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

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

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

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

LINK

LINK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History

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

Design and Technology

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

Engine

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

Chassis

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

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

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

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

* Road clearance = 300 mm (11.8 in)

Transmission

* Drive - 6x6 Selectable front wheels drive

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

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

Auxiliary gearbox - 2 speed

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

* Differentials - ratio 3.19

* Clutch - 2x plate, dry

Bodywork

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

Production

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

Models

T111VVN military

T111VVN military

T111 R - Flatbed

T111 NR - Flatbed with auxiliary gearbox powered winch

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

T111 S - Three way tipper with wooden sides

T111 S2 - All steel three way tipper heavy duty

T111 C - Tanker

T111 D - Bodybuilders chassis

Legacy

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

LINK

Blueprint

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

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

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

Battle of Britain

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

Greco-Italian War

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

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

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

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

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

Again the Allies

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

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

Post WWII problems and performances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LINK

LINK

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

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

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

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

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

Performance tests

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

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

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

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

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

#

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

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

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

Specifications

Country of Origin CIS (formerly USSR)

Variants

MiG-23M Flogger B

MiG-23MF Flogger B

MiG-23UB Flogger C

MiG-23UM Flogger C

MiG-23MF Flogger E

MiG-23MS Flogger E

MiG-23BN Flogger F

MiG-23BM Flogger F

MiG-23B Flogger F

MiG-23ML Flogger G

MiG-23P Flogger G

MiG-23BK Flogger H

MiG-23BN Flogger H

MiG-23MLD Flogger K

MiG-24 (export MiG-23)

Similar Aircraft

MiG-27 Flogger D

Tornado

Su-24 Fencer

F-111

Crew

one

MiG-23U -- two

MiG-23C -- two

Role

interceptor

fighter

Length 55 ft (16.6 m)

Span 46 ft, 9 in (14.26 m)

Ceiling 18600 meters

Cruise range 970 nm

In-Flight Refueling No

Internal Fuel 4600 kg

Payload 2000 kg

Sensors High Lark radar, RWR, IRST, Basic Bombsight

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

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

User Countries

Afghanistan

Algeria

Angola

Belarus

Bulgaria

CIS

Cuba

Czech Republic

Germany

Ethiopia

Hungary

India

Iraq

Kazakhstan

Libya

North Korea

Poland

Romania

South Yemen

Sudan

Syria

Ukraine

Vietnam

LINK

LINK

LINK

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

1 built.

Monoplane wing low.

Wing wood and metal with metal fuselage

Specifications

Wingspan: 10.00 m

Length: 7.10 m

Height: 3.20 m

Wing loading: 16.60 m2 sq.m.

Crew: 1

Empty weight: 910 kg

Total Weight: 1600 kg

Engine: 1 Lorraine 12O of 470 hp

Maximum speed: 430 km / h

Ceiling: 10500 m

Range: 1000 km

Moskalyev SAM-4 Sigma

Purpose: To create a fighter with unprecedented speed.

Design Bureau: Aleksandr Sergeyevich Moskalyev, initially in Leningrad and later at the VGU and Aircraft Factory No 18, Voronezh.

Moskalyev was a talented young designer/ pilot who achieved success with conventional aircraft, notably the SAM-5 light transport (SAM stood for Samolyot [aeroplane] Aleksandr Moskalyev). He also persistently strove to create highly unconventional aeroplanes of tailless configurations. The first of the latter series was the Sigma, named for the letter of the Greek alphabet. He sketched this in 1933 whilst working at the Krasnyi Letchik (Red flyer) factory in Leningrad, and worked on rocket propulsion with V P Glushko in a serious endeavour to design an aeroplane to reach l,000km/h (621 mph), and if possible to exceed Mach 1 (the first project in the world with this objective). When it was clear that a rocket engine with adequate thrust was many years distant, he recast the design with piston engines. He was working on this when he left Leningrad to be a lecturer at the VGU, the State University at Voronezh. Under the guidance of A V Stolyarov he tested models in the VGU's newly built high-speed tunnel. In September 1934 he submitted his preliminary report on SAM-4 to the GlavAviaProm (directorate of aircraft industries), whose Director, 11 Mashkevich, berated Moskalyev for submitting such 'unimaginable exotics'.

By 1933 Moskalyev had decided a suitable configuration for a fast aircraft was an allwing layout with a 'Gothic delta' plan shape, with trailing-edge elevens and Scheibe surfaces (fins and rudders on the wingtips). The drawing shows two main wheels in the front view, but this may be an error as Moskalyev favoured a single centreline gear and, as shown, skids on the wingtip fins. The drawing shows a single propeller, but in fact Moskalyev intended to use two Hispano-Suiza 12 Ybrs engines, each of 860hp (these were later made in the USSR under licence as the M-100), driving separate contra-rotating propellers. The stillborn rocket version would have had a prone pilot, but the piston-engined SAM-4 featured a conventional enclosed cockpit; the designer did not explain why this was offset to port.

This proposal was altogether too 'far out' for Mashkevich. No data survives.

The SAM-5 featured spatted undercarriage to reduce drag. Later designs were exceptionally clean. Here the designer poses with the original prototype.

Moskalyev SAM-5

The work of the Russian designer Aleksandr Moskalyev was too much in advance of contemporary ideas and, as a result, the majority of his many designs were built only as prototypes. His most successful design was the Moskalyev SAM-5, a light transport of cantilever high-wing monoplane configuration with accommodation for a pilot and four or five passengers. The original prototype was of stressed-skin light alloy construction, but with a works team that had no experience of fabrication in this material Moskalyev was dissatisfied with the standard of workmanship and immediately redsigned the aircraft for an all-wood basic structure. The resulting second prototype, designated SAM-5bis was of generally similar configuration but introduced wing bracing, had a more slender fuselage and was of mixed ply and fabric covering. Following the completion of official testing the production of 37 aircraft was authorised, the majority being completed for use in an air ambulance role and accommodating three patients and an attendant. Delivered during 1937-38 they remained in service into World War II.

With the SAM-5bis in production, Moskalyev began development of an improved SAM-5-2bis with many refinements to reduce drag. Tested subsequently with the MG-21 and a supercharged M-11FN engine, each rated at 149 kW (200 hp), this aircraft not only had impressive performance but established distance and height records. Official testing led to an order for 200 SAM-5-2bis in ambulance configuration but, because of the animosity of commissar Kaganovich none were delivered.

Specification Moskalyev SAM-5bis

Type: lightweight air ambulance

Powerplant: one 75-kW (100-hp) M-11 five-cylinder radial piston engine

Performance: maximum speed 173 km/h (107 mph); service ceiling 2800 m (9,185 ft); range 900 km (559 miles)

Weights: empty 710 kg (1,565 Ib); maximum take-off 1 2 1 9 kg (2,687 Ib)

Dimensions: span 12.50 m (41 ft 0 in); length about 8.00 m (26 ft 3 in); wing area 24.00 m2 (258.34 sq ft)

Moskalyev SAM-13

Purpose: To design a small fighter with 'push/pull' propulsion.

Design Bureau: A S Moskalyev, OKB -31 at Voronezh.

This small fighter was unconventional in layout, but used an ordinary wing, and had nothing to do with the designer's previous fighter concepts. According to Shavrov 'Fokker designed an almost exact copy of the SAM-13, known as the D.23...' In fact it was the other way about, because Moskalyev began this design in 1938, immediately after the D.23 had been exhibited at the Paris Salon. The single prototype was first flown by N D Fikson in late 1940, 18 months after the Dutch fighter, and proved difficult to handle, to need inordinately long runs to take off and land, and to have a sluggish climb and poor ceiling. Its designer worked round the clock to improve it, and by spring 1941 it was undergoing LII testing in the hands of Mark L Gallai. Apart from the fact the nose gear never did retract fully, it was by this time promising, and it was entered for the summer high-speed race, but the German invasion on 22nd June stopped everything. The No 31 OKB was evacuated, but this aircraft had to be left behind so it was destroyed. The OKB documents have not been found.

The SAM-13 was powered by two 220hp Renault MV-6 inverted six-cylinder aircooled engines driving 2.2m (7ft 21/2in) two-blade variable-pitch propellers. Between them was the pilot, and Moskalyev fitted the rear propeller with a rapid-acting brake to make it safer for the pilot to bail out. The small two spar wing was sharply tapered, and was fitted with split flaps inboard of the booms carrying the single-fin tail. Apart from welded steel tube engine mounts, the structure was wooden, with polished doped ply skin. The main landing gears retracted inwards and the nose unit aft. One drawing shows the nose unit (which had a rubber shimmy damper) to have had a levered-suspension arm for the axle. The intended armament, never fitted, comprised four 7.62mm ShKAS, two above the front engine and two at the extremities of the wing centre section.

Moskalyev knew that the MV-6 was available for licence-production in the USSR, and thought this aircraft might make good use of some. Even had the programme continued without interruption it is hard to envisage the SAM-13 being adopted by the VVS.

Moskalyev SAM-29, RM-1

Purpose: To renew attempt to build a rocket-engined interceptor.

Design bureau: A S Moskalyev, No 31.

During the Great Patriotic War practical rocket engines for manned aircraft became available. Moskalyev never forgot that he had been invited by the NKAP to build a fighter with the so-called Gothic delta wing of 0.95 aspect ratio. In 1944, despite much other work, he collaborated with L S Dushkin in planning what was to be the ultimate Strela fighter. This time most of the technology existed, and S P Korolyov lent his support, but once the War was over such a project was judged to be futuristic and unnecessary. Moskalyev's OKB was closed in January 1946, and he returned to lecturing, but he continued to study this project for two further years. The final SAM, also called Raketnyi Moskalyev, would have followed the usual Strela form in having a Gothic delta wing and no horizontal tail. The wing was fitted with elevens and blended into a needle-nosed fuselage carrying a large fin and rudder. The Dushkin RD-2M-3V engine, rated at 2,000kg (4,409 Ib) thrust at sea level and much more at high altitude, was installed at the rear and fed with propellants from tanks filling most of the airframe. Two cannon would have been installed beside the retracted nose landing gear. This was yet another of this designer's near misses, all of which stemmed from his abundance of enthusiasm.

No data survives.

LINK

The Ju 52 trimotor, like the USAF C-47, was first built in the 1930s and remained in service for more than a quarter century. This transport made its maiden flight in April 1931, and three years later, a heavy bomber version appeared. The latter aircraft formed the nucleus of the Luftwaffe's infant bomber force in the mid-1930s, and it was used during the Spanish Civil War.

The Ju 52 was obsolete as a bomber by 1939, but because of its durability, simplicity of design and handling characteristics, it continued to serve throughout World War II as a versatile workhorse of the German transport fleet. For a period, Adolph Hitler used a Ju 52 as his private transport. Ju 52s delivered the attacking forces and their supplies during the German invasion of Norway, Denmark, France and the Low Countries in 1940. Almost 500 Ju 52s participated in the historic airborne assault on the island of Crete in May 1941, and Junkers later supplied Rommel's armored forces in North Africa.

Approximately 30 different countries have flown Ju 52s. The aircraft on display was donated to the museum by the Spanish government in 1971. Note: This particular aircraft is a CASA 352L.

Ju 52 and the SST Concorde

I have a rather amusing incident to share re the restored Ju-52 of Lufthansa [1]. A number of years ago (back in 1990 plus or minus one or two years), the now restored Ju-52 made a goodwill tour to London's Heathrow airport. When it was departure time, the Ju-52 found itself on the taxiway behind a British Airways Concord SST. Much to the amusement of the Ju-52 crew, the captain of the Concord requested permission to switch departure orders with the Ju-52. The captain of the SST did not want to miss seeing the Ju-52 take off - he obtained permission from the air traffic controller to let the Ju-52 pass him and take off first. It must have indeed been a wonderful sight to see.

[1] The Lufthansa Ju-52 with the famous registration D-AQUI is a confirmed classic. Strictly speaking, it doesn't belong to Lufthansa anymore but to DLBS Deutsche Lufthansa Berlin Stiftung (German Lufthansa Berlin Foundation), and it now carries the registration D-CDLH.

LINK

Civil Use

The Junkers Company was an early constructor of aero-engines as well as airframes. In 1923 Junkers Motorenbau was founded, and in July 1936 the airframe and engine companies merged as Junkers Flugzeug-und-Motorenwerke.

Apart from designing and building orthodox gasoline engines, Junkers embarked on a long development programme of what were known as Schweral (heavy oil) or Rohal (crude oil) engines in other words diesels.

The five-cylinder FO-3 was produced in 1926 and this was followed in 1928 by the 750-hp six cylinder FO-4 also known as the Jumo 4 and later Jumo 204, and the 545-hp Jumo 5 of 1932. The Junkers diesel engines were flight-tested in a number of aircraft and in 1932

Jumo 4-powered Junkers F24s were put into service on Lufthansa's Berlin-Amsterdam route and nine of the airline's F24s were fitted with Jumos.

Jumo 204s were also installed in the Junkers G38 and later, Jumo 205s were used in a number of DLH flying boats and seaplanes and in the Junkers Ju 86. A Jumo 204 was also fitted to one of the single-engined Junkers Ju 52s.

Most of the many thousands of Ju 52/3ms were powered by air-cooled radial gasoline engines but two were fitted with 550-hp Jumo 205Cs. Changes to the airframe made them Ju 52/3mhs and, the Junkers suffix for the Jumo being the letter 0, the correct designation became Tu 52/3mho.

One of these aircraft was the landplane Emil Schaefer. Apart from its Jumo engines and two blade propellers it was a standard aircraft. Then at the 1934 Paris Air Show a Jumo-powered Ju 52 twin-float seaplane was exhibited. After the show it was converted to a landplane and entered Lufthansa service as W Hoehndorf. As far as is known these aircraft were identical and it is presumed that they were used to get operational experience of diesel engines and compare their performance with BMW-powered Ju 52/3ms.

There is evidence to suggest that Emil Schaefer was re-engined with BMW 132 radial engines and that the Jumo 205Cs in W Hoehndorf were replaced by Jumo 206As, since these engines were listed as in the aircraft in 1940 and 1941.

The Jumo diesels, although having lower fuel consumption, were not an unqualified success and were noisy, heavy and smoky.

As history bears out, the Ford Tri-Motor AT and the Junkers tri-motor were on parallel courses. Hugo Junkers was a pioneer in the development of metal-skinned aircraft for Germany. His American analog was William B. Stout. Stout, with Henry and Edsel Ford as investors, was set to build his own metal-skinned planes. Still, Stout cast his eye overseas for ideas on how to improve his own designs. There is evidence that Stout incorporated Junkers's innovations into his own designs. Ford eventually bought the company from Stout in 1925. Before Stout could adequately demonstrate a working prototype worthy of production, a fire destroyed part of the factory, and the prototype tri-motors. Afterwards, a Ford team (Stout eventually fell out of the picture) produced the Ford Tri-Motor 4-AT in 1926 (199 were built). The 5-AT was produced in much larger numbers after 1928. But this plane was not the same one that Junkers produced.

Hugo Junkers also began experimenting with the production of metal planes during the 1920's. The first Ju 52 that Junkers rolled out in 1930 was, in fact, a single-engine model. By 1932, the Ju 52/3m version had the familiar tri-motor configuration.

Ford Motor Company, was the majority shareholder of a production plant in Cologne, Germany. Several years before the U.S. involvement in the war, and in hopes to appease the Nazis, Ford replaced the entire board of directors of that company with Germans, place Ford's German operations in the care of a pro-Nazi caretaker, and changed the name to Ford Werke, AG. When I mentioned "nationalized", earlier, this notion was mistaken--Ford Werke was never consolidated into the Hermann Goering Werke of nationalized German military industries. Instead, Ford Werke maintained its status as an independent company although Ford, Inc. contends that it lost control of Ford Werke in 1941 after the U.S. declared war. Nevertheless, under National Socialism, the state dictated the product lines that a privately-owned enterprise could sell; at Ford Werke, this product was: TRUCKS for the Wehrmacht (only German-made parts were used in their assembly, even prior to the War).

I did not find a connection between Ford Werke or any of Ford's other subsidiaries in Nazi-occupied countries as far as aircraft parts production is concerned--but this was not an exhaustive search, so please weigh the evidence accordingly. Did Ford Inc. sell any tri-motor aircraft to the Germans in the 1930's prior to, or even after the rise of totalitarianism? That I do not know, although Ford did supply tri-motor aircraft to each of the U.S. Services.

Besides the obvious similarity of having three powerplants and being monoplanes, the Ford Tri-Motor 4/5-AT has an overhead wing design, and Junkers Ju 52 has its wing integrated into the lower part of the fuselage. Interestingly, both used a Pratt & Whitney radial engine at some time in their development (5-AT, P&W Wasp; Ju 52/3mce, P&W Hornet). Later, a BMW radial replaced the P&W engines in the Ju 52.

LINK

LINK

Military missiles developed by the Yuzhnoye State Design Office.

Launch vehicles developed by the Yuzhnoye State Design Office.

Spacecraft developed by Yuzhnoye State Design Office.

This article begins with a brief history of the Yuzhnoye Design Office, one of the leading design bureaus in the Soviet Union and Ukraine. The Yuzhnoye Design Office designed numerous strategic missile systems, launch vehicles, and spacecraft. These will be detailed in future posts. One interesting aspect of this history involves the conversion of missiles into space launch vehicles by a team of developers led by the Yuzhnoye Design Office, well in advance of the officially announced USSR conversion effort.

Brief History

The M.K. Yangel' Yuzhnoye State Design Office (initially known as Special Design Bureau 586, abbreviated OKB-586) was established on 10 April 1954 in Dniepropetrovsk, a city on the banks of the Dniepr River in central Ukraine. Mikhail Kuz'mich Yangel' was named General Designer. Before this, he had been Director of the Scientific Research Institute 88 (NII-88) in Podlipki (now known as Korolev), a city near Moscow. In 1946, NII-88 became the USSR's main center for missile development.

A group of missile specialists from the General Designer's Department of All-Union State Plant 586 (the former Dniepropetrovsk Motor Vehicle Plant, now the State Enterprise Production Association Yuzhnyi Machine-Building Plant) formed the core of the newly established OKB-586. In 1951, Plant 586 started mass production of the R-1, R-2, and R-5 missiles developed by NII-88 and the NII-88 Special Design Bureau 1 (OKB-1), which was headed by General Designer Sergei Pavlovich Korolev. OKB-586 and Plant 586 joined forces to establish a missile design and production center where everything was under one roof. A nationwide network of developers and manufacturers for the components, systems, intermediate products, and hardware specified for use in OKB-586 missile production and development activities was also set up along with OKB-586 itself.

The Soviet Government's intention was to have this newly established system of production and development facilities headed by OKB-586 become (relative to the existing system) a stronger, more productive scientific production cooperative for developing future USSR strategic missiles. The intent was to promote missile development and also to increase substantially the military effectiveness of the missiles themselves. Despite the success of NII-88 in developing the R-1, R-2, and R-5 missiles, high-level military and government personnel understood that these missiles and any others that could be developed using the same principles could not meet future strategic requirements. Each of these missiles had substantial deficiencies that prevented them from being used in real combat conditions.

The new team would eventually eliminate these deficiencies by developing future missiles within a completely new conceptual framework. This conceptual framework was based on several principles developed by NII-88 personnel in 1952 under the leadership of M.K. Yangel. These were the most important of the principles:

* development of a series of missiles having ranges consistent with strategic requirements;

* deployment of these missiles in hardened silo launchers constructed for concealment from the enemy;

* development of these missiles to use high-boiling-point propellants that could be stored long term and avoid using the low-boiling-point propellants previously used that had poor storage qualities;

* the use of autonomous onboard control systems protected against enemy electronic countermeasures and avoiding subsystems that might be vulnerable to noise.

The design concepts based on the high-boiling-point AK-27I and TM-185 rocket propellants developed by OKB-1 and Plant 586 General Designer's Department personnel for the R-11 and R-12 missiles in 1952 confirmed that these principles were valid and sensible. The establishment of OKB-586 and the appointment of M.K. Yangel as its General Designer were evidence that the Government supported this new conceptual framework for developing new missile systems. This conceptual framework guided OKB-586 in all of its activities and was continually developed and enhanced, as various new development projects were implemented. In the process, OKB-586's main mission became developing strategic missile systems capable of inflicting a highly effective second strike against any aggressor if the Soviet Union were the target of a nuclear attack.

Despite the organizational issues that arose during the establishment of OKB-586, a lack of essential equipment and experienced personnel, insufficient research on high-boiling-point propellants, delays in developing the rocket engine and autonomous onboard control system, and delays in constructing the silo launcher, the first medium-range missile system, the 8K63, was placed into service less than 5 years after OKB-586 was established. Two additional missile systems, the 8K65 medium-range missile and the 8K64 intercontinental ballistic missile, were placed into service at 2-year intervals. For some time, these missiles served as the primary weaponry in the USSR Strategic Missile Forces arsenal.

Within this brief period, under the leadership of M.K. Yangel, OKB-586 had become the USSR's leading design bureau for developing the strategic missile systems that were most important to the USSR's defense capability.

From 1954 to 1991, a total of 29 strategic missile systems were developed by OKB-586 (from 1966 on, known as the Yuzhnoye Design Office) and the team of engineers under the leadership of Academicians M.K. Yangel and V.F. Utkin. Thirteen of these systems were accepted for military service by the Strategic Missile Forces and became the backbone of their forces.

Some of these systems have no peers in missile technology. Examples include the 8K69, 15A14, 15A18, the 15A18 M, the 15Zh60 fixed solid propellant missile system 15Zh60, and the 15Zh61 rail-mobile missile system, all of which played an important role in enabling the Soviet Union to reach strategic parity with the United States and in negotiations of the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties between the Soviet Union and the United States.

The four generations of missiles accepted into Missile Forces armaments are shown above, together with the dates when they were placed into service. Each of these missiles had a unique purpose and unique characteristics, and there were substantial differences in specifications. They were all developed at different times, and each embodies the scientific, technical, and economic capabilities of the country at the time they were developed. In spite of these differences, however, it is possible to identify some trends typical of all four generations of missiles. The service life of the missiles tends to increase, the capabilities of the missile-defense countermeasures improve, the total energy output increases, the range increases and the operational specifications of the missiles all improve from one generation to the next.

The missiles of the fourth generation possess the highest military effectiveness. Whether in silos or during active flight, these missiles are able to preserve their performance in the face of any countermeasures. They are equipped with a very effective multifunctional antimissile system, which in combination with high survivability during active flight allows them to overcome with a high probability of success even a future adversary missile defense system. As of now the four types of the most highly developed military missiles 15A18, 15A18M, 15Zh60 and 15Zh61 are still deployed in the Russian Federation.

In addition to the missiles described, from 1957 on, OKB-586 also developed a variety of space launch vehicles. The most predominant idea involved developing a missile-based launch vehicle. This approach would lead to a substantial reduction in one-time and recurring costs, as well as a reduction in launch vehicle development time due to the reduced amount of design and development work required and the ability to use the existing manufacturing infrastructure, the existing basic missile components available at the various manufacturing plants, and existing ground-based launch facilities.

This idea was implemented via the development of several launch vehicles based on the 8K63, 8K64, 8K66, 8K67, 8K68, 8K69, and 15A18 missiles; five of these launch vehicles-the 11K63 (Kosmos), 11K65 (Kosmos-2), 11K69 (Tsiklon- 2), 11K68 (Tsiklon-3), and Dnepr-were in actual use. These five launch vehicles are the subject of this paper. Two additional launch vehicles, the Zenit-2 and Zenit-3SL, were developed without using military prototypes. By contrast with the missile-based launch vehicles, all stages of these launch vehicles used liquid oxygen as the oxidizer and RG-1 kerosene as the fuel. A modified Zenit-2 first stage was used as a module in the Energia vehicle.

The space ambitions of the Yuzhnoye Design Office were also embodied in the design and successful development of Module E, the lunar-lander portion of the lunar spacecraft developed as part of the lunar program. Since 1960, OKB-586 and the Yuzhnoye Design Office produced a series of research, commercial, applied scientific, and military spacecraft (more than 70 different types). This count includes the following Kosmos and Interkosmos spacecraft: AUOS, Okean, Taifun, Tselina, etc. Approximately 400 spacecraft designed by the Yuzhnoye Design Office and manufactured by the Yuzhnoye Machine-Building Plant have been launched into space, many of them aboard launch vehicles designed in-house.

All design work at Yuzhnoye Design Office was performed under the direction of General Designer M.K. Yangel' before October 1971 and under General Designer V.F. Utkin between October 1971 and November 1990. M.K. Yangel' served as General Designer for the development of first-, second-, and third generation missiles, but did not live to see the 15A14, 15A15, and 15Zh60 missiles certified for military use; however, these latter missiles were also based on his ideas, which he had to defend at many levels, up to and including the USSR Defense Council. M.K. Yangel' also attached a great deal of importance to space research. The 11K63 (Kosmos), 11K69 (Tsiklon-2), and 11K68 (Tsiklon-3) launch vehicles and Module E of the lunar spacecraft were developed under his leadership.

At his initiative, a spacecraft design bureau was established at OKB-586 in 1960, spacecraft were produced at the Yuzhnoye Machine-Building Plant. Approximately three dozen types of spacecraft and several hundred spacecraft were launched under his leadership. As Yuzhnoye Design Bureau Chief Designer, Vladimir Fedorovich Utkin had enormous influence on the development and delivery of the third- and fourth-generation missiles, as well as the Tsiklon-3 and Zenit-2 launch vehicles. The Energia launch-vehicle module unit and approximately 40 other types of spacecraft were developed under his leadership. The highly efficient and reliable Zenit-2 launch vehicle served as the basis for developing the Zenit-3SL Integrated Launch Vehicle core of the offshore launch platform developed under the Sea Launch program. Work on the Sea Launch project began on 25 November 1993 when an agreement was executed between the American aircraft and missile company Boeing, the Russian Rocket and Space Corporation Energia, the Norwegian company Kvarner, and two Ukrainian enterprises-the Yuzhnoye State Design Office and the State Enterprise Production Association Yuzhnyi Machine-Building Plant. Geosynchronous satellite launches via Sea Launch began on 28 March 1999 with a demonstration launch of the Zenit-3SL launch vehicle.

As before, development of future launch vehicles remains at the center of attention. A more powerful launch vehicle, the Tsiklon-4, has been developed on the basis of the Tsiklon-3. Work is currently underway on the Air Launch and Mayak projects, and various approaches for modernization of the Tsiklon-2, Zenit-2, and Dnepr launch vehicles are also being explored.

All models illustrated above are the magnificent Geschützwagen Tiger für 17cm K72 from Trumpeter

Grille (Cricket Series) 17/21/30/42 [1]

Geschutzwagen "Tiger" fur 17cm K72, 21cm MRS 18/1 und 30,5cm GRW (Sf)

In November 1942, Krupp received order to design the vehicle (waffentrager) using Tiger II components, which was to be part of the "Grille" series. It was to be able to mount 170mm Kanone 72 L/50 gun which could deliver a 68 kilogram projectile up to 25500 meters in range or a 210 mm "Mörser" (a howitzer actually) with a maximum range of 16500 meters firing a 111 kg shell. Grille 17 had its armament mounted on the rail platform inside the hull allowing it to be dismounted at any time and used independent of the actual tank itself. The maximum elevation of the main gun was 65o and its azimuth just 5o at right or left. In order to achieve the 360o fully rotation the gun and its turntable had to be placed in the ground which was folded and carried in the back of the vehicle.

Next in the series was Grille 30. It would be armed with Skoda 305mm GrW L/16 mortar. Project of Grille 42 was under the development. It was to be armed with 420mm Grw mortar.

The lengthened chassis was shaped as the Tiger II but used a much less thicker armor, about 50 mm in the frontal plates and 30 mm at the sides.

Also in order to save nickel the vehicle was designed to use SM stahl which was 130 Kg/ square mm resilient compared with the 150 kg/ square mm of the Nickel alloy.

Each variant was also armed with two 7.92mm machine guns. It would be operated by the crew of eight (driver, commander, gunner, radio operator and four loaders).

Powered by Maybach HL230P30 or HL230P45, Grille would be able to travel at maximum speed of 42 km/h with range of 250km. Grille was 13 meters long (with gun), 3.27 meters wide and 3.15 meters high. Its armor protection ranged from 16mm (side) to 30mm (front). Grille 17 weighted 58000kg but only carried 5 rounds of ammunition. Grille 21 weighted 52700kg and carried only 3 rounds of ammunition.

The project was halted in February 1945, given the worsening in the war situation, which forced Albert Speer to get rid of any nonessential armored vehicle development.

One prototype with 170mm gun was almost completed in May of 1945, and was captured by British troops at Haustenbeck near Paderborn.

[1] In 1942, German designers started the development of a new series, which would utilize chassis and components of various tanks and use them as mountings for various heavy weapons. Designs of the Grille Series incorporated many new technical modifications in order to mount heavy weapons. Some vehicles of the Grille Series were designed to be weapon carriers - Waffentrager. Some of those vehicles reached prototype stage but none of them entered production planned for mid 1945. Model: Armament: Chassis / Components: Grille 10* 88mm Flak 37 (early) 88mm Flak 41 (late) Panzer IV / Sd.Kfz.9 Grille 10 88mm Flak 37/41. Panther Grille 10 100mm K. Panther Grille 10 105mm leFH 43/35. Panther Grille 12 128mm K 43/44. Panther Grille 15 150mm sFH 43/44. Panther Grille 17* 170mm K 72 L/50. Tiger II Grille 21* 210mm Mortar 18/1 L/31. Tiger II Grille 30* 305mm Mortar (GrW) L/16. Tiger II Grille 42* 420mm Mortar (GrW). Tiger II * reached prototype stage. Late Grille 10 with 88mm Flak 41 gun. (Versuchsflakwagen fur 8.8cm Flak 4 1)

8K63 (SS-4) Missile.

The first strategic missile to embody the new concept developed under the leadership of M.K. Yangel was the 8K63 (SS-4). The Government task order for developing the missile was issued to coincide with establishment of the OKB-586 design bureau. The major responsibilities for development of the 8K63 missile/missile system were allocated as follows:

* OKB-586, Chief Designer M.K. Yangel-systems engineering of missile and missile system as a whole;

* KB-11, Chief Design Engineer S.G. Kocharyants-design of warhead and related equipment;

* NII-885, Chief Design Engineer N.A. Pilyugin-design of the autonomous onboard control system;

* NII-944, Chief Design Engineer V.I. Kuznetsov-design of gyroscopic instruments;

* OKB-456, Chief Design Engineer V.P. Glushko-design of RD-214 engines;

* Spetsmash State Special Design Bureau, Chief Design Engineer V.P. Barmin-design of aboveground and silo-based launch facilities.

These chief design engineers became the most active proponents of Yangel's approach to missile system development.

The 8K63 consisted of a monocoque single stage that had a nose cone section for the nuclear warhead, cylindrical fuel tanks, an instrument section that had an autonomous onboard control system, and a conical tail compartment containing a fixed RD-214 four-chamber engine using TM-85/AK-27I high-boiling- point propellants. The AK-27I oxidizer is an iodine-inhibited mixture of nitric acid (70%) and nitrogen tetroxide (27%), and TM-185 is a modified-kerosene hydrocarbon fuel. At the time, these were the best-known high-boiling-point propellants that had an adequate production infrastructure.

The missile had a launch weight of 41.7 metric tons, a length of 22.1 m, and a body diameter of 1.652 m. Its RD-214 engine produced a thrust of 648/744 kN and a specific impulse of 2300/2640 Ns/kg (sea level/vacuum). TG-02, a xylidine/ triethylamine mixture, was used as an ignition propellant to ignite the fuel in the RD-214 combustion chamber. The engine turbopumps were operated using a gas generator mixture obtained by decomposing hydrogen peroxide in the presence of potassium permanganate. The oxidizer and fuel tanks were pressurized by compressed air and compressed nitrogen, respectively, stored in high-strength cylinders. Four adjustable graphite control vanes were used; one vane was placed in the exhaust of each engine chamber. The main body of the missile was constructed from a lightweight, high-strength aluminum alloy.

The fuel tanks were made from non-reinforced cylindrical shells mounted between two bottom plates that were segments of spheres. The oxidizer tank was mounted forward of the fuel tank to control the center of gravity during flight. Moreover, an intermediate bottom plate was also mounted in the oxidizer tank for the same purpose, so that additional oxidizer would flow from the top to the bottom portion of the tank as the oxidizer was consumed from the bottom portion. The oxidizer feed line ran through a tunnel pipe built into the fuel tank. A riveted instrument compartment was located between the two tanks. To shift the aerodynamic center of force closer to the center of mass, four fixed aerodynamic stabilizers were placed on the tail section of the missile.

This missile was flight-tested at the Kapustin Yar facility from July 1957 to December 1958. During this time, there were 24 launches of this missile, which confirmed that it was highly reliable. Some final design modifications were made, and the 8K63 missile was accepted into armaments for use with aboveground and silo launchers. The silo-launched version of this missile was assigned the code number 8K63U.

The requirement to develop both aboveground and silo-based launch facilities for this missile was largely dictated by the need to reduce the amount of time required for final development of the missile. Constructing a silo launcher would have required a large amount of time, so most test launches of this missile were done from a hastily constructed aboveground launch facility.

The tactical, engineering, and operational characteristics of the 8K63 represented a considerable advance over previous missiles. The 8K63 had a reaction time of 20 min and could deliver a 2.3-MT warhead to a maximum range of 2080 km. For some time, this was the main missile used by the Strategic Missile Forces (established December 1959). At the same time the 8K63 was on operational duty in the Strategic Missile Forces, it also served for 25 years as the primary launch vehicle for testing new technology and designs of warheads and antimissile defense systems. The 8K63 was decommissioned in July 1988 pursuant to the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).

At the end of the WW II, and in the late forties, Yugoslavia had quite a number of fighter types in service. One squadron of Spitfires MkVc Trop, and one squadron of Hurricanes were incorporated in the newly created Yugoslav Air Force from the RAF, along with three Spitfires Mk IXc left over by the British.

In late 1944 Soviet Union began training two newly formed units of Yugoslav airmen, one on YAK fighters, the other on Il 2 attack aircraft. The units were operational in the closing stages of WW II, in the spring of 1945.

Yugoslavia had at that time both YAK-1, and YAK-3 although the former was more numerous. YAK 9 was received later, as well.

Spitfires and Yaks were compared in mock dog-fights for example during the Sumadija maneuvers in 1949, immediately after the breaking up of relations with the USSR. An accident also occurred when one of the pilots flew into the ground. The Spitfire and the YAK were especially compared regarding the climb and turn radius, the former preferring to fly maneuvers in the horizontal plane, the latter being lighter exploiting the vertical maneuvers.

Due to the lack of spares which hit the air force in late forties, Spitfires were withdrawn first to recon duties, and later scrapped, while YAKs continued a bit longer, being more numerous.

At that time, which is also interesting, Yugoslavia had in service beside Spitfires, Hurricanes and Yaks, also the Me109G, and the domestic S-49A and S-49C (based on pre war IK-3) were delivered to bridge the gap until the jets came from the West in early fifties. In the early 50's came the P-47D Thunderbolt, too, which was the last propeller driven, single-engined single-seat fighter to serve in the Air Force, mostly as ground attacker.

End of WWII, and help of Soviet Union (1945-1948)

By early 1945, Yugoslav Partisan forces under Marshal Tito had liberated a large portion of Yugoslav territory from the occupying forces. The NOVJ partisan army included air units trained and equipped by Britain (with Spitfires and Hurricanes) and the Soviet Union (with Yak-3, Yak-7, Yak-9 and Ilyushin Il-2 aircraft) and a number of ad-hoc units equipped with aircraft captured from German Luftwaffe and Ustaše Air Force (Bf-109G, Stuka and many others).

On 5 January 1945 the various air units of the NOVJ were formally incorporated into a new Yugoslav Air Force (Jugoslovensko Ratno Vazduhoplovstvo - JRV). At the same time, a Yugoslav fighter group which had been under Soviet instruction at Zemun airfield became operational. From 17 August 1944, when the first Yugoslav Spitfire Squadron became operational, until the end of the war in Europe, Yugoslav aircraft undertook 3,500 combat sorties and accumulated 5,500 hours operational flying. Thus, when peacetime came, the JRV already possessed a strong and experienced nucleus of personnel.

On 12 September 1945 the Military Aviation Academy in Belgrade was established to train future pilots. The development of the JRV was further helped in late 1945 with the creation of the Aeronautical Union of Yugoslavia (Vazduhoplovnni Savez Jugoslavije - VSJ). This comprised six aeronautical unions - one for each constituent republic - with the joint aim of promoting sport flying and aeronautical techniques amongst the nation's young people. In June 1947 the first VSJ flying school at Borongaj (near Zagreb) started training pupils. Many future air force personnel were former members of the VSJ.

Break up relations with Soviets, US help (1948-1950's)

The organisation of the post-war JRV was based on the Russian pattern of Divisions, Regiments and Squadrons. Virtually all of the initial equipment was supplied by the Soviet Union - the aircraft captured during the war had quickly been retired. By the end of 1947 the JRV had reached a strength of some 40 squadrons of aircraft, and had become the most powerful air arm in the Balkans. In June 1948 Yugoslavia broke off relations with the Stalinist Soviet Union. The country was immediately subjected to extreme political pressure from the Soviet Union and its Balkan neighbours, and the JRV's previous sources of aircraft, spares and fuel were cut-off. The possibility of an invasion was taken seriously. The serviceability of JRV aircraft fell rapidly, with some aircraft being cannibalised to provide spares for the remainder. Renewed efforts to expand the small domestic aircraft industry met with some success - the Aero 2 and Type 213 Vihor trainers were followed into service by the S-49A single-seat fighter.

However, the first-line strength of the JRV was still declining, so in 1951 the Yugoslav Chief of Staff, Colonel General Popvic visited the United Kingdom to discuss the situation. It was agreed that a substantial shipment of aircraft would be forthcoming. In October 1951 the first de Havilland Mosquito F.B.6 fighter-bombers were supplied. The following year, 150 Republic F-47D Thunderbolt fighter-bombers were delivered from the USA under a Mutual Assistance Pact.

LINK

11K63 (SL-7) Launch Vehicle

Even the first few launches of spacecraft into low Earth orbit had demonstrated a wide variety of new opportunities to study Earth and near-Earth space using space-based instrumentation. These opportunities stimulated wide interest among scientists, businesspeople, and the military in obtaining information on Earth's surface, Earth's upper atmosphere, Earth's magnetic field and cosmic rays, the interaction between these particles and Earth's magnetic field, and the effects of space environment on objects launched into space.

This generated a requirement to launch a large number of spacecraft into low Earth orbit for various purposes. A need for low-cost launch vehicles therefore arose. The three-stage launch vehicle then (late 1950s) in use in the Soviet Union, the 8K72 Vostok, was not appropriate for frequent use as a launch vehicle due to the relatively high cost of launch, the relatively large amount of time required to prepare it for launch, and the fact that it was generally used to address more prestigious problems. Thus, in late 1959, OKB-586 embarked on an initiative to develop a two-stage launch vehicle based on the mass-produced 8K63 missile. This proposal was supported by the USSR Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Armaments, each of which were interested in the development of an inexpensive launch vehicle to address their specific needs using small spacecraft placed in low Earth orbit.

OKB-586 received the Government order to develop this launch vehicle, which came to be called the 11K63, in August 1960. The Government authorized the production of ten 11K63 launch vehicles and use of these vehicles to launch 10 spacecraft; each was for a different purpose and carried different instrumentation. Two of these spacecraft, designated the MS series, were developed by OKB-1, and the remaining eight spacecraft, designated the DS series, were developed by OKB-586.

The main tasks required for developing the 11K63 launch vehicle involved developing a second stage and aerodynamic fairing and adapting these components to a first stage that was virtually identical to the 8K63 missile. The second stage and aerodynamic fairing weighed B7.7 metric tons, giving the 11K63 launch vehicle a launch weight of 49.4 metric tons, and a length of 30 m.

The second-stage fuel and dry compartments of the launch vehicle were similar to the corresponding first-stage compartments. However, there were also several differences due to the fact that the second-stage RD-119 engine required liquid oxygen and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) as propellants. This engine had been developed by OKB-456 for use on the Vostok launch vehicle but ended up not being used for a variety of reasons. The RD-119 engine was fairly well developed and also had relatively good energy performance characteristics (thrust and specific impulse in vacuum 106 kN and 3454 Ns/kg, respectively). The existence of these additional propellants undoubtedly made operation of the launch vehicle more complicated, but the availability of a fully developed engine reduced the effort and time required to develop the launch vehicle.

Therefore, OKB-586 decided to use the RD-119 engine in the second stage of its first launch vehicle. The RD-119 engine is a fixed, single-chamber, liquid-fueled engine installed on the second stage in combination with several movable low-thrust nozzles used to control the second stage in pitch, yaw, and roll. The engine is started using a pyrotechnic device. Positive pressure in the oxidizer tank was maintained by evaporating oxygen in a heat exchanger mounted on the engine's turbine exhaust pipe. Positive pressure in the fuel tank was maintained by using a mixture of producer gas and UDMH vapor. The RD-119 engine was only capable of single use operation; as a result, spacecraft were launched to place them directly into orbit-primarily low-level highly elliptical orbits. To increase the amount of UDMH that could be stored in the second-stage fuel tank, it was initially cooled to 451C. The second stage was mated to the first stage using a tubular beam that had a conical heat shield attached to the lower chord to protect the first stage from the exhaust of the RD-119, as it pushed away the first stage during the stage separation process.

The spacecraft was initially housed under a conical/cylindrical aerodynamic fairing (jettisoned during the boost phase of the flight after passing through the dense layers of the atmosphere). The spacecraft was separated by using pusher springs. Like the first stage, the second stage of the launch vehicle had an autonomous onboard control system developed by the newly established OKB-692 in Kharkov (now NPO Khartron-Arkos) under the direction of Chief Designer B.M. Konoplev). Initially, the 11K63 was to be launched from the 8K63U launcher at the Kapustin Yar Test Site, and an appropriate operational scenario was developed for the launch vehicle under this assumption (including use of a silo launcher that was shorter than the launch vehicle).

The first launch of the 11K63 from a silo took place on 27 October 1961. Both the first and the second launches were unsuccessful. Nearly 5 additional months were required to eliminate all of the problems. The third launch of the 11K63 took place on 16 March 1962 and was successful. The first spacecraft designed and built by OKB-586 personnel, the DS-2, had been placed into Earth orbit. After 37 standard 11K63 silo launches from the Kapustin Yar Test Site, all further 11K63 launches were from a new, aboveground facility at the Plesetsk Test Site, which was developed by the Design Bureau for Transportation Machinery directed by Chief Designer V.N. Sobolev.

There were several differences between the operational configuration of the 11K63 for silo launches and that for surface launches. During a silo launch, final assembly of the launch vehicle occurred during placement in the silo. The first and second stages (including spacecraft) were tested in the launch support facility, transported to the launch facility separately in the horizontal position, and then placed in the silo in the correct order. During a surface launch, final assembly of the launch vehicle took place in the launch support facility, and the assembled launch vehicle was transported to the launch facility, where it was raised into a vertical position using special equipment rather than the gantry.

The 11K63 could place a payload of up to 450 kg into circular low Earth orbit (200km altitude and inclination 821). The 11K63 became the first Soviet launch vehicle to be mass-produced. It was accepted for operational use in 1965, along with the DS-P1-Yu spacecraft (developed by OKB-586) and the new aboveground launch facility at the Plesetsk test facility. The 11K63 was launched a total of 165 times, of which 143 were successful. Numerous Kosmos- and Interkosmos- series spacecraft were launched using the 11K63. It was used for 16 years until the final launch on 18 June 1977.

A World War II-era Messerschmidt Bf-109 airplane undergoes testing in a wind tunnel at Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Hermann Goering c. 1940

On the outskirts of Braunschweig lay a large area of woodland, surround­ed, in the more open countryside, by a few scattered farm buildings. At least, that is how it appeared to aerial reconnaissance. But this innocuous little corner of Germany was actually something quite different - under­neath the camouflage. This was the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Hermann Goring, the Goring Aerial Weapon Establishment, and it was one of the leading centres of top-secret develop­ments. None of the central buildings was visible from the air, as they were all below tree level and the branches of the forest covered them completely. There were at least forty secret weapons establishments in this one unit, most of them devoted to the improvement of armour and the test­ing of ballistic projectiles. A large supersonic wind tunnel was built, and - for topographical reasons - the air intake had to be on open ground. So the German specialists erected a dummy farm-house to occupy the site, complete in every detail; and on one end (where the air intakes were) was a small out-house. Its roof slid sideways in its entirety to reveal the jet ducts when the device was going to be in use, and then they were quietly and unobtrusively slid back again after­wards, leaving the supporting beams standing rather conspicuously along­side. But no-one ever noticed.

And so it was that this immense establishment was erected and kept in full operation throughout the war without anyone knowing about it; two bombs did fall near the site during the entire war, but they were errors on bombing raids aimed at the town nearby.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A feng shui compass has a lot more information than just the cardinal directions on it.

The three inventions Bacon considered world transformers-paper and printing, the magnetic compass, and gunpowder-were also cited by Karl Marx as the inventions that prefigured capitalist economics. Bacon regarded the origins of these inventions as "obscure and inglorious." They all came from China.

At the beginning of the second millennium A.D., China was an advanced scientific and technological society, and would continue to dominate for another three or four centuries. To a visitor from another continent it might seem that China had invented everything anyone could ever need and beyond. Besides Bacon's big three, other Chinese technological feats included cast iron, porcelain, sternpost rudders for ships, canal lock gates, stirrups and harnesses for horses, fishing reels, hot-air balloons, the seismograph, whiskey, gimbals, the umbrella, crank handles, kites, mechanical clocks, paper money, convertible bank notes, and many agricultural innovations, such as row cultivation, the iron plow, and the seed drill. The Chinese also spun off, with glorious abandon, oddities such as the south-pointing carriage, fantastical fireworks, magic mirrors, and a rocket-propelled toy called an "earth rat."

The invention we most associate with ancient China is gunpowder. In the ninth century A.D., during the Tang dynasty, Chinese priests described a new compound they'd created by combining charcoal, saltpeter, and sulfur in the proper proportions. Long before the first written observations of these investigations, the Taoist alchemists were down in the basement mixing up variations of these ingredients, often blowing themselves to smithereens. Later Taoist literature strongly recommends that investigators not mix these chemicals, especially with arsenic, since some who had done so set their beards on fire, seared their fingers, and burned down the house.

One hypothesis holds that gunpowder was invented by alchemists searching for a drug of deathlessness, or for the metallurgical key to the making (and faking) of gold. One can imagine, wrote Joseph Needham, these alchemical adepts "mixing everything off the shelves in all kinds of permutations and combinations to see what would happen, whether perchance an elixir of life would be formed."

Saltpeter was recognized and isolated at least by A.D. 500. It seemed almost inevitable, wrote Needham, that "the first compounding of an explosive mixture would arise in the course of a systematic exploration of the chemical and pharmaceutical properties of the substance."

In Science Since Babylon, Derek de Solla Price says that while science must follow what seems to be a dictate of nature rather than a property of our mental perspective, technology is an arbitrary property of a civilization. A technology evolves within a culture and its particular demands and preoccupations, intertwined with that society's particular environment. That being so, it is not surprising that the Chinese were the first to invent gunpowder.

The Chinese were fascinated and preoccupied with preparations of perfumes, gases, airborne poisons, noxious bombs, explosions, and flaming eruptions. From the Ch'in and Han dynasties onward (221 B.C.-A.D. 220) they burned incense; fumigated for health reasons, to rid their houses and books of insects and pests; and produced smoke ritually to drive out demon spirits. Smoke, detonations, and loud explosions were intrinsically associated with the spirit world. Militarily, they used toxic smoke screens generated by pumps and furnaces in siege warfare from the fourth century B.C., or perhaps earlier.

The Chinese did (and do) love fireworks, and created them in a huge variety of Catherine wheels, Roman candles, and many other styles. Fireworks flourished at the dynastic courts, with colored lights and balls of flame. Rockets and rocket-composition gunpowder must have been used in these displays as soon as they were discovered.

Around 1040 Tseng Kung-Lang published a gunpowder formula to be used in a variety of weapons, including an incendiary arrow, an incendiary bullet, a burning bomb with a hook to catch on wood, a bomb to be hurled by a trebuchet (a Chinese version of the catapult), and a hand grenade. By the mid-tenth century, the fire lance, or fire spear, had appeared.

The oldest image of a fire lance and a grenade is on a silk banner from Tun-huang from about A.D. 950 now hanging in the Musée Guimet in Paris. The banner depicts the meditating Buddha. Surrounding him are Mara the Tempter and her minions, who hurl things at the Buddha in an attempt to distract him from attaining enlightenment. One of her demons, sporting a headdress of three striking snakes, aims a cylinder from which flames spout forth horizontally. Another is in the act of throwing a weak-casing bomb from which flames are starting to fly.

The fire lance consisted of a tube mounted on the shaft of a lance and filled with a mix of gunpowder, toxic chemicals, lead pellets, and pottery fragments. When ignited it spouted flame and sparks for about five minutes, frying the enemy in streams of fire. Made first from bamboo tubing, the fire lance used homegrown materials. Like the natural abundance of saltpeter in the ground, the plentiful growth of bamboo was a factor in the development of firearms. As a natural tubing, Needham maintains, the stem of the bamboo is the ancestor of all barrel guns and cannons. Later the tube was made of cast iron and bronze.

The fire lance played a large role in the wars between the Sung and the Juchen Tatars from around 1100 onward. By the middle of the thirteenth century, the Sung and Mongols were locked in combat, and by 1230 we find written descriptions of destructive explosions in the campaigns, and accounts of continuing advances in the development of barrel guns and cannons. At first, soldiers held fire lances. The southern Sung made them in much larger diameter, perhaps a foot across, and mounted on legs with wheels. It is with these that the first bronze or iron barrels appeared, using high-nitrate gunpowder and a projectile-a cannonball or bullet-that completely filled the barrel. The true gun or cannon probably appeared in the 1280s, three and a half centuries after the invention of flamethrowers.

By 1288, Chinese soldiers under Mongol command were using weapons that had made the transition from fire lance to gun. A bronze barrel found at a battle site in Manchuria was meant to fit on the end of a wooden shaft. It was designed for an explosion at the base of the barrel, not for slow burning from the barrel mouth. The bronze has thicker walls and a touchhole in the area where the explosion would occur. The thickening of gun barrel walls around the point of the explosion became a distinctive characteristic of Chinese guns. Another prototype, designed for mounting in a fortification, looked like a vase or bottle.

The array of gunpowder weaponry developed by the Chinese starting in the ninth century is of Strangelovian proportions: the "thunderfire whip," a fire lance in the shape of a three-foot-long sword that discharged lead balls the size of coin; the "vast-as-heaven enemy exterminating Yin-Yang shovel," with a broad crescent-shaped blade that emitted poison as well as lead pellets and flames. There was a huge battery of fire lances called "the ingenious mobile ever-victorious poisonfire- rack." Later there came the "cartwheel gun," which had thirty-six barrels radiating from its center like the spokes of a wheel but was small enough that a mule could carry two.

