Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Graham Boak]

Jukka, the Twin Wasp and the Hercules were both used to power the Wellington, and were also considered as alternative types for a number of other aircraft projects. The Twin Wasp sucessfully replaced the temperamental sleeve-valve Taurus on the Beaufort. The Hercules was not a 1600hp engine when it entered service on the Beaufighter and Stirling in 1940, whatever it may have been providing in 1944, and the Twin Wasp was providing considerably more than 1000hp (or 1200hp) on the B-24. The R-2800 and the Centaurus were both used to power the Warwick.

No the Twin Wasp wasn't as powerful as the Hercules was in the end, I never suggested it was, nor the R-2800 as the Centaurus (eventually). But they were in 1940 and 1943, when the powerful British radials were needed in huge numbers and not there. My argument, such as it may be, has always been aimed at the needs of the wartime years, not comparing the worst of certain US engines with non-contemporary best of certain British.

I think this corresponence has exhausted its usefulness.

[Jukka Juutinen]

The Twin Wasp was never, NEVER as powerful as the contemporary Hercules. Not in 1940, not in 1943, not in any year. By the time the Twin wasp was rated at 1350 hp, the Hercules was already a 1700+ hp engine.

BTW, what was the max TO weight of Twin Wasp Wellington´s vs. Hercules Wellingtons?

[Juha]

Tony
So that was your reason on Crocodile
"They lost pressure after half an hour IIRC and had to retire, and the couplers suffered breakages"

But if needed Crocodile could easily jettisoned its trailer and continued as normal Churchill Mk VII minus its hull-mg.

"But more seriously they provoked an extreme reaction. Whenever they were used everything was focused on destroying them."

And the reason? Because they were so effective against dug-out infantry.

"One Crocodile was used in Kervenheim after the main resistance was broken, but it only got 100 yards before a Panzerfaust blew the head off the tank commander whose blood-gushing body fell down into the turret. The driver, unsurprisingly, withdrew backwards - not an easy feat with a trailer. The crew were then placed on a charge for motoring out of battle."

Same may had happened your "Super Churchill". In late war one great danger to tanks were the RPGs. And it was difficult to protect tanks against them and probably impossible to give protection against multiple hits in same region. And forests and towns were best places to RPG ambushes. And in ambushes you tended to aim the sides of tanks.

"The super-duper Vengeance would have been used according to circmstances, and primarily against strong-points and dug-in weapons that were holding up the advance."

Problem in thick forests was/is that it is very difficult to pinpoint enemy weapons and impossible from air. One can always try to use smoke but a clever enemy would use same coloured smokes to confuse pilots.

"In cases like Hillman, which was unexpected but extremely important, there was no Flak. The super-duper Vengeances would have timed their attack with the infantry who could have got close during the dive bombing. You could not risk that with a Typhoon or Bombphoon."

The was no forward observer, that was the problem, if there had been he could have called naval firesupport. And IIRC 1st Suffolk didn't suffer very bad casualties at Hillman, Norfolks suffered more.

"The 88-mm Pak L71 could penetrate 187-mm of vertical armour at 500 metres"

But that was with 30 deg from vertical angle. It penetrate more if hit was from right ahead. And one must also uparmour at least turret sides.

I doubt that Churchill Mk. VII had lower ground pressure than StuG III and I'm sure that StuG III with Ostkette had lower ground pressure than Mk VII.

Juha

[Franek Grabowski]

I do not know what Churchill tank has to Airacobra, but there is no doubt that licence production was not possible in the UK for technical reasons. The aircraft is overestimated and Soviet data clearly show it was no surgical hit and run aircraft. Apart of that one must have in mind that British industry was not that very modern and it was not capable to build aircraft in demanded quantities, so RAF relied on large part on US deliveries.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I do not know what Churchill tank has to Airacobra, but there is no doubt that licence production was not possible in the UK for technical reasons. The aircraft is overestimated and Soviet data clearly show it was no surgical hit and run aircraft. Apart of that one must have in mind that British industry was not that very modern and it was not capable to build aircraft in demanded quantities, so RAF relied on large part on US deliveries.

I seem to remember hearing that Beaverbrook and Stalin discussed an IL-2 production licence during a Kremlin dinner in October 1941. Do you know about that?

In any case, why did the Russians, and particular Stalin, have such faith in the aircraft? And weren't most of them destroyed by LW fighters rather than Flak?

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

I seem to remember hearing that Beaverbrook and Stalin discussed an IL-2 production licence during a Kremlin dinner in October 1941. Do you know about that?

No, I have not heard about it. Any source?
It does not change the fact it was virtually impossible to quickly put it into series, if only because of metric system. Otherwise, Beaverbrook as a politician and journalist had several very bright ideas which were pure nonsense. Otherwise British aircraft production output had little to his work.

In any case, why did the Russians, and particular Stalin, have such faith in the aircraft? And weren't most of them destroyed by LW fighters rather than Flak?

You should read my article. Also, would you be so kind to read loss data I have provided in one of your threads?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

No, I have not heard about it. Any source?
It does not change the fact it was virtually impossible to quickly put it into series, if only because of metric system. Otherwise, Beaverbrook as a politician and journalist had several very bright ideas which were pure nonsense. Otherwise British aircraft production output had little to his work.

You should read my article. Also, would you be so kind to read loss data I have provided in one of your threads?

Franek.

a) Where can I find your article? I will go back to your loss data. Sorry.

b) I can't remember the source, but it sounds likely because;
Beaverbrook and Stalin had a lot in common;
- neither believed strategic air power could win wars
- both bought from Vultee; Stalin bought a fighter production plant from the Vultee Aircraft Division of Aviation Manufacturing Corporation of Downey, California which was built in Moscow in 1937-38. Beaverbrook bought the Vengeance in 1940
- Beaverbrook was looking for sources of supply for aircraft
- Beaverbrook was also a great campaigner for a 'second front now' to help 'Uncle Joe'. You know Beaverbrook had responsibility for all British aircraft production?
In fact on second thoughts I would say it's almost certain IL-2 production under license was discussed. That was after all one of the reasons Beaverbrook was there with Averill Harriman.

Tony

[Juha]

Tony
"The Soviets received Churchill I and II, IIRC."

They got Mk IIIs and IVs, I think. Ie with 6pdr gun. And in all pictures I have seen they had that 20 mm appliqué armour in place. 35 were at Kursk and some were used against Finland in June 44.

"Since the line was advancing those that bogged could be recovered."

Haven't You read the history of 6th Guard Armoured Brigade? According to it rather many of its Churchills bogged down so badly in Reichswald that they were never recovered. Maybe after the war by scrap metal dealers but not by 6th Guards. If you have studied this 35 years it surprising that you don't have knowledge on that.

"The Crocodiles were not used in the set pieces I know about."

Either You have Your own definition to set piece or you have missed a lot of them.

Juha

[Kutscha]

But the fact was that StuGs stuck to the roads, and changed their ambush position frequently. Without a turret they needed hard standing to align the gun.

Traverse (degrees) Manual (10° L, 10° R) Elevation (degrees) -6° to +20°

Must have been miles and miles and miles of roads on the Eastern Front and no boggy ground to get stuck in. How did the StuG ever manage?

[Juha]

Kutscha
I think it's waste of time argue with Tony, he has his fixations. Facts which are contrary to his beliefs don't sink in. I'm not even have asked how his beloved Vengeances could have worked in that pouring rain which so much hampered at least the fist days of attack through Reichswald.

Juha