Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 1939?

Discussions on all aspects of Poland during the Second Polish Republic and the Second World War. Hosted by Piotr Kapuscinski.
gebhk
Member
Posts: 2624
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#46

Post by gebhk » 14 Oct 2014, 15:52

I have already suggested Curtiss Hawk 75 - but maybe too expensive.
The price which incidentally was comparatively high, was not the main objection. That was the lack of suitable fuel in Poland. We have been over this before. Unless you can suggest how import of the fuel into Poland at a reasonable cost during wartime could be GUARANTEED, this is a dead end. The point is that unlike the early 30ties, the late 30ties were a sellers' market in armaments The reason for example why Poland developed its own 75mm AA gun was not because that was the preferred option, but because it proved impossible to purchase these items abroad despite significant efforts made in that direction. No one was selling.
Poles made hurriedly orders of both Hurricane and MS 406 in summer 1939, but it was too late by then. These undelivered hasty orders show that Poles were well aware of the unsatisfactory situation of their fighter force. It also confirmed that ambitious projects based on the idea of "designed and made in Poland" had failed and Poles also recognised that.
We seem to be going round in circles like a dogfight :D The orders were made clearly because the Poles were well aware of the deficit int heir fighter defence and had been aware since 1936 at least. However being aware and being in a position to do something about it are two different things The reasons the orders were made when they were made was because firstly some capacity became available and secondly the financing became available. Neither was available any earlier. There was absolutely zero chance of getting Hurricanes in quantity or any earlier. The 14 obtained was everything that could be squeezed out of the British with a vague promise maybe 'a few more' 'in the autumn'.
The engine problem does not explain it all - it feels like an excuse of a designer team which tries to explain all of its shortcomings with one all-covering reason.
Unless you can suggest how airplanes could be made to fly without an adequate engine it pretty much does make all the other shortcomings irrelevant. And if there are other shortcomings, without an engine you can't even begin to address them. The fact is that when designing an airplane from scratch, designing the power plant was the most complex and lengthiest part of the process. It also meant that a country with a neofite aero-engineering industry would struggle to produce the cutting edge engines required in a period of rapid development - and the 30ties probably saw, arguably, more rapid aeronautical development than any period before or since. That is why Poland had to turn to foreign suppliers for this kit and live with the consequences which were what they were. It is precisely because of Polands heavy reliance on foreign power plant (instead of 'designed and built in Poland') that most of the delays occurred not because of a lack of it.
How did other foreign manufacturers find good or decent engines which made it possible to build good or decent fighter planes in late 1930´s?
I'd be curious to know of a good or decent fighter produced in quantity by any other country of a similar industrial capacity to Poland in the timeframe of interest.

In summary no one is saying that there was no other way. However no one (apart from perhaps the Norns) can say if any of the other potential options would have turned out any better. Had they turned out the same or worse, we would most probably be sitting here now criticising the Polish decision makers for not doing exactly what they did in reality.
Last edited by gebhk on 15 Oct 2014, 11:49, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#47

Post by wm » 14 Oct 2014, 22:37

gebhk wrote:I think you'll find work on Jastrzab also commenced in 1937. If the IAR 80 was production ready in 1939, why did production not commence in 1939? The answer is that, like with the Jastrzab, the powerplant proved unsatisfactory and it took a further year or so to locate a more suitable one and to carry out the major rebuild that was required to accommodate it in the airframe. Also, given that it was armed with Belgian weapons, it would not have gone into production as a warplane when it did if Romania had not been forced to join the Axis - illustrating the political risks of being reliant on foreign suppliers of war materials.
As I understand the 1939 IAR 80 was ordered and produced, later it was upgraded to the IAR 80A. Against the Soviet planes even the early IAR 80 was adequate.
gebhk wrote:I'd be curious to know of a good or decent fighter produced in quantity by any other country of a similar industrial capacity to Poland in the timeframe of interest.
A good example would be Poland and its medium and light bombers :). Bombers require more resources than fighters.