For mortars you had "the flying, smashing, and bursting bombcannon." By the eleventh century there was the "thunderclap bomb," hurled from a trebuchet that terrified enemies' horses while starting fires. Thunderclaps were also made in the form of grenades that could be hurled by hand. A new improved bomb in the twelfth century was the "thundercrash bomb," with an iron casing to cause maximum shrapnel damage. The Chinese were just getting started. They let a thousand bomb varieties bloom: some packed with anti-personnel material, poison bombs, gaseous bombs, bombs filled with human excrement. There was also the "bone-burning and bruising fire-oil magic bomb," the "magic fire meteoric bomb that goes against the wind," the "dropping from- heaven bomb," and the "bees-swarm bomb releasing ten thousand fires."

By 1277 the Chinese had developed land mines; one was called "the ground-thunder explosive camp." Some of the trigger mechanisms of these land mines were kept secret until the seventeenth century. The Fire-Drake Artillery Manual, published in 1412, describes the "submarine dragon-king," a complex wrought-iron sea mine carried on a submerged wooden board. This device for blowing up ships featured a burning joss stick floating above the water that determined the fuse ignition time.

In 1245 Pope Innocent IV sent an ambassador to the great khan's capitol in Mongolia, most likely to check out the fabled firepower the Mongols had picked up from their enemies to the south. Soon thereafter other Europeans visited, including one Willem van Ruysbroeck, a Franciscan who returned to Europe in 1257 and told his associates about gunpowder weapons. The following year, Europeans began experimenting with gunpowder. Other Westerners discovered gunpowder the hard way, in their warring with Islamic nations. In 1249, Crusaders ran into an Islamic counterattack of incendiary devices and grenades in Palestine. The effect was horrific.

The Europeans learned quickly. A picture of the bombard, a small bulbous cannon that fired arrows, appears in a 1327 manuscript, On the Majesty, Wisdom, and Prudence of Kings, in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Chinese drawings of bombards reveal sets of them mounted on a carriage, similar to the first European ones. Copies? "If so, it would mean the purely propellant phase of gunpowder and shot, [the] culminating stage of all gunpowder uses, was attained in China with bottleshaped bombards before any knowledge of gunpowder itself reached Europe," says Needham. It appears that the entire line of development took place in China first, and passed to Islamic nations and then to Europe. The export of gunpowder and guns to the West led to the utter transformation of Europe.

This was not the first time inventions from China had revolutionized Europe. The widespread use of the Chinese stirrup in the early Middle Ages had given birth to the knight, a warrior now able to stabilize himself on his horse. The advent of gunpowder blew away that knight, perched like a big immobile target on his horse. Gunpowder that could punch holes in the heaviest fortifications signed the death warrant for the castle and Europe's aristocratic military feudalism.

While Europe was broken into hundreds or thousands of small economic and social units, the Chinese usually lived under a powerful centralized administrative authority with close internal commerce and a unified language, writing, and religion. (The operative word is "usually." In between stretches of order, barbarians kept barging in from the north, and there were, according to Alfred Crosby, "periods of godawful instability.") " Maintaining stability required military strength, hydraulic control, transportation systems, a calendar, land measurement, technology, map drawing, palace building, and other construction technologies to display the images of imperial power.

Metallurgy and metal manufacturing was a unifying technology. The Chinese "industrial-dynastic-military complex" was a voracious consumer of iron and steel products. Records from the eleventh century show a single order for nineteen thousand tons of iron just to make coins. The million-men-plus army maintained by the Sungs was a giant maw for iron and steel: two government arsenals manufactured thirty-two thousand suits of armor a year.

A superb bronze and cast-iron metallurgy was part of what the physiologist Jared Diamond calls an autocatalytic process, one that catalyzes itself in a positive-feedback cycle, proceeding ever faster once it is started. Long before iron and bronze casting provided the receptacles for gunpowder weapons, the early mastery of cast iron led to the sharp axes that opened up vast areas to forestry; it provided craftsmen with honed chisels, awls, saws, and other tools of a firmness previously unknown. Cast iron allowed new kinds of construction for buildings and bridges and the hard rotary bits for a deep-drilling industry not seen in the West until the seventeenth century. From around the sixth century B.C., the Chinese were adept in cast-iron forging in special vertical blast furnaces. With the vertical furnace, iron and steel technology in China diverged from that of other regions of the world and followed a unique path.

The Chinese were blessed with clays with high refractory qualities, which they used for the walls of their blast furnaces, thus intensifying the heat. They discovered that phosphorus reduced the temperature at which iron melts. By the fourth century B.C., the Chinese were able to cast iron into ornamental and functional shapes. In the West, blast furnaces are known to have existed in Scandinavia by the late eighth century A.D., but cast iron was not widely available in Europe before 1380. By the third century B.C., the Chinese had discovered annealing (heating then cooling) techniques for making a malleable, nonshattering cast iron. Plowshares could survive hitting large rocks; swords could clang with impunity. So plowshares, longer swords, and even buildings were eventually made of iron. During the Han dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 220), iron was of such interest to the officials that in A.D. 119 the rulers nationalized all cast-iron manufacture. During the Han there were forty-six Imperial Iron-Casting Bureaus throughout the country where bureaucrats supervised the mass production of cast-iron goods.

Chinese iron making inspired a continuous stream of inventions. First were the agricultural tools: cast-iron hoes in the sixth century B.C. and a new model in the first century B.C. called the "swan-neck" hoe capable of weeding around plants without damaging them; the moldboard plow was invented in the third century B.C. Called the kuan, it was made of malleable cast iron, with a central ridge ending in a sharp point to cut the soil, and with wings that sloped gently up toward the center to throw the soil off the plow to reduce friction.

Again, the introduction of Chinese iron agricultural tools to the West revolutionized European culture. Intensive hoeing and the iron plow were perhaps the greatest technological advantages China held over the rest of the world. "Nothing underlines the backwardness of the west more than the fact that for thousands of years, millions of human beings plowed the earth in a manner that was so inefficient, so wasteful of effort, and so utterly exhausting, that this deficiency of sensible plowing may rank as mankind's single greatest waste of time and energy," writes sinologist Robert Temple. Throughout the first millennium B.C., the Chinese refined the iron plow. When the newfangled plow (along with the Chinese seed drill) finally arrived in the Netherlands and England in the seventeenth century, it instigated an agricultural revolution.

The Chinese were making steel by the second century B.C., although they were probably not the first civilization to do so. They furthered metallurgical technology with at least two inventions that were to be reinvented centuries later in the West. One is what we call the Bessemer steel process today, invented in England by Sir Henry Bessemer in 1856. Bessemer's work had been anticipated a few years earlier by William Kelly, who brought four Chinese steel experts to a small town near Eddyville, Kentucky, in 1845. The experts taught Kelly the secrets of steel production that had been used in China for more than two thousand years.

In short, the Bessemer process is the removal of carbon from iron. Cast iron is brittle because it contains a large amount of carbon, about 4.5 percent. To get steel, one removes most of the carbon. (For wrought iron, nearly all the carbon is removed.) As carbon is removed, the metal gets more supple. Steel with high carbon is strong but is more brittle than lower-carbon steel. The Chinese used different carbon contents to great effect. For example, the back, blunt edge of a saber might be made of wrought iron, for elasticity, while the cutting edge would made of harder steel. The Chinese removed carbon from cast iron by blowing oxygen on it, a technique similar to the one "discovered" by Henry Bessemer in the nineteenth century. The Chinese technique is described in the classic work Huai Nan Tzu, published in about 120 B.C.

In the fifth century A.D., the Chinese invented another steel manufacturing process, in which cast iron and wrought iron were melted together to yield steel. In the modern world this is called the Siemens process, invented in 1863 in England. The Chinese were doing it fourteen hundred years earlier. It is more properly called the Ch'iwu Huai Wen process, in honor of the metallurgist who made sabers of "over-night iron" by baking wrought and cast iron together for several days and nights.

With a variety of irons and steels of differing hardness and flexibility, the Chinese did more than build spiffy swords. They used wrought iron, for example, to construct the world's first suspension bridges, possibly as early as the first century A.D., using chains of wrought-iron links instead of woven bamboo. By comparison, the first suspension bridge in the West of any size was built in 1809 across the Merrimack River in Massachusetts.

Chinese metallurgical advances made possible a whole range of innovation. In A.D. 976, for example, an engineer named Chang Ssu- Hsun invented the chain drive for use in a large mechanical clock. The Chinese were fascinated with chains and clocks. Since the first century A.D., they had used iron-linked chain pumps and the common sprocket chain to transmit power in clocks and elsewhere.

Chang Ssu-Hsun's successor, the even more famous clockmaker Su Sung, also adopted the chain drive for his huge astronomical clock, in 1090, calling it the "celestial ladder." The first European chain drives were made in the eighteenth century, and in 1897, chain drives became the basis of the bicycle. It is ironic, Temple comments, given that bicycles are a leading form of transportation in China, that only a few Chinese have any idea that the chain drive was a native invention nine hundred years in advance of its application in Europe for the bike.

The first completely printed book is thought to be the Buddhist Diamond Sutra, completed in A.D. 868 and now preserved in perfect condition in the British Museum. A scroll 17.5 feet long and 10.5 inches wide, it contains the text of a Sanskrit work translated into Chinese. There were also large print runs for ordinary books. Calendars and horoscopes were as popular then as now. In fact, so many astrological calendars were being privately printed that in 858 the governor of the Szechwan province tried to ban them. They were sold under the counter in marketplaces before the Board of Astronomers could approve and issue them. The prohibition spurred sales of these calendars, which contained weather forecasts, prophesies for lucky and unlucky days, edifying sayings, and other Farmers' Almanac types of things.

Writing is the unification technology par excellence of civilization. Chinese writing is preserved from the second millennium B.C. but probably began earlier. The Hsia dynasty, c. 2205-1766 B.C. and shrouded in legend, may have had rudiments of literacy. Inscriptions from the Chou dynasty from 1100 to 221 B.C. record the conquest and absorption of non-Chinese-speaking populations by the Chinese states. (Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss wrote that ancient writing's main function was to "facilitate the enslavement of the other human beings.")

Although writing evolved around the same time in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the Chinese writing of 1300 B.C. had unique signs and principles that lead most scholars to think it evolved independently. The preserved writing of those times consists of religious divination and ritual inscription about dynastic affairs incised into "oracle bones." Before paper's invention, words were written on various materials-on grass stalks by the Egyptians, earthen plates by the Mesopotamians, tree leaves by the Indians, sheep skins by the Europeans, and even on tortoise shells and shoulder blades of oxen by the early Chinese. Then the Chinese invented paper.

The oldest surviving piece of paper in the world comes from a tomb near Sian, in Shensi Province. It was made sometime between 140 and 87 B.C. from pounded and disintegrated hemp fibers.115 From this and other fragmentary evidence it is clear the Chinese knew the general mechanics of papermaking one thousand years or more before the Europeans. (Paper is not that complicated. It's a layer of disintegrated fibers in a watery solution pressed onto a flat mold. The water is drained away, the layer is dried, and you have paper.)

Although most early Chinese paper was made of hemp, in the second century A.D. a court official named Cai Lun produced a new kind of paper from a mix of bark, rags, wheat stalks, and other things. Perhaps the first recycled paper, it was also the first modern paper. It was fairly cheap, thin, light, strong, and suitable for brush strokes. The Chinese also used paper for clothing, shoes, and toilet tissue, which amazed the Europeans when they first saw it. They invented wallpaper, kites, umbrellas, paper money, the paper-folding art of origami, and more. Paper reached India in the seventh century, and the Islamic nations a hundred years later. For five hundred years the Arabs jealously guarded the secret of papermaking from the Europeans, but sold paper to them at a hefty profit. Paper manufacturing did not come to Europe until the thirteenth century, when the Italians took it up.

The beginnings of printing are lost in history. About two thousand years ago in the Western Han dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 28), stone-tablet rubbing was the favored way to spread Confucian texts or Buddhist sutras. The practice of block printing began in the Sui dynasty (A.D. 581-618): one engraved writing or pictures on a wooden board, smeared the board with ink, then printed the image on pieces of silk (or, later, paper) page by page. During the Tang dynasty (618-907), the technology spread to Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

Block printing was cumbersome, with boards that were sometimes useless after one printing. A single mistake in carving could ruin a whole block. Between 1041 and 1048, Pi Sheng (sometimes called Bi Sheng) invented movable type. He carved single characters on pieces of fine clay as thin as the edge of a copper coin, which he slow-baked until extremely hard. He then set the type in an iron frame and stuck it to an iron plate with a mixture of resin, wax, and paper ash melted over fire. A plate thus prepared could print hundreds or thousands of sheets of paper. Each piece of type could be removed to be used again.

The first record of Bi Sheng's invention is found in the 1086 book Dream Pool Essays by the scientist-encyclopedist Shen Kua. It was not unusual for a chronicler to own fifty thousand books, he wrote. To pub lish books with Chinese characters, a printer might need up to 360,000 pieces of type. In the centuries that followed, the Chinese used wood, enamelware, or metal type more commonly than clay.

The American physicist and essayist Philip Morrison noted in 1974 that when Gutenberg first set the Mainz Bible in print, "Chinese libraries already held editions of printed books older than Gutenberg's product is now." For every Book of Songs or Analects the West has, wrote Morrison, there are ten thousand printed texts from every period of China. The Mongol armies pressing into Russia, Poland, and Hungary in the thirteenth century reached the borders of Germany not long before printing surfaced there. Johannes Gutenberg printed his now famous Bible using movable type in 1456.

Perhaps the non-western world peaked too soon, technologically speaking. By inventing a method of vulcanizing rubber a thousand years before Goodrich or originating the Bessemerizaton of iron a thousand years before Bessemer, these ancient inventors may have given the West a chance to "reinvent" and rename their innovations. Today we view technologically oriented societies as being superior. We see exploration and the ability to conquer as exponents of superiority.

There is an old skit from the TV comedy show Saturday Night Live in which extraterrestrials land their spaceship on earth and demand that humans bow down to them. It becomes quickly apparent that the extraterrestrials are stupid and ignorant. They eventually admit that they didn't invent their spaceship; they found it. Imagine the reaction of the Aztecs to the conquering Spaniards, treating their wounds by pouring hot oil on them and praying, while the "backward" Amerindians used early antibiotics. Cortés and his men had guns; they had found them in China. As New York Times writer Gail Collins put it, "The Chinese . . . had toothpaste, while people in Europe barely had teeth."

The seafaring ways of the Europeans have often been attributed to superior technology, but, in fact, the Chinese invented a staggering number of shipbuilding advances-fore-and-aft rigging, the lateen sail, the sternpost rudder, and watertight bulkheads, to name a few. With those advances and the compass, the Chinese could have theoretically gone anywhere the Europeans did-and long before. Indeed, while Columbus was making the rounds of the courts of Europe seeking funding for his adventures, Chinese maritime technology was advanced enough for Chen Ho, chief admiral and eunuch of the Ming emperor, to send to India and then to East Africa fleets of vessels armed with cannons and manned with thousands of sailors and passengers.

It is this admiral, suggests Alfred Crosby, who should be acknowledged as the greatest explorer in the age of exploration. "If political changes and cultural endogeny had not stifled the ambitions of Chinese sailors," writes Crosby, "then it is likely that history's greatest imperialists would have been far easterners, not Europeans." The Chinese could have made arduous journeys around the world on any seas they wanted, had they had a reason to do so. Western European economies offered nothing China could not acquire much closer to home at much less cost.

So as it happened Chen Ho did not sail east, and Christopher Columbus sailed west, "greedy to find the gold of Cathay and the courts of the Grand Khan as described by his countryman Marco Polo, who had traveled by different means and from the other direction," as the late biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it.

LINK

Calibre 35: Army Firetruck Opel Blitz . Great conversion!

During the thirties and forties it became necessary to have mobile fire fighting units available. Prototype TFL 15 is based on our Opel Blitz 3-ton chassis and was produced by various companies. Some of these vehicle had 4-wheel drive. The tank holds 2500 litres per minute. These vehicles, which were originally produced before the war can still be seen in service with only small changes added.

Opel "Blitz" (Kfz.305) (4 x 2) During World War Two the German Army adopted and intensively used many types of cargo truck, but without doubt the three-tone Opel "Blitz" was the most famous of all Wehrmacht vehicles. With more than 100,000 built, these trucks with the Blitz's characteristic lightning emblem on the radiator front panel became symbolic of Germany's conquests. Its tire tracks could be seen in the great city squares of Europe; in the fields of France and also in the endless sands of the African desert; and it even overcame the infamous Russian mud. These trucks had a reputation of hardiness and being easy to repair which made them a legend.

The story of the Opel "Blitz" began in the mid-1930s when the new German National Socialist government instigated a program of economic modernization with a clearly expressed militaristic direction. At this time the American General Motors concern had already owned the Opel factories for ten years and Opel had quickly become a major German car manufacturer, with a great family of different vehicle types. One of their most successful designs was the Opel "Blitz" S whose production started in 1936. When the 'Western dam' construction began, more than 10,000 trucks of different types were involved. It was the original competition for military cargo trucks and the result was that the Opel "Blitz" won. The Opel factory received a massive order for this new standard Wehrmacht vehicle.

The European conflict which started on September 1st, 1939, gathered pace with many fronts opening up, and obviously huge numbers of trucks were needed. Many thousands of civil Opel "Blitz" S produced before the war was drafted into army units. These civil trucks were brought up to army standard Kfz.305 - the official military designation for the Opel "Blitz". In all about 140 different army modifications were installed on the Opel "Blitz" chassis during the war years - they became radio cars, repair stations, fuel trucks, and even some exotic types like mobile laundries or printing-houses. Many other vehicles like staff buses or fire trucks were also based on the Blitz chassis.

From 1937 up to 1944 nearly 140,000 vehicles were built, among them 82,356 standard army Blitz S trucks, 14,122 with a long wheelbase and also 8,363 with a low-level base. In 1942 another famous manufacturers, Daimler Benz AG was involved in Opel "Blitz" license manufacture. Mercedes-built trucks were visually identical to the standard Blitz but had their own designation, Mercedes L701. License production started only in 1944, when the main Opel factory in Russelheim was destroyed by Royal Air Force bombing.

From the first days of war the Opel "Blitz" was very popular in the army. These trucks were integral to the organization of Panzer Divisions but unlike all other German trucks they used gasoline, and tanks used the same fuel. Ground pressure was low and the Blitz could overcome some obstacles which other types, even three-axle trucks, had problems with. Operation and repair in the field was very easy.

The Eastern campaign demonstrated another advantage of the Opel "Blitz", whose gasoline engine could be easily and simply started with boiled water in very cold weather conditions, when diesel-fuelled trucks typically failed. Large numbers of trucks of this type were taken into the Red Army as trophies, and if the condition of the vehicles was satisfactory, they were used without any problem. Some Opel "Blitz"es even took part in Russian-Japanese battles in eastern China in 1945.

This truck became a legend in the army and the absolute favorite among drivers. Some of them were convinced that Germany lost the war because the available quantity of Opel "Blitz"es was too little.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

At Nagashino in 1575, Oda Nobunaga's ranks of arquebusiers fired rotating volleys to decimate the charge of his opponent Takeda Katsuyori. Those of Takeda's horsemen who reached Oda's lines were held off by pikes, in an echo of European tactics of the era.

In Japan, the Onin Wars of 1467-76 had set in train a period of political fragmentation when local warlords, the daimyo, built up independent domains. The first arquebuses were introduced in Japan in 1543 by Portuguese traders (Fern찾o Mendes Pinto), who landed by accident on Tanegashima, an island south of Ky큰sh큰 in the region controlled by the Shimazu clan. By 1550, copies of the Portuguese arquebus were being produced in large quantities, and they were often seen on the battlefields all over Japan.

Units of musketeers (teppotai) played a crucial role in the unification of Japan under Oda Nobunaga, who captured the royal capital of Kyoto in 1568 and conquered most of Japan before his death in 1582. During this campaign, Nobunaga employed 3000 arquebuses in a field battle, protected by field fortifications. Lord Oda Nobunaga placed three lines of ashigaru armed with these weapons behind wooden palisades and prepared for the cavalry charge of his opponent.

Battles in Japan at this time became more similar to the pitched encounters of European armies than the challenge and counterchallenge of elite samurai warriors that characterized earlier warfare there. Japanese armies showed considerable technical and tactical ingenuity; at Osaka in 1576, Nobunaga had seven ships constructed, shielded by armed plates, which were armed with canons and muskets, creating a very early version of an ironclad; while at Nagashina in 1575, Nobunaga's musketeers fired in ranks in rotation, some years before the practice became established in Europe. The three-line method allowed two lines to reload while the other would fire. Such tactics allowed a balance of mass firepower to compensate for poor accuracy with a reasonable rate of fire.

Yet the final unification of Japan under the Tokugawa after 1600 meant that military conflict, and with it the impetus for technical development, declined. Already in 1588, the "Sword-hunt Edict" had ordered the confiscation of all weapons held in private hands, including firearms, contributing to a demilitarization that would leave it ill-equipped to face western intruders in the 19th century. It is one of the most effective examples of disarmament and voluntary renunciation of technology.

Matchlocks

The first improvement to this simple design, which created the matchlock, saw the addition of a serpentine (so-called because it was S-shaped and resembled a snake) which held a length of string (or "slow-match"), treated with saltpeter to keep it alight. The serpentine was pivoted around its center; pulling back on its lower arm pushed its upper arm forward, touching the glowing end of the string into the priming powder. The latter lay in a pan outside the barrel, but was connected to the main charge of powder and ball by a touch-hole. The chief advantage of this design was that one man could use it on his own. A trigger was added later, to act upon 14 the serpentine by way of a connecting sear, along with a spring that held the match off the pan until positive pressure was applied to the trigger. A version was also produced in which the spring worked the other way (when the sear was released, it propelled the match forward)-but the impact often extinguished the match.

Despite various improvements, however, the matchlock remained a cumbersome and unpredictable device. Far more reliable was the wheellock, invented around 1500, which used a wheel turned by a coiled spring to strike sparks from pyrites into the pan. Though complicated, it made it possible for the gun to be used one-handed and for it to be held ready for use.

LINK

LINK

The Bf 109 G-series was developed from the F-series airframe although there were several differences. This series used the 1,475 PS Daimler-Benz DB 605. Modifications included reinforced wing structure, an internal bullet-proof windscreen, the use of heavier, welded framing for the cockpit transparencies, and additional light-alloy armour for the fuel tank and armouring of the radiators. It was originally intended that the wheel wells would incorporate small doors to cover the outer portion of the wheels when retracted. To incorporate these, the outer wheel bays were squared off. Two small inlet scoops for additional cooling of the spark plugs were added on both sides of the forward engine cowlings. A less obvious difference was the omission of the boundary layer bypass outlets, which had been a feature of the F series, on the upper radiator flaps.

The G-series was designed to adapt to different operational tasks with greater versatility, using field kits known as Rüstsätze. Special high-altitude interceptors with GM 1 high-altitude boost and pressurized cockpits were also produced.

The "new" Daimler-Benz DB 605A series was a development of the DB 601E engine utilised by the preceding Bf 109F-4. This was achieved through increasing the displacement and the compression ratio, as well as other detail improvements. The DB605 suffered from reliability problems during the first year of operation, forcing Luftwaffe units to limit maximum power output to 1,310 PS (975 kW) at 2,600 rpm and 1.3ata manifold pressure, until October 1943, when the full 1475 PS rating at 2800 rpm, 1.42ata manifold pressure was cleared for service use.

The early versions of the Bf 109G closely resembled the Bf 109F-4 and carried the same basic armament - however, as the basic airframe was modified to keep pace with different operational requirements, the basically clean design began to change. From the spring of 1943, the G-series saw the appearance of bulges in the cowling when the 7.92 mm MG 17 was replaced with the 13 mm MG 131 heavy machine guns (G-5 onwards) due to the latter's much larger breechblock, and on the wings (due to larger tyres), leading to the Bf 109G-6s nickname "Die Beule" ("The Bulge"). The Gustav continued to be improved constantly: cockpit visibility, firepower in the form of the 3cm MK 108 cannon was added to the basic design in 1943, and a new, enlarged supercharger for the DB605, an enlarged vertical stabilizer (G-5 onwards), MW-50 power boost in 1944. It has been suggested the added weight of the new engines and heavier armament adversely affected the handling characteristics of the Bf 109, especially since it already had a high wing loading. While technically the statement is true, it is somewhat unfair as analysis show only a modest increase in weight as a result of development, fairly comparable to the development trend with Western Allied fighters.

From the Bf 109G-5 on an enlarged wooden tail unit (identifiable by a taller fin and rudder with a morticed balance tab, rather than the angled shape) was often fitted. This tail unit was standardised on G-10s and K-4s. Although the enlarged tail unit improved handling, especially on the ground, it weighed more than the standard metal tail unit, and required that a counterweight was fitted in the nose, increasing the variant's overall weight.

With the Gustav, a number of special versions were introduced to cope with special mission profiles. Here, long range fighter-reconnaissance and high-altitude interceptors can be mentioned. The former were capable of carrying two 300 litre (66 Imp gal) droptanks, one under each wing, the latter received pressurized cockpits for pilot comfort and GM-1 nitrous oxide "boost" for high altitudes. The latter system was capable of increasing engine output for limited periods by 300 horsepower above the rated altitude and high altitude performance above of that of any Allied fighter in service in 1942-43.

The G-1 was the first of the G-series, starting production in February 1942. This was the first production Bf 109 with a pressurized cockpit and could be identified by the small, horn-shaped air intake for the cockpit compressor just above the supercharger intake on the left upper cowling. In addition the angled armour plate for the pilot's head was replaced by a vertical piece which sealed-off the rear of the side hinged cockpit canopy. Small, triangular armour-glass panels were fitted into the upper corners of this armour, although there were aircraft in which the plate was solid steel. Silica gel capsules were placed in each pane of the windscreen and opening canopy to absorb any moisture which may have been trapped in the double glazing. The last 80 G-1s built were lightweight G-1/R2s. In these GM-1 nitrous oxide 'boost' was used, and the pilot's back armour was removed, as were all fittings for the long range drop tank. A few G-1s flown by I./JG 1 are known to have carried the underwing, MG 151/20E 20mm cannon gondolas.

The G-2, which started production in May 1942 lacked the pressurization and GM-1 installation. The canopy reverted to one layer of glazing and incorporated the angled head armour used on the F-4, although several G-2s had the vertical type of the G-1. Several Rüstsätze could be fitted, although installing these did not change the designation of the aircraft. Instead the /R suffix referred to the G-2s Rüstzustand or equipment condition of the airframe, which was assigned at the factory, rather than in the field. There were two Rüstzustand planned for G-2s:

* G-2/R1: had one 300 litre drop tank beneath each wing, plus an ETC bomb rack under the fuselage, capable of carrying a 500 kg bomb and an auxiliary undercarriage unit beneath the fuselage.

* G-2/R2: a reconnaissance aircraft with GM-1 and camera equipment.

The rack and internal fuel lines for carrying a 300 litre drop-tank were widely used on G-2s, as were the underwing MG 151/20 cannon gondolas. Several G-2s were fitted with the ETC 500 bomb rack, capable of carrying one 250 kg bomb. The final G-2 production batches built by Erla and Messerschmitt Regensburg were equipped as tropical aircraft (often referred to as G-2 trop), equipped with a sand-filter on the front of the supercharger intake and two small, teardrop shaped metal brackets on the left side of the fuselage, below the cockpit sill. These were used as mounts for specially designed sun umbrellas (called Sonderwerkzeug or Special tool), which were used to shade the cockpit.

167 G-1s were built between February and June 1942, and 1586 G-2s between May 1942 and February 1943; one further G-2 was built in Győr, Hungary, in 1943.[43] Maximum speed of the G-2 was 537 km/h at sea level and 660 km/h at 7,000 m rated altitude with the initial - reduced - 1.3ata rating. Performance of the G-1 was similar, but above rated altitude the GM-1 system could be used for additional performance: 680 km/h could be achieved at 12,000 meters.

In September 1942 the G-4 appeared. It was identical to the G-2 in all respects, including performance, except that the much improved FuG 16 V.H.F. radio set was fitted. Up to July 1943, 1,242 G-4s were produced, and an additional 4 were produced in Győr and WNF factories in the second half of 1943. A pressurized version, G-3 was also produced, being identical to the G-1 in all except its V.H.F. radio set FuG 16. Only 50 were produced between January-February 1943.

In February 1943 the G-6 was introduced with the 13 mm MG 131s, replacing the smaller 7.92 mm MG 17 - externally this resulted in two sizeable blisters over the guns. These bulges reduced speed by nine km/h.

Over 12,000 examples were built well into 1944; the exact number being impossible to ascertain due to numerous variants and rebuilds. The G-5 was identical to the G-6 with pressurized cockpit, and of which 475 examples were built between May 1943 and August 1944. The G-5/AS was the first to be equipped with a DB 605AS engine for high altitude missions. GM-1-boosted G-5 and G-6 variants received the additional designation of /U2.

The G-6/U4 variant was armed with a 30 mm MK 108 cannon mounted as a Motorkanone shooting through the propeller hub instead of the 20 mm MG 151/20. The G-6 was very often seen during 1943 fitted with assembly sets, used to carry bombs or a drop tank, for use as night-fighter, or to increase fire power by adding rockets or extra gondola guns. During 1943, a number of improvements were gradually introduced for the type's benefit: armoured glass head-rest ("Galland Panzer") (early 1943), and the introduction of the clear-view "Erla Haube" canopy (autumn 1943) improved visibility, especially to the rear, and a taller tail unit improved stability at high speeds. The introduction of the WGr. 21 cm under-wing mortar/rockets and the 30 mm MK 108 cannon increased firepower. Certain production batches of the Gustav were fitted with aileron Flettner tabs to decrease stick forces at high speeds. Advanced radio/navigational equipment was also introduced. Subsequent Bf 109G versions were basically modified versions of the G-6. Early in 1944, new engines with larger superchargers for improved high-altitude performance (DB 605AS), or with MW-50 water injection for improved low/medium altitude performance (DB 605AM), or these two features combined (DB 605ASM) were introduced into Bf 109 G-6. Maximum speed of the G-5/G-6 was 500-510 km/h at sea level, 625-630 km/h at 6,600 m-rated altitude using the restricted 1.3ata boost, and when using the full 1.42ata boost 530 and 640 km/h respectively. Figures are without MW-50 or GM-1 boost.

The G-8 was a dedicated recon version based on the G-6. The G-8 had often only the Motorkanone engine cannon or the cowling machine guns installed and there were several subversions for short or long range recon missions with a wide variety of recon cameras and radios available for use.

The G-14, appearing in mid-1944 was basically a late-war Bf 109 G-6 with the aforementioned improvements standardized, and with MW 50 methanol/water injection increasing output to 1800 hp being a standard fitting. High-altitude models of the G-14 received the DB 605ASM engine and were named G-14/AS. There was increasing tendency to use wood on some less vital parts (e.g. on a taller tailfin/rudder unit, pilot seat or instrument panel) - not because of the shortage of strategic materials like aluminum as often suggested, but as it allowed freeing up metalworking capacity by involving of the woodworking industry of more parts.

The G-10 was an attempt to match the proven Bf 109 G-6/G-14 airframe with the new and more powerful DB 605D engine with minimal disruption of the production lines. Despite what the designation would suggest, it appeared in service after the G-14 and somewhat the K-4 in November 1944. Early production G-10s used fuselages taken from the G-14 production lines, this was probably a source of confusion as many authors still believe many G-10 were based on recycled G-series fuselages. The most recognizable change was the standardized use of the "Erla-Haube" canopy, sometimes referred to (incorrectly) as the "Galland" hood. [1] This canopy improved the pilot's view by reducing the number of support struts, which was often criticized before. The G-10 was produced in very substantial numbers, with some 2,600 G-10s produced until the war's end. The Bf 109 G-10, AS-engined G-5s, G-6s and G-14s as well as the K-4 saw a refinement of the bulges covering the breeches of the cowl mounted MG 131, these taking on a more elongated and streamlined form, barely discernible on the upper sides of the cowl panels, as the large engine supercharger required a redesign of the cowling.

A similar varying product was the Bf 109 G-12. This was a two-seat trainer version of the Bf 109 and was rarely armed with anything more than the two cowling machine guns. The space needed for the second cockpit was gained by reducing the internal fuel capacity to only 240 l thus they nearly always used the 300 l drop tank as standard equipment. The G-12 was built using a wide variety of G-series fuselages, many were G-2 based but several were built of rebuilt/repaired G-1, G-4 and G-6.

Bf 109G subtypes and variants

The base subtypes could be equipped with a Rüstsatz add-on standard field kits, in practice this meant hanging on some sort of additional equipment like droptanks, bombs or cannons to standard attachment points, present on all production aircraft. Aircraft could be modified in the factory with Umrüst-bausatz (Umbau) conversion kits or by adding extra equipment, designated as Rüstzustand, to convert standard airframes for special roles - a reconnaissance fighter or bad-weather fighter, for example. Unlike the Rüstsatz field-kits these modifications were permanent.

The Rüstsatz-kits were designated by the letter R and a Roman number. Rüstsatz-kits did not alter the aircraft's designation, so a Bf 109G-6 with Rüstsatz II (50 kg bombs) remained designated as Bf 109G-6, and not 'G-6/R2' - the G-6/R2 was a reconnaissance fighter with MW 50 - as suggested by most of the publications. The Umrüst-bausatz, Umbau. or Rüstzustand were identified with either an /R or /U suffix and an Arab number, i.e. Bf 109 G-10/U4.

Common Rüstsatz kits, Bf 109G

* R I belly bomb rack for 250 kg bomb

* R II belly bomb rack for 4 x 50 kg bombs

* R III belly drop tank (300 l/79 US gallons)

* R IV two 30 mm MK 108 underwing gunpods (not in operational use)

* R VI two 20 mm MG151/20 underwing gunpods

Common Umrüst-Bausatz [Umbau] numbers

* U1 Messerschmitt P6 reversible pitch propeller to be used as air brake, only prototypes

* U2 GM-1 boost, during 1944 several hundred converted to MW-50 boost

* U3 Reconnaissance conversion, in autumn 1943 G-6/U3 adopted as G-8 production variant

* U4 30 mm MK 108 Motorkanone engine-mounted cannon

Known variants

* G-0 (Pre-production aircraft, powered by a DB 601E engine)

* G-1 (Pressurized fighter, w. GM 1)

o G-1/R2 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-1/U2 (High altitude fighter with GM-1)

* G-2 (Light fighter)

o G-2/R1 (Long-range Fighter-bomber or JaboRei- 2x 300 liter underwing drop tanks, one 500 kg bomb under fuselage, extended second tail wheel for large bombs)

o G-2/R2 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-2/trop (Tropicalized fighter)

* G-3 (Pressurized fighter, as G-1 with FuG 16 V.H.F. radio; only 50 built)

* G-4 (Fighter)

o G-4/R2 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-4/R3 (Long-range Reconnaissance fighter, with 2 x 300 liter underwing droptanks)

o G-4/trop (Tropicalized fighter)

o G-4/U3 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-4y (Command fighter)

* G-5 (Pressurized fighter)

o G-5/U2 (High altitude fighter with GM1 boost)

o G-5/U2/R2 (High altitude Reconnaissance fighter with GM1 boost)

o G-5/AS (High altitude fighter with DB605AS)

o G-5y (Command fighter)

* G-6 (Light fighter)

o G-6/R2 (Reconnaissance fighter, with MW 50)

o G-6/R3 (Long-range Reconnaissance fighter, with 2 x 300 liter underwing droptanks)

o G-6/trop (Tropicalized fighter)

o G-6/U2 (Fitted with GM-1)

o G-6/U3 ((Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-6/U4 (MK108 Motorkanone 30 mm engine cannon)

o G-6y (Command fighter)

o G-6/AS (High altitude fighter with DB605AS)

o G-6/ASy (High altitude command fighter)

o G-6N (Night fighter, usually with R6 and FuG 350Z Naxos)

o G-6/U4 N (as G-6N but with 30 mm MK 108 Motorkanone engine cannon)

* G-8 (Reconnaissance fighter as G-6/U3, camera installation behind cockpit)

* G-10 (Light fighter with DB605D/DM/DBM engine)

o G-10/R2 (Bad-weather fighter with PKS 12 autopilot)

o G-10/R5 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-10/U4 (Fighter, with MK 108 Motorkanone 30 mm engine cannon)

* G-12 (Two-seat trainer, built from various older G-1 to G-6)

* G-14 (Fighter; standardized late production G-6; MW 50 boost serial standard)

o G-14/AS (High altitude fighter with DB605ASM);

o G-14/ASy (High altitude command fighter);

o G-14y (command fighter);

o G-14/U4 (Fitted with MK 108 30 mm Motorkanone engine cannon)

Fictional variants

* G-1/trop (fictional tropicalised variant with 13mm MG 131)

* G-16 (fictional Ground Attack variant, claimed to be based on the G-14 with additional armor)

Erich Hartmann's Gustavs

We do not have any documentary evidence that Hartmann ever flew a Bf 109K. There are numerous color sideviews of his supposed last aircraft depicted as a K with the dopplewinkle, a wreath on the rudder with "300", supposedly marking his 300th victory, and then 52 more kill bars.

This sideview has been repeated ad infinitum based on a drawing in one of Karl Ries' Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings books. Based on current knowledge this sideview is fiction. While there may be a possibility of him flying a K-4, there is no documentary evidence that he did. Indeed, I./JG 52 flew mostly G-14 and G-10 aircraft in the last months of the war. The list of losses by the gruppe is, at best, rather incomplete. There are some half dozen K-4 losses listed in Fast's history of the Geschwader, some confirmed by the Quartermaster lists.

The nearest thing to a "last" aircraft flown by Hartmann we have is a photo of him next to a G-10. This aircraft is shown from the supercharger back to about frame 3. We can see that it is the "square panel" type G-10 built by Erla. It could be in the 150xxx or the 490xxx ranges. We can see the famous heart emblem with his wife's name under the cockpit. Also, we can see the front part of the doppelwinkle. It appears to be either in gray or light green, outlined in white. You can see this photo in B. Barbas' Aircraft of the Luftwaffe Aces. Other than this, we do not know what any other markings looked like. The time period of the aircraft appears to be in the spring of 1945.

There is always the possibility that someone may show up with a photo of Hartmann's last aircraft. According to his biography, his log books and photo albums disappeared when the unit surrendered to the Americans in May 1945

[1]Retrofitted Erla Haube Canopy

Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G,&K Series: An Illustrated Study by Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike has some good photographs of erla haube canopies retrofitted to Bf 109G-6's; these show good detail of the hardware needed for this conversion.

Some G-6, G-8, and virtually all G-14 and G-10 aircraft were fitted with the so-called "Erlahaube" (made by Erla). There was no separate R or U designation for this canopy. Some G-6 and G-5 were retrofitted and the attachment details are slightly different.

Basically, the Erla Haube was built in two versions: The REPLACEMENT TYPE used the existing three-piece hood's mounting hardware. The PRODUCTION TYPE did away with the old mounting hardware. There are visual cues which easily differentiate which type of Erla Haube you are seeing, but they are too complicated to discuss here. Further, each type of Erla Haube had one or two possible antenna mast attachments.

The Erla Haube was retrofitted to Bf 109G-6's. It was standard equipment on late-build Bf 109-6's, and later versions of Bf-109's (G's and K's).

Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

LINK

LINK

Soviet KV-1a 753(r)

Soviet T-34 747(r)

Soviet KV-1a 753(r) rearmed with a 7.5-cm KwK 40 L/48

American M3(a)

British Valentine Mk. III 749(e)

BEUTEPANZER

Panzer Tracts No. 19-2 - Beute-Panzerkampfwagen - British, American, Russian, and Italian Tanks captured from 1940 to 1945

Thanks to the efforts of Werner Regenberg in concentrating his 30 year research career on Beute-Panzer used by the German army in WWII, this book is loaded with new information on the history, organizational structure, unit strength, tactics, and types of Beute-Panzer issued to each unit. Having contacted veterans from practically every Beute-Panzer unit, Werner Regenberg has compiled a massive archive of original documents and photographs directly linked to each unit. Photos with unique unit markings have been included for representative units with captions that correctly identify the Beute-Panzer units. In accordance with our high standards, the text and data are based solely on primary sources. The real value of the Beute-Panzer can be learned by reading the translated wartime reports written by unit commanders close to the time when the actions occurred. 70 clean/rare photos illustrate this 60 page book.

The photo of LZ41 in the experimental camouflage "bunte Kuh" = " multicoloured cow."

The first flight was on June 7, 1915

Written off on April 25, 1917

Flew 31 reconnaissance missions

During the 12 raids on England it dropped 15,543 kg. bombs.

Type: "p"

Four engine capacity of 154 kW. Volume: 31,900 cu. Đź. m.

Carrying capacity: 16.2 tons.

Length: 163 m.

Maximum speed: 96 km / h.

The maximum diameter: 19 m.

The Battle of the Skagerrak

THE SITUATION ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 1

"L" 11, 13, 17, 22 and 22 had gone up during the night for an early reconnaissance. At 5.10 A.M. "L 11 " reported a squadron of twelve English battleships, numerous light craft and destroyers on a northerly course about the centre of the line Terschelling-Horns Reef, and immediately afterwards enemy battleships and battlecruisers north of the first unit. The airship was heavily fired at but kept in touch until compelled to retire and lost sight of the enemy in the thick atmosphere. The airship's reports taken from its War diary are as follows:

Reconnaissance Trip of " L 11 " on June 1, 1916

"On June 1 at 1.30, after midnight ' L 11' went up at Nordholz with the following orders: As fourth airship to cover flank of High Sea forces, course N.W. to W. by Heligoland. Full crew on board, fresh south-westerly wind, visibility limited owing to ground fog and later to a fog-like atmosphere high up extending over 2 or at most 4 nautical miles. Heligoland was not visible through the fog. At 5 A.M. clouds of smoke were seen north of the ship in Square O 33 B and were made for. At 5.10 it was possible to make out a strong enemy unit of twelve large warships with numerous lighter craft steering north-north-east full speed ahead. To keep in touch with them ' L 11 ' kept in the rear and sent a wireless report, circling round eastwards. At 5.40 A.M. east of the first unit the airship sighted a second squadron of six big English battleships with lighter forces on a northerly course; when sighted, they turned by divisions to the west, presumably to get into contact with the first unit. As this group was nearer to the Main Fleet than the first one, ' L 11 ' attached itself to it, but at 5.50 a group of three English battle-cruisers and four smaller craft were sighted to the north-east, and, cruising about south of the airship, put themselves between the enemy Main Fleet and ' L 11.' Visibility was so poor that it was extremely difficult to keep in contact. For the most part only one of the units was visible at a time, while, apparently, the airship at an altitude of 1,100-1,900 m. was plainly visible- to the enemy against the rising sun.

"At 5.15, shortly after sighting the first group of battleships, the enemy opened fire on the airship from all the vessels with antiaircraft guns and guns of every calibre. The great turrets fired broadsides; the rounds followed each other rapidly. The flash from the muzzles of the guns could be seen although the ships were hidden by the smoke. All the ships that came in view took up the firing with the greatest energy, so that ' L 11 ' was sometimes exposed to fire from 21 large and numbers of small ships. Although the firing did not take effect, that and the shrapnel bursting all around so shook the ship's frame that it seemed advisable to take steps to increase the range. The firing lasted till 6.20 A.M. At that time the battle-cruisers bearing down from S.W within close distance of ' L 11 ' forced her to retire to N.E. to avoid their fire. At the same time the visibility became worse and the enemy was lost to view.

"' L 11 ' again took a northerly course and went as low down as 500 metres, in the hope of better visibility. It was impossible to see beyond 1 to 2 nautical miles, and as under these conditions no systematic plan for keeping in contact could be made, N. and S. course was followed so as to keep between the enemy and our own Main Fleet. The enemy did not come in sight again.

" At 8 A.M. the Commander-in-Chief of the High Sea Fleet dismissed the airship, and ' L 11 ' returned. On the way back the ship came across a number of our own torpedo-boats exchanging bases, and messages were given for further transmission. The airship remained close to those boats as far as Sylt. Landed at Nordholz at 2 P.M."

At 4 A.M., 50 nautical miles west of Bovbjerg, "L 24" sighted a flotilla of enemy destroyers, was fired at and returned the fire with bombs, then got away further north, and at 5 A.M. discovered a unit of twelve ships in Jammer Bay, steaming rapidly to the south. It was impossible to keep in contact for further reconnaissance as there was a bank of cloud as low down as 800 m.

From the Main Fleet itself no signs of the enemy were visible at daybreak. The weather was so thick that the full length of a squadron could not be made out. In our opinion the ships in a south-westerly direction as reported by "L 11 " could only just have come from the Channel to try, on hearing the news of the battle, to join up with their Main Fleet and advance against us. There was no occasion for us to shun an encounter with this group, but owing to the slight chance of meeting on account of visibility conditions, it would have been a mistake to have followed them. Added to this the reports received from the battle-cruisers showed that Scouting Division I would not be capable of sustaining a serious fight, besides which the leading ships of Squadron III could not have fought for any length of time, owing to the reduction in their supply of munitions by the long spell of firing. The Frankfurt, Pillau and Regensburg were the only fast light cruisers now available, and in such misty weather there was no depending on aerial reconnaissance. There was, therefore, no certain prospect of defeating the enemy reported in the south. An encounter and the consequences thereof had to be left to chance. I therefore abandoned the idea of further operations and ordered the return to port.

From Adm. Scheer's History

GERMANY'S HIGH SEA FLEET IN THE WORLD WAR
BY ADMIRAL REINHARD SCHEER

From the end of the 1940 war year on, German naval leadership concerned itself-at least partially as a result of the successful British carrier-plane attack on the Italian fleet at Tarento with considerations as to how to remedy the lack of aircraft carriers most quickly. Subjects under discussion concerned not only the reconstruction of existing large warships, but also the adaptation of merchant ships, insofar as they seemed suitable in terms of size and speed. Included in these considerations were the battleships SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU, as well as the heavy cruisers LUTZOW (ex-pocket battleship "Deutschland") and ADMIRALSCHEER on the one hand, and the three passenger ships EUROPA, POTSDAM and GNEISENAU of the North German Lloyd line on the other.

The three passenger ships were the only ones that met the basic requirements: the EUROPA was the largest, since the loss of the BREMEN to fire, weighing nearly 50,000 tons, and had a suitable top speed of 27 knots, while the POTSDAM and GNEISENAU, of only about 18,000 tons and a speed of 21 knots, were somewhat less well-suited though still usable. In addition, the rebuilding of the heavy cruiser SEYDLITZ, about 90% finished, seemed feasible, as opposed to the battleships of the SCHARNHORST class and the heavy cruisers LUTZOW and ADMIRAL SCHEER, which were dropped from these considerations.

The creation of aircraft carriers was one of the main points in the Commander of the Navy's report to Hitler at the latter's headquarters on May 13, 1942. Thereupon Hitler decided that the 'EUROPA, GNEISENAU and POTSDAM should be rebuilt into auxiliary carriers. In a further report taking place on August 26, 1942 a further possibility was suggested: this involved the French cruiser DE GRASSE, lying on the slipway in Lorient, the rebuilding of which into an aircraft carrier seemed feasible.

The rebuilding plans for these ships were begun at once. In the process it was learned that the task had obviously been strongly underestimated and the difficulties that would necessarily arise in the construction of these ships, intended as they were for fully different purposes, had gone unrecognized. It was chiefly their form and weight stability and their inner division that were insufficient. It was believed that these problems could be mastered by applying a thick "armor plate" of heavy cement and building on side bulges, but this could not be achieved in a really satisfactory way and, in addition, brought about a limitation of their speed, which was not that great to begin with. The EUROPA-now designated "Auxiliary Aircraft Carrier I"-was to be rebuilt by Blohm&Voss in Hamburg-her builders-but this did not transpire: as early as November 25, 1942 the work of planning was halted and the rebuilding was cancelled even before the work had begun. The reason for this was the lack of stability even with the bulges built on, the problem of rigidity caused by the lowering of the hangar deck into the main formation deck, which could not be done any other way, and finally the expected very high fuel consumption when the ship was in use again.

The rebuilding of the other passenger ships was to be entrusted to the naval shipyards at Wilhelmshaven (GNEISENAU) and the Howaldt Works of Hamburg (POTSDAM; what with the cancellation of the rebuilding of the EUROPA, the contract for the POTSDAM was transferred to Blohm & Voss in November of 1942). With them too, problems of a very similar kind arose, especially in terms of stability, which were addressed with the same means-building on bulges and applying heavy concrete "armor plate." But since these measures were, in the end, not able to make much change, the work on the GNEISENAU was halted on November 25, 1942, so that only the POTSDAM remained.

According to a decision made on the same day, this was to be set up as a training aircraft carrier. The work actually began that December: in Kiel they began to remove the passenger cabins. In the midst of this work, it all came to an abrupt end on the basis of the aforementioned "Fuehrer's Command."

The work of planning for the conversion of the uncompleted French heavy cruiser DE GRASSE, which began in April of 1942 under the designation "Auxiliary Aircraft Carrier II", led to this project being given up, as it was shown to be too expensive in terms of work and materials, was under ever路 increasing danger of air attack, and finally, second thoughts about what from the German standpoint was an unsatisfactorily divided power system could not be allayed. At the beginning of February 1943 the planning work was halted.

After the spring of 1943 the navy thus had no possibility of any realizable construction of aircraft carriers.

LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHER SCHLEPPER (La.S) (KRUPP L.K.A.I) Pz.Kpfw I prototype Prototype for a light tank in the 5ton class to meet a Heereswaffenamt (War Department) requirement for the rearmed Reichswehr, 1933. Selected for construction from designs tendered by Rheinmetall, Daimler-Benz, MAN, Henschel, and Krupp, the L.K.A.I being the Krupp model. Designation La S meant 'agricultural tractor' to conceal true purpose. This small vehicle was based largely on the layout of the Carden Loyd Mk I tankette chassis, a sample of which was purchased as a gun carrier from Britain in 1932. Turret had twin coaxial MGs. Used for trials only. Crew 2; mild steel; engine (gasoline): 25mph.

Pz.Kpfw I Ausf C (VK.60I): Prototype for an uparmoured version of the Pz.Kpfw I for the reconnaissance and airborne roles. Kraus-Maffei/Daimler-Benz design, 1939-40. Order for 40 vehicles never completed and the project was abandoned in 1941 after only the prototype was built. Had a 20mm gun and 7.92mm MG instead of the twin MGs of earlier models. Interleaved wheels with centre track guides. 8tons; armour 10-30mm; engine (gasoline) l50hp; 40mph. Other details as Pz.Kpfw I.

Pz.Kpfw I neuer Art verstark (VK.I80I): Project put forward in December 1939 for vehicle based on Pz.Kpfw I but heavily armoured for infantry support role (neuer Art (verstarkt) - uparmoured new model). Prototype built in June 1940 but the project was later abandoned. Interleaved wheels, but suspension heavier than VK.601. Also known as Pz.Kpfw I Ausf F 18tons; armour 30-80mm; 15mph; 14.3ft x 8.6ft x 6.75ft. Other details as VK.60I and Pz.Kpfw I.

