chosen as the site. The nearby Ötztal with its natural resource of water power offered favourable conditions for the planned high-speed wind tunnel with a power of 75,000 kW, in which tests on high-performance engines up to flight speeds could be carried out. With tunnels of this size the Nazi regime hoped to compensate for the apparent superiority of the United States in this strategically important technology. But with the outbreak of the war the building of the Munich centre was postponed. In mid-1940, however, the American Congress passed legislation to encourage engine research. The Nazi regime, despite a shortage of capacity, was determined to catch up. New high-speed tunnels with 8 m diameter as well as test beds for rocket and jet engines were conceived and the building of the facility began. Although the construction of the LFM at Ottobrunn near Munich and Ötztal took the lion’s share of the available funds after 1941, the most important projects did not get beyond the basic construction stage before the end of the war. Like a giant shadow – a relic of Nazi giganticism – pieces of the large apparatus stuck out of the idyllic world of the Ötztal (Trischler 1992: 262–9; Hansen 1987: 187–217).

What a difference it made, after the apparent lack of interest by the parliamentary democracy in the necessity of research, to be confronted with the generosity of the new government! It is thus not surprising that the scientists did not regret the passing of democracy and that they quickly aligned themselves with the new dictatorship, particularly when, with regard to their actual work, almost no limits were set to their traditional autonomy. Aeronautics, representing part of the psychological preparation for war, was also allotted a prominent place in school curricula (Fritzsche 1992: 200–3). But nothing can better exemplify the spectacular increase in the power and importance of research in aviation than the foundation of the Deutsche Akademie der Luftfahrtforschung (German Academy of Aeronautical Research) in 1936. Playing up to the well-known vanity of the Reich Air Minister, the head of the Research Department, Adolf Baeumker, succeeded in winning Göring over to the idea of founding an academy for engineering sciences. Göring was very excited and could not wait to follow in the footsteps of the Great Elector, the founder of the Berlin Academy of Science in 1700. Despite violent opposition from the established academies, an academy of technical sciences was created, a novelty in the German research system.

At this stage we can draw together some threads from our discussion. Within just a few years, the policies surrounding research and development had undergone a revolutionary change. In the course of rearmament and preparation for war, the Nazi regime made generous funds available which gave the whole landscape of aviation a new momentum. For aeronautical research the 1930s were without any doubt a period of accelerated change. With reference to our earlier definitions for big science, the following observations can be made:

1. The degree of multidisciplinary work increased. Research areas like gas dynamics or aeroelastics enlarged the disciplines around the central area of aerodynamics. The cooperation of teams of scientists, engineers and technicians became regular practice. Specialization and functional differentiation increased.

2. Increasingly large apparatuses determined the research process. Derek de Solla Price has stated that the law of exponential growth determines the parameters of big science (Price 1963). In aviation research the trend to large-scale growth is clearly visible in the case of the wind tunnel as the most important research tool. Up to the 1950s the power of these tunnels was increased by a factor of 10 over a period of twelve years before stagnation set in for technical reasons (Heinzerling 1990: 320). Wind tunnels, with their visible size and intensity of noise, determined the everyday work of the research establishment. As the example of the research establishment in Munich shows, they also determined its location. In order to obtain the necessary energy, the Munich centre had to place its high-performance tunnels in the scientific diaspora of the Ötztal. The growing dependence of the research process on big apparatus not surprisingly found little favour amongst traditionally trained scientists. Albert Betz, the head of the AVA, warned in the 1950s of the danger of a ‘mechanization of research’ through ‘intolerably’ large apparatus and of the risk that ‘real intellectual ability’ would be sidelined, referring to his experience in the Third Reich (Betz 1949: 253; Betz 1957: 387).

3. Expanding aviation research consumed a high quantity of resources. The factor which limited growth was, however, not money, as in the Weimar Republic, but a shortage of qualified personnel. Certainly academic aeronautics grew in 1935 by the expansion of so-called Luftfahrtlehrzentren (Aviation Academic Education Centres) at the technical universities in Berlin, Brunswick and Stuttgart, as well as partial expansion at Aachen, Darmstadt, Dresden and Munich. However, the universities could not come close to meeting the personnel needs of research. In 1937 a mere sixteen aeronautical engineers received their degrees, and in the following two years only fifty-six and fifty-seven. When one thinks that the RLM needed an annual increase of 3,600 engineers, this was little more than a drop in the ocean (Gundler 1995; Ludwig 1974: 271–83; Homze 1976: 214). During the war the personnel shortage got worse. A further limiting factor was the shortage of construction capacity for building projects. In this regard, the Third Reich showed its inflexibility. Totalitarian regimes are normally seen as infrastructure-friendly. But the sheer range of projects that were undertaken simultaneously in the polycratic chaos of the Nazi regime produced a struggle for resources.

4. Aeronautical research was strongly focused in the 1930s on goals that were considered politically important: the strategic areas of high-altitude flight, jet engines, high-speed aerodynamics, high frequency research, ballistics and rocket research were systematically improved. Likewise gas turbines, swept wings, tailless aircraft, radar, radio navigation and rocket technology all became development projects with high priority.

5. Aviation research during the Third Reich was to a high degree dependent on the state. The separation of the AVA from the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft in 1937 shows how the Nazis used both the traditional channels of financial subsidy and other more direct methods to support and encourage their objectives (cf. Macrakis 1993). During the war the regime tried to set the agenda not only for the long-term objectives but also for the details of research.

During the Second World War scientific research was caught between the need to serve politically identified goals and the need to retain scientific autonomy. An analysis of the effect of this process will allow us to give an answer to the opening question: was this big science or small science?

The static version of the British 3.7-in (94-mm) anti-aircraft gun was the MkII, of which there were three slightly different versions. This version had a power rammer and had a characteristic counterbalance weigh t over the breech to compensate for the long barrel.

Soon after World War I ended it was suggested that something heavier and more powerful than the existing 76.2-mm (3-in) anti-aircraft gun would be required by the UK to meet anticipated increases in aircraft performance, but at that time (1920) the report was simply shelved as there was then no prospect of any funding for even initial research into such a project. Instead it was not until 1936 that Vickers produced a prototype of a new gun with a calibre of 94mm (3.7 in). The design was approved for production as the Ordnance, OF, 3.7 in, but initial progress towards this goal was so slow that it was not until 1938 that the pilot production models were issued for development trials.

The main reason for this slow progress was the gun's carriage. While the gun was a fairly straightforward but modern component, the carriage was complex to what seemed an extreme. The gun was intended for use in the field by the army and thus had to be fully mobile, but the final assembly was what can only be classed as 'semi-mobile'. The gun and its cradle and saddle rested on a large firing platform which in action rested on four outriggers. The front wheels were raised off the ground in action in order to provide some counter-balance for the weight of the gun mass, and the rear (towing end) axle was removed, Production of the carriage soon proved to be a time-consuming bottleneck, to the extent that production began of what was to be a purely static carriage for emplacement in concrete. As time went on the carriage was re-engineered to a more manageable form. Thus the first production carriage was the Mk I, the static carriage the Mk II and the final production version the Mk III; there were sub-marks of all of these.

When the equipment was first issued the gunners did not take kindly to it as they by far preferred the handier and familiar 76.2-mm (3-in) gun, but even they came to appreciate that the performance of the 94-mm (3.7-in) ordnance by far exceeded that of the older gun. In fact the 94-mm (3.7-in) had an excellent all-round performance even if emplacing and moving it was sometimes less than easy. As more equipments entered service they were gradually fitted with improved and centralized fire-control systems and such extras as power rammers and fuse setters. By 1941 the type formed the mainstay of the army's antiaircraft defences, and went on through the rest of the war to prove itself to be an excellent weapon.

The 94-mm (3.7-in) gun was impressed into use as an anti-armour (AT) weapon in the Western Desert campaigns, but its weight and bulk made it less than effective in this role although it could still knock out any tank set against it.

The references to the use of the 3.7" AA in AT roles both come from "Spearhead General' by Henry Maule. It is a biography of Frank Messervy:

'After Gazala, Denys Reid in command of the El Adem Box allowed the AA to fire, approx 200 rounds were fired in the day, the German Tank commanders refused to attack (probably found an easier target)....

Further in the same book a reference to direct fire in the Burma Campaign...

At the Admin Box battles in February 1944, the Administrative troops of 7 Indian Division held out against a Japanese attack (Including 8th Belfast HAA Regiment). At one point 'Even the 3.7 HAA guns were added to the barrage, the great shells rushing straight and flat like express trains'

When being shelled by Japanese Infantry guns 'The Ulsterment lowered their long guns and pasted the hillside from which the fire had come.'

Instead it was retained for what it was best suited, the anti-aircraft (AA) role, and thus the 94-mm (3.7-in) never really got a chance to prove itself as the British equivalent of the German '88'. It was used on occasion as a long range field piece and was even at one stage of the war used as a coastal defence gun. However, its use in this role was in the hands of the Germans, who had captured some of the type at Dunkirk, They appreciated the effectiveness of the weapon they termed the 9.4-cm Flak Vickers M.39(e) so much that they even went to the trouble of manufacturing their own ammunition for them for both the Flak and the coastal defence roles. In the latter they were particularly effective at Walcheren, where 94-mm (3.7-in) guns sank several Allied landing craft.

Marine-Artillerie-Abteilung 202 Walcheren

Domburg: 5./MAA 202 with 6x 9,4cm, 4 casemated
Westkapelle: 6./MAA 202 with 4x 9,4cm, casemated

The gun soldiered on in British use until Anti-Aircraft Command was disbanded during the 1950s. Many were sold or handed over to other nations, and some still survive in use in such locations as South Africa and Burma.

Specification

Ordnance, OF, 3.7 in Mk III on Carriage Mk III

Calibre: 94 mm (3.7 in)

Weight: complete 9317 kg (20,541 lb)

Dimensions: length overall travelling 8.687 m (28 ft 6 in); width 2.438 m (8 ft); height 2.502 m (8 ft 2.5 in); length of barrel 4.7 m ( 15 ft 5 in) ; length of rifling 3.987 m (13 ft 0.95 in)

Elevation: +807- 5째

Traverse: 360째

Maximum effective ceiling: 9754 m (32,000ft)

Shell weight: HE 12.96 kg(28.56 lb)

Muzzle velocity: 792 m (2,600 ft) per second

The system is intended to protect battle tanks against ATGMs and antitank grenades. Modern hollow-charge weapons (ATGMs, antitank grenades, HEAT projectiles) are the most effective and mass-produced antitank munitions.

Despite the updating of armor protection, tanks remain vulnerable to antitank hollow-charge munitions.

One promising way of tank protection is to equip tanks with active protection systems. Active protection involves the detection of attacking antitank munitions and their destruction at a safe distance from the tank.

In the early 1980s, the Drozd (103OM) system was developed. The latest research involving the use of advanced methods to detect antitank munitions and process signals as well as the use of new basic components and more effective explosives enabled designers to considerably improve combat characteristics of the Drozd system in its derivative, the Drozd-2.

The Drozd-2 active protection system provides an all-round protection zone in azimuth, which is of crucial importance keeping in mind the ever changing tactics of employment of battle tanks in local conflicts and urban fighting.

The modular design of the Drozd and Drozd-2 active protection systems makes it possible to use them on any Russian and foreign tanks. Currently, there are tens of thousands of battle tanks worldwide, and most of them were manufactured in the 1980s, 1970s and even in the 1960s. Tanks equipped with the active protection system are protected better than the best tanks of the latest generation (T-80, T-90, M1A2, Leclerc).

By Joe Baugher

The F-94A/B all-weather interceptors of the USAF were considered only as interim types which would fill in the gap for a couple of years until more advanced aircraft could be made available in quantity. Once their initial problems had been corrected, the F-94A/B proved to be quite reliable all-weather interceptors and were relatively easy to maintain in the field. However, the F-94A/B lacked sufficient range and climbing speed to make it a really good interceptor, and its armament did not pack sufficient punch to be considered really effective against bombers.

In July 1948, four months before receiving the contract for the first batch of F-94As, Lockheed issued a proposal to the USAF for a more advanced development of the F-94A concept. The project was given the company designation of L-188. In order to achieve higher Mach numbers, the L-188 featured a completely new wing with reduced thickness and greater dihedral. The speed brakes were revised and the fuel capacity was increased. The aircraft was to be provided with a drag 'chute, being the first USAF fighter to be so equipped. Since more power was clearly needed, a Pratt & Whitney J48 afterburning turbojet was to be fitted. This engine was a license-built version of the British-designed Rolls-Royce Tay. With afterburning, this engine offered 8750 pounds of thrust. The increased engine thrust required that the air intakes be revised and made larger. The rear fuselage had to be revised in order to accommodate this new engine. A more advanced Hughes E-5 fire control system with APG-40 radar was to be used. The machine gun armament of the F-94A was to be replaced by an all-rocket armament mounted in the fuselage nose.

The USAF was initially not all that interested in the Lockheed proposal, preferring to concentrate on the North American F-86D Sabre and the Northrop F-89 Scorpion. Nevertheless, the USAF thought enough of the proposal that they assigned it a designation of F-97. A new F-number was selected for the Lockheed proposal since it was almost a complete redesign of the F-94.

Undeterred by the USAF's initial lukewarm response to their L-188 proposal, Lockheed decided in 1949 to go ahead with the construction of a company-funded demonstrator aircraft that would combine the L-188 wing with a F-94A fuselage from which the military armament and fire control systems had been omitted. Since the J48 engine was not yet ready, the demonstrator was fitted with an imported non-afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay.

Bearing the civil registration N94C, the unarmed demonstrator flew for the first time on January 19, 1950, with test pilot Tony LeVier at the controls. It retained the original nose of the F-94A, and had non-standard teardrop-shaped centerline-mounted wingtip tanks. The USAF was sufficiently impressed that in February 1950 they purchased the unarmed L-188 demonstrator under the designation YF-97. The military serial number 50-955 replaced the original civil registration number. At the same time, the USAF ordered a fully militarized prototype YF-97 under the serial number 50-877. 180 production examples were ordered under the designation F-97A. The company designation for the F-97A was Model 880.