Sweden's GDP was two times smaller than Poland's GDP. But still they were able to develop and produce in numbers the Saab 17 and Saab 18.
Yugoslavia, its GDP three times smaller, was able to develop and produce in small numbers the Rogožarski IK-3 and Ikarus IK-2.


gebhk
Member
Posts: 2624
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#48

Post by gebhk » 15 Oct 2014, 10:37

Sorry but bombers are not fighters. Different evolutionary issues and design constraints. Just because you can build a decent bomber does not mean you can build a decent fighter, QED in Poland’s case.

IK2 – Similar configuration and performance to PZL P24 ie not a ‘decent’ fighter by 1939 standards. Also with a production run of, I believe, 14, it cannot be said that it was produced in quantity.

IK3 – a truly remarkable achievement but not in production in 1939 (first batch delivered in summer 1940) nor produced in quantity (as far as I can make out, a grand total of 12 production models were actually built with another 25 on order when Yugoslavia fell to the Germans in 1941).

The Saab 17 and 18 were bomber/reconnaissance planes not fighters and entered service in 1942 and 1944 respectively. Neither was flying even in prototype in 1939. Curiously, one batch of B17s appears to have been built around Polish-built Bristol engines. Indeed, major problems were encountered with equipping SAAB 17s with suitable engines generally. Sound familiar? The only homegrown fighters Sweden possessed in 1939 were 7 clapped out 1920s J 6B biplanes being used as trainers, relying on obsolete Gloster Gladiators instead. A substantial order was made for American fighters but this never materialised because the US government embargoed all deliveries to Europe except to the UK in 1940 - a cautionary tale for those who believe foreign imports were the obvious solution to small country's armaments' supply problems! And I would argue that while GDP can have an impact on industrialisation, it does not determine industrial capacity and maturity. I am sure it can safely be said that Sweden's industrial capacity per capita and maturity exceeded that of predominantly agrarian countries with very new industries like Poland. I don't think it's a coincidence that Poland was importing and license-building Swedish weapons and not the other way around.

The Swedish problems with sourcing a suitable fighter in 1940 has an aside relevant to our discussion. One of the aircraft considered by the Swedes was the Japanese Zero. Apparently the Japanese were willing and the price was right. I wonder if Zeros could have been made available to the Poles in 1939? Politically it would not have been impossible - for some reason the Japanese seem to have been quite warm towards Poland and there were significant personal military ties during the interbellum. No doubt the delivery challenges would have defeated this idea in the end as it did for the Swedes, nevertheless it does present an intriguing what if match up between the Zero and the Me109.
Last edited by gebhk on 15 Oct 2014, 13:10, edited 6 times in total.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2624
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#49

Post by gebhk » 15 Oct 2014, 11:17

As I understand the 1939 IAR 80 was ordered and produced, later it was upgraded to the IAR 80A. Against the Soviet planes even the early IAR 80 was adequate.
Ordered, yes but not till December 1939 so none were available in 1939. The main reason given for the first production aircraft not reaching fighter units till February 1941is the cessation of FN supplies when Belgium fell to the Germans in 1940. Again speaks to the advantages of not relying on foreign suppliers for one's essential equipment. However even the MG issue aside and if everything had gone swimmingly, I can't see how IAR 80s could have been in the line before mid 1940 due to the new engine and ensuing re-build.

Incidentally the idea that the IAR 80 was a low-wing version of the PZL P24 is grossly overdone. The engine and front of the aircraft was new albeit the fuselage cross-sectional layout was broadly based on P family principles. The wings were taken from an earlier IAR design, the IAR 24. It was the tail end of the aircraft that was more or less directly copied from the P24 and this time-saving design shortcut was one of the causes of a number of niggling problems that plagued the aircraft in its service career, so in hindsight, it may have been better to have designed from scratch throughout.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#50

Post by durb » 15 Oct 2014, 15:14

Well, it seems that there was no chance for Polish Air Force to have a decent low-wing monoplane fighter by 1939, so they had to be content with the stuff they had. Better obsolete planes than no planes at all. Destiny...it was sealed.

