|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Army at War > What if scenario|
|Posted by: udar April 21, 2012 08:28 am|
| I am not sure if this will fit here, but as such topics are kinda popular in many forums, i will try to make one here too
The scenario involves Romania starting a heavy industrialization and militarization in late 20's-early 30's, similar with USSR and Germany.
What if IAR factories kept going with development and IAR-15 and IAR-16 will be aqquired in early 30's, so an IAR-80 like airplane (maybe an improved version) entered in RoAF in big numbers, in 1936-1937 let say, so in 1940 will have over 1000?
What if submarine aquisitions keep going, (either buyied as Delfinul either build here as Rechinul and Marsuinul), and we'll have 8-10 in 1940? Same for other Navy surface ships (like aquiring more destroyers)
What if 75 mm Resita guns will exist in great number, and the fortified Focsani-Namoloasa-Galati line would be fully equipped and operational in 1939? Same fortifications to exist near Dniester and Prut rivers, as well in west toward Hungarian border?
What if we'll aquire from France the Char B1 tank instead of R-35 light one? And eventually start the Maresal tank-hunter production much earlier and in great number (like having similar class of armoured vechicles in 1940, let say more then 2000 of all types)?
Not to mention equipping with smaller arms, like Orita submachine gun, more light machine guns as well, and an overall more bigger and trained army, since middle 30's?
Would in such instance Romania able to reppel or discourage a more agressive Soviet policy, especially in 1940, when Soviet had a lower morale after the unexpected hard win battle with Finns?
Would Germany have another aproach to us? We'll be directly attacked by both (and German "pawns" as Hunagry and Bulgaria) or they will try to reach an agreement to secure the oil fields so important for Germany, which would might be lost (as purposely destroyied or set in fire as in WW 1, to not be able to be used soon)?
|Posted by: Radub April 21, 2012 09:06 am|
The first decade and a half after WW1 was a strange time. WW1 was called "the war to end all wars" and Germany, seen as the main treat to peace, was tethered by the Versailes Treaty. The funancial crash of 1930s crippeld most world economies. Making war equipment seemed futile and not a priority. Furthermore, Romania embraced a stance of "neutrality". I.A.R. was privately-owned and developed aircraft as products to be sold on the open market. The I.A.R. 15 and 16 were commercial failures. The government did not need any of those products, simply because no one expected another war and Romania was going to pursue its neutral stance anyway. Because of the limited demand for such products, I.A.R. went bankrupt and was saved from ruin by nationalisation in 1938. Around that time, the world began to suspect that a war was imminent. Only then, the government took an interest in aviation and started investing. Manufacturing licences were purchased from Italy and Poland and new designs were drafted. So, that meant that I.A.R. "missed the start". But apart from that, the biggest problem Romania had was not the shortage of airframe designs. The biggest problem was the shortage of engines. Romania did not have a locally-designed high-power engine for the entire duration of the war. The I.A.R. 14K, the most powerful engine (~1000HP) manufactured in Romania during the war was a French Gnome Rhone made under licence. The licencing did not allow for development and there were no means or knowledge to develop a powerful engine from zero. This became a problem as the war progressed and the foes' engines became stronger while Romania's most powerful engine remained behind - what used to be an impressive 1000HP in 1939 eventually turned out to be a puny 1000HP in 1944. Romania imported a number of stronger engines from Germany, but even that slowed-down to a trickle as they were needed in Germany and stopped altogether in the autumn of 44.
So, for this what-if to work, the story has to start with a good engine factory developing a series of strong engines and a well established engine manufacturing set-up that can update/improve them to keep up with the competition. Once you have the engine, the plane can be built around it.
A simpler solution was to import equipment and Romania did that-they imported a lot of equipment from Germany.
|Posted by: ANDREAS April 21, 2012 10:55 am|
|if you asked me, I honestly would have preferred in terms of armor, at least one armoured cavalry regiment equipped with AMC 1935 SOMUA S 35 tanks, and other two regiments equipped with 1935 RENAULT R35 light tanks, maybe having the new 37mm SA 38 gun. Of course not forgetting the Czechoslovak tanks, of which I would have preferred TNH-S model of ČKD company.|
|Posted by: Agarici April 22, 2012 12:30 am|
| This is a subject dear to me. Actually even smaller scale solutions were available and could have been useful, like honoring all the armament orders made by Romania in the late 30’s, which would have made for quite a well armed military (I'm refering especially at the Schneider and Bofors ATG, the Schneider and Skoda heavy artillery, the ZB heavy MG's). Or some relatively small improvements, like the arming of R 2 tank (delivered in greater number) with the main gun of LT vz. 38 (a solution suggested by the manufacturer), an earlier setting of assembly lines for (a 37 mm SA 38 gun armed) R 35 (which was a decent tank in that configuration) and for the (machine-gun armed) UE tankette (as negotiated between Romania and France), and/or the production/purchasing of a 37 mm Bofors armed Vickers 6-ton, using the Finnish or Polish example. Another decent solution could have been the purchase of R 3 as a main battle tank (see that for a general idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-3_(tank) ) - sort of Romanian-Czech version of the Somua tank.
