The latest development in strategic nuclear-delivery systems actually to have become operational is stealth technology, which makes aircraft difficult to detect by radar. Although stealth has achieved its greatest prominence by enabling US aircraft to penetrate enemy air defenses in order to launch conventional bombing attacks, Northrop developed the B-2 "Spirit" stealth bomber as a penetrating nuclear bomber to attack targets, including mobile Soviet ICBMs.

Although the United States canceled its plans for mobile ICBMs with the demise of the cold war, the Soviet Union deployed two mobile ICBM systems - one carried on railroads and the other road-mobile. In response, the United States planned to use the B-2 stealth bomber to hunt and attack these weapons.

The 21st-and last-B-2 rolled off the production line in late 1997.

BOMBERS AND PRECISION

March 24, 1999 brought the first combat missions for the B-2 bomber. That night, the second-to-last B-2 built became the first to drop its weapons in combat. Two B-2s flying separate routes to strike different targets became the first aircraft to drop the Joint Direct Attack Munition with its satellite-guided precision.

"The B-2 was designed to deliver weapons on the first day-yesterday was the first day of the war and the B-2 was there," said Col. Tony Imondi, the 509th Bomb Wing Operations Group Commander. B-2 bombers flew 51 missions and dropped more than 650 JDAMs during the 78-day air war. On several missions, the B-2 used its satellite communications link to pick up new target coordinates while airborne. For the bomber fleet, it was an early demonstration of the role of time-critical targeting in modern aerial warfare. The bombers excelled at it.

Joint Forces Air Component Commander Lt. Gen. Michael Short had glowing words, which had a bit of the taste of crow to them. "My expectation of the B-2s was that they would not be nearly as accurate as they were, and that, X number of days into the campaign, they'd begin to whine about their stealth, whether they could maintain it or not, and start to come apart," he later said. Needless to say, that did not happen.

President Bill Clinton personally visited Whiteman Air Force Base, the home of the B-2 fleet, to meet and thank the B-2 crews. Secretary of Defense William Cohen praised them, too. "When you can have a B-2 that can fly all the way from the middle of this country, all the way across the Atlantic, drop its bombs that will land within 20 feet of its target and return to its home base-that's quite a testament to the precision, the technology that we have," Cohen said.

B-52Hs and B-1Bs also flew combat missions for Operation Allied Force. According to the Air Force, the B-1Bs delivered close to 20 percent of the total tonnage of bombs while flying not quite two percent of the total strike sorties. The B-2's stealth, range, and payload allowed it to fly unique missions during the conflict. Although one F-117 was shot down, no bombers were lost or damaged, and the B-2s coped with the prospect of loose MiG-29s as well as roaming surface-to-air missiles.

Above all, it was precision and payload that made the B-2 a standout. Armed with the JDAM, the bomber achieved what no other had done before. The B-2 could attack at night, in the weather, and both succeed and survive.

The Air Force later concluded that B-2s hit more than 30 percent of all the targets in Serbia. News media often inaccurately reported that the B-2 strikes were made by TLAMS. "I remember specifically one factory that was hit and they interviewed the locals and they said they'd been hit by 17 cruise missiles in 20 seconds," said B-2 pilot Terry Sunnarborg. In fact, multiple explosions were the JDAM calling card. "We've got airplanes flying in there every night and no one thinks it's us," said then-Maj. Britt Bankson, a B-2 pilot. "You know, what could be better for a stealth platform?"

In fall 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan introduced a whole new set of operational concepts for the bomber force. Fifteen bombers took part in Night One operations. B-2 bombers flew from the United States to drop their weapons. B-1Bs and B-52s deployed forward to theater bases. Within the first several days of combat, though, the nature of the air war changed. Fixed targets gave way to emerging and time-sensitive targets. Air defenses were down, so the B-2 was not needed anymore.

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

Crews flying missions during the major combat operations phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom also found themselves tasked with everything from fixed targets to SOF support to on-call close air support for ground forces. Precision, stealth, range, and loiter time of the bomber force were all employed to good advantage in the air campaign. Fifty-one Air Force bombers participated in the conflict. All three bombers flew missions during OIF. In a historical first, the B-52H, B-1B, and B-2 aircraft all simultaneously hit areas near Baghdad on March 29, 2003.

Bomber missions reflected the growth of the conventional missions. They ran from precise attack of fixed targets to deep attacks on Republican Guards units to close support. B-1Bs in western Iraq were assigned a block of grid-box engagement zones to watch over in case special operations forces called for air strikes. B-2s-deployed to theater-took real-time targeting updates from the CAOC and unleashed JDAMs one-by-one on Republican Guard positions.

#

America stopped acquiring new bombers 10 years ago. The last production B-2 stealth bomber-Air Vehicle 21-was delivered to the Air Force in November 1997. Money for its production was authorized and appropriated much earlier than that, in 1993. The result has been the opening of a bomber gap. It is the first time since 1917 that America's military airmen have not had a long-range bomber on the way, in one form or another. That's a remarkable situation for a nation whose security relies on its ability to project military power worldwide in defense of its interests and allies.

USAF, of course, has not been lackadaisical; the service has maintained and upgraded its fleet of hard working B-52, B-1B, and B-2 bombers and kept them in fighting trim. And yet USAF's ability to hold at risk key targets around the world has been undermined. The bomber fleet is old, and modernization plans largely have lapsed. The Air Force has not seemed eager to tackle the problem.

In the decade since the last B-2 rolled off the production line, several key technologies have advanced dramatically. Now, defense officials believe the US aerospace industry can use these new technologies to underpin production of a very new type of bomber indeed. They say that knowledge gained from development of fifth-generation stealthy fighters, the flight reliability of UAVs, and from other research makes it possible to build a new bomber with greatly enhanced capabilities and minimal risk.

Yet there is a big question: Will the Air Force-and the nation-have what it takes to rally behind a new bomber program, and keep pushing until hardware is on the ramp?

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

Maces, War Hammers, and Pollaxes

While swords were primarily used for slashing and thrusting, mounted cavalry also used a number of other close-range weapons, although none as common as the sword. The mace, which had been used since the twelfth century, was now often made entirely of iron, as opposed to earlier versions that consisted of a copper alloy or iron head mounted on a wooden shaft. It was therefore heavier and more capable of inflicting greater damage, and was especially effective against more heavily armored foes. The mace still interested many who described warfare in the late Middle Ages, as seen, for example, in the following statement of Geoffrey Chaucer: "With mighty maces the bones they to-brest." Short war hammers consisting of a rectangular head, often with a backward protruding spike, were very effective from horseback and were common from the mid-thirteenth century, when one is shown in the hand of an anonymous English knight's effigy in Malvern Priory Church. A surviving war hammer, dating from around 1450, in the Wallace Collection in London, has a hammer head that is square in shape, although turned at a 45 degree angle to present a diamond-shaped front; the pick is short, slightly curved, and equal in length to the head.

The axe, which earlier had, for the most part, been used primarily by the infantry and had fallen into disuse, again became popular and was used for fighting on foot, as well as by cavalry and in foot tournaments. Fitted with a long two-handed shaft, they were also usually furnished with a backward-facing short spike-a weapon called a pollaxe. Injuries, causing death, from the spikes of both war hammers and pollaxes have been identified in the skulls recovered from the graves of soldiers killed at the battles of Visby in 1361 and Towton in 1461.

Staff Weapons

Staff weapons, used both by foot and equestrian soldiers, are of great antiquity, but the period from 1300 was when they especially came into their own as an infantry weapon. In 1302, at the Battle of Courtrai, the Flemish townsmen from Bruges, Ypres, and Courtrai, armed, in the main, with staff weapons routed a superior and supposedly better-armed French army. The reaction to this victory, essentially by the lower and middle classes, and the large numbers of French cavalry dead, were noted throughout Europe and caused uproar among the nobles, knights, and the upper classes of society. The weapon, called a goedendag (literally "good morning" or "good day"), which caused such a devastating and unexpected victory, far from being sophisticated or innovative, was basically a heavy-headed club to which iron spikes were attached. Their use at Courtrai and, equally important, the discipline of the Flemish forces, mark the rise of the infantry armed with staff weapons as a potent force on the battlefields of Europe. This victory was followed by that of the Swiss using staff weapons at the battle of Morgarten against the Austrians in 1315. From this time on staff weapons played an increasingly important part on the battlefield-blocks of disciplined, well-trained, and well-drilled infantry, all armed with similar weapons, were common down to the seventeenth century.

The traditional infantry weapon, the spear or long spear as it became known in the fourteenth century, was around 15 to 18 feet long (5 to 6 meters) and was essentially a defensive weapon. It was used to extend the reach of the foot soldier in a thrusting motion that, when well directed, was effective against other infantry and mounted troops, especially when used in closely ordered formations. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spear had been joined, as already described, by other forms of staff weapons, in particular the goedendag. However, the increase in the use of armor, especially the development of the full-plate harness, led to the need for an infantry weapon that was capable of both thrusting and cutting actions. Essentially, the ability of plate armor to resist penetration, coupled with its smooth, rounded surfaces, which tended to deflect blows, meant that the thrusting spear was less effective. From the very end of the thirteenth century, there developed a new type of staff weapon, the halberd, which combined the spear with the long, two-handed axe. At first it consisted of a fairly broad blade with a spike projecting from the top secured to the end of a long pole- around 6 feet (2 meters) in length. It was used in a similar way to the spear as a thrusting weapon, but it could also be swung over the head and brought down with considerable force. During the fifteenth century, an extra spike was added to the axe portion of the head making it an even more formidable weapon.

The halberd is most closely associated with the Swiss armies of the later thirteenth and, especially, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Swiss had been granted rights of freedom, which carried with them the right to bear arms, and this resulted in a population that carried weapons as a norm of everyday life. This familiarity with arms, especially staff weapons, resulted in the creation of a voluntary, part-time army that was both well disciplined and skilled. And, in fact, Swiss mercenaries gained a considerable reputation all over Europe during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries and were much sought after by military leaders and commanders. By the end of the fifteenth century, a very characteristic Swiss halberd had developed, although it is important to note that it was not just the weapon that made the Swiss such a formidable force but discipline and the ability to fight as a unit.

The halberd and the goedendag were joined by a variety of other staff weapons over this period, some very characteristic of particular areas and some more widely distributed around Europe. The glaive, a large cutting and thrusting weapon, had a long blade with a convex front edge and a straight back. Although it was never very common, it probably first appeared in Europe during the thirteenth century and was used throughout the end of the Middle Ages. Later, in the sixteenth century, it came to be used very much as a ceremonial weapon carried by official guards and in processions. The bill was far more commonly used throughout Europe in the later medieval period. Although there were considerable variations in its form, it generally consisted of a forward-facing hook with one or more spikes projecting from the rear and/or front. Simpler bills were very similar to halberds and were probably used in much the same way. Other, more complex types were developed. For example, the Welsh bill had a long slender curved blade and a right-angle spike, and the roncone, developed in Italy, had a long straight blade with a smaller curved hook and both top and backward-facing spikes. Finally, the partisan, a later type of staff weapon used throughout Europe from about 1500, was basically a long, flat blade tapering to a point, rather like an elongated spear.

First Use

Bombers evolved at the same time as the fighter aircraft at the start of World War I. The first use of an air-dropped bomb however, was carried out by the Italians in their 1911 war for Libya. In 1912 Bulgarian Air Force pilot Christo Toprakchiev suggested the use of airplanes to drop "bombs" (as grenades were called in the Bulgarian army at this time) on Turkish positions. Captain Simeon Petrov developed the idea and created several prototypes by adapting different types of grenades and increasing their payload. On October 16, 1912, observer Prodan Tarakchiev dropped two of those bombs on the Turkish railway station of Karaagac (near the besieged Edirne) from an Albatros F.II airplane piloted by Radul Milkov.

After a number of tests Petrov created the final design, with improved aerodynamics, an X shaped tail and impact detonator. This version was widely used by the Bulgarian Air Force during the siege of Edrine. Later a copy of the plans was sold to Germany and the bomb, codenamed "Chathaldza" remained in mass production until the end of World War I.

