Why DB-3f is counted as one of the old types on 22 June 41?

[Juha]

Hello
I wonder if someone can give a logical explanation why usually when in books the material situation of Soviet AF is given at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa only Pe-2, Il-2, LaGG-3, MiG-3 and Yak-1 are counted as new types and others as old types?

I can understand that I-15, I-15bis/I-152, R-5, R-Z and so on are described as old.

But IMHO it’s a bit more difficult to understand why newer versions of SB (production terminated IIRC in late 1940) and I-16 (production terminated in spring 1941, and at least M-63 powered versions were not so bad fighters after all) or I-153, which was accepted in large scale production c. Oct. 1938, initial deliveries in late spring 1939, in 1940 got more powerful engine and production not stopped until in 1941.

And I cannot understand no other reason than that they were not successes in service in that that the following planes are not included in list of new a/c:Yak-2, first flight in 1939, Yak-4, first flight in 1940 and still in production on 22 June 41 and Su-2, accepted in series production in Jan. 1940 and still in production on 22 June 1941.

And most astonishing thing is that DB-3f (later Il-4) , the mainstay of ADD (Soviet long-range bomber force) throughout the war and which stayed in production into 1945, is not included in the new a/c list and so is at least implicatively counted as an old type. There were some 1’100 of these bombers in strength on 22 June 1941. If one compare the production history of DB-3/DB-3f and He-111, it’s remarkable how similar they were in timing from first acceptance to service through major redesign (He-111P/H and DB-3f) to the end of production. And if one compares the specifications of DB-3f and Jumo-211 engined He 111 Hs they are remarkably similar. I think the only significant difference between them was that He-111H was easier to fly and more manoeuvrable but that doesn’t mean so much when we are comparing bombers.

IMHO this new/old type division was a way to partly explain away the catastrophe of Summer 1941 during Soviet time but why it is still in use?

I think that we all would think it odd if someone would write that LW attacked Soviet Union with xxx Bf 109 Fs and yyy Ju 88 A-4s plus with following old types zzz He-111s, aaa Ju-87 and so on. So why different criteria is in force when we are talking on Soviet AF?

Juha

[Graham Boak]

I would argue that the SB-2, being out of production and contemporary with the Blenheim and Do.17, should be counted as an "old" type. Similarly the DB-3, which is comparable to the He 111, itself no spring chicken. All air forces operate a mix of old and new, but in this case we do see a distinct wave of modernisation, and hence the simplified terminology.

Perhaps had the Me 210 proven successful, then we would have had a similar Luftwaffe comparison between the 110/87/17 old types, and the 88/210/177 new boys, but as it happened the Luftwaffe forces were more homogeneous (sp?) that the VVS.

[Juha]

Hello Graham
I have not much trouble to accept that SB can be count as one of the old types even if newest examples were a bit over ½ year old on 22 June 41. IIRC Soviet Union produced well over 2’000 SBs in 1940.

On DB-3f, it was an end result of significant redesign of DB-3, much more fundamental change than that made on He 111 when He-111P was produced. So IMHO one can count DB-3 as one of the old types but IMHO if we count DB-3f as an old type then we should also gave LW’s strength as xxxx a/c of which only yyy Bf 109Fs and zzz Ju 88A-4s were modern because DB-3f was newer type than for example Ju 88A-1. And there were no other type to replace it, IIRC when ADD bombed Berlin in 1945, Il-4 was still most numerous type used.

On I-16s it’s clear that earlier types were obsolete same way as Bf 109Bs, Cs and Ds and even the newest versions were no way comparable to Bf 109F but the only fighter which I can quickly name as more or less equal with 109F-1 and -2 was Spitfire V . On the other hand M-63 powered I-16s were IIRC about as fast as He 112B or Brewster B 239, climbed clearly faster and at least mg armed were also more manoeuvrable than He 112B and about as manoeuvrable as B 239. They had lighter armament but cannon armed I-16s were on the other hand better armed but I cannot remember the effects of heavier armament to climb rate or manoeuvrability.

Juha

[Graham Boak]

The DB-3f is simply seen as a revision to an older design. It is not part of the new design wave of Soviet types, regardless of the value of its service. You compare it with the He.111 - but that was also an old type due for replacement. Or indeed the Wellington, another old design with much service life left. The new generation of British bombers were the triad of four-engined types: the new generation of Luftwaffe largely failed to appear.

The replacement programme for Soviet types was compressed into appearing as single wave, and a similar effect can be seen in 1940 France, with a wide range of new types that just didn't make it in sufficient numbers. In the Soviet case this wave was more obvious in the fighter and assault aircraft, because of the comparative failure of new bomber designs (Pe 2 excepted).

As to why this isn't considered in the case of the Luftwaffe, this is possibly because most writers do not realise how the Me 210 was intended to replace both the 110 and the 87, with the He 177 replacing the He.111. Had these designs moved to their intended timetable then historians could indeed write about a new wave of German designs, and recognise the earlier types as "old". With no obvious new designs in the Luftwaffe for Barbarossa, there's no reason to pick out some major types as old, even though they were. (Not that the Ju 87 was that old.....)

