Romanian operated He 112s. (http://www.luftwaffephotos.com)
During the 1930’s the Aeronautica Regală Română ARR (Romanian Royal Aeronautics or Airforce) was in great need of more modern aircraft design. Their fighter force was poorly equipped with obsolete aircraft such as the PZL P.11 and P.24, being of dated Polish origin. Thus the Romanians were in desperate need of better designs. Luckily for them, the Heinkel factory was more than willing to supply them with one of their failed competitors for the new German fighter, the He 112. The Romanians were impressed and placed an order for 30 such aircraft which would remain in use up to 1946.
A brief He 112 history
Prior to the Second World War, the Luftwaffe was in need of a new and modern fighter that was to replace the older biplane fighters that were in service, such as the Arado Ar 68 and Heinkel He 51. For this reason, in May 1934 the RLM issued a competition for a new and modern fighter plane. While four companies responded to this request, only the designs from Heinkel and Messerschmitt were deemed sufficient. The Heinkel He 112 was a good design that offered generally acceptable flight characteristics and possessed a good basis for further improvements. The Bf 109 on the other hand had slightly better overall flight performance and was much simpler and cheaper to build. Given the fact that the Germans were attempting to accelerate the production of the new fighter, this was seen as a huge advantage over the He 112. Ultimately it would not be accepted for service, and only 100 or so aircraft would be built. These would be mainly sold abroad, with those remaining in Germany used for various testing and evaluation purposes.
He 112 the unsuccessful competitor of the Bf 109. Source: (luftwaffephotos.com)
While the He 112 project was canceled by the RLM, to compensate for the huge investment in resources and time to it, Heinkel was permitted to export this aircraft. A number of countries such as Austria, Japan, Romania, and Finland showed interest, but only a few actually managed to procure this aircraft, and even then, only in limited numbers.
Technical Characteristics
The He 112 was an all-metal single-engine fighter. The monocoque fuselage consisted of a metal base covered by riveted stress metal sheets. The wing was slightly gulled, with the wingtips bending upward, and had the same construction as the fuselage with a combination of metal construction covered in stressed metal sheets.
During its development life, a great number of different types of engines were tested on the He 112. For the main production version, He 112 B-2, the 700 hp Jumo 210G liquid-cooled engine was used, and some were equipped with the 680 hp Jumo 210E engine. The He 112 had a fuel capacity of 101 liters in two wing-mounted tanks, with a third 115-liter tank placed under the pilot’s seat.
The landing gear was more or less standard in design. They consisted of two larger landing wheels that retracted into the wings and one semi-retractable tail wheel. The He 112 landing gear was wide enough to provide good ground handling and stability during take-off or landing.
The cockpit received a number of modifications. Initially, it was open with a simple windshield placed in front of the pilot. Later models had a sliding canopy that was either partially or fully glazed.
While the armament was changed during the He 112’s production, the last series was equipped with two 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns and two 2 cm Oerlikon MG FF cannons. The ammunition load for each machine gun was 500 rounds, with 60 rounds each for the cannons. If needed, two bomb racks could be placed under the wings.
In Romanian Hands
While Heinkel was desperately trying to sell more of the He 112 fighters, a potential new customer arose in the Balkans. This was Romania, which during the 1930s was severely lacking in aircraft, and the strength of its Air Force was worryingly low in comparison to most European countries. Its main fighter at this time was the obsolete P.Z.L P.11 and P.24 fighters which were acquired from Poland. A smaller number of these were purchased, with the majority being built under license. In an attempt to find the solution to this urgent problem, Romanian King Carol II himself went to visit several potential aircraft manufacturers in Europe. The Germans in particular were quite keen to have a good relationship with Romania, mostly due to its rich oil fields. The Romanians were very interested in acquiring the new Bf 109 fighter, but as it was slowly entering production in Germany, it was not yet audible in sufficient numbers for export. As a temporary solution, the He 112E, an export model based on the B version, was proposed instead. One He 112 was acquired in 1938 and was extensively tested by both the Romanian Air Force pilots and by the engineers at Industria Aeronautică Română I.A.R. (Romanian Aeronautic Industry). While some issues, such as rather poor rudder response and handling during flight, were noted, due to the urgent need for a modern fighter and a lack of alternatives, the initial order for 24 was increased to 30 aircraft. These were the He 112V-1 and B-2 versions equipped with the Jumo 210E and G engines.
The B-series was in many aspects a complete redesign of the previous series. Including the introduction of a new tail unit, and modification of the fuselage, to name a few. (luftwaffephotos.com)
Prior to shipment, a group of Romanian pilots arrived in Germany to be sufficiently trained to operate this fighter. This transition to a new, low-wing aircraft, with a fully enclosed crew cockpit and retractable landing gear, was not easy for the Romanian pilots who needed time to adapt to the new design. Once the whole training process was completed the 30 aircraft were sent to Romania. They arrived during a period of late August to early October 1939. During their flight from Germany to Romania, one He 112 was lost in an accident, while a second was damaged but later repaired at I.A.R. The Romanians tested the newly arrived He 112 against the domestically developed I.A.R.80 fighter. The Romanian aircraft proved to be a better design overall, but the He 112, thanks to its good overall handling and firepower, were also deemed satisfactory.
The newly acquired He 112 prior to the flight to Romania in 1939. (D. Bernard )
The 5th Fighter Group
The Romans used the 29 He 112 to equip the Grupul 5 Vânătoare (5th Fighter group). This unit consisted of the Escadrila 10 and 11 (10th and 11th Squadrons), later in October 1939 renamed to Scadrila 51 and 52. The main purpose of this unit was to protect the capital from any potential aerial threat. In April 1940, Germany sent one replacement aircraft for the one lost in transit the previous year, so technically Romanian operated 31 He 112’s in total. In May 1940, the He 112 was first presented to the Romanian public during a military parade.
The Romanian-Hungarian War
In Summer the rising tension between Romania and Hungary over Transylvania reached a critical point. Transylvania was part of Hungary but was lost after the First World War when it was given to Romania. In 1940, the Hungarian Army began preparing for a possible war with Romania. As neither side was willing to enter a hastily prepared war, negotiations began to find a possible solution. But despite this, there were some minor skirmishes. Hungarian aircraft made several reconnaissance flights over Romania. The Romanians responded by repositioning 12 He 112’s to the border but these failed to achieve any success against the enemy reconnaissance operation. On the 27th of August, an He 112 managed to intercept a Hungarian Ca 135 severely damaging it and forcing it to land. Ultimately, at the end of August, Romania asked Germany to arbitrate the issue regarding the disputed territory. Hungary managed to get to the northern part of Transylvania. On the 12th September 1940, one He 112 was lost when during a training flight, the aircraft caught fire from the engine compartment, and the pilot lost control and crashed ground, losing his life in this accident.
In Combat
Following the start of the Second World War with the Soviets, on the 22nd of June 1941, the 24 available (the remaining aircraft were under repairs) He 112’s were repositioned to the Focșani-North airfield in mid-June 1941. Their main task was to attack a Soviet Airfield and other ground targets. While not particularly designed for this role, thanks to its strong armament and even a small bomb load, it had enough firepower to deal serious damage. But the pilots were not trained in this manner nor the aircraft was sufficiently protected, lacking armor to protect the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks. Occasionally they provided support cover to Romanian bombers. The Romanian main fighter in service at that time was the I.A.R. 80, so the He 112 was to fulfill secondary combat roles.
The He 112 began their first combat actions of the war against the Soviets by flying in an escort mission for the Romanian Potez 63 bombers on the 22nd of June 1941. These were heading toward the Soviet airfields at Bolgrad and Bulgarica. The attack on Bolgrad was successful despite strong Soviet anti-aircraft fire. As the Romanian air group was approaching the Bulgarica airfield they were met with resistance of some 30 Soviet I-16 fighters. One He 112 piloted by Teodor Moscu attacked two I-16 that were in the process of taking off from the airfield. Moscu managed to shoot down one I-16 on his first run. While he was pulling off from his attack another I-16 attacked his He 112. Moscu managed to shoot down this aircraft too, but his He 112 was badly damaged and losing fuel. He managed to reach a Romanian airfield and land the damaged fighter. Teodor Moscu was officially credited with achieving the first air victory for the Romanians during the War with the Soviets.
The He 112 on their first combat mission protecting the Potez 63 bombers on the 22nd of June 1941. (D. Bernard)
On the 23rd, the He 112’s mostly performed ground attack operations against Soviet targets. The same day, some 12 He 112 attacked the Bolgrad airfield. The Soviets responded by sending 7 I-153 fighters. After a brief clash, the Soviet fighters managed to shoot down one He 112. On the 24th, two He 112 were damaged in an accident. On the 28th of June, an He 112 was lost when it was shot down by Soviet anti-aircraft fire. The same day another He 112 was lost when the pilot made a mistake during landing, ultimately leading to an explosion with the aircraft and the pilot being lost. One more was badly damaged when it caught fire after battling a Soviet fighter.
On the 2nd of July, two more fighters were lost again due to Sovie ground anti-air efforts. Three days later the He 112s once again attacked the Bulgarica airfield, attacking the Soviet aircraft with bombs, cannons, and machine gun fire. One I-153 that attempted to take off, but was intercepted and shot down. One He 112 was damaged in the process. Later that day, the He 112’s provided a bomber escort mission where they engaged a group of 12 Soviet fighters. In this engagement, the Romanian pilots managed to bring down 4 enemy fighters but lost one He 112 in the process.
On the 7th of July, two He 112’s attacked a column of Soviet cars near Comrat. The He 112s managed to destroy several of these cars. An interesting event occurred on the 12th of July. On that day, a He 112 was operated by Ioan Lascu while searching for targets in the area of Valea Hârtoapelor. The pilot quickly spotted an enemy armored column and proceed to attack it with bombs. After that, he went for another run and attacked them using the He 112 two cannons. This time the Soviets returned fire and the He 112 was hit by tank gunfire. The He 112 burst into flames and hit the ground, killing the pilot in the process.
In mid-july, the Soviets launched an attack in an attempt to destroy the Romanian Țiganca-Porumbiște bridgehead. Both the Romanians and the Soviets sent substantial air forces to this battle. Thanks to some 150 aircraft, the Romanians managed to repel the Soviet attack. The He 112 saw extensive action during this battle, losing one He 112 and another aircraft being damaged.
By the end of July, only 14 He 112 were reported operational while 8 were under repairs. With the arrival of the domestically built IAR 80 fighters, the He 112 was relocated to Romania in August 1941. These were temporarily allocated for defending the Romanian skies. With the great losses suffered by the 5th Fighter group, its 52nd Squadron was disbanded and its surviving aircraft relocated to the 51st. Out of necessity, the He 112 were in October, once again brought back to the front in the Odessa region, which finally fell to the Axis by mid-October. The He 112 equipped units were placed in this area carrying out either patrolling or reconnaissance missions above the Black Sea. Enemy aircraft were rarely encountered. Only one aircraft, an I-153, was shot down in the spring of 1942 in this area. This was actually the last kill achieved by the He 112 during war. Due to its inexperienced pilot, one He 112 was lost in this area.
In Late October the Romanians issued a war report where the He 112 performance was described. While the diving speed was excellent, the low horizontal and climbing speed was deemed quite poor. The fuel tanks and the pilot seat were not armored which led to unnecessary losses in men and material. The possibility to carry six 12 kg bombs was deemed satisfactory. The quality of ammunition used was poor as too often targets that were hit, did not receive any major damage.
Many He 112s were shot down due to their unprotected fuel tanks and unarmored pilot seat. (albumwar2)
Retirement from the frontline service
Combat around Odessa would be the last major engagement of the Romanian He 112. At the start of July 1942, the 5th Fighter Group was to be equipped with the I.A.R.80 fighters. By this time the remaining He 112 were mostly stored awaiting repairs. On the 19th of July during a Soviet night bombing raid over Bucharest, one He 112 took to the sky attempting to intercept the Soviet Bombers. This was the Romanian Air Force’s first use of fighters in a night raid attack. Even in this role the He 112 would be quickly replaced with the Me 110 twin-engine fighter.
In 1943 the surviving He 112 were placed under the Corpul 3 Aerian (3rd Corps) and acted as training aircraft on several different air bases. When the Romanin switched sides in August 1944, some 9 of the 19 available He 112 were still used as trainers where they awaited the end of the war. The last two surviving Romanian He 112 aircraft were finally scrapped in 1946.
After its retirement from front-line service the surviving He 112 were used as advanced training aircraft. (worldwarphotos)
This He 112 from the 52nd Squadron survived the war, but it and all remaining aircraft would be scrapped as they were at that point obviously obsolete and beyond repair. (worldwar2.ro)
In Soviet Aircraft Role
An interesting story related to He 112 in Romanian service was that they achieved some success in cinematography. Namly for the filming of the Italian-Romanian film ‘White Squadron’, where the He 112 were reused as Soviet fighters in September 1942. These were painted in simple gray color and received a large black star. It is unusual to use a black instead of a red star, but given that this was a black-and-white movie this was not a major issue.
A set of He 112s ready for a film appearance. (T.L. Morosanu and D. A. Melinte)
Conclusion
The He 112 provided the Romanian Air Force with a capable fighter until a proper replacement could be found. With its armament, it performed generally well in ground attack operations. Due to its inadequate protection, many were brought down quite easily by enemy return fire. Due to attrition, their service life would be severely limited to only a few months of the war before being brought back to Romania to perform a secondary but vital training role. .
He 112B-2 Specifications
Wingspans
29 ft 10 in / 9.1 m
Length
30 ft 2 in / 9.22 m
Height
12 ft 7 in / 3.82 m
Wing Area
180 ft² / 17 m²
Engine
One 700 hp Jumo 210G liquid-cooled engine
Empty Weight
3,570 lbs / 1,620 kg
Maximum Take-off Weight
4,960 lbs / 2,250 kg
Climb Rate to 6 km
In 10 minutes
Maximum Speed
317 mph / 510 km/h
Cruising speed
300 mph / 484 km/h
Range
715 miles / 1,150 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
31,170 ft / 9,500 m
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
Two 20 mm (1.8 in) cannons and two machine guns 7.92 mm (0.31 in) machine guns and 60 kg bombs
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. and Pavel. A
Ported by Henry H.
Illustration by Godzilla
Source:
Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemаčaka. Beograd
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1990) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books
T.L. Morosanu and D. A. Melinte Romanian (2010) Fighter Colours 1941-1945 MMP Books
D. Bernard (1996) Heinkel He 112 in Action, Signal Publication
R.S. Hirsch, U, Feist and H. J. Nowarra (1967) Heinkel 100, 112, Aero Publisher
C. Chants (2007) Aircraft of World War II, Grange Books.
190 total airframes built: 85 converted to SH-2F w/ 48 new airframes.
A SeaSprite takes on fuel aboard the Destroyer USS Briscoe. (National Archives)
Introduction
Kaman’s SH-2 proved an exceptional asset for the US Navy through the mid to late Cold War, serving a variety of roles across nearly the entirety of the surface fleet. Beginning its service as a multipurpose naval helicopter designed to ferry equipment and rescue downed fliers, the light helicopter soon played an even greater role as an anti-submarine aircraft. Replacing the outdated and clumsy DASH drone, the Seasprite incorporated cutting edge sensors to become a sub chaser that could fit on even the lightest modern frigates in the US Navy. Spanning the early sixties to the new millenium, the Seasprite served as an able light transport, search and rescue, and anti-submarine helicopter before finally being phased out by the UH-60 Seahawk.
Whirlybirds
Of all the world’s navies, that of the United States was the first to employ helicopters enmasse. While helicopters had undergone considerable development since the first usable designs had been conceived in the 1920s, they remained a clumsy novelty into the 1940s. This was until the Sikorski R-4 was developed. Igor Sikorski, born in the Kiev Governorate in the reign of Alexander II, was already an aviation legend before the Russian Civil War saw him emigrate to the United States in 1919. Having previously designed four engine biplane airliners in the Russian Empire, and several of the flying boats that saw Pan Am span half the globe, Sikorski was a name known for breaking new ground. His R-4 helicopter would build this reputation further. The greatest advantage the R-4 had over its foreign contemporaries, most notably the Focke-Anchleis 223, was its simplicity and ruggedness. The use of a main lifting rotor and anti-torque tail rotor would prove a far lighter, and more robust method of control than the transverse and intermeshing rotors that drove a number of contemporary types.
Igor Sikorskiy (right) aboard a test flight of his R-4 helicopter (wikimedia).
The R-4 reached the notice of the US armed forces through Commander William J. Kossler of the Coast Guard, after the officer had seen the XR-4 undergo a test flight in April 1942. Impressed, he invited fellow officer CDR W.A. Burton to see the helicopter. The report on the aircraft took note of its ability to conduct patrols at low speeds, and unlike US Navy airships, did not require a large hangar for storage. Initially skeptical, the Navy was later convinced of the aircraft’s anti-submarine and convoy surveillance properties. Limited production began in 1942 and testing was conducted through 1943 and ‘44, though its sub chasing capabilities were not pursued. Instead, the helicopter proved itself as an air rescue vehicle. Its first trial came on January 3, 1944, when it delivered vital blood plasma from New York City to Sandy Hook, New Jersey, through a violent storm, in order to treat sailors after a fire had sunk the destroyer USS Turner. In all, several dozen R-4s would be delivered to the Coast Guard and Navy, where they took part in a number of rescue missions across North America and the Pacific.
While the R-4 was still limited in its carrying capacity and presented pilots with challenging flight characteristics, it demonstrated the utility of helicopters to every branch of the US armed forces. Sikorski would capitalize on this over the coming decade with their heavy H-19 and H-34 helicopters. Entering service in the early fifties, these helicopters were all metal and equipped with heavy radial engines. In civilian and military service, they would prove exceptional, capable of airlifting cargo to otherwise unreachable areas. However, a new, revolutionary advancement would soon render them obsolete. In 1955, the French Allouette II became the first production helicopter to feature a geared gas turbine. The turbine provided a far better power to weight ratio than the radial engines, and it was compact, allowing it to be placed at the center of the helicopter and thus avoided the forward engine placement that made some earlier helicopters nose heavy. This engine also allowed the nimble Alloutte to possess a speed and range far beyond comparable piston engined models. From then on, it was clear that turbine power would be the future of helicopter design.
A Sikorsky ‘Choctaw’ helicopter hovers to recover astronaut Alan Shephard and a Mercury reentry capsule after the first manned US space flight. The addition of a powerful radial engine made these among the first successful heavy lift helicopters. (wikimedia)
In the US, the first experiments for this type of helicopter propulsion were pioneered by Charles Kaman’s aircraft company. The first successful experiment was achieved through combining the Boeing 502 turbine with his company’s K-225. Kaman, a former employee of Sikorsky, would develop this new helicopter along with his head designer, Anton Flettner, a German engineer who pioneered the use of intermeshing rotors. The experimental K-225 proved promising enough to warrant further development, and soon, the Kaman Aircraft company would produce a new utility helicopter along its lines. The firm’s HH-43 Huskie fire fighting and rescue helicopter fit the bill, and its later models were equipped with turboshaft engines in the late 50s.
However, the firm’s greatest success was soon to arrive, when the navy sent out a request for a new carrier-borne, lightweight helicopter.
Seasprite
The US Navy’s request for a light multipurpose and rescue helicopter was soon met with Kaman’s newest design, the Kaman Seasprite. The helicopter would settle the requirements, being capable of carrying up to 12 people, remaining compact and fuel efficient, and taking up little space aboard aircraft carriers. In the 1956 competition, Kaman’s design won handily and the next year saw a contract issued for procurement. The helicopter was the first Kaman design to feature a single main rotor, and in conjunction with the servo-flap rotor system, it was cutting edge, reliable, and possessed smooth flight characteristics.
The design, then named HU2K, first flew on July 2, 1959, and was introduced fully in December 1962. It proved to be robust with good handling, however, the single General Electric T58GE turbine left it fairly underpowered. This prevented it from taking on any new missions, but it was sufficient for the basic role it was designed for. These helicopters, later designated UH-2A and UH–2B, though largely identical, were produced until 1965, with a total of 142 airframes built.
A Kaman UH-2A/B flies alongside the USS Enterprise as a plane guard as it launches a Grumman E-2a Hawkeye. (wikimedia)
The Seasprites, supplied to utility helicopter squadrons, were distributed amongst US aircraft carriers and saw widespread use during the Vietnam War. There, they served largely as plane guards, where they took up a position alongside aircraft carriers when large scale air operations were underway. In case of an accident during take off or landing, the Seasprites would move in quickly to recover downed pilots. Search and rescue also fell under their purview, and alongside a number of other models, they pulled hundreds of airmen from the sea. As a fleet utility helicopter, they also flew ashore and between various vessels in order to transfer personnel and equipment. Medical evacuations were also among tasks these helicopters performed, moving injured personnel to ships with more substantial medical facilities. The small size and smooth controls of the Seasprite made landing on the basic helicopter facilities of most ships an easier affair compared to the bulkier Sikorsky Sea King. Its only drawback was the relatively little power offered by its small turbine engine. It could make for tricky takeoffs as the small helicopter was slow to climb.
In spite of it being underpowered, it proved to be a valuable asset to the fleet and was respected by its pilots. Naturally, the Navy wished for improved models. Kaman’s first move was to add a second turbine engine to the helicopter, the improved model being the UH-2C. As the production run had already been completed, the Navy sent Kaman the older A and B models back to the company in order to receive the upgrade. The C model was introduced in 1966, though now with its much higher speed and carrying capacity, it was soon deemed that the Seasprite was to take on a much wider scope of duties.
Sub Chaser
During the late sixties, the increased threat posed by ever more advanced models of submarines was of great concern to the US surface fleet. Even more concerning was a lack of long range anti-submarine weapons. While many ASW vessels did carry the ASROC missile, tipped with either a nuclear depth charge or a Mk 46 torpedo, there was some concern of submarines attacking from beyond the 6 to 8 mile range of this weapon. The existing long range anti-submarine weapon was the Gyrodyne DASH drone, a small drone helicopter capable of carrying depth charges and torpedoes. While it was compact, it was inflexible, and with no means of collecting additional data in the area of the suspected submarine, accuracy was very poor.
The UH-2D was an interim ASW model to test the helicopters ability to carry the equipment needed for the role. These are differentiated from the later 2F’s by their tail wheel being further out. This aircraft lacks the sonobuoy rack. (wikimedia)
This left most of the US Navy’s light surface forces, which often operated too far from the carrier to be covered by its airborne ASW umbrella, under threat from more modern submarines. The solution was found in the re-engined Seasprite. The new SH-2D represented the greatest change thus far, with the new aircraft sporting a chin mounted surface search radar, a rack to carry a Mk 46 lightweight torpedo, and a 15 chute sonobuoy rack. The small size of the helicopter would allow it to operate aboard some of the lightest frigates in the fleet, these being the Garcia-class.
The performance of the helicopter, and its ability to operate on nearly every major surface combatant, would see this mission expanded even further. Thus came the Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System, a fleet-wide program to equip most warships with helicopters in order to boost their anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities. LAMPS I would place a now standardized SH-2F aboard nearly every frigate, destroyer, and cruiser in the fleet. In addition to the long standing utility missions, the helicopters were datalinked to their host ship to allow them to prosecute possible submarine contacts, provide long range surface surveillance, and allow for more effective over the horizon targeting of enemy surface threats.