The weight of the bomb was 6 kilograms. On impact it created a crater 4-5 meters wide and about 1 meter deep.

The Germans used Zeppelins as bombers since they had the range and capacity to carry a useful bomb load from Germany to England. With advances in aircraft design and equipment, they were joined by larger multi-engined biplane aircraft on both sides for long range strategic bombing especially by night. The majority of bombing was still done by one-engined biplanes with one or two crew-members flying short distances to attack the enemy lines and immediate hinterland.

The world's first four-engined bomber was the Russian Il'ya Muromets created in 1914 and successfully used in World War I. By the end of the First World War the UK had amassed a force of heavy bombers with the sole intent of attacking Germany's industrial heart but the armistice came before it was used.

Development and Definition

Bombers are generally classified by the type of bomb they deliver (a torpedo-bomber delivers a torpedo), their size (light, medium, or heavy), or their mission (fighter-bomber). While WorldWar II saw a wide variety of bomb dropping aircraft, the number of distinct bomber types produced has dwindled, as newer aircraft, such as fighters that are tasked with bombardment missions, perform multiple roles.

Development

The first military aircraft were used for reconnaissance. Only after trench warfare began did generals come to see airplanes as platforms that could carry ordnance beyond enemy lines to strike specific targets. In order to successfully bomb targets, bombers had to carry bomb loads that were heavy enough to inflict significant damage, to fly both high and quickly enough to bypass enemy defenses, and to deliver bombs accurately enough to hit the desired targets.

In order to build successful bombers, aircraft manufacturers had to overcome many technical difficulties that limited aircraft capabilities and performance. It is difficult, for example, to drop a bomb from a moving airplane so that it arrives on target, especially if the target is obscured or camouflaged. Bombs must be able to penetrate deeply enough or must carry enough explosive force to destroy the target. Bombers must be capable of flying high enough or quickly enough to avoid enemy fire or must be armored well enough to render enemy fire ineffective. Although defensive armor increases a bomber's odds of survival, its greater weight limits speed, range, and bomb load. Better accuracy is found at lower speeds and altitudes, where bombers are more vulnerable. A longer range allows bombers to hit a greater variety of targets but requires more fuel and, thus, a lighter bomb load. Finally, bombers require defensive armaments, or weapons, to avoid being shot down by fighters.

World War I

Although World War I bombers flew many varied missions, these operations were more ad-hoc responses to opportunities or threats than they were planned innovations.

World War I saw experiments with almost every possible bomber mission. The first bombs were simply grenades tossed at enemy positions. Because these weapons were too light and inaccurate to cause serious damage, heavier bombs were designed. Early bombs that were released over the side of an airplane were often inaccurate. The first bombers were observer aircraft converted for bombing missions. To inflict serious damage, many bombs were needed, so bombers began to fly in groups. Enemy fighters also forced bombers to fly together to mass their defensive firepower. By 1917, both sides had introduced specialized, bomb-carrying aircraft. The German Gotha G-IV, for example, was designed to attack enemy cities or port facilities far behind the battle lines. Fighters or observation planes were assigned to attack frontline headquarters or troop concentrations. Britain's Royal Navy Air Corps also experimented with launching planes from ships and, thus, introduced the aircraft carrier.

1914-1918 Bomber Types

* France

o Breguet Bre.4

o Breguet Bre.5

o Breguet 6

o Breguet 14 (reconnaissance bomber)

o Breguet 16 (night bomber)

o Caudron G.4

o Farman F.40 (reconnaissance bomber)

o Farman F.50 (night bomber)

* Germany

o AEG G.I

o AEG G.II

o AEG G.III

o AEG G.IV

o AEG G.V

o AEG N.I

o AEG R.I

o Albatros C.III

o Friedrichshafen FF.41

o Friedrichshafen G.II

o Friedrichshafen G.III

o Friedrichshafen G.IV

o Gotha G (heavy bomber)

o Rumpler Taube

* Italy

o Caproni Ca.1 (heavy bomber)

o Caproni Ca.2 (heavy bomber)

o Caproni Ca.3 (heavy bomber)

o Caproni Ca.4 (heavy bomber)

o Caproni Ca.5 (heavy bomber)

* Russia

o Sikorsky Ilya Muromets (heavy bomber)

* United States

o Curtiss Model H (maritime patrol)

* United Kingdom

o Airco DH.3

o Airco DH.4 (light bomber)

o Airco DH.9 (light bomber)

o Airco DH.9A (light bomber)

o Airco DH.10 "Amiens" (medium bomber)

o Armstrong Whitworth F.K.8

o Blackburn Kangaroo (heavy bomber)

o Felixstowe F.2 (maritime patrol)

o Felixstowe F.3 (maritime patrol)

o Felixstowe F.5 (maritime patrol)

o Handley Page Type O (heavy bomber)

o Handley Page V/1500 (heavy bomber)

o Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2

o Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.5

o Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.7 (reconnaissance bomber)

o Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8 (reconnaissance bomber)

o Short Bomber (heavy bomber)

o Short Type 184 (seaplane bomber)

o Sopwith 11⁄2 Strutter

o Sopwith Cuckoo (torpedo bomber)

o Vickers Vimy (heavy bomber)

'Lemon' Coventer

TO

'World-beater' Centurion

Development and Procurement authorities

In Britain prior to 1936 the Master General of the Ordnance was the supreme authority responsible for tank design and procurement. Under him the Director of Mechanisation supervised actual design work in conjunction with the Mechanisation Board, which was a committee made up of senior representatives of the "user" arms. By the outbreak of war in 1939, the Master General of the Ordnance had become the Director General of Munitions Production and all designs and procurement responsibilities were transferred from the War Office to the newly-established Ministry of Supply. Overall tank design responsibility then came under the Director-General of Tanks and Transport with, in 1940, a Controller of Mechanisation supervising the Director of Mechanisation, who worked with the Mechanisation Board as before. In May 1940, following British reverses in the French campaign, a new War Cabinet was formed under Winston Churchill, who approved the setting up of a Tank Board to examine faults in the existing design and procurement system and to advise on improvements. They proposed a Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (DAFV) to represent the War Office (General Staff) interest, with separate Directors of Design and Production, all under the Director-General of Tanks and Transport, who took the place of the old Director of Mechanisation.

Early in 1941 the Tank Board was reorganised and given executive powers to expedite War Office requirements in matters affecting tanks. Included on the board were the Director-General of Tanks and Transport and the Director of Artillery (for tank gun, anti-tank gun, ammunition, and SP equipment matters), plus DAFV and General Staff representatives. In September 1942 a Chairman, Armoured Fighting Vehicles Division, was appointed, who also became chairman of the Tank Board and was the chief executive responsible for tank design in the Ministry of Supply. The Tank Board was also reconstituted to contain equal representation from the Ministry of Supply and t he War Office (who represented the "users"). This general organisation remained in force until the end of the war.

British design authorities

On the design side itself, however, there were several important changes largely due to the vast industrial participation in tank production, which had increased dramatically since the outbreak of the war. Such vehicles as the Churchill and Valentine, for example, were designed mainly by the firms which built them, with only relatively minor help from the Department of Tank Design, the organisation, which, following the 1940 reforms, carried out actual design work under the Director-General of Tanks and Transport. In late 1941 the Department of Tank Design was placed under the Controller General of Research and Development, and as the war progressed the department changed its function from designing proper to co-ordination of design and production facilities. In other words, instead of actually designing a vehicle itself, the Department of Tank Design passed requirements to one of the tank producers and approved (and if necessary improved) the design the producers drew up. The old "drawing board" orders, which had generally resulted in tanks (like the Churchill and Covenanter) with a formidable record of "teething troubles", became a thing of the past. Under the new organisation at least six pilot models were generally built. Similarly, a proper "design parentage" organisation was built up whereby one particular company took full charge of design and production of one particular vehicle and supervised all necessary subcontract work for the vehicle in question. The Churchill (Vauxhall) and Valentine (Vickers) in 1940 set this pattern, subsequently adopted with all later British tanks, and the Department of Tank Design did not itself design a complete tank again until 1944-45, when it was responsible for the Centurion. By 1945 the Department had become very influential indeed and, in the circumstances, left a most creditable wartime record in the face of continually fluctuating War Office (i.e. "user") requirements, frequent friction between War Office and Ministry of Supply, and a good deal of War Office conservatism.

Trends and Changes

Probably the principal reason for the failure of the British to produce the tanks they really needed until too late was the constant change of policy that was evident from 1939 right through to the end of the war. Prior to 1939, British tank policy had crystallised into three distinct types: the light tank for the衯 scouting and reconnaissance role, the cruiser tank for the exploitation role, and the infantry tank for the infantry support role. None of these classes was comparable in performance or armour protection, although the infantry and cruiser types had similar gun armament. The limited value of the light tank was clearly demonstrated in the early campaigns of the war; it was of negligible use against any but the lightest enemy tanks, but unfortunately it was frequently called upon to perform the cruiser role, for which it was entirely unsuited, mainly because there were not enough cruiser tanks due to peace-time financial restrictions, which had limited tank procurement. The light tank was thus swiftly dropped other than in the limited airborne role. Cruiser tanks and infantry tanks in 1939-41 suffered from being brought into service too quickly before the teething troubles could be overcome, and almost without exception the British tanks of these early years were dogged by mechanical shortcomings as much as by design limitations and this restricted their development potential.

When the need for more powerful 6pdr guns was appreciated in 1941, the guns were ready before there were tanks to take them, and when the American-built medium tanks appeared in British service in 1942 with 75mm guns, British policy changed again in favour of these weapons. However, by the time the 75mm gun was in full service in 1944 on what had then become the nearest to a British "standard" tank, the Cromwell, the Germans had produced more powerful guns and tanks, which outclassed this new vehicle. The Cromwell itself, like the earlier cruiser tanks from which it had been developed, suffered from size limitations, and among other things this prevented the fitting of the powerful 17pdr gun, which was required to match the best German tanks. Attempts to produce an enlarged version of the Cromwell, the Challenger, to take the 17pdr, were largely unsuccessful, and ironically enough it was the Sherman (M4) tank, an American vehicle, fitted with the 17pdr gun (as the Firefly), that became the most powerfully armed tank in service with the British in 1944. The Sherman had also become the most important tank in British as well as American service.

The slow moving and heavily armoured infantry tank had, with the well known exception of the Churchill, almost been discarded by 1945, again largely because this type could not be up-gunned without major redesign. In 1945, British policy was moving towards the "universal" chassis with standardised components, which had mobility close to that of the cruiser tank, and was capable of future development to mount larger calibre guns. All these lessons had been learned largely from German and American policies. The Centurion of 1945, combining the qualities of the old cruiser and infantry tanks, but with vastly superior gun power, was the successful end-product of changing British policies. It was, however, too late for the war it was designed to influence, an ironical final comment on a none too happy record of development.

Specialised vehicles

If British gun tanks left much to be desired (though tactical handling of tanks was another factor), the related field, in which traditional British compromise and eccentric ingenuity really excelled, was the perfection of special purpose tanks. The fighting in the Western Desert showed very early on the value of tanks capable of clearing mines, while the abortive Dieppe raid of August 1942 showed the need for a range of vehicles for the assault role in large scale operations like that planned for the future invasion of Europe. Thus the British largely through the specially-formed 79th Armoured Division-developed a whole range of "funnies" tailor-made for mine-clearing, bridging, flame-throwing, and the assault engineer role among others. All are described in this book. Most of these were highly successful, even though they were based, in some cases, on inherently unsuitable basic chassis.