Flammpanzer I: A small number of the Ausf A version were converted in the field by the Afrika Korps to the role of flame-throwers. The right machine gun was removed from the turret and replaced by the projector of the light portable infantry flamethrower Model 40, the cylinders for fuel and compressed air was also installed inside the turret.

Pz.Kpfw Ib, Ladungsleger I: Conversion for use by assault engineers with gantry and platform for carrying and placing explosives in demolition work

The Pz.Kpfw I was mainly intended as a cheaply produced training vehicle for the newly formed German armoured divisions. They were, however, still in wide service in the early part of World War II. Production vehicle was derived from the Krupp L.K.A.I prototype.

Production of this Krupp-designed tank began in July 1934, and it was the principal vehicle of the tank units. In service between 1935 and 1940, its armament was two MG 13s mounted in a turret with a 3600 traverse. It was fully tracked, and weighed 5,487 kg. Its armour was 15 mm thick, and the air-cooled engine was a Krupp M305.

It was soon realized, however, that the engine design was inadequate, and modifications not only with regard to the engine, but also in its hull were made (these changes to the Ausf A resulted in the Pz Kw 1 Ausf B).

The Ausf A (and Ausf B model) were first used during the Spanish Civil War, but with the onset of the Second World War, the deficiencies in both versions were apparent, and the Pz Kw I was withdrawn almost completely by 1941.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

The centre-battery ship was a major warship and a development of the ironclad ships. The man behind the design was the newly appointed Chief Constructor of the Royal Navy, Edward James Reed. The centre-battery ships had their main guns concentrated to the middle of the ship in an armoured citadel. The concentration of armament amidships mean the ship could be shorter and handier than a broadside type like previous warships. In this manner the design could maximize the armour in a limited space while still carrying a significant broadside. These ships meant the end of the full deck broadside warships.

The development of major warships in the latter half of the 19th century was extreme. New designs were obsolete by the time of commissioning. The first centre-battery ship was the HMS Bellerophon of 1865. The previous Royal Navy ironclad design, represented by the HMS Warrior, had proven to be seaworthy, fast under power and sail - however, when under sail alone, she had left much to wish for in terms of seagoing qualities.

The disadvantage of the centre-battery was that, while more flexible than the broadside, each gun still had a relatively restricted field of fire and few guns could fire directly ahead. The centre-battery ships were soon succeeded by turreted warships.

Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino had its origins in a private shipyard founded by Giuseppe Tonello at San Marco, on the coastline west of Trieste, in 1838. In 1857, the shipyard was merged with a local manufacturer of marine engines to become STT. A second shipyard was also acquired, at San Rocco near the town of Muggia just south of Trieste.

STT was the largest and most important shipbuilder in the Austrian Empire and its successor state, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The company built most of the Austro-Hungarian Navy's capital ships, as well as many merchant vessels. In the 1860s and 1870s, STT built five of the Austro-Hungarian Navy's seven centre-battery ships (a forerunner of the battleship), as well as a number of ironclads, cruisers, frigates and corvettes.

LINK

Based upon Petlyakov's Pe-2 bomber, the Pe-2I fighter was designed by Vladimir Myasishchev.

In late August 1941 yet another fighter version of the Pe-2 tactical bomber was in existence. This development was the work of the design staff of aircraft Plant No.22. It was called the Pe-2I (I - Istrebitel, fighter), and had more powerful armament. A ShVAK twin-cannon mounting with of 160 rounds per gun was installed in place of the Pe-2 bomb bay. The nose armament was not changed, and consisted of ShKAS and UBK machine guns.

Like the Pe-3, the Pe-2I was two-seater. A fuel tank of 52.7 gallons (240 litres) capacity was installed in the radio operator/gunner's cockpit, and the capacity of the centre-section fuel tanks was increased by 15.3 gallons (70 litres). Even so, the total internal tankage was insufficient for the specified range of 1,242 miles (2,000km), and, for the first time on a Petlyakov designed aeroplane, two ex- PETLYAKOV internal 39.5 gallon (180 litre) drop tanks were fitted to the shackles of the under fuselage bomb racks.

Another upgrading was similar to that made in the Pe-3 fighter, but instead of a ShKAS machine gun in the tailcone, the Pe-2I had a large calibre UBT machine gun installed in the fairing, in the position occupied by the radio operator/gunner. As a result of flight tests it was recommended that a remote- control system be designed for the UBT.

The greatest weakness in the Pe-2I's design was the absence of frontal armour for the crew, but it was thought that its installation would not be difficult. The Pe-2I was more updated than its direct competitor from Plant No.39, especially regarding armament, it was faster by 6.2mph (10km/h) at all altitudes, and it took 30 seconds less to climb to 16,400ft (5,000m).

To study aerial combat tactics using twin-engined fighters, simulated combats were flown by a Pe-2I with an SB bomber and a MiG-3 fighter. The Pe-2I's greater speed allowed it to overtake and attack the SB from any direction, but owing to its inferior manoeuvrability in the horizontal plane dogfighting during turns was not recommended. In its clash with a MiG-3 the Pe-2I found itself in trouble. Two aerial combat tactics were recommended for Pe-2I crews in such a situation: either attack head-on or escape in a steep descent at full throttle.

The Pe-2I did not go into production. The twin-engine fighter version was reconsidered some time later, alter Vladimir Petlyakov's tragic death.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

In 1923 the Vickers Medium Tank Mark I appeared; this was the first British tank with a 360degree traversing turret to be adopted by the British Army. Originally classified as a light tank, this was later changed to medium when the small light tanks were introduced. The Medium Mk I and its successor, Medium Mk II, formed the backbone of the Army's tank strength until 1938, by which time they were obsolete. Excellent designs, they appeared in many forms and sub variants.

VICKERS MEDIUM TANK MK I Development of this vehicle was begun in 1922, and the first production models were delivered as Light Tank Mk I to the army during 1924. This was the first British service tank to have all-round traverse and geared elevation for the gun. Sprung suspension gave the Vickers tank higher speeds than had been possible with earlier designs. The armament consisted of a 3pdr QF gun and four Hotchkiss machine-guns mounted in the turret, and two Vickers .303 machine-guns carried in ball mounts either side of the hull. With the adoption of a lighter class of light tank into the service, the Light Tank Mk I was reclassified as Medium Tank Mk I, the designation by which it is best known. 11.7tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF gun, 4 Hotchkiss and 2 Vickers .303 MG; armour 6.5mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong-Siddeley V-8; 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 9ft 3in.

Medium Tank Mk IA: Produced in 1924 by Vickers-Armstrong Ltd as Light Tank Mk IA and later re-designated Medium Tank Mk IA, this model was similar to the Medium Mk I but with various modifications which included an increase in armour thickness, a redesigned driver's cowl with flaps that opened to the left and right instead of folding backwards as on the Mk I, and a bevel in the rear of the turret for mounting a Hotchkiss machine-gun for the AA role. 11.9tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF gun, 4 Hotchkiss and 2 Vickers .303 MG; armour 6.5mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong- Siddeley V-8. 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 8ft 10in.

Light Tank Mk IA Special (L) India: Two female versions were designed for use in India and produced in 1926 similar in design to the Mk IA, the difference being that four machine-guns in the turret constituted the main armament. Special efforts were made to improve the cooling of the fighting compartment by the extensive use of linings of asbestos and circulating fans. These vehicles were not reclassified as Medium Tanks.

Medium Tank Mk IA*: This was the basic Mk IA fitted with a co-axial Vickers .303 machine-gun instead of the Hotchkiss .303 MG. The turret was fitted with a commander's cupola. 11.9tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF gun, 3 Vickers .303 MG; armour 8-6.25mm; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 9ft 10in.

Medium Tank Mk I.C.S: Development of the Mk IA as a close support weapon to accompany tanks and be capable of firing smoke. With this version the 3pdr QF gun was replaced by a 15pdr mortar.

Medium Tank Mk I Wheel-and-Track: Built by Vickers-Armstrong Ltd during 1926, this was a standard Mk I converted to wheel and track drive. The object was to provide increased road speed and reduce track wear on hard roads. Change from wheels to tracks was achieved by engine power in one minute. The design was not successful due to excessive pitching when running on wheels. 13.7tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr and 1 .303 Vickers MG; armour 8mm; 10mph on track, 20mph on wheels; height 9ft 6in on wheels, length 21ft with wheels raised.

Medium Tank Mk I (Ricardo C.I.): This was an experimental installation of a 90hp 4-cylinder water-cooled Ricardo Diesel engine in a Medium Mk I.

MEDIUM TANK MK II The Medium Mk I was followed in 1925 by an improved type, the Medium Mk II which possessed the following improvements: thicker armour but increased weight, the driver placed further forward giving a better vision, suspension protected by armoured skirting plates. Armament as for Mk IA. The Mk II was in service until 1939 and was then used for training. 13.2tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF, 4 Hotchkiss and 2 Vickers .303 MG; armour 8.25mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong-Siddeley V-8; 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 8ft 10in.

Medium Tank Mk II*: As for Mk II but with co-axial Vickers machine-gun in the turret, and the elimination of the Hotchkiss machine-guns, and the addition of a commander's cupola. 13.5tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF gun, 3 Vickers .303 MG; armour 8-6.25mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong-Siddeley V-8; 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 10ft.

Medium Tank Mk II**: During the year 1932, 44 Medium Mk IIs were converted by the installation of twin mountings for the 3pdr gun and a Vickers .303 machine-gun together with a commander's cupola on the turret roof. In addition to this, armoured containers for a wireless set were fitted to the backs of the turret. The converted vehicles were redesignated Mk II**.

Medium Tank Mk IIA: Medium Mk IIA was produced in 1930 by Vickers-Armstrong Ltd and 20 were built. The bevel was removed from the rear of the turret and a command cupola was fitted. The left ventilator was protected by an armoured box open, at the top. The 3pdr gun and Vickers machine-gun were co-axial. The hull Vickers machine-gun ejected the empty cases to the outside of the tank. Other improvements included better suspension units with rearranged track return rollers.

Medium Tank Mk IIA*: Similar to Mk IIA, but fitted with an armoured wireless container.

Medium Tank Mk IIA.C.S: Similar to Mk IIA, but adapted to the close-support role by the fitting of a 3.7in howitzer. 14tons; crew 5; 1 3.7 Howitzer and 3 Vickers .303 MG; armour 8mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong-Siddeley V-8; 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x 10ft.

Medium Tank Mk II (Tropical): Five Mk II tanks were specially modified and fitted to meet tropical conditions. They were sent to Egypt in 1928. The chief modifications were sun screens consisting of woven asbestos fitted outside the upper surfaces and sides of the tank with an air gap of 1-1.5in between the sheeting and the armour plate. The Rackham steering clutches and control levers were also insulated.

Medium Tank Mk II (Bridge carrier): Developed during 1927, this Mk II was fitted with side brackets to carry bridge girders to construct an 18ft bridge. The bridging sections were assembled by the tank crew.

English Workman: Based on the Medium Mk IIA, this modified version was built in limited quantity for the Soviet Government during 1931 and was known to the Red Army as the 'English Workman'.

Medium Mk II Command Tank: Developed during 1931, this was an Mk II with a dummy gun in a fixed turret, in which were fitted two wireless sets. A wireless mast was carried on the right of the vehicle. Otherwise it was externally similar to the standard vehicle.

Medium Tank Mk II (Special): Delivered to Australia during 1929, these were modified Mk II Mediums differing in having a co-axial Vickers MG on the left of the 3pdr gun and a separate ball mounted Vickers MG on the right.

LINK

LINK

Schwerer Panzersp채hwagen SdKfz 231 armed with a 20-mm (0.787-in) cannon. This pre-war design used a truck chassis as its basis, but the overall weigh t made the vehicle unsuitable for prolonged cross-country use.

The schwerer Panzersp채hwagen SdKfz 231 6x4 heavy armoured car had its origins at the Kazan test centre established in the Soviet Union during the 1920s. There the German automobile industry developed an 8x8 armoured car chassis that proved to be too expensive for further development, so a 6x4 chassis was tried instead. This model used a truck chassis as its basis, and originally this was a Daimler-Benz product but later Bussing- NAG and Magirus chassis and engines were employed. These chassis were fitted with suitable armoured hulls and turrets, and modifications were made to allow steering from either end of the hull. Early trials demonstrated the need for stronger front axles and revised radiators, and the resulting vehicle was issued to German army units during 1932. Production continued until 1935, by which time about 1,000 had been produced.

The 6x4 armoured cars were not a great success but they were produced at a time when the German army lacked experience in the use of armoured vehicles, and were thus invaluable as training and preparation equipments. Using lorry chassis carrying armoured hulls that were really too heavy for their supporting structures, the six wheeled armoured cars were underpowered and had only limited cross-country capabilities, But when used on roads they were as good as anything else available, and they were used to good effect during the occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia during 1938 and 1939, and were also used in combat in Poland and France. Their very appearance had great propaganda impact, and they were accordingly given great media coverage at the time. After 1940 they gradually faded from front-line use and were relegated mainly to training roles.

Early examples of the six-wheeled armoured cars had provision for only one 7.92-mm (0.31-m) MG 34 machine gun in the turret, but the version used mainly by the heavy platoons of the German army motorized units was the SdKfz 231. This had a turret mounting a 20-mm cannon, originally the KwK 30 but later the KwK 38 with a higher rate of fire. Mounted co-axially with this cannon was a 7.92-mm (0.31 -in) MG 34, and there was provision for an antiaircraft machine-gun on the turret roof. The SdKfz 231 was used as a tactical vehicle (undertaking a combat role in direct fire support of motorized infantry units mounted on trucks or later on halftracks), but at times it was also used in support of light reconnaissance units for Panzer formations, Another vehicle that was very similar to the SdKfz 231 was the SdKfz 232, which was basically a Sdkfz 231 fitted with a long-range radio set that required the fitting of a large and prominent frame aerial above the turret and over the hull rear, the turret acting as a support for the forward part of the aerial. Another similar vehicle was the SdKfz 263, which also had a large frame aerial, though on this vehicle the turret was fixed and had provision for a single machine-gun only. The SdKfz 263 was used as a command vehicle.

Specification

SdKfz 231

Crew: 4

Weight: (in action) 5.7 tonnes

Dimensions: length overall 5.57 m (18 ft 6 3/4 in); width 1.82 m (5 ft 11 1/2 in); height 2.25 m (7 ft 4 3/5 in)

Powerplant: one Daimler-Benz, Bussing-NAG or Magirus water-cooled petrol engine developing

between 60 and 80 bhp (45 and 60 kW)

Performance: maximum road speed 65 km/h (40 mph); maximum road range 250 km (150 miles); maximum cross-country range 200 km (125 miles); gradient 20째; fording 0.6 m (24 in)

LINK

A comparative study of Ottoman hand firearms used by the Janissaries, that is, the Sultans' elite infantry troops, shows that they were similar to the muskets the Ottomans' Spanish and Venetian opponents used. For instance, the Ottomans adopted the Spanish miquelet lock. Despite these similarities, however, the chapter also reveals important differences, and argues that one field where the Ottomans lagged behind their European opponents was the lack of standardization. While standardization was hardly accomplished by the Europeans in general, the Austrians, and especially later the Russians, had considerably fewer caliber types within a certain class than the Ottomans did. This certainly made supply of ammunition a more difficult task in the Empire, and also hindered tactical reforms.

Glossary

tüfenk (also tüfeng/tüfek, Ottoman handgun "any firearm used from the shoulder")

metris tüfeği Ottoman handgun with miquelet lock

tüfenkçi (Ottoman arquebusier, musketeer)

Guns for the Sultan

Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire

The original T-34 Model 1940 can be recognized by the low-slung barrel of the L-11 gun, below a bulge in the mantlet housing its recoil mechanism. This particular vehicle is a pre-production A-34 prototype, recognizable by the small driver's hatch and single-piece front hull.

Model 1940 (German designation: T-34/76A) - Production model built in 1940, armed with L-11 76.2 mm tank gun, welded or cast two-man turret. Due to a shortage of new V-2 diesel engines, the initial production run from the Gorky factory was equipped with the BT tank's MT-17 gasoline-powered engine, and inferior transmission and clutch

T-34 production in 1940

The first two prototypes of the T-34 were completed in January 1940 and that "series production of the T-34 Model 1939[1] was scheduled to begin in June 1940 at the KhPZ tank plant in Kharkov, and in October at the Barrikady Tractor Plant in Stalingrad. Only three T-34 tanks had actually been delivered to the Red Army by September 1940"

[1] Some Russian historians use different names: they refer to the first T-34 as the T-34 Model 1939 instead of 1940.

LINK

LINK

The last B-50A was to have been redesignated YB-50C and modified as an enlarged B-50 that was redesignated YB-54. Orders were placed for 43 B-54A and RB-54As, but all were canceled.

The last aircraft on the original B-SOA order, 46-60, was to be redesignated VB-SOC, a stretched and heavier development of the B-SOA. However, because of the extensive differences, it was redesignated YB-S4. The fuselage was lengthened to 111 feet, the span was increased to 161 feet 2 inches, and the engines were 4,500hp R-436051 s. The Air Force ordered seven B-S4As and 23 RB-54As in May, 1948, but all were canceled, along with the uncompleted YB-54.

The Boeing B-54A was the planned production version of the YB-50C. The purpose of the project was to maximize the performance of the basic B-50 design. The standard Pratt&Whitney R-4360 radial engines were to be replaced by the improved R-4360 Variable Discharge Turbine (VDT) radial engines. The wing span was increased by about 20 feet, which required additional outrigger landing gear in the number one and four engine nacelles, to stabilize the aircraft on the ground. The fuselage length was increased by more than 10 feet to provide the increased structural strength necessary to carry the loads imposed by the new wing. The lengthened fuselage also allowed for a larger bomb load. Large fuel tanks under the outboard wing section were required to carry an additional 3,000 gallons of fuel to reach the intended 9,300 mile range.

Because of the extensive design changes required for the YB-50C, the planned production model was redesignated B-54A. A photo reconnaissance variant was also planned and designated RB-54A. Although the project would have maximized the performance of the basic B-50 design, newer jet powered bomber already being planned, tested and built promised much better performance than the B-54A. This resulted in the cancellation of the entire B-54 program. The YB-50C was never built and production of the B-54A and RB-54A never begin

The project was cancelled due to the development of better-performing jet aircraft. Construction of the prototype B-54A was started at Seattle but never completed. The contract was cancelled on 18 April 1949.

Serial numbers: YB-50C from B-50A: S/N 46-061 (canceled); B-54A: 49-200 to 49-206, 49-1757 to 49-1770 (all canceled); RB-54C: 49-207 to 49-229, 49-1771 to 49-1799 (all canceled)

SPECIFICATIONS (as designed):
Span: 161 ft. 2 in.
Length: 111 ft. 0 in.
Height: 32 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 230,000 lbs. (estimated maximum takeoff weight)
Armament: 14 .50-cal. machine guns and 36,000 lbs. of bombs
Engines: Four Pratt & Whitney R-4360-51 Variable Discharge Turbines (VDT) of 4,500 lbs. hp each

PERFORMANCE (estimates as designed):
Maximum speed: 430 mph
Cruising speed: 305 mph
Range: 9,000 miles
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft.

LINK

LINK

The SA6 "Gainful" low altitude surface to air missile (SAM), was first designed at Tushino in 1956 but was not seen in public until 1967 and entered full service in 1970.

SA-6 (Gainful) 2K12 Kub

Type:

Medium-range, ground-based, ramjet-powered, theatre defence missile.

Development:

Development of a divisional air defence missile system, known as the ZRK-SD Kub (Kvadrat), was begun by the Toropov's OKB-134 design bureau at Tushino in 1959. The system was intended to replace the S-60 57 mm radar-directed guns used by the former Soviet Ground Forces. For several reasons, development of the Kub fell behind schedule in the early 1960s, one of these being that the design bureau had also received a contract in 1959 to study the possibility of copying the US AIM-9B Sidewinder on the basis of two examples obtained from China. As a result of this, and certain development problems, prototype testing of the missile (Kub 9M9) did not take place until 1965. Initial deployment of trials units followed in 1967, but continuing problems prolonged the acceptance phase. In spite of the problems, the Kub system was first publicly seen in Moscow in November 1967 and it received the NATO designation SA-6 `Gainful'. The SA-6 `Gainful' is sometimes referred to as Kvadrat (Quadrant) in foreign service. However, it is unclear whether this is the name given to the export model of the system, or whether Kvadrat is the name of the 9M9 missile rather than the whole system. The SA-6 `Gainful' first saw action during the 1973 Middle East war with Syria and Egypt. The Israeli Air Force appreciated the vulnerability of the engagement radar and the possibilities of saturating the system. The Russian Ground Forces PVO already had a new system, the ZRK Romb, entering service, which remedied this problem by providing each TEL (Transporter-Erector-Launcher) with an engagement radar, resulting in TELAR (Transporter-Erector-Launcher And Radar). This system, the SA-8 `Gecko', was to become the new Russian divisional air defence missile system. As a result, an SA-6 follow-on with comparable range and a TELAR launcher was eventually fielded in 1982 as the SA-11 `Gadfly'. The SA-11 programme had prolonged difficulties with the missile, leading to the decision, around 1976, to develop a stopgap system combining SA-6 `Gainful' and SA-11 `Gadfly' features. The result, designated SA-6B `Gainful' Mod 1 by NATO, mated a derivative of the proven SA-6 missile (9M336) with the SA-11 `Gadfly' TELAR. These began to appear in 1979 and were first spotted in the Military District opposite Afghanistan. From that time on, the deployment pattern appears to have been to issue a single SA-6B `Gainful' Mod 1 TELAR per Kub battery, rather than to deploy regiments entirely equipped with the new vehicle. This process apparently continued into the mid-1980s, by which time the SA-11 `Gadfly' was coming into service.

Description:

The SA-6 is quite different from other Russian SAMs, in that it has four long slender tube air inlet ducts mounted mid-body between the wings. At mid-body, there are four clipped movable triangular wings for pitch and yaw control. Just forward of the jettisonable boat-tail are four in-line clipped delta fins with ailerons for roll control. The missile is 5.8 m long, has a body diameter of 0.34 m and with a 59 kg HE fragmentation warhead, weighs 600 kg at launch. The missile is fitted with a G/H-band transmitter beacon mounted on the tail to assist the engagement radar in tracking the missile. The guidance system of the missile relies on Continuous Wave (CW) illumination of the target by the 1S91 `Straight Flush' engagement radar. In mid-course, the radar communicates via an I-band command uplink to a reference antenna receiver on the missile tail. In the terminal phase, the `Straight Flush' radar provides the CW target illumination for the semi-active radar seeker. Up to three missiles can be guided towards the same target by the engagement radar, which has a TV tracker for use in heavy Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) conditions. A laser rangefinder has been added to later SA-6 systems. The early versions of the missile did not have the prominent fin antenna, but were fitted with interferometer antennas on the central fins. These may have been associated with proximity fuzing rather than missile guidance, since a gimballed seeker is fitted in the missile nose. The propulsion system uses a solid fuel integral rocket/ramjet. On launch, the solid propellant boost motor in the rear of the missile fuselage is ignited. The booster has a duration of 4.1 seconds, boosting the missile to a speed of M1.5. At this point, the nozzle of the boost motor falls away, caps over the four air inlet ports are removed and the ramjet system is activated. The chamber which had contained the solid propellant booster motor acts like an afterburner chamber. The ramjet propulsion boosts the missile speed to M2.8 and burns for 22.5 seconds. The warhead is detonated by contact or radar proximity fuzes and has a lethal radius of 5 m against a typical fighter-sized target aircraft at low level. The complete mobile SA-6 system is known as Kub in Russia; this consists of a 2P25 TEL carrying three missiles, a 2T7M transloader with three reload missiles, and a 1S91 `Straight Flush' radar vehicle. The 2P25 TEL has a crew of three and is a tracked vehicle with a weight of 1,400 kg, length of 7.4 m, width of 3.2 m and a maximum road speed of 45 km/h. Each regiment has an HQ vehicle, early warning and heightfinder radars and five SA-6 batteries. Each battery has a `Straight Flush' radar, four SA-6 TEL and four transloaders. Several surveillance radars have been used with SA-6 `Gainful' batteries, including `Scoreboard A', `Flat Face', `Spoon Rest', `Long Track' and the height-finder `Thin Skin B'. In addition, the lower parabolic antenna on `Straight Flush' is for surveillance and has a range of 55 km against fighter aircraft targets. SA-6 has range limits of 3 to 25 km and an altitude engagement envelope of between 30 to 15,000 m. SA-6 missiles have been fired using only passive electro-optic sensors for surveillance and acquisition, providing command guidance until about five seconds before impact, when the engagement radar is switched on to allow the semi-active radar seeker in the missile to locate the target.

*

*

Operational Status:

SA-6 `Gainful' entered operational service in 1970. This was followed in 1979 by an updated version, the SA-6B `Gainful' Mod 1. The system is believed to have remained in production throughout the 1980s, at around 800 missiles per year. In 1992, there were reported to be 850 SA-6 triple missile TELs in service in Russia. The first known action was by Syria and Egypt, during the first few days of the 1973 Middle East war, when it proved highly effective against Israeli aircraft. It has seen subsequent combat service in the war between Iran and Iraq and in Lebanon during 1982. Additionally, it has been used by both the Polasario Front and Algeria in border skirmishes with Morocco, destroying at least five aircraft. It was used by Libya against US aircraft in 1986 and against French aircraft in the battles in northern Chad in 1986 and 1987. An American F-16 was hit by a SA-6 missile over Bosnia in 1996 and Iraq used SA-6 missiles against US and UK aircraft in December 1998.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

AW.650&AW.660 Argosy

Armstrong-Whitworth AW.650 Argosy

Role: cargo

Manufacturer: Armstrong Whitworth

First flight: 8 January 1959

Number built: 74

The Armstrong Whitworth Argosy was a British post-war military transport/cargo aircraft and was the last aircraft produced by Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft. Although given different type numbers, the AW.650 civil and AW.660 military models were both called "Argosy" and for practical purposes are basically the same design.

Development

The Argosy came from the Air Ministry "Operation Requirement 323" (OR323) which resulted in a specification issued in 1955 for a medium range freight aircraft capable of lifting 25,000 lb and that had a range of 2,000 nmi (3,700 km) with 10,000 lb (4,500 kg). This led AW to develop a twin engined design for the military, the AW.66. The potential for civil sales led to a civil design AW.65. The 1957 Defence White Paper would show the lack of funding available for military work but AW had revised the design for the civil market alone as a 4 engined aircraft.

Operational history

The Argosy was used by the Royal Air Force for its capability to accommodate 69 troops, or 48 stretcher cases or 29,000 lb (13 tonnes) of freight. This meant it could carry military equipment such as the Saracen or Ferret armoured cars, or artillery such as the 105 mm howitzer or Wombat.

The earliest deployments were in 1962 to 105 Squadron in the Middle East and 114 and 267 Squadrons at RAF Benson. The following year 215 Squadron received its Argosies when based at RAF Changi, Singapore. The squadron was disbanded on New Years Eve 1967 and the aircraft went to 70 Squadron at RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus. This was the last squadron to operate the aircraft when it disposed of them in February 1975 in favour of Lockheed Hercules.

The E.1 version of the Argosy was with 115 Squadron from 1968 to 1978, most of the time based at RAF Cottesmore.

Variants

Armstrong Whitworth AW 650 Argosy (1959)

The Armstrong Whitworth Argosy was a high winged four-engined general purpose transport aircraft supplied to a number of civil operators. First flown on 8 January 1959, a total of 17 were built for civil operators Riddle Airlines (Series 101) and British European Airways (series 102 and 222).

The Argosy was powered by four Rolls-Royce Dart 526 turboprop engines driving Rotol four-blade propellers. The tailplane was on twin booms from the inner engine nacelles leaving the cargo doors at the rear of the fuselage clear for straight-in loading. This unusual "pod and boom" structure would earn it the nickname "The Whistling Wheelbarrow".

It had a maximum weight of 97,000 lb (44,000 kg) and a payload of 28,000 lb (12,700 kg or 12.5 long tons). Cruising at 210 knot (speed)s (390 km/h), it had a range of 3,000 nautical miles (3,450 statute miles or 5550 kilometres) and could seat 65 passengers. Two aircraft operated later by SAFE Air in New Zealand as the main link between the Chatham Islands and the mainland, were fitted with a pressurised "passenger capsule".

Ten Series 101 and 102 aircraft were built. Eight Series 200 aircraft were built, the series 200 had a larger freight hold and enlarged front and rear doors to enable it to carry standard size cargo pallets. The series 200 also had a lighter redesigned wing increasing the maximum range and Rolls-Royce Dart 532/1 turboprops.

The last flight by a New Zealand Argosy was made by operator SAFE AIR in 1990, that aircraft now being preserved in Blenheim, New Zealand.

Armstrong Whitworth AW 660 Argosy C Mk 1

The military Argosy C.1 was designed as a replacement for the Vickers Valetta as a medium range transport, paratroop and supply aircraft. The 660 was based upon the AW.650 Argosy civil transport which had flown 27 months previously. The first production military Argosy first flew in March 1961. The military version had the nose door sealed to take a weather radar radome, the rear doors were changed to 'clam shell' style with an integral loading ramp, and two doors were fitted on the starboard side to enable paratroopers to exit. The strong tricycle landing gear of the original design allowed take-off and landing on rough or unprepared airstrips.

The military Argosy had four Rolls-Royce Dart 101 turboprops and had twice the range of the civil Series 100.

Production of the Argosy for the RAF totalled 56 aircraft which served in six squadrons; three in the UK and one each in Aden, Cyprus, and the Far East. The Argosy was withdrawn from service in 1975 as an economic measure. Those aircraft not scrapped or retained were sold to commercial operators.

Hawker Siddeley Argosy E Mk 1

In 1963, Hawker Siddeley Group dropped the names of its component companies, rebranding its products under the Hawker Siddeley banner. To meet a requirement for a RAF flight inspection aircraft nine Argosy C.1s were modified in 1971 as the Argosy E1. These were a regular sight at British airfields operated by 115 Squadron until replaced by the Hawker Siddeley Andover in 1978.

Hawker Siddeley Argosy T Mk 2

After the removal of the Argosy C.1 from the cargo/transport role it was decided to modify several aircraft as Navigation Trainers for the RAF Training Command. Two aircraft were modified as the Argosy T2, but they were not successful and the programme was abandoned due to defence cuts. XP411 (see below) is was one of these.

Military operators

* Royal Air Force

o No. 70 Squadron RAF (based in Cyprus)

o No. 105 Squadron RAF (based in Middle East)

o No. 114 Squadron RAF (based in United Kingdom)

o No. 115 Squadron RAF (based in United Kingdom with the Argosy E1)

o No. 215 Squadron RAF (based in Singapore)

o No. 267 Squadron RAF (based in United Kingdom)

o No. 242 Operational Conversion Unit RAF

o No. 6 Flying Training School RAF

Specifications (Argosy C Mk.1)

General characteristics

* Crew: Four

* Capacity: up to 69 troops or 28,930 lb (13,150 kg) of cargo

* Length: 45 ft 3 in (27.18 m)

* Wingspan: 115 ft 0 in (35.05 m)

* Height: ()

* Wing area: 1,458 ft2 (135.5 m2)

* Empty weight: 10,200 lb (4,630 kg)

* Max takeoff weight: 103,000 lb (46,700 kg)

* Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Dart RDa.8 Mk 101 turboprops, 2,440 hp (1,820 kW) each

* Propellers: 4 blade Rotol propeller, 1 per engine

Performance

* Maximum speed: 234 kn (269 mph, 433 km/h)

* Range: 2824 nmi (3,250 mi, 5,230 km)

* Service ceiling 18,000 ft (5,500 m)

Bibliography

* Jefford, C.G., RAF Squadrons. Shrewsbury: Airlife Publishing, 2nd edition, 2001. ISBN 1-84037-141-2

LINK

The 282°Squadriglia Autonoma A.S. (Aerosiluranti/Torpedo Bombers) was based at Gerbini Airport (Sicily) during summer 1941.

241°Sq./98°Grp./43°Stormo B.T.

SM.84

Role: Bomber/Torpedo-bomber

Manufacturer: Savoia-Marchetti

First flight: 5 June 1940

Introduction: 1941

Retired: 1945

Primary user: Regia Aeronautica

The Savoia-Marchetti SM.84 was an Italian bomber aircraft of the Second World War. It was designed by Savoia-Marchetti as a replacement for its successful SM.79, and shared its three-engined layout. However, although it entered service with the Regia Aeronautica in 1941, it never replaced the SM.79, being retired from service before it.

Development

Development of an aircraft to replace the SM.79 started in 1939, with Savoia-Marchetti choosing to produce an improved development of the SM.79, using the same wing as its predecessor, but with a new fuselage and more powerful engines.[1] The first prototype flew on 5 June 1940,[2] just 5 days before Italy's entry into the Second World War.

It was hoped to replace the SM.79s in service, which were fast, but obsolescent, and yet to be adapted as torpedo-bombers. The main improvement was the adoption of new and more powerful engines, giving a total output of 3,000 hp. The machine was put into production at the end of 1940.

Design

It shared the basic design of a three-engined mixed construction monoplane as the SM.79. Wood was used for the wings, supported by three spars. Steel tubing was used as a skeleton for the fuselage, covered by metal (forward), fabric and wood. The new fuselage housed a crew of 5-6, with the pilots sitting side-by-side. Behind them there were a radio-operator and flight engineer. They enjoyed a large windscreen and eight windows in the fuselage.

The armour was much improved compared to the almost nonexistent protection fitted to the SM.79; it was said there was a total of 700 kg fitted, however it is unclear if this also included the self-sealing fuel tanks, bullet-proofed up to 12.7 mm rounds. One noticeable difference was the twin tail, which gave a better field of fire to the dorsal gun, and helped to cope with the greater power and weight compared to the SM.79.

Armament was similar to the Cant Z.1007, rather than the SM.79. There was a dorsal Caproni-Lanciani Delta turret, with a 12.7 mm caliber Scotti machine-gun, and 350 rounds. Another Scotti was in the ventral gondola. Other two Scotti were in the flanks with six 120 round belts. It was a theoretical improvement, though Scotti machine guns, even with a slightly higher rate of fire, were much less reliable than the Breda. Another disadvantage was the inability of the turret to fire directly forward, through the propeller's blades, so the aircraft had no defence from frontal attacks.

The bomb bay was in the middle of fuselage. Horizontally mounted, the aircraft could carry two 500 kg, three 250 kg, ten 100 kg, or ten 50 kg bombs. Outside the fuselage it was possible to mount two 500 kg or 800 kg bombs, or two torpedoes, or even smaller bombs like eight 100 kg or 50 kg (but really weighing of 130 kg and 70 kg). Generally the aircraft carried only one torpedo or around 1,000 kg of bombs. The aiming apparatus was a Jozza U3, fitted in the bombardier's nacelle, just below the cockpit. It was retractable when not in use, to reduce drag.

An OMI camera was fitted in the fuselage, while in the tail section it was possible to mount one of three different cameras, like the AGR.90 or 91.

Three Piaggio P.XI RC.40 engines, giving 1,000 hp at 4,000 m were fitted. There were 16 self-sealing fuel tanks inside the wing and the fuselage, six for the central engine (1,070 litres) and five for each wing engine (1,095 litres). Total fuel load was 3,260 litres, which was less, despite the more powerful engines, than previous Italian bombers. It was possible, however, to mount another three fuel tanks: two of 415 litres in the fuselage, and one of 2,500 litres in the bomb-bay.

With these engines, at full load the SM.84 was capable of:

* 400 km/h at 1,000 m.

* 418 km/h at 2,000 m.

* 437 km/h at 3,000 m.

* 456 km/h at 4,000 m.

* 467 km/h at 5,000 m.

* 450 km/h at 6,000 m.

Climb rates to:

* 1,000 m in 2 min 32 sec.

* 2,000 m in 5 min 25 sec.

* 3,000 m in 8 min 2 sec.

* 4,000 m in 10 min 54 sec.

* 5,000 m in 14 min 48 sec.

* 6,000 m in 19 min 18 sec.

The maximum practical ceiling was 8,200 m. At 5,500 m and 397 km/h, it had 5 hour 17 minutes endurance, and a range of 2,040 km. As was expected, the performance of the SM.84 was superior to the SM.79.

Operational history

The first unit to operate the aircraft was 12° Wing, 41° Group, on 2 February 1941. Based at Rodi, the first actions of this Group were not successful, and two aircraft landed in Turkey.

36° Wing received its SM.84s on 7 May 1941, and was based at Decimomannu airbase, Sardinia, from September 1941. On 27 September 1941 twelve aircraft from 108° and 109° Gruppo, 36° Wing took off to attack a British convoy to Malta (Operation Halberd). One aircraft turned back after developing a mechanical fault, but the the remainder pressed on with their attack. The first group, led by Arduino Buri, attacked the British ships and Buri managed to torpedo HMS Nelson, putting her out of action for six months. Of the first section, one aircraft was shot down, and the second section had two aircraft shot down out of three. When Seidl went in with his five aircraft, he was shot down together with another two. While the damage to HMS Nelson was a success, the only one this type that Italian torpedo bombers obtained, it was paid with the loss of six aircraft, and almost all the crews, more than 30 men. The next day a merchant ship of the convoy was sunk by SM.79s with only one loss. The rest of the convoy reached Malta with their supplies.

After these losses, 36° Wing continued in its task to attack enemy ships, and sank the merchant ship Empire Defender in November, and badly damaged HMS Penelope on 9 April 1942.[citation needed] 282° Squadriglia was also involved in such missions, with some success.

7° Wing, based in Sicily, used SM.84s to bomb Malta in July 1941. In mid-October 1941 32° Wing were equipped with SM.84's, one group of torpedo-bombers and the other of bombers, to best optimize the attack against ships. This Wing took part in attacks on the Allied landings of Operation Torch, but by the end of December the unit had lost 20 aircraft and was retired from operations.

In June 1942 fourteen torpedo-bombers of 36° Wing and nine bombers of 4° Gruppo attacked the Malta convoy of Operation Harpoon, with at least two losses to Spitfires, and one downed by Anti-aircraft fire.

During Operation Pedestal in August 1942 ten SM.84s used special torpedoes (MFF), to attack the convoy, losing two aircraft to enemy fighters. Aircraft of 32° and 36° Wing also attacked the convoy, and only five of the fourteen ships of the convoy reached Malta.

While other groups were still receiving the aircraft, 36° and 7° Wing had stopped flying it by December 1942. The decline had already started. The use of the aircraft to resupply troops in North Africa was a failure, as the payload was too small. The aircraft was gradually phased out, replaced by the Z.1007, and even the SM.79. By 10 July 1943 43° Wing, flying from Gioia del Colle, Puglia, was the only unit still flying the SM.84.

In September 1943 there were still 150 SM.84s, with over 100 serviceable. Almost all of these were captured by Germans, though they were little used. Some were sent to the Slovak Air Force, and ten remained with RSI's Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana, but were not used. Seven were used by the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force as transports.

Variants

S.84bis

With several modifications, but not a substantial evolution.

S.84ter

A single aircraft, completed in 1944, fitted with 1,500 hp Piaggio P.XII engines, capable of speeds over 500 km/h. Destroyed by fire during a landing accident in 1946.

Operators

* Italy

o Regia Aeronautica

o Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force

* Germany

o Luftwaffe

* Slovakia

o Slovak Air Force

Specifications (SM.84)

Data from World Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft [3]

General characteristics

* Crew: 5

* Length: 17.93 m (58 ft 10 in)

* Wingspan: 21.10 m (69 ft 7 in)

* Height: 4.59 m (15 ft 1 in)

* Wing area: 61.0 m2 [2] (656.6 ft2)

* Empty weight: 8,846 kg[2] (19,502 lb)

* Loaded weight: 13,288 kg (29,330 lb)

* Powerplant: 3× Piaggio P.XI RC 40 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engines, 746 kW (1,000 hp) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 432 km/h (233 knots, 268 mph) at 4,600m (15,000 ft)

* Range: 1,830 km (1,041 nm, 1,137 mi)

* Service ceiling 7,900 m (25,900 ft)

Armament

* Four × 12.7 mm Scotti machine guns (One in dorsal turret, one in ventral position and two in waist positions

* 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of bombs or 2 torpedoes

Comparable aircraft

* CRDA CANT Z.1018

* Cant Z.1007

References

Notes

1. Tringali, Sebastiano. "Italian Torpedo Bombers". Regia Marina Italia.

2. a b c Donald 1997, p.825

3. Angelucci 1981, p.261

Bibliography

* Angelucci, Enzo, ed. World Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft. London: Jane's Publishing. 1981. ISBN 0 7106 0148 4.

* Donald, David, ed. The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. Aerospace Publishing. 1997. ISBN 1-85605-375-X.

* Lembo, Daniele, S.84, il fratello stupido dello Sparviero, Aerei nella storia magazine, Westward editions, n.24. pag.10-32.

LINK

LINK

LINK

The Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), or S-Tank, was a Swedish tank (although some consider it to be a tank destroyer). It was known for its unconventional turret-less design, with a fixed gun elevated by adjusting the hull suspension and traversed by engaging the tracks. The S-tank was developed in the 1950s and was the first main battle tank replacement to use a turbine engine, later copied by the M1 Abrams. The result was a very low-profile design with an emphasis on defense and heightened crew protection level. S-tanks formed a major portion of Swedish armored forces during the 1960s, 70s, 80s and part of the 90s, but have since been removed from service in favour of the Leopard 2.

History

In the mid-1950s the Swedish army put out a contract tender for a new tank design to replace their Centurions. Although the Centurion was arguably the best tank in the world at the time, its performance lead over contemporary Soviet designs like the T-55 was only marginal, and any future designs would best it. A consortium of Landsverk, Volvo and Bofors responded with a new heavy tank design, known under the codename KRV, fitted with a 155 mm smoothbore gun, but this would be an expensive option.

Sven Berge of the Swedish Arms Administration proposed an alternative in 1956, given the codename S. Noting that the chance of being hit in combat was strongly related to height, he proposed that any new design should be as low as possible. The only practical way to do this was to eliminate the turret, which would also make the tank much lighter and simpler. Note however that its most likely opponent, the T-72, is only 2.2 meters in height with its turret vs. the 2.14 meters of the Strv 103. Occasionally tanks deploy themselves into 'hull down' firing positions, either purpose dug or using the crest of a hill, in order to reduce the exposure of the vehicle to enemy fire. In this firing position the distance between the bottom of the gun barrel to the top of the turret or vehicle determines the level of exposure. Because the Strv 103 orientates the entire tank to depress and elevate the barrel, in a hull down position it has a very low apparent height and subsequent visual profile to the enemy. It can also lower the hull 13 centimeters. However such static use of a tank is at odds with the very concept of a tank, i.e. a mobile, protected gun platform able to bring heavy firepower to bear upon the enemy as you attack. Hence the S Tank is really a defensive vehicle.

This is not the first time such a system had been used: it was common during the World War II-era tank destroyers and assault guns for instance, but in the tank role the inability to quickly change aim that a turret provided always proved to be a serious problem. However, some tank destroyers like the Jagdpanther were both relatively cheap to make and very effective in defensive positions. Berge's design tried to solve the aiming problem through the use of a fully automated transmission and suspension system, which would turn and tilt the tank under gunner control. The gun itself would be fixed to the hull. However this made it impossible to use a stabilized gun, as a result the tank could not move and fire at the same time (at least not with any accuracy).

Other features of the tank were also quite radical. The gun, a Bofors L/62 (and able to use the same ammunition as the British L7 105 mm) would be equipped with an autoloader, allowing the crew to be reduced to two (though a third man was added for psychological reasons). Most designs of the era used a crew of four, while the S-tank would eliminate the loader and gunner. One of the three left was the rear driver, who was facing the rear of the tank equipped with a complete setup for driving. This allowed the tank to be driven "backwards" at the same speed as forwards, keeping its frontal armor pointed at the enemy.

The Commander and gunner/driver both had the same set of sights and controls to fire the gun and drive the tank. Additionally the tank was powered by two engines, a 240 hp Rolls-Royce K60 diesel for cruising and turning the tank for aim, and a 300 hp Boeing 502 turbine for "dashing" at high speed.

The concept was interesting enough that Bofors was asked to build a prototype of the suspension/drive train, which they completed successfully. In 1958 a follow-on contract called for two full prototypes, which were completed in 1961. By this point the army was so happy with the design that they had already placed an order for an initial pre-production run of 10 in 1960. With minor changes the S-tank was adopted as the Strv 103 (103 from the fact that it was the third tank with a 10 cm gun) and full production started in 1967 and ended in 1971 with 290 delivered. The changes included a new gyrostabilised commander's cupola armed with a 7.62 mm FN MAG, and upgraded frontal armour. A "fence" was available to help defeat HEAT rounds; however, it was kept secret for many years and was only to be fitted in the event of war. The Strv 103 was fully amphibious. A floatation screen could be erected around the upper hull in about 20 minutes, and the tracks would drive the tank at about 6 km/h in water. One tank in each platoon was fitted with a blade under the front hull that allowed it to dig itself into the ground for added protection.

The Stridsvagn 103 never saw combat and so its design remains unproven. It is the case that every other deployed main battle tank has a turret. On Discovery Chanel's "Greatest tanks ever" they ranked the Stridsvagn 103 as number 6. In 1967 Norway carried out a two week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that with closed hatches the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard. In April to September of 1968 two 103s were tested at the British armored school in Bovington and reported that "The turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks". In BAOR 1973 the 103 was tested against the Chieftain. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move.". In 1975 two 103s were tested at the American armor center at Fort Knox. The result was that the 103 was more accurate than the M60A1E3, but fired on an average 0.5 seconds slower.

Strv 103B

As the weight of the Strv 103 had increased compared to the pre-production tanks the 103 turned out to be underpowered. Hence a more powerful version of the same gas turbine, manufactured by Caterpillar, was introduced after the first 80 produced tanks. The early version was soon upgraded to B-standard.

Strv 103C

An upgrade program was started in 1986 to fit all vehicles with dramatically improved fire control systems. Also, each S-tank was fitted with a dozer blade, rather than just one per platoon. A further upgrade in 1987/88 replaced the Rolls-Royce engine with a newer 290 hp (216 kW) Detroit Diesel with additional fuel tanks, and added a new laser rangefinder. There was some consideration of adding both reactive armor and/or additional armorplates in the early 1990s, but in the end the S-Tank was instead phased out of Swedish service in favour of the Leopard 2, which started arriving in 1997. The last year in which the S-tank were used to train tank crews was 1997.

Strv 103D

In the mid-1990s, along with testing programs running for a new main battle tank for the Swedish armed forces, some upgrades took place for the 103C version. The designation was Strv 103D and only one prototype was ever made. The major changes were the installation of fire-control computer, thermal viewers for both the gunner and the commander, making the crew able to fight during night-time and in bad weather conditions, and the installation of passive light enhancers for driving. Some minor changes to the suspension system and engine were also made.

This prototype was used during the trials for the new main battle tank system for the Swedish armed forces alongside all the other tanks tested. For a few years this prototype was even tested under remote control. The only Strv 103D ever built is today is on display at the Axvall armor museum, together with some 103C models. They are all still in running status.

Specifications

Designation: Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)
Length: *29.53 ft 9.00 m
Width: 11.81 ft 3.60 m
Height: 7.02 ft 2.14 m
Engine(s): 1 x Rolls Royce K60 diesel engine 1 x Boeing 502 turbine engine
Weight: 46.8 tons (US Short) 42,500 kg
Max Speed: 37 mph 60 km/h
Max Range:** 186 miles 300 km
Armament: 1 x 105mm main gun
1 x 7.62mm anti-aircraft machine gun
2 x 7.62mm fixed machine guns in front left hull
Ammunition: Not Available.
NBC Protection: None
Night Vision: None
Crew: 3
Operators: Sweden

*If a tank, overall length is with gun forwards whenever possible.
**Values indicative of vehicle's road range (for self-propelled vehicles) OR maximum effective firing range (for stationary towed-artillery systems).

STRV 103 S Tank Documentary

LINK

LINK

The invention of the stern rudder during the 12th century, together with the developments made in sailing during the Crusades, enabled the use of sails to almost completely supersede that of oars. Following the invention of the compass, and with it the possibilities of exploration, the development of sailing ships advanced quickly during the 14th and 15th centuries. Henry VIII dedicated the Great Harry, the first double-decked English warship, in 1514.

In the 16th century, ships were short and high-sterned, and despite Pett's three-decker in the 17th century, English ships did not compare favourably with the Spanish and Dutch ships until the early 19th century.

Definition

The stern is the rear or aft part of a ship or boat, technically defined as the area built up over the sternpost, extending upwards from the counter to the taffrail. The stern lies opposite of the bow, the foremost part of a ship.

The stern area has always been the location near the steering apparatus (rudder, tiller, ship's wheel, etc), and by extension became the domain of the ship's captain and other officers. In particular, the stern was the location of the officers' quarters, and during the age of sail of the ship, with rows of windows, galleries, walkways, and elaborate decorations. This resulted in a certain amount of vulnerability, and the goal of much maneuvering in battle was to achieve the stern rake, in which a ship would pour its entire broadside into the stern.

Other features of the stern included lanterns and the ensign.

In the early part of the 19th century, the stern of larger ships became gradually more rounded, and with the advent of screw-powered vessels, the stern became the location of the equipment, the officers moving elsewhere, though British ships still contained an Admiral's sternwalk until well into the twentieth century.

LINK

The Development of the Full-Rigged Ship From the Carrack to the Full-Rigger

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

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

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

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.

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 Gรถring 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. Fokkeา‘s 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

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

Read more here

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

The development of the P-700 missile system started in 1969, but it was prolonged due to its complexity. It was assumed that the main source of information would be the satellite-based reconnaissance network, and from the very beginning, it was believed that the missile would be able to communicate with it directly after launch. The initial targeting information was to be received by a submarine cruising at a depth of about 30 m via a long-wave communications system from ground bases. The attack was to be coordinated with a group of long-range Tu-22M anti-ship aircraft. The underwater attack group consists of three to five Oscar and Oscar II subs, each armed with 24 P-700 missiles. The subs were to launch 70-120 such missiles against a single carrier group in a single mass attack. Roughly 30-50% of them are aimed at the carrier, while the others go after accompanying ships. Another salvo of 12-24 missiles was to be launched by aircraft, mainly to saturate the carrier group's defenses. The 30-knot speed of the Oscar I/II submarines enables a rapid approach to the launch area, about 450-500 km from the carrier group, and equally quick evasion after the attack.

The missile employs all of the techniques from the Bazalt / Vulkan. One lead missile per every 24 in the salvo flies at high altitude to reconnoiter the target, using its radar in active and passive modes. The active mode is used in quick "looks," then turned off to increase the penetration probability. The lead missile assigns targets to all subordinate missiles and communicates with the other lead missiles in the massive salvo to coordinate the attack. To achieve this, the missile is equipped with a powerful digital computer with three processors. The missile has an onboard integrated electronic-countermeasures suit for avoiding enemy anti-missile attacks using a combination of maneuver and deception jamming. The computer could order the missile to one of various stored courses with multiple altitudes. At high altitude, the missile speed is Mach 2.5, while at low (sea-skimming) altitude, it is Mach 1.5. Vital parts of the missile are armored to increase penetration against fire from Phalanx-type close-in weapon systems and against fragments of closely exploding air-defense missiles. The missile has a nuclear warhead with a selectable yield of 200 or 350 kT, or a conventional 750 kg unitary shaped charge, or bomblets (primary for anti-ship attack, but also useable against land targets: 750 x 1 kg, a mix of incendiary, AP, HE, which can be varied to meet requirements).

