Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War
Vol.1, Single-Engined Fighters

By Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov
Midland Counties Publications [England]
Motorbooks Internations [USA]
ISBN 952-5026-31-0
Hardbound, 160 Pages

Reviewed by Ilya Grinberg, Erik Pilawskii

    The sheer significance and importance of this book are obvious, and as a result a very detailed examination of the work is certainly in order. With this in mind, one of our very distinguished VVS enthusiast-Historians, Ilya Grinberg, has prepared a searching review of the title. This examination is drawn from his letter to the Publisher. In the volume, one does see a number of translation errors and typos, and those corrections are not reproduced here except where they might affect the historical understanding of the text or caption. The rest of this superb examination is rendered below, along with my own comments on certain matters from the book.

Page 35, 1st column. The statement that LaGG-3's vulnerability due to it's liquid cooling system does not sound convincing because it was common to all production aircraft of the period. It is not clear why this factor is pointed as a defect just for LaGG-3 programme.

I must agree. In my opinion, the Authors have shown an unmistakable tendency to criticize all Lavochkin products with an unusually harsh tone. This example, wherein the vulnerability of the LaGG-3's liquid-cooled Klimov motor to combat damage is labeled a 'defect', is silly-- this was true of all liquid-cooled engines during the entire War, and was hardly related to the LaGG programme specifically.

Page 35, 3rd column. Should be July 42, not 45.
Page 42, 2nd column. It is not clear why the authors state that M-82 engine had been derived from R-1820. It is known that M-82 was the original design of the Shvetsov team. Just look at the characteristics of two engines:
M-25 single-row 9-cylinder radial
 displacement: 29.8 liters
 weight: 959 lbs (435 kg)
 diameter: 53.7 in. (1.365 m)

M-82 (ASh-82) Two row 14-cylinder radial
   displacement: 41.2 liters
   weight: 1,951 lbs (885 kg)
   diameter: 49.6 in. (1.26 m)
As you can see, the only thing in common is that both engines are radial.

This is the worst inaccuracy in this otherwise superb volume. The hoary old Western myth that the Shvetsov M-82 radial was even remotely related to the Wright Cyclone is preposterous in the extreme, and unworthy of repetition by such distinguished researchers. The M-25 was indeed a license-built R-1820, but it was in production only very briefly before the considerably modified M-25A supplanted it. Further development of the M-25A and -25V resulted in the M-62 and M-63 motors, but that was basically the extent of the development of this family of aero engines. The 14 cylinder M-82 was an entirely original Shvetsov design, perhaps conceptually influenced-- as were all European 14 cylinder radials (BMW 801, Hispano-Suiza 14M, FIAT A74, etc.)-- by the French Gnome-Rhone 14B radial of 1932.

Page 72, 2nd column. 12.7mm ShKAS machine guns were replaced by 12.7 mm UBS machine guns. This does not make sense because 12.7 mm ShKAS did not exist. Are you talking about 7.62 mm ShKAS being substituted by 12.7 mm UBS as a underwing armament?

A typo, methinks-- there was no 12.7mm Shiptalny gun.

Page 143, 1st column. "At first, Plant  No. 153 produced the lightened Yak-7DI fighter without the two additional wing tanks." The translation of this sentence is inadequate and confusing. It should be as follows: "Yak-9 represented a series production of the Yak-7DI prototype with two wing fuel tanks being removed. The absence of two outer wing tanks was the main difference between the serious produced Yak-9 and Yak-7DI prototype. "

Very good. Ilya has a keen eye, as you can see.

Page 143, 2nd column. Yak-9T, T should stand for "Tank" (tankoviy), not for "Tyazelovooruzenniy".

Correct. A.T. Stepanets is quite clear about the menaing of all of the type suffixes in the Yak fighter programme, and 'T' is for 'tankoviy'.

Page 146, 2nd column. "...The firing of the synchronized gun and machine gun through the propeller arc..." The translation is confusing and misleading. Alternative translation would be: "The firing of the synchronized cannon through the propeller arc proved safe in all flight modes and maneuvers, as it was with the synchronized machine gun. However, this version was not put into series production since it was decided to equip Yak-9 fighters with more powerful cannons -- 23mm, 37mm, and 45mm."

Page 151, 2nd column. "...This modification was favorable in manufacturing terms, allowing use of the fuselage structure of either the Yak-9T or Yak-9D...". The translation is inadequate and misleading. It should be: "This modification was favorable in manufacturing terms allowing use of the common fuselage structure to meet the production demand of either Yak-9T or Yak-9D."

Page 153, 3rd column. "The latter was lightened by the removal of a machine and its ammunition…" That is true for only some of Yak-9R. The rest of them retained the machine gun. The planes without UBS were equipped with radio compass RPK-10, aviahorizon AGP-2, and radiostation RSI-4.

I agree. Stepanets details the various modifications made to the Yak-9R, both in the factory and the common ones in the field. Certainly there will be exceptions, but the general rule would be as Ilya describes.

Page 154, 2nd column. According to A. Stepanets (page 145) most of the innovations for the Yak-9U were taken from Yak-3.

Agreed again. This work is clear in the manufacture of the Yak-3 post-War, which featured metal-covered, all dural wings, and metal skinning on the aft fuselage.

Page 154, 1st column. The last sentence in the Yak-9R section is completely misleading. According to A. Stepanets (page 129), Yak-9R allowed to carry out reconnaissance missions more effectively and with less risk then Pe-2 in the areas loaded with enemy's anti-aircraft artillery and fighters.

Page 157, 1st column. Confusing and misleading translation of the first sentence in the Yak-9UT section. Should be: "The Yak-9UT is a modification of a series-produced Yak-9U with the same engine and propeller but more capable armament. Instead of ShVAK 20 mm cannon and 2 UBS 12.7 mm machine guns of the Yak-9U, Yak -9UT featured 37 mm N-37 engine-mounted cannon and 2 synchronized B-20S 20 mm cannons. Provisions were made to install such engine-mounted guns as B-20M, NS-23, or N-45. To install the last of these, it was necessary to remove the port-side mounted synchronized B-20S gun."
 

Photograph Captions:

The title page. "Yak-9B of the 18th Guards Air regiment". 18th Guards Air regiment was never equipped by Yak-9B, instead, the entire 130 Fighter Air Division was. 18th Guards belonged to 303 Fighter Air Division.
Page 38, Left. 9th  Fighter Regiment, assigned to the Baltic Sea Fleet…" should be "…assigned to the  Black Sea Fleet…"
Page 104, Below. The aircraft represented are not I-16 Type 24. Note the tail ski. Type 24 featured a tail wheel.
Page 144, Center and Bottom. Yak-9K is shown, not Yak-9T as stated. Only Yak-9K featured the muzzle break shown on these photographs.
Page 148, Top. "Another of the heavy weapon Yak-9 versions; the Yak-9-37…" . Actually, Yak-9-37 was not just "another" but a prototype of Yak-9T.
Page 149, Above left. "…3rd Fighter Wing…" should be 3rd Fighter Corps.
Page 157, Bottom and Page 158. Most likely the photograph represents Yak-9P since they were equipped with camera guns.
Page 166. The logo on the nose is not a Guards emblem but an Order of Red Banner.
Page 176. I-16 Type 29 is shown, not Type 24.

Color Plates:

Front cover. The colors of La-7 are wrong. They should be dark gray and light gray.

Indeed! Where did this strange artwork come from, showing an La-7 with spurious Brown/Green colors and squared wing-tips?

Page 179. 3rd from the top is I-16 Type 24, not Type 10. 5th from the top is I-16 Type 24, not Type 17 (note the tail wheel).
Page 181, 1st from the top. Colors should be dark gray and light gray, not greens as shown.
Page 182, 3rd from the top. The shield should be red, not blue. The arrow should be without red outline, and the star should be painted on the spinner.

    I thought I would take a little space here after Ilya's review to list some of this work's most outstanding information that will come as a correction and/or revelation to most Western (and other) readers. This list should be regarded as very cursory, and as an example only.

Pages 22-38    The dismissal of the idea that the Production Series numbers in the LaGG-3 programme may be used as a source of useful identification of variants in this most convoluted manufacturing effort.

Page 15    The BI rocket fighter flew in May 1942, dismissing the stupid German myth that this machine was a "copy" of the Me 163 system, or engine.

Page 32    Descriptions of the political intrigues between Yakovlev and Lavochkin.

Pages 138-143    A nice straightening out of the transition from the later Yak-7s (-B, -D, -DI) to the Yak-9 fighter.

Pages 122-130    Proper Yak-1 nomenclatures and type terminologies.

Pages 109-117    The considerable continuation of Polikarpov fighter design after the I-16.

    The list above should in no way be construed as a denigration of this outstandingly complete and accurate volume. Rather, it should highlight the dramatic and thoroughgoing study committed to this book by students of VVS history. Such a list of minor gaffes could be described for any such book, but one rarely takes the time to expend such effort on lesser titles, being altogether unworthy of the work involved. That Ilya has peered into Gordon/Khazanov's new book with such aplomb is clear testament to the extreme value of their work.

    For myself, I find this title to be superlative. I have some minor objections to a certain 'editorial bias' against Lavochkin's aircraft, and I cannot agree with the authors' over-stated point about VVS pilots insisting on flying in combat with the canopy open (neither the written nor photographic evidence supports such a broad claim), but these are insignificant problems when considering the book as a whole. Soviet Combat Aircraft, Vol.1 is a triumph, and a sorely needed reference on the machines of the VVS during the Great Patriotic War. I congratulate Mr. Gordon and Mr. Khazanov most heartily, and eagerly await Volume 2.  [ep]

    Absolutely fabulous book. It is quite natural to have some minor mistakes and typos in any serious work, especially when these typos are of mostly translation nature. This title can easily substitute most of the individual articles one had collected over the years from different sources. The authors outperformed venerable Shavrov by creating this superb volume. One of the revelations I noticed is the evaluation of Polikarpov fighters (especially I-16 and I-153). In fact, they were not as outdated as it was believed before.  Readers can see the dynamics of improvements in manufacturing quality as well as combat tactics. These factors were superbly discussed by Von Hardesty in Red Phoenix . Excellent chapter on the MiG fighters discussing all experimental machines of the time.

I, personally, do not agree with Erik's statement about the harsh tone on Lavochkin fighters. The "harsh" quotes were taken from NII VVS official documents. We can argue on the proportion of their use comparing with other types, though. Do not forget that these documents were issued when Lavochkin was not exactly in favor and Yakovlev intrigues against him were in full scale. For me these facts bring even more respect to S. A. Lavochkin and his team who were able to overcome all the difficulties and create one of the best fighters of the WW2.  [ig]