In the same time, at least the partial fulfillment of one of the naval development plans (plus 1 modern destroyer, 1 light cruiser and several submarines and fast MTB) would have significantly improved the combat capacity of the navy.
For the airforce, I think a 1000 hp engined PZL P 24, built earlier and in greater number, and the in time delivery of the ~ 100 IAR 80 ordered as a substitute for the PZL P 11 (plus that of the ~ 50 Hurricanes and 72 Messerschmitts) could have made a difference, as well as a sustained serial production of the SM 79 as a medium bomber. Also, the delivery of the ordered (from France) Hotchkiss 25 mm AA guns would have counted for a better antiaircraft defence.
Other possible adjustments: finishing the "Carol line", emphasizing the Eastern frontier, and installing the Czech weaponry (47 mm antitank cannons, ZB heavy MG’s, fortification mortars and howitzers) from the former Czechoslovak fortifications on it (donated/sold by the Czechs or the Germans); the formation of 2-3 mechanized cavalry divisions, after the French DLM model (using perhaps the Vickers as “fast tanks”); constituting 2-3 armored brigades on the structure of the 2 intended mechanized brigades (the British model); using the R 35 as armored support for the guard divisions of for the army corps (the French model, again); the early formation of a small well-trained paratrooper force/battalion, using the French or the Italian model (remember that the military version of the Potez 65 airplane was intended for paratroop transport in France) which could have done small wonders in the back of an enemy frontline.
|Posted by: PaulC April 25, 2012 06:24 am|
| Hitler asked Antonescu in autumn 1940 to focus on having a small number of very well equipped ( 6-7 divisions ) units, instead of masses of poorly trained and poorly led soldiers.
Antonescu for whatever reasons opted for the later, tens of poorly equipped immobile divisions to Hitler's despair. That's why the combat value of Romanian units was low.
I believe we could have equipped 6-7 divisions to German level with regards to artillery, automatic weapons and motorized transport. Instead of keeping tanks separate, they should have been distributed to the infantry divisions, 20-30 per division to act as infantry tanks. Such a division would have had greater firepower and penetration than a German one.
|Posted by: Radub April 25, 2012 08:33 am|
The PZL P24 was a poor fighter. Visibility was limited by the position of the wing. It could carry a limited amount of armament and was fitted with two 20mm MG-FF cannons, each with 60 rounds, giving it a firing power of roughly 10 seconds. Putting a bigger engine on this would have not improved anything and would have diverted valuable engines from the I.A.R.80 and S.M.79.
|Posted by: udar April 25, 2012 04:12 pm|
Yes, a good engine would be great. Thats why i said that starting the production for military on large scale much earlier would porbably lead to an earlier development or aquiring (like a license or at least some engines) of even better engines.
Some 1000 IAR-80 in 1940 would surely be a very serious threat to any enemy around, including USSR (which had as a main fighter a slightly but clearly inferior plane, I-16).
I mostly agree, and it would've be interesting if the Maresal tank-hunter would entered in production in 1939-1940 (yes, i know, it was inspired and evolved as project after war experiences, but lets say for the sake of argumentation it will be produced.
I suppose it will be good enough to knock off any tank in existance at the time, and even later (save maybe for Tiger or KV/IS-2 from the front, but even those from a shorter distance, as supposedly the Romanian 75 mm Resita gun had higher velocity and better penetration then German Pak-40 75 mm or Soviet Zis-3 76 mm AT guns
Romania did had few very well trained divisions, as the Mountain Hunters and Cavalry ones. The problem was their equipement, which lacked in some aspects, and the fact they was kinda specialized units (mostly like the Mountain Troops, much better prepared to act in mountaneus/forested areas then in open stepes).
The problem was they was few, and in general it was a lack of equipment for the entire Army, and a lack of modern or adapted training for many units (except for those mentioned above and maybe few from other branches).
Thats why i said that an earlier start for industrialization and militarization, maybe from the early 30's at least (the crisis would make maybe to obtain much cheaper licenses for industry and weapons), like USSR and then Germany did, will greatly improve the weaponry and preparness of the Army, both in quantity and quality. This, coupled with 1 million soldiers mobilized will make hard even for USSR to threat us in 1940. They will need in that case some 2 millions (if not 3) soldiers for a successful invasion in Romania, without having a clear air superiority. Maybe Hungary and Bulgaria will participate too to an invasion, ading together another 1 million (probably less, as around 700.000-800.000 soldiers). This to respect the saying that an attacker need a superiority of at least 3 to 1.
In such case, of a prolonged war of at least couple months if not longer, will any f them risk the great losses involved?
After the rather hard win against Finland, will USSR risk a war at such scale, knowing that the relation with Germany is such delicate, and their losses might be very big again? Will Germany try to avoid the losses of the oil fields (more then probably destroyied, which will require for recovering and reaching same production maybe up to a year) and sign a pact with us, without actively suporting the Hungary and Bulgaria demands?
|Posted by: Radub April 25, 2012 04:33 pm|
There was no way Romania could have 1000 fighters of the same type in 1940. Romania never had 1000 fighters of the same type and I doubt it ever will in the foreseeable future. The manufacturing facilities or financial means simply did not and still do not exist.