Initial trials with the L-188/YF-97 demonstrator turned up several problems which were corrected by progressive modifications. The wing root extension fillet of the original L-188 wing was removed in order to improve stall characteristics during landing approach. The original horizontal stabilizer of the F-94 was replaced by power-boosted swept surfaces to eliminate an annoying high-frequency vibration that took place at high Mach numbers. Dampers were added to correct aileron buzzing. Spoilers were added to improve roll control. The vertical fin was made larger in order to increase directional stability at high speeds. When the American-built Tay finally became available, the first YF-97 was re-engined with a J48-P-3 engine, rated at 6000 lb.s.t. dry and 8000 lb.s.t with afterburning.

On September 12, 1950, the YF-97 was redesignated YF-94C. Even though the YF-97 was almost a completely new aircraft, it was thought wise to pretend that the design was simply a "logical extension" of an existing aircraft. Political considerations often play an important role in the choice of aircraft designations.

The name Starfire was applied to the F-94C by publicists, following the tradition of naming Lockheed aircraft after celestial objects. The C-variant was the only variant in the F-94 series to carry this name.

The two YF-94Cs continued to be used for tests of the improved fire control system and the all-rocket armament. The all-rocket armament consisted of twenty-four 2.75-inch Folding-Fin Aircraft Rockets (FFAR) mounted in four groups surrounding the APG-40 radome in the nose. The rockets in each group were mounted inside a door which opened sideways on the ground for easy servicing and reloading. In front of each rocket group was a snap-action door which opened immediately before firing. The YF-94Cs were fitted with a revised fuel system accommodating 566 US gallons in wing and fuselage tanks, 500 gallons in center-mounted wingtip tanks, and 460 gallons in midwing drop tanks mounted on pylons at the wing center for a total fuel capacity of 1526 gallons. There were difficulties with the drag chute, with the automatic pilot, with the afterburner of the J48, and with aileron flutter. These problems were not fully resolved until after the first F-94C production aircraft had been delivered.

The first production F-94C was delivered in July of 1951. The production F-94C was powered by the Pratt & Whitney J48-P-5 engine rated at 6350 lb.s.t. dry and 8750 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Teething problems delayed the introduction of the F-94C into squadron service for almost two years. The F-94C finally entered service with the 437th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Otis AFB in Massachusetts in June of 1953. The F-94C was the second type of fighter serving with the Air Defense Command (ADC) to use rockets as its sole armament, the North American F-86D Sabre being the first.

Initially, the F-94C suffered with some of the same teething troubles which had not been completely ironed out during the testing of the YF-94Cs. The E-5 fire control system had reliability problems. The cockpit seal tended to leak, causing electrical short-circuits. In addition, the jet engine tended to flame out when the nose rockets were fired. However, once these difficulties were cleared up, the F-94C became popular with its flight and maintenance crews. The rocket armament of the F-94C was considered to be more accurate than that of the F-86D Sabre, owing to the use of closed-breech launchers by the F-94C which increased the velocity of the rockets. However, the firing of the nose rockets violently shook the F-94C and blinded both crew members in exhaust smoke and fire.

387 F-94C aircraft were built and delivered between July of 1951 and May of 1954. In 1953, F-94Cs were delivered to the 29th, 48th, 66th, 332nd, 438th, and 497th Fighter Interceptor Squadrons. In 1954-55, F-94Cs went to the 27th, 39th, 61st, 64th, and 318th Squadrons. While the 319th FIS was not one of the squadrons to receive the F-94C directly from the factory, they did operate them from March 1956 until transition to the F-89J was completed in December 1957. Most of these squadrons served in the mainland United States, although the 39th did serve for a time in Japan.

In the course of its production and service life, the F-94C was progressively improved and upgraded, with new features continually being added in the field. New and improved ejector seats were provided, variable-position dive brakes were fitted, and a better drag chute was added. Beginning with the 100th F-94C leaving the production line, a twelve-rocket pod was mounted on each wing leading edge, doubling the armament of the Starfire. A frangible plastic nose covered the front of each pod, which shattered when the rockets were fired. These mid-wing rocket pods were retrofitted to earlier production machines. Owing to the crew blinding problem during rocket firing, the nose rockets were often omitted from F-94Cs in the field, the rocket armament being carried exclusively in the mid-wing pods. The nose radome initially had a rather blunt shape, but it was soon replaced by a more pointed radome which quickly became standard.

The F-94C Starfire became the first all-weather fighter to break the sound barrier, which happened by accident when test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon put his F-94C into a dive from 45,000 feet, rolling over in afterburner.

A single F-94C was used to test the adoption of the Hughes GAR-1 Falcon missile as part of the basic armament of the Starfire. This aircraft was redesignated DF-94C. Although the Falcon missile was never made part of the Starfire's operational armament, these experiments provided data for later generations of ADC interceptors.

F-94C serial number 50-963 was experimentally fitted with an enlarged nose in which reconnaissance cameras were mounted in place of the interceptor's radar and rockets. This plane was redesignated EF-94C, the E standing for *Exempt*. E was used rather than the regular R for Reconnaissance because this aircraft was to be used strictly for research purposes.

The service life of the F-94C Starfire with the USAF was quite short, most of these aircraft being phased out and replaced by more advanced types after only a half-dozen years of service. The last F-94C left USAF service in February of 1959.

After leaving USAF service, F-94Cs were passed along to the Air National Guard. With the F-94Cs supplementing the earlier F-94A/B, the Starfire equipped twenty-one Fighter Interceptor Squadrons of the Air National Guard. The last F-94Cs were phased out of ANG service by the 179th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at the Duluth Municipal Airport, Minnesota during the summer of 1959.

Serials of the F-94C Starfire:

50-877 Lockheed YF-97 Starfire -- later redesignated YF-94C

50-955 Lockheed YF-97 Starfire -- later redesignated YF-94C

50-956/1063 Lockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire

51-5513/5698 Lockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire

51-13511/13603 Lockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire

Specification of the F-94C:

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J48-P-5 turbojet engine rated at 6350 lb.st. dry and 8750 lb.st. with afterburning.

Dimensions: Wingspan 42 feet 5 inches with wingtip tanks, length 44 feet 6 inches, height 14 feet 11 inches, wing area 232.8 square feet.

Weights: 12,708 pounds empty, 18,300 pounds loaded, 24,184 pound maximum.

Performance: Maximum speed: 640 mph at sea level, 585 mph at 22,000 feet, 578 mph at 40,000 fee. Initial climb rate 7980 feet per minute. Service ceiling 51,400 feet. Normal range 805 miles, maximum range 1275 miles.

Armament: Armed with twenty-four 2.75-inch Mighty Mouse FFARs in nose, plus twelve FFARs in each of two wing leading-edge pods.

Sources:

1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987.

2. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple Press Aerospace, 1990.

3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.

4. Lockheed F-94 Variants, Robert F. Dorr, Wings of Fame, Vol 13, 1998

5. Marcelle Size Knaack, Post World War II Fighters, Office of Air Force History, 1986.

6. E-mail from Robert West on F-94C service with 319th FIS.

LINK

Laid down: 17 December 1871

Launched: 21 May 1873

Commissioned: 1874

Decommissioned: 4 July 1903

Fate: Scrapped 1912

Struck: 1900

General Characteristics

Displacement: 2,491 tons (2,671 full load)

Length: 101 ft

Beam: 101 ft

Draught: 12.32 ft

Propulsion: 8 coal-fired boilers, 6 screws

Speed: 7 knts & 2,000 ihp

Range:

Complement: 150

Armament: 2 11" guns, 2 4-pdr guns, 2 37-mm guns

Armor: 9" belt, 2.3" deck

With the advent of steam propulsion and armor, there were three major areas that dominated the design of a warship. Those were machinery, which determined speed, armor and armament. Normally any design was a series of compromises among these three areas. However, sometimes additional requirements were thrown into the mix that could have great impact in the design. One such requirement would be the need for a design to be able to operate in shallow water. In 1870 Imperial Russian had a requirement for an armored ship that would carry heavy guns and was further capable of operating in shallow water.

It was only 15 years since the Crimean War in which France and then Great Britain employed armored warships for the first time. These were armored batteries, rather than full-fledged warships but with their introduction, the genie was out of the bottle. France with the Gloire and then Great Britain with the Warrior, started building armored, steam powered capital ships. In 1870 in the Black Sea there were no armored warships but Russia decided that she needed armored warships mounting heavy guns to protect her southern border. Further, it was decided that any design to steam in the Black Sea had to have a shallow draft in order to operate in and through the Straits of Kerch and around the mouth of the Dneiper River. Vice Admiral A. A. Popov came up with a design that he thought would meet all of the requirements. To maximize armor and carry the heaviest guns possible on the lowest displacement and shallowest draught, Popov designed a ship whose beam equaled its length, a circular ship. Popov had not been the first to advocate a circular ship. Sir Edward Reed, chief designer for the Royal Navy in late 1860s had considered round ships for coast defense of England but they would never built.

Popov used a test tank for experiments with a model of a round warship. He then had a larger model, really a miniature ship, built to further test the concept. This model was 24-feet (7.5m) in diameter and was tested on the Neva River in 1870. The round design showed promise. Popov’s design was chosen as the first armored warship design to be employed in the Black Sea. The original decision was to build ten round "Popovki" to be used as armored steam batteries or floating forts in the Black Sea. The first of these ships was laid down in 1872 and was named the Novgorod. The ship was built in sections and these sections were transported to Nikolaev on the Black Sea for final assembly.

Length or width, with the Novgorod it didn’t matter as the dimension was a constant 101-feet (30.78m). The ship, displacing 2,491-tons, was capable of operating in shallow water with a draught of 13-feet 6-inches (4.11m). Eight boilers provided the steam for a horizontal compound engine, which developed a combined 3,000shp. This engine provided the power for the six propellers that drove the ship at a maximum speed of 6-knots when new, one-knot slower than designed. Two 11-inch/20 guns were on open mounts within a barbette with 9-inches of wrought iron armor. The sides had an 11-inch upper belt and 9-inch lower belt, while bow and stern areas had 9-inch belts. The ship was launched in 1873 and commissioned in 1874. The first three feet of the funnel base also was armored at 4 1⁄2 inches. The main deck was not flat but was convex with the highest point 5-feet 3-inches above the waterline. With such a low freeboard the design would be very vulnerable in deep water in any sort of bad weather.

The design did have some advantages. One was the fairly low displacement for a ship that was heavily armored and that mounted two heavy guns. Another advantage was that the circular design allowed the heavy armor to amount to 20% of the ship’s displacement instead of the 30-40% needed for a conventional design. However, the negative aspects significantly outweighed the positives. A round design maximized water resistance and therefore resulted in a very low maximum speed. The circular design also proved unstable. It was almost impossible to keep the Novgorod steaming in a straight line. The low freeboard, shallow draft ship also pitched and rolled excessively in any sea state other than calm, greatly hindering accurate gunnery. Probably the worst characteristic occurred when one of the eleven-inch guns was fired. One rule of physics is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. With Novgorod when one of the guns was fired, the ship would start to spin, like a top. Even using some of propellers to counteract the movement could not prevent this rotation. It was obvious to the Russian Admiralty that the round design did not fulfill its promise. The second, larger "Popovki" was already building, so it was completed. Originally to be named Kiev, she was launched as the Popov in honor of her designer.

However, even with all of her negative qualities, the Novgorod was the only armored warship in the Black Sea for a time. She was kept operational until conventional warships started arriving. At one point the two outer shafts were removed, which lowered her to 2,000 ihp with a maximum speed of 5 1⁄2 knots. In 1900 she was stricken as a warship and turned into a store ship at Sevastopol. Novgorod was finally scrapped just before World War One.

(History from Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1860-1905, 1979, N.J.M. Campbell for Russian Subjects; Warships of the Imperial Russian Navy, Volume 1 Battleships, 1968, by V.M. Tomitch)

The English Electric Canberra was a groundbreaking aircraft when it entered service in the early 1950s.

The Canberra set and held many altitude, distance and speed records in its early years. In addition to widespread and long service with the Royal Air Force, the English Electric Canberra was exported to many countries including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, France, West Germany, India, Pakistan, Rhodesia, Ethiopia, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

The PR.9 was the photo reconnaissance version of the Canberra.

The Canberra's service record was remarkable in its longevity, spanning from the Suez crisis to Vietnam right through to Operation Telic in the Persian Gulf. The Canberra finally left RAF service when the PR.9 was retired in 2006.

Specifications (PR.Mk 9):

Engines: Two 11,000-pound thrust Rolls-Royce Avon 206 turbojets

Weight: Max Takeoff 54,950 lbs.

Wing Span: 67ft. 10in.

Length: 66ft. 8in.

Height: 15ft. 8in.

Performance:

Maximum Speed at 40,000 ft: 541 mph

Ceiling: 48,000 ft.

Range: 3,630 miles

Armament: None

PR Types

Canberra PR.3

Photo-reconnaissance version of B.2

Canberra PR.7

Photo-reconnaissance version based on B.6

Canberra PR.9

Photo-reconnaissance version based on B(I).8 with fuselage stretched to 68 ft (27.72 m), wingspan increased by 4 ft (1.22 m), and Avon R.A.27 engines with 10,030 lbf (44.6 kN) of thrust. 22 built. 3 transferred to Chile after the Falklands War

Canberra PR.57

Tropicalized PR.7 built by Boulton-Paul for India.

Short SC.9

1 Canberra PR.9 fitted with an AI.23 radar, plus IR installation in the nose for Red Top air-to-air missile trials.

This Panther D is being powered by Acetylene gas at a training school; showing the desperate state of the German economy by 1944.

