Heavy and long-range bombers of the allies - exact losses

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11423
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 14 Jan 2007 22:21

BIGpanzer wrote:
Juha wrote:Interesting info.
3100km seems a bit optimistic with the fuel to 8 hour flight you mentioned earlier

My calculations proved that the info in memoires about ~2700 km route [both ways] is truth. 3100 km : 8 hours = 387.5 km/h (average speed for the whole route), this is too high for bombers with M-40 diesels, full of bombs. TB-7 with diesels had the lowest speed among all modifications [but very good range - 5460 km, with later diesels ACh-30B even much more - 7800 km {with additional fuel tanks, otherwise - 5600 km} with 2 t of bombs] - maximal speed was only 390-393 km/h at 5700 m altitude. TB-7 with AM-35A engines had maximal speed 443km/h at 6400 m altitude [range 3600 km], for example.

Juha wrote:
BP earlier wrote:V. Bidny had problems with two left engines (one unexpectedly caught fire in 40 min after take-off, and Bidny ordered to stop it; the second diesel caught fire at 6000 m altitude near Danzig, it was also stopped), but the bomber tried to reach Berlin on two right engines, ran out of altitude (dropped bombs from 2000 m or less). On the way back the cruise speed was quite low (165 km/h) instead of >300 km/h and the bomber reached airfield in 10 hours instead of planned 8 on last drops of fuel

emphasis on mine.
If the plane didn't bomb Berlin (or Germany at all), the route with two engines was less than 1750km.


? How does the route depend on amount of engines? The speed depends on amount on engines. Why did you mention 1750 km [I never mentioned this!]? I still don't understand your logic..... :? The Bidny's bomber bombed Berlin (according to the info from memoires, including crewmember of that TB-7, and several another sources) or dropped bombs over German-occupied territory 370 km from Berlin [station Laurenburg] because of very hard control of aircraft with left engine problems and decreasing the flight altitude (according to another sources, already mentioned, which describe the raid). His bomber landed on Obukhovo airfield [according to all sources] with a total absence of fuel after 10-hours flight [according to memoires, Stefanovsky's book]. So if Bidny bombed Berlin his route was ~1390 km (Pushkino-Berlin) + back distance from Berlin to Obukhovo (near Leningrad) = the route was not less than 2700-2800 km. If Bidny bombed German-occupied territory 370 km from Berlin because of impossibility to continue flight towards Berlin on two engines - the route was just 740 km shorter, but again far way from your 1750 km.......Please, make this clear! If you note 165 km/h (from Stefanovsky's book, the info about Bidny) - Bidny's flight engineer mentioned this speed on the way back after dropping bombs over Berlin [to cite correct - "Bidny held the direct course to Berlin....Bombed Berlin, protected by very strong AA defense, from 2000 m altitude seems to be complete bigotry... The target is below us, we dropped bombs over city"], but I am not sure that that was the average speed for the whole way back, it could increased later because of wind or pilot's efforts. The most correct info here is Obukhovo airfield where the bomber landed [near Leningrad], take it into consideration. The data from the identical source [Stefanovsky's book], is this some kind of mistake in data from flight engineer? - planned route 2700 km, fuel for 8 hours of flight, usual cruise speed for TB-7 with 4xM-40 engines - 300 km/h, speed of Bidny's bomber ~165 km/h on the way back (at least for some period of time) because 2 engines were stopped [they were stopped quite early according to this source - one in 40 min after take-off, another - over Danzig], landing after 10-h of flight.
In my opinion - if bombs were dropped 370 km from Berlin, the route was ~2000 km. 2000 km : 10 = 200 km/h - seems to be correct (the speed of bomber on two engines could be 160-240 km/h, also note that bomber got down from 6000 m to 2000 m during the way to Berlin, and its speed increased in flat diving; on the other hand - the bomber tried to climbe on two engines on the way back, so the speed could be very low then, but we know nothing about wind speed). No, the only "mistake" - claim of flight engineer that they bombed Berlin (or wrong interpretation of his word "target" by Stefanovsky).....


So....

BP wrote:Why did you mention 1750 km [I never mentioned this!]?


I just used the info you posted:

BP earlier wrote:And about what are you wondering? I don't understand. That bomber of lieutenant V. Bidny (Vidny?) had problems with two left engines (one unexpectedly caught fire in 40 min after take-off, and Bidny ordered to stop it; the second diesel caught fire at 6000 m altitude near Danzig, it was also stopped), but the bomber tried to reach Berlin on two right engines, ran out of altitude (dropped bombs over German territory [370 km from Berlin according to one sources, over Berlin according to another]


Juha earlier wrote:The part of the raid the plane flew with only two engines (Danzig - Stettin - Berlin claimed with bombs ) was according to you ~1350km (2:2700km) + ~400km (Danzig - Berlin) = ~1750km.


I'll try again:


IF the total route was ~2700km...
Then according your posts:
From the ~2700km

-The first 40min of route was flown with four engines
BP wrote:one unexpectedly caught fire in 40 min after take-off


-then it flew with three engines to(near) Danzig
BP wrote:second diesel caught fire at 6000 m altitude near Danzig, it was also stopped


-The rest of the route was then flown with two engines.
The route being Danzig - Stettin - Berlin - Pushkino(Obukhovo)
As Danzig - Stettin - Berlin route is about 400km.
Berlin - Pushkino(Obukhovo) is about half of the original ~2700km, which is then about 1350km.
When adding 400km to 1350km we get as outcome the route lenght flown with two engines, 1750km.

and:
Juha earlier wrote:If the plane didn't bomb Berlin (or Germany at all), the route with two engines was less than 1750km.


Regards, Juha

P.S. I just used the numbers and plane route to show how the route would have flown according your source.
I don't believe to the story:
The timetable(speeds) do not match and specially the part when flying with two engines only (both at same wing...I wonder did the pilot feel any torque at the controls) is...

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11423
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 14 Jan 2007 22:48

BIGpanzer wrote: Personally I believe that the 2nd theory [Panfilov's TB-7 was damaged by friendly fire and had no possibility to reach Germany] was more possible to some degree
Good news.

Thanks for the TB-7/Pe-8 fuel system info.

I'm sorry that I haven't found the source of the Puusepp quote, I thought I had seen it when searching a while ago info for this thread, but no luck by so far.
viewtopic.php?t=112495&highlight

Regards, Juha

P.S. have you read this?
Image

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 15 Jan 2007 00:58

Good evening, Juha!
Next week I will have a huge amount of work, so I am not sure that I have time to participate in posting info here :(

Juha wrote:
-The rest of the route was then flown with two engines.
The route being Danzig - Stettin - Berlin - Pushkino(Obukhovo)
As Danzig - Stettin - Berlin route is about 400km.
Berlin - Pushkino(Obukhovo) is about half of the original ~2700km, which is then about 1350km.
When adding 400km to 1350km we get as outcome the route lenght flown with two engines, 1750km.