Production

The two British Commonwealth countries, Australia and Canada, which actually got as far as producing tanks of their own in the war years, have always received less than their fair share of recognition for the tremendous effort and initiative involved. In each case their indigenous design started off based on the American M3 Medium tank, the contemporary vehicle which provided the obvious and best choice at the time, 1940-41. Both the Canadian and Australian vehicles ended up vastly superior to the original M3, the Australian Sentinel, in fact, ultimately becoming different in all respects for reasons. Neither of these Commonwealth tanks saw combat service as such, because by the time they reached production status. American tank output had reached such a mammoth scale that the United States could supply virtually all Allied needs. In the event the Canadian tank, the Ram, still managed to play a most important part in the war, but as a special purpose vehicle in several essential but unglamorous roles.

Total American tank production in 1940-45 amounted to the vast figure of 88,410 vehicles, while in Britain over the same period, 24,803 vehicles were produced. The main enemy, Germany, turned out 24,360 tanks in World War II.

FIRST FLIGHT 1910

The place in aviation history of the otherwise unimportant Humber-Sommer .biplane is assured by the fact that it was an aircraft of this type which undertook the world's first carriage of mail by an aircraft. This event was part of the Universal Postal Exhibition held in Allahabad in India during February 1911. During the exposition, the French pilot Henri Pecquct, on February 18, flew across the Jumna river from Allahabad to Naini Junction, in all some 8km (5 miles) with 6500 letters. This bizarre and isolated journey is generally accepted by philatelists as the world's first aerial post and some actual examples of the postmark still exist. Four days later, a 'regular' service for the duration of the exhibition was opened by Pecquet and Captain Walter G Windham, the aircraft that they used again being the Humber-Sommer biplane.

Though a number of aircraft types were produced by Humber before World War I, none ·of them was designed by the company, whose principal interests lay in the motor industry. The first machine produced by Humber, in 1910, was the Humber-Blériot Monoplane, a copy of the Blériot XI, followed by the Humber-Le Blon Monoplane and the Humber-Lovelace Monoplanes, two in number. The fifth aircraft produced by Humber was the British version of the biplane designed by the French pioneer Roger Sommer, and derived essentially from the Farman III biplane of 1909. This was itself a reworking of the classic Voisin biplane, though the concept of inherent lateral stability had been abandoned in favour of positive control by ailerons. Humber appear to have hedged their bet to a certain extent, for the Humber-Sommer was fitted with sloping side screens between the upper and lower wingtips, outboard of the ailerons, in a fashion similar to the side-screens favoured by the Voisin brothers, Gabriel and Charles.

The Farman III is one of the classic aircraft of all time, and, with the Blériot XI, was the most popular European aircraft in the period from 1909 to 1911, appearing in a number of forms. Sommer's interest in the type stemmed from 1909, when he flew the second Farman III at the great aviation meeting held at Rheims under the auspices of the champagne industry. During the aviation rally, Sommer's best performance, in about ten flights, was a distance of 60km (37 miles).

Type: utility aircraft

Maker: Humber Ltd

Span: 13.92m (45ft 8in)

Length: 12.19m (40ft)

Height: not available

Wing area: 47 m2 (506 sq ft)

Weight: not available

Powerplant: one 50-hp Humber 4-cylindcr watercooled inline engine

Performance: maximum speed approx 56 km/h (35 mph) at sea level; range not available

Payload: 91 kg (200lb); seat for 1 passenger

Crew: 1

Production: not available

LINK

The battleships equipped by 16-inch artillery in program of Navy developing during the period from 1914 until 1917.

In this monograph the all-round cross-light is given regarding the fact of the preparation of Russia for building of significant amount of the most powerful in the world super-dreadnought with 16 inch artillery starting from 1913. The problems of the Russian foreign policy, the condition of the economics and finance, the development of national type of the battleship - dreadnought in Russia on the eve of First World War and also the preconditions of switch over to new generation of 16' inch battleship are considered in that large, mostly archival, material. That material is involved into the scientific turn over in the first time. The chapters regarded the process of concept developing and test and design works maintaining in the area of the ships armament and protection are premised by the description of technical aspects of planned super dreadnoughts. The works are finished by the chapter that is analyzes the level of the engineering foresight of Russian marine specialists in regarding to construction of Russian 16 inch battleships. That is given in a way of the detailed comparison of the main parts with the same elements of the battleships projects equipped by 16 inch artillery that were developed in USA, Japan and England in the period during from 1916 to 1921. Besides the significant volume of reconstruction, the mathematical models of combat application of Russian super dreadnoughts' projects against its foreigh coeval and also the personal detailed on the main Russian specialists involved in the works on 16 inch battleships developing are given in the four section of Appendix

Contents
The battleship in the program of Navy developing during the period from 1911 until 1914
The developing of the Russian dreadnought construction during the period from 1908 to 1914
The production basement of the "The Law on Navy"
The Baltic Sea shipbuilding yards and mechanical works
The Black Sea shipbuilding yards and mechanical works
The manufacturing of the artillery
The manufacturing of the armour
The conflict on the new battleship
The main tasks for Baltic Sea battleships
The development of project GUK
The new technics is the main condition of the success
The creation of the 16 inch artillery system
The design of the 16 inch artillery engagement
"The test cells"
The initiatives of the "Second echelon"
The Nicolas final
Russian and others
Russia, 1914-1916, the adjustment of the accents
The Washington's trip
Post-mortem
"Battleship-1915"-that prospect that was not realized
The reconstruction of battleship 1917 project
Strike and protection

408 pages, 150 photos, 90 schemes
The scheme of "Poltava" battleship, the scheme of Russian type dreadnought hull construction, the scheme of "Volya" (The Freedom) battleship, the scheme of "Borodino" battle-cruiser, the scheme of "Emperior Nocolas I" battleship, the scheme of the main characteristics of mine battleship by of P.V.Linkov project, the scheme of 16 inch artillery battleship project, the scheme of universal platform with 14 inch/52 barrel, the scheme of four barrels 16 inch/45 mount, the scheme of "Derflinger" battle-cruiser, the scheme of "McKenzen" battle-cruiser, the scheme of battle-cruiser of Putilov plant of project (707-XVII), the scheme of "Maryland" battle-cruiser, the scheme of "Iowa" battle-cruiser, the scheme of "Nogato" battleship, the scheme of battle-cruiser of Amagy class, the scheme of "Nelson" battleship

LINK

Izmail or Borodino class (4 units)

Class overview

Built: December 1913–November 1916, Broken up 1923

Planned: 4

Cancelled: 4

General characteristics

Type: Battlecruiser

Displacement: 32,500 tons standard
38,000 tons full load

Length: 222 m (728 ft 4 in)

Beam: 50.5 m (165 ft 8 in)

Draught: 10.2 m (33 ft 6 in)

Propulsion: 4 shaft Parsons-type turbines
25 mixed fired Yarrow-type boilers
68,000 hp

Speed: 26.5 knots (49.1 km/h)

Complement: 1,250

Armament: 12 × 14 in (360 mm) guns (4×3)
24 × 130 mm (5.1 in) guns in casemates
8 × 75 mm (3.0 in) guns
4 × 63 mm (2.5 in) AA guns
6 × 21 in (530 mm) torpedo tubes Armour: Belt: 238 mm (9.4 in)
Turrets: 238 mm (9.4 in)
Decks: 63 mm (2.5 in)

The four Borodino class (also referred to as Izmail class) battlecruisers of the Imperial Russian Navy were all laid down in December 1913 at St. Petersburg and were intended to serve in the Baltic Fleet. The Russians tried to expedite the completion of these ships by ordering machinery from abroad, but new turbines had to be ordered after the outbreak of World War I. The ships were launched in 1915-1916, but the outbreak of the Russian Revolution in 1917 put a stop to their construction, which never resumed. The incomplete hulls were later sold for scrap by the Soviet Union.

Ships

The ships were named after victorious battles:

• Borodino: Built by Admiralty Yard, St. Petersburg, laid down 19 December 1913, launched 1 July 1915, broken up incomplete 1923.
• Izmail: Built by Baltic Yard, St. Petersburg, laid down 19 December 1913, launched 27 June 1915, broken up incomplete 1931. Construction of this ship was the most advanced of the class, and the Soviet Government considered completing her in the 1920s but could not do so, and she was sold for scrapping.
• Kinburn: Built by Baltic Yard, St. Petersburg, laid down 19 December 1913, launched 30 October 1915, broken up incomplete 1923.
• Navarin: Built by Admiralty Yard, St. Petersburg, laid down 19 December 1913, launched 9 November 1916, broken up incomplete 1923. Her turbines were ordered from AG Vulcan in Germany. They were confiscated at the start of the war and used as the machinery for the German minelaying cruisers Brummer and Bremse.

LINK

LINK

Contributed by Vladimir Yakubov (yakv2@yahoo.com) as part of the Warship TechSpec effort. His source:
Poslednie Ispoliny Rossiyskogo Imperatorskogo Flota ("Last Giants of the Russian Imperial Fleet") by S.E. Vinogradov, St. Petersburg 1999

First appearing entering combat in May 1918, the Fokker D. VII quickly showed its superior performance over Allied fighters. With its high rate of climb, higher ceiling and excellent handling characteristics, German pilots scored a remarkable 565 victories over Allied aircraft during the month of August alone.

The most admirable quality of the D.VII may have been the fact that it maintained its performance advantage right up to the limit of that performance and did not degrade long before that limit was reached. It was also an easy aircraft to fly; forgiving to the novice, and one that made average drivers seem more qualified than they actually were.

The only plane the D.VII didn't have maneuverability on was the camel and that's only with regards to right turning. Anyways mostly the D.VII was up high where the camels were mostly low.

The BMW-engined D.VII had the highest ceiling of any (operational) pursuit aircraft of the war. Herman Göring complained about the problem caused by the unbalance of having some D.VIIs with the BMW motors and the rest having Mercedes motors. He stated, when engaging the high flying allies the Jasta was basically reduced to half engagement strength, since the BMW powered D.VIIs would leave the Mercedes powered D.VIIs in their wake.

Various manufacturers of DVII

Some accounts in personal interviews where there was a preference for the Fokker built D.VII. The BMW IIIa engine was delivered to all three manufacturers. Albatros and OAW did not use a modifier to the aircraft designation as did Fokker with "F" in Fokker D.VIIF which signified that it was equipped the BMWIIIa engine. The bulk of the BMWIIIa engines were delivered to the Fokker Flugzeugwerke. However, I have repeatedly found statements that the general quality of work was better in the Albatros-Werke than in Fokker’s enterprise. Fokkeґs products are said to have more often shown signs of sloppily work also in the case of the D.VII.

Fokker D.VII F: 2:24 min to 1000 m, 8:12 min to 3000 m, 15:18 min to 5000 m.

MAG Fokker D.VII

MAG built the DVII under license from Fokker in Hungary. The plane was powered by the 210 HP Austro-Daimler and plans were afoot to install the 225HP engine from the same company. It could out climb the BMW powered DVII's and was slightly faster. Unfortunately, as far as I know, none saw action with the kuk LFT. MAG built Fokkers were used by the Poles in their war against the Russians 1919-1920.

Over the Front journal actually rated the best aircraft of the war and came to the "scientific" conclusion that the best fighter of the war was the Siemens Schukert D.IIIa ! Four 'tied' for second...the Fokker DVIIF, Bristol F.2b, Spad XIIIC.1 and the Snipe 7F.1.

The criteria were: Maximum speed, Snap turn, Rate of climb, Armament, Ceiling, Steady State Turns, and Endurance.

The thumbnail comments on each of the top 5 were. "Good balance of all features" Siemens Shuckert and Fokker D.VIIF. "Superior turns and best guns" -Bristol F.2b, "Top Speed and good turns" Spad XIII and Superior Turns and Guns" Sopwith Snipe. Very poor scorers were Albatros D.Va and the Fokker DR.I - they were the only two rated as POOR

The Fokker D VII File website

LINK

LINK

Dalek im Ersatz

Boulton Paul quickly saw a large market for a whole range of its turrets, based on the original de Boysson design. In July 1937 it proposed the following range of turrets in addition to the A Mk I Defiant turret:

1. A Nose turret with two Brownings and partial rotation.

2. A Tail turret with two Brownings and partial rotation.

3. A 'Centre' turret with two Brownings and complete rotation.

4. A 'Centre' turret with two Brownings and complete rotation and adaptable for retraction.

5. A Ventral turret with two Brownings and complete rotation.

6. A Nose turret with two 'K' guns.

In addition a mounting for a 20 mm Hispano cannon ordered from SAMM along with the de Boysson turret arrived in England in August 1937, and this was tested in the nose of Overstrand K8175 after the de Boysson turret was removed. Cannon turrets represent a separate thread of development, and will therefore be described separately.