But perhaps you need to ask the writers of the books, and I should shut up here.

[Juha]

Hello Graham
it is sometimes difficult to say when during type evolution the revisions are so big that the plane warranted to be called new, IMHO classical case is F-84F Thunderstreak, still designation F-84 but name changed from Thunderjet. Now DB-3f had besides a new, longer and more streamlined nose also entirely newly designed wing, which besides having complete different inner structures was also a bit thinner.

Now we can speculated that if the development of Me 210 and He 177 had not ran into bad difficulties some historians may have divided LW a/c in use in summer 1941 into new and old types but we know that even if there was no new type, besides rather obscure Yer-2, to replace DB-3f/Il-4 and eventually none replaced it during the war, it is still classified as an old type. Now the prototype of Yer-2 was called DB-240, so it was clearly designed to do the same job but was it meant to replace or only supplement DB-3f in service, I don’t know.

So, I have difficult to comprehend why a type, which was more or less equal to one of LW's main bombers, namely He-111H, is put into same category as truly outdated TB-3. I think that this is an easily misleading way to present the capacity of Soviet bomber force.

Juha

[Juha]

Hello
one correction, I checked the performance figures of I-16 Type 24 from the text in Gordon and Khazanov and it seemed that production Type 24s were clearly slower than the prototype of the type. So in service Type 24 was some 10km/h slower than Brewster B 239 and some 35km/h slower than He 112B, if 112B could in service attain 510km/h. B 239s usually were capable to reach manufacturer’ figures in Finnish tests, which really wasn’t a norm in case of most of Finnish AF fighter types.
Type 24 was still clearly better climber and so on but according to Gordon and Khazanov, the weight of cannon in Types 27 and 28 affected their manoeuvrability considerably.

Juha

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

Hi
The main reason of using by Russia/Soviet such name "old type, new one" was PR or propaganda goals. They have "loved" to use over 50 years (after 1945) such strange distinction about own types, not only planes, also with tank forces (for example T-26 from 1939 was old tank and T-34 from 1940 modern one ect.),
They used such distinction for presenting his defeat in 1941 as a not rightly preapred state to the war against Germany. So they written "we had 8% modern tank, or 4% modern fighter, 3% modern dive bombers like Pe2 or Ar-2 ect), often never supplying info about the full size of own air forces.
Such deliberatly habits have to make more acceptable for Soviet people to explain great tragedy/catastrofa of deafet in 1941.
BTW they have to forget to add too that for example I-16 typ 24, 29 had fought against Me 109 (F+G) also in 1943, and modern LaGG-3s were kept on the ground because they were dangerous for onw pilots.
German had used Ju 87 B-2 in 1941 and also Hs 123 quite long on the East and this old types fought very well inspite of being oudated and easly could be catched by such old types like I-16 typ 10 or I-15bis, older version of Soviet fighters.

Second reason was that, in fact in 1940-41 there were implemented into Red Army many new types of weapons. So even the I-153, which entered into the service in May 1939 and was produced up to the begining of 1941 was classified as old types (the same with I 16 typ 24, 27, 29).

In my opinion there are two factor about use by Soviet/Russian such a "duble speach" about their modern or old weapons in 1941.

And at last, one correction
Soviet air force had near Western Border the force of 1.100 servicable DB-3 and DB-3F of about 1300, next several hundreds were located in Asia. So, if right remebr, VVS RKKA had about 1700-1800 all DB-3 and DB-3F in his long distance air regiment.

Regards
MirekW

[Juha]

Hello Mirek
do you know how many of 1700 - 1800 DB-3s and DB-3fs were DB-3s? My rough quess was 600 - 700. So I quessed that there were some 1'100 DB-3fs around on 22 June 41.

Regards
Juha

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

Hi
it is difficolt to exacly say about this. In ADD aviation there were on 22 VI 41: 1789 DB-3/DB-3F of wich 1558 bombers were servicable.
In the navy aviation of VVS there were also DB-3T (t-torpedo+ see mine carrires)/+DB-3F in 3 next regiments (221 next planes in 1. + 2. +3 MTAP). As for 25 IV 40 there were in navy aviation: 133 DB-3 + 88 DB-3F. I do not have data for 22 VI 41. You should remember this too.

But, for example against Berlin in August-September 41 were sent both: DB-3T of 1. MTAP + DB-3F of ADD regiments.
Probably, it is speculation, that there were about 1200 of DB-3Fs and next about 800 DB-3s version.

Regards,
MirekW
BTW the new version (DB-3F0 was in flying characteritic worse then DB-3, less stabile

[Juha]

Thanks a lot, Mirek!
This time my guess wasn't too far away. Last time I made my guess on purpose to conservative side, and the result was that my guess was way too small, so this time I made my guess a bit high side, and got better result!

On DB-3 and -3f, Finns thought that both were stable and in both cases control forces were high. DB-3f was also rather tail heavy. IIRC the British S/L? who testflied one DB-3f in 1941 or 42 in Russia, also noted the rather marked tailheaviness.

Thankfully
Juha