Yes, this is correct. Now I understand your logic, thanks for explanation. Probably, I didn't notice your sentence mentioning flight of Bidny's aircraft with two engines and thought that your 1750 km is the whole route [which is wrong], sorry. Anyway, we are in full agreement, as always :wink:
As I believe to the info that the bombs were dropped 370 km from Berlin [station Laurenburg, not far away from Danzig] because of impossibility to continue direct flight to Berlin with two engines only, the route length flown with two engines could be ~1380 km [so Bidny decided to drop bombs and return back soon after 2nd engine caught fire near Danzig and was stopped by flight engineer].


Juha earlier wrote:
If the plane didn't bomb Berlin (or Germany at all), the route with two engines was less than 1750km

Much less - see above.

Juha wrote:
I don't believe to the story:
The timetable(speeds) do not match and specially the part when flying with two engines only (both at same wing...I wonder did the pilot feel any torque at the controls) is...

I don't believe to such story also. As for the flight on TB-7 with two engines at same wing - it was possible and happened during WWII because of engine problems [the majority of used models of engines were not intended for high-altitude heavy bomber and oil pressure in engines decreased critically during the long-range flights at high altitudes >6000 m] and combat damages. Moreover, bomber could slowly climb on two engines even [without 4 t of bombs, of course]; but according to memoires - it was very hard to control such bomber by hand and hold the course in such situation [autopilot couldn't be used successfully in such mode]. But IIRC TB-7/Pe-8 successfully landed on home airfields even with one working engine several times, that was really hard for pilots I guess.
As I mentioned flight ceilings and engines - TB-7/Pe-8 with 4xAM-35A (1350 hp each), 4xM-40 (1500 hp each) or 4xM-82 (1700 hp each) had lower service ceiling (9200-9500 m) than first series of really high-altitude TB-7 with 4xAM-34FRNV (1200 hp each) + 1xM-100 (850 hp) as engine of central centrifugal air pomp - cervice ceiling was up to 11250 m (Stefanovsky as the pilot of prototypes ANT-42, made regular test flights at 12000 m in 1937-1938, which was the record for heavy bombers of that time).

Juha wrote:
BIGpanzer wrote:
Personally I believe that the 2nd theory [Panfilov's TB-7 was damaged by friendly fire and had no possibility to reach Germany] was more possible to some degree
Good news.

Really? OK! As I've mentioned before - the only fact here which support the theory that Panfilov's bomber wasn't damage by German AA fire on the way back after bombing Berlin as many sources mention was the crash time 02.10 (03.10 Moscow time) according to your source. And how to prove that 02.10 is true info, I don't know at the moment, lets think about this. And several questions about Panfilov and his crew still remain very unclear for me. By the way, I just think - the take-off time of Panfilov's TB-7 was near 21.45-22.00 (Moscow time) for sure - so he reached Saaremaa region (460-480 km from the airfield) ~ in 1.6-2 hours (23.30-24.00) [as it needed to climb at first - just for the info TB-7 with M-40 diesels reached 5000 m altitude for 16 min, and cruise speed was usual 300-310 km/h]. If to assume that the bomber was damaged by Soviet naval AA artillery there indeed and headed to Finland [still don't understand why pilots decided to use and hold this direction, but anyway], where it made emergency landing/crashed in Lapinjärvi 03.10 [Moscow time] - so the flight from Saaremaa/Hiiumaa to Lapinjärvi on three (and later - on two) engines because of damage of oil system by AA shells took ~3.5 hours. What was the distance from Saaremaa/Hiiumaa to Lapinjärvi?

Yes, I have two books about heavy long-range bomber Pe-8 at home (both are very interesting and modern, but contain some mistakes as I could find - good example that even excellent specific sources are not 100% correct). And I have a lot of books about world's aircraft of WWII which describe TB-7/Pe-8 also [not in detail].
1. U. Unger. Pe-8 - der Sowjetische Fernbomber, Berlin, Brandenburgisches Verlagshaus, 1993
2. M. Maslov. Heavy bomber Pe-8, Moscow, Zeughaus-Exprint, 2006 [on Russian]
Image Image

Regards, BP

PS. The original book we were talking about:
A. Shtepenko. Special duty. The notes of navigator. Moscow. Voenizdat NKO SSSR, 1944
Image

PS2. Interesting photos from Pusep's book:
1. Pe-8 from Pusep's 890th long-range air regiment and super-heavy bombs FAB-5000 [original photos from the Soviet army newspaper "Krasnaya Zvezda"/"Red Star", August 1943] - http://avia.lib.ru/bibl/1013/014.jpg
Note: official bomb-load of Pe-8 was 4000 kg, if using super-heavy bomb FAB-5000 - bomb-load was 5400 kg, some crews took ~6000 kg of bombs sometimes even.
2. Colonel E.K. Pusep in 1945. His Pe-8 in flight - http://avia.lib.ru/bibl/1013/017.jpg
3. M. Vodopianov [5th photo, famous polar pilot and divisional commander], K. Egorov [6th photo, was killed during take-off crash of his TB-7 - raid against Berlin, 10.08.1941], V. Obukhov [9th photo, 2nd pilot of E. Pusep during the famous flight to USA], A. Shtepenko [last photo, squadron navigator of E. Pusep] - http://avia.lib.ru/bibl/1013/018.jpg
Women on the photo - wives of E. Pusep and A. Shtepenko.

PS3. E.K. Puusepp, Minister of Social Affairs of Estonian SSR (1970-80s?) - http://region.krasu.ru/files/slide0006_image290.jpg

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11423
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 15 Jan 2007 23:24

BIGpanzer wrote:As I believe to the info that the bombs were dropped 370 km from Berlin [station Laurenburg, not far away from Danzig] because of impossibility to continue direct flight to Berlin with two engines only, the route length flown with two engines could be ~1380 km [so Bidny decided to drop bombs and return back soon after 2nd engine caught fire near Danzig and was stopped by flight engineer].
Juha wrote:If the plane didn't bomb Berlin (or Germany at all), the route with two engines was less than 1750km

Much less - see above.
So, Bidny flying to at least to Stettin, mentioned quite detalied at this book: http://www.testpilot.ru/review/300x/test.htm is not true?
BP earlier wrote: this book of test-pilot Stefanovsky "300 unknown" was quite famous among aircraft historians and AFAIK it was translated on English, it was written sometimes in a very knowledgable style



BP wrote:. And several questions about Panfilov and his crew still remain very unclear for me. By the way, I just think - the take-off time of Panfilov's TB-7 was near 21.45-22.00 (Moscow time) for sure
Juha earlier wrote: according to the article, the first plane of the group took off at 2200 hours.
emphasis on mine


BP wrote:- so he reached Saaremaa region (460-480 km from the airfield) ~ in 1.6-2 hours (23.30-24.00) [as it needed to climb at first - just for the info TB-7 with M-40 diesels reached 5000 m altitude for 16 min, and cruise speed was usual 300-310 km/h].
As I don't know the exat route (for sure it wasn't a straight one) it's difficult to say anything exact about the route lenght. I believe that at least it wasn't any shorter.
I wonder did they, for instance fly around Hiiumaa (from north) ?
16min climb with heavy plane seems optimistic ( do you have any sources to back up that?)
300-310 km/h cruise speed at same mode...well, as above.


