Woodworking, French, Soviet, and British.

[Pilot]

Thank you Graham for your valuable comment I would like more to add that many have problem with metal

stock and just to remind that for the initial production of the Grumman Hellcat in the USA, local hall was

dismantled and all metal construction was used for the steel parts in the Hellcat.

In the event of the Soviet Union I want to state that wood is the strategic material- not metal!!! General

opinion is that the Germany was solely ignited Second World War but I would like to say that it is not true.

Both Germany and Soviet Union started desintengration of the Europe. Well known is pakt Ribentrop-Molotov

and this document had 25 points. They had planed to split together Poland and there was used 46 Soviet

division.After the succes both army was met and have parade in Brest Litowsk where was shaked general

Krebs and Marshal Rokosovky. Soviet zone was became part of Soviet Union. One of the request for the signing

of pakt is that Soviets have not to protect Jewish in Poland and Stalin hade said "Jewish imperialist are not

interesting me."

Two Baltic countries Litvanija and Estonija had been overrun by Soviets. Germans was also agree with the

Soviet interest in the Finland teritory. Soviet Union start the war against this country. After the pakt

Ribentrop-Molotov Soviet Union cut the suporrt to the Republicans in Spain and this caused their colapse. Also

one term was that Soviet Union would not take any action in the event of war of Germany against the France

and the UK. Soviet propaganda was saluted German war against this coutry and Stalin sent telegram to Hitler

to congratulate enter of the German troops in Paris.

And for all of this Germany was not prepared but Soviet did have preparation. Before the WW2 Soviet industry

was developed and many of the service type was of all metal construction. But just to the outbreak of the

war Soviet designers deliver fighter planes with great ammount of wood in the construction. This give

oportunity that this planes could be mass produced by less exeperienced work force and in the preparation for

great war [after German attack this was "great patriotic war"] mass production and employment a great

percentage of people in such industry was of primary interest.

German did not think like this and their planes was not easy to be manufactured by less skill workers and in

the September 1939 they did not think at all about rapid technology inovation. But bitter experience force

them to developed all advanced projects such as rocket, jet planes and to include more and more wood in

manufacture. Soviet did all of this in time. End of WW2 result that Germany failed and contry was divided

into the two countries. UK was lost all of its colonies. USA after the war became reall world superpower and

their policy was much differ from the pre war isolated politics.

And the only who get its primary goal was Soviet Union- they get under control many of European countries

and in strategic way their mission was succesfull. This simply indicate that introduce of the much of wood into

the manufacture of fighter planes was of strategic importance as well they could be easy made and in

extreme numbers!!! Truth is that this fighter could not last much as well this was wartime manufacture and

with not protective material used but... how actually fighter could last in war? Not much and Soviet was give

correct answer in time.

From my point of view use of wood in Soviet Union is of strategic importance!! Situation in the UK was totally

different. First they have population and industry at much higher level. Only succes was Mosquito in the

wooden construction but this plane was result of the previous 23 years of experience of de Havilland in the

wooden structure. But the same balsa wood which is the part of the sandwich core used on this plane was

available in the continets other then Europe and have to be shiped here [and be sunked by submarine...] was

also more strategic material. Step back in time UK had first large succes in the WW1 when they have

introduced manufacture of Felixtowe flying boat of entire wood construction. Idea was to employ in such

manufacture a great number of boat bilding companies and whole project was big success!!! Simly to say- in

country you have much more boat builder then aeroplane builder and with some modifications all of them

could became possible airplane manufacturer.

No matter that the Soviet fighter planes was most of wooden construction the propellers used was mostly

metal. The result of the Scheneider Trophy simply noted that metal propellers are thin and cause less drag

and more efficient then the wooden one. Also wooden propeller was not much suitable to fly at the bead

weather and heavy rain.

[Birgir Thorisson]

Hi Pilot.

I am having a hard time following your argument, but let me summarize what I think you are saying.

1. Political. Stalin decided on war in 1939, and selected wood for fighters because of its availability. Therefore, the use of wood is a proof of a decision to mobilize for total war.

2. Technical. Wood was preferred because, although as your previous post argued, it was neither cheap nor easy, there was nevertheless a reserve of mobilizable resources available, unlike metal, which was stretched to the limits.

Correct summary?


3. An aside. Where did the USSR get bauxite after WW2?

Birgir

[Pilot]

Terribly sorry for my very poor English- but you get what I want to say

[Graham Boak]

The decision to use wood in the Mosquito was made in 1939 therefore the war was caused by Britain? Preparation for a forthcoming war is not evidence of the intention to start it. Forget the politics. This board is about the aircraft not the politics.

[Birgir Thorisson]

Graham,

I have noticed how politics tend to get some discussions into pure "nonsensics" (good concept, if nobody has yet invented it) . However, politics are inherently more important than technology (aircraft).
Technology can however be used as interesting guideline to deduce politics. A very good case of that is a book; Stalin´s Ocean-going Fleet by Rohwer and Monakov. They used Stalins naval programmes to deduce the politics that promted the changes in it. Similarly, the best evidence that strategic bombing was THE grand strategy of Britain in WW2 is found in expenditure decision made at the start of rearmament in 1934-35. (Here I would have liked to connect to Professor Postan study that has become (the book) available online, but such technicalities are beyond my competence in handling the net.)
That said, I do seriously doubt that "Pilot"s theory about Stalins intentions hold water. The frantic re-armament programme 1939-41 has more the appearance of desperation than rational strategy.

P.S. Why do people use these childish pseudonames? If they do, at least they should sign their posts with their names.

Birgir Thorisson

[Pilot]

I did not said that UK have intention to start the war!!! I don't like to talk about the politics but politics for sure have influence on the war industry.

I don't like that I am accused for something that I did not tell and in this way my active participation in this topic is over.

[Graham Boak]

Pilot: I did not suggest you said that specifically: however, it is something that follows from your logic.

[Jens]

According to Jakowlew only LaGG-3 was made of Delta wood, due the loss of Phenol fabrics in 1941, they take "ordinary" wood to produce these fighters. Making planes Ohter fighters like Jak-1 were made of "ordinary" wood it seems. Wood has one advantage in the production, that was a also a disadvantage. If it was less carefully built, it could do the job at the airplane, but caused also much perfomance loss. Especially Il-2s in 1942 suffered from this problem.