The new SH-2F was largely the same as the proceeding UH-2D model, though it standardized the use of composite rotor blades which existed on some previous models, and its tail wheel was moved forward to enable it to better operate off of smaller ships. Some 85 Seasprites were converted to this type, and a further 48 were produced in the early 80s in order to cover a shortfall before the introduction of the SH-60B Seahawk. The new, standard LAMPS helicopter entered service in 1973.
LAMPS I
The LAMPS I program vastly increased the offensive and surveillance capabilities of participating vessels. This encompassed some half dozen ship classes ranging from the workhorse frigates of the fleet, such as the Knox and Oliver Hazard Perry, to the nuclear guided missile cruiser, Truxton. In the ASW mission, on detecting a suspected submarine, whether attacking or transiting, the ship would launch its SH-2F. Capable of using sensor data from the ship, the helicopter would move in and begin to deploy its sonobuoys, being either passive AN/SSQ-41’s or active AN/SSQ-47’s. The helicopter then relayed the sonobuoy data back to the ship for processing, and if the contact was found and classified, the helicopter would move in to attack with its Mk 46 torpedo. The onboard magnetic anomaly detector could also mark the position of a submarine if over flown by the helicopter. A ship equipped with ASROC could also join the helicopter in the attack, provided the target was in range. In the ASW role, the helicopter was a largely reactive measure, as it was unable to process its own sonobuoy data and lacked a dipping sonar, and thus required other platforms to detect the submarine first. This is not to say it lacked considerable offensive potential, as the powerful hull mounted sonar arrays aboard the Knox class frigates and Spruance class destroyers, and the OHP’s short range but highly sensitive sonar, were among the most advanced systems of their kind and could give early warning to submerged threats. The presence of the helicopter thus allowed ships to prosecute, classify, and engage submerged contacts that would otherwise be beyond the effective range of their sensors and weapons.
The Spruance class Destroyers were among the most capable anti-submarine warships used during the Cold War. With their advanced sonar systems and two helicopters, they could pose a serious threat to even the most modern nuclear submarines. (National Archives)
The Spruance class in particular could prove very dangerous to submarines at range thanks to its convergence zone sonar. The AN/SQS-53 could make use of the aforementioned phenomenon, and under ideal conditions, detect submarines at extreme ranges. These zones are where sounds are bounced off the seafloor or thermal layers into a concentrated area and are thus made dramatically louder. Convergence zones are exploited by all ASW vessels, though the specialized sonar aboard these ships allowed them to exploit sound propagated at distances far in excess of the norm. A Spruance class ship making use of a convergence zone could dispatch helicopters against submarines potentially dozens of miles away, making them among the most capable ASW vessels of the Cold War. In the absence of a convergence zone, it switched to a short to medium range mode. It shared this system with the Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser, and the Kidd class destroyer, both of which used the same hull, however their role was air defense. These ships all transitioned to LAMPS III once it became available in the mid 1980s.
The LAMPS system featured most prominently in escort and screening vessels, namely the Knox and Oliver Hazard Perry (OHP) class frigates. The Knox class was an anti-submarine frigate with limited anti-surface capability that entered service in 1969, with 46 vessels being commissioned in all. These ships carried a single Seasprite and were armed with an ASROC launcher, which later received the capability to launch Harpoon anti-surface missiles. The OHP class carried no ASROC launcher, though they instead carried two helicopters. The last 26 of the class were LAMPS III ships and carried the heavier and more capable Sikorski Seahawk. In place of the ASROC launcher was a Mk 13 mod 4 launcher for Standard missiles and Harpoons. Both frigates carried hull sonar and towed arrays, the Knox possessing a larger hull array, and the OHP carrying a short range, high resolution hull sonar system, with a towed array being used for longer range surveillance. The difference in systems was due to the OHP being designed as a fast escort, and needed the capability to conduct passive sonar searches at speeds faster than a typical surface group. The resulting hull sonar system was thus highly sensitive, but had a decreased maximum effective range.
The Knox class was initially classified as a destroyer escort and later designated as a frigate. For mid to late Cold War vessels, they were very capable anti-submarine patrol vessels for their size with good anti-surface capabilities, featuring both a dual purpose ASROC-Harpoon launcher and a LAMPS I helicopter. (wikimedia)
In addition to the added anti-submarine mission, the Seasprite performed anti-surface support and anti-ship missile defense roles. In performing these missions, the Seasprite used its search radar to track and identify potentially hostile surface vessels. This allowed the host vessel to build a picture of enemy forces while putting itself in comparatively little direct danger. With this information, any LAMPS I vessel had early warning against potentially hostile surface vessels, and could also use the relayed information to more accurately fire Harpoon and Standard missiles over the horizon, without using its own radar and revealing itself. The extended surveillance range of a LAMPS vessel was pushed beyond 170 miles with the use of the Seasprite.
LAMPS I thoroughly improved the anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities of much of the US fleet, with the Seasprite itself being an almost perfect off the shelf solution. While there were limitations, like the inability to perform an independent ASW search, the overall benefit of the ship not needing to prosecute sub surface contacts alone or having to reveal itself to perform a radar search in its patrol area was well worth the resources devoted to the Seasprite.
Late Career
Beyond ASW duties, Seasprites also allowed their host vessels to conduct surface surveillance over a much wider area. Here, an SH-2F identifies a natural gas carrier during Operation Desert Shield. (National archives)
By the end of the Cold War, the Seasprite had incorporated a number of improvements. These comprised a number of on board and weapon systems, perhaps most notably the introduction of the Mk 46 Mod 5, or NEARTIP, lightweight torpedo. The new model was designed to counter the latest advancements in Soviet nuclear submarine design, with the torpedo possessing an improved engine to make for a higher speed, an improved sonar transducer to increase the effective detection range of the weapon and add better countermeasure resistance, and had a new guidance and control group. The new weapon entered service in 1979, with kits being produced to convert old stocks to the new standard.
An improved model of the helicopter equipped with T700-GE-401 engines was also developed in 1985, though few were procured, as the Navy sought to increase supplies of the SH-60 Sea Hawk. Some of the improvements from the scaled back Super Seasprite did however make their way into the SH-2F. A number of LAMPS I helicopters during the mid 80s were equipped with FLIR pods for IR searches, IR jammers, chaff and flare dispensers, and an infrared sea mine detection system. Their service during the Gulf War saw them mostly perform ship to ship material and personnel transfers, mine detection, and medical evacuation roles, as Iraq possessed no submarines. Their primary mission in the theater was mine hunting duties, for which they used IR sensors in their search. They were only carried aboard lighter surface combatants during Operation Desert Storm, and weren’t present among the air wings of any of the aircraft carriers during the conflict.
After almost thirty years of service, the SH-2F was withdrawn along with most of the vessels that carried them. Its end was hastened by the withdrawal of the Knox class frigates from service and the sale of most of the short hull OHP frigates to foreign navies. The Navy would fully transition over to the Sikorsky Seahawk, a much larger and more powerful helicopter which carried two torpedoes, a dipping sonar, and incorporated sonobuoy processing capabilities.
Construction and Flight Characteristics
The Kaman SH-2F Seasprite was compact, and while conventional for a modern helicopter, was very advanced for its day. Its fuselage was watertight, possessed forward retractable landing gear, and was equipped with a variety of onboard sensors. While it could not perform waterlandings, its sealed canopy allowed it to float until the helicopter’s crew could be recovered. The pilot sat on the port side of the cockpit and the copilot/tactical coordinator, who operated the weapon systems, was seated starboard. The systems operator sat behind the pilot and operated the sonobuoy dispenser, the magnetic anomaly detector, and radar system. The systems operator lacked the equipment to process the sonobuoy data, which was instead processed aboard the LAMPS I host vessel and sent back via a data link.
An SH-2F instrument panel (wikimedia).
At the nose of the helicopter was the LN-66 surface search radar, designed for detecting both surface vessels and submarine snorkels. On the starboard pylon was the MAD streamer which worked in conjunction with an extendable antenna on the underside of the helicopter. This system worked by measuring the local strength of Earth’s magnetic field, and would spike if it encountered a large magnetic object, or in other words, a submerged submarine. Triggering a readable detection required the aircraft to over fly the contact and was thus typically used to pin the exact position of the submarine while preparing to attack after closing in during the sonobuoy search. The Seasprite carried a mix of AN/SSQ-41A passive and AN/SSQ-47B active sonar sonobuoys. The AN/SSQ-41A omni-directional passive sonobuoys operate at a depth of 60 ft for shallow searches and 300 ft for deep, and have a frequency range of 10 Hz to 20 kHz. Depending on their settings, they lasted between one to eight hours. The SSQ-47B active sonobuoy provided ranging information and operated at either 60 or 800 ft and possessed a maximum endurance of thirty minutes. Sonobuoy data was processed aboard the supporting ship and was used to localize submarine contacts that were otherwise too distant or quiet to be effectively tracked by the ship’s sensors alone. The information provided from the data link allowed the helicopter to detect, classify, and engage subsurface contacts in cooperation with the host vessel.
Re-detecting a submarine at longer ranges from the ship was difficult, as passive sonobuoys laid out in a large search pattern gave little chance of success. The best chances of re-detection on a lost contact was when it was near the surface, transiting, or maneuvering to avoid attacks from other vessels and aircraft. The standard procedure for sub chasing was to head down the azimuth of the ship’s sonar contact and to begin to lay a sonobuoy field to uncover its exact location.
The Systems operator station. To the left is the MAD readout, in the center is a scope for the surface search radar, and on the right is the (shuttered) sonobuoy display. (National archives)
The Seasprite was initially powered by a single General electric T58-GE-8F turboshaft before a second was installed on the UH-2C. These each produced up to 1,350 shp and allowed the SH-2F to travel at a top speed of 152 mph at sea level and allowed the small helicopter to carry up to 2000 lbs worth of equipment in the vertical replenishment role, with a maximum cargo hook capacity of 4000 lbs. To save fuel during emergencies, the helicopter could run on one engine on the way back to the ship. These engines were well regarded and considered very reliable.
The helicopter’s lift was provided by a 44 ft main rotor which used composite blades which were directed with servo operated flaps. These flaps are easily visible on the rotors, each having a wider chord than the rest of the blade. The flap is used to change the angle of attack of the rotor in flight and allows for smooth altitude adjustment. The anti-torque rotor at the rear of the helicopter had its blades increased from three to four going from the C to D model. The Seasprite handled well and was easy to perform a hover in, an important capability when it comes to search and rescue, and transfers to vessels without any landing areas. This was particularly important when landing on Knox class frigates, which both had significant air disturbance aft of the ship, and a very claustrophobic landing area.
In the air rescue role, the copilot would coordinate with divers and rescue crew. The cargo space of the helicopter could fit two stretchers or three seats. For water recovery of personnel, divers were carried aboard and recovered downed airmen through the use of a rescue hoist mounted on the starboard side of the helicopter. Mechanically driven, it had a capacity of 600 lbs.
Throughout the 1980’s, Seasprites were often equipped with a variety of new devices. This aircraft features two ALQ 144 IR jammers for missile defense, chaff and flare dispensers, and a FLIR imager. Crews also often removed the doors from these helicopters for faster entry and exit. (National Archives)
The Seasprite could carry a variety of unguided weapons, but rarely carried anything other than the Mk 46 torpedo, being either the Mod 0, or Mod 5 NEARTIP during the 1980s. On paper, the Seasprite could carry two torpedoes, but in practice, the second equipment position was taken up by an external fuel tank on ASW patrols. Both torpedo types measured 8.5 ft long with a diameter of 12.75 inches. The Mod 0 weighed 568 lbs, and both carried a 95 lb warhead. The Mod 0 possessed a maximum speed of 45 kts, with the NEARTIP being considerably faster. The NEARTIP provided better tracking of faster targets and better countermeasure rejection, having incorporated a new sonar transducer, control and guidance group, and a new engine which switched from solid propellant to liquid monopropellant. Prior to the introduction of the Mod 5, there was little hope for successful attacks against the fastest nuclear submarines of the 1970s. However, in confirming the location of a submarine, its position also became revealed to long range ASW aircraft which could make follow up attacks.
Other weapons included unguided 2.75 inch unguided rockets, and some rare, late examples possessed FLIR optics and could carry AGM-65 Maverick missiles. These weapons, however, were rarely ever carried. Later Seasprites carried a variety of countermeasures including an ALQ-144 tail mounted IR jammer and an ALE-39 flare and chaff dispenser. A considerable number of these helicopters were equipped with infrared jammers and flares during the 1980s.
Conclusion
An SH-2F is being used to evacuate a sailor who received severe burns, necessitating treatment off-vessel. (National Archive)
The Kaman Seasprite can be said to be among the most versatile aircraft ever operated by the US Navy. Entering service as a plane guard, the number of roles it served grew considerably over the years to encompass everything from medical evacuation, to anti-submarine duties. As the core of the LAMPS program for nearly 10 years, it gave US warships a boost in their offensive and defensive qualities against both surface and subsurface opponents.
Specification
SH-2F Seasprite
Specification
Engine
2x General Electric T58-GE-8F
Output (maximum)
2300 SHP (2700 SHP)
Maximum Weight
12800 lbs
Empty Weight
8652 lbs
Range for Utility
234 N.MI
Radius of Action for Utility
111 N.MI
Endurance for Utility (ASW) [Ferry]
2 hours (1.9 hours) [2.8 hours]
Standard Armament
1 Mk 46 Mod 0/5 Lightweight torpedo
Crew
Pilot, copilot/tactical coordinator, systems operator
Length of fuselage
40.5 ft
Width of fuselage
10 ft
Designation
Sub type
HU2K/UH-2A
Basic single engine utility helicopter
UH-2B
Minor differences in avionics, later made identical to A model
UH-2C
First two engine model
H-2
Army project, single engine
HH-2C
Combat rescue model, 7.62 side door gun emplacements, M134 rotary gun turret. Two engines.
HH-2D
Same as HH-2C but without armament. Used to test ASW equipment and loading. Two engines.
NUH-2C/D
Test helicopter, two engines.
YSH-2E
Testing helicopter for radar and ASW gear for canceled LAMPS II program
SH-2D
Early ASW model
SH-2F
Standard LAMPS I helicopter
SH-2G
SH-2F with T700 turboshaft engines, improved avionics. Small production run.
Avionics
Type
Surface Search Radar
LN-66HP
IFF
AN/APX-72
Transponder Computer
KIT-1A/TSEC
UHF Radio Set
AN/ARC-159
Secure Speech
KY-28
ICS
AN/AIC-14
TACAN
AN/ARN-52
Doppler Radar
AN/APN-182
Attitude Heading
AN/ASN-50
NAV Computer
AN/AYK-2
Plotting Board
PT-492
UHF Direction Finder
AN/ARA-25
OTPI
R1047A/A
Radar Altimeter
AN/AP-171
RAWS
AN/APQ-107
Sonobuoy receiver
AN/ARR-52
Acoustic Data Processor
AN/ASA-26B
Data Link
AN/ASK-22
Magnetic Anomaly Detector
AN/ASQ-81
Radar Warning Receiver
AN/ALR-54
Profile:
The SH-2F Seasprite was a simple, but excellent conversion of a proven airframe. Installed aboard much of the US surface fleet, it was a potent force multiplier.During the mid 80’s, the Seasprite fleet received a number of improvements. These included the ALE-39 countermeasure dispenser, the AN/ALQ-144 IR jammer for use against heat seeking missiles, and later FLIR optics.
Gallery:
The Knox class’s helicopter facilities were quite claustrophobic, and precluded the use of a larger helicopter. (National Archive)A forward view of a Seasprite aboard a Spruance class Destroyer. (National Archives)Despite its small size, the Seasprite could carry a considerable sling load between vessels. (wikimedia). A Knox class frigate during a visit to La Roche, France with its LAMPS helicopter on deck. Curiously, this ship’s Sea Sparrow launcher has been removed. (Wikimedia)The colorful MAD streamer. (Wikimedia)A Seasprite responds to a medical emergency aboard a freighter near a naval exercise. (National Archives) A Seasprite flies as a plane guard alongside the USS America. An Essex class refit carrier sails in the background. (National Archives)An SH-2F undergoes checks aboard the USS Iowa during the Northern Wedding naval exercise, 1986. (National Archives) A small number of combat rescue helicopters were converted to recover airmen from potentially dangerous coastal areas. In practice, the nose mounted gun was typically not retained. (wikimedia)With its rotors folded, the crew of the USS John Hancock prepare to stow their Seasprite. (National Archives)A snapshot taken by a Seasprite: Soviet Submarine K-324 and frigate USS McCloy (Knox class) were engaged in mutual surveillance when the submarine’s screw became entangled in the frigate’s towed sonar array. The emergency was responded to by the Soviet oceanic survey ship SSW 506 and the American destroyer USS Peterson. The K-324 was a Victor III class nuclear submarine, this type being the most numerous modern Soviet nuclear submarine of the late Cold War.
Credits:
Article written by Henry H.
Edited by Stan L. and Henry H.
Ported by Henry H.
Illustrations by Godzilla
Sources
Primary:
Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model SH-2F aircraft. NAVAIR 00-110AH2-8. Commander of the Naval Air systems Command. July 1974.
Andrews, Harold. Sea Sprite. Naval Aviation New 1983 (Feb).
Naval Aviation News 1985 (May-June)
Naval Aviation News 1983 (Jan-Feb & May-Aug)
Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1982 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, on S. 815.
Department of Defense appropriations for 1984 hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session / Subcommittee on the Department of Defense.
Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1986 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, first session, on S. 674.
Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1979 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, second session, on S. 2571
Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1980 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session, on S. 428.
Defense Department authorization and oversight hearings on H.R. 5167, Department of Defense authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 1985, and oversight of previously authorized programs before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session.
Secondary:
Polmar, Norman. Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet. Fifteenth Edition. US Naval Institute Press. 1993.
Sikorsky HNS-1 “Hoverfly”. United States Coast Guard.
Stuyvenberg, Luke. Helicopter Turboshafts. University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering. 2015.
Number built: 1 prototype plus 12 production aircraft
The most modern Yugoslavian domestically developed fighter IK-3. (http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ik3/)
The Kingdom of Yugoslavia, despite its rather undeveloped industry and infrastructure, still possessed several aircraft manufacturing companies. During the 1930s, these produced a series of aircraft that would be adopted for military use. These were mostly training aircraft but there were also several fighter designs that would see service with the Kingdom of Yugoslavian Royal Air Force (RYAF). Among them was the IK-3 fighter, created by the well-known Yugoslavian aircraft engineers Ljubomir Ilić, Kosta Sivčev, and Slobodan Zrnić.
History
During the 1930s, the RYAF was mainly equipped with old and obsolete biplane fighters. While this would be eventually solved by the introduction of more modern, foreign designs like the Bf 109 and the Hawker Hurricane, some Yugoslavian aircraft engineers wanted to develop domestic fighter designs. This motivated two aircraft engineers from Ikarus, Ljubomir Ilić and Kosta Sivčev, to start working on such a design. They were already involved in designing a new high-wing fighter named IK-2. This aircraft proved to be superior to older biplane fighters that were in RYAF service. But after a small production series of 12 aircraft, it became obvious that this aircraft would quickly become obsolete, in contrast to other nations’ low-wing fighters.
The IK-2 fighter aircraft. (http://www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs/index.php/istorija/565-ikarus-ik-2)
For this reason in 1933, Ljubomir Ilić and Kosta Sivčev began working on improved fighters on their own initiative. While initially, they tested various ideas, eventually both agreed that a low-wing design was the best option. While having experience in fighter design, these two quickly realized that this project would require more work than the two engineers could achieve on their own. So they asked another engineer Slobodan Zrnić to assist in their work. All three of them worked on this project under the veil of secrecy. Finally, in 1936 they had a finalized project which was presented to the RYAF officials. After some time spent considering this new proposal, the RYAF gave the green light for it at the end of March 1937. A deal was made for the construction of a single prototype for testing and evaluation. While the IK-2 was built by Ikarus, the construction of the new aircraft was given to Rogožarski instead. Given the experience this company had working with wooden airframes, the new fighter was to have a primarily wooden construction to reduce costs and speed up development time.
Name
This project would receive the IK-3 designation. At that time it was common practice that any newly developed aircraft was to be named based on the designer’s initials. In this case, I stood for Ilić and K for Koča, which was Kosta Sivčev’s nickname. The number 3 represents the third fighter project of these two engineers.
Construction of the Prototype
After one year of work, the first prototype was completed. In appearance and design, this was quite a modern aircraft. It was built using a mixed construction and was powered by a 925 hp V-12 Hispano-Suiza 12Y29 engine. It was flight tested for the first time on the 14th of April, 1938. An initial series of test flights were carried out near the capital of Belgrade at Zemun. The test pilot at this early stage was Captain Milan Bjelanović. These flight tests lasted up to the late summer of 1938. During this time, there were no major problems reported with its design, and the aircraft was given to the RYAF for future testing.
The IK-3 first prototype was tested in 1938. (http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ik3/)
A commission of several RYAF officials was elected for the planned army testing and it was agreed that the whole process should last 100 flight hours. For this, the aircraft was to be fully armed which included a centerline mounted 20mm cannon which fired through the propeller hub, and two 7.92 mm machine guns placed in the upper engine cowling.
Following the conclusion of the testing by the RYAF, a report was issued in which its performance was deemed sufficient. The armament was installed and functioned without any major issues, however, it was desirable to add two more machine guns in the wings. The aircraft offered good overall flying performance though its controls were noted to be somewhat problematic and some changes were requested. To resolve this it was asked to improve the design of the flaps, by increasing their deployed angle and size. The canopy was of rather poor quality and was reflective, forcing some test pilots to fly the aircraft with open canopies. The engine had overheating problems which required extensive work before finally being solved by adding an improved cooling system. During these trials, the maximum speed achieved was slightly over 520 km/h. While not bad, the RYAF commission wanted it to be increased to at least 540 km/h, which was not achieved on this aircraft. Overall, this aircraft was deemed worth developing further by the RYAF commission, which gave a recommendation for a small series of 12 aircraft to be produced.
The production of the IK-3
Following the production orders for the IK-3, an accident happened that threatened the realization of the project. On the 19th of January 1939, an accident occurred during a test flight, and test pilot Captain Milan Pokorni was killed, and the plane was lost. A commission was formed to examine what went wrong. After analyzing the wreckage it was determined that the IK-3 prototype’s structural design was not at fault, nor did the pilot make any mistakes. Prior to this accident another pilot Dragutin Rubčić, had a harsh landing, damaging the aircraft in the process. Why this was not properly examined before another take-off by Captain Milan Pokorni is unclear. In another account, during a dive, the canopy broke free which probably made the pilot enter a climb. This seemingly caused enough force to be put on the already damaged aircraft, resulting in structural failure.
While this accident did not lead to the cancellation of the whole project, it did cause huge delays in the delivery of new aircraft. The RYAF officials wanted the aircraft to be thoroughly examined and tested before any further production order was given. Finally, in November 1939, the project received a green light again.
The second prototype, which was also the first aircraft of the first production series, was completed in December 1939. This aircraft was examined in detail over the next few months. As no major issues with the prototype were found, the production of additional 5 aircraft was completed by the 17th of April 1940. The other six aircraft could not be completed as the IK-3’s propellers had to be imported. As there were delivery problems with the last six aircraft, instead of the hydraulically controlled Hispano-type propeller, they were equipped instead with Chauviere-type propellers. It used pneumatic commands which necessitated changes to the engine and its compartment. These were finally completed in July 1940. Once all were available these were allocated to the 51st Fighter Group in July 1940. These were divided into two six-aircraft strong squadrons (the 161st and 162nd) stationed at Zemun airfield near the capital Belgrade.
Members of the 51st Fighter Group in front of their IK_3 during the summer of 1940. (https://nasaborba.com/rogozarski-ik-3-ponos-srpskog-ratnog-vazduhoplovstva/)
Second series proposal
In march 1940, the Rogožarski company proposed to the RYAF another production run of 25 to 50 new IK-3 aircraft. It was to incorporate a number of improvements like self-sealing fuel tanks, a redesigned radiator, adding radio equipment, armor for the pilot seat, an aerodynamically improved engine cowling, and a new gunsight. The company proposed that these could be completed in a period of 9 months. To speed up the developing process, one IK-3 (serial number 7) was selected to be converted as the prototype of this new series. This aircraft was completed by the end of March 1941. It was flown in early April, managing to reach a speed some 15 to 20 km faster than the standard IK-3. Its further development was stopped due to the outbreak of the war.
The second IK-3 prototype was also the first aircraft of the small production series. (http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ik3/)
Further IK-3 modification proposals
Some accounts claim that the aircraft was tested with a DB 601 from one of the RYAF’s imported German fighters. According to eyewitness accounts, this model was fully completed and tested. If this was true, it was not confirmed by any historical documentation or photographic evidence. At the same time a Hurricane aircraft was tested with this engine (known as LVT-1). It is possible that an eyewitness simply confused these two.
Another proposed project was the IK-3/2 two-seater trainer. It was planned to add another position to the rear of the pilot, reduce the armament to two machine guns, and move the cooling radiator some 50 cm to the rear. As a number of modern Bf 108 aircraft were acquired, this project was dropped with no prototype ever constructed.
In service, prior to the war
The newly produced IK-3 entered service at the end of 1940 and was used primarily in training flights. They were especially used to test their performance against the Bf 109, which was also in service with the RYAF. The Bf 109 offered better horizontal and climbing speed. In comparison, the IK-3 possessed better horizontal maneuverability, possessing a smaller turning radius of 260 m, the Bf 109 on the other hand had a turning radius of 320 m. The IK-3 also had a somewhat more stable armament installation, providing better accuracy during firing. As the pilots who flew on the IK-3 were not entirely accustomed to flying on modern airplanes, harsh landings were quite common. This necessitated that many IK-3 were often in workshops awaiting repairs of their landing gear units.
The IK-3’s Achilles Heel was its landing gear unit which was of poor quality. This led to a quite common breakdown of the landing gear during landings. This aircraft was damaged in this way a day before the outbreak of the war. The Germans would capture it and later, in 1942, send it to be scrapped. (http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ik3/)
The sixth produced IK-3 would be lost in an accident that happened on the 3rd of September 1940. During a mock dogfight with a Potez 25, pilot Anton Ercigoj lost control of the fighter and fell into the Danube river. The pilot was killed on the spot and the aircraft could not be salvaged. While it was not clear how the accident happened, it was speculated that it did occur due to the pilot being too tired from previous flights.
In War
Just prior to the outbreak of the so-called April war, from the 6th to 17th April 1941, between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis forces, only 6 IK-3 were combat-ready. The remaining 5 aircraft were awaiting repairs. Three were located at the Rogožanski workshop in Bežanijska Kosa, and two more at the Zemun Airfield. The war began with massive Luftwaffe bombing raids on vital military, communication, infrastructure, and civilian targets. The capital, Belgrade, was a primary target of strategic bombing and was majorly hit. The whole 6th Fighter Regiment, to which the 51st Fighter Group belonged, was tasked to defend Northern Serbia and parts of Croatia and Bosnia from any potential enemy attacks. The 51st Fighter Group reinforced the 102nd Fighter Squadron equipped with Bf 109 and was tasked with defending the Northern sector. Its primary defense point was the capital Belgrade.
The 51st Fighter Group was informed of a possible enemy attack almost an hour before it occurred. At 0645, the unit was informed of two approaching enemy aircraft formations. Five minutes later, all available IK-3s took to the sky to defend the capital. One aircraft, due to engine problems, had to abort the flight and went back to the base.
During the first engagement, some 5 to 6 enemy aircraft (at least one Ju 87) were shot down. One IK-3 was shot down and three more were damaged. Two of these were badly damaged and they were not used in combat after this point. The defenders were then left with only three operational IK-3 aircraft. Late that morning, another bombing raid was launched by the enemy. While only three IK-3 were available at this point, their attack was supported by the Bf 109s from the 51st Group. While the Yugoslavian fighters reported no losses, they managed to take down one Bf 109 and damaged two Ju 87. During the first day of combat, the Germans used nearly 500 bombers which dropped some 360 tonnes of bombs on Belgrade.
The following day, enemy activity came in the form of smaller formations that attacked specific targets. The Ik-3s once again saw action, managing to shoot down more enemy aircraft. While they received no losses, many aircraft were badly damaged by enemy return fire. For example, the IK-3 fighter piloted by Milisav Semiz received 56 hits. The engine itself received some 20 direct hits. While fully covered in engine oil the pilot managed to land safely at the Zamun airfield, the aircraft had to be written off. This unit was reinforced with one IK-3 of the second series. Due to heavy enemy activity, the unit was repositioned some 50 km away from Belgrade at Ruma. For the next few days due to bad weather, the IK-3 was not used. On the 11th of April, the Yugoslavian positions were discovered by a Me 110, which proceeded to attack the airfield. It failed to do any damage, but one IK-3 began a pursuit of it. Eventually, it managed to close in on it and shoot it down. Later that day, two IK-3s took to the sky and managed to shoot down two Ju 87s.
At 1700 hours, due to an enemy ground advance, it was decided to move the available units to Bosnia. The retreat was to commence on the 12th of April, but due to sudden enemy advances and poor weather, the evacuation could not be achieved. The unit commander and pilots agreed to burn down any surviving aircraft to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. This action basically marked the end of the IK-3 service with the RYAF.
Remains of the burn-down IK-3 at Ruma airbase. (N. Miklušev Maketar Plus)
In total both the 161st and 162nd squadrons reported some 15 air victories. These included two Ju 88, one Do 17, two Ju 87, two Bf 109, three Me 110, and one He 111. The remaining claims remain a mystery.
In German hands
The victorious Germans managed to capture a number of operational and damaged IK-3s fighters. Most were captured at Rogoarski repair workshops, with a few more at the Zemun airfield, all being abandoned. This included the IK-3 with serial numbers 2151 (which was actually the second prototype) 2152, 2153, 2157, 2158, 2160, and 2161. Most of these would be left exposed to the elements, near the capital Belgrade, until 1942 when they and many other captured aircraft were scrapped. At least one IK-3 was transported back to Germany. It is unlikely that it was used for testing, and some sources suggested but instead placed in the Berlin Aviation Museum. Its fate is unknown but likely lost when the museum was bombed by the Allies in 1944.
A captured IK-3 near the Capital of Belgrade after the April war. (http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ik3/)Many captured Yugoslavian aircraft were gathered at the Zemun airfield. There at least three IK-3s could be seen together with some Hurricanes and Caproni aircraft. Most if not all of these would be left exposed to the elements and finally scrapped in 1942. (N. Miklušev Maketar Plus)
Technical characteristics
The IK-3 was a low-wing, mixed-construction single-seat fighter. Its fuselage consisted of welded chrome-molybdenum tubes supported with wooden stringers, and covered in duralumin skin. The rear part of the fuselage was covered in plywood and canvas. The wings were mostly made of wood with some metal links added for better structural stability. The IK-3 wings were covered with birch plywood which was in turn covered in bakelite. The ailerons were made of metal, but covered with canvas. While the trailing edge flaps were made of duralumin, assembly was made using the same materials as the wings.
The IK-3 was powered by a 925 hp, V-12 Hispano-Suiza 12Y29 liquid-cooled engine. It used a Hamilton-type constant-speed propeller. The cooling airflow was adjustable by changing the angle of the grills located on the radiator intakes.
The canopy initially was made by using concave-convex side panels. These proved to be problematic as they distorted the pilot’s vision and were replaced with simpler flat sides. The instrument controls panel and command were directly copied from French designs. The first prototype and the later first-moved aircraft of the second series were only equipped with radios.
The IK-3 was designed as a low-wing mix construction single-seat fighter. (http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ik3/)
The landing gear was of a conventional design consisting of two front legs which retracted outwards, with the tail wheel being fully retractable. To provide better landing, the front landing gear units had shock absorbers. The IK-3 landing gear was of rather poor quality and it often broke down during landing, and led to many aircraft being constantly under repair.
Initially, the armament consisted of one 2 cm HS 404 cannon placed behind the engine, and two 7.7 mm M.31 Darne machine guns, positioned above the engine. This was used on the prototype for firing testing. Later production models were rearmed with one 2 cm Oerlikon M.39 cannon supplied with 60 rounds of ammunition. The 7.7 mm machine guns were replaced with two 7.92 mm Browning machine guns. The ammunition load for each machine gun consisted of 500 rounds.
The IK_3 was fairly strongly armed with one 2 cm cannon and two machine guns. The cannon is actually firing through the propeller center, which is visible in this photograph. (https://nasaborba.com/rogozarski-ik-3-ponos-srpskog-ratnog-vazduhoplovstva/ )
Production
Despite its advanced design, only one prototype and 12 aircraft would be built. This took an extended period of time to be completed from December 1939 to July 1940. While proving to be one of the better domestically developed aircraft, the RYAF was reluctant to order more IK-3 fighters as it was heavily dependent on imported parts.
Production Versions
IK-3 Prototypes – Two prototypes were completed
IK-3 – Production version
IK-3 II Series – One aircraft converted to this version
IK-3 powered by a DB 601 engine – Allegedly one aircraft was modified this way, but the evidence is lacking
IK-3/2 Series – Proposal for a two-seater trainer, none ever completed
Conclusion
Despite being a very capable design, the IK-3 saw only limited production. This was mainly the case due to many of its parts having to be imported, something that could not be easily done in war-torn Europe. When used in combat, despite the limited number of operational aircraft, they performed well, with claims for 10 enemy aircraft at the loss of only one IK-3. Ultimately they could do little to turn the tide of the war, and most were either captured or destroyed by their own crews to avoid being captured.
IK-3 Specifications
Wingspans
10.3 m / 33 ft 4 in
Length
8 m / 26 ft 3 in
Height
3.5 m / 10 ft 9 in
Wing Area
16.5 m² / 178 ft²
Engine
925 hp V-12 Hispano-Suiza 12Y29 liquid-cooled engine
Empty Weight
2.070 kg / 4.560 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
2.630 kg / 5.800 lbs
Maximum Speed
520 km/h / 325 mph
Cruising speed
400 km/h / 250 mph
Range
600 km / 370 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
9,400 m
Fuel
330 Liters
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
One 2 cm cannon and two 7.92 mm machine guns
Gallery
IK-3 Prototype – 1940IK-3 51.Grupa, 6.Lovacki Puk No.2158 Br.9 April 1941IK-3 161.Eskadrilla, 51.Grupa No.218 April 1941IK-3 161.Eskadrilla, 51.Grupa No.2159 Br.10 – April 1941Possible markings for captured IK-3 being tested by a German research unit
A diagram of the improved rocket interceptor. (Nevingtonwarmuseum)
When the Me 163B entered service, it was a unique aircraft by virtue of its rocket engine. It was used as a short range interceptor for German air defense, and while it could achieve extremely high speeds, its overall design left much to be desired. These faults included a highly restrictive view from the cockpit, a lack of retractable landing gear, and limited operational endurance. In order to address some of these issues, Messerschmitt engineers developed the Me 163C.
History
While the Me 163B Komet proved to be a remarkable design, it was quite dangerous to fly and there was plenty of room for improvement. In order to make the whole aircraft as cheap as possible, some limitations had been introduced. To save weight, the aircraft had rather small dimensions which, in turn, limited the fuel load that could be stored inside. This led to a limited powered flight time of fewer than 8 minutes. In combat operations, this proved to be insufficient, but there was little that the German engineers could do to improve this. Adding internal or external auxiliary fuel tanks was not possible given the design restrictions.
Me 163B rocket interceptor, accepted into limited service. (militaryimages.net)
The position and layout of the cockpit also offered a number of issues. Most importantly, it provided the pilot with a limited field of view behind his aircraft. Another issue was the lack of retractable landing gear. The Me 163 was instead forced to use a two-wheeled detachable dolly. This was intentionally done in order to reduce weight.
Once the aircraft was in the air, the dolly was jettisoned. There were accidents regarding this system when, for example, the dolly refused to be detached from the aircraft, or even worse, when it bounced off the ground and hit the aircraft from below. On landing, the Me 163 was to use a simple retractable landing skid, placed beneath the fuselage. After landing, the aircraft was immobile and became an easy target for enemy fighters. For this reason, a normal retracting landing gear unit was desirable, but once again for the same reason as the fuel load, this could not be implemented.
To redress the previously mentioned issues, engineers at Messerschmitt began working on an improved version, the Me 163C. It incorporated a longer fuselage, an improved cockpit, and had an engine with two combustion chambers. The development of this version likely started in late 1944 or early 1945.
Production and service
The precise development history, and how many aircraft of this version were built, are the subject of considerable speculation. The fact that there are no photographs of it complicates the matter further. Most sources mentioned that only a few incomplete airframes were built by the Germans. In some sources, for example B. Rose’s Secret Projects Flying Wings and Tailless Aircraft, it is mentioned that three prototypes were completed and flight-tested in early 1945. Source E. T. Maloney and U. Feist on the other hand, mentions that only a few pre-prototype airframes were built by the time the war ended in Europe. So there are two completely different accounts in the sources.
Technical characteristics
The Me 163C, like its predecessor, was designed as a high-speed, rocket-powered, swept-wing, tailless aircraft. Given its experimental nature and its late development into the war, not much is known about its precise technical characteristics. Its overall construction would probably be similar to the previous version, with its fuselage being built of metal, and possessing wooden wings. The semi-monocoque fuselage was longer and was now 7 m compared to the original 5.84 m length.
The Me 163C was to be powered by an improved Walter 109-509C or an HWK 109-509A-2 rocket engine. In the case of the first engine, it could generate a thrust of some 1.500 kg. An auxiliary HWK 509 rocket engine would be used to provide additional endurance once the aircraft reached its cruising altitude. The maximum speed of the Me 163C was estimated at 915 km/h while the operational range was 125 km.
While the introduction of retractable landing gear was desirable, the Me 163C was not to be equipped with one, but it still received some modifications in this regard. It was to have a fully retractable tail wheel located at the bottom of the tail assembly.
The cockpit was completely redesigned. It received a fully glazed bubble-type canopy. This offered the pilot a much improved all-around view. In addition, there were provisions for pressurization equipment.
The armament used on this aircraft is not quite clear in the sources. It would have consisted of either two 2 cm MG 151 with 100 rounds of ammunition for each cannon, two 30 mm MK108 cannons with 60 rounds, or less realistically, four 30 mm MK108 cannons with 40 rounds of ammunition.
Note the redesigned canopy, auxiliary engine, and extended fuselage. (www.walterwerke.co.uk)
Cancelation of the project
While the precise development of this aircraft is unclear, most sources agree on the reasons why it was not adopted, beyond the obvious end of the war. Basically, there were two main reasons for this. First, was the lack of landing gear. The Me 163C still had to take off and land using the take-off dolly and the landing skid. This was far from perfect as the dolly, as mentioned, could potentially damage the aircraft itself after release, and the use of a sliding skid made the aircraft immobile after landing. Lastly, the auxiliary engine only extended the operational flight by an additional 1-minute, which was deemed insufficient. It was for these reasons that the Me 163C would not be adopted, and instead the development of the much improved Me 163D was prioritized.
Conclusion
Given its experimental nature, it’s late introduction, and the disagreement between sources, it is quite difficult to make the final decision on the general properties of this aircraft. Given that the project was canceled by the Germans, it is likely that besides a few experimental prototypes, no actual production aircraft were be assembled. Regardless it served as a stepping stone for the next version, the Me 163D, which was built, but it too would not be adopted for service due to the end of the war.
Me 163C Specifications
Wingspans
32 ft 2 in / 9.8 m
Length
23 ft 1 in / 7 m
Height
3 m / ft in
Wing Area
220 ft² / 20.41 m²
Engine
Walther HWL 509C-1 liquid fuel rocket engine with a max thrust of 1.500 kg
Empty Weight
4,850 lbs / 2,200 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
11,680 lbs / 5.300 kg
Maximum Speed
570 mph / 915 km/h
Operational range
78 mil / 125 km
Engine endurance
12 minutes
Maximum Service Ceiling
40,000 ft / 12,200 m
Crew
One pilot
Armament
Two 20 cm MG 151 (100) / Two 30 mm MK108 cannons 60
Me 163C
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. and Medicman11
Ported by Marko P.
Illustrations by Carpaticus
Source:
D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemcaka. Beograd.
E. T. Maloney and U. Feist (1968) Messerschmitt Me 163, Fallbrook
M. Emmerling and J. Dressel (1992) Messerschmitt Me 163 “Komet” Vol.II, Schiffer Military History
J.R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1990) German AIrcraft of the Second World War, Putnam
W. Spate and R. P. Bateson (1971) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Profile Publications
M. Ziegler (1990) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Schiffer Publishing
D. SHarp (2015) Luftwaffe secret jets of the Third Reich, Mortons Media Group
M. Griehl (1998) Jet Planes of the Third Reich, Monogram Aviation Publication
B. Rose (2010) Secret Projects Flying Wings and Tailless Aircraft, Midland
The enigmatic and misunderstood ‘Messerspit’ test aircraft lies at the center of a number of theories, its original purpose largely forgotten. (google.uk)
Introduction
Few aspects of the Second World War have been so misunderstood, misrepresented, and pushed into near mythology as the Luftwaffe’s test programs. Their discussion in less academic circles is dominated by rampant speculation from those who indulge in sensationalist historical stories. With respect to that, one might be surprised to find the bizarre photographs of a Spitfire Mk. VB with a Daimler Benz engine to be one of the few remaining genuine artifacts from an obscure Luftwaffe test program. With so little information publicly available, naturally, the odd plane’s origins, purpose, and performance have been drowned in a sea of speculation. However, while it is often erroneously claimed that the so-called ‘Messerspit’ was some bizarre attempt to combine the best aspects of the two planes, in reality, the aircraft was converted to settle a technical argument which had been raging in Luftwaffe research and development circles since 1942.
Engine Trouble
The history of fighter engine development is one of ceaseless improvement in power and weight which are largely achieved through improving methods of design, production, and the use of better materials. In the case of the Luftwaffe, it was not long until the chase for power was subsumed by the need to develop engines which could more reliably run on inferior materials. Following the end of the battle of Britain in the autumn of 1940, the Luftwaffe soon found itself short of several key materials necessary in building heat and corrosion resistant alloys, most notably nickel, tin, and, later, chromium and cobalt. Nearly all of these materials were available only in limited quantities across Europe, with tin, used in heavy duty piston bearings, being almost totally unavailable. This was further exacerbated by the transition to synthetic gasoline and lubricants, whose properties differed enough from their petroleum counterparts to cause trouble.
In order to cope with the restricted access to these materials, Sparrmetall economy alloys were introduced to ensure the aviation industry would have access to enough materials, albeit ones which would cause a slate of problems. The Bf 109E had nearly finished its production run before the transition to the new materials began and was soon being phased out by the new F model in late 1940, and there the trouble began. The new production DB 601N engines in these would make use of high octane C3 synthetic fuel. However, the engine was neither designed nor properly tested around this, and had instead been developed around the petroleum based C2. Beyond this, its nickel-poor, and thus corrosion prone exhaust valves, coupled with its more fragile piston and crank bearings, would soon create a web of issues that would take weeks to sort out.
A cut away of the troublesome DB 601N engine. (Flight Magazine)
The C3 fuel reacted chemically with the 109F’s rubber bag tank, and, if stored in the tank long enough, would ruin the anti-knock qualities of this fuel. When run on this degraded fuel, these engines soon suffered absolutely horrible mechanical problems, chief of which were violent vibrations which could thoroughly wreck them. The C3 fuel could also cling to the chamber walls after failing to thoroughly disperse through the fuel injectors, and then escape into the oil system. In most other aircraft, the fuel would simply boil away, but the Daimler Benz engine ran cooler than most, and thus the fuel would eventually dilute the oil until it failed to act effectively as a lubricant, resulting in increased wear or catastrophic engine failure in the worst cases.
Expecting the issue to be one of a mechanical nature, the fuel and bag were not seen as the obvious culprit. Rather, the engine mount, the air intake position, and the cooling system were suspect. This guess would be partially correct in the case of the intake. Eventually, they tracked the fuel degradation to the tank and adjusted the fuel injectors. The unreliable engine was then phased out for the DB 601E, which ran on the more common B4 fuel and was installed in the subsequent Bf 109F-3 and 4 models. Almost all Bf 109’s built after this point were run on this more common, lower performance fuel. Prior to this, the F series were restricted from running at emergency power and were at a considerable handicap in combat for much of 1941 and 42. Regardless of this impediment, many Luftwaffe fighter squadrons often found these their most successful years.
The Bf 109G initially provided no real advantage over its predecessor, and its unreliable engine would prove a particular liability in less than ideal settings, like this G-2 in Finland. (asisbiz)
Problems would resurface again when it came time to re-engine the 109 with the new DB 605A. Developed from the DB 601E, the new engine was to be a marked improvement, with its larger displacement, improved supercharger, and higher compression ratios promising a considerable increase in power. However, new material restrictions would sharply curtail the use of molybdenum, tungsten, and especially cobalt. Supplies of which practically dried up when Germany’s largest source in French North Africa had been lost after Operation Torch. Problems new and old emerged, the most egregious of which were exhaust valve failures, which were due to the low nickel content of the components, resulting in rapid corrosion and cracking. There were also lubrication failures, which were made worse after the switch was made from ball to sleeve bearings. The first Gustavs would enter service in early 1942, though they soon had their performance limited, off and on, to prevent engine failure rates from reaching unmanageable levels. As a result of these limitations, the Gustav was initially slower than the plane it was supposed to replace.
Problems were made even worse when the materials in the engines at Daimler Benz’s testing and development facilities did not match those on the production line, leading to considerable delays in destructive testing. It would eventually receive the improvements to allow it to use its emergency power setting, as exhaust valves were chrome plated and the oil scavenge system was improved, but it was clear that any major future increase in engine performance was only possible after a costly and extended development cycle. The DB 605A would finally be released from all restrictions in August of 1943, almost two years after the first Gustav left the factory.
The Blame Game
The DB 605’s flaws would be magnified in the light of a cascade of engine failures. The most publicized incident involved the loss of ace pilot Hans Marseille, who was lost in action after his engine caught fire and he died trying to escape his aircraft. (asisbiz)
Continued development of the Bf 109 was in a very precarious place, as performance improvements were expected without any major increases in engine power. These goals were largely unachievable for the time being, and thus most of those involved would try placing the fault with some other party when the unrealistic plans fell through. Willy Messerschmitt would place the blame with Daimler Benz, whose engines, he claimed, had cooling requirements that were too high, and thus required the use of larger, drag inducing radiators. In part, he was correct in that Daimler Benz’ engines ran cooler, though in doing so, he seems to have neglected issues with the plane’s radiators, which were supplied by other firms. The Bf 109 was fitted with radiators that operated under considerably lower pressures and temperatures than those used on Allied fighters, and were thus very robust, but less efficient. To his frustration, Messerschmitt was unable to increase the efficacy of the system without more efficient, high pressure radiators, which his suppliers were unable to provide.
In 1942, Messerschmitt began an increasingly adversarial correspondence with Fritz Nalinger of Daimler Benz on the state of his engines, and would request that he permit the engine to run at higher temperatures. In a letter sent in December of that year, he would draw a comparison between the ailing DB 605A and the powerful Merlin 61, then in service with the RAF. He placed particular emphasis on the higher operating temperatures and its use of radiators that were 55% smaller than those in service on the Bf 109. He would leave out that British aircraft designers were working with high pressure radiators which were far more efficient than those on his own aircraft.
At a conference with Göring at Carinhall in March of 1943, Messerschmitt would openly lay blame on Daimler Benz and Nalinger, largely reiterating the points from his correspondence. Nalinger would defend the firm by stating they had put their primary focus in designing the engine in reducing the frontal area and maintaining a high power to weight ratio, but he largely side stepped Messerschmitt’s Merlin 61 comparison by extolling the promise of the still in development DB 628. At the end of the meeting, it had become clear that both men would need to work against one another to defend their own reputations. By then, the Bf 109G had been flying for well over a year under strict engine power restrictions.
The Hybrid
To try and prove Messerschmitt wrong, Daimler Benz planned a simple and clear demonstration. They would install one of the firm’s engines in a Spitfire to show that the DB 605A did not require a large radiator to run. The Spitfire in question was EN830, a Mark Vb which had crash landed in the German occupied Jersey Islands in November of 1942. Its pilot, Lieutenant Bernard Scheidhauer, crash landed his plane after being struck by ground fire during a rhubarb raid over Northern France and a fuel leak prevented him from returning to Britain. After ditching his plane, Lieutenant Scheidhauer attempted to destroy the aircraft when it became clear that he was not on a British held channel island, however, there was insufficient fuel to burn the Spitfire. Scheidhauer was subsequently sent to Stalag Luft III, in Poland. He was among those murdered by the Gestapo after the legendary mass escape.
A standard Spitfire Mk Vb. (wikimedia)
The plane was subsequently taken in hand by the Luftwaffe, repaired, and used for trials at the Rechlin test center. It was later pulled from storage for Nallinger’s tests sometime in late 1943. The plane was re-engined with a DB 605A, though much of the rest of the aircraft was left as it was, save for the radio and armament, which were stripped out. All of the work was done at the Daimler Benz Untertürkheim factory in Stuttgart, after which it was delivered to the Luftwaffe for testing at the nearby airfield at Echterdingen. It was no simple effort to re-engine an aircraft, but it seemed to have been managed well. Testing began in the spring of 1944, with the report on the aircraft being finished May 10th.
The modified aircraft retained much of the same equipment, save for the weapons, which were removed. The avionics were likely all replaced with German alternatives. (Valengo)
The plane flew quite well and proved Nallinger right in that the DB 605A could work using a significantly smaller radiator area. It also made for an interesting comparison with the Bf 109’s radiators, as it was found that the high pressure model fitted to the Spitfire Mk V was 50% smaller but provided only 4% less cooling capacity. The tests also showed that the ‘Messerspit’ was about 25 km/h faster at lower altitudes than the original Spitfire Mk Vb thanks to its fluid coupling supercharger, which proved more efficient at low altitude. Between 4 and 6 km in altitude, the standard Mk V proved faster, before its single stage supercharger again proved less capable than the fluid coupling type on the DB 605A. The hybrid aircraft proved to be between 10 to 20 km/h slower than a Bf 109G-6 at all altitudes save for above 10.5 km, where the ‘Messerspit’ held a slightly higher speed and service ceiling. The experimental aircraft also out climbed the Bf 109 at all altitudes, however, this data is not particularly useful as the plane was unarmed and thus free of several hundred kilograms.
Overall, the experiment produced mixed results, but proved Messerschmitt right. On one hand, the DB 605 ran effectively throughout the tests using radiators significantly smaller than were found on the Bf 109G. On the other, the type of high pressure radiator used on the Spitfire was not something that could be replicated, owing to numerous material and industrial limitations. In the end, it was Daimler Benz’s requirements that the DB 605 run cooler, and the inability of German radiator manufacturers to produce high temperature, high pressure models, that kept the Bf 109 from achieving greater performance. Following the end of the tests, the aircraft was placed in storage and was likely written off after an 8th Airforce bombing raid on the airfield at Etcherdingen on August 14, 1944.
The Ultimate Fighter?
Unfortunately, due to this unique aircraft’s strange appearance and obscurity, it has been at the center of a number of bizarre theories. Perhaps the most popular of these theories is that the Germans were trying to build a plane that blended the strengths of both the Spitfire and the Bf 109. Some go as far as to claim that the Germans had managed to build something superior to both. This first theory can immediately be written off. By early 1944, neither the Bf 109 nor the Spitfire were considered state of the art, or at the forefront of design in either country. They simply would not be considered an acceptable starting point for any new aircraft design.
However, beyond that, the ‘Messerspit’s’ performance was not particularly impressive for its day. In the official tests, it was compared to both an early Spitfire Mk Vb, which was thoroughly obsolete by the end of 1943, and a Bf 109G-6, which was mediocre by the standards of early 1944. Even then, it compared rather poorly with the G-6, possessing only a higher service ceiling while being considerably slower at almost all but the most extreme altitudes, where it held a slim advantage. To add to this, this low altitude performance gap with the Mk Vb only exists when its Merlin 45 engine is limited to +9 lbs of manifold pressure. When that engine was cleared to run at +16 lbs in November 1942, the Mk V exceeded the DB 605A powered ‘Messerspit’ at altitudes below 5.5 km in linear speed by a margin similar to the Bf 109G-6.
Spitfire Mk IX, Fw 190A-8, Bf 109G-6, P-51B (world war two photos, asisbiz, National Archives)
Aircraft (Manifold pressure)
Top Speed at Sea level (km/h)
Low blower/Speed (km/h)
high blower/Speed (km/h)
Maximum Output (hp)
Spitfire LF Mk IX Spring 1944 (18 lbs)
540
617 at 3.2km
655 at 6.7km
1720
Spitfire Mk VB Mid 1942 (9lbs)
460
N/A (single stage, single speed)
605 at 6.1km
1415
‘Messerspit’ Late Spring 1944 (1.42 ata)
488
N/A (variable speed SC)
610 at 6.5km
1454
Bf 109G-6 Mid 1943 (1.42 ata)
510
N/A (variable speed SC)
620 at 6.5km
1454
Bf 109G-6AS Early 1944 (1.42 ata)
506
N/A (variable speed SC)
653 at 8.3km
1415
Fw 190A-8 Early 1944 (1.42 ata)
558
578 at 1.5km
644 at 6.3km
1726
P-51B-15 w/ wing racks Early 1944 (67” Hg)
586
656 at 3.1km
685 at 7.2km
1720
*Values for the Spitfire Mk IX and Mustang indicate use with 100 Octane fuel and not high performance 150 octane, which became fairly common after mid-summer 1944 amongst the strategic fighter forces based in England. Likewise, Bf 109G-6 and Fw 190 performance does not reflect the use of MW50 or higher power clearances, respectively, as they were not in widespread use at the time of the tests. Unrelated, the P-51B-15 made for 627 km/h at 6.5 km with wing racks.
Compared to other contemporary frontline fighters of its day, its performance was far less impressive. The contemporary Spitfire Mk IX, with its Merlin 66 running at 18 lbs manifold pressure, outstripped the hybrid aircraft at all altitudes by a much wider margin than the Bf 109G-6. A further comparison with the Fw 190A-8 and P-51B-15 also demonstrates the continued extreme disparity in linear speed against more modern fighters. While the aircraft did demonstrate a very high climb rate, approximately 21 m/s at sea level (a Spitfire Mk IX made for 23 m/s), this can be explained by the lack of any weapons aboard. The Mk Vb was initially equipped with 2 Hispano 20 mm cannons and four .303 caliber Browning machine guns. The absence of these, and other pieces of equipment, reduced its weight by over 300 kg compared to the Mk Vb used in RAF and Luftwaffe performance trials. This resulting lightening of the aircraft, and the subsequent loss of drag with the removal of the protruding wing cannons, more than explains its high climb rate. The plane’s performance overall was very modest, and frankly did not compare well to any of its contemporaries. In the end, despite being a fusion of the Bf 109 and Spitfire, it compared rather poorly to either one.
Another theory presupposes that the plane was part of an effort to actually produce Spitfires for the Luftwaffe. The foundations for nearly all of these claims rest with an often misunderstood quote from the battle of Britain. When Reichsmarschall Herman Göring asked fighter group commander Adolf Galland if there was anything he needed, Galland responded “I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron”. Galland would later clarify in his memoirs that he meant this rhetorically. In truth, he wanted a plane which could serve better as a bomber escort, something he felt the RAF’s Spitfires were better suited to, with their better visibility and low speed handling, than his own Bf 109’s, which he felt were more capable on offensive patrols. Beyond that, reverse engineering and then manufacturing an aircraft which was designed around the industrial standards and practices of another country was totally unfeasible. It also seems rather implausible that anyone would go to the trouble of building an airplane on the basis of an off hand remark made three years earlier.
Construction
A fore view of the experimental plane. (frankenplane)
The ‘Messerspit’ was built using the airframe of a later production Spitfire Mk Vb. The Mk V differed from earlier models in that it used a heavier engine mount to keep up with increases in output from new engines. It was otherwise much the same as the Mk I’s and II’s which preceded it. These planes were fairly innovative during the interwar period, being all-metal and using a semi-monocoque structure, though these features were soon made commonplace in the earliest days of the Second World War.
The fuselage contained the engine, behind which sat the fuel tank, the firewall, and then the cockpit. The tail boom was of a semi monocoque construction and contained the oxygen bottles, and radio. Aboard the ‘Messerspit’, the engine mount had to be reworked to accommodate a DB 605A, the fuel tank was likely changed to fit the new volume, and the instruments and most of the electronics were swapped for German versions. The radio appears to have been removed entirely. In all likelihood, Lt. Scheidhauer most likely smashed the instrument panel when he knew his plane was in enemy territory. Beyond that, they would have needed to convert the voltage to the German standard, and simply replacing all the equipment would have proven easier than modifying all of the existing components. There were also some instruments, like the DB 605’s RPM governor readout, that would not have had a British analogue.
The wings were elliptical with a large surface area, which granted the aircraft an excellent rate of climb and low wing loading. On the ‘Messerspit’, the inboard pair of 20 mm cannons and the outboard four .303 caliber Browning machine guns were removed and the ports were faired over. Most importantly, the radiator under the starboard wing was connected to the DB 605A engine’s oil and coolant lines. The wings were otherwise unchanged. Generally speaking, the better wheel brakes, greater visibility out the bubble canopy, and its wider wheel base would have likely made this a far more pleasant plane to fly than a Bf 109G.
A DB 605A mounted in a preserved Bf 109G-6 (wikimedia)
The engine was a Daimler Benz DB 605A, an inverted, 35.7 liter, V-12. The reason for it being inverted was to ensure the propeller shaft was as low as possible. This would enable a low mounted, centerline cannon to fire through its center without its recoil seriously jeopardizing the aircraft’s stability. They were able to achieve this using direct fuel injection, which was fairly common practice in German aviation by the start of the war, though rare elsewhere. The engine also possessed a high level of automation, which let the pilot manage the engine and most of its associated systems just through the throttle lever. These were essentially a series of linkages between components that adjusted one another as the pilot increased or decreased engine power. As such, it did not possess a true engine control unit, as was used in the BMW 801. Perhaps most impressively, the engine used a single stage, centrifugal supercharger which used a hydraulic coupling for variable transmission. The fluid coupling supercharger automatically adjusted itself barometrically, and was easily the most impressive feature of the engine, allowing it to smoothly adjust for boost as the plane climbed or descended. This allowed the aircraft to avoid the engine performance gaps between certain altitudes that were otherwise encountered with engine superchargers with multiple stages and fixed speed settings. These gaps were the result of running the supercharger at fixed, unnecessarily high speeds for a given altitude.
The engine used B4 87 octane aviation gasoline, as most of the C3 high performance stock was dedicated to squadrons flying Fw 190s. In comparison to the Merlin 45, which was originally in the Spitfire Mk.Vb, it produced 150 bhp more at sea level thanks to the fluid coupling supercharger, which saw lower pumping losses compared to the Merlin 45. The Merlin 45’s supercharger was geared to medium altitude use, and allowed the engine to outperform the DB 605A between approximately 4 and 6 km.
A DB605A mounted in a Bf 109G, cowling removed. (Norwegian air museum)
In spite of these innovative features, the engine’s output was fairly modest for its day. It produced up to 1475 PS, though this was only possible after several major modifications, such as replacing the exhaust valves for chrome plated sets and modifying the oil scavenge system by adding additional pumps and a centrifuge to improve flow and reduce foaming, respectively. Between 1942 and late 1943, the high power settings on almost all of these engines were disabled in order to keep failure rates manageable. The supercharger too would eventually lag behind its contemporaries, as despite its smoothness, the size of the blower and lack of a second stage proved a serious bottleneck. This was most apparent in comparison to the two-stage, intercooled models of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Some later models would mount an enlarged supercharger, taken from the larger DB 603, though the upgrade was not universal. Nearly all would be equipped with an anti-knock boost system in the form of MW50 in the weeks after the ‘Messerspit’s’ tests, which would boost output up to 1800 PS, though the corrosive mixture of methanol and water decreased the engine’s lifespan. Engines with the larger supercharger were designated DB 605AS, those with the boost system being DB 605M, and those with both were 605ASMs. These upgrades gave late war Bf 109’s a good degree of performance after nearly three years of mediocrity. Neither of these upgrades were present on the ‘Messerspit’.
The engine measured 101.1 × 71.9 × 174 cm, had a bore and stroke of 154 mm (6.1 in.) x 160 mm (6.3 in.), and weighed 745 kg (1,642 lb). The aircraft was equipped with the prop spinner from a Bf 109G, used the same supercharger scoop, and was likewise fitted with a two meter VDM propeller. The engine cowling of this aircraft seems to have been built for requirement.
Spitfire Mk V with DB 605A
Specification
Engine
DB 605A
Engine Output
1475PS
Gross Weight
2740kg
Maximum speed at Sea Level
488 km/h
Maximum speed at Critical Altitude
610 km/h
Max climb rate at sea level
21 m/s
Max climb rate at FTH at ~6.5km
11 m/s
Crew
Pilot
Wingspan
11.23 m
Wing Area
22.5 m^2
Conclusion
Another view of the experiment (Aviationhumor)
In the end, the ‘Messerspit’ was built to serve a single, fairly mundane purpose. It was never meant to set records, achieve any kind of technical breakthrough, or somehow be an unbeatable synthesis of two planes that had already seen their day in the sun. Above all, it was never meant to see combat nor produce a plane that would. Its only battlefield would be a corporate one.
Illustration
The Spitfire Mk V mit DB 605A, better known as the “Messerspit”.
Sources:
Primary:
Bf 109G-2 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand Juni 1942).Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. November 1942.
Bf 109G-4 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand August 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. September 1943.
Bf 109G-2 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand August 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. October 1943.
Daimler-Benz DB 605 Inverted V-12 Engine. National Air and Space Museum Collection. Inventory number: A19670086000.
Flugzeug Flugleistungen Me 109G-Baureihen. Messerschmitt AG Augsburg. August 1943.
Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe: Normaljäger Fw 190A-8. Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. November 1943.
Leistungen Me 109G mit DB 605 AS. Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg. 22, January 1944.
P-51B-15-NA 43-24777 (Packard Merlin V-1650-7) Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 104/150). 15 May, 1944.
Spitfire V Steigleitungen. Daimler Benz. Versuch Nr. 1018105428. Baumuster DB.605A. May 1944.
Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 (Merlin 45) Brief Performance Trials. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. June 1941.
Spitfire Mk. VC AA.878 (Merlin 45) Climb, speed, and cooling tests at combat rating. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. 25 November, 1942.
Spitfire L.F. IX. RAF Aircraft Data Card, 2nd Issue. 28, October 1943. The performance of Spitfire IX aircraft fitted with high and low altitude versions of the intercooled Merlin engine. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. March 1943.
USAAF 8th Airforce Bombing Raid Records.
Secondary:
Scheidhauer, Bernard W.M. Traces of War.
Douglas, Calum E. Secret Horsepower Race: Second World War Fighter Aircraft Engine Development on the Western Front. TEMPEST, 2020.
C. Douglass, personal communication, November 25, 2022.
Price, Alfred. The Spitfire Story. Silverdale Books. 2nd Edition, 2002.
Radinger, W. & Otto W. Messerschmitt Bf 109F-K Development Testing Production. Schiffer Publishing. 1999.
Spitfire EN 830. Lostaircraft.com
Galland, Adolf. The First and the Last. Bantam. 1979.
Empire of Japan (1943) Experimental Glider Tank – One Mock-up Model
While tanks can provide excellent offensive firepower, they can’t always be easily transported to where they are needed. In the case of Japan during WW2, this was usually achieved by using ships and rail lines to transport them to where they were needed. Facing difficult terrain and disrupted shipping routes, the concept of a flying tank became a promising concept to the Japanese military hierarchy. By transporting tanks via the air, they could potentially offer benefits to the airborne troops, who were often left without proper heavy support. An exploration of this concept would lead to the creation of the Maeda Ku-6 tank glider.
The Concept of Airborne Operations
The American M22 Locust light airborne tank. (Source: Wikimedia)
The practice of dropping airborne troops behind enemy lines offers many tactical advantages, as they can attack weak points and enemy supply lines. This in turn would force the opposing side to redistribute its own forces away from the front to deal with this problem. On the other hand, airborne forces often lack proper artillery or armor support, making them vulnerable to well-equipped and directed enemies. Some nation armies responded to this by employing glider transportable light field artillery and even recoilless, high caliber guns. Transporting armored vehicles proved a more daring task to implement. Most tanks could not be easily carried inside a transport plane or even parachuted due to their weight and size. The American and British responded by developing lightly armored and armed tanks, such as the M22 Locust or the Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, designed an auxiliary glider contraption that would be used to transport a heavier tank, the Antonov A-40. This principle would also be tested by the Japanese Army during the war, which led to the creation of the Maeda Ku-6 project.
Antonov’s flying tank was unsuccessfully tested by the Soviets. (Source: Wikimedia)
Airborne Japan
The Japanese began the development of cargo glider designs for military use in 1937. Following the successful use of gliders by the Germans during their conquest of the West in May 1940, the Imperial Japanese Army began developing new gliders in June 1940. In response to this, the Imperial Japanese Navy began its own project soon after. In Japanese terminology, these were designated Kakku (English: to glide).
Both the IJA and IJN had and used parachute infantry units. It is important to note that these were relatively small units that were rarely employed in their intended role. For these reasons, their equipment was more or less the same as that of ordinary infantry formations. They saw the most active service during the fight for the Dutch East Indies in 1942. These were mainly used to capture various vital strategic points, such as airfields or weakly defended positions deep in the enemy’s rear line. Following the end of this campaign, the Japanese did not use paratrooper units in their primary role.
Japanese paratrooper IJN units had two notable deployments: in the successful Battle of Manado from 11th to the the12th January 1942, on Celebes Island, also known as Sulawesi, and in the Battle of Timor from19th February 1942-10th February 1943, where IJN paratroopers suffered heavy casualties. Their IJA counterparts were used more as a commando unit and were only ever airdropped during the invasion of Sumatra in February 1942.
Map of Japanese expansion by 1942. Some of these offensive operations also included the use of parachute units, albeit to a limited extent. (Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/389350330265435193/)
In 1943, attempts were made to increase their firepower, though, it is unclear how much impact the experiences from the airborne operations of February 1942 had. It was proposed to use specially designed glider tanks that could be flown to their designated target and thus provide necessary firepower to otherwise weakly armed paratrooper formations. In addition, this vehicle could be airlifted to any other theater of war without a need for them to be transported by ships, which were by this time, seriously endangered by the US Navy.
The Maeda Ku-6
The project was initiated by the Army Head Aviation Office in collaboration with the Fourth Army Research Center. The first drawings of this new design were soon ready and were allocated to the Maeda research center for the construction of a working prototype. In the early stage of development, the new tank was to be transported by a specially designed glider. But as Maeda was unable to create a glider that could transport a light tank, and so another solution was needed. Maeda engineers suggested another approach to this problem. As no glider could be developed to carry a tank, maybe the tank itself could be modified to use a glider.
While Maeda was responsible for the glider development, the design of the tank was given to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It is unclear if it was a completely new tank design or if Mitsubishi reused some of the existing vehicles that were in service. According to the Japanese Army and Navy Aircraft Complete Guide, the Type 98 light tank was used for the project. This tank was intended as a replacement for the Type 95 Ha-Go, but this was never achieved as it was built too late and in very small numbers.
The Type 98 light tank on which the Ku-6 was allegedly based. (Source: Wikimedia)
Name of the Project
According to E. M. Dyer, the new light tank was designated as So-Ra (Sora-Sha), which could be translated as the “sky” or “air” tank. The whole project would be designated Kuro-Sha, with the Ku and Ro, meaning the number ‘6’, taken from the Ku-6 glider designation. Lastly, the Sha stands for “tank”. An older source, J. E. Mrazek, mentions that the tank design originated in late 1939. According to Mrazek, the tank was initially designated ‘special Tank project 3’. It received the Sora-Sha designation before being changed to Kuro-Sha (English: Black Vehicle).
Technical Specification
The Ku-6 was designed as a tank transport glider. While not specified, it is likely that the Ku-6 would have been made out of wood. Due to the losses of the original documents, not much is known about its overall design. Over the years, historians based on available information devised two different designs of how this contraption may have looked.
The tank itself, due to its nature of use, had to be as light as possible. This means it would have been lightly armored and armed. The So-Ra’s total weight was slightly above 3 tonnes and would have been operated by two crew members. The driver was positioned in the front of the vehicle. He was also responsible for piloting the whole glider. Behind him, in the turret, was the commander, who was responsible for operating the main armament. This small crew would have greatly affected the tank’s overall performance. Given the limitation in size and weight, adding more crew members was not possible. In normal circumstances, the driver’s vision ports would have been small and protected. In this case, he would need to have a good and unobscured overall view of his surroundings. For this reason, he was to be provided with three large viewports. The armor was to be less than 12 mm thick. While its armament consisted of one 37 mm gun, along with a machine gun, a possible installation of a flame thrower was also considered.
The wooden mock-up of the Japanese airborne tank project. (Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/Maeda-Ku-6-t41347)
As the tracks would cause massive drag during take-off, specially designed sleds would be attached to them to facilitate an easier take-off. According to the first proposals, the tank itself was designed to act as an improvised glider fuselage and the wings and the tail assembly would be attached to it. The tank crews would be provided with wired controls installed inside the vehicle in order to pilot it. In front of the tank, a towing cable would be added to connect it to the glider tug.
In the first version, the wings were to be attached to the So-Ra sides with the tail assembly to the rear. (Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/Maeda-Ku-6-t41347 https://imgur.com/a/xaLcNcO)
The second version is completely different. Above the tank, a larger wing with a twin tail boom was added. These two components would be connected by struts. In both cases, once the tank hit the ground, the wing assemblies could be easily removed, which meant that the tank could immediately go into action with relative ease.
The second version was completely different in appearance. (Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/Maeda-Ku-6-t41347)
It is unspecified which material would be used during the whole wing assembly. Given its rather late introduction and Japanese limited resources at this point, wood would likely be used. With the whole wing assembly, the Ku-6 had a length of between 12.8 to 15 m (depending on the source) with a width of 22 m and a height of 3 m. The wing area was around 60 m².
The maximum towing speed at heights of 4 km was 250 km/h. The maximum speed that could be achieved during the gliding flight itself was 174 km/h. The decent speed at 4 km altitude was 2.8 sec/m while at lower heights closer to the ground it was 2.6 sec/m. It is important to note that these are projected figures.
Testing and Project’s Fate
Due to the slow pace of work, the first operational glider prototype was completed in 1945. The tank itself was not ready by this time. As a temporary solution, a wooden mock-up of it with ballast was intended to be used instead. The prototype was taken to the sky by a Mitsubishi Ki-21 medium bomber. Almost from the start, the Ku-6 (according to E. M. Dyer the second variant was used) proved to have poor overall flight characteristics, and the pilot had a poor view. Lastly, as it was specially designed to carry the So-Ra, its transport capacity for other vehicles was very limited. The IJA officials quickly became disinterested in the Ku-6, focusing instead on the Ku-7 general purpose glider which looked more promising. Another aspect that we must take into account was the poor state of the Japanese Army in 1945. By this point, it was so battered and depleted, that undertaking an airborne operation was an impossible task. In the end, the Ku-6 would be terminated and the fate of the single prototype is unknown, but it was either scrapped or lost during Allied bombing raids.
The prototype was taken to the sky using a Mitsubishi Ki-21 aircraft. (Source: Wikimedia)The Ku-7 was a more orthodox glider design. While they were built in small numbers, they would be mainly used for testing and were not used operationally by the Japanese Army. (Source: https://listverse.com/2015/09/29/10-goofy-warplanes-of-world-war-ii/)
Conclusion
The Ku-6 seems like an interesting concept that could have offered a number of benefits to the Japanese in the early years of the Pacific theater. By 1943, when the project was initiated, the war situation for Japan had rapidly deteriorated, with the Allies pressing on all sides. In reality, the Ku-6 proved to be too flawed in design. It was difficult to control and the pilot had poor visibility. Given that it was a glider, it would make an easy target for Allied fighters which, by its construction time, had almost complete air supremacy.
Specification Maeda Ku-6
Wingspan
22 m / 72 ft 1 in
Length
15 m / 42 ft
Height
3 m / 9 ft 8 in
Wing Area
60 m² / 645 ft²
Maximum Takeoff Weight
4.200 kg / 9.260 lbs
Maximum Gliding Speed
174 km/h / 108 mph
Maximum Towing Speed
250 km/h
Crew
Two pilot/driver and the commander /gunner
Maeda Ku-6 hypothetical side wing configurationProposed version with the top wing construction.
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. & Medicman11.
Illustrated by Godzilla
Sources
D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Japan, Beograd
E. M. Dyer (2009) Japanese Secret Projects Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945, Midland
J. E. Mrazek (1977) Fighting Gliders of World War II, ST Martin Press
S. J. Zaloga (2007) Japanese tanks 1939-45, New Vanguard
Tomio Hara’s Japanese Tanks 1978
Japanese Army and Navy Aircraft Complete Guide
L. Ness (2015) Rikugun Guide To Japanese Ground Forces 1937-1945, Helion and Company
During the early 1930’s, the Royal Yugoslav Army Air Force (RYAF) was mainly equipped with old and obsolete biplane fighters. The introduction of a new fighter was desirable, but its development was hampered by the resistance of leading military officials, and pilots who still believed in the superiority of the biplane. Once Ikarus commenced production of the new high-wing IK-2, it readily demonstrated its superiority over the biplanes of the prior generation.
History of Ikarus
Ikarus was one of the first Yugoslavian domestic aircraft manufacturers. It was formed in October 1923 by a group of businessmen from the city of Novi Sad. The aircraft development department was led by Josip Mikl and Dimitrije Konjević. Josip Mikl had previously been involved in the development of hydroplanes for the Austro-Hungarian Empire during World War I, while Dimitrije Konjević was a former high-ranking officer in the Yugoslav Naval Air Force. The company saw success during the twenties and received a series of new orders for the production of aircraft, mostly for training. In 1927 thanks to increasing revenues, Ikarus opened a new production plant located in Zemun near the capital of Belgrade. It was heralded as a great success when it received a large production order for some 200 license-built Potez 25 aircraft in 1932.
Ikarus crest. Source: Wiki
The IK-2 Development
In early 1930, the main fighter of the RYAF was the aging Avia BH-33 biplane fighter. In the hopes of replacing it with a new domestically-developed fighter, two aircraft engineers from Ikarus, Ljubomir Ilić, and Kosta Sivčev began working on a new design. Interestingly this was a private venture and not ordered by the state, which was unusual.
While initially intended to be a low-wing fighter with retracting landing gear, due to fierce opposition from many Air Force officers and pilots who favored the old biplane design, this new concept had to be abandoned at an early stage of development. The two engineers then decided to proceed with a high-wing fighter design that was to be powered by a strong engine. A wooden mock-up was completed in 1933 which would be tested using a wind tunnel in Paris. After the first drawings and testing of the mock-up were completed, the result of this work was given to the RYAF officials in September 1933. After an analysis of all available data, a green light was given for the project, and Ikarus was instructed to build the first prototype.
At this early stage, the new fighter received the IK-L1 designation. As was common in Yugoslavia at the time, new aircraft designs usually received a designation based on the designer’s initials. In this case, I stand for Ilić and K stands for Koča which was Kosta Sivčev nickname. The L1 represents L for Fighter (Lovac in Yugoslavian) and the number 1 indicates the first prototype. The first fully functional prototype was completed by September 1934.
While the IK-L1 prototype was scheduled to be flight tested shortly after the first prototype was fully completed in September 1934, due to numerous delays it wasn’t conducted until April 1935. Unfortunately for the Ikarus and its design team, the first prototype had a very short and abrupt service life. As it was being prepared for the first series of test flights, an upswell of opposition, mainly from Captain Leonid Bajdak and other pilots, vehemently objected to the introduction of such a radical new design, arguing that the biplanes were superior. Regardless, Bajdak was chosen to fly test the IK-L1 prototype.
The maiden flight was made on the 22nd of April, 1935 at an airfield near Belgrade in Zemun. The first day of flying was rather successful, with the prototype exhibiting generally good performance. The test the following day produced largely similar results, but upon landing, some of the wing’s fabric skin was noted as slightly loose. Regardless, it was agreed that the testing should carry on. On the 24th of April, while flying the prototype, Captain Bajdak performed a series of unplanned aerobatics. At a height of 1,000 meters, he made a sharp dive, followed by an abrupt climb. This of course caused massive stress on the wing, which led to part of it breaking off the aircraft. Bajdak lost control and had to bail out. While he survived without injury, the IK-L1 prototype crashed and was completely destroyed.
According to Captain Bajdak in his report, he wrote that the IK-L1 had good controls and was pleasant to fly. The most obvious issues were the lack of visibility, due to the high-wing design. Another of his objections was the long take-off of some 300 meters. This was a surprisingly fair report from a pilot who professed such serious misgivings about this new design.
Work on a New Prototype
After an analysis of the IK-L1 wreckage, it was discovered that the accident was primarily due to poor build quality. As Captain Bajdak’s report was insufficient to make a final conclusion, Ikarus officials decided to produce another prototype. This time great care was taken to ensure the overall quality of its construction. Another change made was that the aircraft was built using mostly metal construction, with the exception of the aft fuselage and tail. The second prototype was designated IK-02 and took about ten months to be built, completed in June 1936. A new test pilot was chosen, Flight Lieutenant Janko Dobnikar. The series of flight tests were carried out at the newly opened test center stationed at the Zemun airfield. Early flight tests were quite satisfactory, with the IK-02 reaching a top speed of 435 km/h.
In 1937 the IK-02 prototype was tested in a mock dogfight against the Hawker Fury, the RYAF’s then-current biplane fighter. After a series of 16 such exercises, the IK-02 easily beat the Hawker Fury in almost every category of flight performance, speed, climb rate, and turning ability, among others. Frustrated by the success of the new fighter, Captain Bajdak and Lieutenant Dobnikar frequently got into fierce quarrels. It ended with Lieutenant Dobnikar challenging Captain Bajdak to a flight contest. The conditions of the contest were as follows: both pilots had to reach a height of 4 km over Zemun, after which they were to race a distance of 140 km from Belgrade to Novi Sad and back. The competition was meant to end in a mock dogfight between the two. Lieutenant Dobnikar IK-02 easily won the first two rounds of the race. The mock dogfight was fierce but Captain Bajdak’s Fury was constantly overtaken by the superior IK-02. In the end, he had to admit defeat and thus concede that the IK-02 had bested the biplane. Unfortunately, the IK-02 would be lost when it was hit by lightning during a flight. As the aircraft began to catch fire, the pilot bailed out. While he survived, the aircraft crashed and burned, completely destroying it.
Limited Production
Despite both prototypes being lost to separate accidents, their overall performance was deemed acceptable and a small production order was given. In November 1937 Ikarus was instructed to produce 12 IK-2 aircraft. The first six were delivered in December 1938, with the remaining aircraft arriving by February the following year. After a brief period of adjustment and training, the IK-2 was allocated to the 6th Fighter regiment stationed in Zemun. In October 1939, the IK-2 was redeployed to Zagreb and given to the 4th Fighter Regiment. Just prior to the Yugoslavian entry into World War II, the 4th Fighter Regiment would be repositioned to Bosanski Aleksandrovac close to Banja Luka. It was part of the 107th Squadron with the task of protecting the 8th Bomber Regiment, consisting of some 23 Bristol Blenheim bombers.
Despite being superior to other fighter designs that were in service with the RYAF, it too would be replaced by the later developed IK-3 fighter. Source: www.destinationsjourney.com
Technical Characteristics
The IK-2 was a high-wing, single-engine, almost all-metal fighter aircraft. Its fuselage was constructed of a chrome-molybdenum steel tube frame which was then covered with duralumin skin. The rear section of the fuselage close to the tail unit was covered with fabric.
The semi-cantilever wings were built using the same principle as the fuselage. The difference was that the first prototype used a fabric skin. The second prototype and the production aircraft used a duralumin skin. Two larger struts were placed beneath each wing. The tail unit was of a standard design, with one horizontal and two vertical stabilizers.
Close-up view of the IK-2 wing struts construction. Source: N. Miklušev Maketar Plus
The fixed landing gear consisted of two larger wheels and a smaller tailwheel. To help during landing the front landing gear was equipped with pneumatic shock absorbers. These were also fitted with brakes. The tailwheel was steerable. Initially, the front landing wheels were covered in a protective cover, also known as ‘spats,’ which were later removed.
The cockpit was fully enclosed. Interestingly its sliding canopy actually slid down into the fuselage sides. Quite similar to those used on ordinary cars. Due to the high wing design, the pilot’s visibility was severely limited. To somewhat remedy this issue two small glass windows were placed on the cockpit fuselage sides to help during landing.
The IK-2 cockpit was fully enclosed, but its sliding canopy slides down into the fuselage sides. Source: N. Miklušev Maketar PlusTo help the pilot cope with the cockpit’s fairly limited visibility, two smaller glass windows were placed on the cockpit fuselage sides. Source: N. Miklušev Maketar Plus
The two IK-2 prototypes were powered by an 860 hp Hispano-Suiza V-12 engine. It was equipped with an adjustable pitch three-blade propeller. The fuel tanks were located just aft of the engine in front of the cockpit. The production aircraft was powered by an 860 hp Avia HS engine. This engine was built under license in Yugoslavia. Overall performance of the aircraft did not change much, as the engine swap was mainly done to facilitate ease of maintenance.
The IK-2’s armament consisted of two 7.7 cm Darne Mle 1930 machine guns, and one 20 mm Hispano HS-9 cannon. The machine gun’s ammunition load consisted of 250 rounds each, and 60 rounds for the cannon. The cannon fired through the center of the propeller shaft, while the two machine guns were placed on each side of the front of the fuselage. Some IK-2’s had their cannon replaced with a 7.92 Browning machine gun. But by the time of the war, all available aircraft were equipped with the 20 mm cannon.
According to D. Babac, the two Darne Mle 1930 machine guns were at some point replaced with two 7.92 Browning machine guns. In addition, this author notes that the machine guns were placed above the engine compartment and not on the sides.
In War
When the war broke out on the 6th April 1941 the 4th Fighter Regiment had only 8 fully operational aircraft ready for service. Four IK-2’s suffered from mechanical breakdowns and were undergoing repairs at Zemun and Zagreb workshops. Author Z. Rendulić mentioned that only 10 IK-2 were available.
Two IK-2 (With 31 and 34 white painted markings) from the 4th Fighter Regiment were taken at Borongaj airfield in Zagreb in 1940. Note the long groove for the machine gun located above the exhaust pipes. Source: N. Miklušev Maketar Plus
In addition, the 4th Regiment had 18 to 20 Hawker Hurricanes, making this unit among the most up-to-date in the RYAF. On the first day of the war, the IK-2 was mainly used for reconnaissance. The following day, two IK-2s tried to bring down a German reconnaissance aircraft but failed to do so. One IK-2 would be lost, possibly due to mechanical breakdown. The first proper combat engagement of the IK-2 occurred on the 9th of April when during reconnaissance, a group of some 23 Bf 109 were spotted. While one IK-2 had to land to refuel, the second one provided a delayed action in hopes of giving the 4th Fighter Regiment enough time to muster its available fighters. Shortly after, some 5 or 6 IK-2 and 8 Mk.I Hurricanes joined the fight. The German fighters were attacking in well-coordinated groups, protecting each other, while the Yugoslav fighters entered the battle in a somewhat disorganized manner. After a fierce skirmish that lasted some 10 minutes, the Germans broke off and retreated back to their base of operations in Austria. The Germans lost two aircraft, while the Yugoslavians lost three, one IK-2 and two Hurricanes. In the next few days, engagements with the enemy were rare, but the IK-2 managed to shoot down one Ju 88, in addition to two other Luftwaffe aircraft.
The 4th Regiment would meet its fate on the 14th of April when the pilots decided to destroy their remaining aircraft in order to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. Despite their attempts, the Germans managed to capture one slightly damaged IK-2 belonging to the 4th Fighter Regiment. Four additional aircraft were acquired when the repair workshops in Zagreb and Belgrade were captured. Some internet sources noted that up to 9 aircraft were captured by the Germans, but this seems highly unlikely and that the number of 5 is probably correct.
While a number of IK-2 were lost due to mechanical failures, the majority would be destroyed by their own crews to prevent them from being captured by the Germans. Source: www.destinationsjourney.com
In NDH Service
Following the defeat of Yugoslavia, the Independent State of Croatia, a German puppet state was created. In June 1941 a request was made to the Germans to provide over 50 captured Yugoslavian aircraft including the IK-2, in an attempt to create a Croatian Air Force. The Germans were more than willing to give the most obsolete aircraft including four IK-2. The fate of the fifth aircraft is not clear. It may have been cannibalized for spare parts, or even sent to Germany for evaluation, but due to a lack of precise sources, we can not be sure. The Croatian Air Force regularly had problems acquiring spare parts for the Yugoslavian aircraft, as these were either destroyed, sabotaged, or commandeered by the Germans. Surprisingly the IK-2 remained in service for a few years until 1944 when they were finally withdrawn from service. They were rarely used by the Croats who often complained about its poor visibility. Sadly no IK-2 survived the war, with all likely being scrapped.
Production Versions
IK-L1 – First prototype aircraft that was lost in an accident only a few days after initial trials were conducted
IK-02 – The second more successful prototype
IK-2 – Production version
Operators
Kingdom of Yugoslavia – Eight were used during the April War.
Independent State of Croatia NDH – Used four aircraft supplied by the Germans, their service was limited.
Conclusion
The Ikarus IK-2 was one of the earliest Yugoslavian attempts to develop the first proper fighter aircraft and was intended to replace the aging biplanes then in service with the Yugoslavian Royal Air Force. While it proved to possess superior performance to biplane fighters, it too was quickly made obsolete by the introduction of new low-wing fighter aircraft. Regardless, the IK-2 was a sound design, which proved that the Yugoslav aviation industry, despite its small size, was capable of producing a viable mono-wing fighter aircraft.
The Ikarus’ powerful engine and impressive armament paved the way for Yugoslavia’s later advanced monoplane, the IK-3. Its performance in key areas gave it an advantage over the Hawker Fury. The IK-2 saw combat against Germany’s advances in the early 1940s before it was ultimately superseded by more advanced aircraft.
IK-2 Specifications
Wingspans
11.4 m / 37 ft 4 in
Length
7.88 m / 25 ft 8 in
Height
3.84 m / 12 ft 6 in
Wing Area
18 m² / 59 ft²
Engine
One 860 hp Avia HS12YCrs
Empty Weight
1.500 kg / 3.300 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
1.875 kg / 4.130 lbs
Climb Rate to 5 km
In 5 minute 25 seconds
Maximum Speed
450 km/h / 280 mph
Cruising speed
250 km/h / 155 mph
Range
700 km/ miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
12,000 m / 39.370 ft
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
Two 7.7 mm machine guns and one 2 cm cannon
Yugoslav IK-2 107 Eskadrila, 34 Grupa, 4 Lovački Puk No.2104Yugoslav IK-2 107 Eskadrila, 34 Grupa, 4 Lovački Puk No.2108IK-2 in NDH service
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
Illustrated by Ed J.
Sources
T. Likos and D. Čanak (1998) The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War, Nacionalna i Sveučilišna Knjižnica Zagreb
V. V. Mikić (2000) Zrakoplovstvo nezavisne države Hrvatske 1941-1945, Target Beograd
Č. Janić i O. Petrović (2011) Kratka istorija vazduhoplovstva u Srbiji, Aero Komunikacije
D.Babac Elitni vidovi Jugoslovenske vojske u Aprilskom ratu.
Z. Rendulić (2014) Lovačka Avijacija 1914-1945, Teovid
B. Dimitrijević, M. Micevski and P. Miladinović (2016) Kraljevstvo Vazduhoplovstvo 1912-1945
Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1952) Experimental Glider – 1 Prototype Built
The experimental Ikarus 453MW glider. [airwar.ru]Following the end of the Second World War, the newly created Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) initiated a series of experimental aircraft design programs. These were intended for testing and gaining valuable experience in new jet propulsion technologies. From this initial work, an unusual new glider project, designated Ikarus 453MW, would emerge. Little is known about the purpose of this glider and its defined role.
The Unusual Glider
After the war, the once-proud Yugoslavian aviation industry was in ruin. Most of its firms had been either looted or destroyed, and many of the pre-war designers and engineers had been killed by the Germans during their retreat. The Allied bombing of Belgrade also inflicted further damage to the Yugoslavian industry’s infrastructure. However, as the Yugoslav Partisans began liberating the country, some production facilities were slowly restored, as was the case with Ikarus in late 1944. The initial steps of the revitalization effort of the shattered Yugoslavia aviation industry were undertaken in late 1945 by the newly established Yugoslavian Air Force Command. A series of aircraft design teams were set up with the aim of creating a base for the new air force.
By the early 1950’s the overall situation changed to the extent that the Yugoslavian Army officials were ready to test various new technologies and designs. During this time, the Generalna Direkcija Vazduhoplovne Industrije GDVI (Directorate General of the Aviation Industry) led by Dragoljub Bešlin produced a series of experimental aircraft intended to test new design concepts. In 1952, work on an unusual inverted gull “M” shamed wing design began. The design team was also supported by the engineer Levačić. He was an experienced designer who worked with the British Royal Air Force during the war .
In the 1950s a series of experimental aircraft were produced including (from the left to the right side) Ikarus 452-2, 451M jet aircraft, and two prone-operated aircraft the Ikarus 451 and 232 acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com
The precise reasons for its commissioning and its history are not clear, but it appears that the Yugoslav army officials wanted to test a design that could offer a small and fast ground attack aircraft. When the design was ready, Ikarus was asked to construct the first glider prototype. If the glider design proved to have merit, the next step would be to equip this aircraft with a fully functional jet engine. It was designated the Ikarus 453MW, but it is also sometimes referred to as Р-453MW or GDVI-9. To avoid confusion this article will use the Ikarus 453MW designation. The MW designation was used as the wings highly resemble these letters.
Technical Characteristics
The Ikarus 453MW was a single-seat, mixed-construction experimental glider. Its fuselage was made of a metal base covered with metal sheets. The wings and tail assembly were made out of wood. The most noticeable characteristic of this glider was the use of unusual inverted gull m-shaped wings. The inverted gull wing design was used during the war by famous aircraft such as the German Ju 87 Stuka Japanese Aichi B7A and the American F4U Corsair. The Ikarus 453MW wings consisted of four parts. The part where the wings folded down was separated by two round-shaped gondolas. The wings were equipped with flaps and ailerons. The rear tail unit consisted of a simple rudder on the vertical stabilizer and did not have horizontal stabilizers.
The retractable landing gear consisted of four wheels. Two smaller wheels were located inside the fairly large wing gondolas. In the lower part of the fuselage, an additional and larger pair of landing wheels was located.
The cockpit was placed to the front of the central fuselage. The canopy was made of plexiglass but besides that, little is mentioned of the cockpit design.
While the experimental glider was unpowered, if successful it was planned to add two unspecified jet engines inside the wing gondolas.
The side and top drawing of the Ikarus 453MW. The wing design while unusual was not used on any other Yugoslavian aircraft design. Source: www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rsThe Ikarus 453MW had a landing gear consisting of three landing wheels units. Two smaller ones are located in the wing gondolas and one in the central fuselage. Source: www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs
Testing and Cancellation of the Project
The Ikarus 453MW prototype was completed and ready for testing by November 1952. On the 28th of November, the first test flight was made by Metodije Bojković. The test flight was undertaken at the Batajnica Airfield near the capital of Belgrade. Unfortunately for all present, an accident occurred. During take-off, the glider veered off the runway. While the pilot was unharmed the glider was damaged and the test flight had to be temporarily postponed.
After repairs were made, additional aerodynamic wind testing was undertaken to test the overall design shape. As these proved satisfying, another test flight was to take place. The Ikarus 453MW was towed up to 3 km of altitude by an Ikarus 213 and then released. While the flight itself was without problems, another accident occurred during landing. After analysis of available data, it was concluded that the pilot was not to blame as he was not properly instructed on how to fly the Ikarus 453MW which had an unusual wing design. Following the second accident, an order was given by the Yugoslav Army officials to cancel the Ikarus 453MW project.
A Nuclear Carrier
Author N. Đokić (Projektat Jugoslovenskog Strategijskog Bombardera) gives us an interesting reason for the Ikarus 453MW design. It is a generally lesser-known fact, but during this time, the JNA was highly interested in developing nuclear weapons. The JNA’s involvement in Yugoslavian nuclear research development is to this day still not completely clear. This source mentioned that according to some secret JNA documents, the Ikarus 453MW was intended to be an aircraft that could quickly deliver a nuclear warhead to enemy targets. For this reason, the final aircraft was to be able to carry one 2-ton nuclear warhead at a speed of 850 km/h. The operational range was to be some 2,000 km, and the maximum service ceiling was 11,000 meters. In the meantime, a contingent of F-84G jet aircraft was acquired from the United States. As these were capable of carrying nuclear weapons there was no need to further proceed with the Ikarus 453MW project.
Whether there is any truth to the nuclear weapons plans is difficult to determine. The JNA and the Yugoslavian political hierarchy were publicly known to be quite interested in developing nuclear capability. Of course, this would demand a massive amount of resources, highly trained personnel, and well-developed industrial capacity, all of which Yugoslavia simply lacked in these early years of its existence. Its industrial capacity and infrastructure were almost completely destroyed during the war, and it would likely, if at all possible, take decades of commitment and investment to actually build a nuclear weapon. Hypothetically, even if Yugoslavia was able to develop nuclear weapons in the following decades, all research and experience gained on the Ikarus 453 would be outdated by that time. In conclusion, it could not be ruled out that the JNA had overzealous and ambitious plans to test the concept of using a swift aircraft to deliver this weapon. In reality, Yugoslavia simply lacked any means to actually produce such weapons. Despite this, testing this unusual wing design, albeit in a limited manner, at least provided Yugoslav aircraft engineers with additional experience.
Surviving Model
While unfortunately the Ikarus 453MW glider was not preserved, a small model replica is on display at the Nikola Tesla Serbian Aviation Museum near Belgrade.
The Ikarus 453MW was quite an interesting design mostly due to its unusual wing shape. Its overall history, especially the trials is somewhat obscure. While the prototype was involved in two accidents, this was not the fault of the design but rather poor communication with the pilot, who was not informed of its flight characteristics.
Specification Ikarus 453MW
Wingspan
7.5 m / 24 ft 7 in
Length
5.85 m / 19 ft 2 in
Height
2.01 m / 6 ft 7 in
Maximum Takeoff Weight
1,720 kg / 3,792lbs
Crew
One pilot
Armament
None
Experimental Ikarus 453MW
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
Illustrated by Carpaticus
Sources:
Č. Janić and O. Petrović, Kratka Istorija Vazduhoplovstva Srbiji, Aero komunikacije
B. B. Dimitrijević (2012) Jugoslovensko Ratno Vazduhoplovstvo 1942-1992, Medijski Centar Odbrane
N. Đokić Projektat Jugoslovenskog Strategijskog Bombardera
The line-up of the Savoia Marchetti S.79C and the Fiat Br.20A (last two) in Istres before the start of the race on 20 August 1937. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]The Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 was a three-engine medium aircraft developed by Savoia-Marchetti, also known as the Società Idrovolanti Alta Italia (SIAI) later SIAI-Savoia. Initially developed as a fast passenger transport aircraft, it was later adapted for use as a racing aircraft, and later as a medium bomber. From 1936 until 1939 it broke several records, both in the civil and military spheres with the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force), also becoming the fastest medium bomber in the world at the time. It was one of the most produced aircraft by Italy during the Fascist dictatorship and was used by 12 different air forces, both civil and military and remained in service until 1951 as a bomber for the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force), and until 1959 as a bomber for the Lebanese Air Force.
History of the Project
During the 1930s, the Italian Air Force was among the world’s leading air forces, with cutting-edge manufacturing and designers.
Italo Balbo, a fervent fascist and Air Marshal, managed to break several records aboard several seaplanes of the Società Idrovolanti Alta Italia (Northern Italy Seaplane Company). In 1928 he made a bold request for the time, asking SIAI for an aircraft capable of taking off from Italy and reaching any location in Libya carrying 8 to 10 passengers. All in the shortest possible time.
It must be emphasized that the Italian fascist regime tended to support domestic efforts in any field or industry in order to bolster publicity and popular support, which is why Italo Balbo required a fast plane, to be able to outcompete French and British air transports on Africa-bound routes to Libya, Somalia, and Eritrea.
In early 1933, Australian nobleman Sir Mac Pherson Robinson created a challenge to reach Melbourne from London in a single intercontinental flight. In 1933 the SIAI decided to compete for the Mac Robinson Cup, and at the same time to satisfy Balbo. Seasoned engineer Alessandro Marchetti (1884-1966) was put at the helm of the project.SIAI put so much emphasis on the project, that Marchetti’s initial blueprints for the new S.79 were dated February 21, 1933.This cutting-edge project featured low wings, retractable landing gear, Handley Page flaps and three Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 engines of 900 hp each.
Subsequently Marchetti was forced to modify the blueprints, first with three FIAT A. 59 RC engines developed by the American Pratt & Whitney R-1690, finally ending up on Piaggio P. IX R.C. 40 engines of 610 hp developed from the French Gnome-Rhône 9K ‘Mistral’.
History of the Civilian Prototype
In May 1934, the last modifications to the project, and design of the first prototype were completed. The new plane was identified as S.79P or Passeggeri ( Passenger). It received the serial number 19001 and codename I-MAGO.
Through August and September of 1934, various parts of the aircraft were produced in SIAI factories in Sesto Calende in Lombardy, and were sent to the Novara Air Base in Piedmont . After being reassembled on October 8, 1934, and with SIAI test pilot Adriano Bacula and engineer Merizzi at the controls, the 19001 prototype made its first test flight.
The first Savoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype, the I-MAGO with Piaggio engines at Cameri in the winter of 1934. [stormomagazine.com]The aircraft proved promising during the tests. There were excellent results as the aircraft had excellent handling, was easy to fly, and had a comfortable passenger cabin. On the other hand the engines, with only 610 hp at maximum power was not enough for SIAI and Alessandro Marchetti.
Piaggio sent one of its technicians during flight tests, engineer Risaliti, to try to increase the power of the engines, but he failed, managing to bring the aircraft to only 360 km/h at an altitude of 100 meters, and 390 km/h at 3,000 meters, while carrying 3 tons of ballast.
These results were impressive for the time, the Junkers Ju 52 for example had a top speed of 290 km/h, but not enough for a modern plane like the S. 79.
These problems forced the Italian technicians to change the engines with more powerful and reliable ones.
This decision was taken also because the Piaggio P. IX R.C. 40 engines led to two different incidents. The first occurred on 28 October when they attempted a record Novara-Rome route which had to be canceled due to engine failures and the plane returned to Novara.The second accident led to the fire of the engines which fortunately was shut down before the prototype was destroyed.
SIAI therefore decided to remove the Piaggio engines in February 1935, and replaced them with the 650 hp Alfa Romeo 125 RC.35, developed from the British Bristol Pegasus.
Due to the larger diameter, the engines received a new cowling, and finally, on April 5, 1935 Bacula and Merizzi took the re-engineered prototype into the air again.
The new tests yielded very favorable results and the plane claimed several records, the first was to be the first three-engine civil transport to break 400 km/h, and the second to travel from Novara to Rome (500 km) in just 70 minutes, which they accomplished on May 10, 1935.
In Rome, Adriano Bacula had the opportunity to familiarize some Italian pilots on the S. 79. Interestingly a delegation of French aviators led by Minister of the Air Denain with the aces Mermoz and Rossi was in the Italian capital. The French pilots admired the new three-engine plane for its modern design and maximum velocity.
Among the Italian aviators who tested the aircraft there were Maggior Biseo and his colleagues, elites of the 1st Experimental Center who expressed much praise for the Chief of Staff of the Regia Aeronautica, General Valle, on the new vehicle.
Returning to Novara to receive some modifications, such as increased range, on May 26, 1935 the S. 79 was back in Rome with all the required changes including 2 new tanks in the wings for a total of 820 liters of fuel.
The aircraft was registered by the Royal Air Force MM. 260 (Matricola Militare /Military Serial Number) and assigned on June 14 to the 1st Experimental Center.
On August 1, 1936 General Valle flew from Rome to Massawa, Eritrea in just 12 hours of actual flight with a stopover in Cairo for refueling, and returned to Italy 4 days later.
On October 3, 1935 the Kingdom of Italy start the invasion of the neutral Ethiopian Empire to colonize it. The Savoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype was deployed as liaison plane by General Valle.
The second flight was made on January 6, 1936 when the plane carried General Valle, Biseo, Tondi as well as technicians and specialists Gadda, Ghidelli and Bernazzani.
During the representative trip to Ethiopia which ended on January 18 in Grottaglie, Puglia, the plane traveled 15,000 km proving to be very fast and efficient.
The prototype, MM. 260, was assigned to the Experimental Center but was employed by the 12° Stormo Bombardamento Terrestre (12th Ground Bombing Wing), and was modified to carry 6 100 kg bombs. It was tested on 20 May 1936 by Lieutenant Colonel Biseo and Captain Lippi on the Furbara shooting range.
The tests were repeated with captains Paradisi and Moscatelli of the 12° Stormo who demonstrated that the aircraft was an excellent platform for bombing.
Bomber Variant
A pair of Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79M flying in formation over Sicily during the Second World War. [Wiki]In December 1935, SIAI-Savoia proposed a military version of the S. 79 powered by the powerful Gnome-Rhône 14K Mistral Major 14 cylinders with a output of 725 hp at 2,000 rpm, hence the name of the prototype S. 79K. However, the General Staff of the Regia Aeronautica rejected the idea of powering their bombers with foreign engines, and ordered 24 S. 79Ms (M for Militare / Military) to be equipped with Italian-made engines.
Schematic showing the differences between the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C and the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79M. [Facebook]
S.M. 79 Racing Aircraft or Medium Bomber?
From the first batch of the S.M. 79M, 5 aircraft were modified during production to be used in the civil field, and initially renamed Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 83C, and then returned to the designation Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C for Corsa (Racing).
The Savoia-Marchetti flown by pilots Tondi and Moscatelli
This variant flew without armament, the observer gondola and bomb bay also lost its characteristic hump to increase the aerodynamics of the fuselage.
The autopilot system was then enhanced, the on-board instrumentation adjusted, the door on the left side replaced by a smaller hatch above the wing, and its range was increased by adding tanks instead of the bomb bay for a total of 7,000 liters of fuel.
Other improvements concerned the compressors which, when upgraded, allowed the use of 100 octane petrol Also the transceiver system was replaced with a Telefunken model of greater power and reliability. The propellers were substituted with new variable pitch propellers produced by the French Ratier. New larger radiators were added to better cool the engines and finally, the landing gear was fitted with tires capable of withstanding the maximum weight of the plane fully loaded.
This version was created to participate in the tender organized by the French Aero Club for August 1937 which was to fly to the Istres (Southern France) – Damascus – Le Bourget (near Paris) route for a total of 2,900 km.
For the race it was planned to involve a Caproni Ca. 405 ‘Procellaria’ and two FIAT B.R. 20 but due to delays the Ca. 405 could not participate and the SIAI-Savoia produced a sixth S.M. 79C.
Flying the six aircraft were all pilots of the 205ª Squadriglia da bombardamento “Sorci Verdi” of the 12° Stormo Bombardamento Terrestre, the only Italian pilots who had received a pilot’s license for this aircraft.
Apart from the eight Italian aircraft, there were four French aircraft, a Bloch M.B.160, a Farman F.223, a Caudron C-640 and a Breguet 470 Fulgur, the only English one, the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet.
All took off from 1725 hrs on 20 August 1937, the first plane to land in Damascus was the I-FILU after 6 hours and 51 minutes at an incredible speed of 426.42 km/h.
Partial ranking in Damascus
Pilots
Aircraft Name
Racing Number
Qualified
Average Speed
Biseo and Mussolini
I-BIMU
I-5
Terzo
Cupini and Paradisi
I-CUPA
I-11
Secondo
415 km/h
Fiori and Lucchini
I-FILU
I-13
Primo
426.42 km/h
Lippi and Castellani
I-LICA
I-7
Ottavo
352 km/h
Rovis and Trimboli
I-ROTR
I-12
Quinto
Tondi and Moscatelli
I-TOMO
I-6
Quarto
The partial ranking podium was all Italian, in fact in Damascus five to six of the S. 79Cs arrived before the other aircrafts, the sixth and seventh were the FIAT B.R. 20s with an average speed of 299 km/h and 382 km/h.
I-LICA had problems with the constant pitch of the right propeller forcing the drivers Lippi and Castellani to travel the Istres-Damascus route for another six hours with only two engines.
The ninth plane to arrive in Damascus was the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet with an average of 356 km/h while the first French plane landed with an average speed of 305 km/h.
During the stop, the planes refueled and fixed the propeller. Due to bad weather it was decided to change course for the return and to fly in formation, thus loading an additional 500 liters of fuel.
One of the six S. 79Cs refueled at Damascus, though unfortunately it’s impossible to determine which one it is. In the background the French four-engined Bloch M.B.160 is visible. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]During take-off, one of the two FIAT B.R. 20 experienced rudder damage while the unfortunate I-LICA ended up hitting a pothole on the runway with the left wheel, breaking the landing gear and yawing violently to the left and making take-off impossible.
One hour after departure, the I-TOMO reported that it had a deficiency of 2,000 liters of fuel, while I-ROTR reported that it had to land in Ronchi due to excessive fuel consumption.
It was therefore decided to have the three remaining SM-79s arrive in Paris in formation. The plan was about to succeed, in fact I-BIMU sighted I-FILU and the I-CUPI but due to the lightning storms masking the transmissions, they could not make radio contact.
Biseo and Bruno Mussolini then decided to overtake the other two S.M. 79 to be recognized and make the formation, but when they reached the Alps they had to climb to 6,500 meters. However in doing so, they were forced to reduce the pitch of the propeller, and during the movement the central propeller went to the minimum pitch and jammed.
The two pilots then decided to land in Cameri where there were technicians who could repair their Ratier propellers. However, after a careful examination, during which the plane was refueled, the two pilots were informed that the propeller problem could not be repaired quickly. It was therefore decided to bring the central propeller to maximum pitch and the plane that had stopped for about 30 minutes took off again towards Paris.
The I-ROTR was unable to reach Ronchi due to lack of fuel and had to land in Pula where, after refueling, it was unable to restart because the electrical circuit of the starter magnet of the central engine had been damaged by hail.
Having repaired the fault, the plane continued the next morning to Bourget and was classified in 8th and last place.
The I-TOMO was unable to reach Ronchi and, again due to bad weather, had to land at the Lido of Venice where it ran aground, as the field was reduced to a quagmire by torrential rain, but thanks to the joint efforts of the airport staff and crew, the aircraft was able to leave after refueling.
The two FIATs also had to land due to problems.
Despite the bad weather and the unsatisfactory reliability of the propellers, at Le Bourget there were three S.M. 79s in the first three positions. The I-CUPI arrived at 1547 hrs on the 21st and circled up to 1602 hrs before running out of fuel, waiting in flight for the I-BUMU as the victory of Benito Mussolini’s son would have been a great benefit for the fascist propaganda. Then it was the turn of the I-FILU which landed at 1617 hrs, and finally at 1637 hrs Biseo and Mussolini arrived who, despite the stop, took a significant third place.
Four ground crew members ran to the I-11 S. 79C piloted by Cupini and Paradisi. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]Fourth was the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet which landed at 1701 hrs; fifth the Fulgur Breguet at 1737 hrs; then came the Bloch 160, but having started much earlier than the I-TOMO which arrived at 2002 hrs it was ranked seventh, while the I-TOMO was sixth. The others were all withdrawn or unclassified.
Final ranking in Paris
Pilots
Aircraft Name
Racing Number
Qualified
Average Speed
Biseo and Mussolini
I-BIMU
I-5
Third
Cupini and Paradisi
I-CUPA
I-11
First
350 km/h
Fiori and Lucchini
I-FILU
I-13
Second
Lippi and Castellani
I-LICA
I-7
Unqualified
Rovis and Trimboli
I-ROTR
I-12
Eighth
tondi and Moscatelli
I-TOMO
I-6
Sixth
On 29 August from 1500 hrs to 1530 hrs all the Corsa type planes and the I-MAGO, which had been brought to Paris to witness the triumph of the other S.M. 79 returned to Italy at the Littorio Airport.
From Damascus, however, on 22 August, the organization of the return of the I-LICA to Italy began. The plane was disassembled and the fuselage, engines, tailings and systems were recovered and sent to Beirut, Lebanon and embarked on a merchant ship bound for Italy. The wing, not transportable by road, and other material, was sold in Damascus.
The victory was celebrated in Italy as overwhelming as both the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C and FIAT B.R. 20A were bomber aircraft adapted to racing aircraft while British and French aircraft were specially developed aircraft for air racing.
Italian pilots and ground crew members that participated in the race near the I-ROTR plane. Source: [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]Despite the victory there were, especially abroad, those who criticized the planes, claiming that the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C would not have been able to participate in the New York – Paris (race which was canceled in favor of Istres – Damascus – Paris).
The front page of the French newspaper Paris-Soir with the news of the Italian victory [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]SIAI brochure celebrating the victory of the Istres – Damascus – Le Bourget race [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
The Decisive Test: Rome – Dakar – Rio
It was decided for various reasons to make a second record setting flight with the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C. This was mainly to disprove some articles that appeared in newspapers and magazines of the sector of foreign nations that had stated that the S.M. 79 were:
“expressly built for a vain policy of prestige and therefore unsuitable for military uses, difficult to maneuver, excessively loaded, too delicate: in short, devices unable to withstand comparisons of practical use with similar foreign ones”
The French newspapers accused the Savoia-Marchettis saying that they could never win in a Paris – New York race due to limited range.It was also decided to test the possibility of transporting passengers and letters from Italy to South America with land based planes.The 3 S.M. 79Cs, I-BIMU, I-FILU and I-CUPA were taken and modified by SIAI-Savoia technicians, Direttorato Generale Costruzioni Aeree or DGCA (General Directorate of Aeronautical Construction) and the aeronautical military engineers.
The changes concerned the replacement of the propellers with the classic SIAI-Savoia propellers, a complete overhaul of the engines, an enlargement of the fuel fillers to reduce refueling time, improved radio, navigation aids, and autopilot.
The maximum take-off weight of the new version, now renamed Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79T for Transatlantico (Transatlantic) was now nearly 14,000 kg, 3.5 tons more than the S.M. 79M.
After numerous test flights and tests carried up to December 1937, it was decided that the flight could be done.
The three aircraft were reassigned to different teams of pilots, Biseo and Paradisi took the I-BIMU now renamed I-BISE (MM. 359). Bruno Mussolini and Mancinelli took the I-FILU renamed I-BRUN (MM. 356) while Moscatelli and Castellani took the I-CUPA now named I-MONI (MM. 358).
The I-BISE during the Rome – Dakar route. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]On the morning of January 24th and at 0728 hrs, the three S.M. 79T took off from Guidonia airport for Dakar, the first leg of the Italy – Brazil.
The planes would have been in constant radio contact with Guidonia and Rio de Janeiro, periodically communicating their position.
At 0830 hrs the planes reported that they had flown over Capo Carbonara in Sardinia and at 0915 hrs they flew over Bona starting to fly over the mountains of the Saharan Atlas. At 1130 hrs the formation commander announced that he had slightly changed the planned route, turning north due to strong wind. At 1330 hrs the devices signaled strong wind with sand clouds and at 1530 hrs they communicated that they were within sight of the Atlantic at Villa Cisneros. At 1630 hrs they flew over Port Etienne and at 1745 hrs San Louis.
Landing in Dakar took place regularly at 1845 hrs Italian time. All navigation took place at an altitude ranging between 4,000 and 5,000 meters where the engines gave maximum power.
The actual distance traveled by the aircraft was over 4,500 km in 10 hours and 50 minutes, the average speed of 419 km/h.
After refueling in Dakar the I-BISE it’s ready to start the transoceanic flight. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]On the morning of January 25 at 0910 hrs (Italian time) the three planes left Dakar for Rio de Janeiro with a wing load of 220 kg due to the greater quantity of fuel and lubricant transported.
The navigation was done in close formation, which took place at an average altitude of 3,800 meters, but was disrupted in the central area of the Atlantic by thunderstorms, headwinds, lightning and sudden showers of rain that forced the pilots to instrumental flight.
The I-MONI, due to a failure of the usual propeller, was forced to continue the flight with only two engines for 2,000 km of the crossing, significantly slowing its average speed to 312 km/h.
At 1730 hrs I-BISE and I-BRUN sighted the Brazilian coast and continued towards Rio de Janeiro, arriving at 2245 hrs at Dos Afensos airport in the midst of a crowd of people who arrived to celebrate the event.
Following a direct order from the commander of the I-MONI formation it headed to Natal where it landed at 1919 hrs for the necessary repairs. It should be noted that the plane could have made it to the finish line without any problems but the crew, tired from the crossing, preferred to land and repair the plane.
I-BISE and I-BRUN had thus completed an effective route of over 5,350 km (of which 5,150 km offshore) in 13 hours and 35 minutes at an average speed of 395 km/h.
The Rome – Rio de Janeiro connection took place within 39 hours and 17 minutes with 24 hours and 22 minutes of actual flight for an average of about 406 km/h on a route of 9.800 km. The I-MONI departed from Natal at 1158 hrs on January 28, and arrived regularly in Rio de Janeiro at 1742 hrs on the same day.
This showed that the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 were not “too delicate” aircraft as foreign press had claimed, capable of reaching South America even with a failed engine.
Photos of the crew of the three S.M. 79T that had made the transoceanic flight. Compare the propeller cap with the photos of the S.M. 79Cs and you could clearly see the difference from the SIAI-Savoia propellers and the Ratier ones. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]It should be emphasized that the crossing was not a mere move by fascist propaganda, in fact, it was specifically chosen to lengthen the journey going from Dakar to Rio de Janeiro (5,350 km) instead of Natal (3,150 km).
Another factor was the speed, an average of 406 km/h for 9,800 km had never been sustained, in a single crossing the S.M. 79T broke two records, the speed one on the Rome – Rio de Janeiro route and the highest average speed one on the 5,000 km journey.
Brazil
After the 24 January 1938 race, the three S.M. 79 Transatlantico were then presented to the Aviacao Militar Brasileira (Brazilian Military Aviation). On 27 April 1938 I-BISE, I-BRUN were bought and renumbered K-422, K-420 while I-MONI was donated by Italy and renumbered K-421.
On 9 May 1938 they were assigned to the Escola de Aviacão Militar (Military Aviation School), where Maggiore Nino Moscatelli acted as instructor on at least three flights on 28 June (serial not reported) and then 1 July 1938 with K-421 and 8 July 1938 with K-420 before to returning in Italy acting as a bomber pilot.
On 28 October 1938 K-420 (Italian military serial number MM. 356) was flown by Brazilian pilot Loyola Daher, experienced an accident during a take off but luckily was later repaired, for it was recorded as flying in September 1941. The K-420 retired from service from the Escola de Aviacão on 12 February 1943.
On 9 July 1939 an unidentified S.M. 79T flown by Major Rubens Canabarro Lucas set a speed record by flying from Porto Alegre to Rio in 2 hours and 50 minutes at an average speed of 423 km/h (263 mph).
On 29 June 1943 was the last flight of an S.M. 79T for the Brazilian Air Line made by K-422 piloted by pilot Maldonado.
The service of the S.M. 79T as a training aircraft ended on 25 October 1944 when K-421 and K-422 were officially grounded by the Escola de Aeronautica.
Civil Service
The I-TOMO, I-ROTR and the reconstructed I-LICA aircraft were modified with a cabin for 4 passengers, the rest of the plane was used for cargo transport. They were used for the Rome – Rio de Janeiro route since 1939 by the Italian civil airline Linea Aerea Transcontinentale Italiana or LATI (Eng: Italian Transcontinental Airlines) part of the Ala Littoria.
The three aircraft, whose name does not seem to be clear since some sources call them Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C, others S.M. 79T and others S.M. 79I, were used mainly for the transport of mail on the route Rome – Seville (Spain) – Lisbon (Portugal) – Villa Cisneros (Morocco) – Ilha do Sal (Cape Verde) – Recife (Brazil) – Rio de Janeiro.
At least one was diverted to the Regia Aeronautica in June 1940 when the Kingdom of Italy joined the Nazi Germany in the Second World War. The aircraft, I-ALAN was requisitioned by the Regia Aeronautica and used to transport military equipment from Italy to Abyssinia (Italian name for Ethiopia) while maintaining its civilian livery.
Unfortunately only 6 days after the beginning of the war, on the 16th of June 1940 the I-ALAN had some problems during a take-off from Benghazi in Libya and was forced to abort the departure.
During re-landing the undercarriage collapsed and the aircraft crashed on the runway without causing too much damage and without casualties.
The aircraft, impossible to repair due to lack of parts, was moved to the side of the runway and probably cannibalized for spare parts to be used on other Savoia-Marchetti.
The carcass of the I-ALAN remained abandoned on the side of the runway of Benghazi for a long time and the British troops found it there in February 1941 when they conquered the Libyan city.
The I-ALAN among numerous other abandoned fuselages at Benghazi Airport in 1941. [sites.google.com/site/lgarey/benghazigraveyard]The I-ALAN when the British troops conquered the Benghazi Airport in 1941. [sites.google.com/site/lgarey/benghazigraveyard]Not much is known about the other two aircraft, but they were probably used on the Atlantic route together with the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 83 (civil version of the S.M. 79) and the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 75.
At the beginning the crossing was carried out weekly: departure on Thursday from the Italian territory and collecting the Italian mail on the way, then, landing in the two Iberian countries, the Spanish and Portuguese mail was collected, arriving in Brazil, the Brazilian mail directed to the three European countries was loaded and the return journey was made.
After June 10, 1940, with the Italian declaration of war against France and the United Kingdom, the transatlantic flight had to be reduced to only one crossing per month. They were finally stopped on December 19, 1941 as a result of the entry into war of the United States, which controlled the Atlantic airspace and especially because the US government forced Brazil to break all diplomatic relations with Fascist Italy and therefore also to block the possibility of using their airports.
Italian civil airline Ala Littoria’s Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C in 1939 in the standard blu and white livery. [Wiki]
Camouflage and Markings
The planes were painted in a very flamboyant livery: Ruby Red with green and white lines.
The rudder had the Italian tricolor with the Savoia coat of arms in the center.
The lictor beams, symbol of the Italian Fascist Party, were painted on the engine cowlings, while on the fuselage, under the cockpit was written “S.M. 79. Savoia-Marchetti”.
In the center of the fuselage, the aircraft codes were written on the sides, inside a white rectangle with black borders.
Also on the sides were painted three green mice intent on laughing at each other, this was the symbol of 205ª Squadriglia da bombardamento “Sorci Verdi”, and in fact, in Italian, “Sorci Verdi” means green mice.
This symbol will then also be painted on the S.M 79M of the squadron during the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War.
On the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79T the livery was the same except for the codename written bigger without the white rectangle, and also because on the tail was added a small white rectangle with the codename of the aircraft during the first race.
After being delivered to the Aviacao Militar Brasileira, the aircraft were repainted green, with a yellow rudder. Brazilian serial numbers were then applied, painted in black on the sides and the “Brazilian Stars” on the wings.
The livery of S.M. 79C converted for civilian use was on an ivory white background with a blue line on the side.
Behind the cockpit was the inscription ‘ALA LITTORIA S.A. LINEE ATLANTICHE’, S.A. stands for “Società per Azioni” in English Joint-stock Company, the identification mark (in that case) I-ALAN and a Kingdom of Italy flag on the tail.
Gallery
Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Transatlantico former I-BRUN in service with the Aviacao Militar BrasileiraSavoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C, I-ALAN converted in mail plane before June 1940.Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Transatlantico former I-FILU piloted by Bruno Mussolini and Mancinelli during Rome – Dakar – Rio RaceSavoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Corsa with the livery of Cupini and Paradisi plane for the Istres – Damascus – Le Bourget RaceSavoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype, the I-MAGO
Nazi Germany (1933)
Anti-Aircraft Gun – 19,650 Built
8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
With the growing use of aircraft during the First World War, many nations developed their own anti-aircraft weapons. Initially, these were mostly crude adaptations of existing weapons systems. During the interwar period, the development of dedicated anti-aircraft guns was initiated by many armies. Germany, while still under a ban on developing new weapons, would create the 8.8 cm Flak 18 anti-aircraft gun. The gun, while originally designed for the anti-aircraft role, was shown to possess excellent anti-tank firepower. This gun would see action for the first time during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and would continue serving with the Germans up to the end of World War II.
This article covers the use of the 8.8 cm Flak gun in the original anti-aircraft role. To learn more about the use of this gun in its more famous anti-tank role visit the Tank Encyclopedia website.
World War One Origins
Prior to the Great War, aircraft first saw service in military operations during the Italian occupation of Libya in 1911. These were used in limited numbers, mostly for reconnaissance, but also for conducting primitive bombing raids. During the First World War, the mass adoption of aircraft in various roles occurred. One way to counter enemy aircraft was to employ one’s own fighter cover. Despite this, ground forces were often left exposed to enemy bombing raids or reconnaissance aircraft that could be used to identify weak spots in the defense.
To fend off airborne threats, most armies initially reused various artillery pieces, sometimes older, or even captured guns, and modified them as improvised anti-aircraft weapons. This involved employing ordinary artillery guns placed on improvised mounts that enabled them to have sufficient elevation to fire at the sky. These early attempts were crude in nature and offered little chance of actually bringing down an enemy aircraft. But, occasionally, it did happen. One of the first recorded and confirmed aircraft kills using a modified artillery piece happened in September of 1915, near the Serbian city of Vršac. Serbian artilleryman Raka Ljutovac managed to score a direct hit on a German aircraft using a captured and modified 75 mm Krupp M.1904 gun.
A captured Krupp gun was modified to be used for anti-aircraft defense by the Serbian Army during the First World War. Other warring nations also employed similar designs during the war. [telegraf.rs]On the Western Front, the use of these improvised and crude contraptions generally proved ineffective. Dedicated anti-aircraft guns were needed. This was especially the case for the Germans who lacked fighter aircraft due to insufficient resources and limited production capacity. The Germans soon began developing such weapons. They noticed that the modified artillery pieces were of too small a caliber (anything smaller than 77 mm caliber was deemed insufficient) and needed much-improved velocity and range. Another necessary change was to completely reorganize the command structure, by unifying the defense and offensive air force elements, into a single organizational unit. This was implemented in late 1916. This meant that the anti-aircraft guns were to be separated from ordinary artillery units. The effect of this was that the new anti-aircraft units received more dedicated training and could be solely focused on engaging enemy aircraft.
The same year, trucks armed with 8 to 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns began to appear on the front. While these had relatively good mobility on solid ground, the conditions of the Western Front were generally unsuited for such vehicles, due to difficult terrain. With the development of better anti-aircraft gun designs, their increased weight basically prevented them from being mounted on mobile truck chassis. Instead, for mobility, these were placed on specially designed four-wheeled trailers and usually towed by a K.D.I artillery tractor.
Both Krupp and Ehrhardt (later changing their name to Rheinmetall) would develop their own 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, which would see extensive action in the later stages of the war. While neither design would have any major impact (besides the same caliber) on the development of the later 8.8 cm Flak, these were the first stepping stones that would ultimately lead to the creation of the famous gun years later.
The Krupp 8.8 cm anti-aircraft gun. [Wiki]As the newer German anti-aircraft guns became too heavy to be used in more mobile configurations by mounting them on trucks, they had to be towed instead. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
Work after the War
Following the German defeat in the First World War, they were forbidden from developing many technologies, including artillery and anti-aircraft guns. To avoid this, companies like Krupp simply began cooperating with other arms manufacturers in Europe. During the 1920s, Krupp partnered with the Swedish Bofors armament manufacturer. Krupp even owned around a third of Bofors’ shares.
The Reichswehr (English: German Ground Army) only had limited anti-aircraft capabilities which relied exclusively on 7.92 mm caliber machine guns. The need for a proper and specialized anti-aircraft gun arose in the late 1920s. In September 1928, Krupp was informed that the Army wanted a new anti-aircraft gun. It had to be able to fire a 10 kg round at a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The gun itself would be placed on a mount with a full 360° traverse and an elevation of -3° to 85°. The mount and the gun were then placed on a cross-shaped base with four outriggers. The trailer had side outriggers that were raised during movement. The whole gun when placed on a four-wheeled bogie was to be towed at a maximum speed of 30 km/h. The total weight of the gun had to be around 9 tonnes. These requirements would be slightly changed a few years later to include new requests such as a rate of fire between 15 to 20 rounds per minute, use of high-explosive rounds with a delay fuse of up to 30 seconds, and a muzzle velocity between 800 to 900 m/s. The desired caliber of this gun was also discussed. The use of a caliber in the range of 7.5 cm was deemed to be insufficient and a waste of resources for a heavy gun. But despite this, a 7.5 cm Flak L/60 was developed, but it would not be adopted for service. The 8.8 cm caliber, which was used in the previous war, was more desirable. This caliber was set as a bare minimum, but usage of a larger caliber was allowed under the condition that the whole gun weight would not be more than 9 tonnes. The towing trailer had to reach a speed of 40 km/h (on a good road) when towed by a half-track or, in case of emergency, by larger trucks. The speed of redeployment for these guns was deemed highly important. German Army Officials were quite aware that the development of such guns could take years to complete. Due to the urgent need for such weapons, they were even ready to adopt temporary solutions.
Krupp’s first 8.8 cm Flak 18 prototype. [8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1]Krupp engineers that were stationed at the Sweden Bofors company were working on a new anti-aircraft gun for some time. In 1931, Krupp engineers went back to Germany, where, under secrecy, they began designing the gun. By the end of September 1932, Krupp delivered two guns and 10 trailers. After a series of firing and driving trials, the guns proved to be more than satisfactory and, with some minor modifications, were adopted for service in 1933 under the name 8.8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 (anti-aircraft gun) or, more simply, Flak 18. The use of the number 18 was meant to mislead France and Great Britain that this was actually an old design, which it was in fact not. This was quite commonly used on other German-developed artillery pieces that were introduced to service during the 1930s. The same 8.8 cm gun was officially adopted when the Nazis came to power. In 1934, Hitler denounced the Treaty of Versailles, and openly announced the rearmament of the German Armed forces.
Production
While Krupp designed the 8.8 cm FlaK 18, aside from building some 200 trailers for it, was not directly involved in the production of the actual gun. The 8.8 cm Flak 18 was quite an orthodox anti-aircraft design, but what made it different was that it could be mass-produced relatively easily, which the Germans did. Most of its components did not require any special tooling and companies that had basic production capabilities could produce these.
Some 2,313 were available by the end of 1938. In 1939, the number of guns produced was only 487, increasing to 1,131 new ones in 1940. From this point, due to the need for anti-aircraft guns, production constantly increased over the coming years. Some 1,861 examples were built in 1941, 2,822 in 1942, 4,302 in 1943, and 5,714 in 1944. Surprisingly, despite the chaotic state of the German industry, some 1,018 guns were produced during the first three months of 1945. In total, 19,650 8.8 cm Flak guns were built.
Of course, like many other German production numbers, there are some differences between sources. The previously mentioned numbers are according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Dreaded Threat: The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role). Author A. Radić (Arsenal 51) mentions that, by the end of 1944, 16,227 such guns were built. A. Lüdeke (Waffentechnik Im Zweiten Weltkrieg) gives a number of 20,754 pieces being built.
Year
Number produced
1932
2 prototypes
1938
2,313 (total produced at that point)
1939
487
1940
1,131
1941
1.861
1942
2.822
1943
4,302
1944
5,714
1945
1,018
Total
19,650
Design
The gun
The 8.8 cm Flak 18 used a single tube barrel that was covered in a metal jacket. The barrel itself was some 4.664 meters (L/56) long. The gun recuperator was placed above the barrel, while the recoil cylinders were placed under the barrel. During firing, the longest recoil stroke was 1,050 mm, while the shortest was 700 mm.
The 8.8 cm gun had a horizontal sliding breechblock which was semi-automatic. It meant that, after each shot, the breach opened on its own and ejected the shell casing, enabling the crew to immediately load another round. This was achieved by adding a spring coil, which was tensioned after firing. This provided a good rate of fire of up to 15 rounds per minute when engaging ground targets and up to 20 rounds per minute for aerial targets. If needed, the semi-automatic system could be disengaged and the whole loading and extracting of rounds done manually. While some guns were provided with a rammer to help during loading the gun, it was sometimes removed by the crew.
This particular gun is equipped with a loading rammer with a new round which is ready to be loaded into the chamber. [Pinterest]For the anti-tank role, the 8.8 cm Flak was provided with a Zielfernrohr 20 direct telescopic sight. It had 4x magnification and a 17.5° field of view. This meant a 308 m wide view at 1 km. With a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s, the maximum firing range against ground targets was 15.2 km. The maximum altitude range was 10.9 km, but the maximum effective range was around 8 km.
The dimensions of this gun during towing were a length of 7.7 m, width of 2.3 m, and height of 2.4 meters. When stationary, the height was 2.1 m, while the length was 5.8 meters. Weight in firing position, it weighed 5,150 kg, while the total weight of the gun with the carriage was 7,450 kg. Due to some differences in numbers between sources, the previously mentioned 8.8 cm Flak performance is based on T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role).
When stationary, the gun had a height of 2.1 meters, which offered a relatively large target for enemy gunners. Good camouflage and well-selected positions were vital for its crew’s survival. [defensemedianetwork.com]
The Gun Controls
The gun elevation and traverse were controlled by using two handwheels located on the right side. The traverse handwheel had an option to be rotated at low or high speed, depending on the need. The lower speed was used for more precise aiming at the targets. The speed gear was changed by a simple lever located at the handwheel. To make a full circle, the traverse operator, at a high-speed setting. needed to turn the handwheel 100 times. while on the lower gear, it was 200 times. With one full circle of the handwheel, the gun was rotated by 3.6° at high speed and 1.8° at low speed.
Next to it was the handwheel for elevation. The handwheel was connected by a series of gears to the elevation pinion. This then moved the elevation rack which, in turn, lowered and raised the gun barrel. Like the traverse handwheel, it also had options for lower and higher rotation speed, which could be selected by using a lever. During transport, in order to prevent potential damage to the gun elevating mechanism, a locking system was equipped. In order to change position from 0° to 85°, at high speed, 42.5 turns of the handwheel were needed. One turn of the wheel at high speed changed the elevation by 2°. At lower speed, 85 times turns of the handwheel were needed. Each turn gave a change of 1°.
The two control handwheels. The front handwheel is for traverse while the rear one is for elevation. Source: W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
Sometimes, in the sources, it is mentioned that the traverse was actually 720°. This is not a mistake. When the gun was used in a static mount, it would be connected with wires to a fire control system. In order to avoid damaging these wires, the guns were allowed to only make two full rotations in either direction. The traverse operator had a small indicator that informed him when two full rotations were made.
The 8.8 cm Flak at its maximum elevation. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
The 8.8 cm fuze setter is located on the left side of the gun. Two rounds could be placed for their time fuse settings. These were usually done manually but the gun controls could also be connected to an external control system.
The 8.8 cm fuze setter. [Pinterest]
The Kommandogerat 36
The fire control system Kommandogerat 36 (Stereoscopic Director 36) was an important device when using the 8.8 cm guns in an anti-aircraft role. This piece of equipment actually is a combination of a stereoscopic rangefinder and a director. It uses a 4-meter-long, stereoscopic rangefinder. It has a magnification of 12 to 14x with a reading case ranging from 500 to 50,000 meters. When the unit was being transported, the stereoscopic rangefinder would be disengaged and placed in a long wooden box. If for some reason the Stereoscopic Director 36 was not available or not working, a smaller auxiliary Stereoscopic Director 35 could be used instead.
The 8.8 cm guns were usually used in a square formation consisting of four guns. Inside this squire was a command post, which would usually have additional range-finding equipment and instruments. These four gun’s positions were also connected to the battery unit command.
The Stereoscopic Director 36 was a vital piece of equipment that provides the necessary acquisitions of targets. [waralbum.ru]Common 8.8 cm anti-aircraft employment was a square formation with four guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
Mount
The mount which held the gun barrel itself consisted of a cradle and trunnions. The cradle had a rectangular shape. On its sides, two trunnions were welded. In order to provide stability for the gun barrel, two spring-shaped equilibrations were connected to the cradle using a simple clevis fastener.
Carriage
Given its size, the gun used a large cross-shaped platform. It consisted of the central part, where the base for the mount was located, along with four outriggers. The front and the rear outriggers were fixed to the central base. The gun barrel travel lock was placed on the front outrigger. The side outriggers could be lowered during firing. These were held in place by pins and small chains which were connected to the gun mount. To provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. This cross-shaped platform, besides holding the mount for the main gun, also served to provide storage for various equipment, like the electrical wiring. Lastly, on the bottom of each outrigger, there were four round-shaped leveling jacks. This helped prevent the gun from digging in into the ground, distributing the weight evenly, and to help keep the gun level on uneven ground.
A close-up view of the dismantled 8.8 cm Flak cross-shaped platform. The two folding side outriggers are missing. The central octagonal base would later be replaced with a much simpler square-shaped one. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe side outriggers could be lowered during firing. In order to provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. At the bottom of each outrigger were round-shaped leveling jacks. Their purpose was to prevent the gun from digging into the ground and to keep the gun level on uneven ground. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe side outriggers are fully raised during transport. [o5m6.de]To prevent damaging the gun during transport, a large travel lock was installed on the front outrigger. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
Bogies
The entire gun assembly was moved using a two-wheeled dolly, designated as Sonderanhanger 201. The front part consisted of a dolly with single wheels, while the rear dolly consisted of a pair of wheels per side on a single axle. Another difference between these two was that the front dolly had 7, and the rear had 11 transverse leaf springs. The wheel diameter was the same for the two, at 910 mm. These were also provided with air brakes. While these units were supposed to be removed during firing, the crew would often not remove them, as it was easier to move the gun quickly if needed. This was only possible when engaging targets at low gun elevations. Aerial targets could not be engaged this way, as the recoil would break the axles. The front and rear outriggers would be raised from the ground by using a winch with chains located on the dollies. When raised to a sufficient height, the outriggers would be held in place by dolly’s hooks. These were connected with a round pin, located inside of each of the outriggers.
The two trailer units were connected to the front and rear outriggers by using simple hooks, which would quite easily be disengaged. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe front view of the Sonderanhanger 201 dolly could be easily identified by the use of only two wheels. The chain’s winch would be used to raise the outriggers. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
Firing with both trailer units still connected to the gun as possible, but it raised the height of the gun and prevented it from engaging air targets. [o5m6.de]Later, a new improved Sonderanhanger 202 model was introduced (used on the Flak 36 version). On this redesigned version, the two towing units were redesigned to be similar to each other. This was done to ease production but also so the gun could be towed in either direction when needed. While, initially, the dolly was equipped with one set of two wheels and the trailer with two pairs, the new model adopted a doubled-wheeled dolly instead.
Protection
Initially, the 8.8 cm Flak guns were not provided with an armored shield for crew protection. Given its long-range and its intended role as an anti-aircraft gun, this was deemed unnecessary in its early development. Following the successful campaign in the West against France and its Allies in 1940, the Commanding General of the I. Flakkorp requested that all 8.8 cm Flak guns that would be used at on the frontline receive a protective shield. During 1941, most 8.8 cm Flaks that were used on the frontline were supplied with a 1.75 meter high and 1.95 meters wide frontal armored shield. Two smaller armored panels (7.5 cm wide at top and 56 cm at bottom) were placed on the sides. The frontal plate was 10 mm thick, while the two side plates were 6 mm thick. The recuperator cylinders were also protected with an armored cover. The total weight of the 8.8 cm Flak armored plates was 474 kg. On the right side of the large gun shield, there was a hatch that would be closed during the engagement of ground targets. In this case, the gunner would use telescopic sight through the visor port. During engagement of air targets, this hatch was open.
Most guns were initially not provided with a shield. Given its original purpose, this is not surprising. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank roleMost guns that were issued for field use would be provided with a large 10 mm thick front armored shield. The wire cover on the top was used for camouflage. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank roleOn the left side of the gun shield, there was a hatch that would be used for the gunner to find his aerial targets. [worldwarphotos.info]
Ammunition
The 88 mm FlaK could use a series of different rounds. The 8.8 cm Sprgr. Patr. was a 9.4 kg heavy high-explosive round with a 30-second time fuze. It could be used against both anti-aircraft and ground targets. When used in the anti-aircraft role, the time fuze was added. The 8.8 Sprgr. Az. was a high-explosive round that had a contact fuze. In 1944 the Germans introduced a slightly improved model that tested the idea of using control fragmentation, which was unsuccessful. The 8.8 Sch. Sprgr. Patr. and br. Sch. Gr. Patr. were shrapnel rounds.
The 8.8 cm Pzgr Patr was a 9.5 kg standard anti-tank round. With a velocity of 810 m/s, it could penetrate 95 mm of 30° angled armor at 1 km. At 2 km at the same angle, it could pierce 72 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm Pzgr. Patr. 40 was a tungsten-cored anti-tank round. The 8.8 cm H1 Gr. Patr. 39 Flak was a 7.2 kg heavy hollow charge anti-tank round. At a 1 kg range, it was able to penetrate 165 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm ammunition was usually stored in wooden or metal containers.
The 8.8 cm Flak used large one-piece ammunition. It was stored in either wooden or metal containers. [defensemedianetwork.com]
Crew
The 88 mm Flak had a crew of 11 men. These included a commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, a loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver of the towing vehicle. Guns that were used on a static mount usually had a smaller crew. The two gun operators were positioned to the right of the gun. Each of them was responsible for operating a hand wheel, one for elevation and one for the traverse. The front operator was responsible for traverse and the one behind him for elevation. The front traverse operator was also responsible for using the weapon gun sight for targeting the enemy. On the left side of the gun were the two fuse operators. The loader with the ammunition assistants was placed behind the gun. A well-experienced crew needed 2 to 2 and a half minutes to prepare the gun for firing. The time to put the gun into the traveling position was 3.5 minutes. The 8.8 cm gun was usually towed by an Sd.Kfz. 7 half-track or a heavy-duty six-wheel truck.
The 8.8 cm guns that were used for supporting ground units had a fairly large crew. [Pinterest]The Sd.Kfz. 7 half-tracks were the primary towing vehicles for this gun. [defensemedianetwork.com]Six-wheeled heavy-duty trucks would sometimes be used due to the lack of half-tracks. They did not offer the same driving performance. [worldwarphotos.info]
Flak 36 and 37
While the Flak 18 was deemed a good design, there was room for improvement. The gun itself did not need much improvement. The gun platform, on the other hand, was slightly modified to provide better stability during firing and to make it easier to produce. The base of the gun mount was changed from an octagonal to a more simple square shape. The previously mentioned Sonderanhanger 202 was used on this model.
Due to the high rate of fire, anti-aircraft guns frequently had to receive new barrels, as these were quickly worn out. To facilitate quick replacement, the Germans introduced a new three-part barrel. It consists of a chamber portion, a center portion, and the muzzle section. While it made the replacement of worn-out parts easier, it also allowed these components to be built with different metals. Besides this, the overall performance of the Flak 18 and Flak 36 was the same. The Flak 36 was officially adopted on the 8th of February 1939.
As the Germans introduced the new Flak 41, due to production delays, some of the guns were merged with the mount of a Flak 36. A very limited production run was made of the 8.8 cm Flak 36/42, which entered service in 1942.
In 1942, the improved 88 mm Flak 37 entered mass production according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle. On the other hand J. Ledwoch (8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155) state that the Flak 37 was introduced to service way back in 1937. Visually, it was the same as the previous Flak 36 model. The difference was that this model was intended to have better anti-aircraft performance, having specially designed directional dials. The original gunner dials were replaced with the “follow-the-pointer” system. It consists of two sets of dials that are placed on the right side of the gun. These received information about the enemy targets from a remote central fire direction post connected electrically. This way, the gun operator only had to make slight adjustments, such as elevation, and fire the gun.
The necessary information about the enemy targets was provided by a Funkmessgerate ( Predictor) which was essentially a mechanical analog computer. Once the enemy aircraft were spotted, their estimated speed and direction were inserted into this computer which would then calculate the precise position and elevation. This information would be sent to any linked anti-aircraft batteries by a wire connection. One set of the dials would then show the crew the necessary changes that need to be done to the elevation and direction of the enemy approach. The crew then had to manually position the gun elevation and direction until the second dials indicators matched the first one. The funkmessgerate computer also provided correct fuse time settings. In principle, this system eased the aiming task of the crew and at the same time improved accuracy. When used in this manner the Flak 37 could not be used for an anti-tank role.
The last change to this series was the reintroduction of a two-piece barrel design. Besides these improvements, the overall performance was the same as with the previous models. From March 1943 only the Flak 37 would be produced, completely replacing the older models.
The 8.8 cm Flak 37 introduced the use of specially designed directional dials, which help the crew better adjust the gun. Source: Norris 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45
Organization
German air defense was solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe, with the majority of 8.8 cm guns being allocated to them. The German Army and Navy also possessed some anti-aircraft units, but these were used in quite limited numbers. The largest units were the Flak Korps (Anti-aircraft corps). It consisted of two to four Flak Divisionen (Anti-aircraft divisions). These divisions, depending on the need, were either used as mobile forces or for static defense. These were further divided into Bigaden (brigades ) which consisted of two or more Regimenter (Regiments). Regiments in turn were divided into four to six Abteilunge (Battalion). Battalion strength was eight 8.8 cm guns with 18 smaller 2 cm guns. To complicate things a bit more, each Battalion could be divided into four groups: Leichte (Light, equipped with calibers such as 2 cm or 3.7 cm), Gemischte (mixed light and heavy), Schwere (Heavy equip with a caliber greater than 88 mm) and Scheinwerfer (Searchlight).
Mobile War
Initially, operations and crew training was carried out by the Reichswehr. They were organized into the so-called Fahrabteilung (Training Battalion) to hide their intended role. By 1935, the German Army underwent a huge reorganization, one aspect of which was changing its name to the Wehrmacht. In regard to the anti-aircraft protection, it was now solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe. For this reason, almost all available 8.8 cm guns were reallocated to Luftwaffe control. Only around eight Flak Battalions which were armed with 2 cm anti-aircraft guns were left under direct Army control.
In Spain
When the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, Francisco Franco, leader of the Nationalists, sent a plea to Adolf Hitler for German military equipment aid. To make matters worse for Franco, nearly all his loyal forces were stationed in Africa. As the Republicans controlled the Spanish navy, Franco could not move his troops back to Spain safely. So he was forced to seek foreign aid. Hitler was keen on helping Franco, seeing Spain as a potential ally, and agreed to provide assistance. At the end of July 1936, 6 He 51 and 20 Ju 57 aircraft were transported to Spain under secrecy. These would serve as the basis for the air force of the German Condor Legion which operated in Spain during this war. The German ground forces operating in Spain were supplied with a number of 8.8 cm guns.
These arrived in early November 1936 and were used to form the F/88 anti-aircraft battalion. This unit consisted of four heavy and two light batteries. Starting from March 1937 these were allocated to protect various defense points at Burgos and Vittoria. In March 1938, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery dueled with an enemy 76.2 cm anti-aircraft gun which were manned by French volunteers from the International Brigades. While the 8.8 cm guns were mainly employed against ground targets they still had a chance to fire at air targets. For example, while defending the La Cenia airfield, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery prevented the Republican bombing attack by damaging at least two SB-2 bombers on the 10th of June 1938. Three days later one SB-2 was shot down by an 8.8 cm gun. In early August another SB-2 was shot down by the same unit. The performance of the 8.8 cm gun during the war in Spain was deemed satisfying. It was excellent in ground operations, possessing good range and firepower.
An 8.8 cm Flak gun in Spain.[weaponsandwarfare.com]
During the Second World War
Prior to the war, the 8.8 m guns could be often seen on many military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. The first ‘combat’ use of the 8.8 cm Flak in German use was during the occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. The entire operation was carried out peacefully and the 8.8 cm gun did not have to fire in anger.
Prior to the war, the 8.8 cm guns war could have been often seen on military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
The Polish campaign saw little use of the 8.8 cm guns. The main reason for this was that the Polish Air Force was mostly destroyed in the first few days of combat. They were mainly used against ground targets. In one example, the 8.8 cm guns from the 22nd Flak Regiment tried to prevent a Polish counter-attack at Ilza. The battery would be overrun while the crew tried to defend themselves, losing three guns in the process. The 8.8 cm Flak gun also saw service during the battles for Warsaw and Kutno.
The 8.8 cm followed the Germans in their occupation of Denmark and Norway. One of the key objectives in Norway was the capture of a number of airfields. Once captured, the Germans rushed in Flak guns including the 8.8 cm, to defend these as they were crucial for the rather short-ranged German bombers. On the 12th of April 1940, the British Air Force launched two (83 strong in total) bombing raids at the German ships which were anchored at the Stavanger harbor. Thanks to the Flak and fighter support, six Hampden and three Wellington bombers were shot down.
Following the conclusion of the Polish campaign, the Germans began increasing the numbers of the motorized Flak units. Some 32 Flak Batteries were available which the Germans used to form the 1st and 2nd Flak Corps. 1st Corps would be allocated to the Panzergruppe Kleist, while the second was allocated to the 4th and 6th Army. The Luftwaffe, as in Poland (September 1939), quickly gained air superiority over the Allied Air Forces. Despite this, there was still opportunity for the 8.8 cm guns to fire at air targets. During the period from the 10th to 26th May 1940, the following successes were made against enemy aircraft by flak units that were part of the XIX Armee Corps: the 83rd Flak Battalion brought down some 54, 92nd Flak Battalion 44, 71th Flak Battalion 24, the 91st Flak Battalion 8, 36th Flak Regiment 26, 18th Flak Regiment 27, and 38th Flak Regiment 23 aircraft. During the notorious German crossing near Sedan, a combined Allied air force tried to dislodge them. The strong Flak presence together with air fighter cover, lead to the Allies losing 90 aircraft in the process.
Following the Western Campaign, the 8.8 cm guns would see extensive service through the war. Ironically they would be more often employed against enemy armor than in the original role. Given the extensive Allied bombing raids, more and more 8.8 cm would be allocated to domestic anti-aircraft defense. One major use of 8.8 cm Flak was during the German evacuation of Sicily, by providing necessary air cover for the retreating Axis soldiers and materiel to the Italian mainland.
In the occupied Balkans, the 8.8 cm Flak was a rare sight until late 1943 and early 1944. The ever-increasing Allied bombing raids forced the Germans to reinforce their positions with a number of anti-aircraft guns, including the 8.8 cm Flak. Some 40 8.8 cm Flak guns were used to protect German-held Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia. Most would be lost after a successful liberation operation conducted by the Red Army supported by Yugoslav Partisans. The 8.8 cm Flak guns were also used in static emplacements defending the Adriatic coast at several key locations from 1943 on. One of the last such batteries to surrender to the Yugoslav Partisans was the one stationed in Pula, which had twelve 8.8 cm guns. It continued to resist the Partisans until the 8th of May, 1945.
Some of the 8.8 cm guns were destroyed or abandoned. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51
Defense of the Fatherland
While the 8.8 cm Flaks would see service supporting the advancing German forces, the majority of them would actually be used as static anti-aircraft emplacements. For example, during the production period of October 1943 to November 1944, around 61% of the 8.8 cm Flak guns produced were intended for static defense. Additionally, of 1,644 batteries that were equipped with this gun, only 225 were fully motorized, with an additional 31 batteries that were only partially motorized (start of September 1944).
When the war broke out with Poland, the Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units had at their disposal some 657 anti-aircraft guns of various calibers. The majority were the 8.8 cm with smaller quantities of the larger 10.5 cm and even some captured Czezh 8.35 anti-aircraft guns. An additional 12 Flak Companies equipped with the 8.8 cm guns were given to the navy for the protection of a number of important harbors. The remaining guns were used to protect vital cities like Berlin and Hamburg. The important Ruhr industry center was also heavily defended.
The majority of the 8.8 cm Flak guns built would be used in static defense without the cross-shaped platform. These would mostly be destroyed by their crews to prevent their capture when the Allies made their advances into Germany. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
One of the first enemy aircraft shot down over German skies were British Wellington bombers. This occurred on the 4th of September 1939 when one or two enemy bombers were brought down by heavy Flak fire. These intended to bomb vital German naval ports. In early October 1939, in Strasbourg, a French Potez 637 was shot down by the 84th Flak Regiments 8.8 cm guns. One Amiot 143 and a Whitley aircraft were shot down in Germany in mid-October. During December 1939 British launched two bombing raids intended to inflict damage on German ports. Both raids failed with the British losing some 17 out of 36 Wellington bombers.
After Germany’s victory over the Western Allies in June, the Germans began forming the first Flak defense line in occupied territories and coastlines. These were not only equipped with German guns but also with those captured from enemy forces.
A 8.8 cm by the Atlantic coast in 1941. This crew had already achieved two kills, judging by the kill marks on the barrel. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
Due to the poor results of their daylight bombing raids, the British began to employ night raids. These initially were quite unsuccessful with minimal damage to Germany’s infrastructure and industry. The Flak defense of Germany was also quite unprepared for night raids, unable to spot enemy bombers at night. The situation changed only in 1940 with the introduction of ground-operated radar. Thanks to this, the first few months of 1941 saw German Flak units bring down 115 enemy aircraft.
In 1942 the British military top made a decision to begin the mass bombing of German cities. The aim was to “de-house” (or kill) workers, damage infrastructure to make urban industrial areas unusable, and try and cause a moral collapse as was the case in 1918. Implementation of this tactic was initially slow due to an insufficient number of bombers. In addition, vital targets in occupied Europe were also to be bombed. In May 1942, the British launched a force that consisted of over 1,000 aircraft causing huge damage to Germany, killing 486 and injuring over 55,000 people.
In 1943 several huge events happened. The German defeats in East and North Africa led to huge material and manpower losses, while the Allies were preparing to launch massive bombing raids mainly intended to cripple Germany’s production capabilities. In response, the Germans began increasing their number of Flak units. At the start of 1943, there were some 659 heavy Flak batteries, which were increased to 1,089 by June the same year. Due to a lack of manpower, the Germans began mobilizing their civilians regardless of their age or sex. For example, in 1943 there were some 116,000 young women who were employed in various roles, even operating the guns. Near the end of the war, it was common to see all-female crews operating Flak batteries. In addition in 1944 some 38,000 young boys were also employed in this manner. Ironically, while all German military branches lacked equipment, the anti-aircraft branch had spare equipment and guns, but lacked the manpower to operate them. To resolve this, foreign Volunteers and even Soviet prisoners of war were pressed into service. The downside was the general lack of training, which greatly affected their performance.
In the first few months of 1944, the Allied 8th and 15th Air Forces lost some 315 bombers with 10,573 damaged, all attributed to the heavy Flak. In 1944 (date unspecified in the source) during an attack on the heavily defended Leuna synthetic oil refinery, some 59 Allied bombers were brought down by the heavy Flak guns. By 1944 the number of heavy anti-aircraft guns that were intended for the defense of Germany reached 7,941. By April 1945 the Flak guns managed to shoot down 1,345 British bombers. The American 8th lost 1,798, while the 15th Air Force lost 1,046 bombers due to German Flak defence by the end of the war.
The last action of the 8.8 cm Flak guns was during the defense of the German capital of Berlin. Due to most being placed in fixed positions, they could not be evacuated and most would be destroyed by their own crews to prevent capture. Despite the losses suffered during the war, in February 1945, there were still some 8,769 8.8 cm Flak guns available for service.
The Flak provided necessary and crucial defense of vital industrial centers. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
Effectiveness of the 8.8 cm Guns in Anti-aircraft Role
Regarding the effectiveness of the 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns with the necessary number of rounds needed to bring down enemy aircraft. Author E.B. Westermann (Flak German Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1914-1945) gives us a good example and comparison between three main German anti-aircraft guns. The largest 12.8 cm Flak on average fired some 3,000 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft. The 10.5 cm gun needed 6,000 and the 8.8 cm 15,000 rounds (some sources mentioned 16,000). This seems at first glance like a huge waste of available resources, but is it right to conclude that?
According to an Allied war document dated from early 1945, they mentioned a few interesting facts about German flak defense. According to them, in 1943 some 33% of bombers destroyed by Germany were accredited to heavy Flak gunfire. In addition, 66% of damage sustained by their aircraft was also caused by the heavy Flak fire. In the summer of 1944, this number increased. The majority (some 66%) shot down enemy bombers were accredited to the heavy Flaks. And of 13,000 damaged bombers some 98% were estimated to be caused by the Flaks. Here it is important to note that by this time, Luftwaffe fighters lacked the ability to attack bomber formations en mass. Therefore this increase of aircraft shot down by the Flaks may be explained by this.
In addition, we must also take into account two other functions that these guns had which are often overlooked. They did not necessarily need to bring down enemy bombers. It was enough to force the enemy fly at higher altitudes to avoid losses. This in turn led to a huge loss of accuracy for the bombers. Secondly, the enemy bombers were often forced to break formation when sustaining heavy Flak fire, which left them exposed to German fighters. The shrapnel from the Flak rounds could not always directly bring down a bomber, but it could cause sufficient damage (fuel leaks for example) that the aircraft, later on, had to make an emergency landing, even in enemy territory. The damaged aircraft that made it back to their bases could spend considerable time awaiting repairs. Lastly, the Flak fire could incapacitate, wound or even kill bomber crews. Thus there was a huge psychological effect on enemy bomber crews. B-17 gunner Sgt W. J. Howard from the 100th Bomb Group recalled his experience with the German Flak. “All the missions scared me to death. Whether you had fighters or not you still had to fly through the flak. Flak was what really got you thinking, but I found a way to suck it up and go on.”
Hitler was quite impressed with the 8.8 cm performance. On the 28th of August 1942, he stated: “The best flak gun is the 8.8 cm. The 10.5 has the disadvantage that it consumes too much ammunition, and the barrel does not hold up very long. The Reich Marshall Göring continually wants to build the 12.8 into the flak program. This double-barreled 12.8 cm has a fantastic appearance. If one examines the 8.8 from a technician’s perspective, it is to be sure the most beautiful weapon yet fashioned, with the exception of the 12.8 cm”.
Despite the best German efforts, the Flak’s effectiveness greatly degraded by late 1944. The reason for this was the shortage of properly trained crews. At the start of the war, the Germans paid great attention to crew training, which lasted several months. As the Flak guns were needed on the front, less experienced and trained personnel had to be used instead. In the later stages of the war, these crews received only a few weeks of training, which was insufficient for the job they had to perform. Lastly, Allied bombing raids eventually took their toll on German industry, greatly reducing the production of ammunition, which was one of the main reasons why the anti-aircraft defense of Germany ultimately failed. Of course, a proper analysis and conclusion could not be easily made and would require more extensive research, a wholly different topic on its own.
Self-Propelled Versions
When used as anti-aircraft weapons, the 8.8 cm guns were in most cases used as static defense points. Despite this, the Germans made several attempts to increase their mobility by placing the 8.8 cm guns on various chassis. One of the first attempts was by mounting the 8.8 cm gun on a VOMAG 6×6 truck chassis. The small number built was given to the 42nd Flak Regiment which operated them up to the end of the war.
The VOMAG truck was armed with 8.8 cm guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
The truck chassis offered great mobility on good roads, but their off-road handling was highly problematic. So Germans used half-tracks and full-track chassis. Smaller numbers of Sd. Kfz 9 armed with the 8.8 cm gun were built. Attempts to build a full-track vehicle were made but never went beyond a prototype stage. The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell was a project where an 8.8cm gun was mounted on a fully tracked chassis with a folding wall, but only one vehicle would be built. There are some photographs of Panzer IV modified with this gun, and while not much is known about them they appear to be a field conversion, rather than dedicated design vehicles. There were even proposals to mount an 8.8 cm gun on a Panther tank chassis, but nothing would come from it in the end.
Some 12 Sd. Kfz. 9 were modified by receiving an 8.8 cm gun. [worldwarphotos.info]The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell Pz.Sfl.IVc prototype.[uofa.ru]The strange-looking Panzer IV armed with this gun. [armedconflicts.com]Mounting the 8.8 cm gun on railroad cars was a common sight in Germany at early stages of the war. There was various design that may differ greatly from each other. [defensemedianetwork.com]
Usage after the war
With the defeat of Germany during the Second World War, the 8.8 cm Flak guns found usage in a number of other armies. Some of these were Spain, Portugal, Albania, and Yugoslavia. By the end of the 1950s, the Yugoslavian People’s Army had slightly less than 170 8.8 cm guns in its inventory. These were, besides their original anti-aircraft role, used to arm navy ships and were later placed around the Adriatic coast. A number of these guns would be captured and used by various warring parties during the Yugoslav civil wars of the 1990s. Interestingly, the Serbian forces removed the 8.8 cm barrel on two guns and replaced them with two pairs of 262 mm Orkan rocket launcher tubes. The last four operational examples were finally removed from service from the Serbian and Montenegrin Army in 2004.
The 8.8 cm Flak in the Yugoslavian People’s Army service, during military training near the capital in 1955. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51Two 8.8 cm Flak guns were reused by replacing the gun with two 262mm rocket launchers. While not a success, these two remained in use up to 1998. [srpskioklop.paluba.info]
Conclusion
The 8.8 cm Flak was an extraordinary weapon that provided the German Army with much-needed firepower during the early stages of the war. The design as a whole was nothing special, but it had a great benefit in that it could be built relatively cheaply and in great numbers. That was probably its greatest success, being available in huge numbers compared to similar weapons of other nations.
Its performance in the anti-aircraft role was deemed satisfying, but still stronger models would be employed to supplement its firepower. The 8.8 cm anti-air gun’s effectiveness was greatly degraded toward the end of the war, which was caused not by the gun design itself but other external forces. These being mainly the lack of properly trained crews and shortages of ammunition.
8.8 cm Flak 18 Specifications:
Crew: 11
(Commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver)
Weight in firing position:
5150 kg
Total weight:
7450 kg.
Dimensions in towing position:
Length 7.7 m, Width 2.2 m, Height 2.4 m,
Dimensions in deployed position:
Length 5.8 m, Height 214 m,
Primary Armament:
8.8 cm L/56 gun
Elevation:
-3° to +85°
Gallery
The Flak 88 mm gun in towing postion
Flak 88 in firing position
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
Illustrations by David B.
Sources
J. Norris (2002) 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45 Osprey Publishing
D. Nijboer (2019) German Flak Defences Vs. Allied Heavy Bombers 1942-45, Osprey Publishing
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/41 in the Anti-Tank role
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2014) Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak
W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
E. D. Westermann (2001) Flak, German Anti-Aircraft Defense 1914-1945, University Press of Kansas.
German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel (29th June 1943) War Department Technical Manual
T. Anderson (2018) History of Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-45, Osprey publishing
T. Anderson (2017) History of Panzerjager Volume 1 1939-42, Osprey publishing
S. Zaloga (2011) Armored Attack 1944, Stackpole book
W. Fowler (2002) France, Holland and Belgium 1940, Allan Publishing
1ATB in France 1939-40, Military Modeling Vol.44 (2014) AFV Special
N, Szamveber (2013) Days of Battle Armored Operation North of the River Danube, Hungary 1944-45
A. Radić (2011) Arsenal 51 and 52
While A. Lüdeke, Waffentechnik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon
J. Ledwoch 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155
S. H. Newton (2002) Kursk The German View, Da Capo Press
W. Howler (2002 France, Belgium and Holland 1940, Ian Allan
J. S. Corum (2021) Norway 1940 The Luftwaffe’s Scandinavian Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing
Nazi Germany (1944)
Empire of Japan (1943)
Yugoslavia (1933)
Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1952)
Italy (1936-1943)