BP wrote:[still don't understand why pilots decided to use and hold this direction, but anyway],
Well, either they did it on purpose, or not.
If on purpose....wanted to defect?
If not on purpose...either they could not control the plane or they were lost (=my choise)

BP wrote: What was the distance from Saaremaa/Hiiumaa to Lapinjärvi?
Why to ask me?
You are the one with exellent maps.
As both Saaremaa-Hiiumaa and Lapinjärvi are not any "precise places" it's also a bit difficult. I guess 300km could some sort of an average?


Juha wrote:Yes, I have two books about heavy long-range bomber Pe-8 at home (both are very interesting and modern, but contain some mistakes as I could find - good example that even excellent specific sources are not 100% correct).
Strange that I don't remember seeing here any quoations from you from them.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 16 Jan 2007 01:10

Juha wrote:
So, Bidny flying to at least to Stettin, mentioned quite detalied at this book: http://www.testpilot.ru/review/300x/test.htm is not true?

I've already written that in my opinion [based on another sources, mentioned here above, and on calculations - speed on two engines and time of flight] - probably, not true. Quite many sources mention that Bidny dropped bombs 370 km from Berlin [station Laurenburg] because of technical problems with two engines. But again - this is hard to prove for 100%, again - two theories exist [bombed Laurenburg or Berlin - the last one according to memoirs of Bidny's flight engineer], one fact is correct - Bidny's TB-7 returned back successfully and landed on Obukhovo airfield near Leningrad.

Juha wrote:
BP earlier wrote:
this book of test-pilot Stefanovsky "300 unknown" was quite famous among aircraft historians and AFAIK it was translated on English, it was written sometimes in a very knowledgable style

And what? You forgot to mention my previous note that the book was written mainly about tests of experimental aircraft by Stefanovsky [who was the test-pilot of the extra-class and tested more than 300 aircraft including many foreign during his >30 years flight career, by the way, "300 unknowns" means 300 tested aircraft I assume; during WWII he was the commander of elite fighter unit, consisted of previous test-pilots] but not about detailed investigation of WWII operations [short chapter about that raid against Berlin were written by Stefanovsky also according to his personal communications with Bidny's crewmember - flight engineer Lisitsyn, as Stefanovsky didn't participate in that raid personally]. By the way, Stefanovsky's book describes the combat between crewmembers and Finnish soldiers in details also [from personal communications of the author with survived gunner]. As I've already mentioned - two theories existed [may be Bidny bombed Berlin indeed, but there are several disagreements [in my opinion] with the speed on two engines and flight time from the same source], as I've already mentioned - memoires is not 100% correct historical research but they were often written in knowledgable style, and many info is [and should be] correct indeed.
Photo from Stefanovsky's book - http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/stefanovsky/20.jpg (ANT-42, prototype of TB-7)
http://www.avia-rest.ru/p/images/pe_ant42/ant42-i.jpg (second "alternate" ANT-42 (1938), which was used successfully during the whole WWII [performed 120 combat flights, more than each of other TB-7/Pe-8] and had the nickname "beard" because of early type of navigator's cabin).

Juha wrote:
Juha earlier wrote:
according to the article, the first plane of the group took off at 2200 hours

Moscow time or not?
I guess that your article [from auto magazine? :wink: ] is, probably, not correct here [if there is no any problem with time zone differences], because there were several another sources [did you read my posts carefully?] - two independent memoires of participants [see above] mention that the first bomber took-off 20.52 and Bidny's bomber [not the last one] took-off 21.30. If we already discussed, that memoires could be not very correct [I assume that in take-off data they could be correct here], I believe that the most important source is the telegram from 12.08.1941 from Air Force commander lieutenant-general P.F. Zhigarev to Air Force HQ [see above the full text, my letter from 10.01.2007] - he wrote in his report that the raid started between 21.00-22.00, which is in full correspondance with two memoires, mentioned above. I think that the raid started ~21.00; also we don't know exactly where was the Panfilov's bomber damaged by AA fire - over Saaremaa by Soviet artillery or over German-occupied seashore territory by German artillery [if to assume that it was knocked down on the way to Berlin not back, and the time 02.10 from your article is true]. The info about such place will be very impostant for calculation of the route.

Juha wrote:
I wonder did they, for instance fly around Hiiumaa (from north) ?

I don't have exact data, but seems to be quite possible. For example, Pusep mentioned that they flew over the Baltic sea, in this case the route between Pushkino - Hiiumaa could be quite straight.

Juha wrote:
16min climb with heavy plane seems optimistic ( do you have any sources to back up that?)
300-310 km/h cruise speed at same mode...well, as above.

I meant that cruise speed of 300-310 km/h [usual cruise speed of TB-7 with bombs] was during the horizontal flight, when bombers reached planned altitude [6000-6500 m] already.
As for climbing rate, you can belive to my specifications, a huge amount of literature sources [including the books above and Internet sources about Pe-8] mention that TB-7/Pe-8 climbed to 5000 m for 14.6-20.0 minutes, depending of engine model [with M-40 diesels - 16 min, with AM-35A engines - 14.6 min or 5.7 m/s] - this is data with 2 t of bombs, you can increase this time taking into consideration 4 t bomb load of TB-7s during that raid. I wrote: "just for the info, TB-7 with M-40 diesels reached 5000 m for 16 min", and didn't mention about bomb load as I don't know the exact climbing rate with 4 t of bombs".
Climbing rate of Pe-8 with AM-35A engines was - 5000 m for 14.6 min and 9300 m for 43.5 min [with 2 t of bombs in bomb bay according to the many literature sources] - that was excellent data for heavy bomber of WWII period - for example, its close analogues, B-17G climbed 37 min to 20000 ft (6020 m), and British Avro Lancaster MkIII had climbing rate 41 min to 20000 ft. Of course, we should take into consideration 4 t of bomb load during that raid and usually quite unreliable diesels M-40 of Soviet TB-7, so I agree with you if you believe that the climbing rate after take-off during that raid was differ from table specifications to some degree.
From the best Internet sources: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/pe8.html#LTH [Pe-8 with AM-35A engines - climbing rate 352 m/min], http://www.base13.glasnet.ru/text/shavrov2/tbl13.htm [specification tables for different TB-7/Pe-8 from the extremelly detailed book "Development of aircraft constructions in USSR", vol. 2 - 1938-1950 by engineer/aircraft designer V. Shavrov, who described in his 2 books one by one all aircraft build in Russia/USSR from the endXIXc. to 1950].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe-8 [just to compare, Wikipedia gives even higher climbing rate - 5.9 m/s]