Taking the case of the I.A.R.80, since the aircraft was designed in late 1938, that would mean a production of 50 to 60 aircraft per month to reach a figure of 1000 items in 1940. Such production was unattainable. Only 450 I.A.R.80 were made altogether and production ceased in the late-spring of 1944, by which time it was obsolete due to the outdated engine.
The only solution for Romania was to purchase these aircraft from abroad. And they did.
|Posted by: Florin April 26, 2012 03:10 am|
"Heavy industrialization" started in late 1920's would be a little too late for me.
I do not understand the parallel with Germany and USSR.
Germany had an excellent industrial platform, backed by high standard university education, since the XIXth century. They were very skilled in manufacturing before the XIXth century.
The Russian Empire preceding Soviet Union was not in the Stone Age either.
I agree that the few factories with American and German equipment built in the 1930's helped the Russians a lot to understand the principles of mass manufacturing, but they were satisfactory in technical matters before that, and that include their university education.
"Udar", we lost the train long before that, and I am sincerely sad about that.
I am sad because the modernization of Japan and Romania started exactly in the same moment (plus...minus few years). When they started to modernize, Japan and Romania were somehow at the same level.
Japan inaugurated her first railroad in 1872. Romania did it two years before that.
Japan sent young people in all countries willing to accept them, with just one mission: to learn. Young Japanese officers were accepting undercover low blue-collar jobs, like coal loaders for the burners of steam engines, just to learn more about the modern steam ships. If I am not wrong, even Yamamoto did this when he was very young, before going to America as military attaché.
Great Britain helped them indeed, but that was not enough. Somehow the Japanese were better than us in copying foreign objects. A funny example: after the first steam vessel was delivered by Great Britain to Japan, the emperor ordered to create an identical replica. They went so far in copying it, that the coat of arms of Great Britain, marked as bas-relief on cast iron objects, was copied too.
Well, we did notable efforts, we left behind the Turkish heritage and we created impressive things too, like the second oil refinery in the world (1860, one year after the first one made in the U.S.A.), the Cernavoda bridge, longest and most modern in Europe at that moment, but things like priorities in aviation due to genial individuals did not result in industrial production. We have many qualities, but we missed the Japanese focus and determination.
|Posted by: Dénes April 26, 2012 05:16 am|
That's interesting. Which line was that (in Rumania)? What locomotives did they use?
|Posted by: Agarici April 26, 2012 07:02 am|
The line was Bucharest-Giurgiu, in late 1869, followed soon after by the line Iasi-Bucharest.
|Posted by: Florin April 26, 2012 03:09 pm|
I was referring to Bucharest-Iasi line, inaugurated in 1870, and also mentioned by Agarici when he replied to you.
All I can say right now is that this contract was with German partners, so they used German equipment. During the Socialist years they still kept one of these original locomotives in a museum, so I guess it should still be there.
|Posted by: udar April 26, 2012 03:10 pm|
Better a little later then never or really too late.
Germany started to rearming itself in late 20's early 20's. Sure, they already had an excellent industrial platform, but they started in XIX century too
Russians didnt had anything big, they started the important industrialization in 20's-30's as well, and the militarization in the same period. Thats why i said if we did the same, we would have been then in a much better position.
IAR-80 was better then I-16 and even Mig-3 in his time, and if we start to produce them (or something similar) since 1936-1937, with a much larger already industrial base, we surely can have around 1000 in 1940, and dominate in air battles any of our neighbours.
A supposed Maresal tank-hunter entered in production in 1937-1938 and reaching in 1940 a number of 2000-3000 would stop any enemy tank of that era, including T-34.
Or, imagine we really invested in industry and scientific research, since late 20's, and have Henri Coanda coming back in the country then, and have at disposition everything he needed to develope his jet airplane or even his "flying saucer"/"aerodina lenticulara" (patent obtained in France in 1935 i think, even if i saw a clip from Discovery Science with Radu Manicatide saying that he saw a small prototype flying in 1932 if i am not mistaken)?
But yes, unfortunately we lost that train, and even if we have the ideas and imagination and "brain" for this, we didnt have the focus and leaders able to turn the things in the right direction
|Posted by: Florin April 26, 2012 03:34 pm|
| Udar, I am not arguing with the "what if" scenario of Romania as superpower.
What is happening in history is that superpowers are willing to bow to no one, and the others are teaming against them.
The worst possible scenario in 1940 was a combined simultaneous attack of USSR, Germany and Hungary against us. In 1940 even Yugoslavia was ruled by a pro-German government, and Bulgaria of course, and they could probably participate into this.
If 3, 4 or 5 of these countries would attack in the same time (Germany, USSR and Hungary being in any combination), the best Romania could do, even as "superpower", was to withdraw behind the Carpathian Mountains and then to negotiate a honorable and advantageous surrender.