Boulton Paul turrets were electro-hydraulic with all the power equipment carried within the turret itself, the electric leads and other services, such as the intercom, coming in through a slip-ring unit on the axis of rotation. Fitting a turret was thus very simple. The whole self-contained unit was just dropped into position, lined up, bolted down, and the central leads connected up.

The main structural parts of the turret were the ball-bearing mounting ring, the support table, the gun plate assembly and gun recoil mountings. The mounting ring was attached to the airframe by twelve retaining bolts. Power for rotation of the turret and elevation/depression of the guns was supplied by a duplex electro-hydraulic generator. The speed of operation was controlled entirely by the amount of displacement of the control handle. Pressure generated in the hydraulic system varied with the resistance to its operation, so that moving the guns against the airstream was no different to moving the other way.

The turret control lever included a 'dead-man's handle', so that no power was consumed should the gunner be incapacitated. There was also provision for manual rotation of the turret in an emergency should the power supply be damaged. The firing button fired all guns at the same time, but there were automatic cut-outs so that the gunner could not shoot-off pieces of his own aircraft. They worked by contact brushes running over a metal cylinder which revolved at the same speed as the turret. A plastic insert in the cylinder corresponded to the shape of the aircraft structure, so that when the contacts ran over that, the guns ceased fire. As there was wide separation between the left and right guns, the cut-outs worked on left and right independently to maximise the field of fire.

The first electro-hydraulic turret manufactured was the A turret, basically the de Boysson four-gun turret with minor improvements such as electric firing, and Browning guns instead of the French Darne guns. This was fitted to the Defiant (A Mk IID) and Roc (A Mk IIR), differing only in the shape of the drum inserts in the interrupter mechanism.

On 28 September, 1937, there was a conference at Boulton Paul to inspect a mock-up of a four-gun tail turret. A representative of Handley Page was called to inspect it. Mr Haynes duly arrived on 4 October and was very complimentary in his report to Handley Page. The following week the mock-up was delivered to Avro in Manchester. At the conference Boulton Paul had been urged to design a full range of turrets for the Specification P.13/36 submissions from Avro and Handley Page, and for Specification B.12/36 submissions from Short and Supermarine. Nash & Thompson, or Frazer-Nash as they became, were doing the same. It seems that the manufacturers preferred the Frazer-Nash turrets because they were lighter, but the Boulton Paul turrets had the advantage of not having long vulnerable hydraulic lines, having their own hydraulic generator.

On 12 July, 1938, the Air Ministry confirmed that the H.P.S7 Halifax was to be fitted with the Boulton Paul C Type nose turret, and the E Type tail turret, and orders were placed accordingly. The Stirling and the Lancaster were to have the Frazer-Nash turrets. The C turret was a two-gun turret with 1,000 rounds per gun, rather than the 600 rounds per gun in the A turret. The four-gun E turret was very cramped, and yet it was deemed necessary to provide the tail gunner with more ammunition than the other positions; fighters naturally preferring stern attacks to maximise their firing time and to give a no deflection shot. The 1,750 rounds per gun provided were therefore carried in the rear fuselage, being fed into the turret through its base. The ammunition was held in steel tracks, and fed to the turret with the assistance of small motors.

On 27 October, 1938, the Air Ministry confirmed that the Halifax should also be equipped with a retractable ventral turret with twin guns, and the K Type was ordered accordingly.

Being self-contained units the Boulton Paul turrets were the obvious choice for a number of other applications. When the British Purchasing Commission ordered a military version of the Lockheed 14 airliner in 1938, to be named the Hudson, the C turret was ordered to be adapted for its dorsal position. In the Halifax nose position the master switches and fuse-boxes were fitted to a vertical panel which was also a main structural member, carrying the electrical supply, oxygen lines and intercom leads in from the top of the turret. As it was a structural member, this panel was left on the Hudson dorsal turret version (C Mk II and IIA), so that there was not quite all round vision, and the resulting turret had a marked domed appearance. The electrical and other leads were brought in through the base however, as on the A turret.

The initial order for Hudson turrets was for 208, of which 200 would be fitted to aircraft and the other eight would be for maintenance and training purposes. The order was worth £208,000 as these turrets cost £1,000 each. A proposal was made on 23 March, 1939, to move turret production to Joseph Lucas in Birmingham. A report on 3 April assessed the requirements for Boulton Paul turrets as 180 per month, whereas Boulton Paul's production capacity was only 110 a month with one shift. For the first time the DGB proposed to transfer turret production elsewhere, especially as it was deemed to be interfering with airframe manufacture at Wolverhampton.

The first Hudson to be fitted, N7208, arrived at Wolverhampton on 2 May, 1939, and its new turret was soon fitted, but most subsequent fittings took place elsewhere. The Hudsons were shipped and later flown over from America and all the turrets fitted in Britain.

Boulton Paul had serious difficulty keeping up with all these developments, not least because the Air Ministry continually changed its requirements and priorities. There was a continuing interest in turrets with 0.5 in machine-guns and 20 mm cannon, but development of these was constantly being delayed by the urgent need to put the .303 in gun turrets into production as quickly as possible, compounded by the ever increasing list of applications for them. The story of heavy-weapon turrets will be presented separately for clarity, but it was in every way contiguous with the small calibre turrets. In 1940 Boulton Paul was ordered to stop all work on cannon turrets for a while.

By April 1939 delays in delivery of Boulton Paul turrets for the Halifax caused the DTD to enter negotiation with Joseph Lucas of Birmingham to take on turret production, even though Boulton Paul were building a new factory at Pendeford exclusively to manufacture turrets, to cope with the huge numbers which were required.

By 4 October, 1940, the Air Council Committee on Supply was reporting that Boulton Paul's turret capacity was 250 a month with two shifts, and Lucas' was 400 a month, but requirements had again increased with 85 Defiant turrets a month, 378 Halifax turrets (three per aircraft), and now 500 Albermarle turrets (two per aircraft), together with spares giving a total requirement of 1,107 a month. It was proposed to increase Lucas' capacity in Birmingham to 600 a month and to open a new Lucas turret factory in Cwnbran, South Wales, with a capacity of 500 a month. On 29 May, 1940, requirements had again increased to 1,315 a month, and it was therefore proposed to increase productive capacity through overtime working to 1,410 a month.

No sooner was Boulton Paul's new turret factory completed, than the Air Ministry decided, on 14 June, 1940, to transfer all turret production to Lucas, with total orders for 4,242 turrets and 3,982 cupolas. Boulton Paul was to concentrate on building aircraft, though the armament section would continue turret development. Lucas cleared a building in Formans Road, which had previously been used as a store, as a shadow turret factory. Boulton Paul's new turret factory was absorbed into airframe production. Lucas built more than 20,000 Boulton Paul turrets during the War, in Birmingham and Wales, and also made Frazer-Nash turrets.

Many of Boulton Paul's difficulties in producing turrets on time were due to changing official priorities, and the great variety needed. On 31 December, 1941, for instance, the Armament section discovered it had to build 18 different turret prototypes over the following 6-9 months. Delays in turret development were often caused by a lack of machine tools in the armament section, causing many of the parts to be sub-contracted. Naturally enough sub-contractors did not place a high priority on odd parts for new turrets, and so approval was given on 12 December, 1942, for Boulton Paul to receive £15,550-worth of new machine tools just for turret development.

The full set of nose, dorsal and tail turrets were fitted to some marks of the Handley Page Halifax. Aircraft up to the Mk II Series 1 were just fitted with the C Type nose turret and E Type tail turret, but from the Mk I Series 3 a C Type turret was fitted in the dorsal position. This was found to reduce performance too much and coupled with the fact that the nose turret was rarely needed, a clean-up of the airframe took place on the Halifax Mk II Series 1A. The nose was faired over, and the bulky C turret in the dorsal position was replaced by a more compact four-gun A turret, Boulton Paul testing the new installation during July 1942 on Halifax, R9375. The B Mk I turret was also developed for the Halifax dorsal position. It was merely an A turret with 20 deg of depression for the guns and only 65 deg of elevation; and a knock-out exit panel instead of the A turrets' doors.

The two-gun retractable ventral turret (K Mk 1) was also developed for the Halifax, but was rarely fitted as it did not prove to be very effective. Official policy with regard to the ventral position proved to be very mixed, and it was often left to individual squadrons whether guns were fitted there at all. Some Halifaxes, mostly in Canadian squadrons, were fitted with a 0.5 in Browning on a manually-operated Preston-Green mounting, in a low profile blister, others, mostly in Coastal Command, had the Frazer-Nash FN64 ventral turret.

The three basic turrets, A, C, and E, found their way into other applications. The A Mk III was designed for the Armstrong Whitworth Albermarle, in the dorsal position. Very few aircraft were actually equipped with them, as the aircraft was not employed as a bomber. In its main application as a glider tug the Albermarle was fitted with hand-operated guns in the dorsal position.

Being self-contained the Boulton Paul turrets were the obvious choice to fit to militarised civil aircraft and to equip other American aircraft which followed the Hudson. A further American medium bomber to receive Boulton Paul dorsal turrets was the Martin Baltimore. The Mks I and II did not have a turret, but Boulton Paul four-gun A turrets were fitted to the Mk III. Later marks had a Martin dorsal turret. One Mk III, FA163, managed 103 operations in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy, a record for a medium bomber flying in that Theatre, which is where all the RAF Baltimores were employed.

Another Lockheed product, the Ventura medium bomber was also fitted with a Boulton Paul dorsal turret, which was sited further forward than in the Hudson to improve the field of fire. Early ones were the same two-gun C turret as the Hudson, but later the four-gun A turret was fitted. A total of 394 Venturas were delivered to the RAF.

A United States heavy bomber to be fitted with Boulton Paul turrets was the Consolidated Liberator used mostly by Coastal Command. Both the dorsal and tail positions were usually fitted with Boulton Paul four-gun turrets, to achieve commonality with the RAF's other .303 in machine-gun equipment.

Though the Sunderland flying-boat was equipped with Frazer-Nash turrets, when the RAF decided to militarise five ex-Imperial Airways Short flying-boats, the self-contained Boulton Paul A turret was the obvious choice. Two S.23 C Class boats, Clio and Cordelia, were equipped with A turrets in tail and dorsal positions, and became AX659 and AX660. The three larger G Class boats, Golden Hind, Golden Fleece and Golden Horn, were equipped with three A turrets, in the tail, above the centre section and over the rear fuselage offset to starboard. These aircraft were then serialled X8273-5. These five boats saw operational service in a stop-gap role until they could be replaced by Sunderlands.

The A turret was also seen as an ideal anti-aircraft weapon for use on small warships. The A Mk II P.B.1and 2 were fitted to some minesweepers and patrol boats. They were basically the normal Defiant turrets, but with 10 deg of depression, which meant the elevation was reduced by 10 deg to 74 deg, and only partial rotation was available. A prototype four-wheel armoured car was also built, fitted with the A turret, apparently as an aerodrome anti-aircraft weapon for the RAF.

In 1941 the fighter turret-lobby was still strong, and orders were given in April to fit Boulton Paul four-gun turrets in two Beaufighters and two Mosquitos. In the Beaufighter the turret, even with only two nose-mounted cannon remaining, reduced top speed from 335 mph to 302 mph. The Mosquito only flew with the turret in mock-up form, and again performance was affected far too much. The idea was not proceeded with. Boulton Paul suggested a twin 0.5 in machine-gun mount for the Mosquito, sited just behind the cockpit. The guns, with limited degrees of movement would be operated by the navigator kneeling on his seat facing aft, with his head in a blister above the normal canopy line. If this seems far-fetched, it must be remembered that on Intruder Mosquitos the Gee equipment was sited behind the crew seats, and had to be operated by the navigator kneeling on his seat and facing aft, such was the cramped nature of the Mosquito’s cockpit.