Rare photo of aircraft transport with flight deck Kumano Maru.

Built by Hitachi for the Imperial Japanese Army. Laid down 15 Aug 1944, launched 28 Jan 1945, completed 30 March 1945.

Never became operational. Served as a repatriation ship postwar, then reconverted as a merchant ship. Possibly scrapped at Kobe 11/1947 to 9/1948.

Displacement: 8,128 tons standard

Dimensions: 501 x 70.5 x 23 feet/153.7 x 21.5 x 7 meters

Air deck: 110 x 21.5 meters

Propulsion: Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts, 10,000 shp, 19 knots

Endurance: 6000 miles @ 17 kts

Crew: ??

Armor: none

Armament: 8 75 mm, 6 25 mm

Aircraft: 37

Concept/Program: Another Army conversion, generally similar to the previous class in role and design.

Design/Conversion: Generally similar to Akitsu Maru. It is not known whether a hangar was installed; there was a funnel in the center of the flight deck, and apparently no bridge. Kumano Maru had a lift however, contrary to Akitsu and Nigitsu Maru.

US 2.5" Hale rocket

US Civil War Hale rocket launcher

A typical early Congreve rocket, showing the attachment of the guide stick. The casing for the warhead (A) and rocket body (B) was made of iron. When the rocket was assembled for use, the stick (D) would be slid through three soft iron bands (C), which were then crimped tightly around it with special pincers. Congreve rockets made for the British army, like the one shown here, used guide sticks that were divided into 4-foot sections for ease of transport, and then assembled in the field using soft iron ferrules (E) to join the sections.

Black powder rockets were used sporadically on the battlefields of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Where they were used, however, they tended to be used in large numbers—possibly as a way of magnifying their psychological effect and getting around their lack of accuracy. The Chinese text Wu Pei Chih, written in the 1620s, describes rockets with explosive warheads being fired from wooden boxes divided into cells and capable of holding 100 projectiles each. The rulers of the kingdom of Mysore, in southern India, began to equip their armies with rockets in the 1750s. Haider Ali and his son and successor, Tippoo Sahib, ultimately attached a company of rocketeers to each of their army’s brigades—a total of 5,000 rocket-carrying troops by the 1790s. Their rockets, built in two standardized sizes, had tubes of cast iron rather than the then-standard bamboo or pasteboard. The use of iron added weight but also lent strength, allowing designers to make the rockets more powerful without fear that the added pressure from the expanding exhaust gasses would burst them. The extra thrust that iron tubes allowed more than compensated for the extra weight. According to Indian sources, Tippoo Sahib’s rocket troops could bombard targets as much as a mile and a half away.

The military value of Indian rockets became apparent when Haider Ali and Tippoo Sahib led their troops into battle against the British army in the 1780s and 1790s. Haider Ali’s victory at the Battle of Pollilur (1780), during the Second Mysore War, was due in part to rockets setting a British ammunition wagon afire. Tippoo Sahib, who ascended to the throne when his father was killed in 1782, made effective use of rockets again in his attack on the city of Travancore, which started the Third Mysore War in 1790. The final act of the Fourth Mysore War was played out in 1799 when British troops cornered Tippoo Sahib in his capital city, Seringapatam. A British force under Colonel Arthur Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) approached the city, but turned and fled when the Mysoreans unleashed a rocket barrage and a hail of musket fire. Ultimately, however, the British regrouped and brought their artillery to bear on the city walls. An early, lucky shot touched off a storeroom filled with rockets, and the resulting explosion opened a breach in the wall that later shots expanded. The British charged, and Tippoo Sahib died, ironically, fighting to hold a gap in his walls accidentally made by his own secret weapon.

Tippoo Sahib’s secret weapon did not remain secret for long. Word of his success with rockets reached Europe while the Mysore Wars were still going on, spurring research on military rockets in England, France, Ireland, and elsewhere. After the capture of Seringapatam and the death of Tippoo Sahib, the British shipped hundreds of rockets home to the Royal Arsenal as spoils of war. The point of the shipment was less to equip British troops with Indian rockets than to “reverse engineer” them: take them apart, study how they were made, and learn how to build rockets that were as good or better.

The comptroller of the Royal Arsenal was an old soldier named William Congreve who was also a senior officer in the Royal Artillery. His oldest son, also William, was twenty-seven when Tippoo Sahib died—a recent graduate of the University of Cambridge who practiced law, edited newspapers, and lived the high life among wealthy and titled friends in London. The younger Congreve had connections to the Royal Arsenal through his father and connections to some of the most powerful men in Britain through his friends. He also had a deep fascination with machines, and in mid-1804 he gave up both publishing and the law to pursue it. Congreve eventually received patents for things ranging from steam engines and canal locks to a new printing technique that made paper money more difficult to counterfeit. His first project, however, was to devise a weapon that could destroy the fleet of troop-carrying barges that Napoleon was assembling along the coast of France in preparation for an invasion of England. Congreve began with captured Indian war rockets and, improving on them, single-handedly brought on a revolution in rocket design.

Congreve’s revolution was part of the larger Industrial Revolution that was transforming Britain in the early nineteenth century. One of the central elements of the Industrial Revolution was the standardization and mechanization of manufacturing. Products that had been made one at a time by individual workers in separate workshops were increasingly mass-produced in centralized factories. Workers who once shaped raw materials directly, using hand tools and muscle power, increasingly tended steam powered machine tools that shaped the materials for them. Factory-made products were cheaper and more abundant than the workshop-made products that they replaced, and they were also more uniform. Even the most skilled and attentive hand worker turned out products that varied slightly from one another. A well-tended machine would, in contrast, always cut a strip of fabric to the same width, plane a block of wood to the same thickness, or bore a hole to the same depth. Congreve applied this principle to rocket design. To be truly effective weapons, he concluded, rockets had to be rigidly standardized.

Congreve made three critical innovations in rocket design. The first, borrowed straight from the rocketeers of Mysore, was to use metal rather than pasteboard (or any other organic material) for the tube. The second was to use a mass-produced black powder mixed according to a standardized formula and prepared with mechanical grinding mills that produced particles of uniform size. The third was to use a device like a small pile driver—a heavy weight, lifted by ropes and pulleys and then dropped—to pack the powder into the tube. Congreve’s machine-ground powder burned more smoothly than the hand-ground powders it replaced, and mechanical packing eliminated the empty or loosely packed pockets that hand packing sometimes left. His rockets developed a consistently high thrust, and their metal bodies ensured that they could withstand the increased gas pressures that produced it.

Congreve rockets thus offered not only better performance than earlier types, but more consistent performance as well. Access to the firing ranges of the Royal Arsenal allowed him to conduct extensive tests, which led to further fine tuning of both rockets and their launching apparatus. He was thus able, in 1805, to offer the Royal Army and Navy what would now be called a “weapon system”: an array of rockets in various sizes, each with an appropriate launching apparatus and most with a choice of explosive or incendiary warheads.

British cannon were named, in the early nineteenth century, for the weight of the iron

balls that they fired: a “9-pounder” was a relatively small gun, a “32-pounder” a relatively large one. Congreve rockets were also designated as “___-pounders,” but in their case the weight was that of the largest lead ball that would fit inside the rocket tube. Those in active use ranged from 6-, 9-, 12-, and 18-pounder “light” rockets through 24- and 32-pounder “medium” rockets to 42-pounder “heavy” rockets. Tiny 3- pounders and massive 100- and 300-pounders were also developed, but the former was too small to do significant damage and the latter were too cumbersome to handle in the field.

British forces first used Congreve rockets in battle in 1805, and continued to use them throughout the wars against the French (1805–1812, 1815) and the Americans (1812–1814). A massive barrage of Congreve rockets— as many as 25,000 according to some accounts—set the city of Copenhagen, Denmark, afire in 1807, and the 150-man Royal Artillery Rocket Brigade played a critical role at the battle of Leipzig in 1813. Led by Captain Richard Bogue, it laid down a barrage that caused 2,500 French troops to break ranks and flee at a decisive moment. British rockets were also decisive at the 1814 Battle of Bladensburg in the War of 1812, which set the stage for their capture and burning of the city of Washington.

The most famous use of rockets in this war, which the British called the “Second American War,” was, ironically, a failure. For nearly twenty-four hours on September 12–13, 1814, British ships anchored off Baltimore bombarded Fort McHenry with cannon and 32-pounder Congreves in an effort to force its surrender. The fort survived, but Francis Scott Key— an American envoy being held temporarily on one of the British ships— immortalized “the rockets’ red glare” in his poem “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

The use of Congreve rockets eventually spread well beyond Britain. They were, by the middle of the nineteenth century, in the arsenals of every major European power as well as the arsenals of the United States and a number of Middle Eastern and Latin American nations. The reasons for this wide popularity are easy to understand. Congreve rockets were a new kind of artillery that were, in many ways, superior to cannon.

Even a “light” 12-pounder Congreve had a range of a 1.25 miles— double that of contemporary light artillery. A 32-pounder could, at a range of nearly 2 miles, punch through the walls of buildings or penetrate 9 feet of earth. Rockets generated no recoil (the force that slams a cannon back when it is fired), and so could be launched from lightweight wooden frames. The frames for light rockets could be carried by individual soldiers or mounted in small oared boats; those for heavy rockets could be mounted on horse-drawn wagons and the decks of modest-sized ships. Reloading the muzzle-loading cannons used in the early nineteenth century was a complex, multistep process. Reloading a rocket frame involved little more than lifting a new rocket into position. Trained rocketeers could, as a result, fire four rounds in a minute—a pace that even the best gun crews could not match. Freed of the need to move a heavy bronze or iron cannon and its carriage, rocketeers were also more mobile than traditional artillery units. A hundred men on foot could hand-carry 10 frames and 300 light rockets to the front lines and discharge all 300 rockets in less than 10 minutes. Four horses—barely enough to pull a medium-sized cannon—could carry 4 frames and 72 rounds on their backs. Rocket troops could move fast and hit hard, a combination that endeared them to forward-looking army and navy officers alike.

For all their advantages, the Congreve rockets had drawbacks. The most important was a well-deserved reputation for erratic flight, which sometimes made them wildly inaccurate. Part of the accuracy problem was the rocket’s center of gravity, which shifted steadily forward as the fuel burned away. Part of it was the shape of the rocket body and the position of the exhaust nozzles, which were seldom perfectly symmetrical. The largest part of the problem, however, was the stick. Like the Indian rockets on which they were based (and virtually all other rockets that came before them), Congreve rockets used a long wooden guide stick to keep them stable in flight. The stick, up to 15 feet long in heavy rockets, made Congreve’s weapons cumbersome to handle and vulnerable to air currents while in flight. It also, because it was mounted off-center, tended to throw the rocket off course even when the air was still. Congreve reduced the balance problem in 1815 by mounting the stick in the center of the rocket’s base plate and directing the exhaust through a ring of small nozzles around the edge of the plate. Even when centered, however, the stick was never perfectly centered, perfectly stiff, or perfectly straight, and the rockets continued to have a reputation for erratic flight.

William Hale introduced an improved version of Congreve’s rocket around 1840. Like Congreve’s later designs, it used multiple exhaust vents evenly spaced around the circular base plate. Unlike any previous rocket, however, it used small metal vanes to deflect the exhaust gasses and cause the rocket to spin around its long axis like a rifle bullet. Hale spun his rocket in order to stabilize it: the spinning evened out the effects of not-quite-symmetrical rocket tubes and shifting centers of gravity. Most important, the spinning eliminated the need for a guide stick, which made Hale’s rockets more portable, as well as more accurate, than Congreve’s.

The British armed forces, though at war in China, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the 1840s, did not immediately adopt Hale’s improved rocket. They clung to the familiar Congreve, as they had clung to the long serving “Brown Bess” musket, long after newer and better weapons became available. Unable to drum up interest in his native country, Hale sold the manufacturing rights to his rocket to the United States for $20,000— a substantial sum now, and an immense one then. The first troops to use the Hale rocket in combat were, therefore, the American expeditionary force dispatched to Veracruz in 1847, during the Mexican-American War. Union and Confederate forces both made occasional use of rockets (both Congreve and Hale types) during the American Civil War. The Russian, Italian, Hungarian, and Austrian armies all acquired and used Hale rockets in the 1850s and 1860s, and the British officially adopted them in 1867. Having made the transition, the British military proceeded to cling to the Hale as fiercely as it had to the Congreve. Hale rockets remained in active service until 1899 (well after it, too, had been rendered obsolete) and was not formally stricken from the Royal Army’s inventory until 1919.

Britain’s long use of Hale rockets was not solely a result of inertia. The wars that Britain fought in the last third of the nineteenth century were small, localized conflicts with native troops in Africa and South Asia. Hale rockets could still be effective against enemies armed with muskets and smoothbore cannon, and they could be carried by pack animals into places that no wheeled gun carriage could reach. On the battlefields of Europe, however, the day of the black powder rocket was essentially over by 1870.

Congreve’s rockets had caused a sensation in the first decade of the 1800s because they offered significant advantages over traditional gun artillery. By 1870, however, the situation had been reversed. A series of midcentury breakthroughs in cannon design meant that the best gun artillery had greater range, greater accuracy, and more striking power than the best rocket artillery. Rockets could still be fired faster than cannon, but the gap closed significantly as muzzle-loaded cannon firing balls gave way to breech-loaded cannon firing shells. High-velocity shells even mimicked the high-pitched shrieking noise that made rockets unnerving to the soldiers they were fired at. Rockets played little or no role, therefore, in the turn-of-the-century conflicts that signaled the emergence of modern warfare: the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), the Spanish-American War (1899), the Anglo-Boer War (1899–1901), and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905). As a weapon, the black powder rocket was dead.

