The diminutive Me 163 Komet did not alter the war's history, but was an imaginative idea. Principal drawback to the concept was the dangerous fuel.

There can be little doubt that if the Messerschmitt Me 163 rocket-powered fighter had been available to the Luftwaffe in quantity a year earlier, the Allied daylight bombing programme would have proved even costlier than it was. With an extra year of development behind it, the Me 163's problems, particularly those concerned with handling its unstable mixture of rocket fuels, might well have been solved, but the whole programme was at the edge of a new technology range, and time was not on Germany's side.

Research had been proceeding in Germany into the possibility of rocket-powered aircraft since the 1920s and Dr Alexander Lippisch, who had been working on tailless sailplane designs, produced the DFS 194 glider in a basic layout which was to be developed into the Me 163. Lippisch and his team joined Messerschmitt in January 1939 and began work on adapting the DFS 194 airframe to take an 882-lb (400-kg) thrust Walter rocket motor. This motor had already flown in the experimental rocket-powered He 176, but that programme had been unsatisfactory. The DFS 194, on the other hand, reached a speed of 342 mph (550 km/h) during tests and this led to increased momentum in the programme, Messerschmitt receiving an order for six prototypes designated Me 163A.

The first prototype was tested originally as a glider, towed behind a Messerschmitt Bf 110, and its flying qualities were good, the few problems being easily ironed out. In the summer of 1941 two of the prototypes were taken to Peenemünde for powered trials with the new Walter HWK RII-203b rocket motor, which gave 1,653-lb (750-kg) thrust, and the Me 163 was soon attaining speeds of up to 550 mph (885 km/h). Since only a small amount of rocket fuel could be carried there was a danger of running out before higher speeds could be attained but on one occasion, after being towed to a height of 13,125 ft (4000 m), test pilot Heini Dittmar cast off, fired the engine and accelerated to reach the remarkable speed of 623.85 mph (1003.9 km/h) before suffering a loss of stability as a result of compressibility effects. This phenomenon was to become well known later as aircraft approached the speed of sound. Dittmar corrected the situation but a redesign of the wing was undertaken to combat this fault.

There was, in fact, more danger at this stage of the programme in the instability of the fuel, which was a mixture of 80 per cent hydrogen peroxide with oxyquinoline or phosphate (T-Stoff) and an aqueous solution of calcium permanganate (Z-Stoff). An imbalance of these fuels in the combustion chamber could cause an explosion and occasionally did; a replacement for Z-Stoff using a different catalyst (30 per cent hydrazine hydrate solution in methanol) was called C-Stoff and was developed for use in the Waiter RII-211 which, in its production form for the later Me 163B was the HWK 109-509A.

Since the Me 163 had to be as light as possible, in order to get the maximum performance from its very limited fuel load, the weight penalty of retractable landing gear was not acceptable. Thus, the take-off was made using a jettisonable two-wheel dolly, the aircraft landing on a retractable skid beneath the forward fuselage plus the tailwheel. The method caused problems, since take-offs had to be made directly into wind; if a concrete runway was to be used and there was a crosswind it was impossible to get airborne as the aircraft would not keep straight below the speed at which the rudder became operative. A subsequent modification to couple rudder control to rocket ignition partially cured this.

Following the six Me 163A prototypes, a preproduction series of 10 Me 163A-0 aircraft was built by Wolf Hirth, the sailplane company, and these were used as training gliders. However, considerable redesign took place before the operational Me 163B Komet (comet) flew. Six prototypes and 70 production models were ordered, but troubles with the new rocket motor held up the programme, and fuel consumption was almost double the calculated figure. Production was subcontracted to a number of component manufacturers and the parts were assembled in a Black Forest factory under the supervision of Klemm Technik GmbH, although this company had many problems since the sub-contractors were not accustomed to close-tolerance work.

First production deliveries of Me 163B-1a interceptors began in May 1944, and the type saw action for the first time on 28 July, when five Me 163s from l./JG 400, the first operational unit, ineffectively attacked a formation of Boeing B-17s near Merseburg. Their difficulties can be appreciated when it was realised that approaching the target at around 559 mph (900 km/h) when the bombers were travelling at 250 mph (402 km/h). The closing speed allowed the attacker only a three-second burst from a slow-firing cannon before he had to break away. Because of the poor results with the MK 108 cannon an alternative weapon had to be found.

One answer was certainly unusual; the SG 500 Jagdfaust consisted of five vertically mounted firing tubes in each wing root, each containing a 50-mm shell. The system fired in a salvo and was activated by the shadow of the target passing over a light cell (unfortunate if it happened to be your wingman) and the Me 163 merely had to fly at high speed beneath the bomber formation, when the armament was activated automatically. The Jagdfaust system was fitted to 12 Me 163Bs but, although these were not issued for operations, this unlikely weapon destroyed a B-17 on one occasion.

In 1944, to help convert the dwindling supply of pilots to the Me 163, a tandem trainer variant designated Me 163S was developed, an adaptation of the Me 163B with ammunition, T-Stoff tanks and other items removed to make way for the extra seat. The Me 163S was flown only as a glider and few were converted. Production of the Me 163B-1a ended in February 1945 after almost 400 of all variants had been built. Projected developments included the Me 163C and Me 163D; the former was a modification of the Me 163B with an auxiliary cruising chamber to improve endurance, a new centre-section and a more streamlined fuselage with a blister canopy. Three Me 163C-la aircraft were built, but only one was flown. The Me 163D was further refined and had retractable tricycle landing gear. One prototype was built and, since Junkers had been tasked with development and series production of this model, it was for a while known as the Ju 248 before reverting to a Messerschmitt designation as the Me 263. It did not enter production, the prototype being captured by the Russians who fitted it with new straight wings and modified tail surfaces, flying it in 1946 as the I-270(ZH), but it was soon abandoned.

Mention should be made of a licence-built version of the Me 163B, the Mitsubishi Ki-200 (J8M1), which was to be built in Japan with Mitsubishi and Yokosuka building the HWK 509A motor. Loss of the pattern aircraft on a ship en route to Japan left the Japanese with only an instruction manual, and it is to their credit that they began design of an airframe based on the Me 163B. The first aircraft flew in July 1945 but was destroyed when the motor failed. Several others were built but the programme was terminated by the end of the war.

This Iraqi T-55 sports add-on armour on both turret and hull.

T-55AM2B with additional armour

The first postwar Soviet MBT, introduced in 1948, was the formidable T-54, itself a refinement of the T-44, the short-lived redesign of the T- 34/85 at the end of World War II. The T-54 had improved mechanical ability, especially in its torsion-bar suspension and transmission. It had five road wheels per side, with a noticeable gap between the first and second road wheels. There were no return rollers. The original turret design tended to deflect rounds downward into the turret ring and was replaced by a more hemispherical “frying pan” shape with internal mantlet.

The T-54 had a longer hull than the T-44, as well as a larger and better-shaped turret. It also had improved tracks, a torsion-bar suspension system, and a transverse-mount engine at the hull rear. The T-54 weighed some 79,300 pounds, had a crew of four, and a 520- hp diesel engine giving a maximum road speed of 30 mph. It mounted a 100mm main gun and three machine guns. The bow machine gun, done away with on the T-44, resurfaced in the T-54, but without return of the crewman for it; manning the bow gun was now the responsibility of the driver. The T-54 had maximum 203mm armor protection.