Model of the Surcouf at the MusĂŠe national de la Marine

Most navies were unduly impressed by the U-cruisers, and set about designing their own in the postwar years. Predictably, none of the designs justified their cost, but the British X.I (two twin 13.5cm- [5.2in-] gun mountings), the American Argonaut (V.4), Narwhal (V.5) and Nautilus (V.6) with two single 15.2cm (6in) each, and the French Surcouf (a twin 20.3cm [8in] turret) set new records. The Royal Navy found the X.I a great disappointment, and looked at more interesting uses for its three 'M' class. M.2 was converted to launch and recover a small Parnall Peto floatplane, while M.3 became a minelayer.

The French opposed any limit on submarine numbers at the Washington Naval Disarmament Conference in 1921-2. Some influential senior officers led by Admiral Daveluy, tried to prove that submarines could replace surface fleets entirely. With the support of the influential chairman of the Naval Estimates Committee, M de Kerguezec, they proposed a fleet of 200 to 250 submarines. The French Navy's rebuttal of this doctrine makes interesting reading. The alleged cheapness of the submarine was illusory, and ton-for-ton they were as expensive as battleships. They also required a large number of highly skilled people to build, operate and maintain them. Furthermore, their complexity gave them a shorter operational life - a submarine with worn-out systems is unsafe to dive.

The Surcouf

The French also attempted to use aircraft on board submarines but met with very limited success. Their one and only successful attempt to launch submarine-borne aircraft was on the giant 2,800-ton Surcouf, the pride of the French submarine service. Built in 1929, Surcouf was the second largest submarine in the world, the first being Britain's 3,050-ton British X-1. A match for many surface warships, Surcouf had twin turret-mounted, 8-inch guns and formidable torpedo armament. Her biggest drawbacks were that she was too large and too slow at diving. That meant she was only at her best when on convoy duty and when her scout seaplane, the Besson MB 411-AFN, was flying ahead, looking for enemy warships and submarines.

She was seized by the Royal Navy personnel on July 3, 1940; 3 British personnel and a French seaman die in scuffles on board the submarine.

In December 1941 the French Vice Admiral Emil Henri Muselier, Commander in Chief of the Free French Naval Force and Merchant Marine, arrives in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to inspect the submarine Surcouf and the corvettes Mimosa, Aconit and Alysse which are stationed here on escort duty. In London, French Brigadier General Charles-Andr De Gaulle, Commander-in-Chief Free French Forces, orders Muselier to prepare a Free French Naval Force in Halifax to begin preparations for the liberation of the French islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon in the Atlantic Ocean about 19 miles (30 kilometers) off the southeastern coast of Newfoundland. Muselier notifies the Canadians and the American Embassy in Ottawa, Ontario, of his orders. Washington attempts to halt the mission and Canada announces its intention to land its own troops on the islands to prevent Axis use of the island's radio transmitter. De Gaulle again orders the expedition to proceed and Saint Pierre and Miquelon are duly liberated by the Free French on 24 December 1941.

Surcouf's seaplane hangar was built as an integral part of the conning tower, and launch and recovery were achieved by using a crane after the submarine had stopped its engines. Tests continued until 1942, when, on the night of February 19, Surcouf disappeared with all hands. She was thought to have sunk after colliding with the American freighter Thompson Lykes while en route to the Panama Canal. [1] There were no aircraft on board at the time.

[1] Fate of the Surcouf

On 18 February 1942, Surcouf was lost with all hands. An official joint U.S. and Free French report stated that she left Bermuda on 12 February and was accidentally rammed and sunk by the American freighter Thompson Lykes off the north coast of Panama near the Panama Canal. The report states that the accident was due to both vessels running at night with no lights because of the menace of German U-boats. A later French investigation commission stated that the Surcouf had been sunk by US planes in the morning of the 18th in a "friendly fire" accident in the same area.

After colliding with Thompson Lykes and sustaining a long split in her port saddle tank, Surcouf's captain, Georges Blaison, thought he'd been rammed, and dove to around 100 meters when Lykes circled back to check for survivors.

French Investigation

All Surcouf's crew were aboard, including the British watch officer who yelled a single word in English--"Help!"--just before impact; and the sub's pressure hull was intact.

After Lykes resumed her trek north to Charleston, SC, Blaison surfaced to check for damage; although Surcouf had lost most of the fuel from her port saddle, she could still keep way on. Surcouf made for Colon at half speed, and was less than 50 miles from the east end of the Panama Canal when dawn broke on the 19th of February.

Three OS2U patrol planes out of Coco Solo spotted Surcouf on the surface, not showing colors and heading for the Canal; she failed to answer her challenge. The patrol assumed her to be hostile, and proceeded to bomb her. Unable to submerge in less than 2 1/2 minutes, she took several direct hits and went down with all hands.

Career (France)

Ordered: December 1927

Launched: 18 October 1929

Commissioned: May 1934

Struck: 6 December 1943

Fate: Sunk

General characteristics

Displacement: 3,250 tons surfaced

4,304 tons submerged

2,880 tons dead

Length: 110 m (361 ft)

Beam: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)

Draught: 7.25 m (23.8 ft)

Propulsion: surfaced: two Sulzer diesel engines 7,600 hp submerged: two electric motors 3400 hp two propellers

Speed: 18.5 knots (34.3 km/h) surfaced 10 knots (20 km/h) submerged

Range: 18,500 kilometres (10,000 nautical miles) at 10 knots (20 km/h) surfaced

12,600 kilometres (6,800 nautical miles) at 13.5 knots (25.0 km/h) surfaced

130 kilometres (70 nautical miles) at 4.5 knots (8.3 km/h) submerged

110 kilometres (60 nautical miles) at 5 knots (9 km/h) submerged

Endurance: 90 days

Test depth: 80 m (250 ft)

Boats and landing craft carried: 1 motorboat in watertight deck well

Capacity: 280 tons

Complement: eight officers 110 men

Armament: two 203mm/50 Modèle 1924 guns twin turret

two 37 mm anti-aircraft cannon

four 13.2 mm anti-aircraft machineguns

eight 550 mm torpedo tubes (14 torpedoes carried)

four 400 mm torpedo tubes (eight torpedoes carried)

Aircraft carried: one Besson MB.411 float plane

At the time of her launch in 1927, the U.S. had two V-class subs that were longer--the Barracuda at 371 feet LOA, and the Narwhal at 381.

LINK

PLANS

This was the development model for the M26E1 and was essentially the M26 with a longer 90mm gun T15E2 which fired separate ammunition with a heavier charge in an attempt to match the hitting power of the German 88mm gun. Due to the longer barrel it was necessary to modify the gun cradle and elevating mechanism, and add a counterweight in the turret. A total of 25 vehicles of this type were produced from March 1945, classified "limited procurement", though 1,000 had been authorised prior to the cessation of hostilities. Some of these tanks were later used as target vehicles.

Weight: 48 Tons

Crew: 5 – Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Hull Machine Gunner

Armament: 90mm high velocity main gun, .50-caliber machine gun, 2 .30-caliber machine guns

Armor Thickness: .5” – 4.5”

Engine: Ford GAF Liquid Cooled V-8, 500 HP

Fuel Capacity: 183 Gallons

Speed: 20 mph Range: 100 miles

Total Produced: 25

Year Fielded: 1945

DUEL AT DESSAU [1]

[1] The 3AD Super Pershing at Dessau was actually the T26E1 pilot tank. This tank while assigned to Task Force Wellborn destroyed at least 3 tanks, including the King Tiger at Dessau. This is according to John Irwin, gunner of the Super Pershing in his book, Another River, Another Town.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

Heinkel He 177A-5 of II Gruppe, Kampfgeschwader 1 'Hindenburg' based at Prowehren, East Prussia, mid-1944. KG 1 assembled about 90 of these bombers for attacks on Soviet communications and military installations, but unreliability dogged operations.

Both the most important heavy bomber projects - the Heinkel He 177 'Greif ('Griffon') and the Junkers Ju 288C - had pairs of siamesed engines as their powerplant. They were designed to carry both conventional bombloads in internal bays and external racks but also guided glider bombs such as the 'Fritz- X' or the Henschel Hs 293. The only one built in significant numbers was the He 177, over 1000 of which were produced. Many were fitted with forward-firing 5cm and 7.5cm anti-tank guns to be deployed on the Eastern Front. However, it was never entirely successful, even after five years of development. A high-altitude reconnaissance version of the He 177 was developed, powered by four (separate) DB 610 engines of 1750hp and with a new high aspect ratio wing and a new twin fin tail. Known as the He 274, the prototype was built in Paris at the old Farman works, which were overrun in July 1944 before it could be completed. It was finished by the French and flown from December 1945. An improved version of the bomber, also with four separate engines and a twin fin tail, was built as the He 277, but only eight were completed before the Emergency Fighter Programme was put into effect on 3 July 1944.

#

The Heinkel He 177 Greif (Griffon) was a long-range bomber of the Luftwaffe. The troubled aircraft was the only heavy bomber built in large numbers by Germany during World War II. Aircrews nicknamed it the Luftwaffenfeuerzeug (Luftwaffe's lighter) or the 'Flaming Coffin' due to the engines' tendency to catch fire on the early versions of the aircraft.[1]

Design

The He 177 was conceived as a result of an Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) requirement called the Bomber A specification which called for a bomber aircraft more advanced than the Dornier Do 19 or Junkers Ju 89, capable of carrying a bombload of at least 1,000 kg (2,204 lb) over a range of 6,695 km (4,160 miles). The aircraft had to possess a maximum speed of about 540 km/h (335 mph) at altitude and it had to embody sufficient structural strength to enable it to undertake medium degree (later changed to 60 degree) diving attacks. In order to meet these specifications the He 177 embodied many advanced features including coupled engines with surface evaporation cooling and small remotely controlled defensive gun barbettes.

Engines

An unusual feature of the aircraft was the use of twin engines in each nacelle driving a single propeller, as the components of a "power system". Siegfried Günther, chief designer of Heinkel, chose to use the Daimler-Benz DB 606, which consisted of two Daimler-Benz DB 601 engines coupled together to use a common propeller, in order to minimise drag. The two engines were coupled side by side in each nacelle and inclined inwards at the crankcases' upper surfaces, so that the inner cylinder banks were disposed almost vertically, a single gear casing connecting the two crankcases, and the two crankshaft pinions driving a single airscrew shaft gear. The insistence of this engine configuration stemmed directly from the RLM's determination that the He 177 should be capable of dive bombing. The use of only two propellers on a heavy bomber also offered a substantial reduction in drag and a marked improvement in maneuverability. Indeed, the initial prototypes and pre-production models of the bomber had an airspeed and maneuverability comparable to many heavy fighters of the time.

The paired engines had first been introduced on the single-propeller equipped Heinkel He 119 prototype reconnaissance bomber aircraft to reduce drag where they worked well, but their extremely tight installation on the He 177 led to considerable problems, the most common being in flight engine fires and overheating. There were several reasons for the flammability of the DB 606 engine, one of which was the common exhaust manifold on the two inner cylinder blocks, which became excessively hot and caused the usual accumulation of oil and grease in the bottom of the engine cowling to catch fire. When the pilot throttled back there was a tendency for the injection pump to deliver more fuel than was required by the engine, in addition to which the injection pump connections leaked. In order to restrict the aircraft's weight, no firewall had been provided, and the DB 606 was fitted so close to the mainspar that there was insufficient space for the fuel/oil pipelines and electrical leads. The engine was frequently saturated by fuel and oil from leaking connections. At altitude, the oil tended to foam partly as a result of the oil pump being overly effective, and in this condition it circulated in the engines, its lubricative qualities being severely reduced. The lack of adequate lubrication resulted in the disintegration of the connecting rod bearings which burst through the engine crankcase, puncturing the oil tanks which poured their contents on to the hot exhaust pipe collector. The tightly-packed nature of the engine installations also led to very poor access to the engines. As a result of these factors, as well as a lack of routine maintenance in the field, the DB 606 easily caught fire in flight. Thus the effort to create an adequate engine to power the He 177 (such as the Junkers Jumo 222 produced too late in the war), by mechanically coupling pairs of lower-power engines, while theoretically sound, proved to be difficult and time consuming to perfect, leading to engine complications especially on the initial production models.