The GRB-36D/RF-84

The GRB-36D/RF-84 combination, better known as the FICON (fighter conveyor) or carrier parasite program, came into being in the early fifties. The RB-36s were becoming more and more vulnerable, and no new form of defense was readily available. The Air Force therefore looked to the past for solutions. As a result, it planned in 1951 to put a parasite RF-84 in the RB-36's bomb bay. The parasite plane would be released about 800 or 1,000 miles from the target and within a relatively safe area. The pilot of the RF-84 would continue on to the target, obtain high or low level photography as desired, then return to the mother aircraft. An alternate FICON mission would be long range, high speed bombing. No real problems arose, but it took longer than thought to bring the FICON project to fruition.

A carrier parasite combination had been tried before for somewhat different purposes. It had long been known that heavily laden bombers could not cope with interceptors. Studies undertaken in 1944 to afford some protection to the then yet to be flown B-36 envisioned a pilotless, remote control, fast fighter that could be carried to the battle area in one of the bomb bays of the huge long range bomber. However, this was given up in favor of a pilot operated fighter that would be more maneuverable in facing repeated attacks. The tiny, folding wing XF-85 Goblin which ensued was developed by the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation in late 1945 and first flown in August 1948. Because no B-36s were readily available, it was test dropped from a B-29. The project, however, never went past the experimental stage. The Goblin production was abandoned for a number of technical and financial reasons, but danger was the primary obstacle. The Air Force believed the odds of retrieving a fighter in the midst of a raging battle were poor. Moreover, if the bomber was shot down before the fighter was launched, both crews would be lost. Finally, if the bomber was destroyed after the launching, the short range Goblin would also be doomed.

Flown in January 1952, the FICON composite prototype comprised a modified, standard RB-36D and a straight wing Republic F-84E Thunderjet. Extensive flight tests soon demonstrated the FICON concept was practical. The parasite's straight wings posed no great difficulties. Sweeping down the tail of a forthcoming F-84 prototype (YF-84F) would enable it to fit in the RB-36 bomb bay. Elimination of the YF-84F's tail flutter by using faired bomb bay doors removed the last stumbling block.

Contracts awarded Convair and Republic in the fall of 1953 called for modifying 10 RB-36Ds and 25 RF-84Fs, respectively. This was far below the number of aircraft SAC had in mind-30 RB-36s and 75 RF-84s. Still, modification of only 35 was to take time. To begin with, the carrier RB-36Ds turned out to be featherweight configurations of the big reconnaissance bomber, and none of these were available before 1954. Furthermore, the reconfigured planes had to be modified to carry the additional mechanisms for stowing, aerial servicing, releasing and retrieving the F-84F parasites. Specifically, this meant that each carrier was equipped with a straight beam extended down from the bottom of the airframe. Each modified parasite featured a retractable probe, mounted on the forward top fuselage section to ease hook up. Actually, the technical operation of FICON was simple. Carriers and parasites could fly out of different bases. The parasite could be picked up in midair enroute to the target area, or by ground hook up prior to takeoff. Night operations were also possible. The first GRB-36D 111 carrier was delivered in February 1955, 6 months ahead of the first parasite RF-84F (subsequently identified as the RF 84K). The FICON B-36s served with SAC's 99th Heavy Strategic Reconnaissance Wing.

The RB-36D followed the B-36D's phaseout pattern. That of the FICON aircraft was much the same.

RF-84 FICON

The U.S. Air Force’s Global Attack mission really began with the arrival of the jet propelled bomber in the early 1950s. The Strategic Air Command’s new B-47s and B-52s could travel long distances without the need for fighter escort. But SAC also depended on its propeller-driven B-36 Peacemakers, especially for the vital reconnaissance mission. These airborne giants would have to fly over the most heavily defended target areas, and were quite vulnerable to an enemy’s jet interceptors.

In the late 1940s, a scheme to have B-36 bombers carry along their own fighter protection had come to nothing. Northrop had developed a tiny parasite fighter, the XF-85 Goblin that fit into a bomb bay and could be released to drive off enemy fighters. But the system had too many development problems, and anyway the XF-85 was too small to offer much in the way of protection. The basic concept still seemed to hold promise, however. Could an RB-36 carry along a full-sized reconnaissance fighter to overfly the critical zone and return to the mother ship for the long trip home?

Air Force Headquarters authorized a fighter-reconnaissance project — dubbed FICON — to explore the possibility. A conventional RB-36F was stripped of most of its operational equipment and modified by the addition of a trapeze mechanism in the bomb bay for stowing, releasing, and retrieving the parasite aircraft. The latter was an F-84E with a special “duck-bill” nose probe mechanism installed on top of the forward fuselage for engaging the trapeze boom’s forward receiver. Once attached to the boom, the smaller plane could easily be lifted into the bomb bay. Only the canopy area and upper fuselage spine actually fit inside the mother ship; most of the rest rode below, adding significantly to the bomber’s drag.

The initial tests of the FICON Project were conducted at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., early in 1953. These validated the parasite operation as “tactically sound,” and recommended that a production RB-36 and a recon fighter based on the more advanced RF-84F be made available for operational suitability testing at the earliest possible date.

On Oct. 4, 1955, the AFFTC was directed to conduct operational suitability tests of the mother ship and a modified photo-reconnaissance Thunderflash. The RF-84K was equipped with anhedral (downward-pointing) horizontal stabilizers to clear the bomb bay when in the stowed position. Maj. James O. Rudolph, a Class 1954A graduate of the Test Pilot School, was the project pilot. He flew the modified fighter during the first FICON flight on Nov. 29, 1955.

The ensuing flights revealed that the novel parasite concept was achievable but not practical. Hook-ups with the carrier were difficult enough under ideal flight conditions, and nearly impossible to achieve in turbulent air. In essence, what a trained test pilot could accomplish would likely be unworkable for most operational pilots under combat conditions.

There were other problems as well. Ground clearance with the fighter mounted was very close under the best of circumstances. But the RF-84K, like all the members of its family, was chronically fuel-thirsty and required one or more externally mounted 450-gallon fuel tanks to accomplish most missions. This reduced ground clearance to around 6 inches. The problem of drag was even worse. The stowed fighter reduced the range of the B-36 by 5 to 10 percent.

Rudolph flew the FICON project’s final on April 27, 1956, just 50 years ago. By then, however, the outcome was obvious. The Air Force had dropped the requirement for Phase IV testing a few weeks earlier, and the entire project was canceled shortly thereafter.

Type 2593 "Sumida"

At times some books will refer to a Type 2593 "Sumida" Armored Car in the Japanese inventory. Careful research has found this label to be an error. Type 2593 "Sumida" Armored Car is the Model 91 Broad-gauge Railroad Tractor. "Sumida" was the name of the firm before it was changed to Ishikawajima.

The Type 93 was designed primarily as a utility vehicle for the IJA, and featured six railroad wheels which could be equipped with ingeniously designed rubber rims, allowing off-track service; these were fitted while the hull was raised using a series of integral jacks. Frequently identified as the Type 93 Sumida (once again, based upon the name of the arsenal responsible for its production), there is some debate as to whether the vehicle is properly classified as an armored car. Japanese literature sometimes refers to the Sumida as a "Broad Gauge Railroad Tractor". In keeping with this, the Type 93 was clearly designed with use in China and Manchuria in mind, as the native Japanese rail gauge was more narrow than in the two regions previously mentioned.

The Type 93 was armed with six 7.7mm LMGs. One each was mounted to the hull sides, and to the fore and aft of the hull. A sixth machine gun was mounted in the turret. The vehicle had a crew of six, could do a top speed of about 25mph on the road or 37mph on rail, and was claimed to be capable of moving from rail to road in a period of less than ten minutes. Armor protection maxed out at about 16mm.

The Type 93 was used almost exclusively in the China/Manchuria theatre.

Rail armored car, also called as broad-gauge railroad prime mover. Was widely used in Manchuria and China by army and naval [marines] units. Railroad prime mover type 91 [2592 "Chiyoda"] was improved 2590 and had special device for regulation the distance between wheels for use the railroads with differ rail gauge [in China and USSR]. Type 2593 "Sumida" [also based on "Chiyoda" truck chassis] appeared in 1933, equipped with 4 lifting jacks, powered from engine [change of road/railroad run took 10 min]. Those armored cars [2590, 2592, 2593] were used widely and effective as railroad engines for tow railcars with infantry and cargos in China [usually two armored cars were coupled], also as patrol rail/road armored cars, for repair operations along the Chinese railroads.

Type 91 Armored Railroad Car "So-Mo"

Introduced Year : 1933

Weight : 7.7 ton

Dimensions: 6.58 x 1.9 x 2.95(h) m

Engine : Gasoline Engine 40 PS/1300 rpm [some were equipped with 100 hp diesels]

Speed (max) : 40 km/hr (ground), 60km/hr (railroad)

Armour,
Upper Hull Front: 16mm @ 45o
Lower Hull Front: 16mm @ 10o
Hull Sides: 11mm @ 0o
Hull Rear: 11mm @ 15o
Hull Top: 6mm @ 85o
Hull Bottom: 6mm
Gun Mantlet: 11mm @ 0o
Turret Front: 16mm @ 20o
Turret Sides: 16mm @ 20o
Turret Rear: 16mm @ 20o
Turret Top: 6mm @ 80o

Crew : 6

Production Qty : 1,000

The British Expeditionary Force that landed in France in 1939 was a fully mechanized formation. Perhaps the loss of about 90,000 vehicles in France was a blessing to the British military transport organization as it cleared all the 'dead wood', and thus paved the way for fresh ideas. The chronic shortage of transport forced a further temporary introduction of impressment until specific types of vehicles could be produced in greater numbers. The Commonwealth with its many assets was given the orders to produce many of these urgently needed types. Canada made a contribution out of all proportion to the size of its small automotive industry with its series of all-wheel-drive tactical trucks ranging from 15-cwt 4 x 4 to 3-ton 6x6, produced with various types of cabs from 1940 to 1943. During the early period the Canadian chassis and cabs were built to Canadian designs but to British specifications. The early wooden bodies were later replaced by pressed steel bodies.

The invasion of Europe was soon in the minds of the Allied planners, and considerable thought was being given to supplying the vast armies that would make the attack across Europe into Germany. It would require a supply system of a magnitude never before envisaged, and the production of trucks would be at a premium for the next two to three years. The British truck industry thus began to produce its own four-wheel-drive vehicles, with such established names as Bedford, Ford, Karrier, Thornycroft and Albion being to the fore. Once the Allied assault had gained momentum the supply lines would soon be overstretched, and to help overcome this problem heavier 10-ton trucks were also put into production.

A brief Survey of Types

Just before the outbreak of war in 1939 the British army was in the process of intensive mechanization, and several classes of load capacity had been defined for 'B' vehicles. The second class was the 8-cwt truck which fulfilled such roles as the OS (General Service) and FFW (Fitted For Wireless). Such 8-cwt trucks with both 4x2 and 4x4 wheel arrangements were produced in considerable numbers from a period just before the war, but were eventually phased out of production in order to rationalize output and reduce the number of types in service. The 5-cwt and 15-cwt classes could carry out any duties that had been allocated to the 8-cwt class. These vehicles were manufactured by Ford, Morris and Humber. Similar in appearance, these vehicles had detachable well-type bodies with seating for three men (two facing offside and one nearside) and canvas tilts, though the wireless version had seating for two men only.

Together with the Ford 4x2 Heavy Utility, the Humber Heavy Utility Car was the basic staff and command car of the British army during World War II at all levels of command. Nicknamed the Humber 'Box', this was the only British built four-wheel drive utility car, and production began during May 1941, continuing for the duration of the war. Employed on a very wide scale, this staff car remained in service until the late 1950s.

The Morris Company produced a whole range of vehicles for the British army, one of the most successful being the Morris C8 Artillery Tractor (popularly known as the Quad). Introduced in 1939, this vehicle had four-wheel drive and was equipped with a 4-ton winch driven from the transfer case. It had a distinctive beetle-shaped body and usually a towed limber and 18- or 25-pdr gun/howitzer. As far as the army was concerned the vehicles built for gun-towing had to have the same characteristics as the horse-drawn gun carriage team which they replaced, such as good cross-country performance, seating for the gun crew, and adequate stowage space for equipment and ammunition.

During 1935 the War Office carried out trials with new lorry models, and the Bedford Truck Division of Vauxhall Motors Ltd submitted various prototype vehicles. One of these was a modification of the commercial 2-ton lorry with rear-wheel drive. Following the trials the vehicle was fitted with a new radiator and larger tyres. After further trials in 1936 the chassis was modified to increase the ground clearance and a new engine cooling system was incorporated. In 1937aspecial-totype Bedford WD prototype was produced on this chassis, rated at 15-cwt payload capacity. The most noticeable feature was the flat full-width bonnet necessitated by the extra-large air filter specified by the War Mechanisation Board. During 1938 a more powerful engine was used. An initial order for 2,000 Bedford 15-cwt Truck vehicles was placed in August 1939, the first 50 being constructed as special portée vehicles to carry the 2-pdr anti-tank gun. Originally, the vehicle had an open cab with folding windscreen and collapsible canvas tilt, but from 1943 an enclosed cab with side-doors, canvas top and perspex side screens was adopted. By the end of the war Bedford had produced a total of 250,000 vehicles, a large proportion of which were this model. The vehicle remained in service with the British army until the late 1950s. Although intended mainly as a workhorse for the infantry, the Bedford 15-cwt GS eventually became used by all arms including the Royal Navy and the RAF.