In the mid-1950s the T-54 received a bore evacuator near the muzzle of the main gun, which was also stabilized for elevation. The T-54B of 1957–1958 introduced a stabilized gun for both elevation and traverse. It also had infrared driving lights and snorkel equipment enabling it to cross rivers while submerged.

The T-55 appeared beginning in 1958. The chief difference between it and the T-54 was in the latter’s more powerful V-55 580-hp diesel engine. It also had a slightly modified turret, an improved 100mm main gun, a better transmission, a revolving turret floor (meaning that the crew did not have to shift position as the turret rotated), and increased ammunition storage. In 1963 the T-55 received an NBC system. The bow machine gun was also eliminated. In the late 1980s the T-55s received new supercharged engines, improved fire-control and laser-range finding systems, and appliqué and explosive armor.

The T-54/T-55 had a very long service life. Production continued until 1981, with a phenomenal 95,000 tanks manufactured, more than any other tank in history. Both the Chinese and Romanians have produced copies. Even at the end of the Cold War the T-54/T- 55 constituted some 38 percent of overall Soviet tank strength and as much as 86 percent of non-Soviet Warsaw Pact armor. Reliable and relatively inexpensive, the T-54/T-55 was exported to more than 35 other nations (outside of the Warsaw Pact these included Egypt, Finland, India, Iraq, Libya, and Syria). Although obsolescent, these tanks nonetheless remain in service today. Egypt has upgraded its T- 55s with U.S. engines, guns, and fire-control systems. Israel captured a number of T-54/T-55s from Egypt and Syria and proceeded to upgrade them with General Motors engines and 105mm M68 guns.

The T-54/T-55s have had a mixed combat record. Although sufficient to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, they were not successful against Western-supplied Israeli armor in the 1967 Six Day War. They continued as the mainstay of Egyptian as well as Syrian armor in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and although these tanks inflicted losses on Israeli tanks in that conflict, the Arab armies were again defeated. This was more a failure of doctrine and training than of equipment, however. The T-55 continued to serve in Africa, Asia, Afghanistan, and in Iraq. They were easily outclassed by the Coalition’s armor in the 1991 Gulf War.

Summary: A further development of the mechanically unreliable T-44, itself derived from the T-34. The chief difference between the T-54 and T-55 is a more powerful diesel engine. With the largest production run of any tank in history, the T-54/T-55, even at the end of the Cold War, constituted 38 percent of the Soviet tank inventory and about 85 percent of the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact inventory. The T-54/T-55 has been exported to more than 35 different nations, and although obsolescent today, it remains in widespread use.

Production dates: 1948–1981

Number produced: Approx. 95,000

Manufacturer: Soviet state factories

Crew: 4 (the bow gun reappeared but not the bow gunner; handling it is the responsibility of the driver)

Armament: 1 x 100mm main gun; 1 x 12.7mm DShK machine gun (antiaircraft); 2 x 7.62mm machine guns (bow, coaxial)

Weight: 79,344 lbs.

Length (excluding gun): 21’2”

Width: 10’9”

Height: 7’10”

Armor: maximum 203mm (steel)

Ammunition storage and type: 34 x 100mm; 500 x 12.7mm; 3,000 x 7.62mm

Power plant: V-2-5412-cylinder 520-hp diesel engine (T-54); V-55 580-hp diesel engine (T-55)

Maximum speed: 30 mph (T-54); 31 mph (T-55)

Range: 250 miles

Fording depth: 4’7”

Vertical obstacle: 2’7”

Trench crossing: 8’10”

Special characteristics (pos/neg): Can be equipped with snorkel device to allow submerged fording. Long-range fuel tanks extend mileage to 450 miles. T- 55A added infrared NBC system. In the late 1980s T-55s received new supercharged V-55U engines, improved fire control system, laser rangefinders, and appliqué and explosive armor.

Special models: many, including recovery vehicles; engineer vehicles; bridge-layers; mine-clearers

T-55 Workshop Manual Part.1

Another of the aircraft entered for the Emergency Fighter Competition was also to form the basis of a type built elsewhere, but this time rather more openly. The Messerschmitt company had in fact anticipated the need for a replacement for the Me 262 (who was in a better position to know that aircraft's limitations?) and construction of a prototype to replace it, designed by Woldemar Voigt, had begun in July 1944 as the P. 1101. This was in one particular a remarkable aircraft, for it was constructed chiefly to determine the best angle of wing sweep; its variable-chord wings could be reset (on the ground, not in flight) to any angle between 35 and 45 degrees. Otherwise, the aircraft was conventional in the new mould, with a single engine located deep within the fuselage and exhausting below the extension boom which supported the tail assembly.

The prototype was about 80 per cent complete when it was discovered by the Americans on their arrival in Oberammergau, and it was put on display in the open along with other 'interesting' developments from the Messerschmitt studio. It was still there, deteriorating rapidly, when it was spotted by Robert Woods, Chief Designer at Bell Aircraft, who contrived to have it sent it to the United States, where it was eventually restored and completed, with the help of Voigt himself, as a non-flying mock-up. It formed the basis for the first ever variable-geometry-winged aircraft, the Bell X-5, the sweep angle of which could be changed in flight to one of three pre-sets: 20, 40 and 60 degrees. This aircraft made its first flight on 20 June 1951, the geometry of the wing being varied in flight for the first time on 15 July.

The other two submissions Messerschmitt made were less well developed but somewhat more radical. The P. 1110 did away with the nose air intake, locating the engine much further back in the airframe, with the duct openings on the fuselage shoulders, just forward of the trailing edges of the constant-chord swept wings. The P. 1111 was more adventurous: an all-wing design of near-delta planform with a heavily swept tail fin and rudder, the air intakes of which were located in the forward part of the wing roots. A proposal submitted too late for the competition was a variant of this design, with a wing of narrower chord and a butterfly tail. Under ideal circumstances, all three designs would probably have been built in prototype form and flown against each other, but as it was, none ever progressed beyond a partially completed wooden mock-up.

From humble beginnings, submarines quickly evolved into the most sophisticated and powerful weapons of war ever devised. Whether patiently stalking their prey in two World Wars or carrying devastating nuclear missiles as a deterrent in the Cold War, these hunters of the deep have played an often unseen but crucial role in the conflicts of the 20th century. From the unexpectedly small to the terrifyingly huge, this program features some of the most innovative and ambitious weapon systems of the past 100 years. Based on scientific analyses, expert opinion, audience polls and technical comparison, we construct a five-point matrix to rank the TOP TEN SUBMARINES of all time.

The French SOMUA cavalry tank, known variously as the S-35 or the 35.S, was one of the most effective tanks of the 1940 conflict.

