Russian mystery Ram-Fighter

[hesham]

Hi,


please see this hypothetical Ram-Fighter of 1930s,and its strange concept.


http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ar&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdieselpunk.livejournal.com%2F502461.html

 

[GTX]

A very attractive concept. ;D

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dear GTX,


from long time ago,I spoke about a project to Grokhovski,called G-34
with ramming wing as a fighter design,but does that aircraft relate
to it or not ?.

 

[Jemiba]

..from long time ago,I spoke about a project to Grokhovski,called G-34
with ramming wing as a fighter design,but does that aircraft relate
to it or not ?.

Don't know, but reading the automatically text, I would just think of it as a notional description
of a future ram fighter. It is said to be powered by piston engines, driving contra props, but reaching
speeds of up to 1000 mph, as the "exhaust gas is directed to a particular channel" ! And it should be
possible to fly it via remote control. I think, it's a text just describing someones dreams,how to defend
his country, but not truely a concept for an aircraft.

 

[hesham]

May be my dear Jemiba,


but the Grokhovski G-34 still mystery.

 

[Jemiba]

Well, of course, we still have no hard information about it, maybe because plans, drawings and
other data were lost, or maybe because there never was much about this aircraft at all, as often
for concepts. A "mystery" probably is something else, or we had to call most projects, we don't know
completely a "mystery".
About the relation of Grokhovski to that ram fighter, I would be very cautious. He actually was an
aircraft engineer/designer and in this design, I cannot see too much influence of aviational technology
of the late thirties. The idea looks great at first glance, to ram an enemy aircraft with the hardened
nose, but don't forget, that it's still shown as prop aircraft ! And perhaps we should think a moment
about the acceleration, the pilot would have to stand, even if this thing would slice thraough a bomber
"as a hot knife through butter". Ram tactics were developed and (rarely) used at the end of WW II in
Germany and, I think, in Japan, and AFAIK, they were always regarded as VERY hazardous, to say the
least ! The author of that "invention" tries to sell this ram fighter as a kind of ultimate wonder weapon
against the bomber, during a time, when the bomber still hadn't shown his full destructive power.
Nowadays, we probably would call such a drawing "fanart" .

 

[hesham]

OK my dear Jemiba,


I agree with your opinion.

 

[borovik]

from long time ago,I spoke about a project to Grokhovski,called G-34
with ramming wing as a fighter design,but does that aircraft relate
to it or not ?.

The idea for this aircraft ram (as a concept) belongs M.S.Malkov engineer (later an employee of the Central Design Bureau of scientific and operational framework /TsNEB/ V.V.S. Air Force.)
It has nothing to do Grokhovski. Appearance (impression art) of ramming aircraft by Grokhovski I was posting earlier: reply#7
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13952.msg137101.html

 

[hesham]

OK my dear Borovik,


I remember that thread,but I only refer to that Russian site;
http://ram-home.com/ram-old/missing.html


and its mystery G-34,for your G project,may be it was it.

 

[hesham]

From, Техника - молодежи 1938/10,

the article.

 

[Justo Miranda]

OK my dear Borovik,


I remember that thread,but I only refer to that Russian site;
http://ram-home.com/ram-old/missing.html


and its mystery G-34,for your G project,may be it was it.

Lippisch style

 

[Dilandu]

From, Техника - молодежи 1938/10,

Well, the ram fighter was a pretty popular concept in 1930s. And USSR pilots quite often used ramming attacks. Though contrary to popular misconception about aerial ramming, it's almost never a head-on crash. The most common tactics was to approach enemy from above and hit the wing or tailplane with your plane's chassis. If done right, the enemy would fell to his doom, completely disabled, and you would at worst have broken chassis (unpleasant, but not fatal)

 

[Justo Miranda]

Aerial Ramming​

In 1915, the Russians Alexander Kazakov and Piotr Nesterov, piloting Morane Saulnier Type G scout airplanes, managed to bring down two Austro-Hungarian Albatross B-IIs by the method of ramming. This fighting tactic received such publicity that during the 20s and 30s the intentional ramming of another aircraft was considered a heroic action, especially among Soviet pilots who called it Taran.

During the Spanish Civil War, Republican fighters Nieuport Ni.52 and Polikarpov I-15 performed ramming against Nationalist Fiat CR.32, Savoia SM.81 and Junkers Ju 52 /3m. In 1938, on the Khalkhin-Gol border, Polikarpov Soviet fighters of the I-152, I-153 and I-16 types exchanged ramming attacks with Nakajima Ki-27 of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA).

At the outbreak of the Second World War, on September 1, 1939, a PZL P.11c Polish fighter rammed a German Messerschmitt Bf 109 B near Warsaw.