Still the story of PZL P 7/P 11/P 24 is a paradox. The best PZL version P 24 was exported to foreign countries whereas the Polish Air Force remained with older P 11 and P 7 waiting the unfullfilled promises of PZL P 38 and P 50. Comparing to other air forces and their respective air industries it was a reversed situation - they often wanted to be the first to have best available version while older versions were more free for export. For example Germans exported Bf 109 E-3 to Switzerland and Yugoslavia but they made sure that they were a bit inferior compared to their own (no armour plate etc.).

Finnish Air Force considered to buy PZL P 24 in 1936 - it was the cheapest alternative to replace the aged Gloster Gamecocks and quite recently adquired Bristol Bulldogs (although "new fighters" in 1936, Bulldogs were deemed to be obsolete soon). They chose instead a little more expensive Fokker D XXI - not the best choice perhaps - but it was available and there was also a chance to license-build it. There were also chances to use Finnish raw materials in its building and the plane was easy to maintain in rough field conditions. And there was no doubt that Fokker D XXI was better than Gamecock and Bulldog. The smallish Finnish aircraft industry managed to license-build a series of Fokkers ready to use in 1939. Also Fokker G 1 (compare to PZL P 38) was considered with license-building option but was not bought.

Anyway, the main thing was that there were numbers of new Fokker D XXI available well before the Winter War and Finnish were not obliged to use Gloster Gamecocks and Bristol Bulldogs as their primary fighters in Winter War. Waiting for "better planes" in mid/late 1930 might have been sensible idea to get Spitfires some day, but the drawback was that your country could get involved in war long before that day and then you might be stuck with too old planes against an invader.

The only slight chance could have been to use some "in-between" fighter like PZL P 24/Fokker D XXI while waiting for the more modern planes to be available some day. Perhaps PZL P 7´s could have been replaced by PZL P 24 or at least by P 11. Not to say that it would have made much difference, but the PZL P 7´s had appalling kill/loss combat ratio of 8:22, if I remember correctly. Sending pilots to combat in museum planes is a bit same as to send them to suicide missions. When it comes to Fokker D XXI, the Dutch claimed that it could do surprisingly well vs. Bf 109/110.

One thing to be remembered is also what is the performance of the new plane on paper and the performance of worn-out example. The more aged planes and engines are, less performance. The P 7´s were by 1939 not the same when they were new in 1932/1933. And many PZL P 11 were at least 4-5 years old by 1939, if I have the right information. Also the spare parts of PZL P 11/P 7 were pretty worn out by 1939 if I have the right information. Wiki: "Since the P.11c fighters had seen years of intensive use before the war, their maximum speed was even lower than the theoretical 375 km/h. The P.11a were in an even worse condition."

And last but not least there is the question did Polish have enough AA capacity? I remember to have seen another thread about this question. AFAIK, there was recognized lack of AA capacity of Polish Defence forces. If there was not an option to have enough fighters and good enough available in reasonably short timeline, then the AA would have been a sensible short-term investment. Maybe they did exactly that but unfortunately too late?

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#51

Post by durb » 18 Oct 2014, 23:36

gebhk wrote:
I have already suggested Curtiss Hawk 75 - but maybe too expensive.
The price which incidentally was comparatively high, was not the main objection. That was the lack of suitable fuel in Poland. We have been over this before. Unless you can suggest how import of the fuel into Poland at a reasonable cost during wartime could be GUARANTEED, this is a dead end.
This is again something that I must comment of Winter War experience of Finland. First NO ONE can give you 100 % guarantee of fuel import during the war time. You need reserve deposits - I´m sure that Polish military command was aware of that and made some preparations. In Finland the fuel used during the 105 days of war was all from the existing fuel deposits. Rationing of existing fuel supplys is obvious measure and military needs are above any civil needs when it comes to the distribution. Importing fuel to Finland was difficult already by Sept. 1939 and although some import fuel came to the country, in practice Finns and their armed forces had to rely on existing deposits accumulated before the war. And they were enough to make Finnish army and air force to fight more than 3 months.