The French Army configured its tank force by branch, with the cavalry force procuring its own armoured vehicles. Cavalry doctrine in 1935 called for the new light mechanised divisions (DLM: Division Legere Mecanique) to serve as the mobile, long-range tools of the high command, capable of launching 'brutal, surprise attacks'. A new tank was needed to carry out this mission, and Schneider's SOMUA plant at St. Ouen near Paris was assigned the task. SOMUA is the acronym for the plant's full name: Societe d'Outillage Mecanique et d'Usinage d'Artillerie. It was one of the first tanks to make extensive use of cast armour. Its APX1-CE turret was similar to that adopted on the Char B1, but used a wider turret ring which led to some changes in the shape of the casting.

After completing a prototype in April 1935, production began late in 1937. The first batch of 50 were delivered to squadrons of the 4th Cuirassiers and 18th Dragoons in Reims for operational trials. By May 1940, a total of 600 were on order of which 395 had been completed.

They were used primarily to arm the DLM which had a nominal strength of 96 SOMUA cavalry tanks in two regiments. In reality, only three DLM had received the SOMUA by the outbreak of the war (1er, 2e, and 3e DLM) as well as one regiment in the 4e DCR (Division Cuirassee de Reserve). Some other units received tanks in the frantic months of May-June 1940 as well, and by the time of the armistice, a total of 429 had been delivered.

The SOMUA S-35 saw extensive combat in Belgium and the later fighting in France. The SOMUA was arguably the best tank in French service in 1940, but its combat performance was mixed. On the one hand, it had excellent armour and firepower. On the other hand, its suspension was antiquated, too few tanks were fitted with radios to permit co-ordinated tactics, and the one-man turret was a drawback in tank-versus-tank fighting.

The Germans acquired 297 SOMUA tanks after the armistice, after allowing the plant to complete some undelivered tanks! Called PzKpfw 35 S 739 (f) in Wehrmacht service, one of the few standard modifications was to cut off the top of the turret cupola and add hatches to permit the commander to operate with his head outside the turret.

The first use of the German SOMUA tanks came in 1941 when 15 were assigned to armoured train units with E.Pz.Zuge 26 through 28 receiving three each and Zuge 29 through 31 receiving two each. These were operated from flatcars, and could disembark from the railroad to chase partisans if necessary. About 60 were converted into artillery tractors, and their surplus turrets deployed on the Atlantic Wall. The remaining SOMUA were assigned to various tank units, mostly for secondary missions. This included a tank company of the SS-Totenkopf Division, which used them for anti-partisan operations; 6/Pz.Rgt. 100 which used them in combat in Normandy in 1944; Pz.Rgt. 201 which used them for training in France in 1941 -42; 1/Pz.Rgt. 202 which used them for partisan fighting in the Balkans from 1942 on; Pz.Rgt. 204 which used them in fighting in the Crimea in 1942; 1/Pz.Abt. 211 which deployed them in Finland; and 2/Pz.Abt. 214 which deployed them in Norway.

Germany sold or gave 40 SOMUA to its allies. Italy received 32, which were mostly deployed with the 200th Tank Battalion at Delianova on Sardinia. Hungary received two for trials purposes in 1943. Bulgaria attempted to order some PzKpfw I light tanks for training purposes, but were provided with six SOMUA instead in February 1944. They were not used by the army, but assigned to border guard and police units for anti-partisan fighting along the frontier in 1944.

The SOMUA also saw later combat service in the French army. After the 1940 armistice, 23 were delivered to North Africa and following Operation Torch in November 1942, they joined with Free French Forces with the 12e Regiment de Chasseurs d'Afrique. This tank unit fought in the Tunisia campaign starting in December 1942, and then was deployed to Senegal in January 1943. At least five SOMUA were hidden during the German occupation in the Massif Central and during the 1944 Normandy fighting, SOMUA were captured by the Allies in German depots. Some of these were reduce German pockets along the; the German SOMUA used in anti-partisan operations in Yugoslavia were captured by partisan units and put into use, and at least one was used by the Yugoslav 1st Tank Brigade alongside its M3A3 Stuarts.

United States Weapons

The weapons of the U.S. soldiers in the Mexican-American War included muskets and rifles, pistols, Colt revolvers, bayonets and swords, and artillery pieces. The high quality and reliability of the U.S. weapons, and the mobility of the Flying Artillery, gave the U.S. soldiers a distinct advantage over their Mexican counterparts.

The .69-caliber, smoothbore flintlock musket was standard issue for the U.S. soldier. It had an effective range of about 100 yards. About ten different models were used during the war, the most famous being the 1822 model. Some troops also carried the Hall breech-loading flintlock rifle or the Model 1841 percussion musket (also called the “Mississippi rifle”). Relatively few men carried percussion rifles. Many officers carried double-barreled shotguns for close combat. Dragoons also occasionally were armed with breech-loading Hall carbines with a shorter barrel.

Standard sidearms were flintlock or percussion smoothbore pistols that were inaccurate beyond a range of 10 or 15 yards. Other troops, most notably officers and Texas Rangers, carried the more expensive Colt revolver. The Hartford Courant reported that “each arm is calculated to hold six charges, which may be fired in as many seconds, and again reloaded as quickly as an ordinary fire arm. The regiment of the United States Mounted Rifles, for whom a thousand of these arms have been made...can fire a volley of six thousand balls into an enemy’s ranks, without loading, and afterwards load and fire at the rate of six thousand charges per minute.” The Colt, of course, was effective only in close quarters, such as colliding cavalry charges or hand-to-hand combat. Other weapons included swords, bayonets, and Bowie knives.

The biggest U.S. weapons advantage was its artillery. U.S. guns fired cannonballs, shells (explosive charge with fuse), spherical case (container with lead balls and explosives), and canister (tin can filled with 27 lead balls packed in sawdust). Canister was effective up to about 300 yards. The artillery consisted of long-barreled cannon, howitzers (short-barreled, lightweight guns), and mortars of various weights, cast from iron or bronze. The highly trained and disciplined Flying Artillery units could fire every 10 or 15 seconds, more than five times faster than Mexican artillery. Used mostly to inflict casualties, the Flying Artillery moved rapidly to where it was most needed on the battlefield, and usually created gaping holes in the enemy lines.

Mexico Weapons

The weapons of the Mexican soldiers were typically smoothbore flintlock muskets, pistols, sabers and shorter swords, lances, and antiquated cannon. Mexican weaponry was older and less reliable than U.S. weapons, especially the older, heavier cannon and its ammunition.

Mexico, which did not own an operating armory, purchased its weapons from European dealers. Most infantrymen were outfitted with older .753-caliber, smoothbore flintlock muskets from the 1830s. The British Tower-type smoothbore musket, which the British government no longer favored, was purchased in large quantities at discount prices. Called the “Brown Bess,” its range was less than 100 yards. A lesser number of 1838-style British Baker rifles were also used, but, because they were expensive and of better quality, they were saved for the elite troops and sharpshooters. After the Battle of Cerro Gordo, George Ballentine commented that “we found the road strewed with the muskets and bayonets which the Mexicans had thrown away in their hasty retreat. All of these muskets were of British manufacture and had the Tower mark on their locks. They were old and worn out, having evidently been condemned as unserviceable in the British army and then sold to the Mexicans at a low price.... After examining a few of them I came to the conclusion that for efficient service one of our muskets was equal to at least three of them.”