Juha wrote:
Well, either they did it on purpose, or not.
If on purpose....wanted to defect?
If not on purpose...either they could not control the plane or they were lost (=my choise)

Wanted to defect - hard to believe, another purpose could be [you've already mentioned it also] - to return back to home airfield Pushkino after damages from AA fire (performing a turn later over Baltic Sea - one of the possible versions), another purpose is - to land in Finland because of absence of fuel [damage of oil or/and fuel system by AA fire] for reaching the home airfield - also quite possible version.
If not on purpose - indeed, the control systems could be damaged by AA fire also [this was proved to some degree by fact of destructive emergency landing/crash, but was unproved to some degree by fact that bomber dived to avoid Finnish search lights according to your source], the reason that they were lost is also quite possible from one hand - because navigation equipment could be damaged or Panfilov [very experienced pilot] could be wounded by AA fire - but the weather was not bad if Pusep saw coast line on the horizon, lighted by AA fire, during the flight, so the reason that pilots were lost was not very possible in my opinion.

Juha wrote:
Why to ask me?
You are the one with exellent maps.
As both Saaremaa-Hiiumaa and Lapinjärvi are not any "precise places" it's also a bit difficult. I guess 300km could some sort of an average?

Why not to ask you as the Finn? I am asking because I didn't have the very detailed map of continental Finland in my atlas [the atlas is naval, it describes coast lines and coastal cities/villages, capes, islands, skerries in great details], so I couldn't find Lapinjärvi. But I need to find this place exactly, not approximately [approximately I know where]. I guess that the distance Saaremaa-Lapinjärvi is near 350 km..


Juha wrote:
Strange that I don't remember seeing here any quoations from you from them.

Nothing strange, I just didn't think about any quoations from them [mainly, I am using these books for the detailed technical description of TB-7/Pe-8, and more rare - for the detailed description of raids, almost the same info could be found in Internet and quoted directly]. Also I began to think only recently about citing the used sources inside my posts to give the possibility to another forum members to read them also.

Regards, BP

PS. You asked me recently about the stalling speed of TB-7. I don't have such info still, but I found that landing speed of TB-7 with AM-35A engines was ~114 km/h (using flaps).
PS2. I often read that Pe-8 were used as transport aircraft during WWII also, and participated in secret operations [dropped paratroopers and secret-service agents] deep behind the enemy lines - have you ever read about such operations of Pe-8 in detail?
PS3. I found the route of the first Soviet raid against Berlin [08.08.1941, 15 DB-3F of naval aviation from airfield on Esel (Saaremaa) island, 5 DB-3F made a recon flight over Berlin 05.08.1941 before the bombing raid]
Image

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11423
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 16 Jan 2007 23:09

BIGpanzer wrote:
Juha wrote:Juha earlier wrote:
according to the article, the first plane of the group took off at 2200 hours

Moscow time or not?
I don't know. That was not mentioned at the article.
BP wrote:I guess that your article [from auto magazine? :wink: ]...
Yes, in this case even Finnish auto magazine contains more truthful info at the Panfilov case than the some Soviet era semi-fictional book.



BP wrote:...is, probably, not correct here [if there is no any problem with time zone differences], because there were several another sources [did you read my posts carefully?] - two independent memoires of
participants [see above] mention that the first bomber took-off 20.52 and Bidny's bomber [not the last one] took-off 21.30. If we already discussed, that memoires could be not very correct [I assume that in take-off data they could be correct here], I believe that the most important source is the telegram from 12.08.1941 from Air Force commander lieutenant-general P.F. Zhigarev to Air Force HQ [see above the full text, my letter from 10.01.2007] - he wrote in his report that the raid started between 21.00-22.00, which is in full correspondance with two memoires, mentioned above. I think that the raid started ~21.00; also we don't know exactly where was the Panfilov's bomber damaged by AA fire - over Saaremaa by Soviet artillery or over German-occupied seashore territory by German artillery [if to assume that it was knocked down on the way to Berlin not back, and the time 02.10 from your article is true]. The info about such place will be very impostant for calculation of the route.

Alexander Medved & Dimitriy Hazanov wrote: At 15.00 the combat order has been received to take off on a mission to Berlin... The Order of flight has been established as following. As first flight of ТB-7 takes off, behind it at 20.30 flight of Еr-2 under a command of captain Stepanov, behind them at 20.45 flight of ТB-7, at 21.00 – flight of Еr-2 under command of captain Brusnitsyn, behind them the following flight of ТB-7. After them a pair of Еr-2 under a command of second lieutenant Molodcheg takes off... "

That evening events were from the start not at all developing as the commander of the VVS the general-lieutenant of aviation Zhigarev planned. At take-off ТB-7 of major K.P.Egorov has suffered accident when both right engines have given up at once. Еr-2 of second lieutenant A.I.Molodcheg, having run out of entire earthen strip, has failed to come off the ground, and had broken his undercarriage in the ditch and only by miracle was not blown up by his own bombs
http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

BP wrote: first bomber took-off 20.52 and Bidny's bomber [not the last one] took-off 21.30
Wasn't the plane of Panfilov the last (TB-7) one to take off?


BP wrote:
Juha wrote:16min climb with heavy plane seems optimistic ( do you have any sources to back up that?)
300-310 km/h cruise speed at same mode...well, as above.

I meant that cruise speed of 300-310 km/h [usual cruise speed of TB-7 with bombs] was during the horizontal flight, when bombers reached planned altitude [6000-6500 m] already.
As for climbing rate, you can belive to my specifications, a huge amount of literature sources [including the books above and Internet sources about Pe-8] mention that TB-7/Pe-8 climbed to 5000 m for 14.6-20.0 minutes, depending of engine model [with M-40 diesels - 16 min, with AM-35A engines - 14.6 min or 5.7 m/s] - this is data with 2 t of bombs, you can increase this time taking into consideration 4 t bomb load of TB-7s during that raid. I wrote: "just for the info, TB-7 with M-40 diesels reached 5000 m for 16 min", and didn't mention about bomb load as I don't know the exact climbing rate with 4 t of bombs".
Climbing rate of Pe-8 with AM-35A engines was - 5000 m for 14.6 min and 9300 m for 43.5 min [with 2 t of bombs in bomb bay according to the many literature sources] - that was excellent data for heavy bomber of WWII period - for example, its close analogues, B-17G climbed 37 min to 20000 ft (6020 m), and British Avro Lancaster MkIII had climbing rate 41 min to 20000 ft. Of course, we should take into consideration 4 t of bomb load during that raid and usually quite unreliable diesels M-40 of Soviet TB-7, so I agree with you if you believe that the climbing rate after take-off during that raid was differ from table specifications to some degree.
From the best Internet sources: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/pe8.html#LTH [Pe-8 with AM-35A engines - climbing rate 352 m/min], http://www.base13.glasnet.ru/text/shavrov2/tbl13.htm [specification tables for different TB-7/Pe-8 from the extremelly detailed book "Development of aircraft constructions in USSR", vol. 2 - 1938-1950 by engineer/aircraft designer V. Shavrov, who described in his 2 books one by one all aircraft build in Russia/USSR from the endXIXc. to 1950].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe-8 [just to compare, Wikipedia gives even higher climbing rate - 5.9 m/s]
Thanks for the info.


