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: 11424
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2007 00:14

BIGpanzer wrote:
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'm sorry if your older posts annoy you.


BP wrote: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)
You have used mainly (if not all) web articles as your sources, even you have printed material about the case. What does Unger and Maslov write about that case.
Wasn't the location of Lapinjärvi and Lauenburg mentioned at neither of them?
BP wrote: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.
Yes, that is strange, specially in the light of this document (emphasis on mine):
BP earlier wrote:Here the historical document - telegram from 12 August 1941 of Air Force commander (he was also the Deputy Defense People's Commissar) lieutenant-general P.F. Zhigarev to Air Force HQ:
Quote:
"... Ñ 21.00 äî 22.00 [timetable - when the raid began, BP] 10 àâãóñòà íà âûïîëíåíèå çàäàíèÿ âûëåòåëè 7 ÒÁ-7 è 3 Åð-2 [7 TB-7 and 3 Yer-2 - BP]. Ïî ïðåäâàðèòåëüíûì äàííûì, ïî öåëè ðàáîòàëè 2 ÒÁ-7 è 2 Åð-2 [2 TB-7 and 2 Yer-2 bombed target (Berlin) according to preliminary data - BP. Note: 5 TB-7 bombed German territory, including Berlin - BP]. Îäèí ÒÁ-7 ñáðîñèë áîìáû äî ïîäõîäà ê öåëè, òàê êàê ñäàë ìîòîð. Âåðíóëèñü è ñåëè â Ïóøêèíå òîëüêî 1 ÒÁ-7 è 1 Åð-2 [1 TB-7 and 1 Yer-2 landed on Pushkino, home airfield - BP]... Î Âîäîïüÿíîâå è Ïàíôèëîâå äàííûõ íåò [no info about Vodopianov and Panfilov yet - BP]... Óñòàíîâèòü, ïî÷åìó èìåëî ìåñòî 3 ñëó÷àÿ îòêàçà ïðàâîé ãðóïïû ìîòîðîâ, ïîêà íå óäàëîñü [no possibility to find the reason of 3 cases of failure of right engines - BP]. Êîìäèâ è øòàá äèâèçèè ðàáîòàþò ïëîõî [divisional commander and divisional HQ worked bad - BP], ñ òàêèì êîìàíäîâàíèåì äèâèçèè è øòàáîì òðóäíî îðãàíèçîâàòü ÷òî-òî ñåðüåçíîå, òàê êàê ñëó÷àéíî íàáðàííûå ëþäè äåéñòâóþò âðàçáðîä è â îäèíî÷êó. Ïðîøó ðàçðåøåíèÿ èñïðàâíûå ÒÁ-7 è Åð-2 ïåðåáðîñèòü îáðàòíî â Êàçàíü [Let me serviceable TB-7 and Yer-2 returned back to Kazan - BP]. Íàçíà÷èòü êîìäèâîì Ãîëîâàíîâà [Let me appoint Golovanov as divisional commander - BP]. Íàçíà÷èòü äðóãîãî íà÷àëüíèêà øòàáà...[Let me appoint another chief of divisional staff]"
I really wonder where the info about that Panfilov reached Berlin, was from?

BP wrote:]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 :?
Perhaps it was just Krysin that survived the war?
It would also be interesting to know the sources and to what they are claimed to be based at.



BP wrote: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
What mention?
I had deleted that part off from my post, before your post, as I wasn't sure about the site credibility.


BP earlier wrote:You can choose one of the two variants for future discussions [I prefer Molodchy]

BP wrote:In principle all mentioned variants (except the last one, see above - "ch") are quite correct.
Thanks for the aditional options.

BP wrote:Everything is clear?
Everything has been clear from the begining.
I have understood your mistakes/typos and you mine.
Actually that has been a very nice thing to notice in general at AHF.

BP wrote: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.
That was a typo, I believe. Sorry.
I should have (perhaps) used Jury instead of Yury.
That leads to the fact(?) that translating names (places and specially people) it's just not exact translating letter by letter, but there is the phonetic part also. Important is that how the word is pronounced. When translating for instance writing from cyrillic to latin, it also depends to the the "receiving end" how the word should be translated.
For example the plane name that is translated to english as Yak is usually written as Jak here in Finland:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2His ... istus.html

So one single name can have several "right" names, depending who uses them.
At names of persons, it's also quite important how the person him(her)self calls (wants to be called) him/her.
About place names...I think it's best to use a well known name original or a english language name (if there is any)
I've tried to use such a place names that, if not familiar to the reader, can be easily checked from, say at Google image search.

BP wrote: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].
I don't now does it make any difference, was he born in Russian Siberia or Russian Estonia.



BP wrote:PS. One of the Panfilov's crewmembers was a Tartar by nationality. Do you want to write his name on Tartar language, for example

I would prefer Tatar over Tartar.
If he has a Tatar name, a latin translation of it is OK (of course that makes the things a bit more complicated to have several names to a single person, but it's hardly possible to deny ones real name.
As with Puusepp)
BP wrote:[in official documents his name was written on Russian, of course]
In Soviet documents most probably, about Finnish I'm not so sure.

BP wrote: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:
Juha wrote:I've tried to use such a place names that, if not familiar to the reader, can be easily checked from, say at Google image search
Esel is at my mind one of the least suitable names.
One can try what kind of revealing info Esel or Esel island or Esel Estonia gives from the image search compared to the similar combinations of the other options.

BP wrote: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).
I have no problems in understanding both options, but I (too) find Luga bay better here.


BP wrote:
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.
Juha wrote:You have used mainly (if not all) web articles as your sources, even you have printed material about the case. What does Unger and Maslov write about that case.
Wasn't the location of Lapinjärvi and Lauenburg mentioned at neither of them?


Regards, Juha

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 20 Jan 2007 01:07

Hi, Juha!
Juha wrote:
I'm sorry if your older posts annoy you.

Not my older posts but your older posts [just a few of them :wink: ] :)

Juha wrote:
You have used mainly (if not all) web articles as your sources, even you have printed material about the case. What does Unger and Maslov write about that case.
Wasn't the location of Lapinjärvi and Lauenburg mentioned at neither of them?

Of course, ~90% of my info about missions, biographies, etc. is from Internet. But 90% of technical info [specifications, descriptions of engines, aircraft, etc.] is from litarature sources, which I have a huge amount at home. You should take into consideration that many literature sources could be found in Internet also, in that case I am trying to find online variant of the article and give a direct link [so this is also from the web :wink: ]. I will check Unger & Maslov article [by the way, there is online and journal variants] tomorrow. IIRC they didn't mention Lapinjärvi and Lauenburg, that were another sources - I will give the direct links to them tomorrow [probably, I've already mentiones some of them here], especially for you!

Juha wrote:
Yes, that is strange, specially in the light of this document (emphasis on mine)...:

These are two differ documents [just note as you know about this for sure]. I don't see anything strange in the telegram from Zhigarev [12.08.1941] - he mentioned that there is no info about Vodopianov and Panfilov, and we know that Panfilov's bomber crashed in Finland and Vodopianov's bomber made emergency landing in Estonia [the crew reached Soviet positions only 13th August or around this date], so there were no messages from them, of course. Much more strange is the order of People's Commissar of Defense [see above] - he mentioned Panfilov among the pilots, who could reach Berlin or bomb German-occupied territory at least [Bidny, for example], and Commissar of Defense didn't mention another TB-7 and Er-2 pilots, participated in the raid. As that order dated 17th August 1941 [when Vodopianov and his crewmembers, including Puusepp, reached Soviet positions, so the info about them was reported to HQ already and, of course, mentioned in the order], the most interesting part is Panfilov - why his name was mentioned in the order also, probably, HQ received some info about him between 12-17th August. But we don't know what kind of info was it. I know that you don't believe that Panfilov's crewmembers participated in combat with Finnish soldiers during several days near crashed TB-7 [I also think that the fact they were captured on the way to Soviet positions is much more possible], but, probably, Panfilov made something important which gave him a chance to be mentioned in the order, but what? That was a very serious document, not memoires, articles, etc., so should be the reason.

Juha wrote:
I really wonder where the info about that Panfilov reached Berlin, was from?

I will give links to this sources, but there are only a few sources, which mention such fact exactly.

Juha wrote:
Perhaps it was just Krysin that survived the war?
It would also be interesting to know the sources and to what they are claimed to be based at.

Do you have the info that four other crewmembers died in Finnish prison?
There are only 2-3 sources, which mention Krysin [one of them was Stefanovsky's book, I've mentioned already]. I will quote all info from them tomorrow to give you the possibility to read it. As for the base of the info - hard to assume [Krysin's memoires?], this is just the info.

Juha wrote:
What mention?
I had deleted that part off from my post, before your post, as I wasn't sure about the site credibility.

But I saw your post before you could delete it :wink: The site is one of the most credible in comparison with others. I think this is the best site about the world's aviation in general. Other thing - its English version sometimes transliterated names/geographical names in differ way from official transliteration tables. If you mean this - I agree.

Juha wrote:
I have understood your mistakes/typos and you mine.

I didn't make any mistakes/typos in the names, they are yours [ex. Molodcheg - to be precise, quote from the source :wink: ], dear Juha! :wink:

Juha wrote:
should have (perhaps) used Jury instead of Yury.
That leads to the fact(?) that translating names (places and specially people) it's just not exact translating letter by letter, but there is the phonetic part also. Important is that how the word is pronounced. When translating for instance writing from cyrillic to latin, it also depends to the the "receiving end" how the word should be translated.
For example the plane name that is translated to english as Yak is usually written as Jak here in Finland:

Yury is the most common. Yak also. You are very right about the phonetic part. In principle, every Russian letter/diphthong can be transliterated with the help of Latinic letters/diphthongs. AFAIK the words in Russian are pronounced the same way they are written (in Finnish also).

Juha wrote:
At names of persons, it's also quite important how the person him(her)self calls (wants to be called) him/her.

Juha wrote:
About place names...I think it's best to use a well known name original or a english language name (if there is any). I've tried to use such a place names that, if not familiar to the reader, can be easily checked from, say at Google image search.

Completely agree.

Juha wrote:
I don't now does it make any difference, was he born in Russian Siberia or Russian Estonia.

Probably not, I also thought about this. But there is a possibility that his name was written both on Russian and Estonian if he was born in Estland (Estonia) that time. Interesting, wat about Russian Finland in XIX-1917?

Juha wrote:
I would prefer Tatar over Tartar.

Me too, but when I checked my post (I wrote a Tatar at first) I found that the term Tartar is used in many scientific linguistic sources about the language. In principle, both words are used, and lets use Tatar in future [at least, this is much more common].

Juha wrote:
(of course that makes the things a bit more complicated to have several names to a single person, but it's hardly possible to deny ones real name.
As with Puusepp)

Completely agree.

Juha wrote:
In Soviet documents most probably, about Finnish I'm not so sure.

In Soviet documents on Russian for sure [as he was a Soviet pilot, not Estonian or Finnish :wink: ].

Juha wrote:
Esel is at my mind one of the least suitable names.
One can try what kind of revealing info Esel or Esel island or Esel Estonia gives from the image search compared to the similar combinations of the other options.

Completely agree, I've already checked yesterday. In my opinion, better to use Oesel (Saaremaa). The small problem is that Russians used Esel during translations into English, and almost never used Oesel [so I mentioned Esel as it was Soviet island during the describing period and we are talking about Soviet long-range bombers]. Lets use Oesel (Saaremaa) in our future discussions.

Regards, BP

PS. I will try to post the info about aircraft diesels M-40, which were used on TB-7 in 1941, especially, about their troubles. As I've promised!

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 20 Jan 2007 19:26

Hi, Juha!
I am sorry but I don't have time to post the info about Lapinjärvi, Lauenburg [sources], Panfilov [sources] and analysis of take-off timetable of the 10th August raid. I will try to do this next week.

But here is the info about diesels M-40, which were used on TB-7 in 1941.
As you know, TB-7 was developed as newest long-range high-altitude high-speed heavy bomber with gasoline engines AM-34FRN(V). Since 1940 that heavy bomber was produced with quite reliable and powerful gasoline engines AM-35A. It was decided to produce TB-7 with diesels M-40 and M-30 in 1940 to increase the flight range [from 3600 km to 5460 km], but the speed of TB-7 with diesels decreased - from 443 km/h to 393 km/h. Diesels M-40F were powerful [1500 hp] and more effective in fuel consumption and fire safety than gasoline engines, but they worked insufficient because of unfinished construction. 2 TB-7 with diesels M-40 was built in 1940, 3 TB-7 with diesels M-40F + 11 TB-7 with diesels M-30 were built in 1941 [9 from those 16 diesel TB-7 were reequipped with gasoline engines AM-35A later].
As I've already mentioned - diesels M-40 and M-30 worked insufficient because of their unexpected stop at high altitudes [fuel feeding was controlled by pilot manually in accordance with engines rpm speed, so pilots should have good experience to do this as even small mistake could cause stop of two-stage turbocompressors and engines because air-pressure/temperature at high altitudes didn't provide the optimal work of engine cylinders under low fuel feeding]. And the engines could be started again only at low altitudes [~1500 m]. The control of fuel feeding for diesels was very important during take-offs and landings also, and pilots prefered to switch them off before landing even and landed as gliders [because diesels with turbocompressors didn't "like" low engine rpm and gas throttling]. Also "undercarriage" gunners [who sat in the end of inner engine nacelles] suffered from oil leakage and ingress of exhausts into their cabins, so they were completely black after landings. Diesels quivered also.

Some history of development the diesel engines M-40 and M-30: in the beg of 1940s only Germany and USSR developed and produced aircraft diesels in series, but German engineers paid more attention to reliability whereas Soviet engineers - to engine power. Soviet diesel engineer A. Charomsky developed and built aircraft diesels since 1936, after his arrest two independent design offices of aircraft diesels were established - design office of V. Yakovlev [Kirov plant, Leningrad - they improved diesel M-40, 1250 hp, which was designed by Charomsky; also developed more powerful modification M-40F, 1500 hp] and design office of A. Charomsky [plant No. 82, Moscow, design office for "enemies of nation" under NKVD supervision; the name of Charomsky should not be used so the "official" responsible person was the director of plant - they developed diesel M-30]. Both diesels [M-40 and M-30] were equipped with four high-altitude two-stage turbocompressors, they were tested in summer 1940 [first flight of TB-7 with diesels M-40 was performed 13.10.1940]. But there was no real series production of reliable diesels in 1940, they were almost experimental and had low operational life. Er-2 with diesels M-40F and TB-7 with diesels M-30 and M-40F were tested during spring 1941 [only several months before the raid took place and the diesels needed in many improvements, some defects of engine cylinders were corrected only in April 1941]. It was found, for example, that turbocompressors were unreliable as they broke down quite often, also oil consumption was higher than it was planned. Diesels achieved maximum engine rpm speed quite slowly [8-10 s instead of 1-1.5 s] which could cause accidents during take-offs of heavy bombers, full of bombs, from short takeoff strips. The raid against Berlin 10-11 August 1941 proved ones more that diesels were unfinished [they worked unstable during take-offs and landings especially; at high altitudes], and that fact caused phaseout of aircraft diesel development in USSR for some period of time.
Yakovlev and Charomsky said in 1940 that diesels M-30 [more cheap in production, more reliable and weighted 50 kg less in comparison with M-40] and M-40F needed in further development during 2-3 years to obtain really good high-altitude, powerful and reliable diesels, but they received the order to prepare the series production of their diesels the same year, 1940. Diesel M-30 was equipped with more reliable turbocompressors also, but the problem of good reliable heat-resistant turbine and high-speed bearings was not solved in 1940. The operational life of diesels M-40 was only 50 h [should be not less than 100 h according to state tests requirements]. Chief of directorate General of Air Force lieutenant-general Rychagov was very dissatisfied with official tests of TB-7 with diesels M-40 [which showed worse speed specifications in comparison with TB-7, equipped with gasoline AM-35A, I even don't mention the diesel problems during take-offs and landings] in January-February 1941, and ordered to improve the diesels, but Rychagov was arrested in April 1941, so his order was "forgotten".
The first series diesel TB-7s were built by Kazan aircraft factory only in July 1941 in a great hurry after the direct order of Stalin to prepare diesel heavy bombers with best crews to the raid against Berlin. Pilots had no possibility to learn the new diesel bombers [having unfinished diesels with many problems, by the way]. 81st long-range air division had 11 TB-7 with M-40F and M-30 diesels in the beginning of August 1941 [and TB-7 with gasoline engines also, of course]. Divisional commander Vodopianov understood very well that bombers were not ready for such raid, only 1 diesel TB-7 from 11 was tested during long-range flight [10 hours], others made only take-offs and short test flights [2-3 hours]. Vodopianov sent a telegram to Stalin on 6th August 1941 about possible problems during the raid and unreliable unfinished diesels, but Stalin ordered to bomb Berlin on 9th-10th August. Crews showed great courage, started the raid on diesel bombers and they had no possibility even to test their bombers in long-range flights before, several cases of unexpected stop of turbocompressors of engines from the same half-wing occured as we know. Diesel designer Yakovlev came to 81st division after the raid and he concluded that at least 3 weeks should be given for pilots and engineers to learn the engines and correct some problems, so the raid should be started in the end of August at least but not on 10th August.
Diesel M-30 was more reliable than M-40F diesel, the single bomber TB-7 which could land on Pushkino airfield after that unsuccessful raid was equipped with M-30. TB-7 No. 42055 with 4xM-30 diesels made more flights till the end of 1941 than other diesel heavy bombers.

Later the diesels were improved a lot by Charomsky [disprisoned in 1942] and were used on late modifications of Er-2 and Pe-8 [2 diesel heavy bombers were built in 1942 and 4 [including passenger modifications for VIP] - in 1944, diesels ACh-30B with centrifugal air pomp] quite successfully, but some technological/production quality problems remained, nevertheless.

Regards, BP

Diesel M-40F - http://www.aviajournal.interami.com/sec ... s/32_2.jpg
Diesel M-30 - http://www.aviajournal.interami.com/sec ... s/32_3.jpg
Long-range heavy bomber TB-7 with diesels M-40 (1941) -
http://wp.scn.ru/ru/ww2/b/674/1/1/9
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 21 Jan 2007 14:31, edited 1 time in total.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 20 Jan 2007 20:43

BIGpanzer wrote:The first series diesel TB-7s were built by Kazan aircraft factory only in July 1941 in a great hurry after the direct order of Stalin to prepare diesel heavy bombers with best crews to the raid against Berlin. Pilots had no possibility to learn the new diesel bombers [having unfinished diesels with many problems, by the way]. 81st long-range air division had 11 TB-7 with M-40F and M-30 diesels in the beginning of August 1941 [and TB-7 with gasoline engines also, of course]. Divisional commander Vodopianov understood very well that bombers were not ready for such raid, only 1 diesel TB-7 from 11 was tested during long-range flight [10 hours], others made only take-offs and short test flights [2-3 hours]. Vodopianov sent a telegram to Stalin on 6th August 1941 about possible problems during the raid and unreliable unfinished diesels, but Stalin ordered to bomb Berlin on 9th-10th August. Crews showed great courage, started the raid on diesel bombers and they had no possibility even to test their bombers in long-range flights before, several cases of unexpected stop of turbocompressors of engines from the same half-wing occured as we know. Diesel designer Yakovlev came to 81st division after the raid and he concluded that at least 3 weeks should be given for pilots and engineers to learn the engines and correct some problems, so the raid should be started in the end of August at least but not on 10th August.


Hi.

Nice information in previous post. Thank You.

I was wondered about your opinion about attacks like that on operational point of view.

Like you have told. There was number of problems. Equipment was not ready yet. Crews lacked experience with the equipment.

What is your opinion ?? If you answer that targets were the utmost importance, and that somehow would validate the decision - you would disappoint me.


Regards, Mark V

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11424
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2007 22:58

BIGpanzer wrote:
Juha wrote:Yes, that is strange, specially in the light of this document (emphasis on mine)...:

These are two differ documents [just note as you know about this for sure]. I don't see anything strange in the telegram from Zhigarev [12.08.1941] - he mentioned that there is no info about Vodopianov and Panfilov, and we know that Panfilov's bomber crashed in Finland and Vodopianov's bomber made emergency landing in Estonia [the crew reached Soviet positions only 13th August or around this date], so there were no messages from them, of course. Much more strange is the order of People's Commissar of Defense [see above] - he mentioned Panfilov among the pilots, who could reach Berlin or bomb German-occupied territory at least [Bidny, for example], and Commissar of Defense didn't mention another TB-7 and Er-2 pilots, participated in the raid. As that order dated 17th August 1941 [when Vodopianov and his crewmembers, including Puusepp, reached Soviet positions, so the info about them was reported to HQ already and, of course, mentioned in the order],the most interesting part is Panfilov - why his name was mentioned in the order also, probably, HQ received some info about him between 12-17th August. But we don't know what kind of info was it. I know that you don't believe that Panfilov's crewmembers participated in combat with Finnish soldiers during several days near crashed TB-7 [I also think that the fact they were captured on the way to Soviet positions is much more possible], but, probably, Panfilov made something important which gave him a chance to be mentioned in the order, but what? That was a very serious document, not memoires, articles, etc., so should be the reason.
emphasis on mine.
The only source of Panfilov bombing Berlin or not was Panfilov and his crew.
And as they being MIA (POW), no-one in USSR could rebut any claims about his sortie.

BP wrote:Do you have the info that four other crewmembers died in Finnish prison?
No, I don't
If they didn't return to USSR after the war, there are several options:
- he died during the war in Finland
-he were send to Germany (Finland had an exhange program with Germany during the war: we got Fenno-Ugric POW's from German camps inexhange of our Soviet POW:s)
-he co-operated with Finns and fled to West after the war. ( a personal memory from the past viewtopic.php?p=333828&highlight=#333828 (also scroll down a bit)
-?


BP wrote:
Juha wrote:What mention?
I had deleted that part off from my post, before your post, as I wasn't sure about the site credibility.

But I saw your post before you could delete it :wink: The site is one of the most credible in comparison with others. I think this is the best site about the world's aviation in general. Other thing - its English version sometimes transliterated names/geographical names in differ way from official transliteration tables. If you mean this - I agree.
This is where I found the info about Aleksandr Ignat'evic Molodcii
http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/ace2w ... dchiy.html

BP wrote:
Juha wrote:I have understood your mistakes/typos and you mine.

I didn't make any mistakes/typos in the names, they are yours [ex. Molodcheg - to be precise, quote from the source :wink: ], dear Juha! :wink:
emphasis on mine
As the list is so long, I'll pm them to you if you wish.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote: should have (perhaps) used Jury instead of Yury.
That leads to the fact(?) that translating names (places and specially people) it's just not exact translating letter by letter, but there is the phonetic part also. Important is that how the word is pronounced. When translating for instance writing from cyrillic to latin, it also depends to the the "receiving end" how the word should be translated.
For example the plane name that is translated to english as Yak is usually written as Jak here in Finland:

Yury is the most common. Yak also. You are very right about the phonetic part. In principle, every Russian letter/diphthong can be transliterated with the help of Latinic letters/diphthongs. AFAIK the words in Russian are pronounced the same way they are written (in Finnish also).
Juha wrote:At names of persons, it's also quite important how the person him(her)self calls (wants to be called) him/her.
A personal memory of the consequences of the back and forth (like Puusepp case) translating of the name Myllykoski:
viewtopic.php?p=587011&highlight=#587011 (also scroll down a bit)

.
BP wrote:
Juha wrote:I don't now does it make any difference, was he born in Russian Siberia or Russian Estonia.

Probably not, I also thought about this. But there is a possibility that his name was written both on Russian and Estonian if he was born in Estland (Estonia) that time. Interesting, wat about Russian Finland in XIX-1917?
Our situation was differet to the Siberia and Estonia as we had autonmy and they not.
We got our own money,stamps etc http://www.histdoc.net/history/history.html


BP wrote:
Juha wrote:I would prefer Tatar over Tartar.

Me too, but when I checked my post (I wrote a Tatar at first) I found that the term Tartar is used in many scientific linguistic sources about the language. In principle, both words are used, and lets use Tatar in future [at least, this is much more common].

The people of ethnic majority of Tatarstan are usually offended when called Tartars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan



BP wrote: Lets use Oesel (Saaremaa) in our future discussions.
OK

Regards, Juha

P.S. thanks for the Diesel info.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11424
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2007 23:37

Mark V wrote:
BIGpanzer wrote:The first series diesel TB-7s were built by Kazan aircraft factory only in July 1941 in a great hurry after the direct order of Stalin to prepare diesel heavy bombers with best crews to the raid against Berlin. Pilots had no possibility to learn the new diesel bombers [having unfinished diesels with many problems, by the way]. 81st long-range air division had 11 TB-7 with M-40F and M-30 diesels in the beginning of August 1941 [and TB-7 with gasoline engines also, of course]. Divisional commander Vodopianov understood very well that bombers were not ready for such raid, only 1 diesel TB-7 from 11 was tested during long-range flight [10 hours], others made only take-offs and short test flights [2-3 hours]. Vodopianov sent a telegram to Stalin on 6th August 1941 about possible problems during the raid and unreliable unfinished diesels, but Stalin ordered to bomb Berlin on 9th-10th August. Crews showed great courage, started the raid on diesel bombers and they had no possibility even to test their bombers in long-range flights before, several cases of unexpected stop of turbocompressors of engines from the same half-wing occured as we know. Diesel designer Yakovlev came to 81st division after the raid and he concluded that at least 3 weeks should be given for pilots and engineers to learn the engines and correct some problems, so the raid should be started in the end of August at least but not on 10th August.


I was wondered about your opinion about attacks like that on operational point of view.

Like you have told. There was number of problems. Equipment was not ready yet. Crews lacked experience with the equipment.
Hi Mark,

According to this site: http://zhukov.mitsi.com/sovietbombers.htm (emphasis on mine)
After the Berlin raid:
Upon his return, the mission commander and Pe-8 pilot, Major Vodopyanov was rushed to Moscow. Brought before Stalin and a roomful of Party officials, marshals and generals, Vodopyanov was asked for a mission report and summary.

"Eleven of our aircraft reached the target, six aircraft regained their base, one was shot down by our own anti-aircraft artillery, one is missing and the rest made forced landings owing to engine failures. My aircraft crash-landed in a forest."

Vodopyanov then lost his composure and cried out:

"I'm ready to tear out those damned diesels with my teeth! Engines must be reliable for operational flying, and flying with these diesels means the loss of aircraft and men."

In spite of the attack on Stalin's personal decision, the dictator listened as Vodopyanov concluded with a request for navigational beacons.

When a Party Official shot back at Vodopyanov for his request, Stalin spoke up, ending the argument and dismissing Vodopyanov. Colonel Aleksandr E. Golovanov replaced Vodopyanov in command of the 81st DBAD soon afterward. Vodopyanov was assigned to assist in testing a Pe-8 with Shvetsov M-82 radial engines in place of the Charomsky diesels. Also, a homing beacon called Pchelka (little bee) was introduced at V-VS air bases. The realities of war had changed Stalin's attitude since the terrifying days of his prewar purges.


Regards, Juha

P.S. BP...Molodschy

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 21 Jan 2007 01:44

Hi, Juha!
Juha wrote:
Thanks for the Diesel info.

You are welcome! :wink: By the way both designations were used: diesel engines and Diesel engines [as this is the name of famous German inventor - Rudolf Diesel (1858-1913)]. I forgot also to note - you use the term "right and left wings" but monoplane has only one wing (and two "half-wings" or wing planes). I also made such mistake until my uncle [aircraft engineer from Boeing] said me about this.
General-major, professor A.D. Charomsky [1899-1982] developed aircraft and tank engines since 1928, his aircraft diesels for long-range bombers - M-40 and much improved ACh-30B (ACh means "Aircraft, Charomsky").

Juha wrote:
We got our own money,stamps etc http://www.histdoc.net/history/history.html

I know as I am fond of numismatics :)

Juha wrote:
As the list is so long, I'll pm them to you if you wish.

No, as for names - everything is absolutely correct in my posts, dear Juha! :wink: The list is empty :wink: Please, send me white screen by PM :lol:
I recommend you to draw attention to "Soviet Union" section - you will find there a lot of experimental material [including a huge amount of grammar incorrectnesses/mistakes/typos] for your pleasure :lol:

Juha wrote:
This is where I found the info about Aleksandr Ignat'evic Molodcii
http://www.airwar.ru/history/a.....dchiy.html

I've already said you that should be "ch" - Aleksandr Ignat'evich Molodchii at least, otherwise your list of mistakes/typos will be extremelly huge :wink: It is possible to vary end of the word to some degree as we've already discussed, but "÷"="ch" always [some sources write "÷" as "c" indeed [principle - one Russian letter = one English letter], but this is wrong phonetically :? ]
The site mentions him as Molodchiy - see your link :|

Juha wrote:
The only source of Panfilov bombing Berlin or not was Panfilov and his crew.
And as they being MIA (POW), no-one in USSR could rebut any claims about his sortie
. Also pilots of other bombers could notice Panfilov's bomber. I don't think that Panfilov could reach Berlin but it should be something important in his sortie as his name was mentioned in the order [for example, several pilots, who also participated in that raid, were not mentioned]. At first I thought that Panfilov's name was mentioned because he was killed in action, but major Egorov was killed during take-off crash and his name wasn't mentioned in that order. Second possibility - if just to assume that Panfilov's crewmembers organized defense of their crashed bomber and repulsed Finnish attacks during several days indeed - this could be good reason for mentioning in the order, but how Soviets knew about this [hardly to believe that Finns immediately informed Soviet government about heroes in Finnish forests :lol: ], no, this is also not possible. Really strange......

Juha wrote:
....the mission commander and Pe-8 pilot, Major Vodopyanov

To be precise I understand that you quoted the source :wink: - BUT Vodopianov was the commander of 81st long-range air division that time and still had obsolete for 1941 rank kombrig (brigade commander, corresponding to general-major not major, of course). IIRC Vodopianov's TB-7 had the following problem with diesel engines - the forth engine stopped on the way to Berlin [27 min from target, 7000 m altitude] because the bomber was damaged by German AA fire near Stettin [oil system of this engine was, probably, damaged] but the engine started to work again when Vodopianov decreased the altitude to 3000 m, the bomber got several damages in fuselage over Berlin also because of AA fire and forth engine stopped again at 6000 m, in addition 3rd fuel tank was damaged by AA fire near Königsberg on the way back, so Vodopianov made emergency landing in Estonia.
As I've already mentioned Vodopianov was dismissed from the position of commander of division (order from 17.08.1941, see above), he preserved his rank kombrig but served some time as ordinary 1st pilot of his TB-7. I have no any info that Vodopianov was called to Moscow after the raid, but I know that Golovanov was called to Moscow and Stalin nominated him as the new commander of 81st division. As I've already mentioned - Vodopianov sent telegram to Stalin about the problems with unfinished diesels and asked to postpone the raid, but Stalin ordered to bomb Berlin ~9th-10th August depending of weather conditions [so Stalin new about problems with diesels from Vodopianov and from many other persons, including diesel engineers, but he didn't take this into consideration - or to say 100% correct Stalin's ordered 08.08.1941 in his telegram to Vodopianov "...if some problems with engines occur on the way to Berlin, alternative target should be Königsberg"].

Juha wrote:
....Brought before Stalin and a roomful of Party officials, marshals and generals, Vodopyanov was asked for a mission report and summary.
....Vodopyanov then lost his composure and cried out:.....
....Also, a homing beacon called Pchelka (little bee) was introduced at V-VS air bases...

Strange source - at first because Stalin usually invited persons and talked with them individually, without marshals and generals [of course, if it was not a large council or meeting], secodly - any loss of composure was very impossible in the Stalin's cabinet [such loss often happened with generals on their way back to home after the talk with Stalin].
As for homing beacon - interesting info. I know some info about problems with homing beacons of Soviet naval pilots [from 1st torpedo aircraft regiment], who participated in the raids against Berlin on DB-3F in 1941. Bombers DB-3Fs were equipped with fixed loop radio compasses RPK-2, but the single radio beacon of Baltic Sea naval aviation was destoyed [to prevent its capture] during the relocation of Baltic Sea Navy from Tallinn to Leningrad. All civil city radio stations, located near front line, stopped their work according to the order from State Defence Committee. Soviet industry produced 25 radio beacons for army Air Force in 1941 but not for naval aviation. So the command of Baltic Sea naval aviation decided to use powerful radio station "Storm" from battleship "October Revolution" and reequipped this radio station into radio beacon in autumn 1941 [it was installed near the railway station Mga and had range more than 1000 km, was in use till the end of WWII; interesting, that it was decided to use famous popular Russian songs as signals for bombers, and this inspirited pilots a lot during the night raids].

Juha wrote:
Vodopyanov was assigned to assist in testing a Pe-8 with Shvetsov M-82 radial engines in place of the Charomsky diesels.

Possible, as Pe-8 with M-82 engines appeared in 1942 [~1/3 of all produced heavy bombers Pe-8 were equipped with powerful M-82, 1700 hp each. Those Pe-8 had better flight weight - up to 36 tons, good flight range - 5800 km, maximal speed was 422 km/h]. As we know, Pusep used Pe-8 with AM-35A engines for his famous flight to USA and back because the production of Pe-8 with M-82 only started that time [AFAIK gasoline engines M-82 were not very reliable also, but they were much better than diesels M-40]. In his memoires Pusep also mentioned that M-40 diesels were incomplete in 1941 and those diesels often stopped unexpectedly [just for the info about Puusepp's memoires - he also mentioned that Panfilov's crewmembers defended to the last cartridge near their crashed bomber].

Juha wrote:
P.S. BP...Molodschy

:? Annoying, Juha, really.... This means "ñ÷" not "÷"! You can find a lot of wrong writings in Internet, and what, you will show me all of them?! Please, remember for this case - ch! For sure!!! Do you understand explanations? I will send you by PM the OFFICIAL transliteration tables from Russian language [there were two - developed in USA and Russia], please, learn them, my dear friend.

Hi, Mark V!
Mark V wrote:
Hi. Nice information in previous post. Thank You.

You are welcome! I hope that you like my previous post not because of diesel problems of Soviet bombers :lol: I am trying to be objective - if the diesels M-40F and their turbocompressors were unreliable and suffered from several serious problems, I am writing about this; if TB-7 was forward-looking construction with excellent flight specifications for 1938 and the best heavy bomber till 1941 (only more modern B-29, appeared in 1942, was better according to almost all specifications) - I am also writing about this. I still have no time to replay on your old post, but license copying of aircraft had very insignificant importance in USSR of 1930s-1945 [except DC-3/Li-2, of course; USSR developed aircraft industry and excellent aircraft engineering very fast and produced best bombers and fighters in the beg1930s already - the only problem was long development of prototypes before series production]. The other thing - Soviet engine industry, license copying and further development/improvement of foreign engines was of big importance for USSR despite of native aircraft engine engineering and production since 1910s [if we are talking about bombers - early modifications of TB-3 were equipped with M-17 (BMW VI) - later improved M-17B and M-17F were installed; M-100 (HS 12Y) was installed on first SBs - also improved M-100A and M-100AU, M-85 (GR 14K) was installed on first modifications of DB-3], for example. Soviets began to develop and produce in large amounts their own really good aircraft gasoline engines only in the end of 1930s, one of the best were engines by Mikulin since the development of AM-34 in 1933]. Aircraft diesels were developed and produced mainly by Germany and USSR in the beg1940s.
By the way, almost all excellent heavy bombers suffered from numerous engine problems at first [and with gasoline engines, not diesels, which are more complicated and heavy] - just remember Avro Manchester with two very unreliable Rolls Royce Vulture II [so much better Avro Lancaster with four Merlin XX was developed], or first B-29s with four Wright R-3350-23 Duplex Cyclone, two turbocompressors each [which often stopped, gave leakage of fuel and burnt; according to official report - 9900 defects were found during the tests of first 175 B-29] - later that was improved a lot.

Mark V wrote:
I was wondered about your opinion about attacks like that on operational point of view.
Like you have told. There was number of problems. Equipment was not ready yet. Crews lacked experience with the equipment.
What is your opinion ?? If you answer that targets were the utmost importance, and that somehow would validate the decision - you would disappoint me.

Dear Mark, I don't understand what opinion do you mean?
My opinion about the raid in general? In general it was quite unsuccessful because of many reasons of one origin - to perform the raid against Berlin with heavy bombers by all means. Despite the fact that diesels for TB-7 was unfinished and unreliable that time [I am wondering why much better TB-7 with AM-35A gasoline engines were not used, they had range 3600 km with 2 t of bombs, which was enough to bomb Berlin and returned back], despite the fact that excellent crews had no possibility and time to learn diesels and airfield Pushkino [in principle, their chance to return back was quite low], despite the fact that all divisional commanders predicted the failure of such raid [nevertheless, despite the troubles several heavy bombers from eight could reach Berlin and dropped bombs], despite the fact that ground take-off strip of Pushkino airfield was too short for TB-7 and Er-2 especially, despite the fact that Soviet AA artillery and fighters were not informed about the raid, despite the fact that pilots from 81st division didn't received any info about German AA defense, etc.......Stalin wanted to show newest heavy bombers over Berlin for political reasons, but in my opinion naval DB-3Fs from Oesel/Saaremaa airfield [which bombed Berlin for the first time several days before, and that operation was prepared much more better not during one day but during two weeks with preliminary recon flights] already demonstrated the possibility to bomb German capital in summer 1941 by Soviet Air Force, so it was no need to send heavy bombers with unreliable diesels with 4 t of bombs each to demonstrate more power. This is my opinion.

PS to Juha: Molochy wrote in his memoires that his bomber damaged landing gear because of short take-off strip of Pushkino airfield for Er-2 and drainage channel just after the end of the strip, Molodchy never took off on Er-2 with full bomb load before also. According to http://www.geroi.apifarm.ru/doc/first/34/1 Egorov's TB-7 crashed after him, and after that general Zhigarev ordered to stop further take-offs. 7 TB-7 and 3 Er-2 started the raid, 4 TB-7 and 2 Er-2 reached the target, 1 TB-7 and 1 Er-2 landed on Pushkino airfield after the raid. As for Bidny's bomber TB-7 [very probably, bombed Lauenburg - BP] - this site just mentiones that Bidny bombed alternative target because of stop of one engine [second engine stopped on the way back], Panfilov's bomber was damaged by German AA fire, dropped bombs and made emergency landing in Finland after stop of two engines [5 were killed, others were captured by Finns during their way towards Soviet positions].

PS2 to Juha:
Russian sites which mention that TB-7 of Bidny dropped bombs over railway station Laurenburg [correct name - Lauenburg], 370 km from Berlin because of stop of two left engines:
http://www.geraldika.org/04_2006_13.htm [on-line journal "Almanah-MARS" of Academy of Russian Heraldry, 2006, author - colonel Mitrinyuk, senoir researcher of Central museum of Russian army]. By the way, I found there also the quite detailed info about Panfilov's bomber here [Mitrinyuk mentioned the place name Lapinjärvi and exact names of died crewmembers, which were burried by Finnish civilians].
http://militera.lib.ru/h/bochkarev_parygin/02.html [almost identical info from the book by Bochkarev, Parygin "Years in the fire sky", 1991]

Regards, BP

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11424
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 21 Jan 2007 17:30

BIGpanzer wrote:PS to Juha: Molochy wrote in his memoires that his bomber damaged landing gear because of short take-off strip of Pushkino airfield for Er-2 and drainage channel just after the end of the strip, Molodchy never took off on Er-2 with full bomb load before also. According to http://www.geroi.apifarm.ru/doc/first/34/1 Egorov's TB-7 crashed after him, and after that general Zhigarev ordered to stop further take-offs.
Who is Molochy?

This doesn't match with the Panfilov crew report how things happened, or did Panfilov start between Molodchy and Egorov?
The my earlier translations about their report was (a bit) inaccurate, here a more carefully done, with my modest skills:
..."The first plane of the group took off at 2200 hours. The plane with junior lieutenant Kizilov and sergeant Kirillov as gunners was the last in line. Somehow a twin engined plane of unknown type, from some other unit was released to start before them. During the take off run the landing gear of that plane broke, and it ploughed the airfield with it's belly. That incident affected that the last plane was left considerably much behind from the group itself..."


Juha earlier wrote:The trouble the article mentions were that at first the take-off was halted, because an unknown twin engined plane, not belonging to the group, was let to start before the TB-7 in question.
The article also mentions that another landing gear was damaged during the take-off.
I forgot to mention that according to the article, the first plane of the group took off at 2200 hours.
viewtopic.php?t=93670&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105

Regards, Juha

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 21 Jan 2007 18:41

Juha wrote:
This doesn't match with the Panfilov crew report how things happened, or did Panfilov start between Molodchy and Egorov?

As I've already mentioned I don't have any time at the moment to analyze the info about take-off order [~20 sources give similar but differ in details info, your knowledge bases on 1 source here only, which is not enough for analysis]. May be you will help me, I provide you with all links I could find. According to the initial plan, the Er-2 flight of Molodchy should take off as the last one, but I found several evidences that plan was changed just before the raid started [for example, 2nd flight of TB-7 - Kurban took off before the 1st flight of TB-7 - Pusep, also Molodchy mentioned that Egorov's TB-7 crashed after him]. In my present opinion - Panfilov's bomber belonged to Egorov's group (3rd flight of TB-7, as I know the pilot names from Kurban's and Pusep's groups) and Panfilov took off before Egorov [I also think that he started between Molodchy and Egorov, so may be this is the reason of the delay of take-off of his bomber indeed, the majority of sources mention that Panfilov's bomber was the last one who could take off]. But when Egorov crashed and exploded [Molodchy just damaged landing gear outside the takeoff strip] - lieutenant general Zhigarev cancelled the operation, so no aircraft could make take-offs after Egorov......
Juha wrote:
...The first plane of the group took off at 2200 hours.

If you mean the flight of Egorov as this group [see above] - probably, but the first bomber of the whole formation took off ~20.20 [see my posts above].
Juha wrote:
...Somehow a twin engined plane of unknown type, from some other unit was released to start before them
And do you really believe to this strange info?! "Unknown type, some other unit.... :lol: " - all crewmembers knew which units of 81st division were equipped with TB-7 (432nd regiment), and which - with Er-2 (433rd regiment). And of course, they could identify Er-2 from their own division. At least they saw them on the airfield that day and before flight to Pushkino airfield :wink: As you can understand - that was Molodchy's Er-2, which damaged both landing gear because of drainage channel in the end of short ground take-off strip. Or the is a large possibility that captured crewmembers of that TB-7 just didn't like to inform Finns about the units and type of bombers. Could you please, give the full information from your source, not just some fragments?

The memoires of lieutenant general A.I. Molodchy "The aircraft is going to night":
http://avia.lib.ru/bibl/1039/01.html - he described here that take-off, mentioning wet short ground take-off strip of Pushkino airfield [TB-7 and Er-2 should be used from concrete runways, especially if they were full of bombs and fuel]. Molodchy also wrote that there was a forest not far away from the end of take-off strip so bombers tried to climb at full throttle to prevent crashes, some bombers took off for a short period of time then hit the ground with landing gear again outside the airfield because of insufficient speed and could take off finally [Molodchy said that he saw not the usual take-offs but dangerous tricks]. The same happened with Er-2 of Molodchy - he began take-off after signal [red flag], gave full throttle but take-off strip was too short; Molodchy raised the nose of Er-2 in the end of runway but speed was still insufficient for take-off, so tail wheel was on the ground; soon landing gear hit the ground and catched drainage channel 100 m from the airfield....

Regards, BP

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11424
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 22 Jan 2007 01:16

BIGpanzer wrote:
Juha wrote:This doesn't match with the Panfilov crew report how things happened, or did Panfilov start between Molodchy and Egorov?

As I've already mentioned I don't have any time at the moment to analyze the info about take-off order [~20 sources give similar but differ in details info, your knowledge bases on 1 source here only, which is not enough for analysis]. May be you will help me, I provide you with all links I could find. According to the initial plan, the Er-2 flight of Molodchy should take off as the last one, but I found several evidences that plan was changed just before the raid started [for example, 2nd flight of TB-7 - Kurban took off before the 1st flight of TB-7 - Pusep, also Molodchy mentioned that Egorov's TB-7 crashed after him]. In my present opinion - Panfilov's bomber belonged to Egorov's group (3rd flight of TB-7, as I know the pilot names from Kurban's and Pusep's groups) and Panfilov took off before Egorov [I also think that he started between Molodchy and Egorov, so may be this is the reason of the delay of take-off of his bomber indeed,

BP earlier wrote:
Juha wrote:The trouble the article mentions were that at first the take-off was halted, because an unknown twin engined plane, not belonging to the group, was let to start before the TB-7 in question. The article also mentions that another landing gear was damaged during the take-off


Your article mixed the info up. The take-off of all TB-7s was halted for some period of time because one Yer-2 (pilot Molodchij) damaged its landing gear at the end of the take-off by airfield's draining (overweighted by bombs and fuel Yer-2 had too long takeoff run).
viewtopic.php?t=93670&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105
Yes, for some reason the take-off order and to how many TB-7's the accident of Molodchij dealyed, seems to be surprisingly difficult to solve.
BP wrote:May be you will help me, I provide you with all links I could find
Well as I don't read russian and the russian languge links and sources are often too difficult for me to get right, but english and even german to some degree, are easier for me.
I could also help you to translate info from the Unger book, as I rate printed material better than "just" web sources.

BP wrote:
Juha wrote:...The first plane of the group took off at 2200 hours.

If you mean the flight of Egorov as this group [see above] - probably, but the first bomber of the whole formation took off ~20.20 [see my posts above].
Hmmm...
As you adviced, I checked your posts above, and found these.
To which of them we should trust?

BP earlier wrote:The first plane took off at 20.30
viewtopic.php?t=93670&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105
BP earlier wrote:The raid began 20.52 10th August (Moscow time, 2 hours differ from Finnish?) and TB-7 No. 42026 of Panfilov took-off as the last one (~21.30-21.45)
viewtopic.php?t=93670&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150
BP earlier wrote: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
viewtopic.php?t=93670&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180

BP wrote:
Juha wrote:...Somehow a twin engined plane of unknown type, from some other unit was released to start before them
And do you really believe to this strange info?! "Unknown type, some other unit.... :lol: " - all crewmembers knew which units of 81st division were equipped with TB-7 (432nd regiment), and which - with Er-2 (433rd regiment). And of course, they could identify Er-2 from their own division. At least they saw them on the airfield that day and before flight to Pushkino airfield
For me it sounds believable .That info is not very relevant here, but by so far I haven't read anything that would change my opinion.

BP wrote:Could you please, give the full information from your source, not just some fragments?
I would be pleased even from fragments from the Unger book (Maslov too).

BP wrote:The memoires of lieutenant general A.I. Molodchy "The aircraft is going to night":
http://avia.lib.ru/bibl/1039/01.html - he described here that take-off, mentioning wet short ground take-off strip of Pushkino airfield [TB-7 and Er-2 should be used from concrete runways, especially if they were full of bombs and fuel]. Molodchy also wrote that there was a forest not far away from the end of take-off strip so bombers tried to climb at full throttle to prevent crashes, some bombers took-off for a short period of time then hit the ground with landing gear again outside the airfield because of insufficient speed and could take off finally.
Thanks for the info.

Regards, Juha

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 22 Jan 2007 02:16

Juha wrote:
Yes, for some reason the take-off order and to how many TB-7's the accident of Molodchij dealyed, seems to be surprisingly difficult to solve.

You have a quite strange logic, my dear friend, especially quoting earlier posts together with more modern. A new info appeared, I found new sources, read posts from another members and made some analysis - so this is not "change of opinion" but posting of additional info according to new sources. For this reason I am here, if I knew everything for 100% sure from the beginning - no need to waste time here :wink:
According to all info I have to the moment - the most probably, that accident with Molodchy's Er-2 didn't delay the take-offs of TB-7 from Kurban's and Pusep's flights, but delayed the take-offs of TB-7 from Egorov/Panfilov flight.

Juha wrote:
I could also help you to translate info from the Unger book, as I rate printed material better than "just" web sources.

Thanks a lot, I can do this by myself without any problems! Do you have this book also?As for me I don't see any differences between good journal and good on-line articles. On-line articles are translated much more easily also [Babel Fish :wink: ]

Juha wrote:
To which of them we should trust?

As we know already - there are a lot of sources, differ in details. I don't know exactly to which of them we should trust completely, but several memoires mentioned 20.52 as the start time [lieutenant general Zhigarev also mentioned that 21.00-22.00 was the time of take-offs]. 20.30 [another memoires] is almost similar to 20.20, by the way, no need to quote both data :wink: . But you forgot [willfully or not :? ] to quote one of my recent posts where I found the excellent detailed timetable for the whole way of TB-7 to Berlin [the only one source did this] - I meant this info exactly [when I asked you to check my posts and mentioned ~20.20 :? ] as the most detailed source at the moment. My letter from 18.01. -
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 Luzhskaya 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/r.....ii/01.html
That was not planned timetable but timetable during the flight according to navigator's log-book.

Juha wrote:
For me it sounds believable .That info is not very relevant here, but by so far I haven't read anything that would change my opinion.

And what is your opinion about take-off order? Me seems that the same with mine about Panfilov's TB-7 - he took off as the last one, very probably......

What about this?:
BP wrote earlier:
Could you please, give the full information from your source, not just some fragments?
. As for two books about TB-7 - I don't remember, did you asked me to scan some pages from them? I will post interesting info from these two books when I have more time [in many parts the info from them are identical to many on-line sources, I've already mentioned here, probably, Unger and Maslov used them also, may be in printed variants].

I am very surprised that your source based on interrogation reports of captured crewmembers as you mentioned doesn't give any exact info about this:
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)
BP wrote:
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.

Emphasis is mine.

Juha wrote:
Thanks for the info.

You are welcome as always :)

PS. Naval bombers DB-3Fs from the 1st mine-and-torpedo air regiment of Baltic Sea navy [airfield Oesel/Saaremaa] were more successful in August-September 1941 as their raids were planned and organized much better - 86 flights were made against Berlin [33 bombers reached Berlin or suburbs], 36050 kg of bombs were dropped over Berlin [more than British bombers dropped over Berlin during the whole 1941, mainly in December]. This is official data, but I will try to find more detailed info later, if I have time.

PS2: additional photos of long-range heavy bombers TB-7/Pe-8:
http://www.aerotechnics.ru/images/i/all/pe8-2.jpg
http://www.aerotechnics.ru/images/i/all/pe8-3.jpg
http://www.aerotechnics.ru/images/i/all/pe8-4.jpg
http://www.aerotechnics.ru/images/i/all/pe8-5.jpg

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 22 Jan 2007 17:54

BIGpanzer wrote:You are welcome! I hope that you like my previous post not because of diesel problems of Soviet bombers :lol:


That surely was not my meaning. :D

BIGpanzer wrote:license copying of aircraft had very insignificant importance in USSR of 1930s-1945 [except DC-3/Li-2, of course


We continue to disagree here. Relying in foreign airframe designs was not insignificant. You gave the answer already. Using exception is not really valid here, considering the importance of Li-2.

BIGpanzer wrote:......Stalin wanted to show newest heavy bombers over Berlin for political reasons, but in my opinion naval DB-3Fs from Oesel/Saaremaa airfield [which bombed Berlin for the first time several days before, and that operation was prepared much more better not during one day but during two weeks with preliminary recon flights] already demonstrated the possibility to bomb German capital in summer 1941 by Soviet Air Force, so it was no need to send heavy bombers with unreliable diesels with 4 t of bombs each to demonstrate more power. This is my opinion.


Thanks. That was exactly what i hoped to hear from you. And i agree you.

Regards, Mark V

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 22 Jan 2007 18:05

BIGpanzer wrote: 36050 kg of bombs were dropped over Berlin [more than British bombers dropped over Berlin during the whole 1941, mainly in December].


Hi.

Would it be more accurate to say that "36050 kg of bombs was dropped in those missions where intended target was Berlin" ??

This may be language issue. But you make it sound like they actually hit with all bombs the constructed area of Berlin.

... and that is an impossibility. Considering the technical abilities and experience available - an small percentage of bombs hit anywhere near something worth bombing

(results alike all air forces in strategic night missions at that timeframe - except LW when their radio-beam systems were not interfered).


Regards, Mark V

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

Post by BIGpanzer » 22 Jan 2007 19:24

Hi, Mark V!

Mark V wrote:
Relying in foreign airframe designs was not insignificant. You gave the answer already. Using exception is not really valid here, considering the importance of Li-2

Examples, please! Airframe designs were mainly native - just see the officially recognized names of wing profiles of quite many aircraft, for example [Soviet TsAGI, not US NASA]. Of course, there were exceptions, but foreign engineers also used a lot of Soviet airframe designs that time and later.
I meant that Soviets developed and produced in large amounts [which is much more important] a lot of their own excellent and forward-looking constructions during the 1930s [R-5, TB-3, I-15, I-16, SB, etc.] which became "style setters" for that period of world aircraft development. Soviets were the best [or among the best to say absolutely correct :wink: ] especially in heavy aircraft in 1930s. Their serial all-metal monoplane heavy bombers TB-1 and TB-3 impressed German and US specialists a lot as well as foreign attaches [what country except USSR had the fleet of heavy bombers in the beg1930s?] As for Soviet aircraft engine industry - as I've already mentioned, it was behind the US, British and German aircraft engine industry till the mid1930s at least.

Mark V wrote:
Thanks. That was exactly what i hoped to hear from you. And i agree you.

That's good :wink:

Mark V wrote:
Would it be more accurate to say that "36050 kg of bombs was dropped in those missions where intended target was Berlin" ??

Agree, and that is why I mentioned - Berlin and suburbs. I will try to research this subject in more details later, promise :wink:

Regards, BP
Last edited by BIGpanzer on 22 Jan 2007 22:20, edited 1 time in total.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 22 Jan 2007 19:57

BIGpanzer wrote:Agree, and that is why I mentioned - Berlin and suburbs. I will try to research this subject in more details later, promise :wink:

Regards, BP


Nope.

I don't mean the suburbs either.

I mean that with all propability most of the bombs missed all constructed areas altogether. In plain language - hit meadows and caused interference of digestion to German cows crazing in the fields...

Mark V

PS. Don't get me wrong. German cows really hated Bomber Command. Soviets were just an small hindrance...

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