The variable quality and style of muskets created a host of problems for the Mexican soldiers, especially in matching ammunition. During the Battle of Churubusco in August 1847, the Mexican soldiers were infuriated by the fact that their lead balls were too large and frequently jammed in the musket barrel. Because of inferior powder, they were also forced to overcharge their rifles, and the resulting kick made them fire high. The British Paget flintlock carbine, and the escopeta, an old-fashioned, Napoleonic variety of blunderbuss, were also used by cavalrymen.

Cavalrymen were equipped with lances, sabers, and carbines. In the hands of an experienced horseman the lance was a formidable weapon. In addition to the four cutting edges of the eight-inch blade, a flag at the tip was meant to frighten the enemy’s horse. Lancers were some of the most highly regarded units in the Mexican army, and their attacks had great shock value.

Mexican artillerymen fired the antiquated Griveaubal cannon of different calibers, for which there was limited ammunition. Mexican cannoneers, especially in the beginning of the war, favored the use of solid shot in trying to knock out opposing batteries (in comparison, the U.S. artillery strategy was to destroy groups of soldiers). Toward the end of the war, during U.S. General Winfield Scott’s march to Mexico City and Colonel Alexander Doniphan’s march to Chihuahua, some cannons were cast in local foundries. Although the artillerists were well trained, the cannon were often defective. Uneven or inferior gunpowder overshot projectiles or made them fall dangerously short. The artillery was drawn by civilian carts and drivers, or often hauled by mules—the Mexican army did not have professional teamsters.

Notes:

The first indigenous Soviet medium tank design, the T-28, incorporated multiple turrets and was intended for an independent breakthrough role. Inspired by the Vickers A6 (its suspension was a clear copy) and German Grosstraktor designs, it grew out of the 1932 Red Army mechanization plan and was first produced by the Leningrad Kirov Plant. Intended for an attack role, the T-28 had a central main gun turret and two machine-gun turrets in front and to either side. The T-28 weighed 28,560 pounds, had a six-man crew, and was powered by a 500-hp engine and had a road speed of 23 mph. It had only 30mm maximum armor protection. The prototype mounted a 45mm gun, but production vehicles had a 76.2mm low-velocity main gun and two machine guns. Combat experience with the T-28 led to changes. Armor was increased on the C version to 80mm for the hull front and turret. Some T-28s substituted a low-velocity 45mm gun in the right front turret for the machine gun normally carried there. The T-28 had a poor combat record, however.

Production history

The T-28 was in many ways similar to the British Vickers A1E1 Independent tank. This tank greatly influenced tank design in the period between the wars, although only one prototype was manufactured in 1926. The Kirov Factory in Leningrad began manufacturing a tank, which was based on the British Independent in 1932. The T-28 tank was officially approved on August 11, 1933. The T-28 had one large turret with a 76.2mm gun and two smaller turrets with 7.62mm machine guns. A total of 503 T-28 tanks were manufactured over a period of 8 years from 1933 to 1941.

The type would not have that much success in combat, but it played an important role as a development project for the Soviet designers. A series of new ideas and solutions were tried out on the T-28 and were later incorporated in future models.

Combat history

The T-28 was deployed during the Invasion of Poland and the Winter War against Finland. During the initial stages of the Winter War, the tank was used in direct fire missions against Finnish pillboxes. In the course of these operations it was found that the armour was inadequate and programs were initiated to upgrade it. Frontal plates were upgraded from 50 mm to 80 mm and side and rear plates to 40 mm thickness. With this up-armoured version the Red Army broke through the main Finnish defensive fortification, the vaunted Mannerheim Line.

According to Russian historian M. Kolomietz's new book T-28. Three-headed Stalin's Monster, over 200 T-28s were knocked out during the Winter War, but only 20 of them were in irrecoverable losses (including 2 captured by the Finnish Army). Due to proximity of the Kirov Plant, all other knocked-out tanks were repaired, some of them over five times.

The Finns knew the T-28 as the Postivaunu ("mail wagon" or stagecoach), a name which alluded to Finnish troops' discovery of Red Army field mail sacks inside the first destroyed T-28. Another explanation is that the high profile of the tank resembled the old west stagecoaches of the United States. Finns captured two T-28s during the Winter War and five in Continuation War, totalling 7 vehicles.

The Soviets had 411 T-28 tanks when the Germans invaded in June 1941. Most T-28s were lost during the first two months of the invasion, many of them abandoned after mechanical breakdown. Some T-28s took part in the 1941 winter defence of Leningrad and Moscow, but after late 1941, they were rare in Red Army service; a few were operated by enemy forces.

Today three T-28s remain, two in Finland and one in Moscow. One restored T-28 is on display in Finnish field camouflage in the Parola Tank Museum, Finland.

Summary

First indigenous Soviet medium tank, but clearly influenced by both the Vickers A6 and German Grosstraktor designs. Intended for an attack role, it had a central main-gun turret and two machine-gun turrets in front to either side. Its suspension was copied from the Vickers tank. It served in the 1939–1940 Winter War with Finland and in the opening weeks of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 but performed poorly in combat. Subsequent variants included the T-28C with increased hull front and turret armor.

Evaluation

Although the T-28 was rightly considered ineffective by 1941, it is worth remembering that when the Red Army was fielding the first T-28s in 1933, the French Army was still largely equipped with the FT-17, and the Reichswehr had no tanks at all. No army had a series-production medium tank comparable to the T-28 for several years.

The T-28 had a number of advanced features for the time, including radio (in all tanks) and anti-aircraft machine-gun mounts. Just before the Second World War, many received armor upgrades, bringing its performance on par with the early Panzer IV, although its suspension and layout were outdated. [5]

The T-28 had significant flaws. The plunger-spring type suspension was poor, but many of the better suspension designs used in World War II tanks had not yet been developed. The engine and transmission were troublesome. Worst of all, the design was not flexible. Although the T-28 and early PzKpfw IV were comparable in armour and firepower, the good basic design of the PzKpfw-IV allowed it to be significantly upgraded, while the T-28 was a poor basis for improvement.

Unfortunately for the Red Army, by the time the T-28 saw combat in 1939, events had overtaken it. The 1930s saw the development of the first reliable high-speed suspensions, the first purpose-designed antitank guns, and a gradual increase in the firepower of tanks. The Spanish Civil War showed that infantry units with small, towed anti-tank guns could defeat most contemporary tanks, and made the under-armoured tanks from the early 1930s particularly vulnerable.

Despite heavy losses, in the Winter War the Red Army's 20th Tank Brigade, equipped with T-28s, fulfilled its mission to break the defensive Mannerheim Line. As an infantry-support tank, designed to support infantry in breakthrough operations, the T-28 in general was successful for an early 1930s design.

Variants

Experimental models

Several self-propelled guns, the IT-28 bridging tank, and an engineering vehicle with mine rollers were tested on the T-28 tank chassis, but none was accepted for production. The T-29 was a prototype medium tank, a modernized T-28 with Christie suspension — a later version of this vehicle was considered for the competition of prototypes which led to the T-34, but by then it was outdated (not to be confused with a Grotte tank project also called T-29). The T-28 also served as a testbed for the KV tank suspension.