Starting with later versions of the He 177A-3, a modified engine nacelle with a new engine, the Daimler-Benz DB 610, was used to attempt to eliminate tendency for the engines to catch fire. Several improvements concerning cooling issues for the engines by setting a power limitation resulted in greater reliability. This modification was successful as far as engine fires were concerned but there were other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two engines and their shared propeller and other difficulties involving the installation of flame damper tubes for night missions.

Surface evaporation cooling

Originally, the He 177 design called for evaporative cooling in order to eliminate radiator weight and drag, but despite the immense amount of research undertaken by Heinkel into the problems of surface evaporation cooling, this feature was soon abandoned in 1939 in favor of annular radiators, one fitted directly behind each propeller, which resembled those fitted to the Junkers Jumo 211-powered versions of the Ju 88. The addition of large radiators added significantly to the aircraft's weight and drag.

Armament

Another design innovation featured by the He 177 as originally conceived was the use of three remotely controlled defensive gun turrets, which offered substantially less drag than manned turrets. Unfortunately, the perfection of these turrets was slow, and the He 177 had to be modified to accommodate larger manned positions, this requiring the fuselage to be strengthened in several locations, further increasing the aircraft's weight and drag. Most of the He 177As produced did have a single, twin MG 131 gun remote dorsal turret, located forward of the aft-located, manned dorsal turret, and sighted from a transparent dome just behind the forward cabin area.

Experimental weapon loads

In addition to carrying a variety of torpedoes, and guided missiles such as the Hs 293 anti-shipping missile, the 177 was tested with a number of unorthodox armaments. The first of these experimental weapon schemes known to have been attempted were the twelve examples of the He 177 A-1/U2 Grosszerstörer variant, which was armed with a pair of limited-traverse 30mm MK 101 autocannons in the extreme front of the under-nose gondola, and intended, variously, for "train-busting" ground attacks and possibly long-range anti-ship raids. Later, when assigned to flak-suppression sorties in the area of Stalingrad during the winter of 1942, Luftwaffe forward maintenance units modified a small number of 177s, fitting a massive 50mm cannon to the planes' nose gondolas. This variant was unofficially dubbed the Stalingradtyp. Although a small number of later A-3/R5 models were to be built from scratch, with an even larger Bordkanone BK 7.5, 75mm ventral cannon, structural stress problems caused by the gun's recoil meant that the Stalingradtyp did not see combat use outside of the original improvised handful. Three later-model 177s were experimentally equipped in June 1944 with batteries of obliquely-mounted rocket mortar tubes (thirty-three in all) to create the Pulkzerstorer (Formation Destroyer) flying battleship, a term also used for the Werfer-Granate 21 rocket-firing Luftwaffe single engined fighters. The mission of these specialised aircraft was to stalk and destroy Allied bomber formations. Bomb bays and auxiliary fuel tanks were deleted on these aircraft in order to house the spin-stabilized rockets and their firing mechanisms. The tubes could be fired individually, simultaneously, or in two salvoes of fifteen and eighteen. Tests with fixed balloon targets showed the potential of this system, and limited operational trials against US Eighth Air Force bomber streams were authorised. These trials yielded no results, however - each time an attack was attempted the Pulkzerstorer 177s were unable to close to firing range with their targets. It is also believed that a single heavily modified He 177 was prepared as a prototype for a projected nuclear bomber variant, the Greif being deemed the best compromise choice for the role until the arrival in operational service of more suitable carriers, such as the Junkers Ju 488 or Ju 287. [1]

Wings and undercarriage

The insistence on the ability to dive-bomb also led to the need to strengthen the wing structure, leading to the classic "vicious circle" in military aviation design, starting with an increase in unloaded weight, producing the need to enlarge the undercarriage, in turn increasing further the weight and causing a decrease in speed, range and carrying capacity. The requirement to dive-bomb was never satisfactorily solved and the later versions of the aircraft were produced without dive brakes.

The He 177's main gear arrangement can best be described as complex. There were four main gear struts, each with one large wheel, with the inboard and outboard retracting sets almost "meeting" under the nacelle of each of the engines when fully extended. A more conventional single-leg twin wheel arrangement for each main gear was actually used on the sole example of the He 274, and a few developments that only existed as drawings actually had tricycle landing gear setups being fitted to the He 277.

Airworthiness and Handling

British Royal Navy test pilot Eric Brown related in his book, Wings of the Luftwaffe, about the amazingly "light" handling of the He 177 A-5 version, one of which he flew as a captured aircraft late in the war. His remarks also seemed to indicate that the He 177's elevator control forces, in particular, were all too "exceptionally" light for a plane, which was no more than two feet different in wingspan and fuselage length, and with a similar empty weight, than the American USAAF's famous B-17 heavy bomber, and that reports of He 177's breaking up in flight could have been partially due to such light elevator control forces fooling He 177 pilots into thinking that they could "horseplay" with the control yoke in the pitch axis, over-stressing the Greif's fuselage to the point of structural failure.

Operational history

Beset by many other technical difficulties in development and service, the plane had a troubled life. This was in part due to overly optimistic design requirements of long range, high speed, a large bombload, and dive bomber. Though Goering forbade Heinkel to develop a version with four separate nacelles, Heinkel nevertheless produced prototypes of the Heinkel He 177B (later renamed into the Heinkel He 277) which was produced in limited numbers.

Although the He 177 entered service in 1942 it was still far from operational. As an emergency measure it was used to supply the encircled 6th Armee at Stalingrad where it was determined that it could carry a comparable payload to the appreciably smaller Heinkel He 111, and being virtually useless for the evacuation of wounded troops. As a result the He 177's reverted to bombing and flak-suppression missions in support of the Wehrmacht in the vicinity of Stalingrad. Only thirteen missions were flown and seven of the He 177's crashed in flames without any action attributable to the enemy. Another example of problems most resources cite a special situation regarding a night attack on England during Operation Steinbock (early 1944): 13 aircraft took off, 1 failed to take off due to a burst tire, 8 returned with burning or overheating engines and of the remaining few that got to their target two were destroyed by enemy night fighters. What most resources neglect to cite is that these aircraft were brand new, just delivered about one week before and not even properly flown-in, the air unit just moved to a new airfield the day before and was missing great amounts of maintenance personnel and material.

During later operations such as the aforementioned Operation Steinbock ("The Little Blitz") with an average loss rate of 60% for each type used (Do 217, He 111, Ju 88, Ju 188), the participating He 177A-5s had a loss rate well below 10%, making them the best bomber used in this campaign. According to sources experienced crews were able to carry a 5,600 kg (12,345 lb) payload on these missions. Standard tactics for the He 177 was to climb to its service ceiling before crossing the French coast, then carry out the rest of the mission in a shallow full power dive, which allowed the aircraft to reach a speed of over 690 km/h (428 mph). The higher speed and constant change of altitude made the aircraft harder to intercept, increasing the survivability of the aircraft, but greatly decreased bombing accuracy and effectiveness.

The final end for the He 177 came in late 1944 when high grade fuel wasn't available in the quantity needed to operate a whole Geschwader and the implementation of the Emergency Fighter Program. At this point the He 177 proved to be the most reliable, rugged and technically advanced bomber of the Luftwaffe. This seems to be confirmed by post war tests on the He 177A-5 and the single long-range He 177A-7, which turned out to be impressive for the RAF. As such, the He 177 can be compared with the Boeing B-29 bomber which also took about two years to have its problems ironed out, after which it became one of the most successful bombers of aviation history. Due to the war situation in Germany the He 177 was never able to prove itself and the designs used within.

Variants

He 177 V1-V8

First prototype (V1), 8 prototypes built in total. V4 aircraft first to use opposite-rotation propellers with DB 606 A/B engines, as all later production series aircraft would.

He 177 A-0

Pre-production series, 35 built.

He 177 A-1

First production series, 130 built.

He 177 A-1/R1

First version to use the FDL B 131 remotely aimed/fired forward dorsal turret.

He 177 A-1/U2

Grosszerstörer heavy fighter with twin MK 101 30mm autocannon in "chin" lower nose mount, twelve conversions.

He 177 A-2

Proposed four-man pressurized variant with reduced defensive armament (six MG 81 and single MG 131 guns)

He 177 A-3

Second production series, 170 built. Sixteenth and subsequent aircraft powered by DB-610 engines.

He 177 A-3/R1

Powered by two Daimler-Benz DB 606A/B piston engines.

He 177 A-3/R2

Modified defensive armament - MG 151/20 installed in tail position.

He 177 A-3/R3

Anti-shipping version capable of using Henschel Hs 293 glide bomb.

He 177 A-3/R4

Fitted with FuG 203 Kehl III missile-control equipment.

He 177 A-3/R5

Grosszerstörer version armed with Bordkanone BK 7.5 75 mm gun (based on the PaK 40 cannon) in ventral gondola,, as also used on the Ju 88 P-1, project only.

He 177 A-3/R7

Torpedo bomber version abandoned in favor of the He 177 A-5, three built.

He 177 A-4

Proposed high altitude version later developed into the Heinkel He 274.

He 177 A-5

Main production version with increased maximum external bombload, 826 built.

He 177 A-5/R1

Version optimized for Hs 293 and Fritz X guided bombs, with Kehl control gear.

He 177 A-5/R4

Simplified bomb rack installation, equipped with Kehl control gear for guided ordnance.

He 177 A-5/R5

Twin MG 131 remotely aimed/fired guns in rear of gondola for rear ventral defense, project only.

He 177 A-5/R6

Reduced bomb bay capacity.

He 177 A-5/R7

Pressurised cockpit study only, with A-2 version's reduced armament.

He 177 A-6

Long range, high altitude bomber with increased bombload and defensive armament. Six built as the He-177 A-6/R1. This version also had a tail turret and the capability to carry Henschel 293 missiles.

He 177 A-7

Conversion of six He 177A-5 airframes which were intended to have a 36 m wing, and with DB 610 engines instead of the intended 3,600 hp DB 613 engines.

Production

Production of the He 177 till 30 November 1944:

Source: Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv Freiburg

EHF = Ernst Heinkel Flugzeugwerke

HWO = Heinkel Werke Oranienburg

ArB = Arado Brandenburg

* Luftwaffe Units

o Fernkampfgeschwader 50

o Kampfgeschwader 1

o Kampfgeschwader 4

o Kampfgeschwader 10

o Kampfgeschwader 40

o Kampfgeschwader 100

o Kampfgeschwader 200

o Flugzeugführerschule (B) 15

o Flugzeugführerschule (B) 16

o Flugzeugführerschule (B) 31

o Wekusta/ObdL

Specifications (He 177 A-5)

General characteristics

* Crew: 5

* Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)

* Wingspan: 31.44 m (103 ft 1 in)

* Height: 6.7 m (21 ft)

* Wing area: 101.5 m2 (1,092 ft2)

* Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,000 lb)

* Loaded weight: 31,000 kg (68,340 lb)

* Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 (twin DB 605) 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines, 2,950 hp (2,170 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 565 km/h at 6,100 m (350 mph at 21,000 ft)

* Combat radius: 1.540 km (960 mi)

* Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,200 mi)

* Service ceiling 9,400 m (30,800 ft)

* Wing loading: 319.9 kg/m2 (65.6 lb/ft2)

* Power/mass: 110 W/kg (0.067 hp/lb)

Armament

* 2 x 20 mm MG 151 cannon

* 3 x MG 131 machine gun

* 3 x MG 81 machine gun

* up to 7,200 kg (15,873 lb) of bombs or 3 guided missiles Henschel Hs 293 or Fritz X

Usual configuration:

* 48 x 70 kg bombs (3,360 kg/7,405 lb total)

* 10 x 500 kg bombs (5,000 kg/11,020 lb total)

* 6 x 1000 kg bombs (6,000 kg/11,224 lb total)

* 2 x 2500 kg bombs (5,000 kg/ 11,020 lb total)

or

* 2 Hs 293 + 1 Hs293 remotely controlled missiles under the fuselage

* 2 Hs 294 + 1 Hs 294 remotely controlled glide bombs under the fuselage

* 2 PC 1400 + 1 PC 1400 gliding bomb under the fuselage

* 2 torpedoes + 2 torpedoes under the fuselage

[1] A-Bomb He 177

The "Hitler's Miracle Weapons, Secret Nuclear Weapons of the Third Reich and their Carrier Systems" by Friedrich Georg has an interesting contradiction between this and another book which is worth a mention...