Then one question is what kind of fuel can be used. At least from Finnish experience such planes like Hawk 75 could well fly with 87 octane fuel although higher octane fuel would have somewhat improved their performance. I do not know if Poles used some special fuel unsuited for more modern fighters than PZL P 11, but I just guess that at least 87 octane fuel was accessible for them. The fuel question surely was not the reason why Polish Air Force remained stuck with old planes. The real reasons have been outlined earlier during the discussion of this thread.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2624
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#52

Post by gebhk » 20 Oct 2014, 09:04

First NO ONE can give you 100 % guarantee of fuel import during the war time.
Precisely, which is why the Poles were not keen to rely on fuel which was not already available, affordable and sourceable preferring to rely on that which was.
from Finnish experience such planes like Hawk 75 could well fly with 87 octane fuel although higher octane fuel would have somewhat improved their performance.
That may be so. However (a) that may not have been the information the decision makers had at the time, (b) to what extent was the performance reduced? To the extent there was not much difference between the Hawk and other options? (c) what was the impact on engine life?
The fuel question surely was not the reason why Polish Air Force remained stuck with old planes
Of corse not. It was for the reasons you outline later - a very complex and interwoven set of events to which there was no simple solution that guaranteed success. It was however one of the reasons certain engines and airplanes powered by them were not considered at various stages of the story.

I completely agree that there is an irony inherent in the fact that export versions of the 'P' family were slightly better than what the PAF was forced to fly with. There was a solution to that problem - for the PAF to rearm in 1936/37 by which time the P24 would have been in any case obsolete and we would still be having the above conversation pretty much unchganged. Also, if a war had commenced in 1934-36, we would likewise be having this conversation albeit about different aircraft and be bemoaning the absence of the P11 in the Polish Air Force despite it being used in Romania.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#53

Post by durb » 20 Oct 2014, 23:45

gebhk wrote:
from Finnish experience such planes like Hawk 75 could well fly with 87 octane fuel although higher octane fuel would have somewhat improved their performance.
That may be so. However (a) that may not have been the information the decision makers had at the time, (b) to what extent was the performance reduced? To the extent there was not much difference between the Hawk and other options? (c) what was the impact on engine life?

b and c) if equipped with reliable Pratt-Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp, the Curtiss Hawk 75A using 87 octane did achieve in Finnish test flights about 440 km/h - still a lot better than the worn-out PZL P 11 or P 7 and handling charasteristics were good. With Cyclone engines better performance rates were achieved, but Cyclone engines had shorter endurance. French also testflew Curtiss Hawk 75 and they did achieve up to 486 km/h (I guess they used higher octane fuel than Finns). French found Hawk 75 to be superior to their own Morane 406. Angloamerican literature gives top speed around 500 km/h to Hawk 75 (probably a stripped factory plane without the weight of armament, camo etc).

I do not know how seriously Polish Air Force ever considered to buy Hawk 75, but the price was rather high (23 000 USD a piece?) and the order should have been put before the French placed their big orders. And at that point (1938) Poles had faith in PZL P 38/P 50 projects producing probably cheaper and at least as good fighter planes than Hawk 75.

But they did not appear. And the result was what it was. Although some Bf 109 units were involved in Poland, the main German air superiority fighter at Polish sky was Bf 110. The duels between PZL P 11 and Bf 110 were not easy for PZL pilots:

"Generally PZL P-11c were very agile plane, but slow and poorly armed. Even if PZL-11c had upper hand in a dogfight, it was very hard to critically damage Bf 110 and often the damaged Zerstörer were able to return to base where they were repaired. Bf 110 was also faster, so it could easily avoid combat or escape from it. On the other hand PZL-11c could be crippled with a few shots from Bf 110 and some PZL P-11 were simply abandoned due serious damage even if they managed to get back to base."