The missile has a KR-93 turbojet which is used in the cruising phase after the missile has been launched with the aid of an integral solid propellant booster in the tail. There are two sharply swept-back wings and two swept-back tail fins with a stabiliser on the top side of the missile. The seeker is reported to operate in ESM, J-band (10-12 GHz) and K-band (27-40 GHz) modes, using the last in the terminal phase to select specific targets.

The guidance system was developed by TsNII "Granit." The missile itself was developed in OKB-52 (later NPO Mashinostoyeniya) under the direction of Chelomey and, after his death in 1984, under Gerberd Efremov. First tests of the missile started in November 1975. Numerous difficulties prolonged the factory tests until 1979, and in autumn of that year, the missile began state trials. Technical difficulties further prolonged the trials through October 1983, and the missile was officially accepted into service in March 1983. At this time, the space-based Legenda reconnaissance system had been fully deployed. In addition to the satellite system, the submarine could also use its own MGK-540 Skat-3 sonar system for targeting.

Only two Oscar I ships have been built: the K-525 (Arkhangelsk ) and K-206 (Murmansk ), commissioned in 1981 and 1983, respectively. Both remain in service with the Northern Fleet, and each are armed with 24 missiles and have Kasatka-U receivers for communication with the Legenda system. The subs were followed by the "ultimate" Oscar II class, of which 11 have been commissioned since 1986. The Northern Fleet operates the K-119 (Voronezh ), K-148 (Krasnodar ), K-410 (Smolensk ), K-266 (Orel ), K-186 (Omsk ), and K-150 (Tomsk ). The K-141 (Kursk ) exploded and sank on August 13, 2000. The Pacific Fleet operates the K-132 (Irkutsk ), K-173 (Krasnoyarsk ), K-442 (Chelabinsk ), and K-456 (Vyluchinsk ). The Russian Navy plans to commission a replacement for the Kursk, the K-329 (Belgorod ).

The P-700 missile was also introduced to service as a weapon for surface ships. Four Kirov-class nuclear cruisers were commissioned between 1980 and 1998: the Kirov (renamed Admiral Ushakov), Frunze (renamed Admiral Lazarev ), Kalinin (renamed Admiral Nakhimov ) and Yuriy Andropov (renamed Pyotr Velikiy ). They were armed with 20 semi-vertical (with some oblique, like in submarines) P-700 Granit launchers. The system was directly adapted from submarines - to the point where the launchers have to be filled with water before launch. Fire control is provided by the MR-212 Vaygach-U onboard radar and other ships' electronic systems (the Gurzuf or Kantata-M passive reconnaissance systems, for example). The first two cruisers were withdrawn from service in the late 1990s, but the Admiral Nakhimov and the Pyotr Velikiy continue to serve. The only other ship equipped with P-700 Granit system is the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznietsov , commissioned in 1990 and operational with Russian Northern Fleet since 1995. The ship is armed with 12 P-700 launchers.

The improved US ASW defenses around carrier battlegroups during the 1970s increasingly restricted the effectiveness of Soviet submarines carrying the Ametist/Malakhit (SS-N-7/9 Starbright/Siren) missiles. At the same time, the Soviet Navy wished to strengthen the defenses of its SSBN bastions, and this led to a requirement for a new missile. The P-700 Granit was developed as a more successful turbojet alternative to the Bazalt (SS-N-12 Sandbox) from which it was derived and whose liquid rocket proved troublesome. The long-range, sea-skimming anti-ship missile is launched from both surface ships and Oscar-class submarines. In the mid-course, it has an autopilot and can receive course updates by X-band datalink. It has a Ku-band active radar for terminal guidance and has a radar-homing capability.

LINK

LINK

LINK

Hōshō, converted from an oiler, was commissioned as a carrier in 1922 following the visit of a British technical mission. Originally equipped with an island navigating bridge, within a year she was flush decked, and provided the Imperial Japanese Navy with valuable early experience in carrier operations.

Hōshō (meaning "flying phoenix") became the first flat-deck aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1921, and was the first purpose-designed aircraft carrier in the world to be commissioned.

Her predecessors in the Imperial Japanese Navy were seaplane carriers such as the Wakamiya (converted in 1920 to an aircraft carrier with forward launch platform), or the Notoro.

Development

The hull of the Hōshō was based on a cruiser design, but it was not a conversion. She was built from the keel up as an aircraft carrier. Hōshō was commissioned on 27 December 1922, thirteen months before the Royal Navy's first purpose-built carrier Hermes, which was designed before Hōshō. The Hōshō however was originally conceived as a mixed aircraft carrier and seaplane tender and only during construction was her design modified to a dedicated carrier. She was the first purpose-designed aircraft carrier, but not the first purpose-designed dedicated aircraft carrier.

Her design was originally based on a cruiser-style hull, a flight deck with a depressed fore-part to accelerate lift-off, a starboard island, and three starboard funnels that were reclinable during flight operations. After trials she was improved by removing the island and flattening the flight deck, giving her a flush-deck design.

Operations

Being the first of its kind in the navy, Hōshō was actively used to develop the aircraft carrier operational methods and tactics of the Japanese Navy during the 1920s. She was preceded by the 1913 early aircraft carrier Wakamiya, which contributed to the development of the carrier techniques used in the Hōshō.

She served during the Shanghai Incident (bombing of Shanghai on January 28, 1932) and Sino-Japanese War in 1937. In August-December 1937, Hōshō supported land operations of the Japanese Army in China, as part of Carrier Division 1 with Ryūjō. Her aircraft complement consisted of nine Nakajima A2N fighters and six Yokosuka B3Y1 attack planes.

By the beginning of World War II, Hōshō had been superseded by other models: she was too small and too slow to accommodate the newest types of carrier planes such as the Mitsubishi Zero. She saw action however during the battle of Midway in June 1942, offering modest air support to the main fleet. Her aircraft complement consisted of eight Yokosuka B4Y1 'Jean' torpedo bombers.

For most of the postwar years, the assumption was made in English-language publications that the ship had been equipped with a 'modern' aircraft complement by the time of the Midway operation, on the basis of minimal translations published in English. However, beginning in the 1980s English-language researchers realized that this was a bad assumption, as Japanese official histories and air orders of battle began to appear. It has now become clear that at the time of Midway, Hōshō still carried a complement of the fixed landing gear biplane torpedo planes, the Yokosuka B4Y1 'Jean'. It was one of these aircraft which took the photos of the burning, drifting Hiryu in the late afternoon of June 4, 1942.

Efforts were made to lengthen and widen her flight deck, but the overhang weakened her stability and ocean-going capability. She was relegated to training duty in Japan's Inland Sea after 1943.

Post-War fate

After the war, she was used as a transport to repatriate Japanese personnel from abroad until June 1946. Hōshō was one of four carriers of the Japanese Navy to survive the war, but would be scrapped in 1947.

Hōshō air group:

• 1932: 9 fighters A1N1 (Type 3), 3 bombers B1M2 (Type 13), 3 reconnaissance aircraft C1M (Type 10) (15 aircraft)
• 1937: 9 fighters A4N1 (Type 95), 6 bombers B3Y1 (Type 92) (15)
• 1941: 11 fighters A5M4 'Claude', 8 bombers B4Y1 'Jean' (19)
• 1942: 8 bombers B4Y1 'Jean' (8)

Commanding Officers

Chief Equipping Officer - Capt. Ryutaro Kaizu - 13 November 1921 - 27 December 1922

Capt. Jiro Toshima - 27 December 1922 - 1 April 1923

Capt. Heizaburo Fukuyo - 1 April 1923 - 1 December 1923

Capt. Ryutaro Kaizu - 1 December 1923 - 15 April 1925

Capt. Seizaburo Kobayashi - 15 April 1925 - 1 November 1926

Capt. Giichiro Kawamura - 1 November 1926 - 1 November 1927

Capt. Kiyoshi Kitagawa - 1 November 1927 - 10 December 1928

Capt. Goro Hara - 10 December 1928 - 30 November 1929

Capt. Hideho Wada - 30 November 1929 - 1 December 1930

Capt. Eijiro Kondo - 1 December 1930 - 14 November 1931

Capt. Rokuro Horie - 14 November 1931 - 1 December 1932

Capt. Teizo Mitsunami - 1 December 1932 - 20 October 1933

Capt. Rokukichi Takeda - 20 October 1933 - 15 November 1934

Capt. Seigo Yamagata - 15 November 1934 - 12 June 1935

Capt. Kokichi Terada - 12 June 1935 - 15 November 1935

Capt. Munetaka Sakamaki - 15 November 1935 - 16 November 1936

Capt. Rynosuke Kusaka - 16 November 1936 - 16 October 1937

Capt. Takatsugu Jojima - 16 October 1937 - 15 November 1939

Capt. Kaku Harada - 15 November 1939 - 20 August 1940

Capt. Ushie Sugimoto - 20 August 1940 - 11 November 1940

Capt. Tomozo Kikuchi - 11 November 1940 - 5 September 1941

Capt. Kaoru Umetani - 5 September 1941 - 1 August 1942

Capt. Bunjiro Yamaguchi - 1 August 1942 - 15 November 1942

Capt. Katsuji Hattori - 15 November 1942 - 5 July 1943

Capt. Takeo Kaizuka - 5 July 1943 - 18 December 1943

Capt. Yoshi Matsuura - 18 December 1943 - 1 March 1944

Capt. Kiyoshi Koda - 1 March 1944 - 6 July 1944

Capt. Yujiro Takarada - 6 July 1944 - 5 March 1945

Capt. Shuichi Osuga - 5 March 1945 - 18 May 1945

Capt. Keiji Furutani - 18 May 1945 - 20 September 1945

Capt. Kunizo Kanaoka - 20 September 1945 - 31 August 1946

LINK

A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy (1941-1945)

By Paul S. Dull

A focal point of the Soviet advance on Berlin in April 1945, was the Seelow Heights. Armoured train - the 'Berlin' - which consisted of five flatcars carrying tanks for which there was no fuel. This 'Zug-Panzer' ran back and forth out of the Seelow station.

The armoured train 'Berlin' rebuilt from Rail Protection Train 350 advanced to the rail triangle east of Werbig, and is said to have shot up no fewer than 56 Soviet tanks from the causeway and bridge. On the other hand, it could not get to the line leading to M端nchberg, and since the Russians had advanced to the railway lines farther south, near Ludwigslust and Dogelin, the train, already damaged by artillery fire and low-flying aircraft, had to be abandoned.

German WW II Tent Pole "PINS"
Set of two, one made of alumi other is made of steel. Both are dated 40 and maker marked, different makers.

SHELTER QUARTER.

The German shelter quarter serves both as a tent and as a poncho. It is highly water-repellent duck cut in the form of an isosceles triangle about 6 feet 3 inches along the base and 8 feet 3 inches along the other two sides. There are buttons and buttonholes on all three edges. The shelter quarter is covered with a camouflage mottle, either the characteristic army camouflage pattern or the usual Waffen SS pattern. Some have different patterns on each side, greens predominating on one side and browns on the other. Each soldier also is issued two tent pins [1] and one tent-pole section for use when the shelter quarter is made into a tent. Ordinarily four men pitch their sections together to make a small pyramidal tent, but other combinations are possible, the most common of which are eight- and 16-man tents. The eight-man tent is constructed by erecting two three-sided pyramids and buttoning an inverted shelter half in the space between them. The 16-man tent is made by joining four of the long sides of the eight-man tent. A regular, four-section, pyramidal tent is erected on this base. This tent stands over 9 feet high. Worn as a poncho, the shelter quarter provides good protection from rain because of its excellent water-repellent property. The soldier's head can be thrust through a slit with the narrow point of the triangle in front The two rear points are brought forward and buttoned together. Slits are left open for the arms, around which the poncho drapes almost as if it has sleeves. Motorcyclists can fasten the shelter quarter around the thighs.

German Army tent peg (aluminum),

This information comes from a British intelligence summary - 20MAR1943 (#101, part III) now at the PRO in England.

You have to love this war time attention to detail and mindless information. I once read a 6-page examination, with photographs, of the German Army tent peg (aluminum), the Brits were pretty impressed I can tell you.

(Changes the whole perspective on German superiority on the battlefield - weapons, no - tactics, no- leadership, no - it was the tent pegs...!?)

[1] Pins=pegs

"A few months ago, spray-painted graffiti began appearing on Baghdad walls," reports Defense News' Greg Grant. "'Kill the Claw,'" it read in Arabic.

The message was aimed at a new vehicle called the Buffalo, a thickly armored mine disposal truck that seeks out and disposes of deadly improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Its 30-foot retractable arm has a camera, to help the operator inside see what he's doing, and a claw-like rake for finding and detonating the roadside bombs.

The insurgents' graffiti was not quite the advertising campaign expected by Buffalo manufacturer Force Protection, but it is a testament to how effective the 24-ton vehicle has proven in neutralizing the biggest killer of American troops in Iraq. Since its introduction in late 2003, the Buffalo has become the favorite of U.S. Army combat engineer teams.

Grant's right. I spent a fair amount of time with engineer teams in Baghdad this summer, and they all raved about the vehicle. Not just because they were well-protected. But also because the thing had a kick-ass air conditioning system, too. And comfortable seats -- which is important on a 12-hour route clearance shift.

However, Grant gets it wrong when he says that "so far, nobody has been injured while riding in one of the vehicles, which have taken repeated IED hits with only minimal damage to exterior components."

I talked to several soldiers who had Buffalo-riding buddies injured by the handmade bombs -- and by their own thick skulls. These guys would dig up an explosive with the Buffalo's spindly claw. And then, they'd be so proud of what they found, they'd want to snap a quick picture of their prize. So they'd use the claw to bring the bomb right up to the Buffalo's cab. And then, the IED would go off.

LINK

Artist's rendition of the TacSat-2 Micro Satellite. (U.S. Air Force)

The TacSat-2 Micro Satellite is produced by AFRL's Space Vehicles Directorate and is designed to demonstrate and meet TacSat-2 objectives including being able to test a ready-launch spacecraft within 15 months of receiving the authority to begin the project, launching within one week of being called from storage, performing on-orbit checkout within a day, conducting efficient operations and downlinking data directly to the required theater, and providing this theater with images containing tactically significant resolution.

This satellite is scheduled for 2006 launch into a sun- synchronous orbit of 350-kilometer altitude at a 97.3째 circular inclination. Besides AFRL, participating organizations include DOD's Space Test Program, Naval Research Laboratory, Army Space Program Office, AFSPACOM, and NASA components including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

The first great woman ruler in history was Queen Hatshepsut. During her reign, waterborn commerce flourished. Grandest of all ships was her huge 200' long x 70' wide cargo barge that was used to transport 2 massive rock obelisks. Each of these stone blocks was about 100 feet long, and weighs 350 tons. The barge itself is massive, 200 feet long and 70 feet wide, with a full capacity of 1,500 tons.

#

We know that the ancient boats were capable of carrying large cargoes. Queen Hatshepsut of the Eighteenth Dynasty organised a large trading expedition to the land of Punt (which is presumed to be on the Red Sea coast). Detailed scenes from her funerary temple at Deir el Bahri show the boats and their cargoes. Probably built of cedar, her boats were around twenty-five metres long, with room on either side for fifteen oarsmen. The shape of the hull is semi-papyriform and the sternpost of the boats ends in a large, decorative papyrus flower. A small platform is provided at the bow and the stern, but there is no central cabin. A large, thick hogging-truss runs the length of the hull to both strengthen it and keep its shape. The ends of the large deck beams can be seen projecting through the hull above the water level. We know that Egyptian wooden boats must have also sailed on the open sea, trading with the countries around the eastern Mediterranean.

It is also from the reign of Hatshepsut that we have records of the building of some of the largest wooden vessels in Ancient Egypt, or indeed in the Ancient or Modern world. Huge barges were built to transport her obelisks from Aswan, where they were quarried, to Thebes, where they were set up in the Temple of Amun at Karnak.

The surviving standing obelisk of Hatshepsut at Karnak is 29.6 metres high and, with an estimated weight of 323 tons, is amongst the largest obelisk ever erected.

It is estimated that the obelisk barge may have been over ninety-five metres in length and thirty-two metres wide. Too large to be equipped with a sail and not very manoeuvrable, the barge would have been towed downstream by smaller vessels, also using the current, from Aswan to Thebes.

Hatshepsut's relief showing the barge is very detailed, but it is still unclear if it was built to carry one or two obelisks. A new discovery of a docking area in the granite quarries at Aswan may, when fully studied, give some indication as to the size of the barge it could hold.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

Table of Specifications

One book used in preparing this article was especially helpful: G.R.G. Worcester's The Junks and Sampans of the Yangtze (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1971), a compilation of that author's earlier works on junks. It has detailed plans of over 150 junks and sampans. If you want to know anything about these ships and the people who use them, here it is.

Whatever the Chinese can do on land, they can also do on water. Floating inns, groceries, shops, and teahouses exist. Even ducks are raised on boats. Hundreds of different kinds of junks and sampans cruise the great waterways of China. China's principal waterway system is the Yangtze River, with all its tributaries and canals: 5,500 miles of navigable waters serving 750,000 square miles. Winter traveling vessels of 5' draft and summer traveling vessels of 14' draft can reach Ichang, 1,000 miles from the sea.

Ship propulsion

The most distinctive Chinese sail is the square lugsail with battens. A lugsail is hung from a lug (a type of yard), which is hung from the mast at a point two-thirds of the way along its length. The head of the sail is shorter than the foot - three fifths the length of the foot, usually. The foot of the sail is laced to a boom. Battens are strips of bamboo sewn across the sail and attached to the mast. Battens force the sail to stay flat so the ship can sail at a sharper angle when tacking, and make it easier for the sail to be reefed (partially folded) and lowered. The sail acts like fanfold computer paper when raised or lowered. Even when full of holes, a battened sail still draws the wind well. The battens also replace ratlines, which allow the crew to climb up the sail when necessary.

The junk and sampan are Chinese vessels characterized by a keelless flat bottom, a square bow, and a high stern.. They were the first ships to use bulkheads (walls across the hold) to form watertight compartments and strengthen the hull. Each ship uses rowing techniques distinct from those used by Western ships. The rower faces forward and pushes the oar while standing. Usually there is only one rower per oar. Rowing and sailing were often combined to add speed.

Junks and sampans are also sculled. A long sweep, the yuloh, is hung over the stern and worked from side to side to propel the boat in the same manner that a fish uses its tail to swim. The sweep is often so long that the rower has to stand on a high platform at midship. The sweep's great weight is carefully balanced so that it can be easily worked.

Poling a boat is the process of sticking a pole in the riverbed and pushing the boat forward. Except for steering problems, hanging onto the pole, and getting the pole out of the mud, poling would be a simple process. The energetic style of poling requires the poler to begin at the bow and walk the pole back to the stern. Poling works only in water 10' deep or less.

The hardest way to move a vessel is tracking: hauling a boat with ropes by people on shore. This is, however, the only way to go up rapids. The heavier cargo is off-loaded and most of the crew go ashore. As their water levels fall in the winter, many of the rivers of China become shallow stretches interrupted by rapids and narrow channels. Some rivers have rapids all year round; others become foaming torrents during the summer. Rapids occur when the bed of the river suddenly drops, when the river is partly blocked, or when the river enters a gorge. Dangerous areas include boulders and rocks, whirlpools, boils, and backwaters. Each tracker wears a harness which attaches to a bamboo rope. The track on shore may cross creeks, canals, or boulders, or it may be carved out of the side of a vertical gorge.

When considering whether to track a boat or not, five questions are important:

1. How long are the rapids?

2. How many trackers are needed to haul the boat upriver?

3. How long will it take?

4. How much will it cost?

5. What are the chances of successfully shooting the rapids and tracking without disaster?

For purposes of comparison, a very difficult stretch of rapids could be a mile long, take nine hours and 200 trackers, and require payment of one yuan per tracker for a total cost of 10 taels.

Crews and ship types .

The crews of junks and sampans are frequently all of one family, having often been commanded by three generations of laodah in turn. Laodah (meaning 'old great') is the Chinese title for a ship captain. The t'ai-kung is the bow lookout who wields the bow sweep (if there is one); he takes soundings with a long boathook. The shao-huo-ti (cook) is also in charge of buying provisions for the vessel. The hsiench'ueh (.man of all work.) is the equivalent of the landsman or ordinary sailor. The pa-liang-chia-ti (.one who has to climb.) is equivalent to the able-bodied sailor.

The lorca is a ship with a Western-style hull but with a junks rigging and sails.

The Kiangsu trading junk and the Pechili trading junk are different-size versions of the same seafaring cargo and passenger ship: the sha-ch.uan (.sand boat.). They are found all over eastern Asia sailing from one seaport to another. They are also used by pirates and are outfitted with anywhere from 2-10 artillery engines.

The ta-ping-ch'uan (ocean war junk) and the k'uai-tu (small war junk) are just two of the many types of war junks. Almost any type of junk can be converted for naval use with the addition of artillery engines. The ocean war junk carries 4-16 artillery engines; the small war junk, 2-6.

The chang-k'ou ma-yang'tzu (river junk) is a sailing cargo boat for rivers and bays. The hou-pan-ch'uan (crooked-stern junk) is a river cargo vessel built to negotiate the most treacherous rapids, using bow sweeps for added maneuverability. The shape of the crooked-stern junk allows it to use two stern sweeps, which makes it even handier in the rapids. With the two stern sweeps and 16 oars, it is capable of good speed, even when traveling upriver. The river junk also makes use of oars (18 of them) when the current is too strong for the sails to carry it upriver or when the wind fails. Oars for both ships are 30' long, and the bow sweep is 50' long. The crooked-stern junks main stern sweep is 90' long, and the side stern sweep is 50' long. The main sweep is handled-by the laodah, who stands on a platform 25' above the water. The additional crew of these junks handle the oars and tracking. The crooked-stern junks often travel in groups of about eight so that they may combine their crews for tracking.

The yao-Wang-ch'uan (fishing junk) also carries six oars, each 30' long. The lou-tzuch'uen (flower junk) is a floating restaurant or teahouse. It can be hired for an afternoon (2 taels) or evening (5 taels) of boating, music, song, and food. The flower junk accommodates 24 guests.

The house junks are usually anchored among a maze of rickety, thin walkways. If it becomes necessary to move the house, the boards of the walkways are removed to let the junk pole out and move away. The family aboard it usually has one or two sampans for getting around. There are several advantages to the house junk: no rent, no land tax, no problem with floods, and no hassle when moving.

The three sampans are poled or paddled in the shallow waters they normally frequent. They can be used for fishing, ferrying, and cargo transfer. With the addition of a roof, they may also be used as homes. In harbor settings, some sampans have small kitchens aboard for making meals for the crews of other vessels (possibly leading to boat fires).

Dragon boats, specific to China, vary from 44' to 110' in length. Their sole purpose is to race in the Dragon Boat Festival, held to commemorate the drowning of Ch.u Yuan (in the 4th century B.C.), a poet and statesman of the Chou dynasty. The races recall the frantic searches for his body by his friends and admirers. The Festival is held on the 5th and 15th days of the 5th moon. The festivities include offerings to the Lung Wang. Debts are to be settled at this time. The festival is very near those of the Last Sowing and the Summer Solstice. The cost of the boats and races are borne in part by the pious as an offering to the river gods. The crew and officers are drawn from the same neighborhood, company, or village. The race usually runs diagonally across the river for a half mile or so. Since the draft (when fully loaded) of these boats is only 3', contestants must pause at least once for a few minutes to engage in some furious bailing.

BY Major RICHARD W. ROAN USMC

Roebling's Amphibian: The Origin of the Assault Amphibian

The amphibian tractor played a decisive role in contributing to the United States Marine Corps' amphibious victories in World War II. In a letter sent from Okinawa in 1945 Marine Major General Roy S. Geiger called amphibian tractors, "the work horses of the Marine Corps." He went on to state, "Except for the 'amtracs' it would have been impossible for our troops to get ashore on Tarawa, Saipan, Guam or Pelelieu without taking severe, if not prohibitive losses." In 1944, then-Commandant of the Marine Corps, Lieutenant General Alexander A. Vandegrift wrote, "Our success in the bitter fighting at Tarawa was due in a considerable measure to the magnificent performance of the amphibian tractor."

Since World War II, the amphibian tractor, now known as the assault amphibian vehicle, has become a mainstay of the Marine Corps' amphibious arsenal and will remain in the vanguard of amphibious assaults well into the twenty-first century. Despite the assault amphibian vehicle's significant role in Marine Corps history and modern operations, the story of the origin of this venerable amphibian remains largely untold. The purpose of this study is to examine the earliest years of the assault amphibian vehicle and identify those factors that led to the vehicle's fortuitous introduction to the Fleet Marine Force in 1941.

This study of the origin of the Marine Corps' amphibian vehicle begins with a general overview of the Marine Corps' development of the amphibious doctrine during the two decades preceding World War II. The study then turns to the remarkable story of the eccentric inventor of the amphibian tractor, Donald Roebling. The diverse factors that influenced the pioneering efforts that led to Donald Roebling's achievement are reviewed. The narrative then concludes with a discussion of the joint efforts of the Marine Corps and Donald Roebling to produce the vehicle that would eventually spearhead the Marine Corps' march across the Pacific in World War II.

INTRODUCTION

The United States Marine Corps' assault amphibian vehicle stands today as the world's only seaworthy battlefield transport. There is no more obvious symbol of the Marine Corps' unique capability of maneuver on a battlefield including open sea, plunging surf and the entire spectrum of land terrain. The course of the United States' victorious march across the Pacific in World War II would have been decisively more difficult and prolonged without the assault amphibian vehicle's predecessor, the amphibian tractor. And, it is difficult to imagine a modern exercise of the Marine Corps' primary task of amphibious assault without the routine participation of assault amphibian vehicles. The assault amphibian vehicle has become a commonplace and reliable workhorse of amphibious operations. Yet, the history of the assault amphibian vehicle, particularly the vehicle's remarkable origin, remains largely untold.

The purpose of this study is to focus on the origin of the assault amphibian vehicle in an attempt to fill in the many gaps in the story of the earliest years of one of the Marine Corps' most venerable performers. It is hoped that this story will help to provide a special historical perspective that may contribute to the ongoing debate over the future of amphibious vehicles.

In addressing the origin of the Marine Corps' amphibian, a remarkable and unlikely tale unfolds. The factors leading to the arrival of the first amphibian tractors on the beaches of Guadalcanal in 1942 include some of the same developments that placed United States Marines, and not U.S. Army soldiers, in the vanguard of amphibious warfare. The Japanese seizure of central and southern Pacific islands at the close of World War I made Japan the primary focus of United States naval war planning and study. These efforts led to the recognition of the requirement to aggressively seize advanced bases for the United States Navy. Prior to this recognition the Navy's primary emphasis had been on the traditional task of defending the Navy's overseas facilities. The Japanese threat shifted the emphasis from defense to offense. At the same time, the United States Marines emerged from World War I searching for a meaningful and unique mission worthy of ensuring the Corps' continued institutional existence. Evolving from a decade of threatened army encroachment, skeletal budgets and vigorous, sometimes rancorous, Corps-wide conflict and debate, the unique mission of offensive amphibious warfare became the Marine Corps' proprietary domain and primary task. The newly focused Marine Corps spent the 193Os developing and practicing an amphibious doctrine that until the last months before World War II dangerously lacked the hardware to transform theory into reality.

Joining Japanese imperial expansion and the U.S. Marine Corps' proprietary acceptance and development of amphibious warfare as factors leading to the origin of the amphibian tractor was an enigmatic personality totally unrelated to the Pacific, the Marine Corps or the business of war. The story of the robust eccentric millionaire Donald Roebling, inventor of the amphibian tractor, adds one of the most unusual chapters to a Marine Corps' history full of unusual characters. Finally, the amphibian tractor would never have been conceived without the disastrous Florida hurricane of 1928. Japanese aggression, Marine Corps innovation born of institutional paranoia, an eccentric millionaire and a devastating hurricane; these were the diverse ingredients that joined to produce the Marine Corps' amphibian vehicle.

CHAPTER 1

Assault From The Sea

The Japanese threat in the Pacific and the U.S. Marine Corps could not have been further from Donald Roebling's thoughts as he handcrafted his first amphibian Alligator in 1935. Reobling's efforts were directed at creating a land-sea hybrid capable of negotiating swamps and flooded areas to rescue hurricane victims.1 Yet, when the Marine Corps fortuitously discovered Roebling's Alligator in 1937 it appeared as an unsolicited and hitherto unconceived solution to one of the most basic problems of the Corps' newly developed amphibious doctrine. Marine Corps thinkers had not seriously sought a truly amphibian vehicle like Roebling's Alligator. The emphasis of innovation and progress had been on the development of surf-capable landing boats.2 But, the unexpected arrival of Roebling's amphibian vehicle perfectly complemented the existing landing boats and provided an ideal tool to help support the Marine Corps' amphibious doctrine. This doctrine that awaited the addition of the Alligator in the late 1930s grew from two decades of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps historical and strategical innovation and evolution.

A new world order emerged from the First World War. The central European powers were defeated and the eyes of America shifted westward to the threat of Japanese expansion in the Pacific. Japan had seized Germany's central Pacific islands in the Marshalls, the Carolines and the Marianas and threatened territorial expansion in China, Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. Japanese expansion clearly challenged United States Pacific influence and threatened exposed American trade routes to China and the Philippines. By 1920, Japan had become the primary focus of United States Navy war planning.3

A Pacific Ocean war with Japan had been considered by the United States War Department prior to World War I in a contingency plan entitled War Plan ORANGE, one of a series of color coded global plans. By 1921 the Navy Department had thoroughly reviewed War Plan ORANGE and drafted a new plan for war with Japan that envisioned the Japanese using her island territories and a powerful new Navy to challenge the U.S. Navy in the Central Pacific. A key element of the new War Plan ORANGE was the recognition by Navy Department planners that the defeat of Japan would require the offensive seizure of island bases held by the Japanese as well as the more traditional task of defending the Navy's advanced Pacific bases. This shift from the exclusive consideration of defending naval bases to offensive seizure of new bases was a conceptual watershed that naturally suggested a significant new role for the Marine Corps. In January 1920 Chief of Naval Operations Robert E. Coontz advised the Marine Corps Commandant, Major General George Barnett, that War Plan ORANGE had become the primary target of Navy planning and suggested that the Marine Corps develop plans, programs and forces to support the plan for war with Japan. The Admiral urged General Barnett to focus particularly on the roles of advanced naval base seizure and defense.4 However, General Barnett was reluctant to throw his Marine Corps on the War Plan ORANGE bandwagon. Despite the Commandant's reservations the leaders of the U.S. Navy as well as a growing number of progressive Marine Corps officers continued to urge the Marine Corps' full participation in the advanced base issue, with particular emphasis on offensive amphibious operations.

Much like the amphibian tractor that would unexpectedly appear in 1937, the United States Marine Corps in 1920 was a solution waiting for a problem, an answer waiting for the right question. Upon General Barnett's end of tour as Commandant of the Marine Corps in June 1920, the progressive thinking John A. Lejeune assumed the Marine Corps' top post. General Lejeune was keenly attuned to the Marine Corps' traditional requirement to fight for institutional existence and believed that the development of unique (from the U.S. Army) capabilities and the assumption of a unique task or mission best addressed this requirement. This theme was expressed by Lieutenant General Victor H. Krulak in his book, First To Fight as he wrote, "The continuous struggle for a viable existence fixed clearly one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Corps."5

General Lejeune saw the Marine Corps' service with the U.S. Fleet, and particularly the role of supporting War Plan ORANGE requirements for advanced naval base seizure and defense, as the key to ensuring the Corps' institutional survival. In 1922, Commandant Lejeune wrote to the General Board of the Navy concerning the Marine Corps' peacetime duties and wartime missions and asserted that, "the primary war mission of the Marine Corps is to supply a mobile force to accompany the fleet for operations on shore in support of the fleet." He called this wartime role the, "real justification for the continued existence of the Marine Corps."6 General Lejeune's views were contested by many of the Marine Corps' senior leaders, including the Commanding General of the Marine Corps' base at Quantico, Virginia, Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler. General Butler believed that the Marine Corps' future was best directed as far away from the Navy as possible.7 Throughout the decade of the 1920s (Lejeune was Commandant from 1920 to 1928) General Lejeune exercised his persuasive leadership to shift a growing number of Marine officers to his belief on the primacy of the mission of service with the Navy. He generated annual fleet landing exercises during the 1922 - 1925 period and gradually increased the emphasis on landing operations at the Marine Corps Schools at Quantico. The Commandant's efforts set the stage for the Marine Corps' development of the amphibious doctrine during the 1930s.

Among General Lejeune's many contributions to the development of the Marine Corps' role as the nation's arm of amphibious power was his inspiration of the eccentric prophet of amphibious warfare, Lieutenant Colonel Earl Hancock Ellis, USMC. Born in Luka, Kansas in 1880, Ellis graduated from high school and enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1900. His exceptional intelligence and professional zeal led to his commissioning as a second lieutenant in 1901. Remaining unmarried and totally immersed in his Marine Corps duties, Ellis soon gained a Corps-wide reputation as a brilliant staff officer and a driven workaholic. These qualities earned him the respect and protection of senior officers willing to overlook his alcoholism, fiery temper and impatience.8 Captain Ellis attended the Naval War College during the 1911 - 1912 term and was invited to remain as an instructor on the staff of the college. While serving at the Naval War College, he condensed a series of lectures into a paper entitled "Naval Bases; Location, Resources, Denial of Bases, Security of Advanced Bases." This 1913 study addressed one of Ellis' principle passions, the problems and techniques of offensive and defensive amphibious operations against the Japanese in their Pacific island strongholds. Ellis' paper helped to establish his reputation as one of the Corps' leading theorists. He joined a handful of progressive Marine Corps officers, including John H. Russell and Eli K. Cole, already noted for their pioneering work in operations with the fleet.

Major Ellis later served with distinction in France in World War I, receiving a Navy Cross for his duty with the 4^th Marine Brigade. In 1921, the recently appointed Commandant of the Marine Corps, John A. Lejeune, summoned Major Ellis to the newly formed Division of Operations and Training at the Marine Corps headquarters and tasked him to study and write about the Marine Corps' role in the Navy's War Plan ORANGE.10

Major Ellis' response to General Lejeune's assignment was a document that became a prophetic beacon for modern amphibious warfare doctrine. Revising his 1913 Naval War College study, Ellis concentrated on the tactics of seizing advanced coaling and repair stations for the Navy in the Japanese-held coral atolls and volcanic islets of the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands. His conclusions marked a break with tradition in that no longer would the primary role of Marines be to defend advanced naval bases; instead Marines would attack and seize these bases from a determined enemy.11 The mission of the Marine Corps would be offensive amphibious operations.

As the result of the wholesale failure of the British amphibious campaign at Gallipoli in the Dardenalles during World War I, the majority of the world's military theorists largely discounted amphibious assaults as being too difficult, indeed almost impossible.12 Major Ellis confidently insisted that amphibious operations against the Japanese could be successful and provided the theoretical tactical blueprint for these operations. While he underestimated the fighting qualities of the Japanese soldier (he wrote, reflecting the values of his time, "Our advantages over the enemy will be those generally common to the Nordic races over the Oriental; higher individual intelligence, physique and endurance"),13 Ellis prophetically sketched the Marine Corps' Pacific island battles of World War II with uncanny accuracy. The product of Ellis' study, entitled "Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia, 1921" was accepted in total by General Lejeune, and later, the Navy Department. The study was approved as Operation Plan 712D, an annex to the Navy's War Plan ORANGE.14 Earl Ellis' far-sighted work would become the blueprint for the Marine Corps' amphibious warfare planners of the 1930s.

Shortly after completing his work for General Lejeune in 1922, Major Ellis' services were requested by the fledgling Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). ONI earmarked Ellis to join a team being formed to spy on the Japanese in the Far East. The team members would be posing as participants in scientific and photographic expeditions. Earlier in his career, Ellis had performed intelligence work for the Marine Corps in Central America. General Lejeune granted Ellis a leave of absence to work for ONI and Ellis headed for the Pacific. Soon breaking away from ONI's control, Ellis made several failed personal attempts to penetrate the Japanese-held islands in the central Pacific via Australia, posing as a merchant for the Hughes Trading Company in New York. After being hospitalized in Yokohoma, Japan, in August 1922 for "severe nervousness" (probably alcoholism) and generating genuine concern from U.S. Navy and diplomatic officials because of his boasting and erratic behavior, Ellis disappeared sometime in the autumn of 1922. Earl Ellis mysteriously died at Parao in the Caroline Islands on 12 May 1923. Most authorities attributed his death to excessive alcoholism; some accused the Japanese in the Carolines of foul play. The U.S. Navy pharmacist mate sent to Parao to investigate and recover Ellis' remains, Lawrence Zembsch, was later killed along with his wife in an earthquake that devastated Yokohama, Japan, on 1 September 1923.15 In his history of the Marine Corps, Semper Fidelis, Allan R. Millett reports that Earl Ellis' mysterious death made him a, "martyr in the eyes of World War II Marines and gave his studies the historic glow of prophecy."16

It would be a mistake to assert that General Lejeune and Earl Ellis immediately and radically redirected the efforts of the Marine Corps toward amphibious warfare during the 1920s. More correctly, they provided the intellectual foundation for the fruition of the amphibious doctrine in the 1930s. The Marine Corps did, however, execute limited tests of Earl Ellis' theories during the 1920s. Under the progressive leadership of amphibious warfare pioneers Colonel Eli K. Cole, USMC, and Colonel Dion Williams, USMC, Marines participated in fleet landing maneuvers in the Caribbean during the years 1922 through 1924 and in Hawaii in 1925. These exercises were invaluable in providing an opportunity for most of the Corps' field grade officers (senior leaders during World War II) to experiment with amphibious tactics and equipment. Ironically, the primary benefit of these exercises was to demonstrate that Earl Ellis' amphibious concepts remained woefully theoretical and that the equipment of the day (particularly landing craft) fell short of the minimum requirements of amphibious assaults.17 By 1926, the Marine Corps' involvement in Haiti, China and Nicaragua consumed the energy and manpower of the Corps and postponed serious progress in the development of amphibious doctrine to the next decade.18

In 1933 the institutional existence of the Marine Corps was challenged by the U.S. Army under the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur. Like generations of soldiers before and after him, General MacArthur coveted the funds provided to the Marine Corps while questioning the need for a separate service whose land combat role appeared similar to that of the Army.19 Like General Lejeune before him, the Marine Corps' fifteenth Commandant, General Ben H. Fuller, responded by touting amphibious warfare as a unique and meaningful raison d'ĂŞtre for the Corps. Fuller was vigorously supported and encouraged by his assistant, General John H. Russell, a long-time visionary and proponent of amphibious warfare as the Marine Corps' primary mission. The result of this joust with the Army was the Navy General Board's first-time official recognition of the seizure and defense of advanced bases as the Marines' most important job. Equally important, General Russell successfully spearheaded the approval by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy of a new official designation for the Marine Corps' forces operating with the Navy fleet - the Fleet Marine Force.20 The Fleet Marine Force became a nominal reality on 7 December 1933 with Navy Department Order 241.21 With exactly eight years left before Japanese bombs would fall on Pearl Harbor, the Marine Corps had a basic amphibious theory (Ellis' plan) and a new name for its amphibious forces. But the Corps still lacked the detailed doctrine, specialized equipment and manpower to make the amphibious idea a reality.

Commencing in 1931, a special committee of staff members from the Marine Corps' Field Officers School at Quantico, Virginia, began work on a much needed manual addressing the doctrine of amphibious operations. Work on this ground-breaking manual proceeded slowly through late 1933 when progress was interrupted by the mobilization of the 7^th Marine Regiment for duty in Cuba. The mobilization brought the departure of several of the key officers on the manual writing committee. Major General James C. Breckinridge, USMC, then the Commanding General of the Quantico base, recommended to the Commandant that all instruction at Quantico's officer schools be discontinued and that the schools' staff and students join together and devote the entire 1933-1934 academic year to the production of a manual for landing operations. The Commandant agreed with General Breckinridge and classes were discontinued on 14 November 1933.

Banding together in a dynamic confluence of creativity and teamwork, the assembled officers of the Marine Corps Schools produced a landmark manual. Guided by many of Earl Ellis' prophetic concepts, they codified the basic doctrine, tactics and equipment of amphibious warfare into a document that, almost in its original form, continues to guide the amphibious doctrine of the modern Marine Corps. By June 1934, the "Tentative Manual for Landing Operations" was essentially complete. A mimeographed copy of the Tentative Manual was used as a training manual at the Marine Corps Schools during the 1934-1935 academic years. During subsequent years, the Tentative Manual experienced numerous minor revisions and was officially published as the "Landing Operations Doctrine, U.S. Navy 1938," in November 1938.22

By 1938 the Marine Corps had produced, in the "Tentative Manual for Landing Operations," a solid doctrinal manual for amphibious warfare. This manual supported the Corps' primary mission of amphibious warfare, approved by the Navy Department in 1933. But, the Marine Corps still lacked the basic amphibious tools to make the amphibious doctrine a reality. In 1935, the Marine Corps commenced a series of Fleet Landing Exercises (FLEX's) designed to test the theories of the newly codified amphibious doctrine as well as to provide practice in landing operations desperately needed by both the Navy and the Marine Corps. Each year from 1935 through 1941, elements of the Fleet Marine Force joined with a Navy task force to conduct landing operations in the Caribbean or the Pacific.

In the excellent review provided by Lieutenant General Holland M. Smith in several 1946 issues of The Marine Corps Gazette, General Smith documented the activities, lessons learned and deficiencies of the annual Fleet Landing Exercises of the 1935-1941 period. An obvious highlight of General Smith's review is his repeated emphasis on the major deficiency of the Marine Corps' amphibious capabilities - the shortage and total inadequacy of landing craft.23

By 1940, Andrew Higgins had provided a family of exceptionally capable personnel and vehicle transporting landing boats that began to partially alleviate the Marine Corps' landing craft problems. However, even the remarkably capable Higgins boats floundered in high surf, grounded on sand bars, avoided coral reefs and debarked their precious cargo of Marines at the point of greatest crisis, the water's edge. The Marine Corps clearly required truly amphibious vehicles or craft to successfully tackle the most obvious challenge of amphibious assaults - the uninterrupted transition from sea to land. Despite this widely recognized requirement, virtually no practical progress in the development of amphibious craft was made by the Marine Corps prior to the eve of World War II. There were two interesting experimental amphibian tanks, one American and one British, that were considered but rejected. In the 1924 fleet maneuvers at the Caribbean island of Culebra, the Marines tested a seven-ton amphibian tank, mounting a 75 millimeter gun, built by Walter Christie of the Sun Shipbuilding Company of Chester, Pennsylvania.24 Christie's tank was propelled in the water by two boat-type screws and had an odd suspension system consisting of both tracks and rubber tires. The vehicle had performed impressively in demonstrations on the Hudson and Potomac Rivers but proved to be unseaworthy and dangerous in the open sea and surf at Culebra. The Christie Tank was discarded by the Marine Corps and the concept was later sold to the Japanese.25 Walter Christie subsequently gained considerable repute for his innovative development of land tracked vehicle suspension systems. In 1931 the British War Office tested an amphibian vehicle similar to the Christie Tank. The Vickers-Armstrong Light Amphibious Tank weighed 2.17 tons and mounted a 30 caliber machine gun. The British amphibian was reliable and relatively fast on land (27 mph) but slow (3.7 mph) and unsteady in the water. It was rejected by the British and never tested by the United States but purchased and successfully developed by the Soviet Union as a river-crossing amphibian.26 The Vickers-Armstrong Tank was the forerunner of the Soviet World War II T-37 and modern PT-76 amphibious tanks.

The failure of the Christie Amphibian Tank and the Vickers-Armstrong Light Amphibious Tank to meet the need of the Marine Corps for a truly seaworthy and versatile amphibian vehicle left a void that persisted almost to the final days preceding World War II. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s the Marine Corps' development of a true amphibian lagged as the result of scarce military funding and more vigorous interest in the development of landing boats, amphibious ships and modernization of the Corps' basic land fighting weapons. While conflict with Japan appeared increasingly imminent as war ignited in Europe in 1939, the Marine Corps still lacked a suitable amphibian vehicle to support the amphibious doctrine it had developed over the previous two decades.

By the end of the 1930s the United States Marine Corps had claimed a solid foundation of institutional longevity with the official acceptance and development of the amphibious mission. Through the pioneering efforts of John A. Lejeune, Earl H. Ellis, John H. Russell and a generation of young officers serving at the Marine Corps Schools at Quantico, the Marine Corps faced the threat of amphibious war in the Pacific with a clear, detailed and valid amphibious doctrine. The Fleet Landing Exercises of the late 1930s prepared thousands of Marines and sailors for the unique challenges of attacking and defeating a determined enemy from the sea. But, without decisive and rapid advances in the tools of amphibious warfare, particularly amphibious landing craft, the Pacific war against the Japanese promised to be supremely difficult.

CHAPTER 2

Donald Roebling's Alligator

There could be no more unlikely Marine Corps hero than Donald Roebling. The rotund, eccentric inventor of the amphibian tractor is rightly credited for making a decisive contribution to his nation's victory in World War II. Yet his creative success was achieved totally beyond any military influence. For this reason, Donald Roebling's gift of the amphibian tractor to the Marine Corps just in time to spearhead the Corps' amphibious assaults in the Pacific is often, and quite correctly, attributed to fortuity, fate, or blind luck. But Donald Roebling's invention was a product of a uniquely American experience. Donald Roebling and his Alligator were progenies of eighteenth-century immigration, the boom of American industrialism, entrepreneurial capitalism, and Yankee ingenuity. The fortunate meeting of Roebling's Alligator and the war-bound United States Marine Corps was a uniquely American accident.

John Augustus Roebling, Donald Roebling's great grandfather, immigrated to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from Muhlhausen, Prussia in 1831. Born in Prussia in 1806 and educated as a civil engineer at the Royal Polytechnic Institute in Berlin, John Roebling soon gained employment as an engineer with the state of Pennsylvania. He rapidly built a reputation for dependability, industriousness, and brilliant engineering innovation. By the early 1840s, Roebling had embarked on a career as one of America's pioneer builders of suspension bridges. Among others, he designed and built highway bridges over the Monongahela River in Pittsburgh and the Ohio River in Cincinnati as well as America's first cable suspension railroad bridge over the Niagara River. John Roebling's landmark contribution to the science of bridge building was his invention of high strength steel wire. In 1848 he moved his family to Trenton, New Jersey, and built a factory for the production of steel wire and other steel products. Roebling became famous as the "father of the modern era of the great suspension bridge," and represented the epitome of the confident, enlightened American engineer. In 1869, Roebling, assisted by his son, Washington A. Roebling, commenced his most challenging project, the Brooklyn Bridge. In June of 1869, John Roebling's foot was crushed when he was struck by a ferryboat while surveying the Brooklyn Bridge site. Tragically, he died several weeks later of tetanus as the result of the freak accident.

Washington Augustus Roebling, Donald Roebling's grandfather, was born in Saxonburg, Pennsylvania in 1837. He graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, in 1857 and became his father's principal assistant. In 1861 he enlisted as a private in the Union army. He soon gained a commission as an officer and served most of the Civil War as a colonel of engineers under Irvin McDowell. Throughout the rest of his life, Washington Roebling enjoyed being called "The Colonel." Upon the death of John A. Roebling, Washington Roebling assumed the leadership of the Brooklyn Bridge project. He completed the bridge in 1883 and is credited as the "Builder of the Brooklyn Bridge." During the 1870s, Washington Roebling built his father's Trenton wire rope manufacturing plant into an industrial giant. The company, by then called John A. Roebling's Sons, became the foundation of the fabulous wealth of the Roebling family.

Washington Roebling built a new factory for the expanding company eight miles south of Trenton on the Delaware River and established a model town around the factory. The town of Roebling, New Jersey, remains today as a symbol of the height of American industrialism.1

John A. Roebling II, Donald Roebling's father, was Washington Roebling's most trusted son and assistant. He was born in 1867 and, like his father, was trained as an engineer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Near the turn of the century, Washington Roebling's health failed (the elder Roebling suffered from severe decompression sickness, "the bends", resulting from extensive underground work while building the caissons for the Brooklyn Bridge) and John assumed direction of the Roebling family's financial interests.2

The wartime contribution of the Roebling family during World War I foreshadowed the decisive role that Donald Roebling would play in winning the Second World War. In November 1915, the John A. Roebling's Sons plant in Trenton suffered two fires in one week with damages valued at over $1,000,000. The fires followed months of threats from prominent Germans that American industrial plants would be crippled. Immediately after the Roebling plant fires, an American German-language newspaper, the Brooklyn Frei-Presse, ran the headline, "RENDERED HARMLESS - Factory Building of Roebling Company Reduced to Ashes - Was Used to Produce Wire for the Allies." Actually, John A. Roebling's Sons' production capacity was only briefly handicapped by the fires. The company soon geared up and expanded to play a major role in the fight against German submarines. During the war, the Roebling Company produced over 95 million feet of steel rope and coupling devices to build submarine nets for American and European harbors and the framework for the 1918 North Sea Mine Barrage. The North Sea Mine Barrage was credited with destroying at least twenty-three U-Boats and putting an end to the menace of German subs. In 1931, the German biographer, Wilhelm Anener, wrote of the Roebling participation in the defeat of Germany, "To us it appears tragic fate that this emigrant's cleavage of nationality exerts its effect long after his time. With Roebling the Father- land not only lost an engineering genius and a great industrialist; but that which he created has worked damagingly against Germany in that war materials in enormous quantities have been produced."3

By the end of World War I, John A. Roebling II had concentrated his efforts on banking and the management of the Roebling family fortune, leaving the leadership of the John A. Roebling's Sons plants to other family members. John and his wife, Margaret, built a sprawling estate called the Boulderwood Mansion in Bernardsville, New Jersey, only thirty miles west of John's office complex in New York City. He also built a lovely winter home in Lake Placid, Florida, thirty-five miles northwest of Lake Okeechobee in the Florida Everglades.4 By the 1920s, John A. Roebling II had become a nationally noted financier, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and humanitarian.

