Monoplane racer, a derivative of Lorraine Hanriot LH-130.

1 built.

Monoplane wing low.

Wing wood and metal with metal fuselage

Specifications

Wingspan: 10.00 m

Length: 7.10 m

Height: 3.20 m

Wing loading: 16.60 m2 sq.m.

Crew: 1

Empty weight: 910 kg

Total Weight: 1600 kg

Engine: 1 Lorraine 12O of 470 hp

Maximum speed: 430 km / h

Ceiling: 10500 m

Range: 1000 km

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23MF 'Flogger-B' of the former East German air force in 1979.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23BN 'Flogger-F' of the Czechoslovakian air force in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The Soviet-designed fighters were agile, too. In an engagement, the enemy’s first turn would be eye-watering—unless, that is, the model in question was a MiG-23. Then, there typically was no turn at all. The MiG-23 would simply tear away so fast that it seemed like a Ferrari leaving Fords behind. A MiG-23, such had one chance to make a pass and run. Once the pilot tried to turn, he was done.

MiG-23 Floggers were the MiG-21’s replacement. Their swing-wing was patterned on that of the F-111, but unlike their US antecedent, the MiG-23s were small and light enough to serve as dogfighters. On the whole, the aircraft weren’t as capable as US models, say those who flew them. Their fit and finish were vastly inferior, characterized by such defects as protruding rivets. That does not mean they could be written off. Far from it. They performed very well for the state of technology they had.

The MiG-23 that was the maintainers’ nightmare. The Flogger was a compromised design, in the US view. Made light for speed, the airframe didn’t have sufficient strength. The wing box which carried the weight of the swing wings was particularly prone to cracks.

Performance tests

Many potential enemies of the USSR and its client states had a chance to evaluate the MiG-23’s performance. In the 1970s, after a political realignment by the Egyptian government, Egypt gave their MiG-23MS to the United States and the People's Republic of China in exchange for military hardware. These MiG-23MS helped the Chinese to develop their Shenyang J-8II aircraft by borrowing some MiG-23 features, such as its ventral fin and air intakes, and incorporating them into the J-8II. In the US, these MiG-23MS and other variants acquired later from Germany were used as part of the evaluation program of Soviet military hardware. Dutch pilot Leon Van Maurer, who had more than 1200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23ML Flogger-Gs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal, and has superior BVR capability.

The Israelis tested a MiG-23MLD that defected from Syria and found it had better acceleration than the F-16 and F/A-18.

Another MiG-23 evaluation finding in the US and Israel reports was that the MiG-23 has a Heads-Up Display (HUD) that doubles as a radarscope, allowing the pilot to keep his eyes focused at infinity and work with his radar. It also allowed the Soviets to dispense with the radarscope on the MiG-23. This feature was carried over into the MiG-29, though in that aircraft a cathode ray tube (CRT) was carried on the upper right corner to double as a radarscope. Western opinions about this "head-up radarscope" are mixed. The Israelis were impressed, but an American F-16 pilot criticizes it as "sticking a transparent map in front of the HUD" and not providing a three-dimensional presentation that will accurately cue a pilot's eyes to look for a fighter as it appears in a particular direction.

Besides the Syrian defection, a Cuban pilot flew a MiG-23BN to the US in 1991 and a Libyan MiG-23 pilot also defected to Greece in 1981. In both cases, the aircraft were later returned to their countries.

The MiG-23 was the Soviet Air Force's "Top Gun"-equivalent aggressor aircraft from the late 1970s to the late 1980s. It proved a difficult opponent for early MiG-29 variants flown by inexperienced pilots. Exercises showed when well-flown, a MiG-23MLD could achieve favorable kill ratios against the MiG-29 in mock combat by using hit-and-run tactics and not engaging the MiG-29s in dogfights. Usually the aggressor MiG-23MLDs had a shark mouth painted on the nose just aft of the radome, and many were piloted by Soviet-Afghan War veterans. In the late 1980s, these aggressor MiG-23s were replaced by MiG-29s, also featuring shark mouths.

#

One of the most important tactical war planes of the Soviet Union the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 (NATO reporting name 'Flogger') was first flown in prototype form during 1966 entering service for evaluation some four years later. This air combat fighter and its ground attack MiG-27 derivative was in large scale production between 1969 and 1984.