Bedford's involvement in four-wheel drive vehicles began in 1938, during the development stages of the square-nosed 15-cwt Bedford. It was suggested that the War Office be approached with permission to proceed with this design. Some degree of interest was expressed, but as no immediate requirement was envisaged the matter proceeded no further. Then Bedford decided to undertake private development on a low-priority basis with an eye to future military orders. After the outbreak of war the War Office issued orders for large quantities of 4 x 2 vehicles and also told Bedford to proceed with a prototype 4x4 3-ton general-service truck. In October 1939 a specification was approved, and on 1 February 1940 the first prototype was completed and was out on road tests. Within a month two more had joined it for extensive factory and military tests. The usual army tests were completed and the fitments for special tools installed, and drivers began training to operate this new truck. It had taken one year exactly from the first prototype to the first production vehicles, a commendable feat in a time of great stress and shortages. The Bedford QL was designed to use its four-wheel drive on rough terrain, but could disengage the front drive for use on hard roads to ease the wear on tires and gearbox, the change being effected by moving a lever on the secondary gearbox. Another feather in Bedford's cap (and a surprise one) was the lack of normal teething troubles during the QL's early use. It was only after about one year in service that the first sign of trouble occurred, and a rather peculiar one at that: a tendency for the vehicle to shudder when the brakes were applied slightly. These reports were followed up immediately, and it was found that only a small proportion of vehicles were showing this fault. After some time spent on investigation the fault was found to be simple, and the deep-treaded cross-country tires were replaced by normal road tires, whereupon the problem ceased.

The first production vehicle was the steel-bodied OLD issued to units of the Army Service Corps as a general carrier. From this model stemmed many variants, including the QLT 3-ton troop carrier with a modified and lengthened chassis to accommodate the extra long body to carry 29 troops and kit. The QLT was popularly known as the 'Drooper'. The QLR wireless house type was used by all arms of the signals. The truck featured an auxiliary generator, and other variants on this house type body were command, cipher office and mobile terminal carrier vehicles. A special requirement for use in the Western Desert was a 6-pdr portée, a vehicle designed to transport and fire a 6-pdr anti-tank gun from the body. It was necessary to modify the cab by cutting off the upper half and fitting a canvas top, and when this type became redundant the surviving vehicles were converted back to general-service types after being rebodied, The RAF was a major operator of, the Bedford QL, many being used as fuel tankers with swinging booms to refuel aircraft. Two experimental vehicles that never progressed beyond the prototype stage were the Giraffe and Bren. The Giraffe was designed for amphibious landings: all the major components were raised (along with the cab) on a special frame for deep wading. When fully elevated the vehicle's automotive parts were raised 2.13 m (7 ft) and the driver 3.05m (10ft). The vehicle was approved for production in the event that the waterproofing system then in use failed. The Bren was developed by the Ministry of Supply by taking a standard Bedford QLD and replacing the rear wheels with components from the Bren Gun Carrier, thus creating a halftrack. The aim of this scheme was to reduce rubber wear. The vehicle was considered adequate during tests, but the shortage of rubber did not materialize and the project was dropped.

To meet her urgent need for motor transport the UK turned to the Commonwealth for a degree of support, the major supplier to the UK from the Commonwealth being Canada. Canada herself, once on a war footing, had urgent need to supply her own armies with equipment as every transport vehicle then in service was of civil origin. During early 1937 Ford of Canada had been approached to produce 15-cwt trucks based on similar lines to those of British design. General Motors of Canada also participated. Ford's experimental vehicle was produced in no great haste at the Windsor plant, the pilot model being built up around a Ford V-8 chassis with wheels and tyres imported from England. When completed in 1937 the vehicle was tested at the then small army testing ground at Camp Petawawa, near Ottawa. On arrival it was discovered that the specification had changed to a four-wheel drive application. Nevertheless, the type gave a good account of itself, and the Canadian Military Pattern Chassis formed the basis of many 15-cwt and 8-cwt trucks. During early 1940 the standard pattern of Canadian truck began to emerge with four-wheel drive, and in July of 1940, after Dunkirk, the UK placed a preliminary order for 7,000 vehicles. By 1941 Canada was the Empire's main supplier of light and medium trucks.

Standardization was again of the utmost importance within a range of trucks including 8-cwt, 15- cwt, 30-cwt and 3-ton 4x4, 3-ton 6x4 and 3-ton 6x6 vehicles. Various Canadian cabs were produced through the different stages of development: the number 11 cab was identifiable by the radiator externally mounted to the bonnet; the number 12 cab had the radiator mounted inside the bonnet; the number 13 cab was a complete revision in design to allow more cab interior space and better placing of the foot pedals, and also had a forward sloping windscreen; and the number 43 was basically a number 13 with a soft top.

The 3-ton 4x4 became the mainstay of Canadian production, and was a reliable vehicle produced by both Ford and Chevrolet. The body variations were enormous and can only be touched briefly within this text. All models were produced in the general service role, some with timber and some with all-pressed-steel bodies, and other types included water and petrol tankers, mobile gun carriages, wireless house bodies, machinery vehicles (various types from 15-cwt mounted welding units to 6x6 fully - equipped workshops), office bodies, ambulances and other medical requirement vehicles, and breakdown and recovery vehicles. Canada also supplied many conventional types from all the large manufacturers, fitted with military tires/wheels and bodies. Over 900,000 Canadian vehicles were produced within the five-year period. The Australian commitment was not on so grand a scale, the majority of production trucks being in the light range. Most of the medium to heavy trucks were supplied in kit or chassis and cab form, usually from Canada, to which locally-built bodies were added. Some of the conventional trucks supplied were used in halftrack conversions, but this never progressed beyond the experimental stage. All Canadian Fords were reassembled at the Ford subsidiary plant at Geelong, in Victoria State some 48 km (30 miles) west of Melbourne.

The AEC Matador 4x4 tractor first appeared in 1939, and was built to a War Office specification to tow 4.5-in (114-mm), 5.5-m (140-mm) and 6-in (152-mm) howitzers. The requirement was for a four-wheel tractor with seating for the crew and ammunition stowage. The early production vehicles had a cab roof of different shape to that of later production trucks, the latter having a circular hatch for air observation; when not in use this was covered by a small canvas sheet. The basic design of the cab was very simple and robust, being built on a wooden frame with steel sheets. The body was of conventional timber construction with a drop tailboard and a side door for use by the gun crew. Special runners were fitted to the floor to allow shells to be moved to the rear tailgate for unloading. The Matador was powered by a 6-cylinder 7.58-litre AEC engine producing 71 kW (95 bhp), allowing a top speed of 58 km/h (36 mph). For pulling purposes (for example extracting guns from mud) a 7-ton winch was fitted with 76 m (250 ft) of wire rope. The Matador was used in most theatres of the war. In the desert it proved to be extremely popular with the gun crews for its reliability, and photographic evidence shows that some had the tops of the cabs cut down to door level. Matadors were also pressed into service in the desert to tow transporter trailers because of the lack of proper tractors for this purpose. Total production of Matadors was 8,612. The RAF was also a major user of this vehicle, 400 being supplied in various offerings. The General Load Carrier had a special all-steel body with drop down sides and tailgate to facilitate easy loading, and the support posts could also be removed, Special flat platform trucks were also supplied to transport heavy equipment such as dumpers and compressors. An armoured command post was also built on this chassis, called the Dorchester, in which accommodation was provided internally for high- or low-powered radio transmitting and receiving equipment, and an external penthouse could be erected. As these vehicles were considered prime targets they were carefully disguised to look like general-service trucks. Approximately 175 Matadors were built in 1942 as self-propelled gun carriages and comprised a 6-pdr anti-tank gun mounted in an armoured box. The cab and body were also armoured. Other variants included power equipment 20 kVA, power equipment 50 kVA, air-traffic control, and an experimental 25-pdr portée.

The last did not progress beyond the prototype stage. The last of the Matadors were auctioned off in the mid-1970s, this late disposal date proving the sound strength and reliability of these trucks.

Designed as a heavy load carrier, the Leyland Hippo 6x4 10-ton truck entered military service in 1944 and eventually proved its worth hauling supplies during the closing stages of the Allied advance across North West Europe. The huge bodies on these trucks had a well-type floor incorporating the wheel arches, this giving a lower loading height, an important element in the war days as fork-lift trucks were few and much loading was accomplished by hand. Steel hoops and a canvas tilt gave weather protection to the stores carried. The Hippo Mk 1 initial version was based on a pre-war commercial type with an open cab with canvas tilt and fixed windscreen, while the Hippo Mk 2 had an all-steel cab. The Hippo Mk 2 had single rear wheels, whilst the Hippo Mk 2A had dual wheels fitted with 10- 50-22 tires. The difficulty experienced with the Mk 2A was the need to carry two spare wheels, one for the front and one for the rear. It is perhaps quite amazing to see these trucks still in service in the 1980s. Besides the general service vehicle, many were fitted with large van type bodies, and several expandable body types were built, albeit of similar design. The side panels were split horizontally, the upper half being raised to form extra roof area and the lower half forming extra floor space to provide additional freedom around machinery. The vehicles could also be linked together to form a consolidated workshop area. Van bodies included an auto-processing type for developing photographs, an enlarging and rectifying type for exposing original film onto new film, a printing type with a rotary offset printing machine, and a photo-mechanical type equipped with a rotary offset printer, work tables and plate racks. Entrance to all these bodies was through a single door in the rear. Because of the length of the body, the spare wheel had to be transferred from behind the cab and placed under the rear of the chassis.

A post-war fitting was the adoption of a 9092-litre (2,000-Imp gal) AVTUR refueller body and, with the rear body removed, of a Coles Mk 7 or Neal Type QMC crane.

The Convair R3Y Tradewind was an American 1950s turboprop-powered flying boat designed and built by Convair.

Design and development

Convair received a requirement from the United States Navy in 1945 for a large flying-boat using the new technology developed during the war, especially the laminar flow wing and the developing turboprop technology. Their response, the Model 117 was a large, high-wing flying boat with Allison T-40 engines driving six-bladed contra-rotating propellers, a slender high-lift wing with fixed floats, and a sleek body with a single-step hull. The Navy ordered two prototypes on 27 May 1946. Designated XP5Y-1 the first aircraft first flew on 18 April 1950 at San Diego. In August the aircraft set a turboprop endurance record of 8 hours 6 minutes. The Navy decided not to proceed with the patrol boat version but directed that the design should be developed into a passenger and cargo aircraft.

Work continued despite the loss of on of the XP5Y-1s in a non-fatal accident on July 1953. The transport and cargo version was designated the R3Y-1 Tradewind and first flew on 25 February 1955. Major changes were the removal of all armament and of the tailplane dihederal, the addition of a 10ft (3.05m) port-side access hatch and redesigned engine nacelles to accept improved T40-A-10 engines. Cabin sound proofing and air-conditioning were added and pressurised accommodation for 103 passengers or 24 tons of cargo. As a medivac aircraft 92 stretcher cases could be carried.

The first two built were in P5Y configuration, armed with 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of stores (bombs, mines, depth charges, torpedoes) and 5 pairs of 20 mm cannon in fore and aft side emplacements and a tail turret. The next five were built as R3Y-1 aircraft, intended for troop transport and in-flight refuelling tanker service. The final six were built as the R3Y-2 variant with a lifting nose and high cockpit (similar to modern-day eyes to the C-5 Galaxy's nose and cockpit) for heavier transport and landing-ship duties.

Eleven aircraft were built, of which six were front-loading R3Y-2 aircraft with a hinged nose and high cockpit; they were intended to be a Flying LST (landing craft). In practice, it was discovered that it was almost impossible for the pilots to hold the aircraft steady and nose on to the beach while the aircraft was loaded or unloaded.[1] The aircraft were converted into tankers for the in-flight refuelling role. They had a short service life because of the insoluble unreliability of their Allison T40 turboprop engines, a fate common to most early turboprop-powered aircraft, such as the Douglas A2D Skyshark attack aircraft.

Operational service

The R3Y set a transcontinental seaplane record of 403 mph in 1954 by utilising the speed of high-altitude jetstream winds. This record still stands.

After service trials the aircraft were delivered to US Navy transport squadron VR-2 on 31 March 1956. Problems with the engine/propeller combination led to the ending of Tradewind operations and the unit was disbanded on 16 April 1958.

The six R3Y-2s were converted into four-point in-flight tankers using the probe-and-drogue method. In September 1956 one example was the first aircraft to successfully refuel four others simultaneously in flight in 1956, refuelling four F9F Cougars.

The program was halted after thirteen aircraft were built, the reason being the unreliability of the Allison T-40 turboprops. The crash of one of the two XP5Y-1 aircraft was judged due to catastrophic engine failure; when little progress was being made with the engine problems, the Navy halted the program. Subsequently three more aircraft were lost through engine failures, and the Navy gave up on the T-40 and aircraft powered by it. All the P5Y and R3Y aircraft were grounded in 1958 and subsequently broken up.

Variants

XP5Y-1

Prototype patrol flying boat, two built.

R3Y-1

Transport aircraft for the United States Navy with side loading door, 5 built.

R3Y-2

Assault transport aircraft for the USN with shorter nose incorporating an upward-opening loading door, later converted to four-point tankers for probe-and-drogue operations, six built.

Operators

* United States

o United States Navy

Specifications (R3Y)

General characteristics

* Length: 139 ft 8 in (42.26 m)

* Wingspan: 145 ft 9 in (44.42 m)

* Height: 51 ft 5 in (15.68 m)

* Wing area: 2,102 ft2 (195.3 m2)

* Empty weight: 71,824 lb (32,579 kg)

* Loaded weight: 145,500 lb (66,000 kg)

* Max takeoff weight: 165,000 lb (74,800 kg)

* Powerplant: 4 sets of 3-blades× Allison T-40 turboprops, 8 engines in 4 pairs, each with 5,100 hp (3,800 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 337 kt (403 mph, 624 km/h)

* Range: 2,420 nm (2,785 mi, 4,482 km)

* Service ceiling 39,700 ft (12,100 m)

* Rate of climb: ft/min (m/s)

* Wing loading: 69.22 lb/ft2 (338 kg/m2)

* Power/mass: 0.14 hp/lb (230 W/kg)

In January 1940 a rotary-wing design bureau was established at the Moscow Aviation Institute, and in the spring of that year this became headed by Ivan P. Bratukhin. Impressed by the performance of Germany's Focke-Achgelis Fa 61, he decided to adopt a similar twinrotor configuration for the first helicopter which he designed for the bureau. Whereas the twin rotors of the Fa 61 were powered by a single engine, Bratukhin decided that an individual powerplant for each rotor would prove to be less complicated and more efficient. The resulting prototype, designated Omega, had two 164-kW (220-hp) inline engines, one mounted at the end of each outrigger, and the design of the rotordrive system was sufficiently sophisticated to allow rotor autorotation and, in the case of either engine failing, for both rotors to be driven by the remaining engine.