Remember Germany, a real superpower. Squeezed between the red star and the white star, it simply could not stand.
|Posted by: Radub April 26, 2012 03:40 pm|
It was not possible to start producing the I.A.R.80 in 1936. The draft project was submitted to the MAM in late 1936. It simply did not exist before that.
|Posted by: Florin April 26, 2012 03:45 pm|
Just as information, Radu Manicatide was 16 or 17 years old in 1943, when with material help from I.A.R. he built a glider able to lift a person. He could not see that thing in 1932, because he would have to live in France, and he would be a little kid.
Also, the Germans continued the path opened by Henry Coanda, invested heavily into it, with at least one factory dedicated solely for lenticular aircrafts (near Prague), but this eventually was resources that could have better use. After the war the German scientists involved in lenticular aircrafts worked for both Soviet Union and the United States, and neither of them had notable use of these technologies.
|Posted by: udar April 26, 2012 03:52 pm|
I dont said we'll became an expansive, imperialist superpower. I just said would be strong enough to detter some possible attacks.
In that scenario mentioned by you, i do believe that Germany at least would had another approach, and try to get a deal with us, without supporting teritorial demands of Hungary and Bulgaria, and even those of USSR. This because they needed our oil too. And in case of war, the oil fields and refineries would be destroyied, and need at least a year to be rebuilded and start again production (maybe not at the previous levels)
This combined with the fact that wasnt sure who will reach there first. Lets say Soviets reach first, as they had the bigger army and better terrain to go thru. What would Germany do?
Lets say the Soviets lose hundred of thousands of troops, but Germans reach the oil fields first. Do you think Stalin would like that, and USSR wouldnt lose most of morale and image? It was clear then (in 1940) that sooner or later the Germany and USSR, still the best friends at that moment, will broke this friendship, and both tried to aquire the better position for the very probable future clash.
|Posted by: udar April 26, 2012 04:03 pm|
Are you sure?
Look here, its say other things
We dont know very sure how much or on which basis someone invested or continued Henri Coanda's work. As you can see in the movie, Radu Manicatide describe the flight of the small prototype, which seemed to be quite successful.
I am sure others go on that path as well, what i am not sure is if the real results are the one presented usual for the public (like Avro and so on). And i am not sure if we want to go a bit deeper in more secret or controversial or even conspiracist theories here
|Posted by: Florin April 26, 2012 04:10 pm|
So, in this "what if" scenario started by me and continued by you, I see Romania as a ravaged battleground, a kind of Germany in 1945.
If so, did it really worth the effort to become superpower?
I agree with you when you assume possible "courtship" from both USSR and Germany, each trying to lure us on their side.
Germany did that anyway, in the real history. Stalin was not the kind of personality to try it.
Thinking of all this subject started by your topic, a nation resembles with a person. You have opportunities in your life. If you miss them, they never return.
|Posted by: Florin April 26, 2012 04:23 pm|
After reading your post, I searched the birth date of Radu Manicatide, and I discovered that he was born on April 17, 1912 - Iaşi. He died on March 18, 2004 - Bucharest.
I was wrong. I blame the magazine where I read that as teenager (16 or 17), he built a glider in 1943. The magazine was from "Sport si Tehnica" / "Sports and Technics" series, printed in 1960's...1970's.
Udar, the problem with lenticular aircrafts is the power of the engine. If the superpowers would have something good, they would not resist to don't use it with any occasion. Think of B-117 and B-2: they are in the air with any possible excuse.
|Posted by: Radub April 27, 2012 08:07 am|
| There were numerous attempts to make circular flying machines, but they always failed because such objects suffer from poor aerodynamics. There is too much drag and too little lift. It is good SF, but only in an universe where Newton's laws are repealed. :-)
Coanda was no longer involved in aircraft design after 1918 and never really returned to aircraft design. On balance, he was just an average aeroplane designer, nothing fantastic. His most successful designs were the aircraft he designed for Bristol before WW1. After that, his aeroplane designs failed.
|Posted by: udar April 27, 2012 08:26 am|
| Well, regarding the "flying saucers", that Discovery Science documentary say otherwise (look on youtube for "Adevaratele farfurii zburatoare" or "The real flying saucers"-Discovery Science)
Coanda was a genius, dont forget he invented and build the world first jet airplane in 1910. Sure, it was a rudimentary one, but imagine if he would have the means to develop it and an industry behind to support him, after WW 1, starting with 1930 let say? I saw pics with another jet airplane model made by him in 30's i think, but again just a scale model.
His "flying saucer" was too the first of its kind, way beyond its time actualy, even more then the jet plane, and other projects follow his design, at least partially or at the base (see the documentary). We dont know for sure how that evolved, what others plans and developments goes, and what Coanda himself did later, after WW 2, and what improvements he did to his design (as general details and descriptions of such type of aircrafts exists from that era, some coming right from Coanda, in 60's if i am not mistake).
The fact that the "great public" dont know or know very little about such developments doesnt mean they are not made. The missing of evidences for existence of something doesnt mean a evidence of missing, just that they might be better kept in secret.
|Posted by: Radub April 27, 2012 08:48 am|
Udar, are you serious or is this a prank?