This title was originally published circa 2000 and features a section on the "Heinkel He177: the atomic Reichsfeuerzeug from Prague" and includes what the author claims to be the He177V-38 coded KM+TB captured in an incomplete state at Prague Rusin on the 8th May 1945. The author goes on to claim, with the aid of another image, that the enlarged bomb bay was to take a German nuclear weapon.

However... the new "Junkers Ju287" title by Horst Lommel (2003) throws a completely different light on this He177. Lommel includes the self same images of this He177 but goes on to say that this He177V-38 (W.Nr.55000002) served as a test-bed for the overlarge bomb bay of the Ju287 and that the image is often passed off as the German "atomic bomber"

An interesting contradiction - made no easier to clear up when no source for either "claim" can be found...

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

The main British tank strength in the twenties and early thirties was the Vickers Medium Mk II with the various light tank types introduced for the "scouting" role. Proposed replacements for the Medium Mk II, the Medium Mk III (" 16 tonner") and the "Independent" were abandoned on the grounds of expense during the financial cut-backs of the thirties. Similarly the A7 and A8, built by the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich, as medium tanks, never went beyond prototype stage, again largely for financial reasons. In 1934, however, Sir John Carden of Vickers Armstrong (the firm which built the Medium Mk III), designed a new medium tank, designated A9, to meet General Staff requirements resulting from the proposals offered to the General Staff's Research Committee by the Inspector-General of the Royal Tank Corps. It incorporated the best features of the discontinued Medium Mk III, but was much lighter so that it could be powered by a standard commercially-made engine and thus be produced more cheaply. Designed weight was about 10 tons, though production vehicles exceeded this. The pilot model was to be powered by a single Rolls-Royce Phantom II engine of 7路67 litres, but this proved unable to provide the specified performance, so a 9路64 litres AEC bus engine was adopted instead.

An alternative 2pdr gun or 3路7in howitzer (CS) armament could be fitted and there were two auxiliary machine gun turrets as in the Medium Mk III. A 3pdr instead of 2pdr was initially proposed, but the latter weapon had become the new standard tank gun when production started in 1937. Two types of tank "cruiser" (essentially the old "medium" class) and "infantry" had been decided upon by the British War Office when considering future requirements in 1936. The A9, which originally had been rated a "medium" tank, thus became the Cruiser Tank Mk I. Trials of the pilot model started in July 1936 and production of 125 vehicles commenced a year later, 50 of them built by Vickers and 75 by Harland and Wolff, Belfast. A9s equipped some regiments of the 1st Armoured Division in France until the time of the Dunkirk withdrawal in June 1940. They were also used by regiments in the Western Desert until 1941. The A9 had inadequate armour and too Iowa speed for the "cruiser" role. Interesting design features were the external steering brakes on the rear sprockets (good for cooling), power turret traverse, and "slow motion" suspension-later used essentially unchanged on the Valentine.

SPECIFICATION

Designation: Tank, Cruiser, Mk I (A9)

Crew: 6 (commander, gunner, loader, driver, MG gunner (2))

Battle weight: 28,7281b

Dimensions:

Length 19ft:

Height 8ft 8tin

Width 8ft 2tin

Armament: Main: 1x 2pdr OQF

(1 x 3路7in howitzer in Mk ICS)

Secondary:3 x Vickers' 303 cal MG (one co-axial)

Armour thickness: Maximum 14mm

Minimum 6mm

Traverse: 3600 Elevation limits:-

Engine: AEC Type A179 6 cylinder gasoline (petrol) 150hp

Maximum speed: 25mph

Maximum cross-country speed: 15mph (approx)

Suspension type: Triple-wheel bogies on springs with Newton hydraulic shock absorbers ("Slow motion" type)

Road radius: 150 miles

Fording depth:-

Vertical obstacle: 3ft

Trench crossing: 8ft

Ammunition stowage: 100 rounds 2pdr

3,000 rounds' 303 cal MG

Special features/remarks: First British tank with hydraulic power traverse. Boat-shaped hull offering no external vertical faces. Riveted construction.

Although he was innocent, Vladimir Myasishchev was charged with crimes against the state at the beginning of 1938. Like many other Soviet aviation specialists, designers and scientists repressed in the late 19305, he was imprisoned in the special TsKB-29 design bureau attached to the Narodny Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del (NKVD - People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs, forerunner of the KGB). In parallel with his work on Project '100' in the Petlyakov team, Myasishchev developed a preliminary design for a long range, high altitude twin-engined bomber of modern configuration. The aircraft was designed around the newly-developed Klimov M-120 TK engine, which afforded 1,800hp (1 ,342kW) for take-off.

The project's revolutionary nature stemmed from the bomber having a performance that made it invulnerable to fighters. According to estimates the aircraft would have a maximum speed in excess of 310mph (500km/h), a service ceiling of 32,800ft (10,000m), a normal bomb load of 8,8181b (4,000kg) and range of 2,485 miles (4,000km) at cruising speed.

The project promised to be a breakthrough for the Soviet aircraft industry. Designated '102', the ambitious undertaking received the approval of the NKVD authorities, and Myasishchev was encouraged to establish his own design team.

Indeed, such a performance needed innovative technologies and solutions to design problems. According to the preliminary design, the DVB-102 (Dalny Vysotny Bombardirovshick -long range, high altitude bomber) was to be an all-metal, high wing cantilever monoplane with a twin-finned empennage and a retractable undercarriage. It had an extremely thin, high aspect ratio wing for such a heavy aeroplane, the wing's maximum thickness ranging from 16 to 100/0. The wing's centre section was built up on three spars, while its outer panels had two spars and integral fuel tanks. Four electrically operated landing flaps were provided.

A 4,4091b (2,000kg) bomb could be housed in a 22ft 11 in (7m) long bomb bay fitted with hydraulically operated doors which retracted inside when opened. To ensure sufficient rigidness the bomb bay section was built on a robust frame. Besides the interior bombs, the DVB-102 could carry external rack-mounted bombs. Armament comprised a movable ShVAK-20 cannon with 176 rounds in the nose, and two (upper and lower) machine gun mountings to defend the rear hemisphere. The upper installation consisted of twin 12.7mm UBK and 7.62mm ShKAS guns, with 700 and 1,500 rounds respectively, while the lower comprised a single UBK gun with 300 rounds. The aircraft was also to have an RSBbis radio and an AFA-6 camera.

Among the principal innovations in the bomber's construction were two pressurised crew compartments to provide normal working conditions without oxygen masks at any altitude. The forward compartment housed the pilot and navigator, while the aft one accommodated the gunners. At high altitude the pressure inside the compartments was equivalent to that at 6,500 to 10,000ft (2,000 to 3,000m). The decision to have pressurised crew compartments inevitably led to the need for remotely controlled defensive armament, and this proved to be a challenging technical problem at the end of 1930s.

The use of a nosewheel undercarriage was another advantage of the DVB-102, facilitating its taxying, take-off and landing. The nose gear retracted into the fuselage, while the main undercarriage members retracted into the engine nacelles.

Construction of a prototype was initiated in May 1940. On 25th July 1940 Petlyakov, Myasishchev and other imprisoned specialists engaged in Project '100' were released following the successful completion of the conversion of the newly-developed '100' high altitude twin-engined fighter into the light dive bomber later known as the Pe-2. In 1941 the work on the DVB-102 prototype was interrupted owing to the evacuation of Myasishchev's team to Omsk. Here, in local Civil Air Fleet repair shops hastily adapted to suit the needs of development work, construction of the new bomber was resumed.

On 17th February 1942 test pilot V. Zhdanov made the first flight on the DVB-102 prototype. The joint development/acceptance test flights, undertaken by test pilot F. Opadchy, were conducted both with and without the turbo-superchargers operating. The trials were completed on 2nd September. Only eleven flights were performed at the normal flying weight of 33,0681b (15,000kg), while 19 were made with the machine in a lightened configuration 路. About 800/0 of the trial period was spent developing and modifying the aircraft. The tests were complicated by the unreliable M-120 engines, the service life of which appeared to be limited to only 25 hours.

At the end of June the engines were replaced by new units of the same type, and the unsatisfactory turbosuperchargers were replaced by conventional superchargers providing an increase in take-off power. These and other modifications ensured satisfactory engine operation up to 26,250ft (8,000m). In the test report it was noted that the aeroplane had a greater maximum speed than contemporary Soviet and other long range bombers, and was almost as fast as the short range bombers.

Although the DVB-102's performance met the specified requirements, its unsatisfactory M-120 engines had to be rejected in favour of the M-71 air-cooled engines newly developed by A. Shvetsov and affording 2,100hp (1 ,566kW) at take-off.

Adapting the airframe to take the radial engines demanded much additional work. Initially the aircraft was equipped with engines having conventional superchargers, and then TK-3 turbo-superchargers were installed.

Flight tests of the re-engined aircraft began in May 1943. At that time, owing to the successful progress being made with the DVB-102 programme, Myasishchev received a message from Stalin, thanking him: '... for his concern with long range aviation'.

However, some weeks later Myasishchev accepted Stalin's offer to take charge of the design department of Plant No.22 at Kazan, where Pe-2s were being manufactured.

Following Petlyakov's death in a crash on 12th January 1942, his former deputies AIzakson and, six months later, A. Putilov, had been in charge of maintaining and improving Pe-2 production standards. Despite this, standards fell and the aircraft's performance deteriorated. A State Commission headed by Pavel Sukhoi revealed the causes, and in a month the aircraft had regained its agility. When Stalin offered Sukhoi leadership of the design department of Plant No.22, the designer answered that he needed to think about it. Stalin, accustomed to immediate acceptance of his proposals, therefore offered the post to Myasishchev. Sukhoi's colleagues maintain that it was because of this episode that no aircraft developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau was placed into series production until after Stalin's death, and that it was also the reason behind the bureau's disbandment in 1949.

Thus, before flight testing of the M-71-powered prototype, the Myasishchev bureau had been split into two parts, one in Kazan headed by the chief designer, and the other moved to Moscow. In August 1943, while being ferried on the Omsk-Kazan-Moscow route with test pilot V Zhdanov at the controls, the DVB-I02 demonstrated its promising performance.

When they were resumed in Moscow, the tests suffered from numerous troubles with the M-71, which was later replaced by its boosted version, the M-71F, fitted with a TK-3 turbo-supercharger. Test flights continued in to 1946, mainly owing to the unreliability of the powerplant and the TK-3 in particular. (Polikarpov faced similar problems during the flight tests of his 1-185 fighter prototype.) At a normal flying weight of 34,200ft (15,500kg) the DVB-102 powered by M-71Fs with TK-3 turbosuperchargers attained a maximum speed of 354mph (570km/h) at 28,000ft (8,500m) and had a service ceiling of 35,250ft (10, 750m). In overload condition with maximum fuel its range was 2,323 miles (3,740km).