Early tests suffered from a variety of problems, and the German invasion in 1941 brought a break of some six months. During this period the design bureau was evacuated eastwards, and it was late 1942 before Omega was coaxed into the air. Unreliability of the powerplant eventually brought the tests to an end, but by that time it had been decided that the basic concept was promising and that further development would continue. Brief details of the related family of twin-rotors design that followed are given below.

Bratukhin Omega II: improved version of Omega, with 261-kW (350- hp) engines, structural strengthening and other improvements; one only; flown to altitude of 3000 m (9,845 ft) in January 1945, and used subsequently for pilot training

Bratukhin G-3: generally similar to Omega II, but powered by 336-kW (450-hp) Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Juniors; two prototypes, followed by five production aircraft; of the latter, four were used for research and one for pilot training

Bratukhin G-4: very similar to original Omega, but powered by 373-kW (500-hp) AI-26GR engines which had been developed by A. Ivchenko for helicopter use; two prototypes and four production aircraft

Bratukhin B-5: improved and larger design initiated in 1945, powered by two improved AI-26 engines developing 410 kW (550 hp) for takeoff; completed in 1947, but as a result of structural flexing and vibration only brief hops were made before this aircraft was abandoned

Bratukhin B-9: generally similar to B-5, except for having fuselage designed for use as air ambulance; failure of B-5 caused this to be abandoned also

Bratukhin B-10: following the same general configuration as the B-5 and B-9, had uprated AI-26 engines of 429 kW (575 hp); fuselage configured for use in an artillery observation role; although flown in 1947, development was abandoned as single-rotor helicopters were beginning to show greater promise

Bratukhin B-11: last of Bratukhin's twin-rotor helicopters before dissolution of his design bureau; generally similar to the B-5, and retaining its powerplant, but with an improved rotor system; two prototypes only, one lost in fatal accident on 1 3 December 1948; remaining prototype given uprated engines as fitted in B-10, but development abandoned for same reasons as for B-10

Specification

Bratukhin B-11 Type: transport helicopter prototype

Powerplant: two 429-kW (575-hp) Ivchenko AI-26GR(F) radial piston engines

Performance: maximum speed 155 km/h (96 mph) at 1500 m (4,920 ft); service ceiling 2550 m (8,365 ft); range 328 km (204 miles)

Weights: empty 3398 kg (7,491 Ib); maximum take-off 4510 kg (9,149 Ib)

Dimensions: rotor diameter, each 10 m (32 ft 9% in); fuselage length 9.76 m (32 ft 014 in); rotor disc area, each 74.71 m2 (804.25 sq ft)

Beriev Be-6 'Madge' of the Soviet navy, with a MAD 'stinger' aft of its tail.

The initial production version of the Beriev Be-6 had a retractable ventral radome (seen in the lowered position) and barbetted twin cannon in the tail.

Development of a large maritime reconnaissance and bombing flying-boat was initiated by the Beriev design bureau in 1945, and the Beriev LL-143 prototype flew for the first time in 1947. An all metal high-wing monoplane, it was powered by two 1492-kW (2,000-hp) Shvetsov ASh-72 radial engines. Armament comprised twin NS-23 23-mm cannon in a tail turret (behind the twin fins and rudders) and similar provision in a remotely controlled dorsal barbette. A single NS-23 cannon was installed in the bow turret.

The LL-143 was developed into the Beriev Be-6 production aircraft, the first example of which was flown by M.I. Tsepilov in 1949. It differed from the prototype by having more sophisticated equipment, which included a retractable radome aft of the second step, and a redesigned nose without cannon armament.

Flying boat was capable to accomplish wide variety of missions:

# long-range maritime reconnaissance;

# coastal and supply lines patrol;

# torpedo/bombing strikes;

# navy seals support (40 with equipment);

# laying mine fields;

# transport operations;

# ice patrol

Be-6 equipment includes autopilot, blind flight/landing equipment and friend-foe identification system, in addition to standard navigation, photographic and radio equipment. Ventral retractable search radar was enclosed in a foam-plastic fairing.

Reliability of aircraft is augmented by eight hull sections which may be sealed individually, preventing from Be-6 from sinking in case of combat damage. Fixed under wing floats are also divided into four sealed volumes each. Strong airframe allows continuous taxiing on 2m waves.

Twenty-two self-sealing soft fuel tanks are located in the wing, with access from below. De-icing system includes hot air, liquid and electric heating of the windshield. Wing and tail leading edges (as well as air intakes) are warmed up with hot air from four gasoline burners. Ethanol is used on propeller blades. Mechanical deicers are installed on windshield and pressure sensors. Distilled water is used to remove salt deposits from the windshield.

Be-6 is capable to sustain horizontal flight at 2500m with one engine shot off. Servotrimmers are used to reduce control load in this situation.

At a later stage the tail gun position was replaced by MAD (magnetic anomaly detection) equipment. The Be-6, to which NATO allocated the codename 'Madge', carried a heavy offensive load comprising various combinations of mines, depth charges or torpedoes on under wing pylons outboard of the engines.

Be-6s operated patrol, maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine duties until the early 1970s, and a few remained in service on transport or fishery patrol duties into the late 1970s. Some aircraft ended service as civil unarmed transports in Arctic regions.

Specification

Beriev Be-6

Type: maritime reconnaissance and bombing flying-boat

Powerplant: two 1715-kW (2,300-hp) Shvetsov ASh-73TK radial piston engines

2× Shvetsov ASh-73TK radial engines, 1,800 kW (2,400 hp) each

Performance: maximum speed 415km/h (258mph) at 2400m (7,875ft); service ceiling 6100m

(20,015ft); maximum range 4800km (2,983 miles)

Weights: empty equipped 18827kg (41,506lb); normal take-off 23456kg (51,711lb)

Dimensions: span 33m (108ft 4in); length 23.5m (77ft 1in); height 7.64 m (25ft 1in); wing area 120m2 (1,291.71 sq ft)

Armament: five (later four) 23 mm (0.906 in) Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 cannon in 3 remotely-controlled turrets

# one in the nose N-2 installation with 100 to 200 rounds;

# two in dorsal DT-B8 turret with 500 to 550 rounds;

# two in tail Il-K6-53Be turret, 2x225 rounds;

General ordnance, or a combination of following:

# 16*OFAB-100

# 8*FAB-500

# 2*FAB-1500

# 2*1000kg (2,200lb) torpedoes

# 8*AMD-500 mines

Italy was the first country to use a machine-gun car in true war operations.

Although having never produced a really significant armoured car design, Italy deserves a place in military history as being the first country to have used a machine gun car in true war operations, thanks to an opportunity offered by the Italo-Turkish conflict. This occurred in late 1912 when such vehicles were sent to North Africa.

By 1912, the SA Fabbrica Automobili Isotta Fraschini of Milan, which was one of the oldest and most famous Italian automobile builders, had expanded its activities into the field of armoured car construction. Initiating a design under the direction of Ing. G. Cattaneo, the company produced two armoured cars, differing in details only, as a private venture. The cars weighed three tons and were armed with two machine guns. Their 100 b.h.p. petrol engine gave them a speed of 60 Km.p.h. A little later, at the request of the Italian Army, the Artillery Arsenal of Turin embarked on the design of an armoured car based on a Fiat truck chassis. The car was also completed in 1912: it emphasised a heavy armour protection which unduly penalised the machine as far as speed and mobility were concerned.

The SA Automobili & Velocipedi Eduardo Bianchi of Milan engaged themselves in the manufacture of armoured cars in 1913. They developed such a machine which may have been inspired by the Isotta Fraschini model. The Bianchi armoured car was distinguishable by its rounded bonnet shape. The front wheels carried steel flanges and the rear ones were dual. A light armour protection (6-mm) and an armament composed of two machine guns only resulted in a three-ton vehicle with good mobility on roads given by a 30 b.h.p. (nominal) engine. This car was offered to the Italian Army by the city of Milan and then went to North Africa, where the AAT/Lancia and Isotta Fraschini armoured cars had already been sent.

Although World War One broke out in 1914, Italy remained neutral up to 1915. The Italian War Ministry took advantage of this period to devote more attention to armoured cars. When Italy entered in war, the matter had progressed satisfactorily: development and production of an armoured car had been entrusted to the Ansaldo engineering company which had constructed a prototype on the basis of the Lancia IZ 25/35 h.p. light truck chassis. After successful trials carried out with the pilot model in April 1915, production of the Autoblin-domitragliatrice Ansaldo-Lancia, tipo IZ quickly started. The Ansaldo-Lancia IZ armoured car could be considered as advanced for its time. The armament was carried in two turrets arranged one above the other: the lower and larger one housed two machine guns while the upper one had a single machine gun and could revolve independently from the other. The car weighed four tons and had a roomy armoured hull of chrome-nickel steel which could accommodate a six-man crew. Powered by a Lancia, in-line four cylinder engine, it had a maximum speed of 70 km.p.h. and a range of about 500 km.

In the meantime, the development of earlier Bianchi car had continued. A more powerful 60/75 h.p. chassis had been selected to be fitted with two different types of armoured bodies. One was an open top vehicle armed with one machine gun overlooking the hull and another one in the rear of the hull. The second model was fully armoured and carried a turreted machine gun. Both variants had the wheels protected by semi-circular armoured mudguards which covered much of the pneumatic tyres. A single wire cutter extended from low down in front to cover the top of the vehicle. Unditching boards were usually carried to assist in trench crossing. The bonnet was angled front and top. A few armoured cars of these latter Bianchi models were produced, but they were widely eclipsed by the new Ansaldo-Lancia IZ/M type which went into production in 1917. The Ansaldo-Lancia IZ/M was a redesign of the 1915 vintage and carried only one turret. Its small upper turret had been discarded and its machine gun transferred to the rear of the hull.

Both the Ansaldo-Lancia IZ and IZ/M armoured cars enjoyed a distinguished wartime career. The first Italian armoured car units had been formed in June 1915: they were two car sections known as sezioni autoblindomitragliatrici. Later the organisation was expanded to squadrons including seven cars. By November 1918, the Italian Army had 120 Ansaldo-Lancia cars distributed amongst seventeen Squadrons. Most of these units had been employed during the Italian retreat after the battle of Caporetto in 1917 and their offensive on the River Piave of 1918. The American troops in Italy had been also trained with these cars.

It is worthy of note that Isotta Fraschini, Fiat and Lancia four wheeled chassis had been most appreciated for armoured car use outside of Italy. Prototypes were produced in England by Messers. Ch. Jarret & Letts Ltd on behalf of the Russian Army which also acquired a large fleet of armoured cars using a Fiat chassis. Some improvised armoured cars set up on chassis of the same make were widely used by the British for security duties in India. A number of Lancia armoured cars were utilised by the British Air Ministry in Iraq and by the Irish Government, the latter to deal with the disturbances which occurred there during the twenties.

Italy was then ahead in having one of the most important armoured car forces of the world but the vehicles which composed it could not be considered as fully satisfactory, being only road bound cars quickly designed under wartime pressure. However they were to remain in service for a very long time, even after they were obsolete by contemporary standards. Some Ansaldo-Lancia IZ and 12/M were given or sold to Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

The Italian military authorities soon began to evince interest for new wheeled combat vehicles which had to embody the most recent technical advances. Research, design and development were directed towards half-tracked and wheeled armoured cars, and, last but not least, wheeled tanks. In 1924, Alfa Romeo Spa built a prototype chassis which emphasized a wheel-cum-halftrack concept stemming from the French Citroen-Kegresse Autochenille de Cavalerie. This machine was original in offering, beside its half-tracked running gear intended for cross-country work, a full wheeled alternative for road travel. However this rather sophisticated vehicle failed to receive approval for production neither as armoured car nor as a light artillery, prime mover. Another interesting turretless prototype appeared two years later; it featured a curved armoured body shell which would have merited further development of a turreted version but this was not done probably because of the cost. Designed by Messrs Corni and Scognamiglio, this vehicle was known as the Autoblindata Niebolo.

By the mid twenties, the colonisation of Libya brought the Italians into conflict with the Senussi, a fanatical warlike Arab sect who threatened the Fezzan area. To face the problem raised by the Senussi and other mutinous tribesmen, Italy engaged a new type of armoured car quickly developed on the basis of a light 4 x 2 lorry chassis. This car, manned by a four-man crew, was armed with a single machine gun mounted in a revolving turret. Designated Autoblinda leggera tipo Libia, this vehicle took part in the reconquest of the Libyan oases from 1926 to 1931. A colonial security force — the Policia Africana Italiana —was formed and equipped with armoured cars. A new proposal was submitted on the same lines in 1929 for a machine adapted from the chassis of the Fiat 501 which was one of the most successful Italian commercial cars since World War One. The most advanced armoured car design ever evolved by the Italian war industry was the tipo AF amphibious car projected by the Breda company of Milan in 1932. However, it seems that neither the (Fiat) tipo 501 nor the (Breda) tipo AF ever got off the drawing board, as no photographic evidence was ever published about them.

In the meantime, the possibilities offered by wheeled tanks had been widely investigated in Italy. Since 1924¬-26, the articulated high wheel tractors designed by Ing. Ugo Pavesi had enjoyed considerable success not only in Italy but elsewhere and had set the pattern for much of their subsequent development as wheeled tanks. Unfortunately, these latter machines left a good deal to be desired on trials both from the point of view of technical and tactical capabilities. As a result, the wheeled tank concept propounded by the Pavesi and Ansaldo companies come to a halt in 1932.