For "flying saucers" I recommend that you get the book "Flying Saucer Technology" by Bill Rose. This lists and describes all attempts to make such devices, with photos, drawings and proper historic accounts.
I recommend that you get Dan Antoniu's book about Coanda. He was not really a genius, just a "wacky" designer driven by the desire to "think outside the box". He failed more than he succeeded and he did not build a single aeroplane after the end of WW1. He simply moved on to other things and never returned to aviation. Here is an exercise for you: put together a list of all aircraft designed by Coanda. Check how many flew. Check how many made it into series production. Of those that entered series production, how many crashed and killed their pilots due to poor design. Check how many were made after 1918. You will get a very clear picture of Coanda's "genius". Get Dan Antoniu's book, it is a very non-emotive and factual description of his work. Stick with the facts. Forget the propaganda.
Coanda did not invent the jet engine. This was discussed many times before, even on this forum. If Coanda had invented the jet engine in 1910, WW1 would have been fought by jet engines. No strategist, no industrialist, no investor would have ignored such a monumental invention. His device of 1910 was what you would call today a "ducted fan" (elice intubata). That is not a jet engine, not even related, not even close. It did not work.
|Posted by: Radub April 27, 2012 10:03 am|
I tried to find these documentaries on YouTube, but found nothing with these titles. I found a lot crazy stuff though, the kind of stuff that even morons would be doubtful about. I hope you are not basing your "research" on stuff about Hitler's flying saucer base in New Schwabland.
|Posted by: udar April 27, 2012 11:02 am|
I think you jump to quickly on some conclusions, or you are too sure on what you know, which sometimes can be tricky. I remember we had a while ago a discussion about a medieval battle or something, when you was very sure about the numbers involved, and when you was prouved wrong you changed the tone and direction.
I am not saying that Coanda was the ultimate genius of humanity, but, he clearly was a genius in some fields, a visionary with many achievements, and not just regarding the aviation.
About his jet, yes, it was indeed a jet, a rudimentary jet sometimes called "air-jet", and this is pretty much recognized by anyone who is neutral. I know there some Brits try to disagree, so to promote Whittle as first, which is obviously wrong (even if he did invented the "turbojet", which is today the most common encounteres jet, but ofcourse not the only one).
Some probably may fell on that Whittle propaganda, if they are more easily influenced, but i can easily show you enough material, coming from various people (like the Director of National Air and Space Museum from USA, former fighter jet pilot and colonel in US Air Force and a very good historian of aviation) who said that Coanda is indeed the inventor of the first jet.
Sure, it was a rudimentary one, because the concept itself was way ahead of its time. Gustav Eiffel even told Coanda "young man, pitty you was born 30, if not 50 years ahead of your time".
Infact the "Coanda effect" was discovered by Coanda when he did a short accidental flight with his plane, and saw how the flames from the exhaust bend near the plane surface.
He didnt go on with building this because nobody wanted to invest in such a new and rather dangerous invention, because was still too advanced as concept, so less developed.
And back then it was needed as much as many simple planes, so the classic models prevailed.
I find kinda hard to think someone will jump in 1914 on Coanda jet concept, knowing the only prototype burned and knowing that even clasic concepts are weak and not extremely reliable even if continously developed and improved, and the aviation was just at the begining.
Things might be different if we would invest here starting with 20's, in a larger aviation industry, and allow Coanda to work free on that concept. As i said i saw photos with another model done by him in 30's, another jet model.
About the "flying saucers" now, i am not sure what you may say against Radu Manicatide interview? Do you think he lied? Are you in such position to contradict him?
And well, this is the documentary, is kinda fragmented, but you can saw there photos, sketches, drawings, real footage and interviews with peoples involved in such projects or who have/had knowledge about them (some of them real scientist, not "conspiracy theorists" from internet)
After that go on with next clip, 0, 1, 2, 3 etc., not sure if the very last part of documentary isnt missing and i dont have time and mood to search now for the english version and check there too
|Posted by: Radub April 27, 2012 11:44 am|
The Coanda 1910 was not a "jet" plane. It has none of the features of a jet plane. Maybe the confusion is caused by such words as "air jet" and thinking that just because it contains the word "jet" it is a "jet engine". I can make an "air jet" when I whistle. That does not mean that I have a jet engine in my mouth. Vuia's engine was in every single way similar to the way your vacuum cleaner uses a motor to turn a turbine and generate a difference in pressure, thus creating a "jet of air". That does not mean that the vacuum cleaner is a jet engine. A "jet engine" works by compressing air, heating it, and then using the resulting "jet of hot gases" for propulsion. Coanda's propulsion device had none of those things. The invention of the "jet engine" is shared between Von Ohain and Whittle who, separately, perfected the system.
The Coanda 1910 plane never flew. Coanda made a claim that he flew that plane and the plane went on fire, but there is no record of any kind of this flight. He displayed the plane at the Paris Air Show in 1910 (so the plane was not burned yet) and at the end of the show he sold the plane to a person called Weymann who took it with him. This appears to be Charles Terres Weymann, a very famous pilot at the time. So... when could Coanda fly it?
That flight (and subsequent ball of fire trailing smoke across Paris) was not recorded by any newspaper, photographer, eye-witness, no one. Planes were the "hottest thing" at the time. A plane in the air was the most exciting thing at the time. A plane in the air was headline material at the time. Yet, there is absolute silence about this flight. It never took place. Evidence of this flight has been the "holy grail" of aviation historians for many decades, yet not a single mention of such a flight has ever been found.
The first claim about this flight was made by Coanda during an interview on TVR in the late-sixties (no such mention ever existed between 1910 and that interview). By that stage, he was already losing his marbles and it is hard to say whether he made the whole thing up for attention or his feeble mind was convinced it took place.
As for his genius as an aviation designer (and I am referring to him as an aviation designer), as I said, please read Dan Antoniu's book. You will quickly realise that he was simply a poor designer (actually reckless) and in his search for "unusual" designs, he created crazy contraptions or utter deathtraps. After 1918 he moved on to other stuff and never returned to aviation.
He obtaind the patent for the Coanda Effect in the mid-thirties, by which stage he was interested in fluid dynamics, so it is very likely that he came across it during his fluids research rather than his aviation research.
In the mid-twenties, Coanda wrote to the War Minstry with a plan to "revive the armament industry". His plan was rejected. So, to answer your "what if" question, Coanda tried and failed to "fix" he military industry in Romania. No point in asking "what if Coanda got involved"?
Now, I suggest you go and read Dan Antoniu's book about Coanda. He was a very interesting man, but strangely enough he is remembered for stuff he did not do and the stuff that he did successfully is forgotten.
|Posted by: udar April 27, 2012 12:54 pm|
Well, i understand you are convinced by Brtis propaganda, which is OK, we live in a democracy and everyone is free to believe what he/she wish. Whittle and Von Ohain invented the "turbojet" engine, a variant of jet engine.
Coanda-1910 was the first jet plane in the world, and i have more trust in what reliable or neutral avaiation historians or scholars say. I already give you an example.
Coanda-1910 did had "heater" devices on the air gases exhaust, so thats how the he observed the "Coanda effect". I think those appear in his sketches of the plane and was mounted before the first and last flight
What the heck are you talking about? A ball of fire trailing smoke across Paris? Is this a joke, are you for real? Do you think it was like a Concorde with burning engines falling from the skies? Good God.
It was a simple taxiing of the plane, when it suddenly took off on the camp near Paris. Coanda reduced the gases and the plane crushed.
It is possible that that guy, Weymann, to express his desire to buy the plane, but surely didnt. More then that, he was alive in 50's-60's (and no way when you say, late 60's) when Coanda talk more about that flight, but never contradict him. They was both in France anyway.
The plane crushed and a part of it (like the tail and so) was salvaged and reused later with a conventional rotor blade.
This because Coanda didnt have money to build other planes or develope his concept.
There are eye witnesses of that flight however, is not my fault you dont know much about that
And your supposition toward his state of mind in late 60's is just rude and unprouven, to not say other things. It looks like you have a real problem with Coanda, psichological wise.
If i get my hand on that book, i will, ofcourse. Just look after another one, "Coanda si avioanele sale" by Craciunoiu and Sandachi. I think they say the other way, that was a jet plane and had a flight (the doomed one). And they come too with photos and documents who show that wasnt a simple made up story.
About the fact he moved from aviation after 1918 it was just rejected by Radu Manicatide interview, i fail to understand how you still believe that. Gosh, there are pics with parts of his "flying saucer" patents obtained in 50's and 60's flowing on the internet
Yet his flying saucer model fly in early 30's (like two years before the Coanda effect patent). Or you still believe Radu Manicatide lied? And if so, on which basis?
Yes, our politicians and leaders back then was as idiots as ever in the last period. Few was up to the task to lead the country.
But the purpose of this "what if" discussion is to imagine how would be if, we already know what was.
Ah, i understand you saw that documentary and give up to "flying saucer" debate
Yes, i said i will sometimes, just try to check too the one i told you, and until then look a bit here
|Posted by: Radub April 27, 2012 01:30 pm|
| You may realise the silliness of your statements about Coanda after you read Dan Antoniu's book.
As I said, Coanda "got involved" and failed, irrespective of the causes or reasons. So, subject "fumat", move on.
I have no interest in talking about flying saucers. It is OOT (and silly).
|Posted by: Florin April 27, 2012 04:22 pm|
| Sometimes models at reduced scale may behave better than the full scale product, especially when the power of engines and the weight of the aircraft are essential factors.
Decades before the beginning of the XXth century, a model plane with propeller and a little steam engine was successfully tested. I am not aware of a full scale operational airplane to be ever powered by a steam engine.
I am not as good as others in the history of lenticular aircrafts, but I remember that first of all Coanda wanted to prove that his "Coanda effect" was able to provide lift from fluid flowing along the lenticular object. In his laboratory testing, that flow of fluid was provided by external means and was not generated by the lenticular object itself. It would be like the lift of an airplane would be assured by the blow of a huge fan installed in front of him. So we are back to the basics: the power to weight ratio.
The evolution of aviation toward speeds of 3600 km/h outpaces any hope for lenticular aircraft able to match this (with the technologies available to us).
As for vertical taking off, it looks that people get along well with the fragile and noisy helicopters.
|Posted by: Agarici April 27, 2012 06:40 pm|
That could be so, but for 1936-1937 I think it was a resonable choice. I was thinking of ~ 70 planes (instead of 30) - two fighter groups, deployied in the East, facing the Soviets - with a bigger ~ 1000 hp engine to increase the speed. Since the IAR 80 was ready for serial production only by 1939, the 2-3 years until then could had been used for manufacturing the PZL.
|Posted by: Florin April 27, 2012 10:06 pm|
| It is more acceptable to discuss the "what if" of different economic power and different political leadership than different technological progress. By different I mean faster than it occurred.
In those years there was a fast succession of inventions and technological improvements, and for Romania to start to design the I.A.R. 80 or the "Maresal" tank destroyer just 5 years earlier would mean to really invent and be the first in the world in technologies like retractable wheels or sloped armor.
|Posted by: udar April 28, 2012 06:37 am|
| [off topic discussion deleted by admin]
Sure, making IAR-80 like planes couple years earlier and in bigger number if we paid a bigger attention to aviation industry and that was much developed by then is much easy to take in consideration even in this "what if" thread
|Posted by: udar April 28, 2012 06:46 am|
If we really had invested in local aviation industry since 1930 let say, i am sure would be possible to come with a airplane with similar capabilities with IAR-80, at least couple years earlier. And having an already much developed industrial base would be able to build it in larger quantities (maybe close to 1000 planes, since 1936-1937 lets say, up to 1940), and make improvings to it, as was the case with Me-109 or Spitifire over the time.
About the Maresal tank destroyer, yes, it is harder to take in consideration to be build before 1940. But, let say we buy some heavy French or Czech tanks, even some license for them (this in the case we would invest much more in local industry and militarization, since late 20's).
And pay more attention to what others might do or have. We'll either had much more tanks, and better ones, either even come to an original concept as "Maresal", maybe even before 1940.
I agree that PZL-24 was a poor fighter, and that was the reason IAR-80 was produced, unfortunately too little and too late
|Posted by: Victor April 28, 2012 08:10 pm|
| The off-topic discussion was deleted in most part, starting from the moment when even the off-topic issue was no longer the subject and had been dropped in favor of personal attacks. Any further derailing of this topic will lead to deletion of the respective posts.
I don't like the feuds going on the forum. We came together on this forum to discuss and learn about military history. We don't have to like each other, we don't have to be friends or hold hands and sing together. But we do have to control ourselves. Holding grudges, paying scores, exerting revenge etc. it's utterly childish.
If the discussion reaches a point when the two parties are a irrevocably dug into their own positions, just agree to disagree and let it go or take a break for a few days. There is no point in continuing on a path which inevitably leads to personal attacks, conflict and clean-up work for Dragos and me.
If one of the members tackles the player and not the ball and moves from discussing the topic to making personal attacks, just report the post and then move on. I am absolutely sure that each and everyone has something better and more fulfilling to do than to exchange insults with an unknown person on the Internet.
Please carry on with the on topic discussion.
|Posted by: Imperialist April 29, 2012 09:49 am|
In my opinion the only way Romania could have rapidly industrialized before WWII would have been for it to become communist soon after WWI. Communists had an obsession with industrialization and economic development and they were ruthless in reaching their goals. They also hated the "bourgeoise" which in Romania made up the corrupt political class. A Romania whose economy was largely based on agriculture and oil industry and whose politics was atrophied and corrupt needed a shock to move it forward faster.
|Posted by: Dénes April 29, 2012 01:30 pm|
| That's a radical theory, but not devoid of any truth.
|Posted by: Radub April 29, 2012 05:03 pm|
| But the entire premise of this tread was that industrialisation would increase the military capability in order to repel Soviet aggressiveness.
Would a interwar "communist" Romania still be under the same level of threat from Russia?
|Posted by: Agarici April 30, 2012 02:03 pm|
| ON TOPIC:
I think there are at least to levels on which this “what is” discussion can develop. The first (and more plausible one) would be that involving a slightly but plausibly stronger Romanian economy and army - including the developments which were actually explored or contracted in reality (production lines, licenses built, ordered weapons or vehicles), and this was the level addressed in my first post.
The second could employ a more radical alternative course of history, which in my opinion would be less credible and more of a fictional (fantasy) construction than a realistic alternative history approach (issues like having the IAR 80 into mass production by mid-late 1930, a 75 mm tank destroyer manufactured by the beginning of the war - and in great numbers - or a radically improved industrial base, somehow au pair with the agriculture as GDP generator). Part of these would have required for an alternative path of the entire Romanian modern history (not only of the interbellum), and other would be simply technically or theoretically implausible (a 75 AT cannon by 1939, or a low wing, all metal built, retractable landing gear Romanian fighter plane before the He 112, MS 406, Bf 109 or Hurricane Mk. I).
|Posted by: lancer21 April 30, 2012 08:46 pm|
| If i may intervene.
These what-ifs are dear to me aswell , in a sad way i guess , because here's you thinking of what might have been if this or that would have been different , and what is the (usually depressing) reality.
Anyway , if we're to have a stronger Romania in 1940 , imho we would have need the following:
A militaristic, nationalistic government taking power AT THE LATEST in the second half of the twenties. I'm thinking more on the right-wing way (a la Italy) rather than communism , afterall communism was our mortal enemy no ?
This leadership must put the defence of the country and the power of the military at the highest, i might say obsessive.
Crucially we needed to eradicate as much as possible corruption in the military apparatus.
The leadership must be competent and capable of anticipating ( within logic and reason ) the trends in the political and technological spectrum.
So, assuming IAR is created as historic , far more attention must be devoted to research and developement ( ie world quality wind tunnels etc .) Agressively building knowledge by sending trainees abroad. Initially licencing foreign designs to gain experience, say Potez-25 as historical , maybe go forward with Spad-91. Reasonable foresight of the PZL-11 breakthrough techology wise , and licensing this starting say 1932-33 (assuming license agreemend signed 1931 with historical purchase). This way IAR gains it's metal cosntruction knowledge much earlier, which in turn a could lead to a succesful IAR-15 -class all metal fighter by 1934. Engine is no good, HS-12X then Y for fighters must be aquired. At this time also licencing multiengine aircraft like Potez-54 , and still licence the 14 K for bomber and observation reconnaisance duties.
Next , by mid thirties we are looking at the next generation fighter with HS-12Y engine and retractable gear ( result of sufficient local inspiration in interpreting the trends in fighter aviation). Assuming prototype in 1936 (only slightly later than Bf-109 or Hurricane f.e.) we can assume full series production by late thirties.
Meenwhile , for the bomber force the licence for S-79 trimotor is still reasonable , being powered by improved 14K engines.
At the same time , by the mid thirties we really need to get friends with the germans ( if not already ) and in face of the common "red menace", get everything we can from them for oil ( like aircraft and crucially licences for Jumo-211, and DB-600/601. Even so by 1940 we'd have in prototype/ initial production at the most a local medium bomber with Jumo engines , and an improved fighter with DB-601, but the bulk will still be the IAR/HS-12Y fighter , the Savoias, and whatever could have been aquired from Germany and Italy.
In the meentime , factories like SET must have been greatly expanded compared to historical, SET being able to manufacture first line combat aircraft like IAR works ( f.e. part of S-79 order and licensing the IAR monoplane fighter, or possibly a SET designed "light-fighter", a concept quite in vogue at that time, able to be built in significant numbers and powered by either a 14K or 14N or HS-12Y.)
So aviation wise , imho the above "timeline" could give us say aprox 1,500 combat aircraft by 1940 (say 800 fighters, 250 bombers , 300 to 500 observation and light bomber aircraft, rest being made of seaplanes, and transports.). I think this is a reasonable figure looking at what other similar sized countries have achieved in those years, and under a best case scenario.
...to be continued!
|Posted by: Florin April 30, 2012 09:03 pm|
My comment quoted by you also had: "...for Romania to start to design the I.A.R. 80 or the "Maresal" tank destroyer just 5 years earlier would mean to really invent and be the first in the world in technologies like retractable wheels or sloped armor."
It is interesting that both innovations were implemented for the first time in Soviet Union, deemed as retarded by others considering themselves as superior.
Also, while the American documentaries assure everybody that their "Bazooka" was the first of its kind, the Russians designed since 1936 something equivalent and distributed it to paratroopers and very light boats. The Finns captured 2 during the Winter War and sent one to Germany for evaluation.
There is a connection between your comment and all I had mentioned above.
A Communist Romania between the 2 world wars would not be threatened by Soviet Union, but it would also be forced on the side of Soviet Union during any possible European conflict. That would not be an independent country. It would be something filled with all kind of technical and economic advisors, engineers and officers, and maybe also with Soviet troops as "support".
The only other long lasting Communist state before WWII was Mongolia (you know that very well, I am not teaching here). Mongolia was a state only by name, flag and coat of arms.
When the Japanese invaded the edge of Mongolia, the real fighting was with the Red Army. The Mongolians were present occasionally with some sporadic cavalry.
|Posted by: Victor May 01, 2012 07:16 am|
|Off topic posts deleted.|
|Posted by: Imperialist May 01, 2012 09:11 am|
Romania was destined to become a satellite of Germany or of the Soviet Union. Its independence would have been limited in both cases, so I don't think it's even an issue.
I believe joining the German order would have been socially easier for Romania's overwhelmingly rural population. Romania would have retained the economic role alotted to it in Europe - exporter of basic products, importer of manufactures. This would certainly have been on the liking of conservative groups and the political elite that derived benefits.
Joining the Soviet order on the other hand would have been socially disruptive, but ideologically its emphasis would have been on rapid industrialization and on breaking out of that economic role of "inferiority".