BP wrote:
Juha wrote:Why to ask me?
You are the one with exellent maps.
As both Saaremaa-Hiiumaa and Lapinjärvi are not any "precise places" it's also a bit difficult. I guess 300km could some sort of an average?

Why not to ask you as the Finn? I am asking because I didn't have the very detailed map of continental Finland in my atlas [the atlas is naval, it describes coast lines and coastal cities/villages, capes, islands, skerries in great details], so I couldn't find Lapinjärvi. But I need to find this place exactly, not approximately [approximately I know where]. I guess that the distance Saaremaa-Lapinjärvi is near 350 km..

I don't know the exact location of the crash site.
From my sources the auto magazine gives the most detailed info: village Rutumi, couple km NE from the (railway?) station.

Image
viewtopic.php?p=1004421&highlight=#1004421

http://map3.navici.com/MAP.Y29weXJpZ2h0 ... yQbAc=.png

Probably somewhere between the highway 7 and road 176:
http://map3.navici.com/MAP.Y29weXJpZ2h0 ... KG3Zk=.png

Source:
http://www.rutuminkartano.fi/kartano_content.html

BP wrote: I guess that the distance Saaremaa-Lapinjärvi is near 350 km..
Well Saaremaa-Hiiumaa archipelago is quite large area: from Sõrve it might be even more, and Tahkuna even less than I guessed.
At both places there was Soviet coastal artillery at that time.
Source: Image Batteries of Moonzund by Yury Melkonov

BP wrote:
Juha wrote:Strange that I don't remember seeing here any quoations from you from them.

Nothing strange, I just didn't think about any quoations from them [mainly, I am using these books for the detailed technical description of TB-7/Pe-8, and more rare - for the detailed description of raids, almost the same info could be found in Internet and quoted directly]. Also I began to think only recently about citing the used sources inside my posts to give the possibility to another forum members to read them also.
That would be nice.



BP wrote:PS. You asked me recently about the stalling speed of TB-7. I don't have such info still, but I found that landing speed of TB-7 with AM-35A engines was ~114 km/h (using flaps).
Interesting


BP wrote:PS2. I often read that Pe-8 were used as transport aircraft during WWII also, and participated in secret operations [dropped paratroopers and secret-service agents] deep behind the enemy lines - have you ever read about such operations of Pe-8 in detail?
No, I have't read about any facts about that kind of flights by TB-7/Pe-8. (nor any other missions than this and the 1944 Helsinki raids.)
However there is a Finnish humbug story, a rumour, that the Panfilov TB-7 was not on a bombing mission to Berlin, but on a agent dropping mission to Lahti area, Finland.
That rumour is also mentioned at the Lapinjärven veteraanikirja. As a rumour.


BP wrote:PS3. I found the route of the first Soviet raid against Berlin [08.08.1941, 15 DB-3F of naval aviation from airfield on Esel (Saaremaa) island, 5 DB-3F made a recon flight over Berlin 05.08.1941 before the bombing raid]
Thanks.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 17 Jan 2007 00:33

Juha wrote:
No, I have't read about any facts about that kind of flights by TB-7/Pe-8. (nor any other missions than this and the 1944 Helsinki raids.)

I hope that you read some interesting additional info in this thread :wink: TB-7/Pe-8 were used by Soviet long-range aviation in 1941-1944 as heavy bombers [the single type of real strategical bomber of USSR during WWII] and transport planes. Participated in many important day and night [mainly] strategical raids, sometimes with super-heavy FAB-5000 bombs [dropped bombs and pamphlets over Berlin, Königsberg, Danzig, other cities of Eastern Prussia, Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest, Helsinki, over occupied Soviet cities/large railroad centres - Smolensk, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Pskov, Orel, other Russian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian cities, also Tallinn; the bombs were dropped from the high altitudes as well as several very accurate destructions of important targets [HQ, power plants, etc.] were made from relatively low altitudes]. Those heavy bombers also dropped bombs over important targets [heavy artillery positions, airfields, railroad stations, places of concentration of troops, etc.] closely to front line during the Battle of Kursk, 1943 and Soviet offensives in 1944 [even attacked German tanks from low altitude during the Battle for Moscow in 1941]. The first combat use - raid against Berlin 10-11.08.1941 indeed.
As for the use of TB-7/Pe-8 as transport aircraft for paratroopers (could take near 50 soldiers) and participation in some secret special missions deep behind the enemy lines - that took place for sure but much less described in comparison with long-range bombing raids. And the most well-known mission, of course - dangerous flight with Minister of Foreign Affairs V. Molotov and his cabinet on board from Moscow to UK/USA and back in June 1942.

PS. Interesting, that command of Moscow AA defense ordered to decrease flight ceiling up to 1000 m(!) after crossing the front line by TB-7/Pe-8 on the way back - to provide reliable identification of 4-engine heavy bombers and prevent friendly fire against them. As 1000 m altitude was the most inefficient mode for high-altitude AM-35A engines, that caused decrease of flight range to some degree [heavy bombers Pe-8 based on airfield near Moscow till summer 1944] despite the detailed analysis of the influence of bomb load, speed and altitudes on effectivity of engines by pilots [usual fuel load was 13025 kg, four AM-35A engines consume ~1000 kg fuel/h, but many pilots achieved the rate 800 kg fuel/h].

Regards, BP
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 17 Jan 2007 01:18, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11423
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 17 Jan 2007 01:08

BIGpanzer wrote:
Juha wrote:
No, I have't read about any facts about that kind of flights by TB-7/Pe-8. (nor any other missions than this and the 1944 Helsinki raids.)

I hope that you read some interesting additional info in this thread :wink: TB-7/Pe-8 were used by Soviet long-range aviation in 1941-1944 as heavy bombers [the single type of real strategical bomber of USSR during WWII] and transport planes. Participated in many important day and night [mainly] strategical raids, sometimes with super-heavy FAB-5000 bombs [dropped bombs and pamphlets over Berlin, Königsberg, Danzig, Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest, Helsinki, over occupied Soviet cities/large railroad centres - Smolensk, Vitebsk, Pskov, Orel, other Byelorussian and Ukrainian cities, also Tallinn; the bombs were dropped from the high altitudes as well as several very accurate destructions of important targets [HQ, power plants, etc.] were made from relatively low altitudes]. Those heavy bombers also dropped bombs over important targets closely to front line during the Battle of Kursk, 1943 and Soviet offensives in 1944 [even attacked German tanks from low altitude during the Battle for Moscow in 1941]. The first combat use - raid against Berlin 10-11.08.1941 indeed.
As for the use of TB-7/Pe-8 as transport aircraft for paratroopers (could take near 50 soldiers) and participation in some secret special missions deep behind the enemy lines - that took place for sure but much less described in comparison with long-range bombing raids. And the most well-known mission, of course - dangerous flight with Minister of Foreign Affairs V. Molotov and his cabinet on board from Moscow to UK/USA and back in June 1942.