John Roebling's son, Donald, would never be accused of being a conformist. Throughout his life Donald Roebling, the creator of the amphibian tractor, would walk a singular path of sublime eccentricity. Donald Roebling was born in New York City on 15 November 1908. Young Roebling, strong-willed, temperamental, and overweight, spent his childhood in the luxury of his parents' Bernardsville, New Jersey, mansion. Shipped off to the Stuyvesant Prep School in Warrenton, Virginia, he demonstrated little scholastic aptitude and, upon graduation, chose not to follow the Ivy League college routine of his wealthy peers. In August 1927, the nineteen year old Roebling enrolled in the Bliss Electrical Academy in Washington, D.C. In April 1928, he was asked to leave the Bliss Academy as the result of conflicts with his teachers.5

Finding life with his parents in New Jersey difficult, the restless Donald Roebling travelled to Clearwater, Florida, in 1929 to live with his cousin, Margaret MacIlrane. A year later, the twenty-two year old Roebling, undoubtedly subsidized by his father, established the Roebling Construction Company, a business specializing in the building of luxury homes. In 1930, Donald Roebling purchased a choice seven-acre tract of beachfront property in Clearwater. Inspired by his fiancĂŠe, Florence Spottiswood Parker of East Orange, New Jersey, he built a fifteen-room English Tudor mansion with a large outdoor pool and surrounding gardens. The mansion, awkwardly named Spottis Woode after Miss Parker, was of fortress proportions and strength and for decades was considered to be the largest, best built single-family dwelling on Florida's West Coast.6 Near the mansion, Roebling constructed an expensively outfitted machine shop to satisfy his personal passion for tinkering. This machine shop and the nearby swimming pool and Gulf of Mexico would be the birthplace of Donald Roebling's first amphibian vehicle, the Alligator.

Once established in his new Florida home, Donald Roebling and his bride (he married Florence Parker in October 1932) set-tled into a pleasant life of wealth and leisure. Roebling loosely managed his construction company while devoting himself to his hobbies: stamp collection, HAM radio operation, and mechanical tinkering. He quickly gained local repute for his eccentricities, particularly his unusual physical appearance. Roebling was addicted to candy and other sweets and his extraordinary physique featured over 400 pounds of body weight primarily concentrated in his enormous buttocks and thighs. Roebling was so large that the local cinema created a special seat for the wealthy patron by removing the armrest from two normal seats. In the early 1930s, the rich and eccentric Donald Roebling could not have been more removed from the world of the United States Marine Corps. He was a most unlikely candidate to play a pivotal role in the momentous years of worldwide conflict that lay ahead.

The initial catalyst for the chain of events that led to Donald Roebling's invention of the amphibian Alligator was an act of nature, the Great Lake Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928.7 As noted earlier, Donald Roebling's father, the financier John A. Roebling II, owned a lavish winter retreat in Lake Placid, Florida, just thirty-five miles northwest of Lake Okeechobee.

Lake Okeechobee, 730 square miles of largely swampy water in the central Florida Everglades, lies forty miles inland from West Palm Beach, Florida. Throughout the 1920s, unscrupulous Miami real estate speculators aggressively developed new towns on the banks of Lake Okeechobee, promising the new residents, mostly northerners, that the traditional flood control problems of the region had been solved.8 On 16 September 1928, a monster hurricane packing 128 m.p.h. winds crashed into the eastern Florida coastline at West Palm Beach and rushed inland toward Lake Okeechobee. Already, the same hurricane had left 600 people dead in Guadeloupe and 300 people dead and 200,000 homeless in Puerto Rico. The storm swept across Lake Okeechobee and drowned the newly established lakefront hamlets. The boom towns of Belle Glade, Pelican Bay, and Clewiston were demolished. 1,836 area residents were drowned. Some particularly unfortunate folks were killed by fatal water moccasin bites as the snakes and the people struggled to reach the same trees and housetops.9 Nearly all the loss of life and the $25,000,000 in damages occurred in the Lake Okeechobee area.10

At the time of the hurricane a group of John A. Roebling's employees were working at Roebling's estate at Lake Placid. These men formed a team and for several days following the hurricane assisted in rescue efforts in the nearby Lake Okeechobee towns. Most likely because of the participation of his own workers in the relief effort as well as concern over his own Florida property, John A. Roebling became keenly interested in the disaster. When his team of workers returned from their mission they reported on the details of the rescue operation. They highlighted the fact that many victims drowned in the hours and days following the hurricane because rescuers could not traverse the miles of flooded, muddy morass created by the storm. One of the men suggested that a vehicle or boat that could travel on land and through mud, and also negotiate deep water, would have helped immeasurably. They all agreed that hundreds of lives could have been saved if only the rescuers had been given the means to reach the victims in time.

John A. Roebling, humanitarian, financier, and shrewd businessman, recognized the need, and perhaps a potentially lucrative market, for a land and water dual capability rescue vehicle.11 Fourteen years before Marine amphibian tractors would first crash through the surf at Guadalcanal, the concept of an amphibian vehicle rose out of the hurricane flooded swamps of Lake Okeechobee.

John Roebling's son, Donald, became the agent for transforming the idea of an amphibious rescue vehicle into reality. It remains unclear when or how the senior Roebling first suggested the amphibian concept to Donald. But by early 1932 the twenty-three year old Donald Roebling had completed his mansion in Clearwater and possessed both the means and the time to address a serious project. John Roebling clearly recognized the requirement to set his eccentric and hitherto unproductive son to work on a useful and possibly profitable activity. He challenged his mechanically gifted son to build a reliable and commercially useful amphibious rescue vehicle, a vehicle that, in his words, "would bridge the gap between where a boat grounded and a car flooded out."12 He offered to pay all the design, development, and production costs and the father-son deal was sealed with a handshake. Donald Roebling accepted his father's challenge with gusto. The amphibious vehicle became the primary focus of young Roebling's creative energy for the next eight years.

By January 1933, Donald Roebling had his amphibious vehicle production project in full gear. He hired Earl De Bolt, Warren Cottrell, and S.A. Williams as his technical staff and set them to work in his personal machine shop at Spottis Woode, his Clear-water estate.13 From the outset of the project, Roebling focused on the two major problems of building a durable and versatile amphibious rescue vehicle. First, the vehicle had to be light enough to provide safe buoyancy in the water yet sturdy enough for rugged land use. And second, the propulsion systems for water and land could not be so complicated or space-consuming as to render the vehicle useless. Donald Roebling's innovative approach to these problems provided the conceptual point of departure that resulted in the success of his vehicle where previous attempts at amphibious vehicles had failed. He answered the weight problem with a relatively new product, aluminum. Aluminum was much lighter than steel yet provided adequate strength and rigidity for land operations. The second problem, the issue of dual propulsion, was addressed with truly revolutionary imagination. Roebling proposed to devise a single propulsion system for both land and water rather than trying to somehow simplify and coordinate two separate propulsion systems. The result was Roebling's creation of a paddle-wheel track sys-tem, a commercial crawler type tractor track affixed with cleats that would work much like the paddles of a paddle-wheel boat when the vehicle was waterborne.

Roebling's innovations solved the most basic duality problems of his amphibious vehicle but created new problems of their own. Because aluminum was a new material, the technology of working with aluminum was undeveloped. Metalworking tools proved ineffective on the soft aluminum and traditional methods of steel welding and riveting were not applicable. Roebling's crew pioneered aluminum working methods as they designed new shapes for aluminum rivets and discovered that woodworking machinery was far superior to metalworking tools in manipulating the soft metal.14 The cleated paddle-wheel tracks were equally troublesome. While the track system on Roebling's first 1935 prototype produced 25 m.p.h. on land, it was heavy and flimsy and quickly broke apart on rough terrain. And the straight paddle-wheel cleats, set straight across the track, were extremely inefficient in the water, producing only 2.3 m.p.h. in the water in the 1935 prototype.15 These track problems would require two more years of modification and experimentation before the vehicle could approach an acceptable level of reliability.

Donald Roebling's original goal was to produce a useful amphibious rescue vehicle in time for the 1933 hurricane season, less then a year after he commenced the project.16 He soon discovered that this goal was unrealistically optimistic. Finally, by 1935, Roebling and his team loaded their first vehicle aboard a flatbed truck to take it beyond the confines of Spottis Woode for serious testing. So far, the vehicle had seen only the rigors of Roebling's driveway and swimming pool. The next proving ground would be a small lake nearby where Roebling had built a work shed for housing and repairing his vehicles. Donald Roebling and his men proudly called their invention the "Alligator." All of Roebling's subsequent models of amphibious vehicles would retain this apropos label. Later, generations of amphibian tractor and assault amphibian Marines would proudly claim the Alligator as their unit mascot and symbol.

As previously noted, Donald Roebling's original 1935 Alligator was somewhat of a disappointment. The vehicle weighed 14,350 pounds, was 24 feet long, and was powered by a 92-horsepower Chrysler engine. It would achieve 25 m.p.h. on land, but the weak tracks invariably broke within just a few miles. And the biggest disappointment of all was the Alligator's 2.3 m.p.h. speed and lack of maneuverability in the water. Still, Donald Roebling offered to sell his original model to both the U.S. Coast Guard and the American Red Cross. Neither agency accepted his offer.17

Unwillingly to concede defeat, Donald Roebling stripped his first Alligator, Model I, down to the ground and vigorously pushed forward to the task of building an improved version, Model II. In the many rebuilds of his Alligator, Roebling's free-wheeling engineering philosophy encouraged maximum innovation and creativity. Few blueprints or engineering drawings were made during the development phase (1933-1937) of the first four models Click here to view image of the Alligator.18 Donald Roebling and his team of technicians preferred the workshop to the drawing board. They used commercially available materials, hardware, machinery, and engines whenever possible while focusing their creative energies on making the vehicle simple and rugged.

The Model II Alligator was completed in April 1936. This vehicle was a vast improvement over the Model I. The new Alligator weighed 13,110 pounds, 2,240 pounds less than the Model I, and was equipped with a lighter 85-horsepower Ford V8 automobile engine. The Model II travelled at 18 m.p.h. on land, 6 m.p.h. slower than the Model I, but its 5.45 m.p.h. water speed more than doubled the performance of the Model I. The improved water performance of the Model II was produced primarily by Donald Roebling's idea of changing the paddle-wheel cleats to a diagonal setting across the track. The new cleat angle also helped to increase stability and steerabillty in the water.19 The Model II Alligator demonstrated the mechanism's vast potential for improvement and motivated the Roebling team to continue the quest for a truly practical amphibious rescue vehicle. Almost as soon as the Model II was built and tested, it was torn apart to begin work on the Model III.

The Model III Alligator was finished and tested in September 1936. It was 310 pounds lighter (12,800 pounds) than the Model II and went slightly faster on both land and sea. But the Model III was still plagued with the same inefficient suspension system that handicapped the original Model I. The tracks continued to break after minimal land use and the Model III developed the troublesome tendency to get hung up on the bank when entering or Click here to view image exiting the water.20 A new track system had to be found before the Alligator could reliably save lives in Florida's hurricanes.

Finally in 1937, Donald Roebling and his dedicated assistants produced an Alligator that came close to their expectations. The Model IV Alligator was four feet shorter in length than the earlier models, thus reducing the length and weight of the tracks. And, most significantly, Roebling installed a totally new suspension system. His new system featured roller bearings built into the chain track rather than bogie wheels, and fixed idler blocks to replace idler wheels. This new suspension system was lighter, much more durable, and produced smoother performance on embankments than previous models. In the Model IV Alligator Roebling also replaced the straight paddle-wheel cleats with curved cleats, producing enhanced water speed and maneuverability. It was the diagonally affixed curved cleat and paddle-wheel principle that produced the Alligator's only patent.

Several years later, at the height of World War II, Donald Roebling patriotically turned over his patent, No. 2138207, with- out fee, to the government.21 The 1937 Model IV Alligator was lighter, faster in the water, more reliable on land, and more maneuverable than any of its predecessors. The new Alligator weighed only 8,700 pounds (5,650 pounds less than the 1935 Model I) and had a water speed of 8.6 m.p.h. and a land speed of 18 m.p.h.22

Donald Roebling saw the Model IV Alligator as having real commercial potential. He decided not to tear down this 1937 version of the Alligator like he had earlier models. He retained the Model IV and commenced work on building a second copy. He billed his father $100,000 for the first Model IV Alligator. This fee covered the costs of the four years of development and experimentation that produced the Model IV.23 The second copy was a bargain; it eventually cost Donald's father only $18,000 (the Alligator's distant descendant, the AAVP7A1, was produced in 1982 at approximately $815,000 per copy).

By the time Donald Roebling produced his Model IV Alligator in 1937, he had spent four years swimming his odd inventions conspicuously around St. Joseph Sound in the Gulf of Mexico, Clearwater Bay, and in the lakes and swamps of the Clearwater area. The sporadic interest of the local press blossomed in the autumn of 1937 with the arrival of reporters and photographers from Life magazine. The resulting national publicity was a dream-come-true for Donald Roebling. A two-page picture story entitled "Roebling's Alligator for Florida Rescues" was featured in the Science and Industry section of Life's 4 October 1937 issue. Of particular note, the Life article praised the Alligator's versatile amphibious qualities, its ability to crash through mangrove swamps, "grinding whole trees and shrubs to matchwood," its 40-man capacity, its impressive land and water speeds and its $10,000 production price.24 As a matter of historical perspective, the superlative language of the Life magazine article underscores the truly innovative and revolutionary quality of Donald Roebling's achievement. The Alligator was the world's first truly successful amphibious vehicle.

The Life magazine article undoubtedly gave John A. Roebling II, Donald Roebling, and his team of assistants good reason for celebration. The article would surely produce willing customers for their Alligator and a long awaited payoff for their labors. They could not have imagined that their first customers would be United States Marines.

CHAPTER 3

The Marine Corps' Amphibian

The Life magazine article telling the story of Donald Roebling's amazing Alligator became the messenger of good fortune for a Marine Corps desperately short of the tools of amphibious warfare. The 4 October 1937 Life magazine article gained the attention of Rear Admiral Edward C. Kalbfus, Commander, Battle- ships, Battle Force, U.S. Fleet in San Diego, California. At a cocktail party Rear Admiral Kalbfus picked up the Life magazine and showed the Roebling article to Major General Louis McCarty Little, the Commanding General of the Fleet Marine Force, then located in San Diego. Major General Little was greatly excited by Donald Roebling's strange invention and mailed a copy of the magazine article to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Major General Thomas Holcomb, in Washington, D.C.1

The Marine Corps' remarkable fortuity of finding the Alligator in the pages of a popular magazine came none too soon. The same Life magazine issue that contained Donald Roebling's Alligator also contained a shocking pictorial essay on the Japanese aerial bombing of the Chinese city of Shanghai on 28 August 1934. In four short years, Japanese bombs would devastate the U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor. And in less than five years, amphibian tractors would help the U.S. Marines whip the Japanese on Guadalcanal.

On 4 January 1938, the Marine Corps Commandant, Major General Thomas Holcomb, forwarded the Life magazine article he had received from Major General Little to the Marine Corps Equipment Board at the Marine Corps' Quantico, Virginia, base. He directed Brigadier General Frederick L. Bradman, the President of the Equipment Board, to evaluate Donald Roebling's Alligator and make a recommendation on the vehicle's use by the Marine Corps.2 Over the course of the next twenty-four months the Alligator negotiated a labyrinth of military committees and boards and almost became a victim of the timeless governmental maladies of bureaucratic negativism and insufficient funding. Except for the personal advocacy and zeal of a few dedicated Marine Corps officers, the Marine Corps' chance to add the amphibian tractor to their amphibious team may have been lost.

During January 1938, General Bradman routed the Life magazine article to the several committees of the Equipment Board for comments and recommendations. After viewing the photograph of the Alligator provided in the Life article, the Committee on Transportation and Tanks concluded that the vehicle did "not appear suitable for Marine Corps purposes ashore" and strongly recommended against "its adoption by the Marine Corps for use in operations ashore."3 The main problems noted were the Alligator's light armor and unproven suspension system. The Marine Corps' Committee on Boats of the War Plans Section agreed with the Transportation and Tanks Committee that the vehicle had "no particular use once it reached the beach," but conceded that a few Alligators could have some limited use in small unopposed flanking or covering force operations. The Committee on Boats concluded that the Alligator issue should be dropped by the Marine Corps and turned over to the Navy.4 Luckily, General Bradman directed further inquiry into the Alligator before the issue was passed to the Navy and forgotten.

On 3 February 1938, the Marine Corps Equipment Board sent a letter to Donald Roebling requesting detailed information on the Alligator. Within five days, Roebling enthusiastically responded to all of the Marine Corps' questions. After describing his vehicle with obvious pride and some exaggeration, he noted that "the Alligator may be inspected and we will be glad to demonstrate it to you at any time."5 Donald Roebling's positive and timely response impressed the members of the Equipment Board and on 28 February 1938, General Bradman wrote to the Commandant of the Marine Corps requesting authority to dispatch a member of the Equipment Board to Clearwater to personally inspect the Alligator. Two weeks later, Major John Kaluf was enroute to Florida.6

Major Kaluf's visit with Donald Roebling marked a significant turning point in the Marine Corps' attitude towards the Alligator. Kaluf meticulously inspected the vehicle and observed its operation at sea, through the surf and in mangrove swamps. He took 400 feet of 16 mm movie film of the Alligator in action and personally drove the Alligator at sea and on land.7 He immediately saw that the Alligator was a revolutionary vehicle that represented the essence of what the Marine Corps was striving to do: project military power from the sea to the land in a smooth transition. Major Kaluf became a zealous believer in the Alligator concept and helped to keep it alive until it became a reality. Kaluf's glowing report on the Alligator led the Commandant of the Marine Corps, on 18 May 1938, to formally request funds from the Chief of Naval Operations to purchase one Alligator for testing under military conditions. The tests would take place during the Fleet Landing Exercises scheduled for the winter of 1939 (FLEX No. 5).8 On 28 June 1938, the Commandant received a disappointing response from the Chief of Naval Operations. The Navy agreed that Alligators would be of some value to the Marine Corps but the limited funds available for landing craft would continue to be solely devoted to the development of the Navy's landing boats.9

Meanwhile, Donald Roebling had been hard at work modifying his Model IV Alligator to satisfy the comments and recommendations made during Major Kaluf's inspection back in March. In January 1939 Donald Roebling sent photographs and a general description of his improved vehicle to the Marine Corps Equipment Board. The Commandant of the Marine Corps as well as leading members of the Equipment Board recognized the importance of maintaining Mr. Roebling's enthusiasm and cooperation despite the fact that the Navy had, at least for awhile, declined to fund the Alligator. Major Kaluf again visited Clearwater in February 1939 to review Roebling's latest work and sustain the good will that the Marine Corps had been able to cultivate with the eccentric inventor.10 Although the $18,000 price tag for the updated Alligator caused Kaluf some alarm, his report following this second visit echoed the enthusiasm of his first report. In this second report he made the following interesting comment concerning Donald Roebling's attitude toward cooperating with the Marine Corps:

"For the benefit of any officers who have any future dealings with Mr. Roebling... it should be explained that the designer, Donald Roebling, and his father, John Roebling, who furnished the necessary funds, are very wealthy people and are not developing this amphibian to make money and cannot be approached on a profit basis. Any additional income would probably be an embarrassment to them. Unlike the ordinary manufacturer who has something he is anxious to sell, they can be appealed to only on the basis of patriotic or humanitarian motives as far as this amphibian is concerned."11

In October 1939, Donald Roebling was visited by a three-officer committee headed by Brigadier General Emile P. Moses, USMC (the new President of the Marine Corps Equipment Board). The committee came to inspect the Alligator and assure Mr. Roebling of the military's continuing vigorous interest in his invention.

Following General Moses' visit to Clearwater and his subsequent glowing report on the Alligator, a second effort was made to convince the Navy to relinquish the money to buy a pilot vehicle. This time the Navy finally coughed up the requisite $24,492 for one Alligator. Donald Roebling received his contract in April 1940 and the Marine Corps acquired its first amphibian vehicle in November 1940.12 Click here too view image

The Alligator that Donald Roebling delivered to the Marine Corps in October 1940 featured many military modifications resulting from the visits of Major Kaluf and Brigadier General Moses. The 1940 Alligator was powered by a 120-horsepower Lincoln-Zephyer engine with a Ford standard transmission.13 It could achieve 29 m.p.h. on land and 9.72 m.p.h. in the water.

The vehicle weighed 7,700 pounds (1,000 pounds less than the 1937 Model IV Alligator) and had a cargo capacity of 7,000 pounds. As advertised in a glossy promotional leaflet produced by Roebling in 1940, "in the open sea, or when landing on a beach through the surf the Alligator is more seaworthy than a normal boat of com- parable size. It will not sink, even with its 7,000 pound cargo compartment full of water; nor will it capsize in a dive into deep water off a six-foot seawall." 14

On 18 October 1940, at Clearwater, Flor

Borg Warner "A" vehicle 1942. Though this prototype vehicle did not go into production in this form, it led to the LVT 3 Bushmaster which was of similar appearance but 'with rear ramp and without the turret.

LVT-3 Bushmaster (1944) Developed by the Borg Warner Corporation, this vehicle had engines moved to sponsons and a ramp installed in the rear similarly to the LVT-4. Some received armor kits. First used in Okinawa in April 1945. 2,964 units produced.

This was vehicle developed by Borg Warner which was similar in external appearance to the LVT 4, complete with stern ramp, but which had a single Cadillac 125HP engine mounted in each side pontoon and the Hydramatic automatic transmission used in the M5light tank (qv). This produced a vehicle of superior performance, more efficient than the Continental-engined designs. Called the "Bushmaster", it was produced in 1944 and first used in action at Okinawa.

#

Compared with the earlier LVT 1 and LVT 2, the LVT 3 (or Bushmaster) was an entirely new design. For a start it had two engines (Cadillac units), each mounted in a side sponson. This allowed an increase in size of the cargo- carrying area and enabled a loading ramp to be installed at the rear. The overall outline remained the same as on the earlier vehicles, but there were numerous changes. The track was entirely new, being rubber bushed, and the width was reduced with no detriment to water propulsion which continued to be carried out using the tracks only.

The first LVT 3 appeared during 1945 and by the time production ended 2,692 had been produced. It went on to be the 'standard1 post-war vehicle of its type but by 1945 the LVTs were used not only by the US Marines but by the US Army. This service had the usual doubts regarding the efficiency of LVTs, but after its initial misgivings came to value the type's attributes just as much as did the US Marines (although the US Army used the LVT 4 mainly as a supply carrier). For a short while the LVT 3 was used by both the US Marines and the US Navy.

On the LVT 3 the driver and codriver were located in a cab forward of the cargo area. Behind them was the gunner's firing step and by the time the LVT 3 arrived on the scene the armament of the LVTs had been increased from the initial single machine-gun to three; one 12.7-mm (0.5-m) heavy and two 7.62-mm (0.3-in) medium machineguns. Along each side of the cargo area were the sponsons containing not only the engines but the Hydramatic transmissions, bilge pumps and blowers to remove fumes. Some American references refer to these sponsons as pontoons, for they certainly added to the vehicle buoyancy. The rear ramp was raised and lowered by a hand operated winch and had heavy rubber seals along the sides to keep out water. Any water that did get in was drained through gratings m the cargo area deck to be dealt with by the bilge pumps.

The LVT 3 was armoured like the LVT 2 and LVT 4, but extra protection could be added by means of an armoured cab for the driver and codriver and by the use of add-on panels of armour. (These armoured panels could also be added to the LVT 2). Extra shields were also available to protect the machine-guns and their gunners. Perhaps the most reassuring item of equipment carried was a wooden box in the driver's cab. This contained a quantity of rags, waste material and tapered wooden plugs of various sizes to stop any leaks caused by enemy action or otherwise induced. Other special-to-type equipment carried included signal lamps, a water tank and even some spare parts for on-the-spot repairs.

The LVT 3 represented the final wartime point in the line that could be traced back to the Roebling tractors, but it was not the end of the line. During the post-war years the concept was developed still further and many of the present vehicles now in use can trace their origins to the LVTs.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

This anti-tank gun, which came into service at the end of 1940, was the long-barrel 5cm Pak 38. It was a towed weapon, having a muzzle brake, a double shield and a well-designed split trail carriage with torsion bar suspension - a feature of all succeeding equipments which made for mobility, lightness and a low silhouette. An excellent weapon by 1941 standards, it was never entirely replaced and its tank gun derivative the 5cm KwK L60 also served in various forms until the end of the war.

Standard 1-tonne half-track vehicles towing 5cm PAK 38 guns.

The 5-cm Pak38 was a light and low weapon that was easy to move and conceal. For manhandling it had a dolly wheel under the trail spades that was removed in action. In 1941 it was the only German anti-tank gun that could knock out the Soviet T-34, but it had to use tungsten-cored ammunition. 11 were still in use in 1945

By 1940 the 37-mm anti-tank gun was of very limited value against the armour of tanks then in service. Fortunately for the German army this had been foreseen as early as 1937, and by 1938 Rheinmetall-Borsig had developed and produced a new gun with a calibre of 50 mm (1.97 in). By 1939 the gun was ready for production, but it was not until mid-summer 1940 that the first examples reached the troops. By then the new gun, designated the 5-cm Pak 38, was too late to take much part in any European campaign and it was not until 1941 that the new gun was able to see action during a major campaign.

That campaign was the invasion of the Soviet Union, and by that time the new gun had been supplied with a new type of tungsten-cored ammunition known as AP40. This ammunition was developed from captured Czech and Polish ammunition, and was adopted because the dense tungsten core of the new projectiles offered a considerable increase in armour penetration. This was just as well, for when the Soviet T-34/76 appeared on the battlefields the Pak 38 firing AP40 ammunition proved to be the only gun/ projectile combination capable of penetrating the Soviet tank's thick hide. But the numbers of Pak 38s in the field were limited, the gun could not be everywhere and it was some time before extemporized conversions of old French 75-mm (2.95-in) guns could be hurried up to fill the many gaps in the anti-tank defence lines. After that the 50-mm (1.97-in) gun proved good enough to remain in use for the rest of the war, although it was largely replaced by heavier-calibre weapons.

The Pak 38 was a well-designed gun with a curved shield, steel wheels and a tubular split-trail carriage that locked out the torsion bar suspension when the trail legs were spread. Light alloys were used throughout the construction of the carriage, which made it easy to handle, and a small dolly wheel was mounted under the trail legs for manhandling. The long barrel was fitted with a muzzle brake.

The Pak 38 was one of the German army's standard anti-tank guns and was further developed at one stage to take an automatic ammunition feed. This enabled it to be used as a heavy aircraft weapon, and at one point this was fitted to a variant of the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter. Later this same weapon was further adapted to be used as a ground-mounted antiaircraft gun but that was late in the war and none appear actually to have been produced. There was also a tank gun equivalent of the Pak 38 that was produced in a number of models, so many in fact that large numbers ended up as beach defence guns in the Atlantic Wall. The Pak 38 was also mounted on a number of tracked Panzer]채ger carriages. At one point so many had been captured by the British army that they were reconditioned and stockpiled against some future contingency that never arose.

Specification

5-cmPak38

Calibre: 50 mm (1.97 in)

Length of piece: 3.187 m (10 ft 5.5 in)

Length of rifling: 2.381 m (7 ft 9,7 in)

Weight: travelling 1062 kg (2,341 lb) and in action 1000 kg (2,205 lb)

Traverse: 65째

Elevation:-8째 to+27째

Muzzle velocity: AP 835 m (2,903 ft) per second, AP40 1180 m (3,870 ft) per second and HE 550 m (1,805 ft) per second

Maximum range: HE 2650 m (2,900 yards)

Projectile weight: AP 2.06 kg (4.54 lb), AP40 0,925 kg (2.04 lb) and HE 1,82 kg (4 lb)

Armour penetration: AP40 101 mm (3.98 m) at 740 m (820 yards)

LINK

Armour penetration table

5cm Pak 38 Walk Around

Unarmored military vehicles, either specially built for the military or adapted from commercial models and used in combat-support roles. Although armored vehicles (e.g., tanks) are the more glamorous war machines and garner most of the publicity, modern armies rely on tens of thousands of "thin-skinned" unarmored fighting vehicles (UFVs) for an almost unlimited variety of purposes. These vehicles include not only motorcycles and cars but also light and heavy trucks, buses, ambulances, tractors, wreckers, fire trucks, snowplows, amphibious vehicles, and construction equipment. The backbone of any army's UFVs is the truck (lorry).

Although it might be argued that the first UFV was Joseph Cugnot's three-wheeled, steam-powered artillery towing device invented in 1769, the modern use of such vehicles began in 1898 with the use of motorcycles and autos in the German army's maneuvers. World War I saw extensive mechanization in the major armies, carried out both by purchase or capture of civilian vehicles and by development of appropriate vehicles produced by manufacturers, who were subsidized by government and addressed specifications that emphasized standardization of controls, interchangeability of parts, and ability to perform under service conditions. At war's end in 1918, Great Britain had 168,128 such vehicles in use. The United States, entering the war 32 months after the British, had procured 275,000 vehicles. Both nations were able to achieve a degree of standardization by taking commercially produced vehicles and modifying them for military work. No all-wheel-drive truck entered war service, although several were in the testing stage by November 1918.

In World War II, the Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan produced 594,859 trucks, and the major Allies, the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, manufactured 3,060,354. Germany was able to flesh out its needs somewhat with a huge array of captured vehicles and by utilizing the production of factories in occupied nations, but in doing so it created immense maintenance difficulties. Germany's great UFV failure lay in its inability to standardize. It also wasted considerable sums in producing tracked personnel carriers that carried a mere 12 troops in theater-seat luxury (but that could also be used as a prime mover) and a tracked motorcycle that could go practically anywhere-but that carried only two to three persons. The Soviets also produced tracked trucks but found, like the Germans, that the considerably higher expense and complexity of such arrangements nearly negated their superior overland capabilities. The British motor industry turned out tens of thousands of UFVs, but the troops in the field seemed to prefer the U.S. product. (For one thing, it was much easier to change gears in any U.S.UFV.)

The stars of the war, for Allies and enemy alike, were the American Jeep and the "deuce-and-a-half " truck. The Jeep, developed in 1940 by the Willys corporation and manufactured also by Ford, was a 0.25-ton, 4 x 4 (four-wheel drive) truck and command-reconnaissance vehicle that could operate with ease up to 60 miles per hour, mount a 40-degree slope, turn in a 30-foot circle, and tilt without tipping at a 50-degree angle. With a machine gun or recoilless rifle mounted, it was truly a fighting vehicle. Its only real weakness was its vulnerable standard commercial water-cooled engine; the U.S. auto industry had no off-the-shelf aircooled engine available. The "deuce-and-a-half," a General Motors 6 x 6, 2.5-ton truck also produced by Studebaker and International Harvester, became the workhorse of the Allied cause in World War II, so widely used that Russians still call multi-drive axle trucks studeborky (without knowing why). The Germans were more than happy to utilize captured 6 x 6s, and the Soviets imported tens of thousands of them through Lend-Lease. The Chinese Nationalists, the Free French, the British, the Italian Co-Belligerent forces, and every Allied military force of any consequence were all allotted thousands of 6 x 6s. And at the end of the war, the U.S. Army, paradoxically, turned over thousands of its supposedly worn-out 6 x 6s to the German economy to maintain some sort of transportation net. They soldiered on for yet another decade over torn-up roads, with minimum maintenance facilities in conditions almost resembling wartime. The 6 x 6 (along with newer models of the Jeep) continued to be produced through several model changes, serving in Korea and Vietnam (an unmatched record).

The Jeep and the 6 x 6 accurately reflected the American motor industry, which at the time out-produced the rest of the world combined, turning out vehicles that were often technologically behind their European counterparts but were more rugged and cheaper to produce and thus would be better adapted to the rigors of land warfare. Considering the literally hundreds of uses the 6 x 6 was put to, in World War II and in war and peace in the decades that followed, it may be arguably the best truck in history, military or commercial.

The contemporary era abounds in thin-skinned military vehicles, with Third World nations vigorously developing and producing their own designs so as to strive for military self-sufficiency and underwrite it with the proceeds of sales abroad. But the U.S. military seemed to have retained its UFV lead over its last remaining major military rival, the former Soviet Union. In the Gulf War (1990-1991), those anti-Saddam Hussein coalition forces unlucky enough to miss out on being issued the U.S. Army new high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV, and now, like the Jeep, produced for the civilian market), sometimes "hotwired" Iraqi-Soviet UFVs to gain some battlefield mobility. After about 300 miles of use, these enemy trucks failed because their transmissions had worn out. There were no reported significant difficulties with the HMMWVs. Unglamorous workhorses the UFVs may be, their use in large numbers can be assured in the wars and near-wars of the foreseeable future.

References and further reading:

Cary, Norman Miller, Jr."The Use of the Motor Vehicle in the United States Army 1899-1939." Ph.D. diss., University of Georgia, 1980.

U.S. Army. A Handbook of Ordnance Engineering. Prepared under the Direction of the Chief of Ordnance. n.d., n.p. Copy in U.S. Army Center of Military History, Washington, DC.

Vanderveen, Bart H. The Observer's Army Vehicles Directory from 1945. London: F. Warne, 1972.

---. The Observer's Army Vehicles Directory to 1940. London: F. Warne, 1974.

---. World Directory of Modern Military Vehicles: Unarmored

Vehicles from 1970. New York: Arco, 1984.

---. Historic Military Vehicles Directory. London: After the Battle/Wheels and Tracks, 1998.

LINK

LINK

LINK

In the Iliad (probably written in the eighth century BC), Homer wrote of a war between King Priam's Troy and a confederation of Greek states (the Achaeans) under the leadership of the Mycenaen king, Agamemnon. Subsequent writers told of the way in which the war gave rise to one of the earliest examples of deception in war: the Trojan Horse. By this device, the Greeks were able to trick the Trojans into believing that they had abandoned the siege, and so defeat them when troops allegedly poured out of the wooden monument after it had been taken inside the city walls. The classical Greeks from a later period believed that the Iliad provided a factual account of their early history. Although it is therefore perhaps safer for us to regard such epic accounts as the Iliad as works of fiction, tales like that of the Trojan Horse do provide us with an insight into early Greek conceptions of war propaganda techniques.

At about the same time that the stories of the Iliad were first circulating, an unknown potter on the island of Mykonos made a pithos (a large storage jar) that depicted the great tale of Troy (Osborne 1998: 53-7). On the neck of the pithos stands the Trojan horse in which the heads of warriors are visible in square portholes, surrounded by yet more warriors, all about to sack Troy.

Possible explanations

Pausanias, who lived in the 2nd century AD, wrote on his book Description of Greece:

That the work of Epeius was a contrivance to make a breach in the Trojan wall is known to everybody who does not attribute utter silliness to the Phrygians (1,XXIII,8)

Whereby Phrygians he means the Trojans. There has been some modern speculation that the Trojan Horse may have been a battering ram resembling, to some extent, a horse, and that the description of the use of this device was then transformed into a myth by later oral historians who were not present at the battle and were unaware of that meaning of the name. Assyrians at the time used siege machines with animal names; it is possible that the Trojan Horse was such. It has also been suggested that the Trojan Horse actually represents an earthquake that occurred between the wars that could have weakened Troy's walls and left them open for attack. Structural damage on Troy VI-its location being the same as that represented in Homer's Iliad and the artifacts found there suggesting it was a place of great trade and power-shows signs that there was indeed an earthquake. Generally, though, Troy VIIa is believed to be Homer's Troy.

The deity Poseidon had a triple function as a god of the sea, of horses and of earthquakes.

The Trojan horse may also refer to the Trojan cavalry lead by Hector. The enemy could have disguised themselves as this cavalry unit and were let back into Troy without question. This possible explanation of the Trojan Horse is the one used by author David Gemmell in the third part of his Troy trilogy, Troy: Fall of Kings.

According to the Little Iliad, 30 soldiers hid in the Trojan horse's belly and 2 spies in its mouth. Other sources give smaller numbers: Apollodorus 50; Tzetzes 23; and Quintus Smyrnaeus gives the names of thirty, but says there were more. In late tradition the number was standardised at 40.

Design and building of Drachenz채hne

Dragon's teeth (German: Drachenz채hne, literally "Dragon Teeth") were square-pyramidal fortifications of reinforced concrete used during the Second World War to impede the movement of tanks. The idea was to slow down and channel tanks into "killing zones" where they could easily be disposed of by anti-tank weapons. In practice, however, the use of combat engineers and specialist clearance vehicles enabled them to be disposed of relatively quickly, and they proved far less of an obstacle than many had expected.

They were extensively used by all sides in the European Theatre. The Germans made extensive use of them in the Siegfried Line and the Atlantic Wall; typically, each "tooth" was 90 cm to 120 cm (about 3 to 4 feet) tall depending on the precise model. Landmines were often laid between the individual "teeth", and further obstacles constructed along the lines of "teeth" (such as barbed wire to impede infantry, or diagonally-placed steel beams to further hinder tanks). The French employed them in the Maginot Line, while many were laid in the United Kingdom in 1940-1941 as part of the effort to strengthen the country's defences against a possible German invasion.

"Behind minefields were the dragon's teeth. They rested on a concrete mat between ten and thirty meters wide, sunk in a meter or two into the ground (to prevent any attempt to tunnel underneath them and place explosive charges). On top of the mat were the teeth themselves, truncated pyramids of reinforced concrete about a meter in height in the front row, to two meters high in the back. They were staggered and spaced in such a manner that a tank could not drive through. Interspersed among the teeth were minefields, barbed wire, and pillboxes that were virtually impregnable by the artillery and set in such a way as to give the Germans crossing fire across the entire front. The only way to take those pillboxes was for infantry to get behind them and attack the rear entry. But behind the first row of pillboxes and dragon's teeth, there was a second, and often a third, and sometimes a fourth." - Stephen Ambrose, Victors, pg 256

Due to the huge numbers laid and their durable construction, many thousands of dragon's teeth can still be seen today, especially in the remains of the Siegfried and Maginot Lines.

Remaining Belts

"Dragon's Teeth" were the long (miles of them) rows of "pyramid-like" concrete/iron bar formations that Germany erected along its Siegfried Line (or West Wall) - its answer to the French Maginot Line - in the late 1930's. The idea was that attacking armor would "belly-up" on them - so tanks, etc. would be channeled to other openings, where they could easily be destroyed by artillery. I believe they were of mostly ominous, psychological warfare-effect - and they are impressive.

Few of the Teeth remain, the vast majority having been blown up since the war as farmers wanted their land back, roads and towns were built, and so on. There are some to see in the Aachen area.

But the most amazing"patch" of these Dragon's Teeth left is about 12 miles SE of Aachen, on road no. 265 and 1 mile west of Hollerath (right at the 90 degree bend in the road).You can walk on a side-path and observe the row upon row of the teeth - all overgrown but quite visible - and just picture the history of the WW II period. Also of note at this spot - during the German offensive starting December 16, 1944, this point was jump-off for the northernmost advance of SS Panzer units, rolling through these paths and forests with the then-objective of reaching Antwerp!

In the latter half of 1936 the Air Ministry outlined its requirements for a new generation of big bombers. The Handley Page Heyford and Vickers Virginia biplanes were still the mainstay of the R.A.F.'s night bomber force at that time, and although the Whitley had begun to enter service and the Handley Page Hampden and the Vickers Wellington were coming along, the Air Ministry already wanted something better.

Two specifications were issued: B.12/36, which called for a four-engined heavy bomber; and P.13/36, which called for a twin-engined medium bomber, though this latter was to be considerably heavier and larger than the Whitley, Hampden, or Wellington, all of which were then regarded as heavies. Of the several tenders received to Specification P.13/36, two were selected for construction, namely the Avro 679, which became the Manchester, and the Handley Page H.P.56; both types made use of the new and then untried Rolls-Royce Vulture engine, and orders were placed for two prototypes of each. The H.P.56 was abandoned in 1937 in favour of a four-Merlin version, later built in quantity as the H.P.57 Halifax. This left the field clear to the Manchester, and in July 1937 A. V. Roe received a contract for 200 production aircraft, 'straight off the drawing-board', to Specification 19/37.

As originally conceived the Manchester had twin fins and rudders inboard on the tailplane, but the first prototype (L7246) emerged with twin fins and rudders outboard. This machine first flew on July 25 1939, and following tests at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down, it was given an additional central fin. The second prototype (L7247) flew early in 1940; it too had a centre fin and furthermore was the first Manchester to have armament installed. Eventually it was fitted with new wing-tips which extended the span by 10 ft. to give a 90-ft. span. Production proceeded apace Metropolitan Vickers also being awarded a contract to build the bomber in 1939-and early in November 1940 some of the 'first off' reached 207 Squadron, newly re-formed at Waddington (Lines.) in 5 Group, Bomber Command.

Unfortunately, the Manchester's career was dogged by a spate of troubles right from the start. Numerous modifications to both airframe and engines were found to be necessary as a result of A. & A.E.E. testing, and in addition to these and other Service problems, production lagged due to shortage of high-pressure couplings and other small but essential items. Matters were not improved when, on December 23, the Luftwaffe bombed the Metrovick works at Trafford Park, Manchester, destroying the company's newly completed first production Manchester (first flown three days previously) together with twelve more Manchesters which were following on.

Not until the night of February 24-25 did 207 Squadron's Manchesters begin operations, and then only six were serviceable for a raid on a Hipper-class cruiser at Brest. All completed the mission, although L7284 crashed on landing back at Waddington, due to failure of the hydraulic system and the incorrect assembly of the emergency air system preventing one leg of the undercarriage from locking down ; fortunately none of the crew was injured. In this first raid the Manchesters dropped a total of seventy 500 lb. S.A.P. (steel armour piercing) bombs in the target area, but no results were observed, as the aircrafts' transparent noses did not allow the bomb-aimers an adequate field of vision. The outcome of this was modification action to incorporate a new transparent panel.

Eventually seven squadrons of 5 Group came to be equipped with the Manchester; but although some of them persevered with it until mid-1942 its unserviceability was such that it was frequently grounded for several weeks at a time, and on one or two occasions squadrons had to recommence operations with Hampdens. Mechanical troubles of one sort or another were never absent, and during both operations and training sorties many accidents occurred-often with tragic results. Engine bearings seized, propellers feathered unaccountably, and tail flutter was encountered when climbing with full load. The latter was soon remedied, if not completely cured, but although various other problems were eventually overcome too, the basic problem of unreliable power plant stubbornly remained. The Vulture engines, under-powered and over-heating, were unable to lift it above the critical flak level, and on one engine it quickly lost height. All things considered, it was one of the R.A.F.'s greatest disappointments, and not surprisingly production was terminated when only 200 Service aircraft had been delivered-157 by Avro and the rest by Metrovick.

A 106 Squadron pilot summed the Manchester up pretty accurately when he told bomber ace Guy Gibson, on the latter's arrival at Coningsby in March 1942 to take command of the squadron: 'These Manchesters. They're awful. The actual kite's all right but it's the engine. They're fine when they keep turning but they don't often do so.' Nevertheless 106 squadron did manage to set a record with Manchesters by despatching eight-the most ever sent out by one squadron on operations-for sea-mining on May 3-4 1942. Incidentally, two of them were the only Bomber Command aircraft lost that night.

With an engine out of action the Manchester was usually as good as lost, although occasionally pilots did manage to coax them back home. One such pilot, F/O (later S/Ldr) H. G. Hazelden, of 83 Squadron, whilst over Hamburg on the night of April 8-9 1942, had an engine hit by flak. The engine failed on the return trip but he managed to maintain height at 4,800 ft., and flew for one and a half hours on one engine, landing his Manchester (L7484) safely at Horsham St. Faith. For many years since the war 'Hazel', as he is known among the flying fraternity, was chief test pilot of Handley Page Ltd.

Early in August 1941 a Manchester of 207 Squadron -L7432 'Z-Zebra' (P/O 'Kipper' Herring)-was lucky enough to get back all the way from Berlin on one engine. At 18,000 ft. over the target the port engine was hit by flak and all the coolant lost, and Herring had no alternative but to cut the engine and feather the propeller. Avoiding-action was taken as the crippled bomber limped back towards England, flying at only 5,000 ft. through the searchlight belt. The aircraft was icing up and losing height, and in an attempt to reach home all auxiliary equipment-including the dinghy was jettisoned. After what must have seemed an age to the crew, a safe landing was made at an airfield in Norfolk despite one tyre having been shot through.

Less fortunate than either Hazelden or Herring was nineteen-year-old Sgt Wilkie, captain of 50 Squadron Manchester L7456, detailed for the famous '1,000bomber' raid against Cologne on May 30-311942. On the way out, his machine, despite the application of extra boost, stubbornly refused to gain the required height; but Wilkie nevertheless pressed on and eventually found himself approaching the target at 9,000 ft. It was then that fate took a hand and ended his hopes of completing the mission. He was suddenly coned by three searchlights, and while endeavouring to escape from their clutches his port engine was badly damaged-apparently by flak-and set on fire. He cut the engine and jettisoned the bomb-load, but as the aircraft was rapidly losing height he ordered the crew to bale out. Then, knowing it was too late for him to do likewise, he switched on the landing lights to see what was beneath him, brushed some trees, and then, quite involuntarily, made a perfect belly landing on what was, as it turned out, the airfield at Dusseldorf. He was unhurt and was made a prisoner almost immediately.

Engine trouble in another aircraft of 50 Squadron that night resulted in the chain of events which led to F/O L. T. Manser being posthumously awarded the V.C-the only one won by a crew member of a Manchester. Manser was captain of Manchester L7301, and although the bomber had behaved satisfactorily on air-test, fully loaded its ceiling was no more than 7,000 ft. All attempts to gain more height overheated the engines. Manser was facing exactly the same hazards as Sgt Wilkie, He, too, decided against turning back. As the aircraft was approaching the target, an hour later, it was caught by searchlights and subjected to intense and accurate flak. Manser held the Manchester straight and level and bombed the target. Almost immediately. afterwards the aircraft received a direct hit from a flak shell and Manser took violent evasive action. He now ran into a hail of light 20-millimetre flak and the searchlights were shining through the cockpit roof. The bomber was down to 800 ft. before it finally escaped into the darkness. The rear-gunner had been wounded, the rear part of the bomb doors had been blown off, and the bomber was now dangerously low. Manser began to climb on extra boost but as he did so the port engine overheated, and by the time he had climbed to 2,000 ft. it burst into flames.

The engine was cut and the extinguisher put into action, but the blaze continued, and it seemed that the fuel-tanks would explode in a matter of seconds. Manser, however, decided to wait and see if the fire would go out, although the instinct of the crew was to get out immediately. Within a few minutes the fire did go out but the Manchester was still losing height, and after some equipment had been jettisoned, but to no avail, Manser ordered the crew to bale out. A sergeant brought him a parachute but he thrust him away, telling the N.C.O. to jump at once as he could only hold the aircraft steady for a few seconds more. As the others descended to safety they saw the Manchester, still carrying their gallant captain, plunge to earth and burst into flames.

A few weeks after the first 1,000-bomber raid, the Manchester flew its final operational mission with Bomber Command. The date and occasion were June 25-26 and the third 1,000-bomber raid, when the target was Bremen. The Manchesters were part of a mixed force (with Lancasters) despatched by 49, 50, 61, and 106 Squadrons. After this the ill-starred bomber continued in service for a time with Conversion Units, and in August 1944 it was declared obsolete.

During its service with Bomber Command the Manchester flew a total of 1,269 operational sorties, comprising 983 on bombing raids, 221 on sea-mining, and sixty-five on 'other operations'. It dropped 1,826 tons of bombs (tonnage of mines is not known) and, in the course of its operations, sixty-three aircraft were reported missing; a further thirteen aircraft were destroyed or damaged-three of them due to enemy action.

Variants

Manchester L7246

First prototype originally with twin tail but due to lack of directional stability had a third fin added.

Manchester I

First production version with twin tail and additional central fin added, 20 built.

Manchester IA

Main production version with twin tail with enlarged, taller fin and rudders.

Manchester II

Projected version re-engined with a pair of Napier Sabre or Bristol Centaurus engines, none built.

Manchester III BT308

Version powered by four Merlin engines with increased wingspan and three fins and rudders of the Manchester I. It was first prototype of later Avro Lancaster.

Specifications (Manchester Mk I/IA)

General characteristics

* Crew: 7

* Length: 70 ft (21.34 m)

* Wingspan: 90 ft 1 in (27.46 m)

* Height: 19 ft 6 in (5.94 m)

* Empty weight: 31,200 lb (14,152 kg)

* Max takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (22,680 kg)

* Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Vulture I 24-cylinder X-type, 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 250 mph (402 km/h)

* Range: 1,200 miles (1,930 km)

* Service ceiling 19,500 ft (5,852 m)

Armament

* 8 x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, (in Nash&Thomson nose (2), dorsal (2) and tail (4) turrets)

* 10,350 lb (4,695 kg) bomb load

LINK

LINK

Avro Manchester: The Legend Behind the Lancaster

By Robert Kirby

May 1916: First parasite aircraft, a Bristol Scout hooked on the upper wing of Felixstowe Porte Baby flying boat. Porte Baby flying boat is piloted by John Cyril Porte and the Scout, with Flight Sub- Lieutenant Day at the control, detaches successfully at 300 metres (1,000 feet).

As the image shows, the incongruously-named Baby was used to prove the concept of a larger aircraft carrying aloft and launching a lighter aircraft (in this case a Bristol Scout), taking off carrying the Bristol and successfully releasing it on 17 May 1916, a technique which came to be known as parasitic.

From the historical point of view, the most interesting experiment in which a Porte Baby participated was the remarkable "composite" flight which was made in May 1916. This was a bold attempt to combine the speed and maneuverability of a single-seat scout with the long range of a large flying-boat; the object of the experiment was to provide an effective anti-Zeppelin weapon. A Bristol Scout C (No. 3028, one of those belonging to the seaplane carrier H.M.S. Vindex) was placed on the upper wing of a Porte Baby with its undercarriage just in front of the leading edge. The Scout's wheels rested in crutches which were braced to the engine bearers of the flying-boat's central power unit, and its tail skid was held by a quick-release catch which was operated by the pilot of the Scout.

On May 17th, 1916 the Baby took off from Felixstowe with the Scout in place. The flying-boat was flown by Sqn. Cdr. Porte, the Bristol by F/L. M. J. Day. When the combination had reached 1,000ft Day switched on his engine and climbed away. Despite this success, however, the experiment was never repeated.

Merkava Mk4 -- the Israeli main battle tank is often claimed to be the world's best battle tank.

The Merkava is the innovative Israeli design of Major General Israel Tal. The primary design criterion was crew survivability. Every part of the overall design is expected to contribute to helping the crew survive. The engine is in the front to provide protection to the crew. There is a special protective umbrella for the tank commander to enable protection from indirect fire with the hatches open. Special "spaced armour" is in use along with protected fuel and ammo compartments.

The Merkava can also carry a small Infantry squad internally under complete armoured protection

Israeli Ministry of Defence held the roll out ceremony of the new main battle tank Merkava, Merkava 4, on 24 June 2002. The 65ton Merkava 4 main battle tank entered full production in 2001 and is in service with the Israel Defence Forces from 2004. The Ministry of Defence manufactured between 50 and 70 Merkava 4 tanks per year and initial estimates indicate that up to 400 tanks will be manufactured. The Merkava 4 has been extensively improved (on the previous Mk 3) and features new armour protection and gun and electronics systems.

The Merkava 4 is slightly larger than the Merkava 3 Baz, which has been in service with the IDF since 1990. The Merkava 3 is offered for export by SIBAT based in Tel Aviv. The Merkava 4 is not offered for export but the systems and components are exported.

The tank is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a Command Group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver. The tank is capable of firing on the move at moving targets and has demonstrated high hit probability in firing against attack helicopters using conventional anti-tank munitions.