During the Winter War between Finland and the USSR, a Fiat G.50 rammed a Soviet bomber over Tampere and a Fokker D.XXI rammed an I-16 over Mansikkala; two Finnish Brewster 239 were rammed by a I-153 and a Yak-7A; a Morane Saulnier MS-406 by a Soviet Hurricane Mk. IIb and two Finnish Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-2 by two I-153s.

By mid-June 1940, Italian airplanes attacked some French air bases and, during combat, a Bloch MB 151 fighter of the Aéronavale rammed a Fiat CR.42 over Cuers airfield.

During the Battle of Britain, the Hawker Hurricane Mk. I fighters of the Royal Air Force brought down two Dornier Do 17s, two Messerschmitt Bf 109 E, a Junkers Ju 88, a Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-2 and Fiat CR. 42 by ramming; two Spitfires rammed two Bf 109 E and a transport airplane of the Avro Anson Mk. I type rammed a German bomber Heinkel He 111.

In November 1940, two Greek P.Z.L. P.24g fighters rammed two Italian bombers Cant Z.1007 bis.

In April 1941, three Yugoslavian fighters of the Hawker Fury Mk.II type rammed two Messerschmitt Bf 110s and a Bf 109 of the Luftwaffe, over Rezanovacka airfield. During the Second World War, Soviet aircraft of I-152, I-153, I-16, MiG-3, Yak-1, Yak-7A, Yak-9, LaGG-3, La-5 FN, Su-2M-82, R-5, IL-2, SB-2M-103, Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIb, Supermarine Spitfire Mk.V, Curtiss P-40 and Bell P-39 types rammed between 270 and 636 German and Romanian aircraft, as stated by different sources.

In August 1941, two Romanian fighters P.Z.L. P.11f and I.A.R. 80A rammed a Soviet I-153 and an I-16 over Vakarjani.

On December, two Japanese fighters Nakajima Ki.43 were rammed by an Australian Brewster B-339E and a Curtiss P-40C of the AVG over Kuala Lumpur and Mingaladon. In 1942, a Douglas SBD dive bomber of the U.S. Navy rammed a Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero fighter of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during the Battle of Coral Sea. On October 25, a fighter Grumman F4F-4 rammed another Zero over Guadalcanal. By the end of December, a Ki.43 of the IJA was rammed by a US photo-reconnaissance airplane Lockheed P-38 F-5 over New Guinea. In 1943, another Ki.43 was rammed by a Curtiss P-40N, and in December of the following year, a Mustang F-6C photo-recce rammed another Japanese fighter over China.

In Tunisia, a German Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-4 / Trop was rammed by a Spitfire Mk. Vc of the U.S.A.A.F. in March 1943.

Two P-47D Thunderbolt fighters rammed one Focke Wulf Fw 190 A-8 over Germany, on May 13, 1944, and a Messerschmitt Me 410 on July 7.

In December 1943 and April 1944 two Bulgarian fighters Bf 109 G-2 rammed an American B-17 and a B-24 over Sofia and Dolni Passarel.

On May 10, 1945, a Corsair FG-1 of the USMC rammed a Kawasaki Ki.45 of the IJN at a high altitude over Okinawa Island.

During the Second World War, the Japanese planes of Ki.27, Ki.43, Ki.44, Ki.45, Ki.46, Ki.61, Ki.84, Ki.100, A6M, F1M, B5N, J1N and N1K2 types managed to bring down one Blenheim, one Beaufighter and a Hurricane Mk. II of the Royal Air Force, an SBD and FG-1D of the U.S. Navy, a P-38, a P-40, a P-47, a B-25, five B-17s, eight B-24s and fifty-seven B-29s of the U.S.A.A.F.

The ramming sometimes happened accidentally, due to miscalculation of distances by the pilot of the attacking aircraft, or because the pilot had been injured or killed by the defensive fire of the attacked aircraft. At other times, it was a desperate measure consequence to the malfunction of arms in a conventional attack made from behind. The impact used to occur at low speed because both aircraft were flying in the same direction, with the propeller of the attacking plane acting as a circular saw on the tail surfaces of the attacked plane. The rammer usually suffered damages in the propeller, engine bearings and engine cowling and the survival rate of the pilot used to exceed 50% with a good chance of making a glide landing.

The four engine American bombers were particularly resistant and some managed to survive a ram attack. Even smaller airplanes like the Mosquito and the Bearcat managed to return to their bases after a mid-air collision following the loss of part of a wing. When ramming large aircraft, it was more effective to target the fuselage section between wing and tail plane to sever control cables, but the side attack manoeuvre required a very precise calculation of relative speeds that only very expert pilots could perform. The impact, between 300 and 450 kph, used to boot a wing of the attacking aircraft that fell into an uncontrollable flat spin; the pilot was violently thrown in opposite direction to the damaged wing, getting wounded or shocked and with survival possibilities below 25% because the fuselage airframe tended to deform, rendering the opening of the cockpit very difficult.

The most effective ramming and the most extreme solution was the head-on-attack, a manoeuvre that Japanese pilots termed Tai-atari (body crashing) in which both aircraft crashed at a joint speed close to 1000 kph with decelerations of up to 100g. No one could survive an impact like this by which the rammer embedded into the nose of the bomber and both aircraft feel intertwined. But sometimes the impact was not full front, due to a second of hesitation by the suicide pilot or because he was reached by the gunners of the attacked aircraft at the last moment. The B-29 bomber 42-24544 ‘Long Distance’ managed to return to base after suffering a frontal impact by a Ki.61 fighter in the No. 3 engine and a C-47 cargo airplane could safely land with a four meters hole on top of the fuselage produced by the impact of a Ki.43, which resulted destroyed.

Khalkin Gol/Nomonhan (11 May to 17 September 1939)

​

The Soviets were engaged in a war with Japan in the border of Outer Mongolia and Manchuria.
The Soviet Air Force (VVS) used four fighter regiments equipped with Polikarpov I-152, I-153 and I-16 (Types 6, 10, 17 and 18) and two bomber regiments with Tupolev SB-2M-100 and Polikarpov R-5.

The Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) sent six Sentais to the combat zone, equipped with Kawasaki Ki.10 and Nakajima Ki.27 fighters and six more with Nakajima Ki.4, Mitsubishi Ki.15, Mitsubishi Ki.21, Mitsubishi Ki.30, Tachikawa Ki.36 and Fiat BR.20 bombers.

It was a confrontation for prestige reasons and without gain of territories, in which the pilots of the IJA behaved very aggressive, despite having air and technological superiority. It was their first chance to emulate the successes obtained by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) in China.

According to reports from Soviet veteran pilots of the Sino-Japanese war, the pilots of the Ki.27 made numerous attempts to ramming from the first fighting. On 22 June, a Ki.27 piloted by the 2Lt. Saito Shogo rammed the tail of the I-16 of Lt. Vorozheikin, over Kalka River.

On 5 August, a Ki.27 from the 11th Sentai, piloted by the 2Lt. Taro Kobayashi, rammed an I-153.

The Soviets soon copied the tactic, that they denominated Taran. On 20 July, the 2 Lt. Viktor Skobarikhin, of the 22nd IAP, rammed a Ki.27 of the 11th Sentai with his I-16. On 3 August, the Captain P. Kustov, of the 56th IAP, rammed a Japanese bomber. Two days later, a Ki.27 from the 11th Sentai, piloted by Tokuyaso Ishizuka, was rammed by the I-16 of Lt. Aleksandr Moskin. On 20 August, the 2 Lt. Viktor Rakhov, of the 22nd IAP, rammed a Ki.27 of the 11th Sentai with his I-16.

The clumsy and heavy I-152 were especially vulnerable in dogfight. On 28 May, all aircraft of the 22/4 IAP who took part in a battle against the Ki.27 were downed. They were hastily replaced by the new I-153 that just managed to survive the Japanese fury by using evasive manoeuvres. On the other hand, the Ki.27 could evade the combat thanks to their greater speed, which even exceeded that of the I-16, despite the drag generated by the fixed undercarriage of the Japanese fighter. The only efficient tactic against the Ki.27 consisted in taking advantage of the superior climb rate and dive speed of the I-16 in 'hit and run' attacks, avoiding the dogfight with the agile Nakajima.

The Japanese fighters did not use the radio, communicating through movements of the wings. That made them especially vulnerable to an attack from above, while they were carrying out strafing missions. The Ki.27 used outdated tubular gunsights and during the firing of machine guns the pilot could not watch around.

To compensate for the superior manoeuvrability of the Japanese fighters, the Soviets tried to increase the fire power with the introduction of the I-16 Type 17 armed with two 20 mm ShVAK cannons and 82 mm rockets. They could be carried under the wings of the fighters and used indiscriminately in air-to-air or ground attack configurations. The first use of unguided rockets in combat, launched from an aircraft, occurred on 20 August, when five I-16 fighters launched RS-82 rockets against a flight of Ki.27, shooting down two of them.

The Polikarpov Type 17 was particularly vulnerable in dogfight due to the extra weight of its weapons. For the Japanese the weight was all. They used to dismantle the radio, the masts of the antennas and the enclosed cockpits. Some pilots even avoided using parachutes to gain additional manoeuvrability.

With the start of World War II in the West, the Soviets decided to find an easier enemy in the defeated Poland and requested an armistice. On 16 September the hostilities ceased. The VVS lost 249 aircraft, of which 196 were fighters, and the IJN lost 220 aircraft, including 97 fighters.