By the early thirties, the Fiat/Spa concern had begun development work on a whole sequence of a so-called dovunque or "go-anywhere" series of military trucks, first of the six-wheel, four-wheel drive, then several years later, of the six-wheel, six-wheel drive varieties. Initial success with the former type inspired the Fiat/Spa company to evolve an armoured car variant set up on their called 6 x 4 tipo 611 chassis. The first six-wheeled armoured car conceived in Italy, the Autoblinda 34 —as it was officially referred to — appeared in 1934. The AB.34 was a five-man vehicle which was armed with two individually mounted machine guns Ltd the turret and another machine gun at the rear of .the hull. Sorrier had a 37-mm gun at the forward end and a machine gun at the rear of a differently shaped turret. The two spare wheels were mounted on dummy axles, one on each side of the vehicle. They projected below the level of the chassis frame and thus prevented bellying between the front and rear wheels. A six-wheeled, four-wheel drive vehicle, the AB.34 was powered by a 56.b.h.p. six-cylinder Fiat engine which gave it a speed of 75 km.p.H. It was provided with dual steering for reverse driving at a maximum speed of 40 km.p.h.

The expansionist territorial policy of Mussolini led Italy to try to enlarge her African colonies. In October 1935, Italy began the invasion of the Ethiopian Kingdom from Somalia and Eritrea and made full use of her mechanised war machine. Three types of armoured vehicles were involved in this typical "colonial" war: there were a relatively large number of CV.33 (L-3) tankettes and a few 1Z and AB.34 armoured cars. During the following year, the civil war started in Spain, and Italy sent there her so-called Corpo Truppe Voluntarie which included two CV.35 battalions and a handful of armoured cars.

When the Second World War broke Out, Italy had no modern armoured car in hand, all such vehicles in service being outdated Ansaldo-Lancia IZ/M and Bianchi cars, of the already obsolescent AB.34 type. .Fortunately a new design was rapidly forthcoming from the Fiat/Spa design office, as an answer to a specification drafted since 1938 for a cavalry armoured car and subsequently adapted to be common with Colonial Police requirements. The resulting machine was the Fiat L armoured car which grew out of the four-wheel drive, four-wheel steer Fiat/Spa T.40 artillery tractor chassis modified in such a way to have a longer wheelbase and the engine at the rear. From the design point, of view, the new armoured car prototype, first designated as the Abm.1, then as the Autoblinda 39, contrasted favourably with all the former models. The car had a generally well thought mechanical layout but still contained a few details which had been neglected. However, the Fiat L (AB.39) armoured car was standardized as the Autoblinda 40, or AB.40. With a reliable 80 b.h.p, engine and a six forward and lour speed reverse transmission the vehicle was, fast and mobile both on road and cross-country. Top road speed was 75 km.p.h., and an additional driving position was provided to facilitate driving in reverse. Mounted on a stub-axle, freely revolving spare wheels were fitted on the sides, in such a manner as to prevent bellying in crossing obstacles. The maximum armour thickness was 15-mm and the total weight of the vehicle was 6.4 tons. The AB.40 was armed with twin machine guns mounted in the turret and one machine gun located in the hull, facing to the rear.

Production of the AB.40 commenced in 1940 under a collaboration agreement between the Spa company of Turin and the Ansaldo-Fossati concern of Genoa-Sestri. The first armoured car reached Libya on January 1941. Deliveries continued at a rather slow tempo and a relatively small number was produced before this model was supplanted on the assembly line by the Autoblinda 41. The principal development of the AB.41 design had been a slight up-rating of the power plant and the installation of a heavier armament. The two turret machine guns were replaced by a Breda 20-mm automatic cannon adapted from a light anti-aircraft weapon. The AB.40/41 model had also been envisaged as an armoured railway car, designated Autoblinda Ferroviaria, by fitting it with special steel rims, a drive locking device and other appropriate equipments.

The AB.40/41 armoured cars were allocated to the Raggruppamenti esplorante of the three divisioni corazzate — (131) Centauro, (132) Ariete, (133) Littorio — and to the Armoured Cavalry groups of the two divisioni motorizzate — (101) Trieste, (102) Trento — of the Italian Army in North Africa. Since summer 1940, an armoured car company was given to some Colonial Police battalions. Bersaglieri, or Italian elite light motorised infantry used the AB.41 in the Western desert, in France and Corsica, and last but not least, with the 3rd Divisione Celere Principe Amedeo Duca d'Aosta, which was a part of the Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia (CSIR) , the Italian expeditionary force on the Eastern front. Early in 1942, one subsidiary of the largest industrial group in Italy — the Societa Italiana Caproni — brought out prototypes of a so-called Vespa small two-seat reconnaissance car. In fact, the design of this vehicle dated back to the mid-thirties but actual testing of the pilot models did not begin until then. The Autoblinda Caproni-Fuscaldo, or Vespa scout car, was the most original armoured vehicle ever developed in Italy. It embodied an unorthodox wheel arrangement featuring two wheels along the vehicle axis (one behind the other, like a motorcycle), and one wheel on each side, so giving a losange configuration which was claimed to offer a better trench crossing performance. Two Vespa scout car prototypes were widely tested by the Centro Studi della Motorizzazi-one; they were not agreed for series production and the pioneering work in that direction was lost. Weighing about three and a half tons the Vespa scout car was armed with a single machine gun. It had a top speed of 86 km.p.h. provided by an Artena, in-line 8 cylinder engine of 82 b.h.p. Its armour protection was at a maximum of 26-mm at the front and 14-mm on the sides.

In 1943, the development of the AB.40/41 armoured car continued, further increase taking place in armament, engine horsepower and armour, particularly under the influence of the operations in North Africa. This later variant, the Autoblinda 43, carried a 47-mm gun or, sometimes, a German 50-mm short-barrelled tank gun. A number of AB.41 cars captured in the desert by the Commonwealth forces were re-issued to the Free Poles who used them with a revised armament including one .55 Boys anti-tank rifle and one .303 Vickers machine gun.

The qualities of the small, fast and versatile British Daimler (improperly known as Dingo) scout car had not gone unrecognised by the Italian Army, which had captured some vehicles of that type during the Western desert campaign. At the request of the Italian War Ministry, the Fabricca Automobili Lancia & Co derived from it a domestic version which became known as the Veicolo blindalo 'Lince' (Lancia 269). In fact, most of the technical features of the British scout car — four wheel drive and steering, independent suspension and single central differential gear — were incorporated in its Italian counterpart which was ready for production in 1943. Weighing three tons, the Lince was powered by a V-8 cylinder, 60 b.h.p. (Lancia, tipo 91) petrol engine which gave it a maximum speed of 86 km.p.h. But in September of that year, after the axis defeats in Sicily, Italy's Fascist regime collapsed. Subsequently, the Germans took the control of the largest part of the country and of its industrial resources, mainly located in the Northern area. The Fiat concern, and their Spa, Ceirano and OM subsidiaries were kept running on behalf of the German Wehrmacht and the Italian Esercito della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, i.e. the new Fascist army raised by Mussolini. Despite numerous difficulties — lack of workers and raw materials, bombardments, sabotages and strikers — Lancia and Ansaldo jointly produced 250 British inspired Lince scout cars. These were mainly allotted to the Guardia Nazionale Repubblicana (GNR), a Fascist militarised police which fought mainly against partisans. The GNR also used a number of AB.41/43 armoured cars and some vehicles of that type survived until after the war. The Germans also had taken over some of these machines, and, after their withdrawal from Greece, in October 1944; a small number fell into the hands of the Communist-controlled Greek faction known as the ELAS (People's National Army of Liberation) who used them during the civil war which followed.

During the immediate post war years, the few surviving AB.41 and Lince armoured cars were taken over by the Police and the reborn Italian Army, until more modern armoured vehicles (tanks) could be provided for them.

Design of the Polikarpov TsKB-12 single-seat fighter prototype was begun by Polikarpov s team at TsKB (Central Design Bureau) in the spring of 1933 A stubby radial-engined cantilever low wing monoplane, it had a wood monocoque fuselage and a metal wing with long-span split-type ailerons which doubled as landing flaps. The main landing gear units were manually retracted inwards into the wing. Powered by a 358-kW (480-hp) M 22 engine, this prototype made its first flight on 31 December 1933. The TsKB-12bis which had an imported 529-kW (710 hp) Wright Cyclone SR-1820 F3 radial, flew on 18 February 1934. With the M-22 a maximum speed of 359 km/h (223 mph) at sea level was attained, while the Cyclone-powered prototype reached 437 km/h (272 mph) at 3000m (9 8 4 5 f t ). The I-16 proved a very demanding aircraft but its speed and excellent rate of climb won it official support, and an evaluation batch of some 30 M-22-powered I 16s was built 10 of them participated in the flypast over Moscow on May Day 1935. Development continued with changes of engine and armament up to the end of planned production in 1939. Remarkably, the I-16 was reinstated in production in 1941-42, the ultimate version having the more powerful 820-kW (1,100-hp) M-63 engine. Overall production of all versions was 7,005 including dual-control trainers.

From 1935 series I 16 Type 4 (imported Cyclone) and Type 5 (M-25 engine) fighters were delivered to the eskadrilu of the Soviet air force. Supply of the Type 5 to the Spanish Republican air arm began in October 1936, and this model was followed by the Type 6 (M25A) and Type10 (M-25V) The Types 5 and 6 were christened 'Mosca' (fly) and the Type 10 became the 'Super Mosca'. In all 278 I-16s were delivered to Spain, where licence production of the Type 10 by Hispano Suiza produced another 10 before the surrender of the Government forces in March 1939, after which another 30 were completed for the Franco regime. The I-16 gave a reasonable account of itself, but tactics adopted by its pilots, mostly Soviet volunteers, did not make the best use of the type's speed and rate of climb.

Soviet I 16s flew in China against the invading Japanese in 1937, re equipping two eskadrilu which had previously flown the l-15bis. Early in 1938 the I 16 Type 10 began to equip Chinese units, and in 1939 Soviet I-16s were engaged in furious air battles with Japanese army fighters at Nomonhan on the Manchurian border, four fighter regiments (lAPs) ultimately being fully committed to the struggle. The I-16 took a prominent part in the Winter War with Finland 1939-40, but was obsolescent (even in its latest Type 24 version) when Germany invaded the Soviet Union m June 1941. At that time nearly two-thirds of the Soviet air force fighter arm comprised I-16s. The type bore the brunt of the invasion and suffered heavy losses on the ground and in the air during 1941. It became renowned for Taran ramming attack on German bombers and fighters, in which the Soviet pilot risked his aircraft and himself in order to defeat the enemy. Only in late 1943 was the I-16 finally with drawn from first line service. Flown by skilled pilots it had done well against German aircraft, several I-16 veterans becoming Heroes of the Soviet Union, and a number of I 16 lAPs winning the coveted 'Guards' title.

The type also achieved a worldwide first, being the precursor of all the cantilever low-wing monoplane fighters with retractable landing gear to go into large-scale service By the time of its greatest commitment it was obsolete, but even so its rugged construction and ability to take a great deal of punishment still endeared it to many Soviet pilots, despite the heavy calls it made on pilot skill and expertise.

Variants

I-16 Type 1: about 30 built and used for evaluation, M-22 engine, two wing mounted 7 62-mm (0 3-in) ShKAS machine-guns, sometimes designated I-16M-22.

I-16 Type 4: first main series production with imported Wright Cyclones, landing gear main wheels had fairing doors, pilot had 8-mm (0 3- m) armour back plate.

I-16 Type 5: entered production July 1935, 522-kW (700-hp) M 25 radial (developed from Cyclone) and AV-1 propeller, first model to have under wing bomb racks, more than 1,500 of this version built, one was converted as the first I-16P with armament of two ShKAS machine-guns (fuselage) and two 20-mm cannon (wings), Cyclone engine.

I-16 Type 6: built 1936, M-25A engine of 544 kW (730 hp) and strengthened airframe.

I-16 Type 10: built from 1937, four 7 62-mm (0 3-m) ShKAS, second pair synchronised and mounted over engine cowling, major production version fitted with retractable skis for winter operations, 559-kW (750-hp) M-25V engine.

I-16 Type 17: 1938 production version, structural strengthening for operation at higher gross weight, tailskid replaced by rubber tail wheel, had six RS-82 rockets as alternative to bombs, and two wing-mounted ShVAK 20-mm cannon in place of wing machine-guns.

I-16 Type 18: introduced on production lines 1939, had 686-kW (920 hp) M-62 radial with two-stage supercharger, provisions for pair of auxiliary fuel drop tanks, four ShKAS machine-guns.

I-16 Type 24: entered service late 1939, early examples with M-62 engine, later had 820-kW (1,100-hp) M-63, wings strengthened, larger drop tanks, and most had RSI-1 or RSI-3 radio and oxygen equipment.

I-16 Type 28 and Type 30: reinstated in production 1941 42, total 450 of each version built and powered by the M-63 engine I-16P: second use of designation for prototype TsKB-12P of 1938, had two wing mounted 20-mm ShVAK cannon in Type 10 airframe, small number built before being superseded by Type 17.

I-16Sh: TsKB-18: prototype with additional armour for ground-attack role and four ShKAS machine-guns, no quantity production.

I-16SPB: I-16s had taken part m V S Vakhmistrov's 'Zveno' parasite experiments since Zveno 6, a TB-3 bomber with two I 16 Type 1 under its wings for air-launching, Zveno 7 in 1935 comprised a TB-3 with two I 5 biplanes on wings, a Gngorovich I Z monoplane on trapeze between landing gear legs, plus two l-16s under wings Vakhmistrov then reverted to Zveno 6 SBP, TB-3 carrying two modified Type 5 fighters each with two 250-kg (551-Ib) bombs and redesignated as TsKB-29 I-16SPB dive-bombers these parasite fighter dive-bombers were flown by the Black Sea naval air force from 1938, one unit operating in the Ukraine near Odessa against targets in Romania and the Chernovodsky bridge over the Danube in 1941, and against other pinpoint targets into 1942.