Designed to provide Frontal Aviation with a tactical fighter offering secondary ground attack capability and capable of meeting contemporary Western fighters on more than equal terms the MiG 23 was designed around the primary aim of an aircraft that could operate effectively without being tied to massive concrete runways The Mikoyan bureau is known to have adopted two approaches to this requirement first was the Ye-23 (or Ye-230) prototype which was of tailed delta configuration and incorporated high lift devices to give STOL capability powered by a single turbofan engine supplemented by a battery of Kolseov lift jets amidships for VTOL operations the alternative prototype was the Ye-231 which deleted the lift jets and replaced the delta wing by a variable geometry wing very similar to that of the General Dynamics F 111 The prototypes were evaluated during 1966 67 with a decision to develop the swing wing Ye 231 finalized probably during 1968 resulting in the pre production MiG-238 'Flogger-A' which powered by a Tumansky R 27 turbojet with an afterburning thrust of 10200 kg (22 485 Ib) first entered service for operational evaluation in 197071 At about this time it must have been decided to optimize the MiG 23 as an air combat fighter and to develop a dedicated ground attack parallel version which was allocated the designation MiG 27 In consequence aerodynamic changes were made to the MiG 23 the fuselage structure being lightened and more advanced avionics being introduced by the time the initial MIG-23M version entered service in 1973 More or less simultaneously the dedicated attack variant was developed and while having much in common with the MiG 23 this was sufficiently different to warrant the allocation of the separate designation MiG-27 This differs primarily by having a completely redesigned forward fuselage providing a better field of view for the pilot increased armour protection terrain avoidance radar and provision to deploy a wide variety of air to surface weapons There appear to be only two versions of the MiG 27 differing in the shape of the nose avionics and aerodynamics and these have the NATO reporting names 'Flogger-D' and 'Flogger-J'.

Both the MiG 23 and MiG 27 are in large scale use with the former Soviet air force an estimated 3 000 reported being operational They served with the Warsaw Pact air forces and were exported to the air arms of Algeria, Angola, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hungary, India, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Poland, South Yemen, Syria and Vietnam. The MiG 23M/K Flogger J is also currently in production in India.

Specifications

Country of Origin CIS (formerly USSR)

Variants

MiG-23M Flogger B

MiG-23MF Flogger B

MiG-23UB Flogger C

MiG-23UM Flogger C

MiG-23MF Flogger E

MiG-23MS Flogger E

MiG-23BN Flogger F

MiG-23BM Flogger F

MiG-23B Flogger F

MiG-23ML Flogger G

MiG-23P Flogger G

MiG-23BK Flogger H

MiG-23BN Flogger H

MiG-23MLD Flogger K

MiG-24 (export MiG-23)

Similar Aircraft

MiG-27 Flogger D

Tornado

Su-24 Fencer

F-111

Crew

one

MiG-23U -- two

MiG-23C -- two

Role

interceptor

fighter

Length 55 ft (16.6 m)

Span 46 ft, 9 in (14.26 m)

Ceiling 18600 meters

Cruise range 970 nm

In-Flight Refueling No

Internal Fuel 4600 kg

Payload 2000 kg

Sensors High Lark radar, RWR, IRST, Basic Bombsight

Drop Tanks 800 L drop tank with 639kg of fuel for 67nm range

Armament Cannon: GSh-23L 23mm
AS-7 Kerry, UV-16-57, FAB-500, AA-7, ,AA-8, AA-10, AA-11

User Countries

Afghanistan

Algeria

Angola

Belarus

Bulgaria

CIS

Cuba

Czech Republic

Germany

Ethiopia

Hungary

India

Iraq

Kazakhstan

Libya

North Korea

Poland

Romania

South Yemen

Sudan

Syria

Ukraine

Vietnam

LINK

LINK

LINK

Only four Cant Z.1007 were marked with German insignia. The aircraft pictured below serving with Kampfstaffel Kroatien.






Z.1007bis Unit: 211 Squadriglia at Benghazi, 1941. Model by Zdeněk Krčmář

Along with the Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79, the CANT Z.1007 Alcione series of bombers served as the backbone of the Regia Aeronautica's conventional and torpedo strike forces in World War II. Under the aegis of the firm of CANT, Ingeniere Filippo Zappata began design studies of the CANT Z.1007 and Z.1011 in 1935: both were powered by 625kW Isotta-Fraschmi Asso XI RC.15 engines, for which the former had three and the latter two. The relatively low power ratings of this engine forced the Regia Aeronautica to order the trimotor CANT Z.1007 for production, the first prototype flying in March 1937. The aircraft was constructed entirely of wood, save for the usual metal ancillaries and nacelle cladding. The first examples had two-bladed wooden propellers, but all later versions adopted the three-bladed metal Alfa Romeo types. In 1938, as a means to better load and performance, the CANT Z.1007bis entered production, having three 745kW Piaggio B.XIbis RC.40 radial engines as standard. The CANT Z.1007bis was the major production model, and featured revised armament, engine cowlings and dimensions. A single fin and rudder was used on the Z. 1007 Serie I-III, with a twin fin-rudder format being adopted on the Z.1007 Serie IV-IX subtypes.

Battle of Britain

The Z.1007 first saw action during the Battle of Britain in September 1940. Regia Aereonautica sent five Z.1007Bis to Belgium as part of the Corpo Aereo Italiano, with almost 200 other bombers and fighters. They were considered the best of all the Italian bombers, but since there were so few, they were used mainly for strategic reconnaissance. After several months of operations and near the end of Italian operations over Britain, one Z.1007 was lost to an accident after having survived many reconnaissance missions over Britain.

Greco-Italian War

The Z.1007 also participated in the Italian invasion of Greece in October of 1940. The Z.1007 participated in the bombing campaign over Malta and in the campaigns in North Africa and on the Eastern Front. Although fast, these bombers were vulnerable when hit and prone to catch fire.

The service saw 47 Wing equipped with some of the first bombers at Ghedi. Only four were in service at 10 June 1940. The production was slow with 15 machines made every month at best. The first 34 machines, Cant Z.1007Asso were used just as trainers and later as weather recognisers. In 1943 there were still 16 available. A transformation with Delta engines was made to improve economical congestion but applied to only one machine. With the time the aircraft was used with many Wings like 9th and substituted the SM.79 and BR.20 as possible with so few available.

Cant Z.1007 Asso substituted SM.81s in 16 Wing, 47 Wing had Z.1007Bis but the transformation gave the possibility to reach only in August the first operational readiness, when around 30 machines were sent in Sicily to attack Malta. Over Greece operated 16°, 12°, 35°, and 47° Wings, with some losses, among them one made by a PZL.24 manned by Ltn. Mitraxialexis. 172° squadriglia was sent on Belgium to fight UK. It had only five machines, while BR.20s were around 80 on two wings. Used as high altitude reconnaissance machines, they had no losses, except one lost just at the end of the campaign. 175 reconnaissance squadron, and later 176th were used in Africa. The destroyer HMS Juno was destroyed by an explosion caused by a Z.1007 bombing, in 1941. 35 Wing was sent over Africa with the bombing role. The bad weather conditions made difficult to hold in service this wooden aircraft, but still the machine was used until 1943.

In 1942 Cant Z.1007s were used by four groups and two wings during Mediterranean battles, both in anti-ship role and above all, against Malta, often escorted by Italian and German fighters.

In November 1942 there were eight groups equipped with Z.1007s but only 75 machines, with just 39 efficient out of 150 bomber of all types.

Again the Allies

Fighting against Allied invasion had losses, even flying only at night, especially by Bristol Beaufighters, and the same could be said over Malta.

In June 1943 was made a Raggruppamento with almost all the Z.1007s at Perugia, with only 30 machines, dropped to 19 with 13 serviceable in September. At the Armistice there were around 72 machines, around 40 of them escaped to South Italy. They were used as fast transports, and even was proposed by ICAF to use them as bombers in the Pacific theatre.

Post WWII problems and performances

The worst day for Z.1007s was 14 May 1944, when 88° Gruppo sent 12 Z.1007s with supplies to Tito's forces. Five were shot down and two damaged by German fighters in a dramatic air battle, 26 Italian aviators were killed. From that day the employ was authorized only at night until the end of the German fighter force.

Z.1007ter was the best version, It should have been proposed already with Alfa 135 engines, 1,400 hp. Dropped this machines because the Cant Z.1018 and the unreliability of that engine, there was another -ter proposal with P.XI engines, 1,150 hp, and the production was started in 1942, with a total of around 150 machines. The test pilots were better impressed by this machine rather than Z.1018, faster but with less power (because the layout with only two P.XII engines), while the range was improved from 2,000 to 2,250 km with 2,460 kg fuel and 900 kg bombs. So, While Z.1018 had 2,700 hp, already Z.1007Bis had 3,000 (2,610 at take off) and Z.1007ter 3,450. Despite this, the Z.1018 was so clean with only two engines, that was capable with the same weight to obtain 70 and 34 km/h more.

Performances were improved with a max speed of 490 km/h at 6,150 m instead of 456 at 4,600 m. Climbing to 3,000 m in 6 min 28 sec, and 5,000 m in 10 min 44 sec (Z.1007 bis in 12 min 42 sec, Z.1007 Asso in 14 min 34 sec). Armament and armour were also improved. Dorsal turret was a Breda model, flank weapons were replaced with 12,7 mm.

Ceiling finally raised to 9,000 m instead of 8,400 m.

Z.1007s were used mainly as night bombers and reconnaissance, and they were in service only during the war, so they had much less press than SM.79s and BR.20s. They were used also as long range reconnaissance, with excellent results. Some, at least 20 were equipped with an auxiliary tank that gave 1,000 km extra endurance. Some were adapted for Bengala launches when day missions were too dangerous. One of the best set for photo missions had six robot machines in a ventral gondola plus another in the fuselage. The long range and the ceiling helped these aircraft to obtain good results until the Spitfires appeared. In every case, they were also the first victims of P-40 Tomahawks (over Alexandria).

Another development was the Z.1015, it was proposed as record version of the Z.1007 already in 1938 but it was not considered until 1942, when substituted Alfa 135 with Piaggio P.XII engines. It had 563 km/h of speed, thanks to a total of over 4,000 hp installed. It was tested successfully as torpedo aircraft, but it was not used operationally and not passed in production.

The Z.1007ter, which had more powerful engines, entered service in 1942. By the time of the Allied invasion of Sicily, few were still flying. The remainder went on to fight with the Italian Social Republic, Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force and the Luftwaffe.

LINK

LINK

The Tatra T111 was a truck produced in Czechoslovakia by the Tatra Company.

History

The T111 was developed and manufactured during WWII as heavy truck for use by the Wehrmacht. Production started in 1942 and continued for twenty years, ending in 1962 when it was replaced by the Tatra T138. Despite being built for the Nazi war machine, the vehicle ultimately played important role after the war ended. The Tatra T111 contributed significantly to the rebuilding effort during the postwar era, mainly in Eastern Europe and the USSR. To its chief designer however it brought the charges of treason and collaboration with Nazi regime after communists’ takeover of Czechoslovakia and contributed to the imprisonment of Tatra design guru Hans Ledwinka.

Design and Technology

The design was based on the proven Tatra concept of a backbone tube chassis construction with swing half axles, a modular gearbox and differential assemblies. The main advantages of the central load carrying backbone tube are its high torsion and bend strength, which protects the truck body against load stresses. The secondary advantage is that it houses all important parts of the drive train. Due to its torsion stiffness and use of differentials locks the vehicle had an exceptional off-road capabilities. Of note was the ability to use a cranking handle to start the engine.

Engine

Model V910 - the first Tatra aircooled powerplant V12 75 degree V developed from Tatra V850 engine intended for use in Tatra 103 (Sd Kfz. 234 Puma).The engines had power output of 210 horsepower at 2250 RPM mainly for war use (An average life expectancy during combat for Wehrmacht was 6 hours.) which was later reduced to 180 hp at 1800 rpm to increase reliability.

Chassis

Central backbone tube, front and rear axles with independent swing half axles. Front axle suspended on quarter elliptic leaf springs, rear axles suspended on half elliptic longitunal leaf spring. The service brakes were air all-round drums, parking brake was mechanical acting on rear end of backbone tube output shaft via rotating drum.

* Front track = 2,080 mm (81.9 in)

* Rear track = 1,800 mm (70.9 in)

* Wheelbase = 4,175 mm (164.4 in)+1,200 mm (47.2 in)

* Road clearance = 300 mm (11.8 in)

Transmission

* Drive - 6x6 Selectable front wheels drive

* Main gearbox - 4+1 (1 and 2 gears synchronized)

gear ratios - 5.29, 2.78, 1.62, 1.00, R 5.91

Auxiliary gearbox - 2 speed

gear ratios - off-road - 4.52, highway - 1.82

* Differentials - ratio 3.19

* Clutch - 2x plate, dry

Bodywork

The cab originally used wood for its construction due to strategic unavailability of steel during the war, in later years the wooden frame was steel plated and the last models used an all steel cabin. The vehicle was capable of a top speed of approximately 65 km/h (40 mph). The maximum cargo capacity was 10.3 tonnes and it had the ability to tow up to 22 tonnes trailer.

Production

The Tatra T111 was in production for 20 years, with a total of approximately 34,000 units made. The T111 engine was widely used in the variety of other vehicles such as a heavy tractor T141, a railway car M 131, airport tugs and pontoon bridges used by the army. The engine was also "halved" to create an inline 6 cylinder version for the Praga V3s 6x6 light utility military truck and civilian Praga S5T light truck. T111 main product range was in flatbed, tipper, tanker and crane configuration.

Models

T111VVN military

T111VVN military

T111 R - Flatbed

T111 NR - Flatbed with auxiliary gearbox powered winch

T111 N Special - Flatbed with foldable sides , winch military specs

T111 S - Three way tipper with wooden sides

T111 S2 - All steel three way tipper heavy duty

T111 C - Tanker

T111 D - Bodybuilders chassis

Legacy

The Tatra T111 exploits at Siberia had earned its reputation and its legendary reliability contributed to its iconic status among those who had driven and lived in those conditions. The T111 concept and technology continued its evolution in following years with successful line of Tatra models.

LINK

Blueprint

Schürzen were used on the Pz.Kpfw.IV, Sturmgeschütz III and Sturmgeschütz IV and the Panther. On the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.J, the thin metal sheets were replaced by a wire mesh (Thoma Schürzen). This type of Schürzen had been a competitive design to the solid plates, but the plates were initially chosen because production was easier with the existing machinery.

Schurzen began to show up about a year after the initial invasion of Russia and some months before Zimmerit. Also consider that the Tiger I design did not have schurzen. (Granted, the Tiger II fenders were specifically designed to afford HEAT protection, but really, this later design reinforces the evolving German realization of the HEAT threat.) Although, the protection against HEAT was serendipity. The later development of the mesh von Thoma [1] Schild and the leaving of schurzen on the Panther G are certainly evidence that the Germans became aware of the protection afforded against HEAT, but this was not the original intent. Plate schurzen gave way to "Thoma Shields" made from steel mesh, hung from metal pipes as opposed to angle iron brackets.

Thoma - or Drahtgeflechtschürzen were adopted in September 1944, starting with Pz IV Ausf. J Fgst.Nr. 92301, so any unit receiving Pz IV Ausf. J after this date should theoretically have them, although the usual first in/ last out process of assembling tanks may throw a spanner or two in the works here.

This is a direct quote from Walter Speilberger's "Sturmgeschutz & Its Variants", page 92; "the previously mentioned Schurzen side-skirts became a topic of discussion during the Fuhrer's conference on 6 and 7 February 1943. Hitler was quite in agreement with mounting the skirts on the Panzer III, IV and Sturmgeschutz to provide protection against Russian anti-tank rifles".

However, the Thoma shield style of mesh would be effective against A/T rifles and also HEAT rounds.. The size of the mesh will not allow the round to pass through it unscathed and all that’s required is to upset its flight which the mesh will do quite nicely. Tom Jentz has shown the Panther wasn’t even going to be accepted without its shields to defeat the A/T rifles. The entire Panther project was nearly cancelled because the lower hull armour was considered to weak to withstand (future?) Soviet AT-rifles. Had it not been possible to put Schürzen on the Panther, it would have been replaced by the Panther II! (See Jentz: "Panther..." p. 35 and 53)

Out of interest the cyclone fence mesh carried by AFV’s in Vietnam as anti-RPG screens worked by not detonating the round but actually shorting the firing circuit as it passed through. I have seen a training film with a dozen rounds fired and all failed to explode.

[1] General Wilhelm Ritter von Thoma, General der schnellen Truppen in OKH: 23. May 1942 - 1. Jul. 1942

Col. David Glantz in lecture quoted a Soviet officer saying "the two most common vehicles to be seen in the Red Army were the T-34 tank and the Studebaker truck".

The Studebaker US6 is a class of trucks manufactured by Studebaker during World War II, produced in the United States from 1941-1945 and in the Soviet Union beginning in 1942.

These had six-cylinder gasoline engines that attained 94 horsepower and were fitted with a five-speed transmission. Approximately 200,000 of the trucks were built, in thirteen different variations, including dump truck and tractor models. The most common wheel configurations were 6×6 and 6×4.

Large numbers of Lend-Lease Studebaker trucks were sent into the Soviet Union via the Persian Corridor. The Soviets found them a good platform for Katyusha rocket launchers, although it was not their prime use in the Soviet Union. It filled many roles in the RKKA, such as pulling artillery and was renowned for its ruggedness and reliability. The truck was affectionately known as the Studer by Soviet troops.

LINK

LINK