All the guts in world did not help with such technical inferiority. There has been much debate on the combat success of PZL pilots in Sept. 1939 their confirmed wins in different sources varying from less than 50 to 133 (latter figure is the official Polish claims, IIRC). I´m inclined to believe that the true figure was clearly lower than 100 as the odds were too much against Polish fighter pilots. Most of German aircraft losses were due to other than air combat. But the combat claims and their verification is a theme for another thread (which has been discussed already at this forum): see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&t=126468

OldBill
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 04 Mar 2012, 10:19

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#54

Post by OldBill » 23 Oct 2014, 06:12

"The Swedish problems with sourcing a suitable fighter in 1940 has an aside relevant to our discussion. One of the aircraft considered by the Swedes was the Japanese Zero. Apparently the Japanese were willing and the price was right. I wonder if Zeros could have been made available to the Poles in 1939? Politically it would not have been impossible - for some reason the Japanese seem to have been quite warm towards Poland and there were significant personal military ties during the interbellum. No doubt the delivery challenges would have defeated this idea in the end as it did for the Swedes, nevertheless it does present an intriguing what if match up between the Zero and the Me109.

Which leaves me wondering if the A5M "Claude" could have been offered in the interests of saving time. While not as good as the A6M, it was still a pretty decent aircraft.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2624
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#55

Post by gebhk » 23 Oct 2014, 07:29

It would appear that the 'delivery challenges' were of space and location (ie a long distance with a hostile USSR located inbetween the two parties) rather than of time.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#56

Post by wm » 23 Oct 2014, 18:26

gebhk wrote:The Saab 17 and 18 were bomber/reconnaissance planes not fighters and entered service in 1942 and 1944 respectively. Neither was flying even in prototype in 1939.
There was nothing magical about 1939. Even the German Army wasn't completely ready in 1939. It seems many countries aimed for 1942, not only Poland.
The point is Sweden, Yugoslavia, Romania started late (1936-1939) and got results quickly, Poland started early (1934) and the results were meager.

The modernization of the Army was only a part of the Polish Great Leap forward economic plan.
First, the modernization of the Army (1942), then transportation network expansion (1945), education and agriculture (1948), cites and industry (1951), reducing regional inequality (1954).
wielki zryw narodu polskiego.jpg

User avatar
Fliegende Untertasse
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 23 Oct 2005, 21:07
Location: Häme

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#57

Post by Fliegende Untertasse » 23 Oct 2014, 19:11

OldBill wrote:" I wonder if Zeros could have been made available to the Poles in 1939?
That would have been Zuisei powered A6M1. Wich never went to mass production.
Sakae was not available until early 1940.
First a6m2 unit was operational in summer 1940.
OldBill wrote: Which leaves me wondering if the A5M "Claude" could have been offered in the interests of saving time. While not as good as the A6M, it was still a pretty decent aircraft.
But only marginally faster and more weakly armed than P.11
Comparable with Fokker DXXI.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 193

#58

Post by durb » 24 Oct 2014, 01:19

An interesting alternative to PZL P 38 project would have been Dutch Fokker G 1. Not to say that it would have been as good as the modern low-wing single-seated fighter with retractable undercarriage, but surely a better fighter-bomber than PZL P 11. Faster and better armed Fokker would have been more effective against fast German bombers and maybe also better match against Bf 110. And I´m sure that there would have been a chance for license-building in Poland. It would be interesting to know if there were any contacts or cooperation between Fokker and Polish Air Force/PZL. Both Fokker and PZL used Mercury engines in their planes or in their plane projects during 1930´s - maybe a joint Fokker-PZL venture would have produced decent modern fighter for both Poland and Netherlands!

One option offered to Finnish Air Force (FAF) in 1936 was North American NA 16-15 (or NA-50, in USA P-64) which participated in the purchase competition of FAF in 1936. It was mentioned to be reasonably fast (430 - 440 kph at 3000-4000 meters) and it would not have been expensive (actually it was cheaper than Fokker D XXI). However, I wonder if this was just a paper plane in 1936/1937 as wikipedia suggests that the maiden flight of this type was made as late as in May 1939. Here a wiki entry to NA 16-15: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-64 .

As a base to this "paper fighter"(?) served the North American NA-16 trainer plane and this is what wiki tells about it: "NA-16 evolved into a series of aircraft that were some of the most widely used advanced and basic training aircraft produced by any country, and provided the basic design for a single-engined fighter intended for small countries that needed a simple aircraft with modern capabilities and features."

Post Reply

Return to “Poland 1919-1945”