Regards, BP

Sorry for not writing clear enough, I actually ment, and ought to have written:
No, I have't read about any facts about that kind of flights by TB-7/Pe-8. (nor any other missions than this and the 1944 Helsinki raids.) over Finland

Regards, Juha

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 17 Jan 2007 02:37

Ok, I also forgot about your main subject of interest :wink:
In this case it is possible to remind the short story about TB-7 No. 4216 [one of the first series TB-7]. Quite many sources mention that Soviets decided to test their newest heavy bomber during the Soviet-Finnish (Winter) war, and that TB-7 flew towards Karelian Isthmus front line for service tests but crashed because of pilot's mistake and bad weather conditions in January 1940. Pilot was from the Research Institute of Air Force. In reality (or as I believe after analysis of all sources I could find) - TB-7 No. 4216 (pilot Datsko) from 14th long-range bomber regiment was crashed during the flight to Karelia indeed, but after the end of the Winter war as it crashed 01.12.1940. Six crewmembers of TB-7 were killed during that catastrophe, but pilot Datsko survived and was killed in air combat near Leningrad 08.09.1941 as fighter pilot (major, squadron commander of 426th fighter regiment, AA defense of Leningrad).
Do you have some info about that TB-7 (date of crash according to your sources - January or December 1940)?

PS. Interesting fact - test-pilot Datsko participated in flight tests of TB-7, equipped with experimental cabin for 12 paratroopers with armament, in March 1939 (so called troop-transport aircraft "42"). Cabin for paratroopers (5.6x1.27m) was attached to fuselage longerons instead of removed bomb doors. The tests was successful (paratroopers could be dropped separately or in groups) and it was recommended to passed such cabins into service, but further work was stopped because of unknown reasons.
Datsko also participated as 2nd pilot in official state testings of ANT-42 (prototype of TB-7) in 1937-1938.


Regards, BP

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 17 Jan 2007 20:13

Juha wrote:
I don't know. That was not mentioned at the article.

Well, according to your article the raid began 22.00 and Panfilov's bomber crashed in Lapinjärvi 02.10, wright? Panfilov's bomber was the last TB-7 which took-off (so the time was near 23.00). Do you think that the flight from Pushkino to Saaremaa archipelago (~460-480 km) and then from Saaremaa archipelago to Lapinjärvi (~300-350 km with three and later with two engines) could be done for 3 hours?

Juha wrote:
Alexander Medved & Dimitriy Hazanov wrote:
At 15.00 the combat order has been received to take off on a mission to Berlin... The Order of flight has been established as following. As first flight of ÒB-7 takes off, behind it at 20.30 flight of År-2 under a command of captain Stepanov, behind them at 20.45 flight of ÒB-7, at 21.00 – flight of År-2 under command of captain Brusnitsyn, behind them the following flight of ÒB-7. After them a pair of År-2 under a command of second lieutenant Molodcheg takes off... "
That evening events were from the start not at all developing as the commander of the VVS the general-lieutenant of aviation Zhigarev planned. At take-off ÒB-7 of major K.P.Egorov has suffered accident when both right engines have given up at once. År-2 of second lieutenant A.I.Molodcheg, having run out of entire earthen strip, has failed to come off the ground, and had broken his undercarriage in the ditch and only by miracle was not blown up by his own bombs

The original article is here - http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/soviet/er2/er2.html
Juha, you again mentiones the name of Er-2 pilot Molodchy in incorrect form because of transliteration problems/cases in Russian language. His name was A.I. Molodchy [it is possible to write Molodchii also] - do you feel the difference between Myllykoski and Myllykoskeg? :lol:
The accidents with TB-7 of Egorov [crashed during take-off because of problems with two right engines] and Er-2 of Molodchy [damaged landing gear because of insufficient length of takeoff strip of airfield Pushkino for Er-2 full of fuel and bombs] didn't cause the delay of bombing raid. Those aircraft were the last ones, and the last TB-7 which could take off was TB-7 No. 42026 of Panfilov. The article by Medved & Hazanov mentiones that only six TB-7 and three Er-2 flew towards Berlin as lieutenant general Zhigarev prohibited further take-offs after accidents mentioned above [Er-2 of the commander of 2nd flight captain Brusnitsyn flew over airfield near one hour, waiting the remaining aircraft, but they didn't take off acording to Zhigarev's order].

Regards, BP

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11423
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 17 Jan 2007 20:44

Thanks for the info.

BIGpanzer wrote:Do you have some info about that TB-7 (date of crash according to your sources - January or December 1940)?
Sorry, but I have no info about this case.

Few questions:
Do you know about the final take-off order of the planes at the 11th August berlin raid?
Egorov started first(?) and crashed. That caused some delay at the original plans?
Panfilov was the last (TB-7 or the whole group?)

Do you know what was the reason of the multiple engine trouble ( several cases both engines at the same wing stopped) at that mission?
Were they:
- fuel based (fuel quality, fuel pressure) ?
- engine cooling based ( radiator malfunction, coolant flow problems)
- engine lubrication based ( radiator [was there?], oil pressure)
- other

Regards, Juha
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11423
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 17 Jan 2007 21:25

BIGpanzer wrote: Do you think that the flight from Pushkino to Saaremaa archipelago (~460-480 km) and then from Saaremaa archipelago to Lapinjärvi (~300-350 km with three and later with two engines) could be done for 3 hours?
As Pushkino - Tahkuna - Lapinjärvi is ~700km, that should be possible.
If hit from Osmussaar coastal artillery AAA, the route would be even shorter.


BP wrote:The accidents with TB-7 of Egorov [crashed during take-off because of problems with two right engines] and Er-2 of Molodchy [damaged landing gear because of insufficient length of takeoff strip of airfield Pushkino for Er-2 full of fuel and bombs] didn't cause the delay of bombing raid. Those aircraft were the last ones, and the last TB-7 which could take off was TB-7 No. 42026 of Panfilov. The article by Medved & Hazanov mentiones that only six TB-7 and three Er-2 flew towards Berlin as lieutenant general Zhigarev prohibited further take-offs after accidents mentioned above [Er-2 of the commander of 2nd flight captain Brusnitsyn flew over airfield near one hour, waiting the remaining aircraft, but they didn't take off acording to Zhigarev's order].
Egorov and Molodchy started after Panfilov?


BP wrote:Juha, you again mentiones the name of Er-2 pilot Molodchy in incorrect form because of transliteration problems/cases in Russian language. His name was A.I. Molodchy [it is possible to write Molodchii also] - do you feel the difference between Myllykoski and Myllykoskeg? :lol:
To be precise, it was the source.
Thanks for the correction.