I-16TK: Type 10 with two TslAM TK-1 turbochargers, altitude performance much improved but only a few built UTI-4: some 1,600 two seat dual control trainers built, at peak of production every fourth aircraft was a UTI-4 (or I-16UTI) trainer, with two open cockpits in tandem and based on Type 5 with M-25 engine, most with fixed gear, but some reported with standard retractable main units, blind flying version had special sliding canopy over rear cockpit, earlier versions were the UTI-1 (version of Type 1) and UTI-2 revised variant of UTI-1 with fixed landing gear.

Specifications (I-16 Type 24)

General characteristics

• Crew: one pilot
• Length: 6.13 m (20.1 ft)
• Wingspan: 9.00 m (29.5 ft)
• Height: 2.25 m (7.38 ft)
• Wing area: 14.54 m2 (156.5 ft2)
• Empty weight: 1,383 kg (3,049 lb)
• Loaded weight: 1,882 kg (4,149 lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 2,050 kg (4,520 lb)
• Powerplant: 1× Shvetsov M-63 air-cooled radial engine, 670 kW (900 hp) driving a two-blade propeller

Performance

• Maximum speed: 460 km/h (290 mph)
• Range: 440 km (275 mi)
• Service ceiling: 9,700 m (31,800 ft)
• Rate of climb: 14.7 m/s (2,900 ft/min)
• Wing loading: 129 kg/m2 (26 lb/ft2)
• Power/mass: 0.36 kW/kg (0.22 hp/lb)

Armament: four 7.62-mm (0.3-in) ShKAS machine-guns, two synchronised in forward fuselage and two in wings, wing machine-guns replaced on some aircraft by two 20-mm Sh VAK cannon, a 12.7-mm (0. 5-in) UB machine gun was sometimes added to fuselage-mounted armament, plus a bomb load of up to 200 kg (441 lb) on under wing racks, with alternative of six RS-82 rockets.

German strategic naval planners knew that in order to sustain any U-boat offense in distant shores, the operational boats would need to re-supplied and replenished. Except for a handful of friendly ports, the Axis powers did not share the privilege as the Allied forces in having friendly foreign bases in which they could re-supply and replenish. As a result, a supply U-tanker design was proposed in 1934, which role was to conduct U-boat replenishment at sea. This led to the Type IV design, a 2,500 ton supply U-boat, but tonnage restrictions of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement restricted Germany’s submarine tonnage to 45 percent of the Royal Navy. Since operational U-boats were the priority, the Type IV design was dropped.

It was not until September 8 1939 that the project was revived when Donitz raised a request to construct three supply U-boats with a tonnage of 2,000 tons each. The supply boat was required to have good storage capacity and a suitable upper deck for the transfer of stores.

The engineers based their design on the existing much larger Type IXD, but shortened it and gave it a much wider upper deck. The hull was also deeper and constructed of thicker pressure hull, giving it deeper diving capabilities than the Type VII and IX. To maximize storage capacity, it had no torpedo attack capability but was fitted with anti-aircraft weapons for self-defense. Two 37mm cannons were fitted, one forward and one aft of the bridge and a single 20mm on a platform aft. The Type XIV shared many components with the Type VIIC and the bridge was identical to the Type IX.

Because of their role as supply U-Boats, the Type XIV was nicknamed "milk-cows" (milchkuh). They acted as force multipliers wherein a network of supply U-Boats would replenish operational boats with the much needed torpedoes, food, fuel, and other provisions. They also carried a doctor onboard and a bakery which could provide freshly baked bread. In effect, the Type XIVs enabled operational boats to remain much longer in their patrol zones, significantly increasing their presence.

A total of ten Type XIVs were built from an original order of 24 boats. Eleven were cancelled and a further three were nearly complete when their orders too were cancelled in mid-1944. The Allies knew the threat posed by these supply boats and made a determined effort to wipe them out. All ten boats were sunk. By necessity, the large Type IX was pressed into service as supply boats.

Replenishment at sea suffered from two major shortcomings. First, a great deal of radio traffic was required to set up a rendezvous. These messages were frequently intercepted using either HFDF or by decrypting their communications. By mid 1943, virtually all planned rendezvous were known well in advance by the Allies. Second, the replenishment exercise was time consuming and had to be done on the surface. The replenishing boats were especially vulnerable as it could not dive to evade enemy attacks. The Allies, particularly the Americans used this to their fullest advantage which resulted in the complete destruction of the supply boats.

Operational History

Of the 24 boats ordered, ten Type XIVs entered operational service. Seven had conducted successful re-supply missions while three were sunk on their first mission. The first Type XIV was U-459 (Georg von Wilamovitz-Moellendorff), commissioned in November 1941 and made her first patrol in April 1942. The last Type XIV was U-490 (Wilhelm Gerlach), commissioned on March 1943 and sunk on June 12 1944 during her first sortie. The supply boats paid a high price with none surviving the war.

Operational summary of the ten boats :-

U-459 – Commissioned: Nov 15 1941 Fate: Sunk Date: Jul 24 1943
(Kptlt. Georg von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff)

After having carry out five successful re-supply missions, she was on her way for her sixth mission when British aircraft found and attacked her in the Bay of Biscay. The British Wellington was shot down, but it crash landed on the U-boat’s deck. The crew cleared the wreckage which included unexploded depth charges. The depth charges had shallow settings and exploded beneath the boat, seriously damaging it. Unable to dive, a second attack from a Wellington sealed her fate. Scuttling charges were set and the captain saluted his crew and went down with his boat. 19 dead and 41 survivors.

U-460 – Commissioned: Dec 24 1941 Fate: Sunk Date: Oct 4 1943
(Kptlt. Ebe Schnoor)

She had carried out five successful re-supply missions. During her sixth re-supply mission North of the Azores, the U-460 was surprised by aircraft from the USS Card along with three other boats; the U-264 which had just taken on fuel, the U-422 and U-455 awaiting its turn.

The first attack damaged U-460 hampering her ability to dive. Anticipating more aircraft attack, the U-264 and U-422 stayed on the surface to defend the tanker. The ensuing duel saw twelve aircraft pitted against three boats. The U-460 and U-422 was sunk while the U-264 got away. 62 dead and 2 survivors.

U-461 – Commissioned: Jan 30 1942 Fate: Sunk Date: Jul 30 1943
(Oblnt. Hinrich-Oscar Bernbeck)

She had carried out five successful re-supply missions. On her sixth mission, a group of four U-boats the U-461, U-462, U-504 and U-550 were crossing the Bay of Biscay in an attempt to break through into the Atlantic. The pack was attacked by a task force which sank three of the four boats. Only the U-550 escaped. The U-461 was sank by Australian aircraft. 53 dead and 15 survivors.

U-462 – Commissioned: Mar 5 1942 Fate: Sunk Date: Jul 30 1943
(Oblt. Bruno Vowe)

The U-462 was part of the Gruppe Monsun Pack. She had carried out two successful re-supply missions and on her outbound journey to refuel the Gruppe Monsun boats, she was surprised and attacked by aircraft along with U-461 (see above), U-504 and U-550.

The aircraft attack had left her unable to dive, while the warships of the 2nd Escort Group closed in for the kill. The captain ordered for the boat to be scuttled. 1 dead and 64 survivors.

U-463 – Commissioned: Apr 2 1942 Fate: Sunk Date: May 16 1943
(KrvKpt. Leo Wolfbauer)

She had carried out four successful re-supply missions but was sunk on the fifth in the Bay of Biscay. A single British Halifax attacked with depth charges with the loss of all hands onboard. 57 dead.

U-464 – Commissioned: Apr 30 1942 Fate: Sunk Date: Aug 20 1942
(Kptlt. Otto Harms)

The U-464 was sunk on her first patrol by US Navy Catalina aircraft off Newfoundland, southeast of Iceland. She was scuttled with 2 dead and 52 survivors.

U-487 – Commissioned: Dec 21 1942 Fate: Sunk Date: Jul 13 1943
(Oblt. Helmut Metz)

U-487 had conducted two very successful re-supply missions when it needed to replenish her own stores. U-160, a large outbound Type IXC was ordered to rendezvous with U-487 and transfer to her all the fuel and provisions she could spare and then return to base.

The Allies intercepted the radio messages and sent five Avenger and several Wildcat aircraft from the USS Core. Allied pilots reported seeing the crew sunbathing on deck when the surprise attack began. One Wildcat was shot down but the U-487 ultimately lost the battle. 31 dead and 33 survivors.

U-488 – Commissioned: Feb 1 1943 Fate: Sunk Date: Apr 26 1943
(Ltnt. Erwin Bartke)

The U-488 carried out two very successful re-supply missions. During its third mission in the mid-Atlantic, after having re-supplied five boats, it was found and sunk by depth charges from four US destroyer escorts. All hands were lost. 64 dead.

U-489 – Commissioned: Mar 8 1943 Fate: Sunk Date: Aug 4 1943
(Ltnt. Adalbert Schmandt)

During her first patrol, the U-489 successfully fended off an attack by a RAF Hudson on August 3 1943. But on the following day, she was attacked by a Canadian Sunderland aircraft. The aircraft was shot down with six survivors fished out of the sea. But the U-boat had sustained serious damage herself and had to be scuttled. 1 dead and 58 survivors.

U-490 – Commissioned: Mar 27 1943 Fate: Sunk Date: Jun 12 1944
(Oblt. Wilhelm Gerlach)

U-490 was the last of the supply U-boats and after the appalling loses of this class, a new approach was taken to refuel while submerged. The U-490 was fitted with special underwater refueling equipment and after testing for a year, she finally sailed to take up station at the Indian Ocean. On Jun 12 1944, during the outbound journey, she was detected and attacked by a US escort carrier and three of her destroyer escorts. She was sunk southwest of the Azores, but all 60 of her crew survived.

A further three nearing completion were cancelled in mid-1944 with the remaining eleven never launched.

Technical Specification

Type XIV

Role: Supply U-Boat

Displacement
Surfaced: 1668 tons
Submerged: 1932 tons

Dimensions
Length
Beam
Draught
220ft (67.1m)
30.7ft (9.4m)
21.4ft (6.5m)

Top speed
Surfaced: 14.4 knots
Submerged: 6.2 knots

Maximum range
Surfaced at 12kt: 9300nm
Submerged at 4kt: 55nm Crush depth 787ft (240m)
Engines
Diesel Electric
3200hp Diesel
750hp electric motor

Weapons
Guns
2 x 37mm Flak
1 x 20mm Flak

Officers and crew 6 + 47 = 53

Total ordered 24 (10 built)

First launch November 1941

A fighter designed to meet the same specification as the MS 406 was the Bloch MB 150. Though it lost out in the procurement competition to the Morane, the Bloch firm developed the basic design around a more powerful engine. The resulting Bloch MB 152 was faster and more powerfully armed than the MS 406. Twelve squadrons had Bloch fighters on 10 May 1940, and six more became operational with them during the battle. Units while equipped with Blochs shot down 156 German planes (actual German records) and lost 59 pilots.

MB.150, Bloch (150, 151, 152, 153)

Monoplane fighter. The first MB-150 prototype refused to leave the ground; the redesigned aircraft flew but was very complicated to build. About 140 MB-151s were built, but only 25 of them had propellors, and anyway they were considered unfit for combat. 482 improved MB-152s were built, but again many lacked propellors and other necessary items, and peak operational strength was only 94. The MB-152 was clearly inferior to the Bf 109. Production continued after the defeat of France, and over 600 were built. The single MB.153 had a P&W R-1830 engine.

Type: MB.152

Function: fighter

Year: 1938 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1030hp Gnome-Rhone 14N

Wing Span: 10.55m Length: 9.10m Height: 3.95m Wing Area: 15m2

Empty Weight: 202kg Max.Weight: 2680kg

Speed: 515km/h Ceiling: 10000m Range: 600km

Armament: 4*mg7.5mm

Notice that the MS 406 is not the only French fighter of 1940 to have a superior kill ratio:

Bloch 152: 188 victories (claimed) for 86 aircraft losses

MB.155, Bloch

Development of the MB.155. The only real improvement was the greater range. The MB.155 entered production after the defeat of France in 1940; they were used by the Vichy government and later by the Germans.

Type: MB.155

Function: fighter

Year: 1940 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 820kW Gnome-Rhone 14N-49

Wing Span: 10.55m Length: 9.05m Height: 3.95m Wing Area: 17.30m2

Empty Weight: 2100kg Max.Weight: 2900kg

Speed: 520km/h Ceiling: 10000m Range: 1050km

Armament: 2*g20mm 2*mg7.5mm

MB.157, Bloch

The MB.157 was the last development of the MB.150 series. It was completely redesigned, to make use of the powerful Gnome-Rhone 14R engine. One built, that was tested by the Germans in 1942.

Type: MB-157

Function: fighter

Year: 1942 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1268kW Gnome-Rhone 14R-4

Wing Span: 10.70m Length: 9.70m Height: 3.20m Wing Area: 19.40m2

Empty Weight: 2390kg Max.Weight: 3250kg

Speed: 710km/h Ceiling: Range: 1095km

Postscript: French squadrons in UK

Two French squadrons were stationed in England between the 27 may 1940 up to 5 June 1940 for the GR I/14 with Potez 63 and between 30 may 1940 up to 5 June 1940 for the GC II/8 with Bloch 152. The 5 Potez and 13 Bloch were at the airfield of Lympne for the 'Operation Dynamo' above the beaches of Dunkerque. Two Glenn Martin from GB I/63 were also at Lympne some hours to drop medicine parcels above the beaches. Bloch 220 and Caudron Goeland were also in England to bring stores and supplies.