At Stalin's behest, in 1946 the promising development work on this unique Soviet strategic high altitude bomber was halted and the Myasishchev Design Bureau was disbanded. The real reasons behind this decision have nothing to do with the 'official' explanation linking it to the lack of suitable engines and Stalin's under-estimation of strategic aviation. It was widely proclaimed that Stalin's concern for strategic aviation had been heightened by Hiroshima and resulted in the unprecedented national programme to produce a Soviet version of the Boeing B-29 (the Tu-4). It is absolutely impossible even to imagine that this programme, launched in June 1946 and headed by Andrei Tupolev, could have been abandoned owing to engine problems.

RF-84F Thunderflash

USAF F-84F Thunderstreak

Role: Fighter-bomber

Manufacturer : Republic Aviation

Designed by: Alexander Kartveli

Retired: 1972 US ANG, 1991 Greece

Primary user : United States Air Force

Unit cost : US$769,330 (F-84F)

Developed from : F-84 Thunderjet

Variants : XF-84H Thunderscreech

The Republic F-84F Thunderstreak was an American-built swept-wing turbojet fighter-bomber. While an evolutionary development of the straight-wing F-84 Thunderjet, the F-84F was a new design. The RF-84F Thunderflash was a photo reconnaissance version.

Design and development

In 1949, Republic created a swept wing version of the F-84 hoping to bring performance to the F-86 level. The last production F-84E was fitted with a swept tail, a new wing with 38.5 degrees of leading edge sweep and 3.5 degrees of anhedral, and a J35-A-25 engine producing 5,300 pound-force (23.58 kN) of thrust.[1] The aircraft was designated XF-96A. It flew on 3 June 1950 with Otto P. Haas at the controls. Although the airplane was capable of 602 knots (693 mph, 1,115 km/h), the performance gain over the F-84E was considered minor.[1] Nonetheless, it was ordered into production in July 1950 as the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-84 designation was retained because the fighter was expected to be a low-cost improvement of the straight-wing Thunderjet with over 55 percent commonality in tooling.

In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production delays with the F-84F forced USAF to order a number of straight-wing F-84Gs as an interim measure.

Production quickly ran into problems. Although tooling commonality with the Thunderjet was supposed to be 55 percent, in reality only 15 percent of tools could be reused. To make matters worse, the F-84F utilized press-forged wing spars and ribs. At the time, only three presses in the United States could manufacture these, and priority was given to the B-47 Stratojet bomber over the F-84. The YJ65-W-1 engine was considered obsolete and the improved J65-W-3 did not become available until 1954. When the first production F-84F finally flew on 22 November 1952, it differed from the service test aircraft. It had a different canopy which opened up and back instead of sliding to the rear, as well as airbrakes on the sides of the fuselage instead of the bottom of the aircraft. The aircraft was considered not ready for operational deployment due to control and stability problems. Since early aircraft suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up, F-84F-25-RE introduced an all-moving tailplane. A number of aircraft were also retrofitted with spoilers for improved high-speed control. As a result, the F-84F was not declared operational until 12 May 1954.

Operational history

Project Run In completed operational tests in November 1954 and found the aircraft to be to USAF satisfaction and considerably better than the F-84G. However, ongoing engine failures resulted in the entire fleet being grounded in early 1955. Also, the J65 engine continued to suffer from flameouts when flying through heavy rain or snow. As the result of the problems, the active duty phase-out began almost as soon as the F-84F entered service in 1954, and was completed by 1958. Increased tensions in Germany associated with construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 resulted in reactivation of the F-84F fleet. In 1962, the fleet was grounded due to corrosion of control rods. A total of 1,800 man hours was expended to bring each aircraft to full operational capacity. The aircraft were retired from active service in 1964. Stress corrosion forced retirement of ANG F-84Fs in 1971.

The second YF-84F prototype was completed with wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter due to loss of thrust. However, this arrangement permitted placement of cameras in the nose and the design was adopted for the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. The first YRF-84F was completed in February 1952. The aircraft retained an armament of four machine guns and could carry up to fifteen cameras. Innovations included computerized controls which adjusted camera settings for light, speed, and altitude, a periscope to give the pilot better visualization of the target, and a voice recorder to let the pilot narrate his observations. Being largely identical to the F-84F, the Thunderflash suffered from the same production delays and engine problems, delaying operational service until March 1954. The aircraft was retired from active duty in 1957, only to be reactivated in 1961, and finally retired from the ANG in 1972.

Flying the Thunderstreak

The Thunderstreak suffered from the same poor takeoff performance as the straight-wing Thunderjets in spite of having a more powerful engine. In reality, almost 700 pounds-force (3.11 kN) or 10 percent of total thrust was lost because the J65 was installed at an angle and its exhaust had a prominent kink. On a hot day, 7,500 feet (2,285 m) of runway were required for takeoff roll. A typical takeoff speed was 160 knots (185 mph, 300 km/h). Like the Thunderjet, the Thunderstreak excelled at cruise and had predictable handling characteristics within its performance envelope. Like its predecessor, it also suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up and potential resulting separation of wings from the airplane. In addition, spins in the F-84F were practically unrecoverable and ejection was the only recourse below 10,000 feet (3,000 m).

With the appearance of the F-105 Thunderchief, the Thunderstreak became known as the Thud's Mother.

By the mid-1960s, the F-84F was replaced by the F-100 Super Sabre and the RF-84F by the RF-101 Voodoo in USAF units, being relegated to duty in the Air National Guard. The last F-84F Thunderflash retired from the ANG in 1971. Three Hellenic Air Force RF-84Fs that were retired in 1991 were the last operational F-84s.

Richard Bach, who later wrote the bestseller Jonathan Livingston Seagull, was an ANG F-84F pilot who was once activated for duty in Europe. His first book, Stranger to the Ground, described in great detail what it was like to fly the Thunderstreak.

Variants

YF-84F

Two swept-wing prototypes of the F-84F, initially designated YF-96.

F-84F Thunderstreak

Swept wing version with Wright J65 engine. Tactical Air Command aircraft were equipped with Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS) for delivering nuclear bombs. 2,711 built, 1,301 went to NATO under Mutual Defense Assistance Program (MDAP).

GRF-84F

25 RF-84Fs were converted to be carried, and launched from the bomb bay of a GRB-36F bomber as part of the FICON project. The aircraft were later redesignated RF-84K.

RF-84F Thunderflash

Reconnaissance version of the F-84F, 715 built.

XF-84H

Two F-84Fs were converted into experimental aircraft. Each was fitted with a Allison XT40-A-1 turboprop engine of 5,850 shaft horsepower (4,365 kW) driving a supersonic propeller. Ground crews dubbed the XF-84H the Thunderscreech due to its extreme noise level.

YF-84J

Two F-84Fs were converted into YF-84J prototypes with enlarged nose intakes and a deepened fuselages for the General Electric J73 engine; the YF-84J reached Mach 1.09 in level flight on 7 April 1954. The project was cancelled due to the excessive cost of conversion of existing F-84Fs.

Specifications (F-84F)

General characteristics

* Crew: 1

* Length: 43 ft 43⁄4 in (13.23 m)

* Wingspan: 33 ft 71⁄4 in (10.25 m)

* Height: 14 ft 43⁄4 in (4.39 m)

* Wing area: 325 ft2 (30 m2)

* Empty weight: 13,830lb (5,200 kg)

* Loaded weight: lb (kg)

* Max takeoff weight: 28,000 lb (12,701 kg)

* Powerplant: 1× Wright J-65-W-3 turbojet, 7,220 lbf (32.2 kN)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 695 mph (604 knots, 1,119 km/h) at sea level

* Range: 810 mi (704 nmi, 1,304 km) combat radius with two droptanks

* Service ceiling 46,000 ft (14,000 m)

* Rate of climb: 8,200 ft/min (42 m/s)

* Wing loading: 86 lb/ft2 (423 kg/m2)

Armament

* 6× .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning M3 machine guns,

* Up to 6,000lb (2,727 kg) of rockets and bombs, including one Mark 7 nuclear bomb

Avionics

* A-1CM or A-4 gunsight with APG-30 or MK-18 ranging radar

Related development

* F-84 Thunderjet

* XF-84H Thunderscreech

* RF-84K FICON

* XF-91 Thunderceptor

* F-105 Thunderchief

Comparable aircraft

* Saab 32 Lansen

* Dassault Mystère

* de Havilland Venom

* Gloster Meteor

* Grumman F9F Panther

* Grumman F9F/F-9 Cougar

32 Sd.Kfz. 7 halftracks were sold to the Brazilian Army in 1939, but only five were delivered in late 1941. They were only used between 1942 and 1945 because the defeat of Germany in May 1945 cut off the possible supply of vehicles and parts.

Weight: 9700kg

Crew: 12 men

Engine: Maybach HL 64 / 6-cylinder / 140hp

Speed: Road: 50km/h

Range: Road: 250km
Cross-Country: 120km

Fuel Capacity: 215 litres

Length: 6.85m

Width: 2.35-2.40m

Height: 2.62m

Letov Kbely Š-50

The Letov Kbely Š-50 is a twin-engined bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. Czech Ministry of Defense wrote out a requirement in 1936 for a reconnaissance and light bomber. This aircraft was manufactured in the Letov Kbely plant in Letnany a suburb of Prague in Czechoslovakia. The construction and design was led Alois Šmolík. The machine had a glazed area for the observer in the nose and the fuselage MG-turret. Each of the three man crew could control a machine-gun vz. 30. The bomber was also equipped with cameras, radio and had a bomb load up to 600 kg.

The fuselage was space for extensive photo equipment. The machine used radial engines Avia Rk.17 which delivered 309 kW power.

The prototype of the engine used in 1937 at the national aviation exhibition in Prague and attracted great attention. This aircraft was the first truly modern aircraft which works of Letov Kbely had developed. The machine was aerodynamically competitive and stimulated much interest abroad.

Test pilot Kovanda began with the Š-50 with the first test flights in November, 1938. Due to the German invasion and occupation, however, no further testing and production occurred. The prototype of the Letov Kbely Š-50 in 1938, with German civil flag was exhibited in Brussels. The German Air Force took over the machine and took it Rechlin Test Airfield north of Berlin. It was subsequently damaged and return to the original factory where it was destroyed in an accident.

Technical Data

Wingspan: 17.30 m

Length: 12.60 m

Wing area: 43.00 m

Weight: 2,475 kg

Takeoff weight: 5,708 kg

Cruising speed: 260 km / h

Maximum speed: 305 km / h

Range: 1,300 km

High altitude: 6,200 m

Engine: 2x Avia Rk-17 with 309 kW

The Autoblinda 40 (AB 40) was an Italian armored car built in small numbers in 1940. Armament consisted of two 8 mm machine guns in a turret. During production a need for heavier armament was envisioned and so the AB 40 was redesigned as the AB 41 which was the same vehicle except for a new turret with a 20 mm autocannon. Most of the 24 AB 40s that had been built were then converted to AB 41s.

The Autoblinda 41 (AB 41) was an Italian armored car in use during World War II. It was armed with a 20 mm Breda 35 autocannon in the same turret as the Fiat L6/40) and two hull mounted 8 mm machine guns, one to the rear and the other to the front. The AB 41 (in production from 1941) was based on the machine gun armed Autoblinda 40 most of which were converted to AB 41s by switching the turret. The AB 41 had a four-wheel drive and there were also conversion kits to make it go on railroad tracks (these kits were mostly used in anti-resistance patrols in the Balkans). About 550 vehicles were built in all. The Autoblinda AB 43, which was basically an upgraded AB 41 with more powerful engine, a new lower and wider turret and revised exhaust system and provision for 7 jerry cans on external racks and was still armed with a 20mm main gun and two 8mm machine guns as well as having four wheel drive and steering. It was planned to upgrade the AB 43 with a 47 mm anti-tank gun, but those plans were disrupted by the Italian surrender in September 1943.

After the Italian surrender in the Germans confiscated some 37 AB 41s and also built 20 more. The German designation was Panzersp채hwagen AB41 201(i). The Italian AB 43 armored car was used by German units - as PanzerSpahWagen AB 43 203(i)

The AB 41/43s were used during World War II in North Africa, Italy, Hungary, and on the Eastern Front.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK