The end of the period of the sailing men-of-war

CSS Alabama

The end of the period of the sailing men-of-war was not suddenly apparent,” noted the maritime historian Howard I. Chapelle, “nor was it marked by a dramatic flourish.” During the three decades after the wars of the French Revolution and Empire, the refinement of the sailing warship continued, reaching its apogee in the late 1840s. Except for their rounded sterns, the new ships looked much like their predecessors, although they were larger, more strongly built, and more heavily armed. But as designers, shipwrights, and carpenters crafted ships that were veritable works of art, the products of the technicians of the industrial revolution slowly penetrated the “wooden world.” Even as Lord Nelson stood watch off Toulon and Cadiz, steam-powered boats plied some of the major rivers of England and America, while men such as Robert Fulton envisioned steam-powered men-of-war. During the War of 1812 the Americans began construction on the Demologos, a steam-powered, 2,475-ton, 30-gun, 156-foot frigate designed by Fulton with the vulnerable paddle wheel placed for safety in the middle of the ship’s catamaran-like hull. The war ended before the Demologos, rechristened the Fulton after the designer’s death, saw action. In the late 1820s steam-powered dispatch boats entered the British naval service. In the 1830s the French and the Greeks were the first to use steam-driven warships in combat, often armed with the new explosive-shell guns designed by Major Henri-Joseph Paixhans. In the 1840s the Royal Navy employed gunboats powered by steam, such as the infamous 600-ton Nemesis, armed with a pair of 32- pounder pivot guns, to deadly effect in Asian waters.

Also during the 1840s, the adoption by the world’s major navies of the Swedish inventor John Ericsson’s screw propeller accelerated the shift to steam. “The sailing warship might have survived longer had she been required to compete only with side-paddle steamers,” Chapelle concluded, “but the appearance of the screw propeller made the auxiliary steamer practical and hastened the end of the sailing ship.” By the late 1840s and early 1850s even the largest warships—frigates and ships of the line—relied on steam power as an auxiliary, and in combat the principal, source of propulsion.

The impact of the industrial revolution on navies was by no means limited to propulsion. Warships were, after all, nothing but platforms for weapons, principally cannon, designed to destroy an enemy’s ships or to batter masonry or earthen forts into submission. After the defeat of Napoleon I there began an unending and ultimately unwinnable race between gun and armor, a race that could be run only because of the availability of the steam engine to power more heavily armed ships. In the 1820s advanced industrial and metallurgical techniques allowed the casting of much larger, though still muzzle-loading, guns, their killing power enhanced by a more scientific approach to sighting. Simultaneously the French developed the “Paixhans” explosive-shell gun that threatened to turn wooden ships into combustible piles of splinters. Although the successes of the Paixhans gun in the Greek war for independence, the Crimean War, and the French intervention in Mexico were exaggerated by many contemporaries, mid-century advances in firepower prompted navies to “clad” their wooden ships with plates of iron. The French launched their first armored steam warship—the 13-knot la Gloire—in 1859. The British countered in 1861 with the Warrior, an iron-hulled, 400-foot man-of-war capable of 14 knots mounting thirty-eight 68- pounder naval guns.

During the American Civil War, the navies of the North and the South reflected the revolutionary changes overtaking naval establishments. The Federal navy continued to employ numerous wooden sailing men-of-war outfitted with auxiliary steam power. The infamous Confederate raiders, such as the Alabama, likewise relied on their sails for cruising and used steam as a combat auxiliary. The principal armament of these raiders and the ships that hunted them was massive, centrally mounted, rifled pivot guns capable of firing to port or starboard. For coastal defense the South clad many of its wooden ships, such as the Virginia, with iron and dispensed with sails. The North countered with its own ironclads as well as several classes of iron-constructed and -armored “monitors” mounting heavy muzzle-loading cannon in powered turrets.

This contest between the gun and armor placed a premium on penetration rather than explosive power. To defeat armor, navies adopted ever larger rifled cannon capable of hurling shot, increasingly designed to pierce armor plate, with greater range, accuracy, and penetrating ability. Rifling, in turn, led to longer barrels, which promoted a shift to breechloading mechanisms in the 1860s.

As a result of these changes, during the decade after the American Civil War the “modern” warship began to emerge. In 1872 the Italians launched the Duilio, with armored decks and turrets set in echelon. The following year the British commissioned the Devastation, the man-of-war that established the “pattern for the future development of the battleship so decisively that even the revolutionary and famous Dreadnought of 1906 was only a final extension of the principles which she embodied.” By the end of the century, the lines of the “modern” battleship were clearly recognizable: steel construction, compartmentalization, steam power, substantial armoring, and heavy breech-loading rifled main guns supported by lighter but more quickly firing weapons.

As engagement ranges increased, sighting the arched fire of myriad naval guns became next to impossible. The chaotic patterns of splashes made the correction of individually sighted guns impractical. The solution involved controlled salvo firing by batteries of uniform type and led to the introduction of the first all-big-gun battleships, the most famous of which was the Royal Navy’s Dreadnought, launched in February 1906. The 17,900-ton ship mounted ten 12-inch guns in her main battery and was the first man-of-war powered by steam turbines. Thereafter battleships became larger, faster, and more heavily armed, but the Dreadnought pattern remained unchanged for another forty years.

Tupolev 'Aircraft 81'/Tu-14

Aircraft illustrations by Basil Zolotov

After the decision made by Stalin on 14th May 1949 Tupolev turned 'Aircraft 73' into the 'Aircraft 81' medium bomber with wing-mounted VK-1s. In fact the development of this aircraft had been approved by a Council of Ministers Decree on 23rd December 1948 and work on the preliminary design and a mock-up began in January 1949; the latter was inspected on 25th March. The main changes saw the '73's Nenes replaced by VK-1s and the RD-500 removed altogether, which was to prove a better arrangement than the '73's three power units. However, after the project had been reviewed and rejected by the W S the OKB looked at reducing the crew and modifying the defensive gun positions along the lines of the 11-28. This was intended to counter the main reason why 'Aircraft 81' had been turned down, the bureau having continued its work in spite of the uncompromising tone made by the May 1949 Decree towards 'Aircraft 73' and '78'.

New and revised requirements were issued on 20th August with the gun armament reduced from three to two twin 23mm mounts and the crew from five to three. By the end of September the new preliminary design was ready, the tail cannon having increased the aircraft's length; the aircraft's flight characteristics were expected to be unchanged. The original Tu-81 had been officially designated Tu-18 but this redesign was renumbered Tu-14 and the first prototype flew on 13th October having been completed using sub-assemblies from production 'Aircraft 73s' built by Factory 23. State testing was completed on 27th May 1950 and series production at Factory 39 was given the go-ahead during 1949.

By July 1950 the first production aircraft had been rolled out at Irkutsk but this was modified into a Tu-14T torpedo bomber while the next example became the 'Aircraft 89' reconnaissance variant; altogether, five production aircraft were completed from cancelled 'Aircraft 73' airframes. In 1952 the type entered service with the Naval Air Force as the Tu-14T and around 100 were completed. 'Aircraft 89', officially dubbed Tu-16, first flew on 23rd March 1951 but did not begin its State trials because the II-28R reconnaissance variant of Ilyushin's front-line bomber was the type chosen to go into production.

Tupolev 'Aircraft 93'
This was the last proposal to come out of the Tu-14 family and was a projected version of the Tu-14T which the OKB worked on during 1951 and 1952. The original layout and structure were retained and any changes were of a minor nature - the centre fuselage was made fatter to accommodate more fuel plus a longer bay for the aircraft's mine or torpedo load, which brought about the removal of the centre cabin, and the flaps were modified. Two 6,6151b (29.4kN) VK-5 or 9,2601b (41.2kN) VK-7 formed the main powerplant but two SU-1500 rocket motors were available for take-off assistance. The bomb and torpedo load, and the defensive armament, were basically unchanged but work on the '93' stopped after the completion of the preliminary design. Normal take-off weight was expected to be 45,194 lb (20,500kg), maximum speed at 16,404ft (5,000m) VK-5 561mph (902km/h) and VK-7 584mph (940km/h), service ceiling 39,370ft (12,000m) and range 2,175 miles (3,500km).

Variants
    Tu-14 - Light bomber version (not accepted for service).
    Tu-14R - Reconnaissance version (prototype only).
    Tu-14T - Torpedo bomber version.
Specifications (Tu-14)
General characteristics
    Crew: three
    Length: 21.95 m (72 ft)
    Wingspan: 21.69 m (71 ft 2 in)
    Height: 5.69 m (18 ft 8 in)
    Wing area: 67.36 m² (725 ft²)
    Empty weight: 14,930 kg (32,914 lb)
    Loaded weight: 20,930 kg (46,046 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 25,350 kg (55,866 lb)
    Powerplant: 2 × Klimov VK-1 turbojets, 26.5 kN (5,950 lbf) each
Performance
    Maximum speed: 848 km/h (529 mph)
    Range: 2,930 km (1,820 mi[5])
    Service ceiling: 11,200 m (36,745 ft)
    Wing loading: 311 kg/m² (64 lb/ft²)
    Thrust/weight: 0.3
Armament
    2 × 23 mm NR-23 cannon forward
    2 × 23 mm AM-23 cannon in tail turret
    Up to 3,000 kg (6,610 lb) of bombs, mines or torpedoes
Avionics
PSBN-M navigation radar

The Ar 234 Jet Bomber Series Variants

The improved bomber version, Ar 234B, that flew in March 1944, had its fuselage slightly wider to hold a retractable landing gear fitted with two main wheels and nosewheel. It made use of RATO (rocket assisted take-off ) and had an added bomb load. Twenty Arado Ar 234 Bs were produced and delivered by the end of June 1944. The only notable use of the plane in the bomber role was during the Ardennes offensive in winter 1944-45, and the most spectacular operational bombing mission was the repeated attacks by Ar 234 B-2s flown by III/KG 76 on the vital Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen in March 1945. The uninterceptable aircraft, though handicapped by fuel shortage, continued to see scattered front-line action for reconnaissance until Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945. There was a planned improved version, known as Arado Ar 234C, powered by four BMW 003A engines. Fifteen prototypes of the Ar 234C were completed before the end of the conflict. Although Hauptmann Diether Lukesch was preparing to form an operational test squadron, the Ar 234C was not developed in time to participate in actual combat operations.

Prototypes
By September, four prototypes were flying. The second prototype, Arado Ar 234 V2, crashed 2 October 1943 at Rheine near Münster after suffering a fire in its port wing, failure of both engines and various instrumentation failures, the aircraft diving into the ground from 4,000 feet (1,200 m), killing pilot Flugkapitän Selle. The eight prototype aircraft were fitted with the original arrangement of trolley-and-skid landing gear, intended for the planned operational, but never-produced Ar 234A version.

The sixth and eighth of the series were powered with four BMW 003 jet engines instead of two Jumo 004s, the sixth having four engines housed in individual nacelles, and the eighth flown with two pairs of BMW 003s installed within "twinned" nacelles underneath either wing. These were the first four-engine jet aircraft to fly. The Ar 234 V7 prototype made history on 2 August 1944 as the first jet aircraft ever to fly a reconnaissance mission.

Ar 234B
The RLM had already seen the promise of the design and in July had asked Arado to supply two prototypes of a Schnellbomber ("fast bomber") version as the Ar 234B. Since the aircraft was very slender and entirely filled with fuel tanks, there was no room for an internal bomb bay and the bombload had to be carried on external racks. The added weight and drag of a full bombload reduced the speed, so two 20 mm fixed-mount, rearwards aimed MG 151 cannons were added in a remotely controlled tail position to give some measure of defence.

Since the cockpit was directly in front of the fuselage, the pilot had no direct view to the rear, so the guns were aimed through a periscope, derived from the type used on German World War II tanks, mounted on the cockpit roof. The system was generally considered useless, and many pilots had the guns removed to save weight. The external bombload, and the presence of inactive aircraft littering the landing field after their missions were completed (as with the similarly dolly/skid-geared Messerschmitt Me 163) made the skid-landing system impractical, so the B version was modified to have tricycle landing gear. The ninth prototype, marked with the Stammkennzeichen (radio code letters) PH+SQ, was the first Ar 234B, and flew on 10 March 1944.

The B models were slightly wider at the mid-fuselage to house the main landing gear, with a fuel tank present in the mid-fuselage location on the eight earlier trolley/skid equipped prototype aircraft having to be deleted for the retracted main gear's accommodation, and with full bombload, the aircraft could only reach 668 km/h (415 mph) at altitude. This was still better than any bomber the Luftwaffe had at the time, and made it the only bomber with any hope of surviving the massive Allied air forces. The normal bombload consisted of two 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs suspended from the engines or one large 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb semi-recessed in the underside of the fuselage with maximum bombload being 1,500 kg (3,310 lb). If the war had continued it is possible that the aircraft would have been converted to use the Fritz X guided bombs or Henschel Hs 293 air-to-surface missiles.

Production lines were already being set up, and 20 B-0 pre-production aircraft were delivered by the end of June. Later production was slow, however, as the Arado plants were given the task of producing planes from other bombed-out factories hit during the Big Week, and the ongoing license-building and nascent phasing-out of Heinkel's heavy He 177 bomber. Meanwhile, several of the prototypes were sent forward in the reconnaissance role. In most cases, it appears they were never even detected, cruising at about 740 km/h (460 mph) at over 9,100 m (29,900 ft), with the seventh prototype achieving the first-ever wartime reconnaissance mission over the United Kingdom by a Luftwaffe-used jet aircraft.

The few 234Bs entered service in the fall and impressed their pilots. They were fairly fast and completely aerobatic. The long takeoff runs led to several accidents; a search for a solution led to improved training as well as the use of rocket-assisted takeoff. The engines were always the real problem; they suffered constant flameouts and required overhaul or replacement after about 10 hours of operation.

The most notable use of the Ar 234 in the bomber role was the attempt to destroy the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen. Between 7 March, when it was captured by the Allies, and 17 March, when it finally collapsed, the bridge was continually attacked by Ar 234s of III/KG 76 carrying 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bombs. The aircraft continued to fight in a scattered fashion until Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945. Some were shot down in air combat, destroyed by flak, or "bounced" by Allied fighters during takeoff or on the landing approach, as was already happening to Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters. Most simply sat on the airfields awaiting fuel that never arrived.

Overall from the summer of 1944 until the end of the war a total of 210 aircraft were built. In February 1945, production was switched to the C variant. It was hoped that by November 1945 production would reach 500 per month.

    Ar 234B-0 : 20 pre-production aircraft.
    Ar 234B-1 : Reconnaissance version, equipped with two Rb 50/30 or Rb 75/30 cameras.
    Ar 234B-2 : Bomber version, with a maximum bombload of 2,000 kg (4,410 lb).

In addition, a handful of B-2 airframes were adapted for the night-fighting role. These so-called Nachtigall (Nightingale) aircraft were fitted with FuG 218 "Neptun" VHF-band radar and carried a pair of forward-firing MG 151/20 autocannon within a Magirusbombe conformal gun pod on the ventral fuselage hardpoint. A second crewmember, who operated the radar systems, was accommodated in a very cramped compartment in the rear fuselage. Two of these jury-rigged night fighters served with Kommando Bonow, an experimental test unit attached to Luftflotte Reich. Operations commenced with the pair of 234s in March 1945, but Bonow's team soon found the aircraft to be unsuited for night fighting and no kills were recorded during the unit's very brief life.

Ar 234C
The Ar 234C was equipped with four BMW 003A engines, mounted in a pair of twin-engine nacelles based on those from the eighth Ar 234 prototype. The primary reason for this switch was to free up Junkers Jumo 004s for use by the Me 262, but the change improved overall thrust, especially in takeoff and climb-to-altitude performance. An improved cockpit design, with a slightly bulged outline for the upper contour, also used a much-simplified window design for ease of production. Airspeed was found to be about 20% higher than the B series and the faster climb to altitude meant more efficient flight and increased range.

Although Hauptmann Diether Lukesch was preparing to form an operational test squadron, only 14 C-series airframes had been completed by war's end, and of that number fewer than half had been fitted with engines. Comprehensive flight testing of the new sub-type had yet to begin when Germany surrendered. Three basic variants of the C-series were planned for initial construction, with several more laid out as detailed proposals. Some of these would have had different powerplants, while others were intended to feature swept or "crescent"-type wings.

    Ar 234C-1 : Four-engined version of the Ar 234B-1.
    Ar 234C-2 : Four-engined version of the Ar 234B-2.
    Ar 234C-3 : Multi-purpose version, armed with two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons beneath the nose.
    Ar 234C-3/N : Proposed two-seat night fighter version, armed with two forward-firing 20 mm MG 151/20 and two 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannons, fitted with a FuG 218 Neptun V radar.
    Ar 234C-4 : Armed reconnaissance version, fitted with two cameras, armed with four 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons.
    Ar 234C-5 : Proposed version with side-by-side seating for the crew. The 28th prototype was converted into this variant.
    Ar 234C-6 : Proposed two-seat reconnaissance aircraft. The 29th prototype was converted into this variant.
    Ar 234C-7 : Night fighter version, with side-by-side seating for the crew, fitted with an enhanced FuG 245 Bremen O cavity magnetron-based centimetric (30 GHz) radar.
    Ar 234C-8 : Proposed single-seat bomber version, powered by two 1,080 kg (2,380 lb) Jumo 004D turbojet engines.
Ar 234D
The D model was a two-seat aircraft based on the B-series fuselage, but with a new, enlarged two-seat cockpit possessing fewer glazing panels than the C version, intended to be powered by a pair of more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojet engines. The HeS 011 powerplant never reached quantity production, with only 19 examples of the new powerplants ever created for test purposes, and no 234D was produced.
    Ar 234D-1 : Proposed reconnaissance version. Not built.
    Ar 234D-2 : Proposed bomber version. Not built.
Ar 234E
The E model was a heavy fighter variant of the D model. It was not produced.
Ar 234P
The P model was a two-seat night fighter version with a variant of the D-series cockpit, differing in powerplant options and several options of radar. Several were in the planning stage, but none made it into production.
    Ar 234P-1 : Two-seater with four BMW 003A-1 engines; one 20 mm MG 151/20 and one 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108.
    Ar 234P-2 : Also a two-seater, with redesigned cockpit protected by a 13 mm (0.51 in) armour plate.
    Ar 234P-3 : HeS 011A powered P-2, but with two each of the cannon.
    Ar 234P-4 : as P-3 but with Jumo 004D engines.
    Ar 234P-5 : Three-seat version with HeS 011A engines, one 20 mm MG 151/20 and four 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108s.

Although a successful design, the small number manufactured, combined with shortage of fuel and lack of experienced airmen, meant that the Ar 234 failed to make any significant impact on the course of the war. The revolutionary bomber simply came too late, and was nowhere near as successful in operational terms as the Messerschmitt Me 262. At the end of World War II some surviving Luftwaffe jets, including several Ar 234s, made their way to Norway to escape capture by the Allies. These were eventually surrendered to the British and three of the Ar 234s were subsequently taken to the United States for evaluation.

LINK

Nanchang Q 5

The Q 5 is built and marketed as a relatively simple and low-cost alternative to high-priced Western strike aircraft. Although based on outdated technology, it is capable and available in large numbers.

The history of the Nanchang Q 5 dates back to 1958, when the People’s Republic of China began mass-producing copies of the Russian MiG 19 fighter. At that time, the People’s Liberation Air Force sought a dedicated ground-attack craft with better performance than existing MiGs. The program was interrupted in 1961 by the Cultural Revolution and did not recommence until 1965. That June a prototype Q 5 flew for the first time as a highly modified airframe with overtones of the earlier craft. The biggest change was the nose section, which was highly pointed and replaced the frontal intake of the MiG 19 with ones on either side of the fuselage. Other changes included broader wings and an internal bomb bay. The tail control surfaces were apparently retained intact. Around 1970 the Q 5 entered production and received the NATO designation FANTAN. Roughly 1,000 have been built and are deployed in three main versions. The variant associated with the People’s Liberation Navy carries additional radar and torpedoes. It is also nuclear-capable.

The Q 5 continues to be regarded as a major tactical asset within the Chinese air force judging from the sheer number of machines fielded. The FANTAN is apparently a rugged, capable ground-attack aircraft that can be fitted with a variety of internal and external ordnance, including ground-to-air missiles and bomb clusters. It also mounts a pair of 23mm cannons for defensive purposes. Such cheap, effective machines have decided appeal for poorer Third World countries seeking to enhance their military capabilities. For this reason, Pakistan, North Korea, and Bangladesh all have imported small quantities of Q 5s. The newest version, the Q 5I, has deleted the bomb bay in favor of additional fuel and fuselage hardpoints.

Domestic variants
    Q-5: Original production version with a total of 6 pylons, one under each wing and four under the fuselage, and was superseded by the Q-5A.

    Q-5 nuclear bomber: Q-5A modified to carry nuclear bombs, only a very limited number were built. One of such aircraft is currently on display at the aviation museum in Beijing.

    Q-5 Anti-ship missile carrier: Replacement for the torpedo bomber armed with Type 317A airborne radar, an improvement of the original Type 317, and the maximum range is increased by over 50 km. Only a very limited number entered the service and by the 1980s, these aircraft were withdrawn from front line service.

    Q-5I: Q-5A with the internal weapon bay replaced by internal fuel tank, increasing fuel capacity over 70%. Like all previous Q-5 variants, navigation was still a bottle neck resulting in aircraft must fly longer times in more complex search patterns in long range strikes. However, this problem is somewhat reduced by the increased fuel capacity.

    Q-5IA: The original weapon aiming sight of the Q-5 was developed by No. 5311 Factory, and named as SH-1, short for She - Hong (Shoot-Bomb-1), which only had limited capability because attacks could only carried out at a fixed angle. No. 5311 Factory developed an improved version SH-1I to allow the attack to be carried out at different angles. To solve the navigation problem, the Type 205 pulse Doppler navigation radar was developed and installed. An indigenous Type 79Y4 laser rangefinder developed by No. 613 Institute was fitted.

    Q-5II: Q-5IA with added radar warning receivers, and a new HK-15 laser rangefinder developed by No. 613 Institute replaced the older Type 79Y4. A new weapon aiming sight SH-1II replaced the older SH-1I , and No. 5311 Factory managed to successfully integrated this sight with the new laser rangefinder and Type 205 navigation radar.

    Q-5III: Domestic Chinese upgrade of Q-5II with indigenous inertial navigation system and JQ-1 Head-Up Display.

    Q-5IV: 28.8% change in comparison to the closest earlier version. Q-5III upgrade first appeared in the early 1990s. Two central computers like that of Q-5M and new RW-30 radar warning receivers were added. ALR-1 laser rangefinder and QHK-10 Head-Up Display developed by No. 613 Institute were added. Also known as Q-5D.

    Q-5A: Q-5 with 8 pylons, with 1 extra pylon under each wing for AA-2 Atoll air-to-air missiles.

    Hongdu Q-5D - An attack variant, developed at Hongdu, with ALR-1 Laser rangefinder/Marked Target seeker and possibly LLLTV/FLIR vision systems for a day/night capability. Other improvements include Head Up Display, GPS Rx, INS, TACAN, and chaff/flare dispensers. Weapons capability includes the Chinese LS-500J laser-guided glide bombs with a 12 km range.

    Nanchang Q-5D - (Dian - electronic intelligence) An ELINT platform confusingly given the same designation as the Q-5D attack aircraft.

    Q-5E: Q-5IV development, with ability to drop laser guided bombs such as LS-500J LGB via a laser targeting pod, and GPS was added.

    Q-5F: Further development of Q-5E with semi-buried electro-optical targeting pod that not only included laser designator/ranger, but also infrared imaging and television cameras. The separated inertial navigation system and the GPS in the Q-5IV/E was replaced by the DG-1 integrated inertial navigation/GPS system.

    Q-5J: Tandem two seater of Q-5. The manufacturer claimed that it can be used as forward air control like the OA-10A, and providing targeting information via data links. The rear seat is 286 millimetres higher than the front seat, enables the back-seat pilot to have a 5 degree field of vision, and the canopy opens to the right. When used as a trainer, the rear cockpit control can override that of the front cockpit.

    Q-5K Kong Yun: (Kong Yun - Cloud) Joint Chinese-French project to upgrade Q-5II with French avionics, such as VE110 head-Up Display, ULIS91 inertial navigation system, TMV630 laser rangefinder and other electro-optics. Like the Q-5M/A-5M, the project was also cancelled after the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989.

    Q-5M: Export designation A-5M. Joint Chinese-Italian project to upgrade the Q-5II with Italian avionics from the AMX International AMX attack fighter. Avionics would include a ranging radar, head-up display, inertial navigation system, air data computer and dual central computers all integrated via dual-redundant MIL-STD 1553B databus. Completion and first deliveries were to take place in late 1988 and early 1989 respectively. Although the project was eventually cancelled after the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989, the Chinese version of the radar was eventually used on J-7GB.

Export variants
    A-5: Export designation for version of the Q-5 to North Korea that appeared in Chinese media. The designation contains more than one variant since the Chinese military aid to North Korea is protracted, but it's not clear whether this export version is derived from Q-5, Q-5A, Q-5I or Q-5IA.

    A-5B: Export version of Q-5II with capability to launch western missiles such as the French R550 Magic Air-to-air missiles. Reported sold to Myanmar.

    A-5C: Export version of Q-5III with more western equipment upon customers' requests, such as flight instrumentation made by Rockwell Collins, and western ejection seat made by Martin-Baker. Added the capability to fire western missiles such as the R550 Magic or AIM-9 Sidewinder. Exported to Bangladesh and Pakistan. Bangladesh Air Force's A-5Cs have been upgraded in 2008 to fire LS-6 and LT-2 ground attack munitions giving them advanced strike capability.

    A-5D: Export version of Q-5IV, with more western equipment upon customers' requests, such as flight instrumentation made by Rockwell Collins, and western ejection seat made by Martin-Baker. Added the capability to fire western missiles such as the R550 Magic or AIM-9 Sidewinder. No sales reported. Program terminated because all resources on this program was diverted to support the Q-5E.

    A-5K: Export version of Q-5K with more western equipment such as flight instrumentation made by Rockwell Collins, and western ejection seat made by Martin-Baker. Added the capability to fire western missiles such as the R550 Magic or AIM-9 Sidewinder. Cancelled with Q-5K after the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989.

    A-5M: Export version of Q-5M with more western equipment such as flight instrumentation made by Rockwell Collins, and western ejection seat made by Martin-Baker. Added the capability to fire western missiles such as the R550 Magic or AIM-9 Sidewinder. Cancelled with Q-5M after the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989. Evaluated by the Pakistan Air Force in 1990

Specifications (Q-5D)
General characteristics
    Crew: 1
    Length: 15.65 m (51 ft 4 in)
    Wingspan: 9.68 m (31 ft 9 in)
    Height: 4.33 m (14 ft 3 in)
    Wing area: 27.95 m² (300.9 ft²)
    Empty weight: 6,375 kg (14,050 lb)
    Loaded weight: 9,486 kg (20,910 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 11,830 kg (26,080 lb)
    Powerplant: 2 × Liming Wopen-6A turbojets
        Dry thrust: 29.42 kN (6,614 lbf) each
        Thrust with afterburner: 36.78 kN (8,267 lbf) each
Performance
    Maximum speed: Mach 1.12 [14][15] (653 knots, 752 mph)
    Range: 2,000 km (1,100 NM, 1,200 mi (1,900 km))
    Combat radius:
        On lo-lo-lo mission: 400 km (220 NM, 250 mi) with maximum payload
        On hi-lo-hi mission: 600 km (320 NM, 370 mi (600 km))
    Service ceiling: 16,500 m (54,133.9 ft)
    Rate of climb: 103 m/s (20,300 ft/min)
    Wing loading: 423.3 kg/m² (86.7 lb/ft²)
    Thrust/weight: 0.63
Armament
    Guns: 2× Norinco Type 23-2K 23 mm (0.906 in) cannon, 100 rounds per gun
    Hardpoints: 10 (4× under-fuselage, 6× under-wing) with a capacity of 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)
    Rockets: 57 mm, 90 mm, 130 mm unguided rocket pods
    Missiles: PL-2, PL-5, PL-7 air-to-air missiles
    Bombs:
        50 kg, 150 kg, 250 kg, 500 kg unguided bombs
        BL755 cluster bombs
        Matra Durandal anti-runway bombs
    Others:
        Fuel tanks: 105 gal, 200 gal, 300 gal

• Nanchang Q-5 photo collection and introduction
• Q5 Internal Weapon Bay

SNCASE SE.100

The SNCASE SE 100 was a French two-seat, twin-engined fighter which first flew in 1939. Mass production was planned to begin late in 1940 but the Fall of France prevented this.

The origins of the SE.100 predate the creation of the SNCASE (Sud-Est) company in the nationalisations of 1937. It was designed by Pierre Mercier and Jacques Lecarme at Lioré et Olivier, initially designed the LeO 50. Underpowered by two Gnome-Rhône 14M engines, the design was recast to use the more powerful Gnome-Rhône 14N-20 and -21 engines, the same used in the Lioré et Olivier LeO 451 bomber, and renamed the SE.100. The aircraft was of conventional all-metal construction, mid-wing layout. As with most French twin-engined aircraft of the era, the engines were handed, one airscrew rotating clockwise and the other anti-clockwise, to minimise torque. The aircraft had a twin tail. In production models it was planned to redesign the wing to use components from the LeO 451 wing to ease production. The fuselage was short in appearance, with a long nose and a very short tail, the cockpit being connected to the gunner's position aft by a windowed corridor. The undercarriage was of the nosewheel type, rarely used in French aircraft of the 1930s, with the aft wheels were fitted right aft, retracting into the tail rather than the wings or engine nacelles as was conventional. The aircraft was fitted with four Hispano-Suiza HS.404 20 mm cannon in the nose and one in the gunner's post.

The first prototype of the SE.100 flew on 29 March 1939 at Argenteuil and a number of necessary changes were identified during the tests. It was destroyed in a crash on 5 April 1940. [1][2] The aircraft proved to be around 100 km/h faster than the Potez 631, the French Air Force's current twin-engined fighter, and production was authorised.

While the tests were proceeding, a second prototype, incorporating the changes, the most obvious of which was the suppression of the windowed corridor in the fuselage and its replacement by additional fuel tanks, was being built. The armament was increased to six cannon in the nose, two in the gunner's post and one additional cannon in the floor of the gunner's post. As the second prototype was being built, the Citroën Company was preparing to mass produce the aircraft at their Paris works, deliveries planned to begin late in 1940.

At least two paper variants were studied, the SE.101 powered by Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp engines, and the SE.102 powered by a different version of the Gnome-Rhône 14N.

Specifications
General characteristics
    Crew: 2
    Length: 11.80 m (38 ft 8½in)
    Wingspan: 15.70 m (51 ft 6 in)
    Height: 4.28 m (14 ft 0½ in)
    Wing area: 33 m² (355 ft²)
    Loaded weight: 7500 kg (16,500 lb)
    Powerplant: 2 × Gnome-Rhône 14N-20/21 14-cylinder air-cooled two-row radial engines, 806 kW (1,080 hp) each
Performance
    Maximum speed: 580 km/h (360 mph, 313 knots) at 6500 m (21,300 ft)
    Cruise speed: 499 km/h (310 mph[3], 270 knots)
    Range: 1300 km (810 mi, 700 NM)
Armament
    Guns:
        4 x 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon in nose
        1 x 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon in rear gunner's post
LINK

LINK

LVT 4

LVT-4 Water Buffalo, British designation Buffalo IV (1943)
LVT 4: A disadvantage of the original LVT 1 and 2 designs had been the rear mounted engine and central cargo space which meant that troops and stores were loaded over the side of the vehicle and that there were thus limitations on the sort of item which could be loaded. The LVT 4 was basically the LVT(A) 2 modified by having its engine moved forward and resited immediately behind the driving compartment. The transom was then replaced by a ramp operated by a hand winch. This now allowed troops and stores to be loaded through the stern of the vehicle. It could carry 30 troops (compared to 18 in the LVT 2) and light vehicles (eg, Jeep, Universal Carrier) or field guns. This type was first used at Saipan in mid-1944, and was also used in Italy and NW Europe, 1944-45. The LVT 4 was also used by the British Army, under the designation "LVT, Buffalo". In British service it was fitted with a Polsten 20mm cannon and two ·30 cal Browning MGs. In American service it carried a mount on each side for either a ·30 cal or ·50 cal machine gun. These could be seen fitted with or without gun shields. The British army, incidentally, also received a very small batch of LVT 1s (Alligators) which were used mainly for crew training.

The French Army used the U.S.-supplied LVT-4s and LVT(A)-4s in the Indochina War and in the Suez Crisis.

The British fitted their versions with 1 x 20mm Polsten cannon with 2 x 0.30 caliber Browning machine guns. British LVT4s could also deliver their diminutive "Universal Carrier" tracked armored vehicles as well as 6-pounder towed artillery pieces to the fray. As part of the British Commonwealth, Canada also saw use of the LTV series in their war time inventories - fitting a Ronson flamethrower to the forward hull.

Sea Serpent: The Sea Serpent was designed by the 79th Armoured Division for use by the British in the Far East. Its armament was two "Wasp" flamethrowers and a machine gun. These would have been used by the "flame battery" of the 34th Amphibian Support Regiment, Royal Marines in any assault on the Japanese mainland but the war ended before they were used.

The LVT-4(F) "Sea Serpent" was a British conversion of the LVT-4 model to accept a pair of "Wasp" flamethrowers for actions in the Far East Theater. The flamethrowers were seated on flexible mounts at the left and right forward sections of the loading area while a single machine fitting was set in a semi-armored rounded "tub" at the stern. Like all other LVT developments, the gunnery crew and passengers were in the open-topped portion of the vehicle loading area but the LVT-4(F) was nary used by the British Army before the war ended in August of 1945. The British also based their "Amphibian, tracked, 4-Ton GS Neptune" model on the LVT-4 though little production ensued. Similar designs included the "Sealion" amphibious recovery vehicle and the "Turtle", a mobile workshop platform. The LVT(A)-3 designation was reserved for an armored version of the LVT-4 but these were never sent into production.

In April 1945, Major General Roy S. Geiger, USMC, then Commanding General of the III Amphibious Corps, eloquently described the contribution of the amphibian tractor in a letter to an official at the Food Machinery Corporation. General Geiger wrote: "...amphibian tractors are the "work horses" of the Marine Corps. Except for the 'amtracs' it would have been impossible for our troops to get ashore on Tarawa, Saipan, Guam or Pelelieu without taking severe, if not prohibitive losses. But their use is by no means limited to the assault waves; after landing troops and equipment, they play an indispensable part in the movement of supplies, ammunition, et cetera ashore. In fact, the whole ship- to-shore movement in the normal amphibious operation is to a considerable extent dependent upon one or more of the 'amtrac' family.

LINK

LVT-4 walkaround

LINK

LINK

Soviet Union – WWII Machine Guns

The SG43 was designed by P.M. Goryunovin 1942 to provide a wartime replacement for the elderly Maxim Model 1910, and even used the old Maxim’s wheeled carriage.

The Degtyerev DP Model 1928 was a major Soviet light machine-gun during World War II. Simple and robust, the DP could stand rough treatment and extremes of weather. It can still be found in the hands of guerrilla groups all over the world.

The Soviets entered the war with a mix of medium Maxims and light Degtyarevs, with the DShK being produced to replace the Maxims. However, when the Red Army attacked Finland in the 1939 Winter War, its DP and DT machine guns did not operate as well as hoped in the cold environment. They experienced major problems, especially the failure of return springs. Several quick fixes were tried but proved unsatisfactory. Eventually, the spring design and placement were radically changed; the resulting weapons were designated the DP Modernized (DPM). Similar changes were applied to the DT, resulting in the DTM, which was the tank and armored vehicle version.

Other modifications and revisions were made in the early years of the war, including converting them to belt-feed, but this made the DPM too heavy, and the long, flapping ammunition belt was a nuisance to the gunner when sprinting to a new position. It is suspected that the DPM was merely a stopgap pending the development of better weapons.

While production of the DPM continued, the Soviets put engineers to work developing a new 7.62mm LMG. A number of designers, including Vasily Degtyarev, Sergei Simonov, and Mikhail Kalashnikov (his first appearance as a designer; he would later become famous for his assault rifle), participated in this competition. Degtyarev offered two gas-operated guns, one belt-fed and the other with a top-mounted box magazine. Simonov designed a gas-operated weapon. Kalashnikov presented a short-recoil design. The Simonov design was selected after initial trials, but the weapon was neither durable nor accurate.

By the middle of 1943, the Soviets had developed a new short cartridge, the 7.62x39mm, and this led to a rethinking of the LMG concept in the Red Army.

Although the new round had been developed for the assault rifle, it was accurate out to 800 meters, sufficient for the squad light automatic weapon. A call went out for designs using the new cartridge. A number were submitted, and after trials the Degtyarev entry was selected. It was approved in 1944 as the RPD (Ruchnyy Pulyemet Systema Degtyarev—Light Machine Gun by Degtyarev).

The RPD was a derivative of the earlier DP and DPM models but was belt-fed from a drum clipped beneath the gun. For the first time, Soviet infantrymen had a machine gun that they could pick up and use in the assault. Unlike most LMGs, it had a fixed barrel, and the gunner had to be careful to avoid firing more than 100 rounds in one minute to prevent overheating. The war ended before this weapon could be perfected. It would go into full production in 1953 and proved to be a rugged and effective design; it became the standard squad automatic weapon for the Red Army and for Soviet client states.

The Soviets also developed a medium machine gun during World War II. The Degtyarev DS MMG had proved a failure in service, and production was halted in 1941. The Red Army reverted to the Maxim M1910, but when the Germans attacked in OPERATION BARBAROSSA, the supply of machine guns was woefully inadequate. The choices were to build more factories to turn out more of the older model, or to come up with an entirely new design. Pyotr Goryunov had already been working on a medium, and in June 1941 he demonstrated his design to the military. He was instructed to make 50 guns for extensive testing, including some sent to front-line units. The reports were favorable; after some revisions and more tests, it was adopted in May 1943 as the 7.62mm Stankovyi Goryunova 43 (SG43). The SG43 was gas-operated and air-cooled. It was fed by belt and was usually mounted on a wheeled carriage similar to that used with the Maxim 1910. During the Winter War of 1944 against Finland, the SG43 was mounted on a sled for easier movement over snow. It is extremely heavy but was very good for use in the defense. This gun was manufactured in some numbers during the war but never entirely replaced the PM1910, which stayed in production right till war’s end and remained in front-line service with the Soviet Army into the 1980s.

The Soviets also used the 12.7mm DShK HMG during World War II. It had originally been employed primarily as an antiaircraft weapon, but by 1943 it was in wide use in the infantry support role. With the increase in usage, problems with the weapon became apparent; chief among these was a feed problem. Modifications were made to the Shpagin feed system, and various other parts were strengthened, making the gun easier to manufacture, more reliable, and less likely to jam. The new model was designated the DShKM 38/46.