Production dates: 1933–1940

Number produced: 503

Manufacturer: Leningrad Korov Plant

Crew: 6

Armament: 1 x 76.2mm (3-inch) low-velocity main gun M1927; 3 x 7.62mm DT machine guns (some T-28s mounted a low-velocity 45mm gun in the right auxiliary turret in place of the machine gun)

Weight: 62,720 lbs.

Length: 24’5”

Width: 9’5”

Height: 9’3”

Armor: maximum 30mm; minimum 10mm (maximum 80mm on T-28C)

Power plant: M-17 V-12 500-hp gasoline engine

Maximum speed: 23 mph

Range: 137 miles

Vertical obstacle: 3’5”

Trench crossing: 9’6”

Special models: commander’s tank T-28 (V) with radio antenna frame around turret; small number of flamethrower tanks

This powerful Russian-designed ground attack aircraft was a versatile weapon in the Soviet Union's air forces for many years, and it was one of the Soviets' first variable geometry or "swing-wing" attack aircraft. Variable geometry wings allow aircraft to adjust speed, lift and maneuverability characteristics in flight and to operate from short airfields. The swing-wing aircraft series designated "Fitter" by NATO began with the Su-7 Fitter-A fighter-bomber, a fixed-wing fighter that entered Soviet service in 1959. In the late 1960s, when Western and Soviet aircraft designers began developing swing-wing aircraft, Sukhoi installed variable wings and a more powerful engine in the Fitter. This alteration greatly improved the airplane's performance, and NATO designated it the Fitter-B.

Several updated versions followed, with improved engines, radars, weapons, and airframes. Western analysts first identified Fitter-Ks, like the one on display, in 1984. Produced until 1991, Fitters could carry a large variety of weapons and stores, and were exported to nations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Poland and several others.

#

The SU-22M4 is one of the last variants from a long line of fighter bombers that started with the SU-7, even the interceptors SU-9, 11 and 15 share the same roots.

This aircraft, originally the soviet SU-17 (first flown in 1966), was the first plane of this family to feature variable wing geometry. The mostly simplified export variants were designated SU-20 and SU-22 and further development lead to sub-variants such as the SU-22M4. NATO-Code for all versions is “Fitter” with an annex letter to distinguish the different types.

The SU-22 became famous in 1981, when two Libyan SU-22M3’s found out the hard way that the US Navy also operated swing-wing fighters that are better not to be messed with.

#

Polish Air Force Su-22 Fitters at Istrana

After previous year's squadron exchange, which was the first between the Areonautica Militare Italiana (AMI - Italian Air Force) and the Sily Powietrzne (Polish Air Force), 2007 saw the Polish Fitters again operating from an Italian air base. This time it was Istrana AB, home of the 51° Stormo hosting the 103° and 132° Gruppo. Both squadrons are equipped with the AMX.

From June 29^th until July 12^th three Su-22M4 single-seaters and one Su-22UM3K two-seaters from 7 ELT (7 Eskadry Lotnictwa Taktyczego - 7th Tactical Fighter Squadron) operated together with both the 103° and 132° Gruppo flying operational training missions such as DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) and CAS (Close Air Support), in support of integration of NATO standards in the Polish Air Force. Two missions were flown daily, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.

During the squadron exchange one of the Polish pilots reached 1,000 hours flying the Su-22 and a little “shower” awaited him on his return to base.

The 7 ELT is based at Powidz and is equipped with single-seat Su-22M4 'Fitter-K' and two-seat SU-22UM3K 'Fitter-G' conversion trainers. Some of the former 6 ELT Su-22s are still flown by 7 ELT, retaining the old 6 ELT badge on fin as the seen on the two-seater. 6 ELT is currently undergoing conversion to the new F-16C/D Block 52+ having moved to Poznan-Krzesiny AB. The 'Fitters' are scheduled to fly until 2010-2012 and then the unit will become a transport squadron flying the C-130 Hercules.

TECHNICAL NOTES:
Crew: One

Armament: 9,370 lbs. of various nuclear weapons, bombs, rockets, missiles and gun pods on eight external pylons

Engine: Lyul'ka AL-21F-3 turbojet of 24,700 lbs. thrust with afterburner

Maximum speed: 1,550 mph (Mach 2.09)

Wing sweep: Variable in three fixed positions: 28 degrees for low speed and 62 degrees for high speed, plus one intermediate position

LINK

Dassault Mirage III & Mirage 5/Nesher in Israeli Service

Type: Fighter; Light Bomber

Dimensions: wingspan, 26 feet, 11 inches; length, 49 feet, 3 inches; height, 14 feet, 9 inches

Weights: empty, 15,542 pounds; gross, 21,164 pounds

Power plant: 1 × 9,436–pound thrust SNECMA Atar 9C-3 turbojet engine

Performance: maximum speed, 1,460 miles per hour; ceiling, 75,460 feet; range, 746 miles

Armament: 2 × 30mm cannons; up to 8,818 pounds of bombs or rockets

Service dates: 1961–

The sleek Mirage III remains one of the classic fighter designs of all time and helped propel France to the forefront of military aviation. Through constant upgrades, many still fly in frontline service around the world.

In 1952 the Armee de l’Air sought an advanced lightweight interceptor to replace its aging Dassault Mysteres. The desired craft was intended to be built around two small turbojets and a small rocket booster. Dassault complied with a small delta design, the Mirage I, in 1953, but it was rejected as insufficiently powered. The firm then went on to develop the bigger Mirage III as a company project; it was powered by a single turbojet engine. In 1956 this craft became the first European warplane to exceed Mach 2, and the French military immediately expressed interest. The Mirage III was a conventional delta design, with a relatively small wing and a sharp, pointed profile. It was highly maneuverable and handled well, but like all delta designs it suffered from high landing speeds and a prolonged takeoff. Nonetheless, the first Mirage III entered service in 1961 and was followed by numerous multimission variants. It was also widely exported abroad, especially to Israel, which used them with decisive effect in the 1967 war. Most French machines have since been retired, but Mirage IIIs are continually upgraded and flown by several air forces, including Australia, Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa.

In 1967 Israel asked Dassault to design a cheaper ground-attack version, which subsequently emerged as the Mirage 5. This model lacked advanced radar systems in exchange for more fuel and greater payload. It too was an export success. The final development was the Mirage 50 of 1979, which utilizes the Mirage 5 airframe in concert with a more powerful engine and advanced avionics. It is currently utilized by more than 20 nations and will continue flying well into the twenty-first century. A total of 1,400 Mirages of all variants has been constructed.

LINK

LINK

There were improvements in artillery during the Napoleonic Period. Guns became more mobile and accurate, developments pioneered in Austria and Prussia, and introduced into the French service by de Gribeauval. Gribeauval artillery was provided with an elevating screw mechanism and calibrated tangent rear sights, considered the most significant improvements in the design of ordnance during the last two hundred years of the smoothbore era. While historians have made much of the supposed uniqueness of his range of field guns - 4-pounders (1.8 kg), 8-pounders (3.6 kg) and 12-pounders (5.4 kg) - Austrian, Prussian and English artillery was nearly as hard-hitting and mobile as the French, and was often utilized when captured.