BP wrote:[it is possible to write Molodchii also]

Thanks for the exception.
How about Molodchyi, Molodchiy, Molodcii ?

BP wrote: Pusep's [I am using Russian transcription for him, OK?]

What is written in cyrillic as Пусэп is written originaly as Puusepp

Regards, Juha
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 18 Jan 2007 00:47

Hi, Juha!

Thanks for the interesting photo!

I will answer on your questions tomorrow if I have time.

As for names - Molodchy or Molodchii is the most correct in my opinion [your completely wrong "eg" at the end appeared because of possible Babel Fish translation without taking into consideration the case-ending in Russian language - the same for Finnish to some degree: suo - soihin, for example]. You can choose one of the two variants for future discussions [I prefer Molodchy] if you are worry about your bad Russian [I believe that Russian members excuse you while reading your posts :wink: ]
As for Puusepp [on Estonian] - direct transliteration from Russian [his documents were written on Russian that time I guess :wink: ] gives Pusep, of course. For me no problem to mention him as Puusepp also [that was his postWWII career :) ].

But I found a very interesting new info, important for our discussions and calculations - the first TB-7 took-off from Pushkino airfield 20.20 (2nd squadron of major Kurban, the 1st squadron of Pusep postponed take-off), bombers from the same squadron took-off with the interval 1 min. Kurban's navigator described the route in great details - the initial point was Luzskaya Bay, then they flew over the sea abeam Tallinn [course 223, ground speed 380 km/h - the effect of back wind, very probably - BP, altitude - 6500 m]. 22.30 - Liepaja to the left, island Gottland to the right (course 223). 23.30 - island Rügen ahead (the 1st check point over Germany), turn to the left to the south over Rugen (course 180). Stettin to the left, turn to the right (course 90) till the confluence of Oder and Warta rivers. 0.08 - confluence of Oder and Warta, course 270 to the right - attack course to Berlin.
PS. Navigator of Kurban also mentioned that stop of one engine on the way back caused 55 km/h decreasing of cruise speed [because of quite hard control of deviate aircraft also].
http://militera.lib.ru/prose/russian/shelest_ii/01.html

Juha wrote:
As Pushkino - Tahkuna - Lapinjärvi is ~700km, that should be possible.
If hit from Osmussaar coastal artillery AAA, the route would be even shorter.

I think that the route Pushkino - point over Saaremaa on the way Tallinn-point between Liepaja-Gottland - Lapinjarvi was a little bit more than 800 km. But the plane could be damaged by Soviet AA fire before reaching Saaremaa - I don't remember the exact location of Soviet AA batteries along the route and what territory was occupied already by Germans, need to check this.

Juha wrote:
As I don't know the exat route (for sure it wasn't a straight one) it's difficult to say anything exact about the route lenght.

You are a little bit wrong when assumed that the route wasn't straight over Baltic Sea - look to the map (raid of DB-3F) and, especially, to TB-7 route description here (course 223 for a long time).

Regards, BP

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11423
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 18 Jan 2007 15:37

BIGpanzer wrote:Hi, Juha!
I will answer on your questions tomorrow if I have time.
BP earlier wrote:Next week I will have a huge amount of work, so I am not sure that I have time to participate in posting info here
No hurry, always business before pleasure.

BP wrote:As for names - Molodchy or Molodchii is the most correct in my opinion
BP wrote:You can choose one of the two variants for future discussions [I prefer Molodchy]
Thanks for the options given, but as he was born in Ukraina, so Molodchiy, AFAIK should be OK too.
http://ukrainetrips.com/lug/13.php

BP wrote:if you are worry about your bad Russian
I know my limitations and no, I'm not worried about my foreign language "skills".
BP wrote: [I believe that Russian members excuse you while reading your posts :wink: ]
I hope so too.

BP wrote:your completely wrong
Juha earlier wrote: To be precise, it was the source



BP wrote: For me no problem to mention him as Puusepp also [that was his postWWII career :) ].
AFAIK he was Puusepp by birth


BP wrote:But I found a very interesting new info, important for our discussions and calculations - the first TB-7 took-off from Pushkino airfield 20.20 (2nd squadron of major Kurban, the 1st squadron of Pusep postponed take-off), bombers from the same squadron took-off with the interval 1 min. Kurban's navigator described the route in great details - the initial point was Luzskaya Bay, then they flew over the sea abeam Tallinn [course 223, ground speed 380 km/h - the effect of back wind, very probably - BP, altitude - 6500 m]. 22.30 - Liepaja to the left, island Gottland to the right (course 223). 23.30 - island Rügen ahead (the 1st check point over Germany), turn to the left to the south over Rugen (course 180). Stettin to the left, turn to the right (course 90) till the confluence of Oder and Warta rivers. 0.08 - confluence of Oder and Warta, course 270 to the right - attack course to Berlin.
BP wrote:You are a little bit wrong when assumed that the route wasn't straight over Baltic Sea - look to the map (raid of DB-3F) and, especially, to TB-7 route description here (course 223 for a long time).

Straight routes are plans.
In reality the planes seemed to have flown differently:
BP earlier wrote: http://www.testpilot.ru/review/300x/test.htm

By the way, the same source mention ~2700 km as the length of planned route Pushkino-Danzig-Stettin-Berlin
BP earlier wrote:As I believe to the info that the bombs were dropped 370 km from Berlin [station Laurenburg, not far away from Danzig]
I wonder what they were doing then over Danzig?
Do you know where is Laurenburg?



BP wrote:I think that the route Pushkino - point over Saaremaa on the way Tallinn-point between Liepaja-Gottland - Lapinjarvi was a little bit more than 800 km. But the plane could be damaged by Soviet AA fire before reaching Saaremaa - I don't remember the exact location of Soviet AA batteries along the route and what territory was occupied already by Germans, need to check this.
Yes, the further (towards Germany) from Lapinjärvi the plane flew, the longer it took to "return to Lapinjärvi"
That is, from Osmussaar the route would have been shorter and from Saaremaa, longer.


Regards, Juha

P.S. how about the place names?
Estonian islands, like: Saaremaa or Oesel/Ösel?
Soviet names, like: Luga bay or Luzskaya Bay?

User avatar
BIGpanzer
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 22:51
Location: Central Europe

Post by BIGpanzer » 19 Jan 2007 01:09

Hi, Juha!

Juha wrote:
No hurry, always business before pleasure.

Yes, but reply to the questions from friends is also very important in my opinion! :wink:
Other thing, that some friends don't value this at all :( :?

Juha, as you have annoying tendency [sometimes :wink: ] to quote phrases, which have a little common with the topic, and, moreover, were explained to you already, I give you the small grammar lection instead of post the interesting info about diesel engines M-40 [IIRC you asked me about troubles with them] and timetable of the bombing raid against Berlin 10-11 August 1941. Don't forget to quote this :lol:
It will be much more important to think how to prove that Panfilov's TB-7 was damaged by Soviet AA artillery not German AA artillery (or vice versa).. It is also quite strange for me that People's Commissar of Defense mentioned pilot Panfilov in the order from 17.08.1941 together with pilots who reached Berlin. It is also quite strange for me that a few amount of Russian sources which even mention the Panfilov's crewmembers, mention only the name of gunner Krysin as survivor [and the names of six died crewmembers]. You, dear Juha, avoid to help me to find any answers to these questions :?

So.
1. Abour pilot of long-range bomber Er-2 A. Molodchy [1920-2002].
http://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/0 ... 605392.jpg [major A.I. Molodchy]
Juha wrote:
BP wrote:
your completely wrong
Juha earlier wrote:
To be precise, it was the source

To be precise I know, of course, that you quoted the source [as you quoted it twice already]. And I've already correct this mistake after the first quote [occured because of direct online translation of Russian text without taking into consideration cases in Russian language; moreover, it should be not Molodcheg, but Molodchego and translator forget to add "o" in the end of the word], but you didn't note my correction and quoted the same text without small correction, spreading the grammar mistake.

You mentioned also that my favourite aviation site [which was excellent indeed and, probably, the most detailed site in Internet about world's aircraft - http://www.airwar.ru] mentions Ìîëîä÷èé as Molodcii, and you mistaked here - that site mentions his surname as Molodchiy. English letters "ch" mean Russian letter/sound "÷".
http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/ace2ww/pilots/molodchiy.html

Juha wrote:
How about Molodchyi, Molodchiy, Molodcii ?
...but as he was born in Ukraina, so Molodchiy, AFAIK should be OK too.

Ukraine (AFAIK Ukraina is on Russian).
In principle all mentioned variants (except the last one, see above - "ch") are quite correct. The problem is which transliteration table you prefer. As the end sound should be "èé" - the most correct transliteration should have "ij in the end [Molodchij]. But the most well-known transliteration usualy uses "y" in this case - Molodchy [I also prefer to use this one]. The excellent example is Russian surname Sikorsky [the surname, which had absolutely identical end with Molodchy], so US helicopters have the name "Sikorsky" as you know. All Russian men I know almost always used "y" in official documents on English in such cases if they have surnames of that type. Molodchy was Ukrainian by nationality, but as for Ukrainian language - there are absolutely no differences with Russian in this case [Ukrainians also have such type of surnames often, the end writing with Cyrillic letters is the same]; the author of the site you've mentioned just uses a little bit another transliteration system [see above].
Everything is clear?

PS. When you mentioned the book "Batteries of Moonzund" by Yury Melkonov, you mentioned Yury [Þðèé, the same end as Ìîëîä÷èé] according to transliteration rules, I use. Yury, Molodchy, Sikorsky. etc.

2. About pilot of heavy bomber TB-7 E. Pusep [1909-1996] - http://www.allaces.ru/sssr/foto/pusep.jpg [major E.K. Pusep]
Juha wrote:
AFAIK he was Puusepp by birth

He was Ïóñýï by birth as he was born in Siberia in 1909 [his Estonian parents moved from Estland province to Siberia in 1905]. As he was a Soviet pilot all his documents were on Russian, of course [direct transliteration from Ïóñýï gives Pusep]. But, I guess, he was pleased if somebody mentioned him as Puusepp that time :wink: AFAIK he liked to refresh his memory about parents, liked to sing Estonian songs, liked Estonia very much [he decided to move to Tallinn after WWII]. On the other hand, many Russian pilots didn't like him as he was Estonian [nevertheless, divisional commander Vodopianov and his crewmembers liked him] and described Pusep as experienced pilot but quite pedantic men, who seldom signed award and rank documents and didn't like to enter into problems of his pilots as did many Russian officers of the regiment.

PS. One of the Panfilov's crewmembers was a Tartar by nationality. Do you want to write his name on Tartar language, for example [in official documents his name was written on Russian, of course]? Please, check this by yourself, without me in this case :lol: I prefer to find more info about diesel engines of TB-7 :wink:

3. About geographical names.
Juha wrote:
P.S. how about the place names?
Estonian islands, like: Saaremaa or Oesel/Ösel?
Soviet names, like: Luga bay or Luzskaya Bay?


Estonian island - Saaremaa (on Estonian), Ýçåëü (Esel, on Russian), Ösel (on Swedish), Øsel (on Danish).
Some atlases use Oesel and Saare Maa, by the way; in my opinion Äsel [Aesel] is more correct taking into consideration sounds in Russian language, but according to transliteration tables - much better to use Esel. I asked one of my Russian friend [professor of oceanology] about Saaremaa this summer - he wrote it as Esel on English and didn't understand Oesel].
In our case the best variant seems to be - Esel (Saaremaa) :wink:

Luzhskaya bay - not a Soviet name, of course, but old historical Russian name (XIII-XIV c.c.?). Luzhskaya bay [Ëóæñêàÿ ãóáà] is the original name, it was used in Russian maps and some detailed foreign atlases [including my favourite large naval British atlas from 1923!]. Luga [Ëóãà] is the name for river [mentioned under the same name in medieval Novgorodian chronicles as the river of the lands of Balto-Finnic tribe Vod, which was under the influence of Novgorod since XI c.; on Vodic - Laugaz] and town [since 1777, before - village] nearby [at the moment - town Ust-Luga, Kingisepp township of Leningrad Region [but capital of the region has the name St. Petersburg :) ], ~40 km from Narva]. So many maps use the name "Luga bay" for this reason and also because English language doesn't distinguish Russian nouns and adjectives [Luzhskaya is the direct adjective from Luga]. In this case both names are very correct, but Luzhskaya is a little bit more complicated - http://www.greenworld.org.ru/eng/publ/mapscfg.htm (location).

Juha wrote:
Do you know where is Laurenburg?

No, in this case I don't know exactly. I can only assume that this is Polish station/town near Danzig/Gdansk, renamed by Germans during occupation, and there is no such name at the moment. I will try to find this. I know, of course, that there is Laurenburg in Rheinland-Pfalz, but this is very differ case taking into consideration the route of Soviet bombers :lol:

Stop, I have an idea, how I could forget :oops: there was German town Lauenburg in Pommern for sure! Now Polish Lębork in Middle Pomerania region [Pomeranian Voivodeship of Poland]. By memory, Lauenburg/Lębork is ~50-60 km from Danzig/Gdansk, ~340-350 km from Berlin.
The source just made a small mistake and mentioned Lauenburg as Laurenburg [370 km from Berlin], very probably! I am sure, that was Lauenburg/Lębork, and TB-7 of lieutenant Bidny bombed railway station there because of problems with two engines and impossibility to reach Berlin, then bomber started the flight back to home airfield.

Regards, BP
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 19 Jan 2007 01:36, edited 3 times in total.

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”