Major contractors include: the El Op Electro-Optic Industries subsidiary of Elbit Systems which is responsible for the fire control system; the Israel Defence Force which carries out main construction and system integration and testing; Israel Military Industries for the supply of the main gun, ballistic protection and munitions; Imco Industries for the electrical systems; Urdan Industries for the hull, main turret and castings; and IAI Ramta for protection components.
The main part of the tank production, the construction of the hull and integration of all the systems is carried out in the Israel Defence Force Workshop

Tank Weaponry

Merkava 4 has a new all electric turret developed by Elbit and subsidiary El-Op. Only one hatch is installed in the turret, the commander's hatch.

The improved 120mm smooth bore gun has been developed by Israel Military Industries. The new gun is an advanced generation of the gun developed for the Merkava 3. A Vidco thermal shroud on the gun reduces bending of the barrel resulting from environmental and firing conditions. The gun can fire higher power munitions including new 120mm high penetration projectiles and guided shells. The loader can select semi-automatically the ammunition type. The tank carries 48 rounds of ammunition each stored in a protective container. An electrically operated revolving magazine contains ready-to-fire rounds.

The range of ammunition includes APFSDS-T M711 (CL 3254), the HEAT-MP-T M325 (CL 3105) and the TPCSDS-T M324 (CL 3139) supplied by the Ammunition Group of Israel Military Industries. The gun is also capable of firing French, German or US 120mm rounds.
The tank is fitted with 7.62mm machine guns and an internally operated 60mm mortar system developed by Soltam Ltd. The mortar can fire explosive and illumination rounds to a range of 2,700m.

The protection suite includes an advanced electromagnetic threat identification and warning system.

10P Revolving Magazine of the Merkava Mk. 4 is microprocessor controlled, fully automated, electrically driven, 120 mm rounds magazine. The system is located in an isolated space of the turret and is designed to protect the crew in case of ammunition explosion. The system is easy to operate from the crew compartment. The loader can select proper ammunition out of four different types and the 10 rounds new fire control system, developed by El Op, includes very advanced features including the capability to acquire and lock onto moving targets, even airborne helicopters, while the tank itself is on the move.

The computer controlled fire control system includes line of sight stabilisation in two axes, a second-generation television sight and automatic thermal target tracker, a laser range finder, an improved thermal night vision system and a dynamic cant angle indicator. The commander's station is fitted with a stabilised panoramic day and night sight. The integrated operating system includes advanced data communications and battle management. Tadiran developed the Merkava's communications system, the inter communication system and the VRC 120 vehicular transceiver radio with embedded auxiliary receivers.

GD 883 V-12 Diesel Engine
Merkava 4 is powered by a V-12 diesel engine rated at 1,500hp. The engine compartment and one fuel tank are at the front of the tank and two fuel tanks are at the back. The new engine represents a 25% increase in power compared to the 1,200hp powerpack installed on the Merkava 3.

The German company MTU manufactures the engine components and the GD 883 engine is manufactured under licensed production by General Dynamics Land Systems in the USA. The engine is transferred to Israel for installation and integration with the automatic transmission and with the engine computer control system. The tank has automatic five-gear transmission rather than four gears as in the Merkava 3. The transmission system is manufactured by Renk. The single position rotary shock absorbers are installed externally.

Hull
The redesign of the hull around the installation of the new powerpack has provided improved frontal armour protection and improvement to the driver's field of view. For improved reverse driving the driver uses a camera.

A new feature of the tank is that the fitted modular special armour covers the turret. The tank is protected against a range of threats, including air launched precision guided missiles and advanced and top attack anti-tank weapons. Automatic fire detection and suppression has been installed. The underside of the hull has been fitted with additional armour protection against mines. The driver and crew compartments are equipped with heating and cooling air conditioning and a Shalon Chemical Industries combined individual and overpressure protection systems against contamination by NBC warfare.

Economic Aspects

Acquisition and manufacturing
About 200 factories take part in the manufacturing of the tank (main contractors and subcontractors). The major manufacturers include: Elbit - El Op (control systems), the IDF (main construction, assembly and testing), IMI (main gun, protection components and transmission) Urdan (armor castings), IAI-Ramta (protection components). The majority of the manufacturing is performed by the private sector. The rest is performed by the IDF and state-owned industries.

Economic advantage
The production of the Merkava tank has proved itself throughout its generations as economically preferable to foreign tanks of the same technological generation. This advantage continues with the new Merkava Mk-4 whose cost is considerably lower than that of comparable tanks in the world.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

A 1908 model machine gun on an anti-aircraft mounting.

3,7 cm SockelFlak

An Air Service anti-aircraft gun detachment using a "Masch Flak" gun. They are wearing 1916 pattern gas masks. German gunners wearing gasmasks, with Maxim Flak M14. Masch = Maschinengewehr (MG) The holes in the belt drum are simply lightening holes and do not reflect the size of the rounds in the belt.

A version was produced in Germany for both Navy and Army.

In World War I it was used in Europe as an anti-aircraft gun as the Maxim Flak M14. Four guns were used mounted on field carriages in the German campaign in South West Africa in 1915, against South African forces.

Anti-aircraft artillery, although under the control of the Commander of the Air Forces, was usually manned by artillery personnel. In the field, the 'Archie' units, as they became popularly 'known by-the pilots of the Royal Flying Corps, were placed under the control of an officer at the field H.Q. This was also the case for the anti-aircraft searchlight and aircraft reporting crews, who at group level were organised into Anti Aircraft Groups, or Flakgruppen. In 1917, anti-aircraft machine gun units were formed which had a complement of about 80 men of all ranks. They used the standard 08 machine gun, mounted on specially built platforms, or sometimes on specially modified vehicles.

FlaMGFliegerabwehr-Maschinengewehr

The 'flaming onion' was the description Allied airmen gave to the string of the balls of light (20 in number) fired by what the Germans called 'Licht pucker' or light spitter. This gun was designed as a five barrel revolving gun along the style of our Gatling gun, previously mentioned in my thread of yesterday. This gun produced in 1895 could fire standard 37mm shells or pyrotechnical shells. These guns were usually deployed as air defense for balloons vs. attackers, and could reach an altitude of about 5K feet. Elliot Springs thought that if one of those onions hit, you'd be hamburger meat. Luke was hit by a standard 37mm round and it killed him. There is a picture of this gun in one of the issues of OTF, and a schematic in a military book catalog, Shiller's I believe, on German artillery 1870 to 1910. Billy H.01/17/99.

Revolving cannon were originally developed in the 1880s for use on capital ships as anti-torpedo boat weapons. The French were the first, I believe, and the original Hotchkiss revolving cannon was still being used in WWI, albeit not in its original form. If I recall correctly, the first aircraft-mounted cannon in French service consisted of modified single barrels taken from the three-barrel Hotchkiss.

My understanding of "flaming onions," though, is that the glowing balls were actually the 37mm tracer rounds fired to aid in aiming with this early flak gun.

According to Dolf Goldsmiths Devils Paintbrush book it is a "Maxim FLAK M14" made by DWM. He has the same photo captioned.

..called 'Nacht befeuerungsdienst' or night lighting service. Special pyrotechnic ammunition was fired at time intervals, these Machinen-Flak guns were known as 'Feuerspucker' or fire-spitters.

A picture of the same weapon in "Die deutschen Luftstreitkr채fte im Weltkriege," by Neumann. It's labeled with (the somewhat generic name) 3.7 cm Sockel Flak. It has the distinctive drum.
It was indeed used by the German, known as M-Flak (Machinenflak). One role being mentioned above, "'Nacht befeuerungsdienst." It was used to protect balloons, artillery and troops and used because of the limitations of large calibre guns against low-flying targets. It was noted as being having a sometimes "dramatic" effect on enemy fliers when fired at night because of its tracer ammunition.

The muzzle velocity is listed as 1,050 ft/sec. I'm not sure about it being a Maxim, or of Maxim origin. It is listed as a seperate type, 3,7 cm SockelFlak, and has a lower muzzle velocity.

My info is that its ammunition was in 10-round clips loaded vertically. Or is sockel just a generic term ?

That seems to be a 3,7 cm Luftschiff Flak. See the distinctive plate at the back, and the lack of belt window higher on the side. It was fed by a clip inserted on the top.

I had thought before that Sockel Flak was generic term. The picture in the book I mentioned was captioned as such, and I thought at least I had found a picture.

Checking further I saw it listed as a separate type. I took a quick look in "German Artillery of World War One," by Herbert Jaeger, and saw the type also listed as a separate type. I looked into some of the more technical books I have on German artillery but they didn't provide much detail on any M-Flak types.

It's confusing--as can happen when trying to identify larger weapons based on a few photos. The Sockel-Flak and the Maxim K are listed as separate types with different characteristics. The Sockel-Flak is listed as being built by Krupp. The 3,7 cm Luftschiff Flak was also built by Krupp. I noticed that on the list of types that the latter is not listed even though there is a picture, which looks exactly like the one you posted yesterday.

This is where the confusion comes in on the identification of the picture. One source says it's the Maxim K, one says it's a Sockel-Flak. Again, not an unusual situation, but without any more references I'm not sure which book is correct.

I used to default to the older German sources on German weapons, such as the "Ehrenbuecher," but on close examination even they contain errors, captioning pictures of guns as the wrong type!

I would conclude that the Sockel-Flak and the Luftschiff Flak are possibly the same thing. I don't know if Krupp manufactured more than one 3,7 cm Flak. My educated guess is that picture above is indeed a Maxim K.

I do find it interesting that of two sources, both of which I would consider reliable, each has an error/omission concerning this particular weapon. Makes you wonder what else we take for granted is actually incorrect!

There were three German Flak with 37 mm or 3.7 cm calibre:
1) the so-called "Revolverkanone" (a poor dog with undeserved merits)
2) Maschinen-Flak (short: M-Flak)
3) Sockel-Flak (short: S-Flak) 37 mm or more often called 3.7 cm

Note: The term Sockel-Flak is a general term and also used for other calibers with pedestal mounting.

The pictured "Maschinenkanone" was the German equivalent to the pom-pom 1 pdr. and at first used by the German Navy on ships.

However, the urgent need for AA artillery resulted in a re-building for AA use and transfer of many to the German Army in 1915.

Already in 1914 the British had tried use of pom-pom for AA but the unit was pushed around and nobody of the higher commands had any idea how to use the guns and the men.

However, the M-Flak was too heavy for use near to the frontline and short in supply. The most were used to defend balloon sites and they shot down a considerable number of enemy aircraft. As well the impact on moral was important because of long strings with balls of green lights (German Army Flak used 37 mm projectiles with tracer for every grenade, different to the Navy).

In 1918 the Navy handed over the so-called 3.7 cm Luftschiff Flak (I think this term in Mr J채gers book is a bit misleading) to the Army and it became the 3.7-cm-Sockelflak there after some modifications. BTW Paul did obviously mix the photo captions in J채gers book.

I have never seen the term "Maxim Flak M.14" in any contemporary German Flak document or book! I think the term is misleading and was created later. The Germans connected the "Maschinen-Flak" or "M-Flak" always with the name Hotchkiss (probably because of the ammunition) and called it sometimes "Hotchkiss" in spite of the fact that this gun is a "huge" Maxim.

LINK

The story of the Fairey Battle light day-bomber is the story of a once seemingly promising aircraft which, when put to the test of war, failed tragically to perform its task. A large yet gracefully slender machine, it was handicapped by being almost as big as a Blenheim, yet with the engine power of the Hurricane, i.e. one Rolls-Royce Merlin; it was virtually defenceless from the rear and its speed quite insufficient for evasion when attacked by fighters or exposed to accurate ground-fire.

However, at the time when the prototype appeared -in 1936-its speed performance (257 m.p.h.) was far in advance of any contemporary day-bomber; indeed, early production models, when pitted against contemporary fighters during the air exercises of August 1937, were almost unopposable. To catch the low-flying Battles, Gladiator pilots opened their throttles far beyond the permissible limit when flying near the ground and risked wrecking their engines in doing so.

The prototype Battle (K4303) was designed by Marcel Lobelle to meet an Air Ministry Specification of April 1933, which called for an experimental two-seat single-engined monoplane day-bomber capable of carrying 1,000 lb. of bombs for 1,000 miles at 200 m.p.h. By the time the production model flew (June 1937) the Hawker Hind was the mainstay of Britain's day-bomber squadrons and it was this machine, the last of the R.A.F.'s biplane light bombers, that the Battle helped to replace in front-line service. By then, though, some (if not all) of the Air Staff had reached the conclusion that the light bomber was outmoded on the score of insufficient range and bomb load to attack the obvious enemy, Germany. However, the pressure for immediate expansion of the R.A.F.'s first-line strength so as to maintain at least numerical parity with the Luftwaffe had become irresistible, and the Battle went into large-scale production. Under the threat of the Third Reich 2,185 Battles were built in Britain-almost half of them by Austin Motors at Longbridge under the shadow factory scheme by which Blenheims were also built in large (and, as it turned out, largely useless) numbers by Rootes at Speke. The Battle was patently obsolescent many months before war broke out, but because of the need to maintain existing labour forces intact and difficulties in getting other types into production to take its place, it was kept in production. Thus it was that this light bomber was destined, to a large extent, to become just another of the redundant types which sat in hundreds, 'watching the grass grow beneath them', on war-time dispersal airfields.

The initial Battles-Mk. Is-were fitted with RollsRoyce Merlin I engines. Later, Merlin lIs, Ills, and in some cases Mk. IVs and Vs, were installed in Battles, and in order to differentiate between the variants, the aircraft were retrospectively designated Mks. II, III, IV, and V according to power plant.

Although basically a' two-seater, the Battle also provided accommodation for a third crew member-a wireless operator/air-gunner. Armament consisted initially of a Browning gun in the starboard wing, and a Vickers K gun on a free mounting in the rear cockpit. Most Battles were built as bombers, but the total British production figure of 2,185 included 226 target tugs (Battle T.T. Mk. Is) and 100 dual-control trainers (Battle Ts). Several machines built as bombers were subsequently converted to these non-operational roles. In addition to the British production, eighteen Battles were built in Belgium for the Belgian Air Force.

First R.A.F. squadron to be equipped with Battles was No. 63, based at Andover. It received its first machine (K7559) on May 20 1937, and by the year's end had fifteen on charge. Nos. 105, 226, 52, and 88 Squadrons-in that order-also received Battles in 1937, and it is of passing interest that 105 Squadron's link with the type is commemorated in the unit's badge -a battle axe, with the motto 'Valiant in Battles'.

By May 1939 a total of seventeen Battle squadrons was in being, and these were serving in Nos. 1,2, and 5 Groups of Bomber Command, No.1 Group being an homogeneous Battle Group. The 2 Group Battle squadrons assumed a non-mobilising role, and in September 1939 they were transferred to 6 (Training) Group of Bomber Command and made into Group Pool squadrons (i.e. operational training units) or, in the case of 98 Squadron, a reserve squadron. It was from the No.6 Group pool squadrons that some of the first big wartime Operational Training Units were formed in the spring of 1940. Apropos what has already been said about the continued production of the Battle after it was patently obsolescent, the position by the outbreak of war was that no less than 1,014 were already on charge (179 had already been struck off for various reasons); it was the second most numerous type on charge, pride of place going to the Blenheim (1,089).

When war seemed inevitable, the ten mobilising Battle squadrons of 1 Group were the first British aircraft to arrive in France. They formed the first echelon of the Advanced Air Striking Force (A.A.S.F.) flying on September 2 1939 to previously selected airfields and landing-grounds in the heart of the champagne country (as arranged during pre-war Anglo-French Staff conferences) to await the arrival, some days later, of their ground-crews. The idea behind the despatch of the A.A.S.F. to France was that, should the Germans begin bombing, the Battles could retaliate on Ruhr targets at closer range than from Britain. At first the A.A.S.F. remained under Bomber Command's control.

One Battle (from 40 Squadron) ditched in the English Channel en route to France owing to engine failure, but the crew were rescued. Some of the landing-grounds in France were no more than small, recently harvested cornfields surrounded by woods. The aircraft were quickly dispersed about their landing grounds and hidden among trees or under camouflage nets; armour was fitted and all unauthorised markings, such as under-wing serial numbers, obliterated.

As things turned out, both the Allies and the Germans refrained from starting any unrestricted bombing offensive, and this phase became known as the 'phoney' war. The Battles were employed on daylight reconnaissance ten to twenty miles over the Franco-German border, but not without suffering losses. On September 20 three Battles from 88 Squadron (Mourmelon-Ie-Grand) were intercepted by enemy fighters during a patrol and two of them were shot down. However, the score was partly levelled: for Sgt F. Letchford, air-gunner in another Battle (K9243), destroyed a Messerschmitt Bf. 109; this was the R.A.F.'s first air combat 'kill' of World War II. Exactly a week later, on September 27, three Battles 58 from 'A' Flight of 103 Squadron (Challerange, one of the most forward A.A.S.F. bases, near Verdun) were reconnoitring the frontier between Bouzonville and the Rhine at 3,000 ft. when they were attacked by three French Curtiss Hawks which came out of a cloud. The formation leader, FlU M. C. Wells, fired his recognition lights and brought his flight down until it was flying close to the ground. After the first attack the French aircraft broke away, presumably having identified the Battles. At this point the Battles were engaged by three Bf. 109s which suddenly appeared 'out of the blue'. Sgt Vickers, navigator of Battle K9271, F/Own by V. O. Vipan, was badly wounded and in great pain, and so Vipan, whose engine was already failing, forced-landed in a field. On the way down, apparently, one of the enemy fighters presented itself as a sitting target, and the air-gunner sent it down in a spin to equal the score. Vipan landed, on one wheel, in a field close to a Maginot Line fort, and saw a French poilu running towards him, shouting in Cockney: 'Blimey, Guv'ner, you're bloody lucky.' The wounded navigator was removed from the aircraft, and the Frenchman then explained his Cockney accent and command of English bad language by saying that he had lived in Chelsea. Later, more French soldiers arrived and, pointing to a dense column of smoke from a nearby wood, said that was the Messerschmitt which Vipan's gunner had brought down with them. A French report later confirmed this. Vipan's navigator, Sgt Vickers, subsequently died in hospital as a result of his wounds, but just before he died he was awarded the Medaille Militaire by order of General Gamelin, the French Generalissimo. This was the first French decoration awarded to the B.E.F. in World War II.

Three days after this incident involving 103 Squadron, five Battles of 150 Squadron (Ecury-surCoole), after having crossed the frontier above 20,000 ft. to reconnoitre a strongly defended position in the Saar, were 'jumped' by fifteen Bf. 109s. The enemy attacked in flights, with anti-aircraft fire 'filling in between attacks. The '109s broke their formations and attacked the Battles from astern, zooming up underneath. The fight continued for thirty-five minutes and three Battles were shot down, while a fourth forced-landed. Eight men (out of the twelve aboard the four machines) baled out. S/Ldr W, M. L. Macdonald, leader of the formation, pressed on alone, 'jinking' continuously while his gunner fired from the rear to drive off the attackers. The nearest Messerschmitt, hit in the engine, fell in flames. The second one spun down, trailing black smoke. At this juncture the other '109s withdrew. The lone Battle (K9283) was struck by eighty bullets and was in a very sorry state: its ailerons and rudder were damaged, both petrol-tanks were holed and F/Ooding the cockpit, the undercarriage was jammed half-down, and the port tyre was punctured by bullets; the navigator's instruments were smashed and his head grazed by a bullet, but he continued to do his job. Soon after crossing the French frontier the engine failed but the Battle regained its base and Macdonald made a forced-landing. The aircraft spun round on the damaged undercarriage after touching the ground, somersaulted on to one wing and caught fire. The pilot was flung out, dazed but not badly hurt. The navigator was jammed inside the fuselage but the air-gunner hauled him out and beat out the flames from his blazing flying-jacket with his bare hands.

After this, daylight reconnaissance missions were suspended. At the same time efforts were made to mount a 'free' gun underneath the Battle to eliminate a dangerous blind spot, but though various mountings were tried none proved entirely satisfactory, so the Battle remained extremely vulnerable to attack from below and astern. One of the experimental ventral gun installations was that produced by No. 12 Squadron-actually a few days before No. 150 Squadron's tragic encounter. 'This', wrote a No. 12 Squadron historian twenty years afterwards, 'was not awfully successful, as the observer had to stand with his back to the gun, and fire it by bending down and aiming between his legs!'

Training flights and exercises now became the general routine for the Battle force, and various dive-bombing and fighter-evasion tactics were tried. However, the ever-necessary 'stand-by's' reduced flying, as did the weather, which, as the weeks went by, eventually became the coldest winter in France for years. In the absence of real bombing the Battles flew over and bombed the practice range at Moronvilliers, which was situated on a desolate tract of hilly country behind the Maginot Line, where there were acres of trenches and rusting wire and waterlogged shell-holes from the Great War. Two of the squadrons (Nos. 15 and 40) returned to the U.K. in December to rearm with Blenheims. In January the airfield at St. Laurent la Salanque (Perpignan), near the Spanish border, became available as a practice camp from which training flights for air gunnery over the sea could be F/Own. In March came the thaw-and mud. And also the start of a new series of operations in the form of short range reconnaissance-cum-leaflet raids to ease the strain on the heavy bombers of Bomber Command at home.

At dawn on May 10 came the German assault, and the 'phoney' war was over. From Headquarters, British Air Forces in France, the following message was quickly relayed to the squadrons: 'Belgium and Hololand have been violated. Belgium has requested assistance from the Allies. Permission has been given . for fighters to fly over the Low Countries, also recon- 62 naissance aircraft. But not bombers. Bombers are to stand by.' For the squadrons there followed an agonising wait. While the German columns poured through Holland and Luxembourg, and the Luftwaffe bombed and strafed targets in France, all Allied bombers were grounded on the orders of General Gamelin, who clung with supreme obstinacy to the hope that a 'bombing war' would somehow be avoided. At midday the C.-in-C. B.A.F.F., Air Marshal 'Ugly' Barratt, took matters into his own hands and ordered the C.-in-C., A.A.S.F., to despatch the first wave of Battles. Their target was a column of German troops reported by a French reconnaissance aircraft some hours earlier as advancing through Luxembourg. As it was impossible to provide the Battles with a close fighter escort, the pilots were told to make a very low approach to the target, and to attack at 250 ft., using bombs fused for eleven seconds' delay. The orders were carried out, but the bombers encountered a storm of machine-gun and small-arms fire, and three of the first eight crews were at once shot down. A similar fate overtook their comrades who attacked during the afternoon. Of the thirty-two. Battles despatched that day, thirteen were lost and all the rest damaged-a severe price for operations whose effect on the enemy was negligible. On the following day, eight Battles of 88 and 218 Squadrons were despatched on a similar mission. Whether they managed to reach their target area is doubtful. The only pilot to return saw three of his companions succumb to ground-fire in the Ardennes.

On May 12 an attempt was made to stem the German advance towards Brussels by bombing two roadbridges over the Albert Canal near Maastricht. Previous attempts by Allied bombers (including a raid by nine Belgian Air Force Battles on the 11th which cost them six of their number) had failed to destroy the bridges so it now became the turn of the A.A.S.F.'s Battles. Such was the importance of the bridges to the enemy that they had to be destroyed at all costs. Since the ever-increasing strength of the German defences made any further attempt against the bridges almost suicidal, it was decided to despatch six Battles manned by volunteer crews. No. 12 Squadron-the 'Dirty Dozen'-based at Amifontaine, near Rheims, was chosen for the task and every air-crew member immediately volunteered. It was decided that the six crews next on the duty roster should go in two sections of three, led by F/O D. E. Garland and F/O N. M. Thomas, the first to attack the metal bridge at Veldwezelt, the latter section the concrete bridge at Vroenhoven. One crew of Thomas's section failed to take off after finding two aircraft unserviceable. Garland planned to make a low-level attack while Thomas decided on a high level. Thomas and PIO T. D. H. Davy ran into enemy fighters, dived from 6,000 ft. through a storm of flak and nearly blew themselves up with the last of their bombs. The battered machines failed to stay in the air. Thomas came down, as his engine failed,o and was taken prisoner. Davy ordered his crew to bale out and succeeded in coaxing his riddled machine almost back to base before it crashed. Between them, these two pilots slightly damaged the bridge and cratered the approaches.

In the attack on the metal bridge, Garland's section went in at low level, in line astern formation, below the cloud base at 1,000 ft., encountering a growing volume of flak as they did so. PIO I. A. McIntosh, with flames pouring from his machine, jettisoned his bombs and crashed, he and his crew being taken prisoner soon afterwards while hiding in a ditch. 'You British', said their German captors, 'are mad. We capture the bridge early Friday morning. You give us all Friday and Saturday to get our flak guns up in circles all around the bridge, and then on Sunday, when all is ready, you come along with three aircraft and try and blow the thing up.' But even as he spoke, the western truss of the bridge hung shattered in the air, while two other aircraft lay broken and burning on the ground nearby. Either Garland or his No.3, Sgt Marland and all the available scraps of evidence indicate that it was Garland-had seriously damaged the bridge. One of these two aircraft (believed to have been Marland's) had been seen momentarily, just before, trying to fight its way out; it suddenly stood on its tail, climbed vertically for 100 ft., stalled, and nose-dived to earth.

For their valour in ensuring success even at the sacrifice of their lives, Garland and his observer, Sgt. T. Gray, were posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross-the first to be won by the R.AF. in World War II.

On May 10 the AA.S.F. had 135 serviceable bombers-Battles and Blenheims-on strength, but by the close of May 12 this number had dwindled to seventy-two. The following day the Battles were despatched on only one small operation, during which No. 226 Squadron (Rheims Champagne) hampered the enemy's advance by bringing a factory down over a cross-roads near Breda.

In the early morning of May 14 ten Battles of 103 and 150 Squadrons attacked German· pontoon bridges in the Sedan area, and, furthermore, did so without loss-for no enemy fighters were encountered and the tactical low approach had now been abandoned. In the afternoon the entire available force of A.A.S.F. bombers was flung in against the Sedan bridgehead, but this time things were very different: The Bf. 109s were now on guard. 12 Squadron lost four aircraft out of five; 142 Squadron, four out of eight; 226 Squadron, three out of six; 105 Squadron, six out of eleven; 150 Squadron, four out of four; 88 Squadron, one out of ten; 103 Squadron, three out of eight; and 218 Squadron, ten out of eleven. In all, from the sixty-three Battles which took off, thirty-five did not return. To these losses were added five out of eight Blenheims of 114 and 139 Squadrons which also took part in the attack. This brought the total losses in the raid to forty bombers out of seventy-one. No higher rate of loss in an operation of comparable size has ever been experienced by the R.A.F.

This suicidal effort, and another by Blenheims the same evening, were not without effect on the enemy, but even so it only delayed the breakthrough at Sedan by a few hours. With its bases astride the Aisne under increasing threat by the enemy's advance, the A.AS.F. withdrew south during the next two days to a number of airfields around Troyes. As it did so, unserviceable aircraft were destroyed to prevent their capture by the Germans. No. 76 Wing alone burned sixteen machines before moving. To improve the mobility of the A.A.S.F. at this time, two of its Battle squadrons, Nos. 105 and 218, which had but four aircraft left between them, were 'rolled up' and their machines and surviving crews transferred to other Battle squadrons. Likewise the two Blenheim squadrons (Nos. 114 and 139), with nine aircraft between them, joined the reconnaissance element of the Air Component of the British Expeditionary Force. Thus reduced, the AA.S.F. continued the fight at a strength of six Battle and three Hurricane squadrons.

The force carried out three further withdrawals during the remaining weeks of the campaign and finally escaped from the west coast. During this period the Battles continued their task of delaying the enemy's advance but they now operated mainly by night, and with few losses. To quote the R.A.F. Short Official History:

'Flying and landing a Battle by night was no easy task-there was a brilliant glare from the exhaust which dazzled the pilot, and the view from the observer's seat was poor-but those difficulties which were not overcome were ignored, and there was an immediate and dramatic decline in the casualty rate. During the intense daylight operations of May 10-14, one aircraft had been lost in every two sorties; during the night operations of May 20June 4 the loss was just over one in every two hundred.... [Night bombing] however was by no means all gain, for safety could only be achieved at the expense of accuracy. In fact so many Battle crews now dropped their bombs with no more precise identifications of their target than that provided by their watches, that Barratt was compelled to forbid bombing on "estimated time of arrival". After that the phrase ceased to appear in the pilots' reports. The practice, however, continued.'

In the final stage of the campaign the Battles attacked troop movements by day and communications by night.

In the brief lull before the Germans launched their drive southwards on June 5 the main body of the A.A.S.F. was withdrawn from the South Champagne to the region round Orleans and Le Mans. From this central position and from the refuelling bases retained in the South Champagne, the bombers were well placed to intervene along the whole line of battle, and this they did, attacking troop movements by day and communications by night. When on June 11 the enemy broke through the French positions on the Marne, Oise, and Seine-the last line on which any hope of successful resistance could be built-every unit was endangered. The situation rapidly deteriorated during the next few days, and rather than risk the remnants of the Battle force being destroyed on the ground, Barratt ordered them back to England.

No. 1 Group was now re-formed and equipped with Battles once again. From August onwards the squadrons of the Group operated by night mainly from Newton (Notts.) and northern airfields against Dutch and French ports in which Hitler was massing his invasion craft for Operation Sea Lion-the projected invasion of Britain. The raids were undoubtedly successful. The crews were greatly helped by the fact that most of the approach to the targets could be made in safety over the sea and the targets themselves were fairly easily distinguished. Two recently formed Polish Battle squadrons-Nos. 300 and 301, both based at Swinderby (Lincs.)-shared in 1 Group's night offensive from mid-September, and an armourer-fitter of one of these, L.A.C. S. Nowak, earned the first Polish decoration to be awarded in Great Britain to a Pole. While a large parachute flare was being put in on a bombed-up aircraft ready for flight, the striker of its detonator was inadvertently activated. Nowak, immediately realising the danger to the bomber and the ground-crew working on it, pulled the flare off its mounting and ran some fifteen or sixteen yards before it exploded. He was badly burned but saved the bomber and the ground-crew.

Active operations by 1 Group's Battles finally ended on October 15-16 1940, when 301 Squadron bombed Boulogne and 12 and 142 Squadrons bombed Calais. Thereafter the Group completed the task of converting to Wellington aircraft.

Not all the Battle units flew bombing missions following their withdrawal from France. When 88 and 226 Squadrons had remustered they took their new Battles to Sydenham (Belfast), and were engaged until 1941 in patrolling the coast of Northern Ireland to prevent enemy agents being landed from V-boats. Another ex-A.A.S.F. unit (98 Squadron, which had served as a reserve squadron whilst in France) was posted in July 1940 to Iceland, where it subsequently saw almost a year of active service with Coastal Command.

In addition to being used for operational duties the Battle was used for air-crew training purposes, special variants being produced for pilot training and bombing and gunnery training. It not only flew with the R.A.F. in these roles, but also with the R.C.A.F., the R.A.A.F. and the S.A.A.F.

Variants

Fairey Day Bomber

Prototype (K4303).

Battle Mk I

Three-seat light bomber version. This was the first production version, which was powered by a 1,030-hp (768-kW) Rolls-Royce Merlin I inline piston engine.

Battle Mk II

Three-seat light bomber version. Powered by a 1,030-hp (768-kW) Rolls-Royce Merlin II inline piston engine.

Battle Mk V

Three-seat light bomber version. Powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin V inline piston engine.

Battle T

After May 1940, a number of Battle Mk Is, IIs and Vs were converted into training aircraft.

Battle IT

After May 1940, a number of Battle Mk Is, IIs and Vs were converted into training aircraft with a turret installed in the rear.

Battle TT

After May 1940, a number of Battle Mk Is, IIs and Vs were converted into target tug aircraft; 100 built.

Battle TT.Mk I

Target tug version. This was the last production version; 226 built.

Production

In total 2,185 Battles were built during the machine's production life; 1,156 by Fairey and 1,029 by the Austin Motor Company. A further 18 were built under licence by Avions Fairey in Belgium for service with the Belgian Air Force.

Specifications (Mk.II)

General characteristics

* Crew: 3

* Length: 42 ft 2 in (12.85 m)

* Wingspan: 54 ft 0 in (16.46 m)

* Height: 15 ft 6 in (4.72 m)

* Wing area: 422 ft2 (39.2 m2)

* Empty weight: 6,647 lb (3,015 kg)

* Loaded weight: 10,792 lb (4,895 kg)

* Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Merlin II liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,030 hp (770 kW)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 257 mph (223 knots, 414 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,570 m)

* Range: 1,000 mi (870 nm, 1,600 km)

* Service ceiling 25,000 ft (7,600 m)

* Rate of climb: 920 ft/min (4.7 m/s)

* Wing loading: 25.6 lb/ft2 (125 kg/m2)

* Power/mass: 0.095 hp/lb (157 W/kg)

Armament

* Guns:

o 1× .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine gun in starboard wing

o 1× .303 in Vickers K machine gun in rear cabin

* Bombs:

o 4× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs internally

o 500 lb (230 kg) of bombs externally

LINK

In late 1944 the decision was made to develop a short-range infantry anti-tank weapon based on the German Panzerfaust but reloadable. This weapon should be light with a hollow-charge warhead giving a minimum penetration of 120 mm.

In 1945 three test versions with different position of the firing mechanism and different barrel diameter were built. All had a conical extension with a length of 380 mm at the rear end to minimize the recoil. All used an experimental grenade with a length of 800 mm, 2,3 kg weight, propellant charge of 35 g and an explosive weight of 500g.

Version 1 had a barrel length of 600 mm and. With a barrel diameter of 45 mm the maximum penetration was 100 mm.

Version 2 had a barrel length of 1000 mm. With a diameter of 57 mm the maximum penetration was 110 mm.

Version 3 had a barrel length of 1000 mm. With a diameter of 45 mm the maximum penetration was 110 mm.

The decision was made to continue development of version 3. The final version had a weight of 6,4 kg, a barrel length of 1000 mm and the 380 mm long conical rear extension.

Different types of rocket propelled grenades were tested with propellant charges of between 30 g and 100 g. The explosive weight was increased to 625 g, the total weight was still 2,3 kg.

The final version had total length of 850 mm with a propellant part of 180 mm length, a propellant weight of 100 g, a 520 mm guidance stick with an impact fuse on top and a warhead of 150 mm with an explosive weight of 625 g. Muzzle velocity was 40 m/sec., minimum range 50 m, maximum range 150 m, penetration 120 mm.

Technical Details

45 mm Type 5 Recoilless Gun

Calibre: 45 mm (1.77 in)
Length: 1 m (39.37 in)
Weight: 6.4 kg (14.01 lb)
Shell weight: 2.3 kg (5.07 lb)
Muzzle Velocity: 40 m/sec (131.23 ft/sec)
Armour penetration: 100 mm (3.9 in)
Range: 30 m (33 yds)

LINK

Photo Gallery

The Planes of Fame Air Show in Chino, CA was an excellent opportunity to get my fill of WWII vintage warbirds. Many different types of fighters and bombers were flying for the show including: P-51s, P-40s, P-38s, F4Us, Zeros, Val, Spitfire, Hellcat, Wildcat, Firefly, Bearcat, Fury, B-25s, and a B-17. As a bonus, there was a WWII ground reenactment (complete with tanks and halftracks) which provided the icing on the cake!

The light was great for photography, but the heat at times was unbearable! It's only May, but Chino was well over 100 degrees F that day (someone said 110F). Using my camera was like putting a hot plate to my face! Even thinking about it makes me thirsty now. Good thing I escaped getting heat stroke.

Used a Nikon D200 and D50 w/ a 70-300mm VR lens, and 18-55mm lens. Prop planes shot in shutter priority exposure mode (mostly between 1/160 and 1/320sec), with continuous autofocus. The jet shots were around 1/1000sec.

Updated 7/18/08: Added additional information in the captions for the Corsairs from emails I received. - Bernard Zee

via BZ's Chino's Planes of Fame Photo Gallery.

Used as an electronic warfare aircraft, this Liberator B. Mk IV flew with No. 223 Sqn, RAF. Flying in ahead of bombing formations, these aircraft jammed German ground and night fighter radars.

The RAF flew several hundred Liberators in India, where they were the major weapon used to bomb Japanese targets in Burma and China.

Although the B-24 Liberator shared the honours with the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress of being the principal American heavy bomber of World War II, it was a much later design, being orginally built to meet a U.S. Army Air Corps requirement outlined to Consolidated early in 1939. The requirement was, in fact, for a heavy bomber of better performance than the B-17 then in production, a range of 3,000 miles being specified, together with a speed of more than 300 m.p.h. and a ceiling of 35,000 ft. The prototype, designated the XB-24 (39-680), first flew in December 1939 and incorporated several unusual design features, including the Davis patent wing of very thin section and high aspect ratio, and bomb-doors which rolled up like the top of a roll-top desk.

Production models were eventually released for export to Britain and France, initial deliveries to Britain-including some machines originally intended for France-being made in the spring of 1941. These machines were of the Liberator I type which had no turrets. Some, designated LB-30A, were used as transports on the Atlantic Return Ferry Service, whilst a larger number of armed aircraft went to Coastal Command for anti-submarine duties.

Next R.A.F. version-and the first one to be used as a bomber-was the Liberator II, which had no US.A.A.F. counterpart. It differed from the Mk. I in having a lengthened nose, and most of the 139 examples which reached the Service were fitted with four-gun Boulton-Paul power-operated turrets, one in the tail and another in a dorsal position. Next mark of R.A.F. Liberator to be used as a bomber was the Mk. III, British version of the B-24D. It too had four-gun Boulton-Paul dorsal and tail turrets, but the dorsal turret was further forward than that of the Mk. II. Final R.A.F. bomber marks were the Liberator RVI and RVIII-mostly B-52J and L models delivery of which began during the latter half of 1944. Both marks had nose turrets and usually ventral ball turrets, although these latter were sometimes removed in service.

To return to the Liberator II. Some of the armed Mk. IIs went to Coastal Command but others became the first R.A.F. Liberators to be used in the heavy bomber role. These aircraft were flown by Nos. 159 and 160 Squadrons, which formed in January 1942 at Molesworth (Hunts.) and Thurleigh (Beds.), and were detained in the Middle East in June in 1942, whilst en route to India. They appear to have arrived in the Middle East about the same time as an important British convoy was taking supplies from Alexandria to beleaguered Malta, and their first task was to help provide it with air cover. No. 159 Squadron (Middle East Detachment), as it was known, operated under the control of No. 160 Squadron, and the Liberators were at first based in the Suez Canal Zone, together with the first US.A.A.F. unit to operate in the Middle East-a formation of Liberators known as the Halverston Detachment.

Soon, however, Rommel's advance eastwards to Alamein forced all the Liberators (which incidentally were now supplemented by a squadron of Halifaxes from Britain) to withdraw to Palestine, their place in the Canal Zone being taken by the medium Wellington bombers formerly based in the desert. The Wellingtons, even though they used advanced bases for refuelling, could not only reach as far as Tobruk, but the Liberators-and also the Halifaxes-were able to range as far as Benghazi. The C.-in-C. of No. 205 Group, which operated the bombers, issued an order: 'Tobruk and Benghazi harbours are the front and back doors through which the enemy is getting his supplies. The front door is slowly being closed to him. There must be no back door.' During July the front door of Tobruk was attacked in force thirty-three times, mostly at night but sometimes by day; the back door at Benghazi was attacked by heavy-bomber formations seven times during daylight. During August the Allied bombers continued to hammer Tobruk, making more than thirty-one big raids. On three occasions the Liberators made dusk attacks, appearing over the town while there was still sufficient light to see the shipping in the harbour. Each time they scored direct hits on large ships. These dusk attacks were made from a great height, the crews using oxygen and fighting intense cold. The oxygen mask of a gunner in one Liberator-whether R.A.F. or US.A.A.F. is not known-actually froze while the aircraft was approaching the target. He fell unconscious to the floor and the mask was torn from his face, but nobody at that height had sufficient strength to move him into reach of it again. While the bombing run was in progress the navigator filled his mouth with pure oxygen from an emergency bottle, put his lips to those of the unconscious gunner and blew the oxygen into his lungs in time with the rhythm of his faint breathing. As the bombs fell, the man's life was saved.

All these raids had the cumulative effect of practically closing the enemy's front door of Tobruk and compelled him to divert most of his supply columns to Benghazi, whence they had to travel hundreds of miles over the desert by truck to Alamein. Benghazi was beyond the range of the Canal Zone-based Wellingtons, though they could still reach it from Malta. The heaviest blows were struck by a number of daylight-to-dusk attacks by the Liberators and Halifaxes, the targets being ships and harbour installations. Outstanding among the many raids made by R.A.F. and U.S.A.A.F. Libs. on Benghazi were a series of three made on September 16 and 22. On the morning of the first raid the Liberators set off from near Cairo and flew in close formation on their 600-mile journey to the target. At midday, still flying in perfect formation, they sailed out of the sun across Benghazi harbour, where a number of sizeable ships were off-loading on to 'George', 'Harry', and 'Johnny', wrecks which had been concreted in and had long served as the main unloading jetties. The Liberators pattern-bombed; several vessels received direct hits and burned, and the bomber crews as they left the scene saw one vessel suddenly explode with great force, flinging debris high above the harbour. All the Liberators returned safely.

The raid was repeated near dusk on September 22 and again in darkness six hours later. After the dusk raid the gunners saw a vivid flash of orange against the sky as a ship blew up violently. The night-bombers guided themselves to the target from a distance of eighty miles by the glow of a burning merchant-vessel.

Even the official report on the photographs taken during the three raids described the damage as 'spectacular'. During the first a supply ship of 6,500 tons, which had been off-loading on to 'George', was hit and set on 'fire. It had to be towed towards the outer mole where it burned itself out. In the second raid-the dusk one-the bombers hit a merchantman which lay alongside 'Harry'. It was apparently unloading either petrol or ammunition, for when it was hit it blew up and disintegrated with its battered stern flung right up on top of the mole.

The force of that explosion broke 'Harry', concrete and all, from the Cathedral mole and sank its stern; it overturned 'Johnny' on to its port side, leaving only the starboard rail awash; it sank two smaller merchantmen; it sank a smaller concreted wreck known to the bomber boys as 'Ink'; it burned out yet another merchantman that lay on the far side of the Cathedral mole; and finally it picked up a large iron barge and left it poised several feet above the water on top of another wreck. The third raid, at night, completed the destruction of all this valuable shipping and offloading space. 'It is probably an under-estimate', said the Short Official History of the R.A.F. in the Middle East, 'to say that those three raids, besides destroying so much valuable material and shipping, halved the value of Benghazi as the back door to Cyrenaica for the supplies the enemy needed so urgently after the disastrous failure of his September attack.'

The bombing of Tobruk and Benghazi was only part of the work performed by the R.A.F. Liberators during the latter part of 1942. They bombed many other targets in the Mediterranean theatre and sometimes ranged as far afield as the Corinth Canal (which they mined), Naples, and Tripoli.

In January 1943 No. 160 Squadron (which had already absorbed the aircrew of No. 159 Squadron) merged with associated elements of Nos. 159 and 147 Squadrons to form No. 178 Liberator Squadron, whose role was also heavy bombing. Based in Egypt, then in Libya, and finally in Italy, No. 178 continued with Liberators for the rest of the war, although at one time it also flew Halifaxes. It flew Liberator IIs at first, then began to receive Mk. IIIs and VIs in the latter part of 1943, and in 1944 gradually changed over completely to Mk. VIs. Its activities with Liberators included bombing attacks on targets in North Africa, Sicily, Crete, the Aegean Islands, Italy, and the Balkans (including the Ploesti oil refinery in Rumania), minelaying (notably in that key supply route the River Danube), and supply-dropping to the Polish Home Army in Warsaw during the ill-fated rebellion of August and September 1944. For part of its early history the squadron was under the control of the U.S. Ninth Bomber Command, afterwards rejoining 205 Group.

Liberators formed the equipment of five more R.A.F. bomber squadrons which operated with 205 Group from Italy during the final months of the war. These were Nos. 37, 40, 70, and 104 Squadrons, all of which flew the Liberator VI, having previously flown the Wellington; and No. 614 (pathfinder) Squadron, which flew the Liberator B.VIII, which in this case replaced the Halifax.

Although their principal role was strategic bombing, these Liberator squadrons scored their greatest triumph when, early in April 1945, 205 Group switched over to tactical targets in close support of the 8th Army, which was about to make its final push. They bombed by night only 2,000 yards ahead of our own troops and greatly facilitated the latter's swift breakthrough on the Santerno River Line; this fine performance drew a congratulatory message from General McCreery, G.O.C. 8th Army.

Another theatre of war in which R.A.F. Liberator bomber squadrons fought was the Burma theatre. Six of them eventually served there, and these were Nos. 99, 159, 215, 355, 356, and 358 Squadrons, although the last-named only flew but one bombing mission, afterwards becoming a 'special duties' squadron. Together with some U.S.A.A.F. Liberator squadrons, the R.A.F. squadrons formed the Strategic Air Force of Eastern Air Command, and all were based for most, if not all, of the time in Eastern India. A few of these units-the longest-established-operated Liberator Mk. IIIs initially, but the Liberator RVI and, to a lesser extent, the RVIII were the types that were used most.

First squadron to serve in the Burma theatre was No. 159, whose Middle East detachment was mentioned earlier. This squadron began operations in November 1942 and eventually became the most famous R.A.F. Liberator bomber squadron of all irrespective of operational theatre. Its main claim to fame was that it, or more specifically W/Cdr J. Blackburn, who was C.O. from July to December 1944, was responsible for greatly increasing the Liberator's striking-power. Here it is necessary to explain that one of the main tasks of Strategic Air Force's Liberators was the interdiction of the enemy's supply lines far beyond the battlefront-and notably the infamous Siam-Burma railway. Built by Allied prisoners-of-war under such appalling conditions that 24,000 of them lost their lives, this line was of the utmost importance to the Japanese. It ran for 244 miles through jungle and mountainous country, and along its length, spanning the succession of rivers and ravines, were nearly 700 bridges. The railway was bombed continually, sometimes by night but mostly by day, the Liberators concentrating on destroying bridges and obliterating tracks. Their greatest obstacle was neither enemy fighters nor flak, but the vast distances they had to fly.

However, by adjusting the American-built aircraft, W/Cdr Blackburn more than doubled the normal load. At the time he took command of 159 Squadron a flight to Bangkok, lying 1,100 miles from the Strategic Air Force bases, was considered about the limit for a loaded Liberator. On such sorties the Liberators had to carry extra petrol-tanks which restricted the bomb load to 3,000 lb. Blackburn experimented with fuel consumption and, after demonstrating how it could be done, enabled his squadron to reach Bangkok with each aircraft carrying 8,000 lb. of bombs, or nearly three times what had been originally carried. The vast improvement in efficiency was commended by the Americans and the example followed throughout Strategic Air Force.

Long-range bombers had already flown from Bengal south to Rangoon, 1,600 miles there and back; and beyond Moulmein, 1,800 miles the return journey; now they reached Bangkok with four short tons of bombs, 2,200 miles, they went to the Kra Isthmus, 2,300 miles; finally a port on the east coast of the Malay Peninsula was put out of action by bombs from aircraft making a round trip of 2,800 miles, and Penang harbour was mined in a sortie of more than 3,000 miles.

By the beginning of 1945 both the R.A.F. and the U.S.A.A.F. elements, comprising a total of nine squadrons, were doing brilliant work flying Liberators farther than they had ever been flown before, carrying a greater payload over a greater distance.

The attack on the Siam-Burma railway was never neglected, and despite the ant-like activities of the Japanese whose methods of constructing reserve bridges was remarkable (at some points they threw as many as four across a particularly important ravine), Eastern Air Command succeeded in having an average of nine bridges constantly down between Bangkok and Burma, from January to April 1945. The broad 'result of these long-range attacks was to reduce traffic along the railway from 750 to 150 tons a day, a satisfactory result with a considerable influence on the land battle.

In the same way as 614 Squadron was chosen for the pathfinder role in the Mediterranean theatre, so was 159 Squadron selected to lead its contemporaries in the Burma theatre. This was in April 1945, and for its new role 159 was strengthened with picked crews from other Liberator units. By then it had already chalked up a long list of very notable missions, and soon afterwards it won further laurels by finally destroying with bombs a 10,000-ton Japanese tanker in the Gulf of Siam, shortly after the vessel had been bombed and set on fire by Liberators of 356 Squadron. This was the biggest shipping prize of the war in South-East Asia.

The work of the Liberators not only included strategic bombing and mine-laying but also leaflet dropping and, on occasion-and particularly in final stages of the campaign-tactical bombing in close support of our ground forces. An instance of a successful attack in this sphere was the Strategic Air Force's assault, on January 13 1945, on Mandalay, the heart of the enemy's defence in central Burma-now threatened by the Fourteenth Army. Preceded by fighter sweeps over the flak sites and the airfields, the Liberators attacked the Japanese quarter, levelling seventy major buildings and killing about 1,000 of the enemy.

In February 1945 two-thirds of the Liberator's entire effort was against targets requested by the Army in or near the battle-front, including garrison zones, and undoubtedly these had great effect. 'We got a great kick out of helping the Army right on the spot', said one crew member of a 99 Squadron Liberator. 'Much of our work took us right into Siam, hitting at Japanese communications, but it had not the same thrill as we experienced in close support.' Although Strategic Air Force's Liberator crews never encountered enemy opposition on a scale approaching that which the men of Bomber Command met over Europe, the Japanese did manage to make the going unduly rough at times. One such occasion was on February 1 1945, when 215 Squadron's Liberator 'H-Harry', captained by S/Ldr C. V. Beadon, was taking part in a daylight attack on locomotives and trains at Shipyit, on the Burma-Siam railway. While over the target the bomber received a direct hit from an anti-aircraft shell. The rear gunner was killed and the aircraft's fuselage seriously damaged and set on fire. The Liberator was 1,000 miles from base, but although the fire continued for three hours before being finally extinguished, the bomber limped home safely. Another hair-raising episode was that involving F/O 'Johnny' Haycock, a New Zealand pilot of either a 99 or 159 Squadron Liberator, during a daylight raid against Rangoon. Caught in a cone of intense flak, his aircraft was repeatedly hit; rudder and elevator controls were badly damaged and the reargunner seriously wounded. Pulling out of the resulting dive, Haycock managed to retain control while his flight engineer repaired the damaged cables with cord. When he landed back at base four hours later, over 150 holes were counted in the Liberator. It did not fly again.

It was during another raid on the Rangoon area on enemy gun-positions on May 2 1945-that W/Cdr J. B. Nicolson, R.A.F. Fighter Command's first (and only) V.C. winner of the war, lost his life. He was flying as a passenger in a Liberator of 355 Squadron, captained by one of the squadron's flight commanders. One of the engines caught fire, and being unable to maintain height and speed the bomber was ditched, only two of the crew surviving. The Liberators of Strategic Air Force continued to operate almost right up to VJ-Day, their final bombing missions being flown on August 6 and 71945.

Specification

Liberator B.VI: Crew 8; power plant four 1,200 h.p. Pratt and Whitney Twin Wasp R-1830-56 or '90; span 110 ft.; length 67 ft. 2 in.; wing area 1,048 sq. ft.; empty weight 36,500 lb.; loaded weight 56,000 lb.; normal bomb load 5,000 lb. (max. bomb load of 12,800 lb. could be carried for short distances utilising wing racks); max. speed 300 m.p.h. at 30,000 ft.; usual combat operating speed range 180-215 m.p.h. between 10,000 and 25,000 ft.; service ceiling 32,000 ft.; range 2,290 miles with 4,000-lb. bomb load, 990 miles with 12,800-lb. bomb load; armament twin .50 in. m.g. in nose, dorsal and tail turrets, plus one .50-in. gun in ventral turret and at each waist position (ventral turrets often deleted in Far East theatre).

The Fullerphone was, despite its name, a system of portable line telegraphy developed in the British army signals service in 1915. It transmitted over telephone lines without interfering with those signals and was difficult to overhear, making it ideal for the static trench warfare of the Western Front in World War I.

Despite its name, the Fullerphone was not a telephone but rather a portable telegraph signaling device used in the British army during both world wars. It could be used over either telegraph or telephone lines and was exceedingly difficult for an enemy to overhear.

The Fullerphone was devised in 1915 by then Captain (later Major General) Algernon Clement Fuller of the British Royal Corps of Signals to overcome the common use of earth induction to overhear communications in the closely packed trench warfare of World War I. The commonly used trench buzzer signals could be detected at distances up to 300 yards and speech at 100 yards with only rudimentary equipment from enemy frontline trenches. German listening posts were soon routinely intercepting frontline conversations at ranges of up to 600 yards.

The resulting Fullerphone overcame this problem by using a very small amount of direct current for signaling, making the potential range for overhearing its signals negligible. It first went into use on the Western Front in late 1915 and was ordered in large numbers. Fullerphones eventually replaced earlier equipment to the divisional and corps levels and were widely used (more than 23,000 of them) by 1918. They were also used on some submarine cable links.

Improvements in design continued (the Italians copied the idea in the 1930s), with the Mark IV of 1939 being easier to use and carry. It remained in widespread use during World War II, in part because it could be used over an operating telephone line without disturbing the voice service. An eight-stanza "Ode to the Fullerphone" was published in 1944 in Jimmy, the Royal Corps of Signals magazine in the Middle East. The Fullerphone was again used during World War II with submarine cables, achieving a workable range of 200 words per minute upward of 700 miles. The Mark V was combined with a telephone and made for use in tropical regions while the ultimate Mark VI could be fully immersed in water and still used.

The inventor of the device, Algernon Fuller, was born in 1885 and joined the Royal Engineers in 1904. He began experimenting with wireless telegraphy two years later. He built a hobby (ham) wireless station in Bermuda in 1908-1909 and designed a wireless-controlled boat in 1909. He served with the wireless company of the Aldershot command in 1910-1911. Fuller invented a means of electrical recording of speech as well as an automatic alarm signal for making a special call in the absence of a radio operator in 1912. At the time he developed the Fullerphone, he was serving as an experimental officer at the Signals Experimental Establishment in Woolwich (London), where he remained until 1920. He was a member of the Royal Engineers and Signals Board from 1920 to 1933; was chief inspector, Royal Engineers and Signals Equipment, Woolwich, from 1933 to 1937; and served as deputy director of Mechanization at the War Office from 1938 to 1940. His service during World War II included director of Engineering and Signals Equipment for the Ministry of Supply in 1940 and, for a period the next year, deputy director general of the ministry. He retired from the service in 1941 and worked in civil defense for the remainder of the war. Fuller died in 1970.

Sources

Priestly, R. E. 1921. The Signal Service (France). Chatham, UK: W.&J. Mackay & Co., Ltd.

War Office, General Staff. 1917. The Fullerphone, Its Action and Use. London: Darling and Son, Ltd.

LINK

The name "Chebec" comes for the Arabian and means "runner". All the other spellings mean the same ; they are phonetically transcriptions in various languages (for example the "x" was the old Spanish equivalent of the modern "jota").

Chebecs originated in North Africa, in the late 16th or 17th century they were sloop-sized, light and fast sailing ships designed for privateering. The Spanish built some to hunt Muslim privateers. The Maltese, the Venetians and the French built a few chebecs in the mid 18th century. The Swedes also built a few chebecs and oared frigates in the late 18th century. I guess the Ottomans and their clients also did.

The hull was inspired by small galleys, with no outriggers. It was lightly built, with long overhangs fore and aft. Some had a double deck: a curved one low on the water, and a grating one for the crew. They were lightly gunned: typically 14 to 24 x 4 or 6 pdrs, but had a large crew and many swivel guns.

Their rigging was designed to outrun any stronger warship in the Mediterranean light winds: 3 masts with large lateen sails and a gib. Some European chebecs were rigged as "chebec mistic", with square sails at the main and mizzen masts (like a polacra). Later, some were ship-rigged, looking like sloops except for the hull. Chebecs also had auxiliary oars (this was copied by the Swedes) but were not galleys! All this required a large crew, but this they had.

So Chebecs were cheap ships, excellent for privateering in the Mediterranean. However they could not stand a gunfight with a frigate or large sloop, and were much at disadvantage in rough seas.

As for Venice, I don't know if they had many chebecs in the early 17th century. Bonaparte captured some in 1797. Likely they preferred galleys and ships. They rather protected their shipping by a line of fortified ports along the trading routes. I have no idea on the Uzcocks ships, but in the early 17th century I guess their ships would be smaller and more conventional than Chebecs.

Venice had kinds of "triremes". In the late middle ages most Mediterranean galleys were rigged "alla scalaccio" (in echelon), that is 3 men on the same bench, each with an oar. But the oar swivels were all at the same level on the outrigger, unlike in ancient triremes. This optimised men's effort but required good training, and the design could not be enlarged.

By the early 16th century states and navies grew and required more men. They used more and more unskilled slaves and prisoners. The Venetians designed a new system "alla senzile": 3 to 5 men per bench, handling one large oar. Only the lead rower needed to be skilled, the others just followed his move. This allowed larger ships, but the side men were much less effective. Maximum speed dropped from some 6 to 4 Knot (more or less: a much discussed topic), as compared with 9-10 Knots maximum for ancient triremes (cf. Olympia's trials). The "senzile" system was soon adopted by all Mediterranean nations, and older galleys were reequipped that way.

By the late middle ages, Mediterranean trading ships were both sailing and oared ships, in fact heavy galleys, with the crew rowing and fighting - and possibly a few soldiers. However they were slower than war galleys. In the early 17th century Venetian merchants were generally sailing ships, but some light, expensive goods and personalities would travel on war galleys for safety and speed.

Chebecs were faster than merchant ships and, with some wind, than war galleys. Their design effectively made them predators to merchant shipping.

LINK

LINK

Japanese matchlock for foot Samurai

Japanese snaplock

Japanese matchlock for mounted Samurai

The first personal-sized firearms were essentially scaled down artillery pieces, hence their designation as hand cannons. Introduced in Europe around 1350, approximately 50 years after the first true cannons were developed, the earliest hand cannons were rather crude affairs. They were cumbersome muzzle-loaded weapons with a small ignition hole drilled through the top of the breech. This allowed flame to ignite their black-powder charges to fire stone, lead, and iron projectiles. The earliest ignition system consisted of a hand-held smoldering coal or length of cord (generally known as a match) that was applied to the weapon's vent to ignite the powder charge. This system's disadvantages-the difficulty in aiming while holding the match, its vulnerability to dampness, and the likelihood of the operator dropping the match in the heat of battle-were obvious soon after its inception.

Early fifteenth-century inventors attempted to address these problems with the introduction of the matchlock. Matchlocks were the predominate firearms in Europe for roughly 250 years and were usually unadorned, functional weapons. These pistols exhibited an almost straight profile with little curve toward the butt, as in later handguns. The earliest matchlocks lacked a trigger-they were fitted with a simple cock attached to a lock plate screwed to the right side of the gun. The lock plate, a flat, plain strip of iron, provided a mounting surface for the cock and prevented wear on the wood stock. The top of the cock was split to accept a slow match consisting of a saltpeter impregnated hemp fuse that burned at the rate of approximately 3-5 inches an hour. The operator lowered the cock and its match manually to a priming pan containing a small amount of gunpowder. A small hole drilled through the right side of the barrel next to the pan then allowed the ignited powder in the pan to discharge the main powder charge in the barrel.

The typical matchlock, however, featured a sickle-shaped cock that pivoted to a simple trigger device mounted under the stock, adding greatly to the user's ability to aim more accurately. On early weapons the pan was integral to the barrel until, in the seventeenth century, it was attached to the lock plate. The barrels were usually of iron and were either round or octagonal, although some were octagonal at the breech with the remainder round. The rear of the barrel was fitted with a breech plug that sealed the breech and was forged with a projection, or tang, through which a screw passed to secure it to the stock. The forward part of the barrel was attached to the stock by loops brazed or dovetailed to the bottom of the barrel through which pins passed through the wood. As a safety measure, later versions were fitted with a spring that held the cock clear of the pan, requiring deliberate pressure on the trigger to force the match to the pan. The trigger guard, a protective metal loop attached to the stock, also helped prevent the accidental tripping of the trigger. Under any circumstances, firing a matchlock weapon was not a pleasant experience. The cock and its smoldering match pivoted backward, toward the operator, often sending a shower of sparks and flames into his eyes and face at the ignition of the priming.

Although early matchlock pistols were relatively impractical for military use, the arquebus, or matchlock musket, gradually earned its place as a viable battlefield weapon. Soldiers armed with the arquebus found that they could somewhat compensate for their weapons' inaccuracy and slow rate of fire with massed volleys against enemy troops. The European nobility, however, met the appearance of the matchlock with considerable resistance. They correctly saw firearms as a dangerous threat to both their political and social status.

Before the advent of the matchlock, Europe's aristocracy had used their wealth and position to arm themselves as mounted knights. As such, they viewed ideal combat as between opponents of relatively equal rank who followed shared concepts of chivalry. Common soldiers of the late medieval and early Renaissance periods were typically poorly armed peasants and thus of little consequence to expensively armored and mounted knights trained since youth in the art of war. In the hands of simple peasants, matchlocks, requiring only a few hours' training, soon proved their potential to undo all of the advantages enjoyed by armored knights. Despite the widespread protests of nobility, more pragmatic and ambitious military leaders eventually incorporated firearms into their armies.

During the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, German innovators such as Martin Merz tended to lead their English, Austrian, Swiss, and Spanish counterparts in the perfection of the matchlock system. By 1475 Merz had combined the serpentine or S-shaped cock, a trigger, and pan with a more sophisticated lever and spring lock. One of Merz's major contributions was to reverse the direction of the cock to lever the match forward and away from the shooter's face. Although rarely used, this improvement significantly reduced the amount of sparks and fire that were prone to fly in the user's face with the rearward-facing cock. Other later improvements included a cover to protect the powder from moisture and spillage, and a fence, or vertical projection behind the pan, to divert flame from the user's face. The button lock, otherwise called the snaplock or luntenschnappsloss, also evolved during this period. It utilized a flat button trigger that when depressed activated a sear that then released the spring-activated cock. The sear of early weapons consisted of a pin that passed through the lock plate to engage a notch in the bottom front of the cock or the bottom rear of the cock, known as the toe and heel, respectively. Pressing the trigger allowed a spring to retract the sear, thus freeing the cock to lower the match.

During these years, arms designers also experimented with other innovations that would be perfected in later weapons. Although mainly confined to long arms rather than pistols, the matchlock era saw the earliest attempts at sights and stabilizing spiral-grooved rifled barrels to impart spin to the bullet and improve accuracy. A 1498 document credited the Viennese gunsmith Caspar Kรถllner with cutting the first grooves in a gun barrel, but these were straight and not spiraled, probably indicating that they were meant to aid cleaning. Other records credit August Cotter of Nuremberg with inventing true rifling between 1500 and 1520. Early designers also experimented with revolving multiple-shot weapons as well as a crude form of breechloader. Known as chamber pieces, these early breechloaders relied on a preloaded steel tube that could be inserted into the pistol's breech. Although used in both pistols and long arms, the chamber piece proved impractical for its time owing to the difficulty of applying it to the matchlock system. Early revolving matchlock pistols were extremely rare during their time, and few have survived. One example, probably Italian-made, features three barrels that had to be manually turned on a central axis after each discharge.

Although probably originating in Germany, reliable evidence documents the production of the pressure lock, the perfected matchlock, under the direction of Cornelius Johnson of the Tower of London in 1521. Still used in many firearms designs today, the pressure lock principle combines two flat springs, a cock pivoted on an internal tumbler retained by a sear, and a trigger. Pressing the trigger depresses the sear, releasing it from a notch cut in the tumbler. This action allows the spring-activated tumbler and cock assembly to rotate forward and touch the match to the powder in the priming pan.

The snaplock, a variation of the matchlock also known as the light snapping lock or tinder lock, appeared in the 1570s. Probably a German development, the snaplock was an apparent attempt to minimize the drawbacks of the exposed, glowing match. Rather than using a dangling, previously lit match, the snaplock utilized a cock that held a small tube in its jaws containing a piece of tinder or small piece of slow match that could be lighted just before action.

Among the most unique of the matchlock pistols are a number of combination pistol-shields produced by the Ravenna gunsmith Giovanbattista for England's Henry VIII's (1509-1547) personal guard. These oddities include a small matchlock pistol, approximately caliber .38, whose barrel projects through the center of the round, richly ornamented shield. A grilled opening above the barrel allows sighting. These pistols are also chamber pieces, fed with preloaded metal tubes inserted into the hinged breech of the weapon. Possibly irked by having to import such firearms, Henry began urging foreign as well as domestic firearms makers to settle and set up shop in the Minories, a neighborhood near the Tower of London. The Minories remained an important center of the English weapons trade into the nineteenth century.

Despite the many efforts to improve the matchlock system, two main defects appeared insurmountable: the vulnerability of the match to dampness and rain, and the tendency of the glowing match to reveal its location to the enemy at night. Loading was especially difficult on horseback, precluding their use by cavalry, and there was the constant danger of the lit fuse in proximity to volatile black powder. If a soldier's match went out he was forced to relight it using sparks from his tinderbox, further compounding the problem. Still, the matchlock was cheap to produce and served as the primary European firearm system for more than two centuries, even seeing wide usage after the invention of the wheel lock.

Early European explorers, most notably the Portuguese, included matchlocks among their weapons in their travels to the Americas, Africa, India, and the Orient. These firelocks proved effective weapons and awed the local inhabitants with the seemingly magical powers of the newcomers. As trade increased with the Europeans, leaders in Africa, India, and the East demanded matchlocks and, as their popularity increased, ordered domestic copies be made by local craftsmen. These indigenously made matchlocks varied greatly in quality and decoration but essentially left the basic design unaltered for centuries, even into the twentieth century in some remote areas.

Japanese matchlocks deserve special mention in this section. The Portuguese had introduced the matchlock to Japan in 1543 and with it a potential threat to the very basis of the country's society. At that time the powerful samurai warrior clans had built a feudalistic culture built upon a formalized, individual form of warfare devoted to the art of swordsmanship. The lifetime of training required to become a samurai warrior necessarily excluded all but those within their own privileged ranks. The Japanese at first embraced the new and alien firearm technology but soon recognized the social and political implications posed by the new weapon. Requiring but a few hours of training, matchlocks provided mere peasant soldiers the means to defeat even the most skilled samurai. In 1637 Japan began to repress the manufacture of firearms and-in contrast to the parallel events in Europe-thus delayed the erosion of its warrior nobility's status. By the time of Commodore Matthew Perry's arrival in Japan in 1853 the matchlock had devolved into an essentially ceremonial accessory.

Still, Japanese smiths, famous as sword makers, applied their skills to making both matchlock long guns and pistols. Their pistols were essentially scaled-down versions of the longer weapons and were avidly acquired by the noble Japanese families and samurai, who often ordered their family crests inlaid in the stocks. The smiths employed many of their sword-making techniques in the barrel-making process by heating and hammering strips of metal into the final, usually octagonal, shape of the finished product. The barrel and stock were often finely decorated with engraving and inlays. Barrels tend to be slightly flared at the muzzle and are often fitted with both front and rear sights.

The Japanese matchlock pistol displayed a rather straight profile with little downward curve at the butt and a forward-falling cock. The lock plates as well as the springs were typically made of brass- a considerable shortcoming in the case of the springs, as brass does not hold tension well and is prone to breakage. Japanese smiths also used pins rather than screws to hold the barrel and other components in place and fitted their products most often with simple button triggers. In addition to full-sized weapons, the Japanese crafted a number of miniature pistols of as little as a few inches in length for use by boys in certain festivals.

LINK

LINK

LINK

Boston IIIs crossing the sea at low level en route for enemy territory in late 1942. The machine in the foreground sports the code letters 'RH' denoting 88 Squadron.

One of the best-known American aircraft used by the R.A.F. during World War II-and the first type with a tricycle undercarriage to see regular service-was the Douglas Boston which, in its later versions, was widely used by the U.S.A.A.F. in Europe as well as the R.A.F. Progenitor of the series was the Douglas Model 7B, a private-venture design, which flew on October 261938, and was intended to provide the U.S. Army Air Corps (as it then was) with a high-performance attack bomber. This machine crashed in January 1939 but an improved model, known as the DB (Douglas Bomber) -7, flew on August 17 1939, and initial orders were placed with Douglas by the French Air Mission (they placed their order while the machine was still on the drawing-board, in fact), with the British Air Mission of 1940 second in the queue.

Only about sixty machines reached l'Armee de l'Air before the French collapse in June 1940, and some of them saw action in May and June that year. The unfulfilled portion of the French contract (and possibly some Belgian orders) was later absorbed by Britain, the first machines reaching Britain in late 1940. A small original batch of DB-7s with single-stage superchargers were designated Boston Is and used for pilot training, while the much larger number of DB-7As were nearly all converted to Havoc I night-intruders by the installation of a 'solid' eight-gun nose, A.I. radar and additional armour-plating. A big snag with these ex-French contract machines was that some, if not all, of them were delivered with instruments calibrated in metric units and their controls and instruments labelled in French-all of which had to be changed.

Deliveries of the British model of the DB-7, the DB-7B (Boston III), began in the spring of 1941. This aircraft had more powerful Wright R-2600 engines in place of the Pratt and Whitney R-1830s, a larger fin and rudder, a redesigned front fuselage and longer nacelles. A few examples were converted to Havoc II standard. In addition to the Boston Ins procured direct from the U.S.A., more Boston IIIs were acquired in the Middle East, apparently being aircraft delivered to l'Armee de ['Air in 1939-40. Those which entered R.A.F. service were given serial numbers prefixed 'HK', e.g. HK971, which became aircraft 'M-Mother' of 18 Squadron.

First squadron to equip with Boston RIIIs, was 88 'Hong Kong' Squadron of 2 Group, Bomber Command. Before doing so it received a number of Boston Is (beginning with AW398 on December 1 1940) and 'IIIs (beginning with AE467 on March 30 1941), while based at Sydenham, Belfast. In August, when it operated Blenheim IVs from Attlebridge (Norfolk), the squadron received some non-operational Boston IIIs, its first operational Mk. IIIs arriving in October, when operations on Blenheims ceased. In November-December 1941, 226 Squadron at Wattisham was rearmed with Boston IIIs, and in February 1942, 107 Squadron at Great Massingham was similarly rearmed; like 88 Squadron both these units had previously flown Blenheim IVs. When 342 'Lorraine' Squadron, Free French Air Force, formed at West Raynham in April 1943 from what had previously been known merely as the Lorraine Squadron, F.F.A.F., it too was armed with Bostons-Mk. IIIAs, the Lease-Lend version of the Mk. III, from which latter it could be distinguished by the stub exhausts in place of the single long exhausts with flame-traps. In August and September 1943, 88, 107, and 342 Squadrons moved to Hartford Bridge (later renamed Blackbushe) as 137 Wing, Second Tactical Air Force, 226 Squadron having rearmed with Mitchells. The Boston IIIs had gradually been replaced in 88 and 107 Squadrons by Mk. IIIAs during the first half of the year, some of the Mk. IIIs being sent to the Middle East. By mid-1944 some Boston IVs (A-20Js) were in the squadrons, these Lease-Lend machines having a one-piece Perspex nose and a Martin two-gun dorsal turret. In October 1944, 137 Wing comprising now 88 and 342 Boston Squadrons and 226 on Mitchells, moved to Vitry-en-Artois, France. 88 Squadron disbanded there in April 1945 and at the same time the other two squadrons moved to Gilze-Riyen (Airfield B.77), Holland.

First occasion when Boston IIIs were used operationally was February 12 1942, when ten machines of 88 and 226 Squadrons took part in the armed search for the German warships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which had escaped from Brest and proceeded up the Channel. Only one machine-from 226 Squadron managed to find a target and deliver an attack. Bostons made their first attack on a land objective on March 8 1942, when aircraft of 88 and 226 Squadrons made a low-level raid on Matford Works at Poissy, while others from the same units took part in a diversionary Circus operation against a power-station at Comines. The Boston which led the Matford mission -Z2209 'G-George', captained by 226's CO., W/Cdr V. S. Butler-was lost on the return journey. It was damaged either by light flak or bomb blast, and when a few miles from the target it was seen to be in difficulties; it struck a tree with its port wing, stood on its tail in a vain attempt to clear more trees, and then crashed. The rest of the force returned safely.

Daylight Circus operations formed a large part of the Boston's early activities over Europe, their purpose being to bring the Luftwaffe to battle. They were flown either at low or medium level and the targets, in addition to power-stations, included airfields, marshal ling-yards, and ports. The Bostons also flew unescorted missions, diving out of cloud to attack their objectives and returning to such cover for the homeward flight. On August 17 1942, during the commando raid on Dieppe, they did valuable work in laying smokescreens to cover both the assault and withdrawal. Another special operation came in December when they led the famous raid on the Philips radio and valve factory at Eindhoven in Holland. Towards the end of 1943, 137 Wing's Bostons joined the assault against the German V-I depots and sites in northern France, and when D-Day finally came they repeated what they had done at Dieppe and laid smoke-screens over the beaches. After this the Bostons operated in close support of the advancing Allied Armies on the Continent, eventually winding up their offensive with a series of attacks launched from their base in Holland on targets in western Germany.

(Note: Boston IIIs were also used by the U.K.-based 23, 418 (R.C.A.F.) and 605 Squadrons during the period 1942-3, and although these units did do some bombing, they were essentially fighter-intruder units.)

In the spring of 1943, 326 Wing, Tactical Bomber Force, in North Africa, comprising 18 'Burma' and 114 'Hong Kong' Squadrons, relinquished the Bisleys which it had been operating and converted to Boston IIIs (later supplemented by Mk. IIIAs) which it first took into action in close-support of the ground-forces during the closing stages of the Tunisian campaign. Like their U.K.-based counterparts, the squadrons adopted the 'box-of-six' bombing technique and usually operated with a fighter escort.

The North African campaign over, the squadrons turned their attention to the enemy-held islands of Pantellaria, Lampedusa, and Sicily, stepping-stones to Italy, and then bombed targets in Italy itself, moving across via Sicily to the Italian mainland in the wake of the advancing Allied Armies. Day and night missions were flown during this period-the Bostons sometimes acting as pathfinders-and by late 1944 there were four R.A.F. Boston squadrons operating in Italy, the newcomers being 13 and 55 Squadrons, both of which converted to Boston IVs from Baltimores. The four Boston squadrons formed 232 Wing of Mediterranean Allied Tactical Air Force, their crews, because of their night-flying role, becoming known as 'Pippos', a contraction of pipistrello (bat), and a word which, in the singular, was the name of a comic character, cf. 'batty'. 13 Squadron claims to have introduced the 'Balbo' bombing technique in which one aircraft marked the target with flares and incendiaries for others to bomb at half-second intervals.

Night armed reconnaissance was the major role of the Bostons during the Italian campaign, and in December 1944, when 18 and 114 Squadrons operated in this role over the Fifth Army front, they drew praise from General Mark Clark, the Fifth Army's C.-in-C. He said that their work was invaluable to his Army, which would otherwise have remained ignorant of the enemy's movements during the hours of darkness. Tactical Air Force went so far as to say that the work of six Bostons during the night was more valuable than an entire wing of day-bombers.

During April 1945, all four Boston squadrons they were now flying Mk. IVs and Vs[1]-made night attacks in support of the Eighth Army's final assault which was to defeat the German forces in Italy. Most of this bombing was done on timed runs from the Army's landmark beacons, the principal targets being gun-positions, strong points, M.T. and pontoon and ferry crossings over rivers. Final operational task of the Bostons was the dropping of surrender leaflets to a force of Germans still holding out north of Gemona, on May 4 and 5.

After the cessation of hostilities all Lease-Lend Bostons were returned to the U.S. Government, which then reduced them to scrap, as it also did with most other returned Lease-Lend types.

[1]The Mk. V was the R.A.F. version of the A-20K and was generally similar to the Mk. IV but had a revised cockpit for more accessible bombing controls.

LINK

LINK

LINK

Boston Bomber Crews

Born: 17 Jan 1847 in Orekhovo, Vladimir gubernia, Russia
Died: 17 March 1921 in Moscow, USSR

Nikolai Egorovich Zhukovskii (or Zhukovsky or Joukowski) was the son of Egor Zhukovskii who was a communications engineer. Nikolai Egorovich attended the Fourth Gymnasium for Men in Moscow, completing his secondary education there in 1864. He then entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics at Moscow University where he studied applied mathematics. He graduated in 1868 and from 1870 he taught at the Second Gymnasium for Women in Moscow.

After two years teaching at the Gymnasium, Zhukovskii received an invitation to teach mathematics at Moscow Technical School then, from 1874, he also taught theoretical mechanics there. While he was teaching these courses, Zhukovskii was also studying for his Master's Degree and in 1876 he was awarded this degree for a thesis on the kinematics of a liquid. It is worth pointing out that the Russian Master's Degree is essentially the equivalent of a British/American Ph.D. today while the Russian doctorate at this time was essentially the equivalent of the German Habilitation. After being awarded his Master's Degree, a special chair of mechanics was created for Zhukovskii at Moscow Technical School.

Zhukovskii obtained a doctorate from Moscow University in 1882 for a dissertation on the stability of motion. He worked at the university, becoming the Head of the Department of Mechanics in 1886. By this time he had begun to receive awards for his outstanding work, having been awarded the N D Brashman prize for theoretical work in fluid dynamics in 1885.

Over his career Zhukovskii had a remarkable publications record producing over 200 publications on mechanics. In 1886 he wrote a [13]:-

... memoir dealing with the motion of bodies filled with a homogeneous incompressible fluid. ... the advantages of Zhukovskii's geometrical and sound mechanical approach to the problem, [means that] his memoir still remains quite up to date.

Perhaps Zhukovskii is most famous, however, as the founder of the Russian schools of hydromechanics and aeromechanics. For his work in these areas he became known as theFather of Russian Aviation. Zhukovskii [1]:-

... became interested in the late 1880s in flight in heavier-than-air machines, a basic problem of which was lift.

During 1890-91 he experimented with disks placed in currents of air and, in 1891, he began to study the dynamics of flight. In 1895 he visited Lilienthal in Berlin. Lilienthal was selling gliders produced in his factory in Berlin. Zhukovskii [2]:-

... observed several of Lilienthal's flights and was most impressed. After returning to Moscow, he spoke before the Society of Friends of the Natural Sciences: "The most important invention of recent years in the area of aviation is the flying machine of the German engineer Otto Lilienthal.

Zhukovskii purchased one of the eight gliders which Lilienthal sold to members of the public. In 1906 Zhukovskii published two papers in which he gave a mathematical expression for the lift on an airfoil. Today it is known as the Kutta-Joukowski theorem, since Kutta pointed out that the equation also appears in his 1902 dissertation.

In 1911 Zhukovskii wrote:-

The field of hydrodynamic phenomena which can be explored with exact analysis is more and more increasing.

Zhukovskii was concerned both with theoretical and with experimental aspects of the subject. His theoretical work concentrated on lift, high-speed aerodynamics, vortex theory, longitudinal and cross stability but he complemented this work with appropriate experimental observations in every case. With this twin approach he became the Russian pioneer on both aspects of aviation. He went on to establish an aerodynamics laboratory and to teach courses on his theories of aerodynamics [1]:-

His lectures at the Moscow Technical School on the theoretical basis of aeronautics (1911-12)were the world's first systematic course in aviation theory and were based largely on his own theoretical research and on experiments conducted in laboratories that he had established.

In mathematics today the conformal mapping of the complex plane z → z + 1/z is called the Joukowski transformation. This gave Zhukovskii [2]:-

... a means of designing aerofoils using conformal mappings and the techniques of complex variables. Those Joukowski aerofoils were actually used on some aircraft, and today these techniques provide a mathematically rigorous reference solution to which modern approaches to aerofoil design can be compared for validation.

During World War I Zhukovskii taught a special course for pilots and he was the first person in Russia to study the theory of bombing from aeroplanes in 1915.

In 1918 he organised the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute and became its first head. The Institute was renamed the N E Zhukovskii Academy of Military and Aeronautical Engineering in 1922 following Zhukovskii's death.

Zhukovsky also worked on hydrodynamics and hydraulics, in particular shock waves in water pipes. In particular he solved problems concerning the bursting of pipes with his studies of hydraulic shock. Other problems he considered were the formation of river beds and the construction of dams, where again his expertise was invaluable in constructing power stations.

Zhukovskii's works were published in 25 volumes from 1935 to 1950.

Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson

May 2000

The Iron Shipwright USS Olympia - those little clear lights shown as black dots on the main backstays on the rigging diagram. These represent the Ardois signal lights that were used prior to radio.

Ardois lights were a widely used French system of double electric red and white lamps, usually arranged vertically on a naval vessel's mast and used for coded night signaling. In 1875 the U.S. Navy began experimenting with the use of electric lights for signaling. Two years later, Lieutenant W. N. Wood perfected an electric system for visually transmitting the English Morse telegraphic code, which had been adopted for naval use the previous year. This electric system was installed in U.S. naval vessels in 1878 and extended signaling distances from six to sixteen miles.

In 1891 the U.S. Navy experimentally installed the Ardois system of electric lights in some squadrons. Initially eight systems were ordered at the then considerable cost of more than $1,000 each. The first order was followed a year later by one for six more Ardois systems. Each apparatus used a series of eight double lamps (four red and four white) placed vertically and read down (if mounted horizontally, they were read from the sender's right to the left). Each system came equipped with an Ardois-devised code, but the systems could be used with other codes as well. The Ardois system was intended to be mounted on a mast and operated from a keyboard on a convenient deck below.

Whatever code was utilized, Ardois red lights indicated the "dots" and white lights the "dashes" used in Morse code. For example, in English Morse code, the letter "A" became red-white (dot-dash) and "B" was whitered- red-red (dash-dot-dot-dot). Used in this way, the Ardois light system could be considered the first "allied" signal system with French lights carrying an American telegraph code as modified by the British army and Royal Navy.

In 1891-1892, the U.S. Navy compared the Ardois system with the Sellner system of lights developed in Austria. While not as well made as the Ardois system, the Sellner system cost only $700 for each apparatus. The Ardois system was retained, however, until finally supplanted in 1897 by adding an improved keyboard, known as the "Telephotos."

Some reports suggest the U.S. Army also made use of Ardois lights for night signaling. With the innovation of wireless, signal lights became of secondary importance, save in conditions of radio silence.

Source

Niblack, A. P. 1892. "Naval Signaling." U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 18: 431-505.

LINK

The drawings for the 'Silent Dart' were found in the Reich Chancellery in Berlin. Towards the end of the war Hitler became increasingly desperate to find 'weapons of terror' which he could use against the Allies.

With deadly accuracy and at speeds of up to 700mph, it could have pinpointed Nazi targets and wreaked havoc on Britain.

At least, that is what German scientists believed as they plotted this weapon of terror.

Hitler became increasingly desperate for a way to thwart his enemies at the end of the Second World War.

And so the Nazis dreamed up the Silent Dart.

The glider would be released from a larger aircraft. Guided by a Luftwaffe pilot inside, the dart would dive towards the ground carrying its 1,000kg bomb.

At the last moment, the pilot would release the bomb and inflate a huge balloon attached to the craft.

As the bomb hit its target, the balloon was supposed to whisk the glider far up above the danger area, so it could travel to safety.

The plans, which have come to light more than 60 years after their creation, may sound implausible - but pencil drawings of the dart found by the Allies in July 1945 show that for the Nazis, it may have seemed a real possibility.

These previously unseen drawings were rescued from Hitler's Chancellery at the end of World War II. The glider carrying the bomb has been designed in the shape of a pub dart

The bombs would have been guided by a Luftwaffe pilot from a mother aircraft.

Auctioneer Richard Davie, who is selling the sketches, said: 'There is no date on the plans so we don't know whether they were not acted upon because there was no time, or whether there was another reason.

'The glider would have used the flying principle of a pub dart. It would be released from a mother ship and then directed by a pilot, which is not a job I would want.

'Then as the pilot released the bomb a balloon would simultaneously inflate and this would add stability and elevation to the glider.

'This enabled the pilot to get away from the blast so he could make safety and then have another go - unlike a Kamikaze pilot.

'It would have worked a bit like a Kamikaze mission but without the death of the pilot.

'The designs were found at the Reich Chancellery, in Berlin, at the end of the war and have rarely been seen since.'

The drawings were discovered by Richard Rex, who had been sent to Germany to help establish a medical dispensary for use during the Potsdam Conference.

The conference had been convened to decide how defeated Germany was to be governed in the post-war world.

They belonged to his family and were then sold to a private collector who is in turn selling them, International Autograph Auctions explained.

Retired Air Commodore Graham Pitchfork, who is an aviation historian, said: 'Towards the end of the war a lot of highly unusual projects were developed by the Nazis.

'However implausible this might appear to us, German scientists were renowned for their resourcefulness and invention.

'While this sounds an implausible way of getting a bomb on target the Germans were increasingly desperate by the end of the war.

'They were desperate to find a terror weapon which is why they developed the V1, V2 and the V3.'

The plans, which are thought to be worth between ÂŁ2,000 and ÂŁ3,000, will be sold in London on Saturday 13th December 2008.

The Enigma was a multirotor cipher machine widely used by all military forces and most government agencies in Nazi Germany before and during World War II. The breaking of many of its messages by the Allies shortened the war by revealing German plans.

The Enigma device originated with Arthur Scherbius (1878-1929), an electrical engineer who worked for German and Swiss electrical firms before setting up his own company. In the early 1920s, he developed (and named) the Enigma rotor cipher machine, designed for commercial (nonsecret) codes. The key part of the instrument was its four Bakelite (later metal) rotors, which were electrically interconnected to create the coding effect. The first model of the machine was exhibited at a 1923 postal conference in Bern and showed a standard typewriter keyboard. It was both heavy and bulky and was mounted in a wooden case. Though he offered the device to the German navy and the Weimar Republic's foreign office, neither was then interested. In 1923 he sold rights to the machine to another company, which aggressively marketed a series of four improved models, though with only limited results despite favorable publicity and several government purchasers.

In 1926 German naval intelligence began utilizing an Enigma coding machine, modified from one it had purchased from domestic commercial sources. The Italian navy also purchased some Enigma machines. The German army soon followed suit, making further modifications to its three-rotor machines. By 1930 the military versions differed substantially from those still on the commercial market, chiefly by the addition of a plugboard (stecker) in the front of the device, allowing a huge increase in the number of code permutations that could be transmitted. Indeed, the machine was now considered by its users to be unbreakable. This improved version was first used by the German navy in October 1934 and the reconstituted Luftwaffe in August 1935. By 1938, additional rotors were made available, hugely increasing the difficulty of decoding the machine. By 1939, for example, naval operators could select three operating rotors from among eight that came with their machines. Settings were changed every few months. The number of plugs available increased before and during the war, adding to the machine's security. In 1938, the German army and air force began to require operators to make their own machine settings while the navy retained a standard service approach. During the war, rotor and/or plug settings were changed daily, and sometimes several times in a given day. Two or three people were needed to operate the device in the field.

Some 30,000 Enigma machines of various models were used during the war-more than any other cipher machine by any nation. While this allowed for a standard training practice, it also made it harder to change methods or equipment and made code breaking easier due to the number of messages sent. Perhaps 200 German codes were employed prior to and during World War II, and not all of them were broken. The Germans did not believe that their codes could be compromised, and consequently, the high standards set for their signal staff and security procedures were sometimes relaxed. This contributed to a number of code-breaking breakthroughs for the British and Americans.

The Germans developed several more sophisticated cipher machines for specific uses. Each was given an Allied "fish" code name. The role of all of these machines remained secret for three decades after the war as thousands of Enigmas had survived and were given to other governments- without any notion that the British could read their communications. Examples of most of the Enigma and other cipher machines can today be found in museums.

Sources

Deavours, Cipher A., and Louis Kruh. 1985. Machine Cryptography and Modern Cryptanalysis. Dedham, MA: Artech House.

Mowry, David P. 2003. German Cipher Machines of World War II. Fort Meade, MD: National Security Agency.

Winkel, Brian J., Cipher A. Deavours, David Kahn, and Louis Kruh, eds. 2005. The German Enigma Cipher Machine: Beginnings, Success, and Ultimate Failure. Dedham, MA: Artech House.

DOWNLOAD NO SUCH AGENCY PDF

The Dornier Do 17, sometimes referred to as the Bleistift ("pencil") by its pilots, was a World War II light bomber produced by Dornier that was used for a short time by the Luftwaffe. It quickly became outdated, and was removed from front-line service as soon as enough Junkers Ju 88's were available. A small run of an updated version known as the Do 215 was also produced, and ended almost as quickly.

Background and Prototypes

When Lufthansa started expanding in the early 1930s they placed orders for planes that pushed the state of the art, and a number of companies took this opportunity to invest in new design and construction techniques. The result was a number of world-beater designs like the Heinkel He 70 Blitz and Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor. In 1933, Dornier thought it would enter the market as well, and started the design of a fast twin-engine plane in response to a Lufthansa tender for a six-passenger mail plane. The result was the Do 17.

In order to compete with planes like the He 70, the Do 17 was made as small as possible in cross section to reduce drag. The plane was so skinny that it quickly earned the name flying pencil (bleistift). Three prototypes were built for Lufthansa and were tested in 1935, but they were eventually returned to Dornier. In test service the passengers complained that it was terribly uncomfortable inside the tiny cabin, they even had a hard time just getting into it.

As luck would have it, a former Dornier employee and new Luftwaffe pilot, Flugkapitän Untucht, visited the plant and test-flew one of the prototypes. He decided that it had potential as a light bomber, but felt it needed more vertical surface for stability. Soon the RLM (the German Air Ministry) asked Dornier to produce seven more prototypes for combat trials with a new twin-rudder design. The design was successful, and the plane was looked upon as the first example of the schnellbomber concept: bombers built to be fast enough to outrun fighters. For a time it was felt that bombers would retain their speed advantage over fighters due to their extra power, leading many to assume that the bomber will always get through.

Do 17E and F

The prototypes had mounted the excellent Daimler-Benz DB 600 engines, but these were constantly in short supply. Production started instead with the BMW V1 radial engine, creating the Do 17E-1 bomber and Do 17F-1 reconnaissance versions. The bombload of the E-1 was a measly 500kg, and the two defensive MG15 machine guns were in a hut on the roof and a small hatch in the floor that offered almost no angle of fire.

Do 17K

After seeing the Do 17M at the Zürich air races in 1937, the Yugoslavian Air Force bought licence rights for production at Drazavna Fabrika Aviona. They equipped it with the considerably better Gnome Rhône 14N engines and added a 20mm Hispano cannon and three 7.92mm Browning machine guns. Seventy had been produced by April 1941 when the country was invaded by German forces. Most were destroyed but two of them fled the country with a load gold on board.

Do 17L and M

The Do 17L-0 and Do 17M-0 were developed in parallel as replacements for the earlier E and F's, the L being the reconnaissance version. Both were designed around the more powerful Daimler Benz DB 600A engines, delivering about 1,000hp. Two L and one M versions were built as prototypes, both with another MG15 in the nose.

The feasibility of the schnellbomber was tested at the International Military Aircraft Competition at Zürich in 1937, where the Do 17M prototype finished ahead of all the fighters in the competition.

The supply of the DB 600 was extremely limited, and priority had to be given to the Messerschmitt Bf 109. Production versions of the basic M model airframe where then fitted with the new BMW Bramo 323A-1 Fafnir of 900hp, which gave reasonable performance and raised the bombload to 1,000kg. The resulting Do 17M-1 was produced in small numbers and operated until the first year of the war, when they were withdrawn and sent to training units.

Do 17P

The L version would not be able to enter production with the DB 600, and the Bramo engine was rather thirsty and left the M models with too short range for use in the reconnaissance roll. The BMW 132N radials of 865hp were selected instead, which had lower fuel consumption for better range. This Do 17P-1 was produced in some number, but why this version was not called the L-1 is a mystery.

Another two prototypes with DB 600 engines were produced as the Do 17R-0, but did not enter production.

Do 17S and U

When the Soviet Polikarpov I-16 monoplane arrived over Spain where the Do 17P's were being tested, the woeful armament clearly needed an upgrade. A completely new pod-like cockpit was designed for the plane to give the crew more room and better visibility. The roof was extended upward over the line of the fuselage, sloping down to meet it just in front of the wing. The dorsal gun was moved to the rear of the pod where it had a considerably better field of fire. Likewise, the floor was dropped under the fuselage and the ventral gun moved to the back of the pod, allowing it to fire directly to the rear. The changes in the roof and floor made the whole front of the plane much larger. The aircraft now looked much more like the Junkers Ju 88 than previous models, and was no longer referred to as the flying pencil.

Three prototypes with the DB 600 were constructed as the Do 17S-0 reconnaissance versions, but did not go into production. An additional fifteen Do 17U-1 pathfinder models were built, similar to the S but adding an additional crewman (to five) to operate the complex radio equipment. The U models were to fly in ahead of other bombers on night missions, using the radio equipment to locate the target and drop flares on it. They were personally requested by KG 100 as experimental models for this role.

Do 17Z

Wide-scale production finally settled on the definitive Do 17Z models. At first a batch of Z-0's were built with the Fafnir for testing, the DB 600 again proving to be too hard to come by. These were quickly replaced with the Z-1 model, which added another gun for the bombardier, but the additional weight of the nose and guns meant the bombload was reduced to 500kg.

This was addressed in the major production model, the Do 17Z-2. The Z-2 mounted the new 323P version of the Fafnir with 1,000hp, and the extra power allowed the bombload to be increased back to 1000kg. Once again, the armament was upgraded by adding an additional pair of guns firing out of the sides of the upper part of the pod, but the three guns were all fired by a single gunner, meaning that two of them were always dead weight. Although the performance was reasonable, the extra power reduced the fully loaded combat range to a tiny 205 miles.

Modifications of the basic Z-2 model included the Z-3 reconnaissance version, the Z-4 dual-control trainer, and the Z-5 which included float cells in the fuselage and engine nacelles in case it was forced down on water. Some 537 Z-2's were produced before the lines shut down in July 1940.

At first, the plane could use its 265mph maximum speed to stay away from biplane fighters, and its light armament was almost enough for the later planes it met in Spain. But by the time it met British planes, notably over Englandduring the Battle of Britain, it was hopelessly outclassed, typically eight guns to one. It could still sometimes outrun the Hurricanes in a slight dive, but since the Fafnir engine was good only at low altitudes they instead switched terrain-following mass raids which worked fairly well. Even then the Do 17's were butchered over England; for all the trouble spent developing the Do 17, the Luftwaffe was better off without it. Production ended in 1940 and the surviving planes were handed off to allied nations over the next two years.

Do 17Z-10 Kauz

After bomber production ended in 1940, the Z model was modified with a "solid" nose from the Ju 88C and fitted with one 20mm and three 7.92mm MG15's to be used as night fighters. One prototype was constructed as the Z-6 Kauz I (screech-owl), and then the design was further modified with a custom nose with four 7.92 mm MG17 machine guns and four 20 mm MG-FF cannon. Only nine of these Do 17K-10 Kauz II designs were built, fitted with both a Lichtenstein C1 radar and the Spanner-II infra-red detection system. The later proved to be essentially useless, and was not used on later night fighter designs.

The Z-10 served for two years in the night fighter role, where they were used in Josef Kammhuber's defensive system known as the Kammhuber Line. Each fighter was assigned a single "cell", with three strips of such cells running from Denmark to the middle of France. Within each cell a direction center on the ground tracked both the Kauz and a single target, guiding them until the target was visible in the Spanner. RAF Bomber Command were able to ascertain the nature of the line, and sent all of their bombers in a single "stream", thus overwhelming the defenses. The Z-10s were then replaced with more capable planes mounting their own radars

The Enigma was a multirotor cipher machine widely used by all military forces and most government agencies in Nazi Germany before and during World War II. The breaking of many of its messages by the Allies shortened the war by revealing German plans.

The Enigma device originated with Arthur Scherbius (1878-1929), an electrical engineer who worked for German and Swiss electrical firms before setting up his own company. In the early 1920s, he developed (and named) the Enigma rotor cipher machine, designed for commercial (nonsecret) codes. The key part of the instrument was its four Bakelite (later metal) rotors, which were electrically interconnected to create the coding effect. The first model of the machine was exhibited at a 1923 postal conference in Bern and showed a standard typewriter keyboard. It was both heavy and bulky and was mounted in a wooden case. Though he offered the device to the German navy and the Weimar Republic's foreign office, neither was then interested. In 1923 he sold rights to the machine to another company, which aggressively marketed a series of four improved models, though with only limited results despite favorable publicity and several government purchasers.

In 1926 German naval intelligence began utilizing an Enigma coding machine, modified from one it had purchased from domestic commercial sources. The Italian navy also purchased some Enigma machines. The German army soon followed suit, making further modifications to its three-rotor machines. By 1930 the military versions differed substantially from those still on the commercial market, chiefly by the addition of a plugboard (stecker) in the front of the device, allowing a huge increase in the number of code permutations that could be transmitted. Indeed, the machine was now considered by its users to be unbreakable. This improved version was first used by the German navy in October 1934 and the reconstituted Luftwaffe in August 1935. By 1938, additional rotors were made available, hugely increasing the difficulty of decoding the machine. By 1939, for example, naval operators could select three operating rotors from among eight that came with their machines. Settings were changed every few months. The number of plugs available increased before and during the war, adding to the machine's security. In 1938, the German army and air force began to require operators to make their own machine settings while the navy retained a standard service approach. During the war, rotor and/or plug settings were changed daily, and sometimes several times in a given day. Two or three people were needed to operate the device in the field.

Some 30,000 Enigma machines of various models were used during the war-more than any other cipher machine by any nation. While this allowed for a standard training practice, it also made it harder to change methods or equipment and made code breaking easier due to the number of messages sent. Perhaps 200 German codes were employed prior to and during World War II, and not all of them were broken. The Germans did not believe that their codes could be compromised, and consequently, the high standards set for their signal staff and security procedures were sometimes relaxed. This contributed to a number of code-breaking breakthroughs for the British and Americans.

The Germans developed several more sophisticated cipher machines for specific uses. Each was given an Allied "fish" code name. The role of all of these machines remained secret for three decades after the war as thousands of Enigmas had survived and were given to other governments- without any notion that the British could read their communications. Examples of most of the Enigma and other cipher machines can today be found in museums.

Sources

Deavours, Cipher A., and Louis Kruh. 1985. Machine Cryptography and Modern Cryptanalysis. Dedham, MA: Artech House.

Mowry, David P. 2003. German Cipher Machines of World War II. Fort Meade, MD: National Security Agency.

Winkel, Brian J., Cipher A. Deavours, David Kahn, and Louis Kruh, eds. 2005. The German Enigma Cipher Machine: Beginnings, Success, and Ultimate Failure. Dedham, MA: Artech House.

DOWNLOAD NO SUCH AGENCY PDF

SIGSALY exhibit at the National Cryptologic Museum.

A secure means of voice communication between London and Washington DC, SIGSALY (the odd name did not stand for anything) was a secret telephony system designed by Bell Telephone Laboratories. It was used from 1943 to 1946 and remained secret for another three decades.

When fighting began in Europe in 1939, a voice-scrambling radio coding system called A-3 (also developed by Bell Labs) was employed for voice communications between military and political leaders in Washington and London. But it was not robust enough to resist concerted code breaking. Indeed, it was suspected of being read by the Germans (as was the case, in nearly real-time terms, from a listening post in the occupied Netherlands). Thus users were told they could probably be overheard and to speak in guarded terms. A better solution was needed, and as quickly as possible.

In 1936 Bell Labs had begun to develop a voice code (vocoder) system that could break up speech into digital bits on the sending end to be reconstructed at the receiving end. While many patented systems existed by 1939, none offered truly secure messaging. Bell Labs personnel continued research into a workable secure voice system that would allow encoded telephonic communications over great distances. By 1942 the basic work on a system that dissected and then reassembled twelve different audio channels had been perfected and was demonstrated for the U.S. Army.

The new system utilized an entirely random means of generating key signals that used no repeats, thus making it unbreakable. The key signals generated electrical noise, which could be recorded on hard vinyl 16- inch phonograph records that ran for twelve minutes. These were carried by courier to the sending and receiving locations and were destroyed after a single use-in other words, a key was only used once. Thus many of the special recordings were made, each one destroyed after its specified use. Both the sending and receiving ends, however, had to be absolutely synchronized for up to an hour for effective communication. This was accomplished by a mechanical timing device on each terminal. The process was complex and expensive, but it did work and was never broken. (Due to the buzzing sound some of the equipment could make, SIGSALY was often called "The Green Hornet," after a popular radio drama of the time.)

An Army contract was placed with Bell Labs for two systems in 1942, and they were placed into service in mid-1943. The new system allowed for protected communications via actual conversations and the first military conference among top Army officers took place between London and Washington on July 15, 1943. The London terminal was built into a basement of the Selfridge department store while the telephone terminal was in the Cabinet War Rooms located underground about a mile away. The Washington terminal was in the Pentagon. Eventually twelve SIGSALY terminals were developed and located in Paris, Algiers, Honolulu, Guam, Australia, one on a ship following General Douglas MacArthur's shifting headquarters and, toward the end of the war, in reoccupied Manila in the Philippines. Together, they supported some 3,000 voice conferences between military and political leaders, including President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill. After the war, units were also located (somewhat ironically) in the former Luftwaffe headquarters in Berlin, the I. G. Farben headquarters building in Frankfurt that served as the center of the occupation, and in Tokyo.

The 350 personnel of the special 805th Signal Company operated the terminals in teams of fifteen at each location, which required twice the maintenance time (16 hours) compared to actual usage (eight hours a day). The large and cumbersome SIGSALY equipment filled a room with vacuum tube equipment and required extensive power supplies and cooling. The forty racks of relevant equipment weighed some 55 tons. A half-century later the same capabilities could be contained in a briefcase, with space left over.

Sources

Bennett, William R. 1983. "Secret Telephony as a Historical Example of Spread-Spectrum Communications." IEEE Transactions on Communications Com-31 (1): 98-104.

Boone, J. V., and R. R. Peterson. 2000. The Start of the Digital Revolution: SIGSALY Secure Digital Voice Communications in World War II. Fort Meade, MD: National Security Agency.

Fagan, M. D., ed. 1978. "Secure Speech Transmission." In A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System: National Service in War and Peace (1925-1975), 291-317. New York: Bell Telephone Laboratories.

Mehl, Donald E. 1997. SIGSALY: The Green Hornet-The World War II Unbreakable Code for Secret High-Level Telephone Conferences, The Beginning of the Digital Age. Kansas City, MO: Donald E. Mehl.

"B7′′

The Panther/M10s were also used in attacks with German infantry, so their role was probably less complete deception than gaining a few vital seconds. Diorama by John Murphy

Tom Jentz and Hilary Doyle in Germany's Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy state that only 5 Panther Ausf. G were converted to M10 configurations. Jean Paul Pallud in Battle of the Bulge: Then and Now states, again, only 5 Panther allocated to Panzerbrigade 150.

Panzer-Brigade 150 only had 5 Panther "M10s" and they were never used in a deception role. Instead Pz.Brig.150's Panthers were used up in a hapless conventional attempt to capture Malmedy. I have seen photos of at least 3 of these wrecked Panthers and I have read accounts where a total of 4 Panthers were lost in the attack on Malmedy.

The 4 ersatz M10/Panthers used (of the 5 made) were marked up as "B4′′, "B5′′, "B7′′,&"B10′′ - ie. vehicles 4, 5, 7, & 10 from B-Co., 10th Tank Battalion, 5.Arm.Div. (eg. marking "5triangle10B4′′)

A published source (Spielburger, Beutepanzer, book 12), gives a brief mention at the end of the book, that 4 Kompanie, Panzerregiment 11, the guys who crewed the fake 'M10′ Panthers were re-equipped in January 1945 at Munster-Lager with Infra-red equipped Panthers and ended their days fighting around Berlin.

Global Positioning System (GPS) technology uses multiple communication satellites to allow military forces to determine more precisely their position-and that of their enemies. Here a U.S. Air Force airman uses a handheld GPS device to conduct a data collection survey in Iraq in 2004. (Department of Defense)

The Navigation Satellite Timing and Ranging (NAVSTAR) global positioning system is a U.S. Department of Defense system of twenty-four satellites that provide navigation information to both civilian and military users around the world. It is one of the best current examples of a military development with immediate civilian applications and value.

The GPS program was initiated in 1973 and the first satellites were launched in 1978. The system's initial operational capability was only reached on 8 December 1993 and full operational capability on 27 April 1995. The satellites operate in circular orbits 11,000 miles high, circling the earth every twelve hours. Six orbital planes, usually carrying four satellites each, are equally spaced and inclined at 55 degrees with respect to the equatorial plane. The configuration of the satellites provides the user with anywhere between five and eight satellites that are visible from any point on the earth. The satellites emit continuous signals on two different L-band frequencies (L1 is at 1575.42 MHz; L2 is at 1227.6 MHz).

GPS provides extremely accurate, three-dimensional position data (latitude, longitude, and altitude), velocity, and accurate time; passive all-weather operations; continuous real-time data; support to unlimited users and areas; and a worldwide common grid. The information is available on two levels. The Standard Positioning Service (SPS) is a positioning and timing service available to all GPS users (increasingly including automobiles) worldwide on a continuous basis. SPS provides position accuracy of 300 feet horizontally and more than 450 feet vertically with a 340 nanosecond time accuracy.

The Precise Positioning Service (PPS) is an extremely accurate military positioning, velocity, and timing service. PPS is available on a continuous, worldwide basis to those users authorized by the United States. Military equipment provides position data accurate to at least 70 feet horizontally and 85 feet vertically with a 200 nanosecond Universal Coordinated Time accuracy. The GPS master control station at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado monitors and controls the system. In addition, five monitor stations and four ground control antennas are located around the world, which passively track the navigation signals from all the satellites. The data collected by the monitoring stations are analyzed at the master control station and used to update the satellites' navigation messages. The ground antennas also receive telemetry data from the satellites and transmit commands to the various parts of the system.

The designers of the NAVSTAR system originally intended to reduce the number of navigation systems being used by the American military. Since its inception, the number of possible military and civilian uses of the technology have grown dramatically. For the military, receivers have been developed for ships, aircraft, land vehicles, and individual use. The ability to precisely locate a weapons platform and a target has greatly increased the accuracy of precision weapons. In addition, the use of GPS receivers allows the user to know his or her own location more accurately than ever before despite weather conditions, terrain factors, and darkness.

Sources

Dana, Peter H. 2000. "Global Positioning System Overview."

Kaplan, Elliott D., ed. 1996. Understanding GPS:Principles and Applications. Boston: Artech House.

Parkinson, Bradford W., and James J. Spilker, eds. 1996. Global Positioning System: Theory and Practice. Volumes I and II.Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

An experimental vehicle - the hull was replaced with an enclosed metal box structure with enough room for a driver and a gunner laying prone. On top was a hydraulically operated machine gun turret on the end of an "arm" that could be raised vertically. Invented for fighting in hedgerows, the idea was to drive the Mantis up to a wall, elevate the gun, and fire over it into the fields from safety. A Mantis survives in the Bovington Tank Museum.

FILM: County trucks and Bren carrier based "Praying Mantis" tank WMA Format

Dates: First prototype flown on December 1, 1977; first operational F-117 flown on June 18, 1981; first combat mission, flown on December 20, 1989

Definition: The first warplane to fully incorporate stealth technology.

Significance: The Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk launched a quantum escalation in air warfare technology with a radar-evading stealth design that negated the advantage attained by radar-equipped antiaircraft weapons during the 1960's and 1970's.With its precision bombing capability, the Nighthawk achieved spectacular success in the 1991 Gulf War and gave the United States intimidating leverage in other disputes.

Birth of the Stealth Plane Concept

With increasing effectiveness of radar during WorldWar II (1939-1945), efforts intensified to reduce or obstruct the radar signature of aircraft. Germany planned an airplane whose surfaces absorbed or deflected radar beams. The Allies used foil strips, called chaff, to obscure radar returns. During the Cold War (1945-1991), radar-equipped fighters and guided surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) spurred construction of radar-jamming devices and antiradar missiles. Reacting to improved Soviet SAMs, the Lockheed Corporation's Advanced Development Projects Division, also known as the Skunk Works, also tried to reduce the radar size of its long-range spy planes.

The Israeli Air Force's misfortunes against the Arabs' Soviet-supplied air defenses in the Israeli-Arab October War (1973) especially shook U.S. military leaders, who feared that Soviet weapons might render American air power impotent. They held a design competition for a radar-evading plane. Lockheed, with its experience in spy-plane design, won with a blueprint that used both shape and radar absorbent material (RAM) to make the plane's radar size many times less than that of any plane ever made. The Nighthawk, with a 43-foot wingspan, 65-foot length, and 12-foot height, had a radar signature that was roughly equal to that of a small bird.

The Nighthawk's shape, more than its RAM, determined its stealthiness, and computer limitations in calculating radar deflection meant that the plane resembled a series of interconnected triangular facets. Further, its aerodynamic instability required computer-assisted flight controls. Still, Lockheed flewa two-engine prototype in 1977. Wanting to preempt foreign countermeasures during development, U.S. military leaders kept the project highly secret, and code-named it "HAVE BLUE."

Development

Delivering the first fully developed F-117A to the U.S. Air Force challenged Lockheed designers, because they had to incorporate weapons delivery systems, avionics, bigger engines, air refueling capability, and other features, all while retaining the prototype's stealth characteristics. Further, given the lethality of then-current antiaircraft weapons, the Air Force wanted the plane as soon as possible. Lockheed delivered the first model in 1981, well ahead of modern jets' normal delivery schedule.

The resulting F-117A was a black subsonic warplane that carried one pilot, had two non-afterburning jet engines, and weighed approximately 50,000 pounds fully loaded. It carried a drag chute to reduce its high landing speed after touchdown. It had two bomb bays for weapons and relied upon weapons computers, an infrared nightvision device, a laser designator, and a sophisticated autopilot system for pinpoint delivery of laser-guided bombs. It could also drop unguided bombs. Nighthawks were not completely radar-invisible, but good mission planning and their design defeated radar target tracking.

Operational History

In 1982, the Air Force created a secret unit to fly the jet, now code-named "SENIOR TREND." In 1985, the unit had enough planes and operational experience to pass its first combat readiness inspection. Throughout the 1980's, the F-117A operated in extreme secrecy at the isolated Tonopah Test Range in Nevada. Because the F-117A was supposed to be unseen, it was flown only at night. Unit members could not divulge the plane's existence until 1988, and Nighthawks did not appear in public until 1990. Possessing about fifty-five planes divided into three squadrons, the unit became the Thirty-seventh Tactical Fighter Wing in 1989.

Nighthawks helped commence hostilities during the Operation Just Cause invasion of Panama (1989), but their greatest moment was during the Persian GulfWar (1991) with Iraq. Sustaining no losses or battle damage during their night missions, Nighthawks attacked heavily defended, high-value targets such as weapons bunkers, command centers, and SAM sites. They flew only 2 percent of wartime air missions, but accomplished 30 percent of all strategic raids. Small numbers of Nighthawks destroyed targets that defeated larger formations of other types of jets.

In 1992, as part of post-Cold War restructuring, the Air Force transferred its F-117's from Tonopah to the Forty-ninth Fighter Wing at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. Further, the service relaxed many of the plane's secrecy restrictions. During the 1990's, improvements were made to the Nighthawk's wheel brakes and avionics. American leaders deployed Nighthawks in disputes involving North Korea, Iraq, and Serbia. Nighthawks flew one Iraqi combat strike in 1993.

See F-117A.com - The "Black Jet" website for the latest news and the best comprehensive information

Dating to a World War II innovation, spread spectrum was a military communications application for decades before the technology became commercially available. Military research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory, Magnavox, and Sylvania lead to the first spread spectrum equipment in the early 1950s. Sylvania-developed equipment, for example, was used by the U.S. Navy during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, about the time the term "spread spectrum" (if not the classified technology) began to come into general use. Parallel research on radar systems and a technologically similar concept called "phase coding" also had an impact on spread spectrum development.

Spread spectrum works by transmitting signals that sound like electrical noise, spread over (by rapid switching or hopping) a wide band of frequencies. Indeed, signals are intentionally spread over a much wider band than the information they are carrying to make them more noiselike. Combined, these two features make signals hard to detect, jam, or intercept and thus are invaluable for military signaling. This technique decreases the potential interference to other receivers while achieving privacy. While commercial spread spectrum systems use bandwidths of 10 to 100 times the information rates, military systems have used spectrum widths from 10 to 1,000 times wider.

If the sequence of channel changes is not known to potential adversaries, spread spectrum signals are highly resistant to deliberate jamming. Military radios use cryptographic techniques to generate the channel sequence under the control of a secret transmission security key that only the sender and receiver share. By itself, frequency hopping provides only limited protection against eavesdropping, so military frequency-hopping radios often employ separate encryption devices. U.S. military radios that use frequency hopping include the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System.

The basic elements of spread spectrum were declassified only in the 1980s, allowing the development of commercial applications. Spread spectrum has been recently combined with digital technology for spy-proof and noise-resistant battlefield communications. In civilian life, it is seen most often in cordless phones and wireless local area networks.

Sources

Dixon, Robert C. 1994. Spread Spectrum Systems with Commercial Applications. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. 1982. Milcom '82: IEEE Military Communications Conference-Progress in Spread Spectrum Communications. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

Malik, R. 2001. "Spread Spectrum-Secret Military Technology to 3G." IEEE History Center

In 1940 and 1941, Demag and Hanomag worked on the development of new semi-tracked carrier that would replace Sd.Kfz.251. The new vehicle was a modified Sd.Kfz.251 with improved running gear, new Maybach HL 45 Z engine with 100hp and new transmission. The new Sd.Kfz.251 - HKp 602 / 603 remained in prototype form only. In 1941, Demag and Hanomag continued their development with HKp 605 and in 1942 with HKp 606. New vehicles featured simplified body, new Maybach HL 50 engine with 180hp and gearbox. Again, only prototypes were produced and entire project was stopped in favour of production of Sd.Kfz.251. The new simplified body design of HKp 606 was used in the development of Sd.Kfz.251 Ausf D body.

The Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force (Aviazione Cobelligerante Italiana, or ACI), or Air Force of the South (Aeronautica del Sud), was the air force of the Royalist "Badoglio government". The ACI was formed in southern Italy in October 1943 after the Italian Armistice in September. The ACI pilots flew for the Allies.

A small part of the Italian Royal Air Force (Regia Aeronautica) remained under German control. This was known as the National Republican Air Force (Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana, or ANR), ostensibly part of the forces of the Benito Mussolini's Fascist state in northern Italy, the Italian Social Republic (Repubblica Sociale Italiana). The ANR pilots flew with the Axis.

By the end of 1943, 281 Italian warplanes had landed at Allied airfields, but most were no longer useful for combat. The crews of these aircraft were re-equipped with Allied aircraft and engaged in transport, escort, reconnaissance, sea rescue, and limited tactical ground support operations flying 11,000 missions from 1943 to 1945.

The ACI never operated over Italian territory, its objectives being always in the Balkans (Yugoslavia or Albania). This was to avoid any possible encounter between Italian-manned aircraft fighting on opposite sides. During the entire history of ICA, no encounter, let alone combat, was ever reported between ACI and ANR aircraft.

The ACI formed the basis of the post-war Air Force of the Italian Republic (Aeronautica Militare Italiana).

Units

28째Gruppo, Stormo Baltimore, Southern Italy

2째Gruppo, 3째Stormo Trasporto, Aeronautica Cobelligerante del Sud, Lecce-Galatina, Southern Italy, November 1944

Aircraft

Ambrosini S.A.I.2S

AVIA FL.3

Breda Ba.25

Breda Ba.39

Bell P-39Q Airacobra

Bell P-39N Airacobra

CANT Z.501 Gabbiano

CANT Z.506B Airone

CANT Z.1007bis Alcione

CANT Z.1018 Leone

Caproni Ca.133

Caproni Ca.164

Caproni-Bergamaschi Ca.310 Libeccio

Fiat CR.32 bis.

Fiat G.8

Fiat BR.20M Cicogna

Fiat G.50bis Freccia

Fiat RS.14B

Fiat CR.42AS Falco

Fiat G.12T

Martin A-30 Baltimore III

Macchi MC.200 Saetta

Macchi MC.202 Folgore

Macchi MC.205V Veltro

Nardi FN.305

Reggiane Re.2001 Serie III Falco II

Reggiane Re.2002 Ariete

SAIMAN 200

SAIMAN 202

Savoia-Marchetti SM.75 Marsupiale

Savoia-Marchetti SM.79-I Sparviero

Savoia-Marchetti SM.81 Pipistrello

Savoia-Marchetti SM.82 Marsupiale

Savoia-Marchetti SM.84

Supermarine Spitfire L.F.Mk.VB

Type: tank

Place of origin: German Empire

Service history

In service: 21 March 1918 - October 1918

Used by: German Empire

Wars: World War I

Production history

Designer: Joseph Vollmer

Designed: 1916

Number built: 20

Specifications

Weight : 30 to 33 t

Length: 7.34 m (24 ft 1 in)

Width: 3.1 m (10 ft)

Height: 3.3 m (10 ft 10 in)

Crew: 18

Armor: side 20 mm, front 50 mm

Primary armament: 57 mm gun

Secondary armament: 6 × 7.9 mm machine guns

Engine: 2 × Daimler 4-cylinder 200 hp (149 kW)

Power/weight: 6.5 hp/tonne

Suspension: Holt track, vertical springs

Operational range: 30-80 km (20-50 miles)

Speed: 9 km/h

World War I tanks

The A7V was a tank introduced by Germany in 1918, near the end of World War I. One hundred examples were ordered for the spring of 1918, but only 20 were delivered. They saw action from March to October of that year, and were the only tanks produced by Germany in World War I to see operational use.[1]

History

Following the appearance of the first British tanks on the Western Front, the Allgemeines Kriegsdepartement, 7. Abteilung, Verkehrswesen ("General War Department, 7th Branch, Transportation"),[2] was formed in September 1916.

The project to design and build retards was placed under the direction of Joseph Vollmer, a Reserve Captain and engineer. The new tank was to be a universal chassis which could be used as a base for both a tank and unarmoured Überlandwagen ("Over-land vehicle") cargo carriers. It was based on the Holt tractor, parts for which were obtained from Austria, where it was produced under licence.

The first prototype was completed by Daimler-Benz and tested in April 1917. A wooden mockup of a final version was completed in May 1917. The first pre-production A7V was produced in September 1917, followed by the first production model in October 1917.

Naming

The tank's name was derived from that of its parent organization, Allgemeines Kriegsdepartement, 7. Abteilung, Verkehrswesen.[1] In German the tank was called Sturmpanzer-Kraftwagen (roughly "assault armoured motor vehicle").

Design

The A7V was 7.34 metres (24 ft 1 in), 3 metres (10 ft) wide the maximum height was 3.3 metres (10 ft 10 in). The tank had 20 mm of steel plate at the sides and 30 mm at the front; however the steel was not hardened armour plate, which reduced its effectiveness. It was thick enough to stop machine gun and rifle fire, but not larger calibres. This offered protection comparable to the thinner armour of other tanks of the period, which used hardened steel.

The crew normally consisted of up to sixteen soldiers and two officers: commander, driver, mechanic, mechanic/signaller, twelve infantrymen (six machine gunners, six loaders), and two artillerymen (main gunner and loader).

The A7V was armed with six 7.9 mm MG08/15 machine guns and a 5.7 cm gun mounted at the front. The "female" variant had two more machine guns in place of the main gun. It is not entirely clear how many started this way or were converted. Some sources say only chassis number 501 saw combat as a female.

Power came from two centrally mounted Daimler 4-cylinder engines delivering 100 hp (74 kW) each. The top speed was about 15 km/h on roads and 5 km/h across country. The A7V carried 500 litres of fuel (132 imperial gallons).

It was as slow as other tanks of the day, but had very poor off-road capability and was prone to getting stuck. The large overhang at the front and low ground clearance meant trenches or very muddy areas were impassable. This was worsened by the fact that the driver could not see the terrain directly in front of the tank, due to a blind spot of about 10 metres. However, on open terrain it could be used to some success and offered more firepower than the armoured cars that were available. Power to weight ratio was 6.8 hp/ton (5.1 kW/ton), trench crossing: 7 ft (2.3 m), ground clearance: 7.5 to 15.75 in (200 to 400 mm).

Thirty chassis were assigned for completion as Überlandwagen supply carriers, but not all were completed before end of the war.

The design of the A7V featured on the Tank Badge of 1921, awarded to commemorate service in the German Panzer forces of 1918.

Combat history

The A7V was first used in combat on 21 March 1918. It was deployed north of the St. Quentin Canal. The A7Vs helped stop a minor British breakthrough in the area, but otherwise saw little combat that day.

The first tank against tank combat in history took place on the 24 April 1918 when three A7Vs (including chassis number 561, known as "Nixe") taking part in an attack with infantry incidentally met three Mark IVs (two Female machine gun-armed tanks and one Male with two 6-pounder guns) near Villers-Bretonneux. During the battle tanks on both sides were damaged. According to the lead tank commander, 2nd Lt Frank Mitchell, the Female Mk IVs fell back after being damaged by armour piercing bullets. They were unable to damage the A7Vs with their own machine guns. Mitchell then attacked the lead German tank, commanded by 2nd Lt Wilhelm Biltz,[3] with the 6 pounders of his own tank and knocked it out. He hit it three times, and killed five of the crew when they bailed out. He then went on to rout some infantry with case shot. The two remaining A7Vs in turn withdrew. As Lt. Mitchell's tank withdrew from action, seven Whippet tanks also engaged the infantry. Four of these were knocked out in the battle, and it is unclear if any of them engaged the retreating German tanks. Lt. Mitchell's tank lost a track towards the end of the battle from a mortar shell and was abandoned. The damaged A7V was later recovered by German forces.

All 18 available A7Vs had been put into action that day with limited results; two toppled over into holes, some encountered engine or armament troubles. After a counterattack, three ended up in Allied hands. One was unusable and scrapped, one used for shell testing by the French, and the third taken by the Australians.

The A7V was not considered a success and other designs were planned by Germany, however the end of the war meant none of the other tanks in development, or planned ones, would be finished (such as the Oberschlesien, K-Wagen, LK I or LK II). The final use in WWI of A7Vs was in October 1918; a number were scrapped before the war ended in November.

The extremely limited production of twenty made a very limited contribution, and most of the tanks (less than a hundred in total) that were fielded in action by Germany in World War I were captured French or British tanks (Beutepanzer). In contrast, the French had produced over 3,600 of their light FT-17, the most produced tank of World War I, and the British over 2,500 of their heavy Mark I to V tanks.

Post war

Two lightly armoured vehicles broadly resembling the A7V, one of which was named "Hedi", were used by government troops or Freikorps to quell civil unrest in Berlin in 1919, and were constructed after the war, probably using the chassis from Überlandwagens.

A7V chassis listing

501 Gretchen: scrapped by the Allies in 1919 (Female).

502: Scrapped by Germans in October 1918.

503 Totenkopf: Scrapped by Germans in October 1918.

504 Schnuck: lost at Fremicourt 31 August 1918.

505 Baden I: scrapped by the Allies in 1919.

506 Mephisto: lost at Villers-Bretonneux on 24 April 1918, recovered by Australians, now in Queensland Museum in Brisbane, Australia.

507 Cyklop: scrapped by the Allies in 1919.

525 Siegfried: scrapped by the Allies in 1919.

526: Scrapped by Germans in 1 June 1918.

527 Lotti: lost at Pompelle Fort 1 June 1918.

528 Hagen: lost at Fremicourt 31 August 1918.

529 Nixe 2: lost at Remis 31 May 1918, recovered by Americans and scrapped at Aberdeen Proving Grounds Museum in 1942.

540 Heiland: scrapped by the Allies in 1919.

541: Scrapped by the Allies in 1919.

542 Elfriede: lost at Villers-Bretonneux 24 April 1918

543 Hagen, Adalbert, König Wilhelm: scrapped by the Allies in 1919.

560 Alter Fritz: lost at Iwuy 11 October 1918.

561 Nixe: scrapped by Germans 24 April 1918.

562 Herkules: scrapped by Germans after 31 August 1918.

563 Wotan: scrapped by the Allies in 1919, a replica of Wotan was built in the late 1980s based largely on Mephisto, which is now in the Panzermuseum in Munster, Germany.

564: Scrapped by the Allies in 1919.

Notes

1.a b Tucker, Spencer (2004). Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. pp. 24-25. ISBN 1576079953.

2. Zaloga, S.J., 2006, German Panzers 1914-18, p.7.

3. Forty, George (1995). Tank Action from the Great War to the Gulf. Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd. pp. 39-47. ISBN 0750904798.

References

Foley, John (1967). A7V Sturmpanzerwagen. Profile Publications.

Foss, Christopher F. (2003). The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Spellmount. pp. 232. ISBN 1862271887.

Bass, Eric (2006). German Panzers 1914-18. Osprey Publishing. pp. 232. ISBN 1841769452

Jet aircraft and jet engine development became a priority task for the Soviet aircraft industry after the war. Huge resources were committed to this task; still, all the money in the world can't buy you time, and the research and development effort was certainly going to be a lengthy one, which meant the service entry of the first Soviet jets would occur rather later than desired. Therefore, to speed up the work the Soviet government chose to make use of Germany's experience in this field.

In 1945 the Soviet Union came into possession of many materials pertaining to jet aircraft development. The rich war booty included complete aircraft and jet engines. Many of these aircraft underwent rigorous testing at the Red Banner State Research Institute of the Soviet Air Force (GK Nil VVS-Gosoodarstvennyy krasnoznamyonnyy naooch-no-issledovatel'skiy institoot Voyennovozdooshnykh sil) and the Flight Research Institute (LII - Lyotno-issledovatel'skiy institoot); they were also carefully studied at the Central Aero-&Hydrodynamics Institute named after Nikolay Yeo Zhukovskiy (TsAGI-Tsentrahl'nyy aero- i ghidrodinamicheskiy institoot). The detailed reports filed after these tests and examinations were circulated to various organizations within the NKAP framework, including design bureaux. The same procedure applied to the captured engines. The Junkers Jumo 004B and BMW 003A turbojets rated at 900 kgp (1,984 lb st) and 800 kgp (1 ,763 lb st) respectively were of special interest to the Soviet engineers because they had reached production status; therefore, it was decided to urgently launch production of these engines in the USSR.

On 28th April 1945 the People's Commissar of Aircraft Industry issued an order to the effect that Chief Designer Vladimir Yakovlevich Klimov, whose engine design bureau had been evacuated from Rybinsk (Yaroslavl' Region) to Ufa during the war, should prepare a set of detail drawings of the Jumo 004B, whereupon the reverse-engineered turbojet was to enter production at the Ufa aero-engine factory No. 26 as the RD-10. Klimov's closest aide Nikolay D. Kuznetsov was put in charge of the actual copying job. Another NKAP order issued on 13th June 1945 tasked Chief Designer of the Kazan' aero-engine factory No. 16 Kolosov with similarly copying the BMW 003A and launching production of this engine as the RD-20. The decision to build the RD-10 and RD-20 was confirmed by the State Defence Committee's directive of 20th July 1945 titled 'On studying and mastering production of German jet aircraft designs'. Production of both models got underway in 1946.

Still, despite the high priority attached in the immediate post-war months to copying and producing the German engines, it was clear that progress in the field of Soviet engine design could only be attained by relying on own resources and indigenous models.

Back in the autumn of 1944 Lyul'ka's design team had begun testing the S-18 turbojet, a further development of the pre-war RD-1; the S stood for stendovyy, meaning that the Soviet Union's first operational jet engine was intended for bench trials and was not yet flight-cleared. At this stage the designers had their first acquaintance with engine surge at high rpm; the surge was bad enough to wreck the engine completely. Still, changes introduced into the design cured the problem and the S-18 successfully completed its trials. The latter included comparative tests with the Jumo 004B, showing that the Soviet engine had not only higher thrust (1 ,250 kgp/2,755 lb st) but a lower dry weight and specific fuel consumption. These encouraging results led to the decision to develop a flight-cleared version designated TR-1 (toorboreaktivnyy [dvigate!'] - turbojet engine) and manufacture a small trials batch. To this end a new design bureau, OKB-165, was established, with Arkhip M. Lyul'ka as Chief Designer.

On 2nd April 19461. V. Stalin, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, held a briefing on the prospects of Soviet aviation, including jet aircraft development. One of the items on the agenda was the possibility of copying the Messerschmitt Me 262A-1 a fighter, an example of which had been evaluated by GK Nil VVS in August-November 1945, and putting it into production at one of the Soviet aircraft factories. In its day the Me 262 had an impressive top speed of 850 km/h (459 kts) , heavy armament comprising four 30-mm (1.18 calibre) cannons and was generally well designed. However, the idea was rejected for various reasons.

By then several Soviet design bureaux had a number of high-speed aircraft projects in the making; many of them fell for the 'German' layout with two turbojet engines under or on the wings ala Me 262 (which, incidentally, was also employed by the British Gloster Meteor). For instance, Pavel O. Sukhoi's OKB used it for the izdeliye K fighter, the Mikoyan OKB developed a Me 262 look-alike designated 1-260, while the Lavochkin OKB came up with the '160' fighter (the first fighter to have this designation) and the Alekseyev OKB with the 1-21 designed along similar lines. A notable exception was the Yakovlev OKB because A. S. Yakovlev cordially disliked heavy fighters, preferring lightweight single-engined machines. (Later Yakovlev did resort to the twin-engined layout, but that was in the early 1950s when the Yakovlev OKB brought out the Yak-120 (Yak-25) twinjet interceptor.)

As an insurance policy in case one OKB failed to achieve the desired results, the Soviet government usually issued a general operational requirement (GOR) for a new aircraft to several design bureaux at once in a single Council of People's Commissars (or Council of Ministers) directive. This was followed by an NKAP (or MAP, Ministerstvo aviatsionnoy promyshlennosti - Ministry of Aircraft Industry) order to the same effect. This was also the case with the new jet fighters. Initially all the above mentioned OKBs designed their fighters around Soviet copies of the Jumo 004B or BMW 003A engines; later the more promising indigenous TR-1 came into the picture.

It should be noted that in the early postwar years the Soviet defence industry enterprises continued to operate pretty much in wartime conditions, working like scalded cats. In particular, the Powers That Be imposed extremely tight development and production schedules on the design bureaux and production factories tasked with developing and manufacturing new military hardware. The schedules were closely monitored not only by the ministry to which the respective OKB or factory belonged but also by the notorious KGB. 'Missing the train' could mean swift and severe reprisal not only for the OKB head and actual project leaders but also for high-ranking statesmen who had responsibility for the programme. Nevertheless, even though the commencement of large-scale R&D on jet aircraft had been ordered as far back as May 1944, no breakthrough had been achieved by early 1946. For instance, the aircraft industry failed to comply with the orders to build pre-production batches of jet fighters in time for the traditional August flypast held at Moscow's Tushino airfield; only two jets, the MiG-9 and Yak-15, participated in the flypast on that occasion. This was all the more aggravating because jet fighters had been in production in Great Britain since 1944 and in the USA since early 1945. Unfortunately the Soviet aero-engine factories encountered major difficulties when mastering production of jet engines; hence in early 1946 jet engines were produced in extremely limited numbers, suffering from low reliability and having a time between overhauls (TBO) of only 25 hours.

As was customary in the Soviet Union in those days, someone had to pay for this, and scapegoats were quickly found. In February-March 1946 People's Commissar of Aircraft Industry A. I. Shakhoorin, Soviet Air Force C-in-C Air Marshal A. A. Novikov, the Air Force's Chief Engineer A. K. Repin and Main Acquisitions Department chief N. P. Seleznyov and many others were removed from office, arrested and mostly executed.

The early post-war years presaged the Cold War era, and the Soviet leaders attached considerable importance not only to promoting the nation's scientific, technological and military achievements but also to flexing the Soviet Union's military muscles for the world to see. This explains why the government was so eager to see new types displayed at Tushino, regardless of the fact that some of the aircraft had not yet completed their trials - or, worse, did not meet the Air Force's requirements. Thus, the grand show at Tushino on 3rd August 1947 featured a whole formation of jet fighter prototypes: the Yak-19, the Yak15U, the Yak-23, three Lavochkin designs the '150', the '156' and the '160', plus the MiG9, the Su-9 and the Su-11 .

Sometimes the initial production aircraft selected for the flypast lacked armament or important equipment items. This was not considered important; the world had to see the new aircraft at all costs. Behold the achievements of socialism! Feel the power of the Soviet war machine! Fear ye! Still, despite this air of ostentation, the achievements and the power were there beyond all doubt; the Soviet Union's progress in aircraft and aero engine technologies was indeed impressive, especially considering the ravages of the four-year war. It just happened that, because of urgent need, some things which could not be developed in-country quickly enough had to be copied; and copied they were - and with reasonably high quality at that.

Thus by the end of the 1940s the Soviet Union had not only caught up with the West as far as jet aviation was concerned but gained a lead in certain areas. The first Soviet jet fighters dealt with in this post were instrumental in reaching this goal.

The fifth Blohm und Voss Bv222A-O was delivered to Lufttransportstaffel (See) 222 at Petsamo, Finland, in 1943 for transport duties over the northern sector of the Eastern Front. Note the over-wing gun turret.

The Blohm&Voss BV 222 Wiking (Viking) was a large, six-engined German flying boat of World War II, and the largest flying boat to achieve operational status during the war.

Design and development

Prior to World War II, the German airline Deutsche Lufthansa had carried out many transatlantic mail flights. However, their main interest was passenger transport, and they initiated a program in 1936 that culminated in an order for three BV 222 flying boats designed by Richard Vogt.

Construction of the first prototype, V1, began in January 1938, with construction of the V2 and V3 following within weeks. V1 made its test flight on 7 September 1940, carrying the civil registration D-ANTE. During trials it demonstrated that it could carry up to 92 passengers, or 72 patients on stretchers over short distances at a maximum speed of 239 mph (385 km/h).[1] The flight characteristics were found to be satisfactory, but with some improvements required. Further trials lasted until December 1940, when the V1 passed into Luftwaffe service, receiving a military paint scheme and the registration CC+EQ (later X4+AH).

The type was noted for a long flat floor inside the cabin and a large square cargo door aft of the wing on the starboard side. The flat floor was a welcome novelty for that era. Only thirteen aircraft were thought to have been completed.

Originally powered by Bramo 323 Fafnir radial engines, later aircraft were powered by six 1,000 hp Jumo 207C inline two-stroke diesel engines. The use of diesels permitted refueling at sea by U-boats. C-13 aircraft was a sole example fitted with Jumo 205C and later Jumo 205D engines.

Early aircraft were identified as V1 to V8. Production examples were designated C-09 to C-13.

In Service

V1 made seven flights between Hamburg and Kirkenes up to 19 August 1941, transporting a total of 65,000 kg (140,000 lb) of supplies and 221 wounded men, covering a distance of 30,000 km (19,000 mi) in total. After being overhauled at Hamburg, V1 was sent to Athens, from where it carried supplies for the Afrika Corps, making 17 flights between 16 October and 6 November 1941. The V1 was at this time unarmed, and was given a fighter escort of two Bf 110s.

Following these flights, the V1 returned to Hamburg to have defensive armament fitted, comprising a MG 81 in the hull, two turret-mounted MG 131s, and four MG 81s in waist mounts. The registration was changed to X4+AH at the same time and the V1 formed the basis for the new air transport squadron Lufttransportstaffel 222 (LTS 222). Between 1942 and 1943 the aircraft flew in the Mediterranean theatre, until in mid-February 1943 it sank following a collision with a submerged wreck while landing at Piraeus harbour.

The V2 (CC+ER) made its first flight on 7 August 1941, and after extensive testing was assigned to LTS 222 on 10 August 1942 as X4+AB. Since the aircraft was intended for long-distance overwater flights, in addition to the armament fitted to the V1 she received two rear-facing wing-mounted turrets with dual MG 131s, accessed via the tubular wing spar which was 1 m (3.3 ft) in diameter.

In 1944 the V2 participated in Operation Schatzgräber ("Treasure Seeker"), the code name of a German weather station at Alexandra Land in the Arctic, whose sick crew needed to be evacuated. The BV 222 dropped a spare wheel for a Fw 200 which had sustained damage during landing near the station.[2]

The V3 (initially DM+SD) first flew on 28 November 1941, and was transferred to LTS 222 on 9 December 1941 After V1's sinking, V3 returned to Hamburg where she was armed. She was destroyed along with V5 on 20 June 1943 at Biscarrosse by RAF de Havilland Mosquitos of No. 264 Squadron RAF.[3]

V4, which had an altered height tail, was also assigned to LTS 222 for Africa flights.

V6 was shot down on 21 August 1942 on the Taranto to Tripoli route by a Bristol Beaufighter; V8 was shot down on the same route on 10 December 1942.

The V7 (TB+QL), which made its first flight on 1 April 1943, was fitted with six 1,000 hp Jumo 207C inline two-stroke diesel engines. With a takeoff weight of 50,000 kg (110,000 lb) and a range of 6,100 km (3,800 mi), it was intended as the prototype BV 222C.

Following the Invasion of Normandy in June 1944, the remaining BV 222 aircraft were formed into a unit controlled by the ultra-secret KG 200.[citation needed] Of these, C-09 was probably the BV 222 reported to have been strafed and destroyed by Hawker Typhoon aircraft of No. 439 Squadron RCAF on 24 April 1945 at Seedorf.[4], while V7 and V4 were scuttled by their crews at Travemünde and Kiel-Holtenau airport respectively, at the end of the war.

C-10 was probably the BV 222 reported shot down southwest of Biscarosse on the night of 8 February 1944 by a Mosquito of No. 157 Squadron RAF.[5][3]

The V2 and C-12 aircraft were captured at Sørreisa in Norway after the war and flown to Trondheim. These two aircraft had been allegedly readied at the instructions of Hitler's pilot Hans Bauer in 1945 to fly the Führer to Japan via Greenland. These aircraft were prepared before Hitler's death, but interestingly the operation was still intended to proceed even after this according to orders dated May 1. A copy of this order to Oberstleutnant Lenschow, Kdr K-Stelle, Travemünde Fliegerhorst, still exists in archive form. The navigator of one aircraft involved was Hauptmann Ernst Koenig and he has come forward to corroborate details at the age of 93. Two of the aircraft which had been prepared for this mission were destroyed at their moorings in Germany (C-09 ?)

At least one aircraft, V4, is said[citation needed] to have shot down a US Navy PB4Y Liberator of VB-105 (BU#63917) commanded by Lt. Evert, on October 22, 1943. Since the war this has often been quoted as a BV 222 shooting down an Avro Lancaster[6][1].

Japan flights

Following the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, plans were made to connect Germany and Japan by air using Luftwaffe aircraft modified for very long range flights since commercial flights to the Far East by Lufthansa were no longer possible, and it had become too dangerous for ships or U-boats to make the trip by sea. Field Marshal Erhard Milch authorized a study in to the feasibility of such direct flights and various routes were considered, including departing from German-occupied Russia and Bulgaria, and a sea route using a BV 222 flying from Kirkenes in north Norway to Tokyo via Sakhalin Island, a distance of 6,400 km (4,000 mi).

The BV 222 was one of three aircraft considered seriously for the program, along with the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 and the Heinkel He 177. The He 177 was ruled out due to it being considered unreliable and in 1943 the Ju 290 was selected for the flights.[7]

There were claims after the war in a German newspaper that at least one BV 222 had flown via the north pole to Sakhalin Island, the southern half of which was then part of the Japanese Empire (the northern half been Russian), prior to April 1944, whilst wearing Deutsche Lufthansa markings.

None of these Germany-Japan flights have ever been confirmed- only the Italians managed to do it.

Postwar

Three BV-222s were captured and subsequently operated by Allied forces: C-011, C-012, and C-013.

C-012 was flown by Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown from Norway to the RAF station at Calshot in 1946, with RAF markings "VP501". After testing at Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment at Felixstowe it was assigned to No. 201 Squadron RAF, who operated it up to 1947, when it was scrapped.[1]

C-011 and C-013, captured by US forces at the end of World War II, were flown to the US. Convair acquired one for evaluation at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, the intensive studies leading to the hull design of their Model 117 which in turn led to the R3Y Tradewind.[8] Their subsequent fate is unknown[9].

The V2 aircraft briefly wore US markings in 1946. Strangely the V2 aircraft had identification markings given to her from the original V5 aircraft for Operation Schatzgräber. V2 was later scuttled by the British who filled her with BV 222 spare parts from the base at Ilsvika to weigh her down. V2 was towed to a position between Fagervika and Monk's island where it is thought she now rests perfectly preserved on the seabed, owing to low oxygen levels in the water. There are plans to raise and restore this aircraft.

Variants

Model of BV 222V-2 showing wing turrets

* BV 222A :

* BV 222B : Proposed version powered by Junkers Jumo 208 engines.

* BV 222C : Production aircraft.

Specifications (BV 222C)

Data from War Planes of the Second World War : Volume Five [10]

General characteristics

* Crew: 11-14

* Capacity: 92 troops [11]

* Length: 37 m (121 ft 42⁄3 in)

* Wingspan: 46 m (150 ft 11 in)

* Height: 10.9 m (35 ft 91⁄8 in)

* Wing area: 255 m2 (2,744.8 ft2)

* Empty weight: 30,715 kg (67,572 lb)

* Loaded weight: 45,683 kg (100,503 lb)

* Max takeoff weight: 49,100 kg (108,030 lb)

* Powerplant: 6× Jumo 207C inline diesel engine, 745.7 kW (1,000 hp) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 390 km/h (242 mph, 210 knots) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)

* Cruise speed: 304 km/h (189 mph, 164 knots) at sea level

* Range: 6,100 km (3,790 mi, 3,296 NM)

* Service ceiling 7,300 m[12] (23,950 ft)

* Rate of climb: 2.4 m/s (473 ft/min)

Armament

* Guns:

o Three 20mm MG 151 cannons (one each in forward turret and two wing turrets).

o Five 13mm MG 131 machine guns (One in nose and four in beam positions)

References

Notes

1. ^ a b c Nicolaou, Stephane (1998). Flying Boats & Seaplanes: A History from 1905. Zenith Imprint. pp. 143. ISBN 0760306214.

2. ^ Dege, Wilhelm; William Barr (trans.) (2003). War North of 80: The Last German Arctic Weather Station of World War II. University of Calgary Press. ISBN 1552381102.

3. ^ a b Bateson, Richard P. (February 1982). "Biscarosse Do 24s", Air Pictorial.

4. ^ "24 April 1945". Summary of Events for No. 439 (CAN) Squadron.

5. ^ Bowman, Martin W. (1998). Mosquito Fighter/Fighter-Bomber Units of World War 2. Osprey Publishing. pp. 18. ISBN 1855327317.

6. ^ Höfling 2003, p. 35.

7. ^ Sweeting, C.G.; Walter J. Boyne (2001). Hitler's Squadron: The Fuehrer's Personal Aircraft and Transport Unit, 1933-45. Brassey's. pp. 125. ISBN 1574884697.

8. ^ Trimble, William F. (2005). Attack from the Sea: A History of the U.S. Navy's Seaplane Striking Force. Naval Institute Press. pp. 46-47. ISBN 1591148782.

9. ^ Höfling 2003, p. 39,41.

10. ^ Green 1972, p.62.

11. ^ Green 1972, p.57.

12. ^ Smith and Kay 1990, p.81.

Bibliography

* Green, William. Warplanes of the Second World War, Volume Five: Flying Boats. London: Macdonald & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 1962 (5th impression 1972). ISBN 0-356-01449-5.

* Green, William. Warplanes of the Third Reich. London: Macdonald and Jane's Publishers Ltd., 1970 (4th impression 1979). ISBN 0-356-02382-6.

* Höfling, Rudolf. Blohm & Voss BV 222 "Wiking" (Flugzeug Profile 40). Stengelheim, Germany: Unitec-Medienvertrieb e.K, 2003. ISSN 194240-511207.

* Krzyźan, Marian. Blohm & Voss BV 222 & BV 238 (Monografie Lotnicze 29) (in Polish). Gdańsk, Poland: AJ-Press, 1996. ISBN 83-86209-47-3.

* Nowarra, Heinz J. (translated by Don Cox) Blohm & Voss Bv 222 "Wiking" - Bv 238. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History, 1997. ISBN 0-7643-0295-7.

* Smith J.Richard and Kay, Anthony. German Aircraft of the Second World War. London: Putnam & Company Ltd., 1972(3rd impression 1978). ISBN 0-370-00024-2.

* Smith J.R. and Kay, Anthony. German Aircraft of the Second World War. London: Putnam, 1990. ISBN 85177 836 4.

* Trojca, Waldemar. Blohm & Voss 222 Wiking (Trojca no.10) (In Polish with English captions). Katowice, Poland: Model Hobby, 2001. ISBN 83-917049-4-7.

The test of the Vogt-Wissemann compressed-air ejection seat fitted to He 219 nightfighters.

The first emergency use is believed to be Fleugzeugfuhrer Schenk on13th January 1943 Luftwaffe Heinkel 280 DL + AS. The aircraft iced up during tow test and he successfully ejected.

During World War 2 there were approximately 60 confirmed /highly probable ejections by German Air Crews mainly from He-219 nightfighters. Many crews experienced more than one ejection hence the high figures. The German Pilot Otto Heinrich Fries who ejected twice from He-219's with his radar operator/rear gunner ejected a total of three times in his career -most probably holding the WWII record as such.

Earlier ejection experiments using mannequins took place from Ju-87s and ground tests from an FW-190.

Several ejections, not all successful, took place from He-162 Volksjager fighters. One ejection was reported from a Do-335.

On July 15, 1943 Junkers Ju-290 SB+QF of Erprobungstelle Rechlin broke up in flutter test. The ejection seat was inadvertently fired ejecting the test pilot Flugkapitan Dip. Ing. Hans Pancherz.

Link Ejection History

It was from the He 280 V1 (seen in bottom photo) that the first-ever bale-out using an ejector seat was made when Argus test pilot Helmut Schenk abandoned the aircraft when his controls locked from icing-up.

13th January 1942: At the height of World War II, German test pilot Helmut Schenk becomes the first person known to use an ejection seat to successfully exit his aircraft in an emergency situation.

Schenk, testing a Heinkel He-280V1 (first prototype) jet fighter, was in tow behind a conventionally powered aircraft when his plane iced up, making it impossible to start his engines. He jettisoned his canopy and activated the seat. Powered by compressed gas, the seat catapulted him clear of the aircraft.

Schenk was the first to use this method of exiting his aircraft in an emergency. Another Heinkel pilot (Busch) had previously ejected successfully under test conditions.

Germany, which produced the Messerschmitt Me-262, the world's first operational jet fighter, also led the way in developing the ejection seat. This was logical enough, considering that the speed and G-forces generated by these high-speed planes made escape problematical for a pilot equipped with only a parachute. Exiting the aircraft by "bailing out," as was commonly done in propeller-driven planes, was exceedingly dangerous in a jet aircraft.

The British also studied aircraft ejection during the interwar years but set the project aside in favor of other pursuits. They would not seriously revisit the subject until after the war.

The Germans experimented with several types of ejection seat - or Schleudersitzapparat, which translates as "seat catapult device." The one Schenk used was activated by compressed gas, another relied on a spring-operated mechanism, and a third used a propellant charge.

Schenk's seat, which was developed by the Heinkel Aircraft Works, was eventually discarded in favor of the propellant charge. That seat was mounted on parallel catapult tubes measuring 42 inches long. Each tube housed a charge containing an ounce of powder. When fired successfully, it achieved an ejection velocity of 35 feet per second.

Ejection seats were eventually installed in several jet-aircraft models flown by the Luftwaffe, including the Heinkel He-162 Volksj채ger, the Arado Ar-2348 Nachtigal and the Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet. Strangely, the ejection seat was only rarely installed in the Me-262, which was the most widely used German jet fighter of the war.

From the time of Schenk's successful escape to the end of the Second World War, approximately 60 Luftwaffe airmen ejected from their planes in combat situations.

Schlachtschiff "J" (Grossdeutschland)

An H-39 with more logical aircraft facilities and better AA.

The H-39 design was a type of battleship proposed by Nazi Germany before the outbreak of World War II. This was basically an enlarged version of the Bismarck class, and was designed as part of the proposed Plan Z fleet.

Design

The Bismarck class

The F - G design, a 35,000-ton battleship program started in 1932, was laid down before the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935. These would become the Bismarck class, the largest battleships built by Germany, and the heaviest battleships in any European navy. Despite this they had a number of design flaws, which the admirals of the Kriegsmarine were determined to correct in their next design, the H class. In 1937, Germany's Oberkommando der Kriegsmarine (OKM) ordered a study for a new battleship class to succeed the Bismarck design.

Gunnery problems

From the beginning Adolf Hitler insisted on 50.8 cm (20.0 in) guns, instead of a 40.6 cm (16.0 in) caliber.[1] The naval staff had difficulties in persuading him that any design mounting guns larger than 16 in was not practical. Any battleship which mounted 20 in guns would have to weigh 80,000-120,000 tons, with a length of 1,000 ft (300 m). This would also mean reconstructing German ports so as to service such a ship. Additionally a German 16 in gun design had already been developed in conjunction with the 38.0 cm (15.0 in) design. Any new design for a much larger gun would dramatically lengthen the design and construction process. Finally Hitler agreed with the H-39 design as proposed.

The design

The H-39 class design was basically an enlarged version of the Bismarck class. The most noticeable difference was the use of two smokestacks on the H-39 class, instead of one on Bismarck. The Bismarck also used steam turbines for propulsion, while the H-39 class was designed for diesel engines, and had a 60% increase in operating range over the earlier ships.[2] The twelve propulsion diesels would also provide a top speed of 30 kn (56 km/h), about the same performance as the battleships in other navies. The space requirements for the engines and stacks also prevented a hangar/catapult arrangement amidships as in Bismarck. The hangars for four Arado Ar 196 floatplanes were placed in the aft superstructure with rails running on either side of the aft turrets to a centerline catapult aft of turret D.

Comparison

The H-class ships would have compared more favorably than Bismarck class to other battleships of the time, being superior to the older design in both armament and armor. They would have out-classed every British battleship afloat. However, the proposed British Lion class battleships, armed with nine 16 in (406 mm) guns would likely have outgunned them, and sporting an extra 85 mm of belt armor (380 mm), would have enjoyed greater protection than the H-class.

Other designs

During 1941 the "H class" was redesigned ("H-41") and it was proposed to bore out the existing guns to 42 cm (16.5 in) caliber. One of the reasons behind this conversion was to give these ships a larger caliber weapon than those planned for any known Allied battleship. This and the later "H-42" never got off the drawing board. Then in late 1943, Hitler's original idea of a huge 50.8 cm (20.0 in) gunned battleship was drawn up. This was designated "H-44", but with the stress on German war production at a high level it was decided by late 1944 to abandon the project. The assembled steel was later used to make U-boats.[3]

Construction

In 1938 OKM developed Plan Z which would enlarge the Kriegsmarine by 1945. Part of this called required a total of six H class battleships to be laid down. In August Hitler ordered that the Bismarck class be completed by late 1940 and that the construction of the H class would begin in 1939. In January 1939 the Plan Z was adopted and the order for the six H class battleships was placed. Construction contracts were with the following Naval yards:

* Schlachtschiff "H" to Blohm + Voss at Hamburg

* Schlachtschiff "J" to Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau AG at Bremen

* Schlachtschiff "K" to Deutsche Werke at Kiel

* Schlachtschiff "L" to the Kriegsmarinewerft at Wilhelmshaven

* Schlachtschiff "M" to Blohm + Voss at Hamburg

* Schlachtschiff "N" to Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau AG at Bremen

Schlachtschiff "H" (Friedrich der Grosse) was laid down on July 15, 1939 and Schlachtschiff "J" (Grossdeutschland) on September 1, 1939. "K" was scheduled to be laid down on September 15 but this was postponed because of the outbreak of World War II. A hold was also placed on construction of the two ships already started. At the time that construction was frozen "H" had 14,055-tons of material ordered, 5,800-tons delivered but only 766-tons worked into the keel. There had been less work on the "J". 3,531-tons of material had been ordered but only 40-tons put into the keel.[4]

Coastal artillery

While only ten of the four-dozen main gun barrels needed for the ships were completed, without the ships it was decided to use the guns constructed for coastal artillery. Four guns were emplaced at Battery Trondenes outside Harstad, Norway. A twin battery was built on the island of Engeløy further south, as Batterie Dietl. Three guns were set up in Hel near Danzig, as Battery Schleswig Holstein. After extensive testing the guns were transported from Hel to Sangatte, France and set up as Battery Lindemann, from where they fired across the English Channel at Dover. Today, the Adolf Gun at Battery Trondenes is open as a museum during the summer season.

Friedrich der Grosse

Even though the H class was never completed the first ship in the class, Friedrich der Grosse remains a part of naval fiction. Several alternate history books have been written using Friedrich der Grosse, and she has appeared in several naval wargames as well.

During World War II itself Time Magazine featured several articles in 1940 and 1942 about German capital ships. Friedrich der Grosse is mentioned as one of these ships. [1][2]

Book References