In 1793 Gaspard Monge, the distinguished mathematician and scientist in charge of artillery procurement, estimated France was 6,000 pieces of artillery short. To speed up production Monge invented a simplified casting method, built furnaces in converted churches and trained additional workmen. Copper for the bronze barrels was obtained by requisitioning church bells and through tacit trade with the enemy: Production expanded during the Consulate and the Empire and seventeen new foundries turned out an astonishing quantity, yet supply never caught up with demand even though much captured materiel was pressed into service. Although the Austrian ordnance was slightly outmatched by their French equivalents in throw weight, Napoleon was well impressed and used it widely: At Wagram about one-third of his artillery was of Austrian origin, while light Prussian cannons were widely issued in Spain.

Gribeauval System Field Guns

Field guns included 4-, 8-, and 12-pounders, and Gribeauval at last incorporated new 6-inch howitzers into the French army as regulation field weapons. The 8-inch howitzer already in service since 1749 was also retained but was used on a more limited basis. The earliest Gribeauval field howitzer was heavily based on Prussian models that he had studied, but his later designs were so modified that they were virtually an entirely new type.

Gribeauval also redesigned his gun carriages so as to be more durable than the Austrian Lichtenstein models, to compensate for the combined rear and downward recoil—an improvement that both strengthened their construction and produced a lighter and shorter carriage than earlier models. Carriages were originally painted various shades of blue until after the Revolution, when their color was changed to green. Field carriages were also improved by the addition of black-painted iron reinforcing straps to stress points in the woodwork as well as the leading edges exposed to damage. A coffret—a removable ammunition chest located between the flasks—enhanced the ability of the crews to more quickly put their pieces in action during combat. To improve balance and enhance the stability of the guns while on extended marches, Gribeauval, borrowing from Lichtenstein’s 12-pounder carriage, added an extra pair of half-round trunnion cutouts toward the rear of the carriage. This feature, known as encastrement, did, however, require a rather laborious process involving levering and rolling with two handspikes to move the tube between the two positions. It was thus rarely if ever used in situations where combat was imminent.

Transportation was further improved with the introduction of a more efficient limber mounting a pole for the hitching of horses in side-by-side pairs. For transport, the reinforced hole in the transom at the end of the trail was passed over a pintle mounted over the limber’s axle and secured to make a four-wheeled cart. A four- horse team was required for the 4- and 8-pounders, and six horses for the 12-pounders. Gribeauval also introduced the caisson, essentially a large, four-wheeled ammunition chest with a rounded or peaked lid and a compartmentalized interior for various types of ammunition and equipment. The combination of the new limber and caisson enabled French field gunners to arrive on the field with their ammunition and thus go into action more rapidly than their opponents.

Gribeauval’s method of elevating his field guns’ tubes was also somewhat different from that of other European systems. Although employing a vertical elevating screw, as did most other contemporary systems, his screw did not come into direct contact with the barrel’s breech. It instead pushed against a wooden platform hinged to a transom beneath the barrel. Howitzers’ trunnions remained below the centerline, as they had in the Vallière System, but they too differed in their aiming mechanism. Although still retaining a quoin, it was adjusted mechanically for elevation by way of a horizontally mounted screw attached to the transom beneath the breech.

Medium tank based on the Czech Skoda S-2r medium design of 1937, produced under license with the Germans after their takeover of Czechoslovakia. The Turan utilized a modified Vickers bogie suspension with eight road wheels in four pairs per side. The turret was enlarged to hold three, a Hungarian manufactured 40mm main gun, and a more powerful engine. The Turan I formed the chief equipment of the Hungarian 1st Tank Division from 1943. The Turan II was essentially an upgunned Turan I with a short 75mm gun. Manufacture ended in 1944 when the Hungarian Army adopted the PzKpfw III and IV tanks.

By J.C.M. Probst

SKODA LICENSE

In 1940 the designation S-IIc was changed into Skoda T-21 and an improved and up-armoured version, the T-22, was made. The T-22 was shown to a Hungarian commission in Pilsen in May 1940, and it was demonstrated in Hungary during June and July. The V-8-H was also evaluated, but a licensing agreement was signed for the T-22 medium tank in August.

Before production, the Czech tank was modified on a number of points: a three-man turret was substituted for the original two-man version, and a 260hp V-8 engine designed by the Hungarian company Manfred Weisz was installed. Armament was of Hungarian design as well. The new tank was dubbed Turan.

THE 40mm 41M L/51 TANK

A special tank-mounted version of the standard Hungarian 40mm 40M towed antitank gun (derived from the German Rheinmetall-Borsig 3.7cm Pak 35/36, which was used by Hungarian troops as the 37mm 36M antitank gun) was developed by MAVAG. In addition, in November 1940 a license was obtained for the Skoda 40mm Type A17 tank gun developed from the A7 gun used in LT-38 tanks. It appears that the tank mount of this gun was mated to the Hungarian 40mm 40M gun and the result was the 40mm 41M tank gun of the Turan tank.

This gun fired the same ammunition as the 40mm 37M Bofors antiaircraft gun, which was also made by MAVAG. 101 rounds of ammunition were carried by the Turan.

Machine-guns were the 8mm 34/40M air-cooled belt-fed tank machinegun derived from the Czech Brno ZB30 and made under license by Danuvia.

The first prototype of the Turan tank was finished by August 1941 and production was started in October. The Hungarian service designation of the tank was 40M Turan I medium tank (kozepes harckocsi), which in 1944 was changed into 40M Turan 40 medium tank.

The name Turan comes from Hungarian prehistoric legend, according to which the Turans were an ancient Asian people, from which the Hungarian people originated.

TURAN I PRODUCTION

An initial order of 190, later raised to 230 tanks, was placed by the Hungarian government in October 1941, and 70 tanks were built by Manfred Weisz of Csepel, 50 at Ganz of Budapest, 70 at MVG of Cyor and 40 at MAVAG of Budapest. Guns were produced at MAVAG Diosgyor and likewise most other components for these vehicles were produced by Hungarian industry.

The initial order was followed by a new order in 1942 for 70 tanks, of which 24 were eventually built by Ganz, 12 by MVG and 19 by MAVAG Budapest.

With deliveries to the troops starting in the beginning of 1942, a grand total of 285 Turan I tanks had been produced when war events stopped production in 1944. Of these no less than 242 were delivered during 1942, and only 43 during 1943 & 1944.

Production of the Turan I tanks in 1942 was a major effort by Hungarian industry and the tanks were used to equip the 1st & 2nd Armoured Divisions and the 1st Cavalry Division in 1942-43. However, the disaster of the Hungarian 2nd Army on the Don in January 1943 (where no Turan tanks participated) suddenly made it clear that the Turan I was obsolete compared to Soviet tanks, and that a gun caliber of 75mm was the minimum acceptable for a modern tank.

THE 75mm 41M L/25 TANK GUN

Development of a version of the Turan with a short 75mm gun had started in 1941. It was seen as a heavy support vehicle to supplement the medium Turan I main battle tank in armoured divisions.

The gun was developed by MAVAG from the Austro-Hungarian Bohler 76.5mm 18M field gun, and as the 75mm 41M tank gun it was produced by MAVAG Diosgyor. The gun had some armour-piercing capability but could not stop a Soviet T-34 tank at any reasonable distance. 52 rounds of ammunition could be carried.

The Hungarian service designation of the Turan version with this gun was 41M Turan II heavy tank (nehez harckocsi), which in 1944 was changed into 41M Turan 75 rovid (short) heavy tank. Even with its short gun the Turan II was suddenly the only usable tank available to Hungarian troops in 1943 and it still had to be produced in quantity.

An order for Turan II tanks had been placed in 1942 and the first three Turan II tanks were delivered to troops on May 13th & 15th, 1943.

TURAN II PRODUCTION

A total of 139 Turan II tanks were produced, mainly in 1943 and the beginning of 1944, against a total order of 322, which should have been completed in 1945. Of these 54 were produced by Manfred Weisz of Csepel, 36 by Ganz of Budapest and 39 by MVG of Gyor.

Since no better vehicles were available the Turan II tank became the main battle tank of Hungarian troops in 1943 and it bore the brunt of the fighting of Hungarian armoured troops in 1944.

THE 75mm 43M L/43 TANK GUN

In April 1943 it was decided that a modern tank needed a 75mm long [barreled] antitank gun. MAVAG developed a speical Hungarian version of the German 7.5cm KwK 40 tank gun which fired both standard German and special Hungarian ammunition. This gun, which allegedly differed considerably from the German model, became the 75mm 43M tank gun.

Plans were drawn up that all available Turan tanks should be modernized on the following points from the middle of 1944 onwards:

--- retrofit with a 75mm 43M tank gun

--- additional armour fitted

--- skirt plates fitted

and work on a prototype vehicle was initiated.

Production of the Turan II or modification of existing Turan tanks was not initiated for political and military reasons and Hungarian AFV production came to an almost complete stop following the German occupation on March 19th, 1944. The modification plan, however, explains the continued Turan I production into 1944.

The only Turan III modifications actually undertaken on existing Turan tanks were the fitting of skirt plates over the suspension and around the turret on some Turan I and II tanks in the second half of 1944. This gave the Turans an appearance very closely resembling the late German PzKpfw III tanks with skirt plates.

THE TURANS IN BATTLE

All Turan tanks, including the command models, had a R/5a radio set installed for communication to other tanks in the unit.

The Turan tanks were first committed to battle of April 17th, 1944, in Galicia, when the 2nd Armoured Division launched a counterattack from

Solotwina towards Kolomea. This was in a wooded and mountainous terrain with many streams, which were a particular problem because of snow melting at the time. So the terrain was a rather bad choice for a tank attack and the division was stopped in tank-to-tank fighting by small Soviet T-34 forces without reaching Kolomea. The attack was called off on April 26th, 1944. 30Turan I & II tanks were lost; that represented 26 percent of the initial tank strength of the division.

From June to Septmeber 1944 the 1st Cavalry Division with a battalion of Turan I & II tanks fought in eastern Poland and around Warsaw, and from September 1944 onwards this division and the 1st & 2nd Armoured Divisions were engaged in heavy fighting in Hungary proper.

Only very few German tanks were given to Hungarian units in 1944, and since the inferiority of the Turans compared with Russian tanks was well realised by Hungarian commanders, the Hungarian armoured units were committed to battle somewhat reluctantly in the latter half of 1944.

Grigorovich M-5

This aircraft based on the seaplane carrier Imperator Alexander I. Black Sea Fleet.

Grigorovich M-9

Black Sea Fleet.

The other –than the Royal navy - great exponent of carrier aviation during World War I was the Imperial Russian Navy in the Black Sea. From early 1915 the Black Sea Fleet mounted a sustained interdiction campaign against Turkish sea communications. A particular target was the coal trade from Anatolia to Constantinople on which the Turkish- German fleet largely depended and that had to come by sea because there was no rail line and the road system was inadequate. According to Russian claims, their naval forces sank over 1,000 vessels during this campaign, in which the fleet’s aircraft carriers played a central role and must have been directly responsible for an appreciable percentage of these successes. On more than one occasion the battle cruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau, units technically transferred to the Ottoman Navy from the German fleet but actually commanded and manned by Germans, that formed the modern heart of Turkish naval forces were incapable of putting to sea on operations for lack of fuel reserves.

The three carriers converted in early 1915 were fast enough to maintain formation with the older battleships that initially formed the core of the fleet and could keep up with even the new dreadnoughts that joined the fleet later. Consequently, there were few operations of any size in which the carriers were not tightly integrated and in several of those against the Anatolian and Bulgarian coastlines, the carriers formed the principal striking force with the battleships relegated to support and distant cover roles. Russian carriers used Curtiss flying boats initially, which eventually were supplanted by excellent indigenous Grigorivich boats. The carriers carried large numbers of aircraft for the period and their crews were highly trained, so their launch rates were impressive. One American observer timed a carrier launching seven aircraft in fifteen minutes, compared with the Royal Navy’s standard of twenty minutes to launch three aircraft (admittedly under North Sea conditions). After 1916, when Romania joined the war, the Black Sea Fleet’s aircraft carrier strength increased when one Romanian auxiliary, the Rominia, joined the fleet as a full-time carrier and was supplemented periodically by four other auxiliary cruisers embarking aircraft as operationally necessary. The carriers’ aircraft attacked Turkish and Bulgarian ports, their facilities, and ships at dock, conducted widespread reconnaissance missions, raided coastal shipping, bombed shore installations, spotted for the fleet’s guns, and provided cover for mine-laying operations and convoys.

By the end of World War I, naval aviation had secured for itself an important place in operations. For the most part, however, naval aircraft were shore based. While operational experience had confirmed the potential value of carrier-based aviation, the technical and functional details necessary for success remained immature. Major navies accepted that aircraft carriers were an essential feature of future fleets but the shape, size, arrangements, facilities, and equipment all were uncertain and still required much experiment and testing.

RUSSIA: ALMAZ (1915)

Builder: Baltic Works, St. Petersburg

Laid down: September 25, 1902. Launched: June 2, 1903. Commissioned: 1915

Displacement: 3,285 tons (normal)

Dimensions: 363’0” (oa) x 43’6” x 17’6” (mean)

Machinery: Vertical triple-expansion engines, Belleville boilers, 2 shafts, 7,500 ihp = 19 knots

Aircraft: 4

Armament: 7 x 4.7”, 4 x 12 pdr AA

Complement: 340

Design: Originally completed as an armed yacht rated as a third-class cruiser, the Almaz served as the viceregal yacht in the Far East and was the largest Russian survivor of the Battle of Tsushima (May 27-29, 1905). The Almaz was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet in 1911 and refitted as a seaplane carrier early in 1915. Seaplane handling platforms were fitted behind the mainmast and additional booms were rigged for lifting aircraft. Service: The Almaz formed part of the Hydro-Cruiser Division of the Black Sea Fleet from 1915 to 1917. As the fastest of the fleet’s seaplane carriers, it often undertook independent missions, including raids on Varna in Bulgaria in October 1915 and June 1916. After the popular revolution in 1917 the Almaz became a Bolshevik headquarters ship but was seized by French forces at Odessa in December 1918 and turned over to White Russian forces. It sailed to Algiers in 1920 with other White Russian vessels, was taken over there by the French in 1928, and scrapped in 1934.

RUSSIA: CONVERTED MERCHANTMEN (1915)

Builder:

Imperator Nikolai I: John Brown & Company Ltd., Clydebank

Imperator Alexandr I: William Denny & Brothers Ltd., Dumbarton

Displacement: 9,230–9,240 tons (normal)

Dimensions: 381’0” (oa) x 52’0” x 26’0” (mean)

Machinery: Vertical triple-expansion engines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts, 5,100 ihp = 13.5 knots

Aircraft: 8

Armament: 6 x 4.7”, 4 x 12 pdr AA

Complement: Unknown

Design: These two vessels were built as fast cargo liners for the Russian Steam Navigation Trading Company and completed in 1913 and 1914, respectively. They were requisitioned as naval auxiliaries after the outbreak of World War I and converted into seaplane carriers in early 1915. The conversion was minimal, involving fitting additional booms for aircraft handling and clearing after superstructure space to make room for aircraft stowage on the upper deck. Service: These vessels formed the core of the Black Sea Fleet’s Hydro- Cruiser Division and were very active against Turkish and Bulgarian coastal targets from March 1915 to February 1917. After the popular revolution they were renamed the Aviator and the Respublikanetz, but were laid up from April 1917 until they were taken over by French forces in December 1918. Both vessels entered French commercial service after World War I, serving with the Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes as the Pierre Loti and the Lamartine. The Pierre Loti was wrecked in the Gabon River estuary in 1943 and the Lamartine, by then renamed the Khaidinh, was sunk by United States Navy aircraft in Along Bay in 1942.

In the autumn of 1915, the anachronistic-looking Eindekker reigned as the world’s best fighter aircraft. Its superiority over contemporary French and English machines ushered in a period known as the “Fokker scourge”—and the dawn of modern aerial warfare.

April 19, 1915, signified a turning point in the history of military aviation when the French-built Morane-Saulnier L aircraft piloted by Roland Garros crashed behind German lines. German investigators combing through the wreckage discovered that Garros had clandestinely mounted a machine gun fixed so as to fire through the propeller arc. The propeller itself was fitted with metal wedges to deflect any unsynchronized projectiles, but the Germans recognized the advantages an improved system would bring. The brilliant aircraft designer Anthony Fokker was contacted, whose firm was familiar with the concept, and within two weeks a completely synchronized interrupter gear was devised. This allowed bullets to shoot through a moving propeller by being deliberately timed to miss it. This technology was then grafted onto a Fokker M 5 monoplane, a design that had been flying since 1913, for trials. Thus was born the Fokker E I, the world’s first true fighter craft. A total of 420 of all models were built, and their tactical implication was immense.

At a time when Allied craft were either unarmed or simply carried rifles and other sidearms for defense, the new Fokker Eindekkers represented a quantum leap in firepower. Throughout the fall and winter of 1915, they sawed through nearly 1,000 allied reconnaissance craft, chiefly lumbering British Be 2cs. The Fokkers also stimulated the evolution of new fighter tactics as pioneered by Germans aces like Max Immelmann and Oswald Boelcke. For several months the “Fokker scourge” dominated the skies of Western Europe until the spring of 1916, when superior fighters like the Nieuport 11 Bebe and the de Havilland DH 2 pusher debuted. The days of the ugly, ungainly Eindekkers were numbered in weeks, but a corner had been turned. Hereafter, warplanes ceased being frail-looking contraptions and evolved into machines of increasing deadliness.

Country of origin: Germany

Manufacturer: Fokker Flugzeug-Werke

Type: Fighter

Crew: 1

Dimensions: Wingspan 31 ft 2.75 in.; Length 23 ft 11.3 in.; Height 9 ft 1.75 in.

Loaded weight: 1,400 lbs

Power plant: 1 x 100 hp Oberursel U.I rotary

Performance: 87 mph maximum speed; 3,500 m (11,483 ft) service ceiling; 2 hour 45 minute endurance

Armament: 1 x 7.92 mm fixed forward-firing Synchronized Parabellum or Spandau machine gun

Total production: Approximately 220 of all types service dates: 1915–1916

#

Although Germany had enjoyed some success by using its Albatros C-type armed reconnaissance aircraft to shoot down Allied aircraft, Roland Garros’s demonstration of the advantage of forward fire through the arc of the propeller of his Morane-Saulnier monoplane convinced the Germans of the need to develop an aircraft with similar capabilities. After obtaining access to both Garros’s plane, which had been forced down behind German lines, and Franz Schneider’s prewar patent, Dutch designer Anthony Fokker quickly developed a synchronization gear that worked off the camshaft to interrupt the firing of either a Parabellum or Spandau machine gun. This was mounted and tested on one of his own monoplanes (the Fokker A.III). German pilots Oswald Boelcke and Max Immelmann both received the first prototypes, which were designated the Fokker E.I (dubbed the “Eindecker”), in early summer 1915. Although their 80 hp Oberursel UO rotary motor proved to be underpowered, both Boelcke and Immelmann succeeded in shooting down enemy aircraft. Convinced of its success, German authorities adopted it and Fokker rushed it into production.

Although only a few E.1 versions were built, 23 Fokker E.II fighters entered service in September 1915, before the most common variety, the E.III, of which approximately 150 were constructed, began to enter service in late 1915. Whereas the E.II and E.III were both powered by a 100 hp Oberursel U.I 9-cylinder rotary engine, the E.III featured some design modifications to strengthen its wings and improve its maneuverability. The E.III had a wingspan of 31 ft 2.75 in., a length of 23 ft 7.5 in., and a loaded weight of 1,342 lb. Its 100 hp Oberursel rotary motor could produce a maximum speed of 81 mph, could climb 1,000 m (3,281 ft) in 5 minutes, and had a service ceiling of approximately 3,500 m (11,482 ft). The Eindecker was a solid aircraft that featured the use of welded steel tubing for the fuselage frame. The wings, which were mounted to the side of the fuselage with two I-section main spars, were braced by cables that were attached to the undercarriage and a central pylon in front of the pilot’s seat. An additional set of cables ran through pulleys and were attached to the control stick and wings to allow the pilot to warp the wings for lateral control. At first the Germans intended to use the Eindecker to provide protection for their own reconnaissance aircraft; consequently, they spread them out by placing two with each squadron. As Boelcke and Immelmann began to range out on their own and shoot down enemy aircraft, however, the Germans gradually began to concentrate them for greater effect during the winter of 1915–1916, a period that the Allies came to call the “Fokker Scourge.” Even though the Eindecker owed much of its success to its synchronization gear, it must be noted that Allied aircraft at the time, particularly the R.A.F. B.E.2, which placed the armed observer in the front seat, were helpless when attacked from the rear. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that Boelcke and Immelmann would use their Eindeckers to develop the basic fighting tactics and maneuvers that would remain standard throughout the war. By late spring 1916, new British and French biplanes, which were faster and more maneuverable, were eclipsing the Eindecker. Fokker attempted to extend their life by introducing the E.IV, which was slightly larger and powered by a two-row 160 hp Oberursel U III rotary engine. The increased weight and torque made it unsuccessful and only about 30 were produced.

Variants

The Eindecker went through five variants: