PRODUCTION AND USE OF METALFORMING MACHINERY IN THE USSR 1932-56

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 70
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2013
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: February 1, 1958
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
SECRET
N? 66
ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE REPORT
PRODUCTION AND USE
OF METALFORMING MACHINERY
IN THE USSR
1932-56
CIA/RR 124
1 February 1958
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND REPORTS
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
WARNING
This material contains information affecting
the National Defense of the United States
within the meaning of the espionage laws,
Title 18, USC, Secs. 793 and 794, the trans-
mission or revelation of which in any manner
to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE REPORT
PRODUCTION AND USE OF METAIFORMING MACHINERY
IN THE USSR
1932-56
CIA/RR 124
(ORB Project 34.501)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Office of Research and Reports
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
FOREWORD
This report presents information on production and use of metal-
forming machinery in the USSR, including definitions, a brief history
of production, the product mix, the inventory, ministerial and ad-
ministrative organizations, major facilities for production and re-
search, and major problems.
Production and inventories of metalforming machinery are measured
in units (individual pieces of equipment). Because of the wide range
of equipment included in the category of metalforming machinery, how-
ever, measurement in units often conceals important characteristics.
For example, individual machines of a large size or of particular
types may have a potential for military or heavy industrial production
which cannot be matched by any number of smaller machines. The sig-
nificance of some of these large or special machines will be discussed
in the sections on inventory problems and on production and use of
heavy presses.
As used in this report, the term heavy presses includes hydraulic
forging presses of 10,000 metric tons and more and extrusion presses
of 5,000 metric tons and more. The term large metalforming machines
-includes other machines such as vertical forging presses of large
sizes (4,000 to 6,000 metric tons), large forging machines, large
bending presses, and the like, in addition to the heavy forging and
extrusion presses.
Although a preliminary estimate of the value of Soviet production
of metalforming machinery in 1955 and an index of the value of produc-
tion for 1950-55 are included in this report, these data must be re-
garded as a first approximation subject to refinement. A description
of the estimating method employed and some important reservations about
the method also are included in this report.
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
CONTENTS
Page
Summary 1
I. Introduction 2
A. Definitions 2
B. Uses of Equipment 3
II.
Production Facilities and Production of Metalforming
Machines
3
A. History
3
B. Ministerial Jurisdiction
5
C. Production and Research Facilities
6
1. Major Plants
6
2. Research Facilities
7
D. Past Production and 1960 Goals
9
1. Annual Production and Product Mix
9
2. Comparison of Soviet and US Production
and Product Mix
12
3. Soviet Inventory of Metalforming Machinery ?
?
?
16
4. Original 1960 Goals
19
III.
Major Problems in Production and Use of Metalforming
Machinery
21
A. Ministerial Inertia and Lack of Coordination ?. ?
?
21
B. Obsolescence, Replacement, and Modernization
of Inventory
23
C. Production and Use of Heavy Presses
25
D. Fulfillment of the Original Sixth Five Year Plan
.
31
Appendixes
Appendix A. Definitions 33
Appendix B. Principal and Major Secondary Metalforming
Machinery Plants in the USSR and Their Primary
Products
- v -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
35
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Page
Appendix C. Summary of "Raid" Articles 41
Appendix D. Methodology for Annual Production of Metal-
forming Machinery in the USSR, 1932-56 . . . 45
Appendix E. US Wartime Deliveries of Metalforming Machinery
47
to the USSR
Appendix F. Metalforming Machinery Sought for Purchase
49
Appendix G. Heavy Presses Constructed Under the Heavy Press
Program of the US Air Force, 1951-57 51
in the UK by the USSR
Appendix H. Extent of Removals of Metalforming Machinery
from Conquered Areas 53
Appendix I. Estimated Value of Soviet Production of Metal-
forming Machinery
55
Tables
1. Reported and Estimated Production of Metalforming
Machinery in the USSR, 1932-56 :gild 1960 10
2. Production of Metalforming Machinery in the USSR, by
'ype, Selected Years, 1932-55 11
3. Comparison of Soviet and US Product Mix of Power-Driven
Metalforming Machinery, 1952 and 1955 14
4. Origins of Inventory of Metalforming Machinery in the
USSR, 1940 - January 1956 17
5. Type-Sizes of Machinery Available at Plants of the
Ministry of Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry
of the USSR and Increases Planned by 1960 20
- vi -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
6. Known Heavy Presses in the USSR
Page
29
7. Principal and Major Secondary Metalforming Machinery
Plants in the USSR and Their Primary Products . . . 36
8. Heavy Presses Constructed Under the Heavy Press
Program of the US Air Force, 1951-57 51
9. Prices of Metalforming Machinery in the USSR . . . 56
10. Estimating Method for Computing the Value of Pro-
duction of Metalforming Machinery in the USSR,
1945 and 1950-55 57
Illustrations
Following Page
Figure 1. USSR: Principal and Major Secondary
Plants for Metalforming Machinery,
1956 (Map) 8
Figure 2. USSR: Composition of Production of
Metalforming Machinery, 1945 and
1950-55 (Chart)
10
Figure 3. Comparison of US and Soviet Annual
Production of Metalforming Machinery,
1947 and 1950-55 (Chart) 12
Figure 4. USSR: M-133 2-Ton Steam-Air Forging
Hammer (Photograph) 34
Figure 5. USSR: A-231 Automatic Bolthead Trim-
ming Machine (Photograph) 34
Figure 6. USSR: A-121 Cold Heading Automatic
for Bolts, Screws, and the Like
(Photograph) 34
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Figure
S-E-C-R-E-T
7. USSR: P-142 800-Ton 4-Column Steam-
Hydraulic Forging Press (Photograph) .
Figure 8.
Figure
Figure
USSR: K-115 50-Ton Gap-Frame Crank
Press (Photograph)
9. USSR: K-273 200-Ton Straight-Sided
Crank Press (Photograph)
10. USSR: N-633 Combination Punching,
Shearing, and Coping Machine
(Photograph)
Figure 11.
USSR: N-313 50-Millimeter Alligator
Shear (Photograph)
- viii -
S-E-C-R-E-T
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Following Page
34
34
34
3)4
34
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
CIA/RR 124 S-E-C-R-E-T
(ORR Project 3)4-.501)
PRODUCTION AND USE OF METALFORMING MACHINERY
IN THE USSR*
1932-56
Summary
Production of metalforming machinery** in the USSR increased
from about 9,000 units in 1950 to about 20,500 units in 1956.
Despite this substantial increase, Soviet domestic production of
metalforming machinery admittedly has been insufficient to meet
the requirements of Soviet industry in terms both of total units
produced and of product mix. Moreover, Soviet production has
lagged behind that of the US in total units produced (jS produc-
tion in 1955 was 37,200 units), in the adequacy of the product mix,
and in the level of technology (as measured by new or advanced
types designed and produced). The USSR, however, does not have to
equal US production of metalforming machinery to supply adequately
its defense and capital goods industries, inasmuch as the US uses
much of its annual production for the consumer goods industries.
In contrast to metalcutting and metal rolling equipment and
processes, areas of great emphasis in the USSR, metalforming equip-
ment and processes have received much less emphasis. Consequently,
even though the machine building industries have been among the
fastest growing sectors of the economy, the forging shops in the
various machine building industries constitute a major production
bottleneck. Since 1953, therefore, production of more and better
metalforming machinery has received increased emphasis. This
emphasis is expected to continue, especially in regard to large
presses and large forging machines.
Poor organization has been a major problem in the production
of metalforming machinery in the USSR. Production has been scattered
among plants subordinate to many ministries, with little liaison or
cooperation between the producing ministries. This scattered pro-
duction has resulted in duplication of research and design, infre-
quent and sporadic deliveries of semifinished components, and a
general dispersal of productive effort.
* The estimates and conclusions contained in this report represent
the best judgment of ORB as of 15 October 1957.
** For a definition of metalforming machinery, see I, A, p. 2, below.
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Although the USSR has had little experience in building heavy
presses, it is probable that a program for building heavy presses
is under way, including the building of a 30,000-ton* press, being
built and to be erected by the Ural Heavy Machine Building Plant
imeni Ordzhonikidze. The undertaking of a program for heavy
presses probably indicates a trend in the USSR toward greater use
of forging and extrusion techniques in production of aircraft. New
heavy presses built by the USSR for these purposes would join the
30,000-ton and 15,000-ton forging presses which were removed from
Germany after World Wax II and which are already engaged in produc-
tion of aircraft at Plant No. 268, Kamensk-Ural'skiy.
The Soviet inventory of metalforming machinery has diverse
origins, most machines having been acquired from the conquered
nations after World War II or imported. The inventory, although re-
spectable in numbers (365,000 units as of 1 January 1956), is not
highly productive and is in need of substantial renovation. The
USSR therefore planned to replace 20 percent of its 1 January 1956
inventory during the 1956-60 period -- a high rate of replacement.
Although the Soviet high-priority heavy and defense industries may
replace and modernize their inventories significantly by 1960, the
inventory in light industry, local industry, repair shops, and other
low-priority branches of the economy will contain large numbers of
machines of low productivity.
Significant increases in production of metalforming machinery in
the USSR will depend on the completion of the 4 plants presently
under construction, the construction of 7 new plants, and the de-
velopment at the various research institutes and design bureaus of
new types of machinery not previously produced.
I. Introduction.
A. Definitions.
Metalforming machinery includes power-driven machines which
process metal by shaping or bending,** including hot and cold forging
machines; mechanical and hydraulic presses; and bending and forming,
* Unless otherwise indicated, tonnages are given in metric tons
throughout this report.
** The definition is the Soviet definition. For a listing of the
various types of machines probably included in each category and
for photographs of some Soviet machines, see Appendix A.
- 2 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
punching and shearing, and riveting machinery. The products range
in size from smsll mechanical presses weighing several hundred pounds
to heavy hydraulic forging presses weighing hundreds of tons.
Metalforming machines are closely related to metalcutting
machine tools,* and in the USSR both metalforming machinery and
metalcutting machine tools often are produced at the same plant.
Although a metalcutting machine tool or a combination of metal-
cutting machine tools can produce the metal shapes made by metal-
forming machines, it is often uneconomical to produce these items
solely by the use of metalcutting machine tools. In addition, the
increased strength imparted by forging to crankshafts, connecting
rods' and the like cannot be duplicated by fabrication on metal-
cutting machine tools.
B. Uses of Equipment.
Metalforming machines are used extensively in production of
aircraft airframes and engine parts, artillery and small arms ammu-
nition, and armor plate for tanks and warships as well as in pro-
duction of parts for numerous types of general industrial machinery.
Metalforming machines are also of major importance in making auto-
mobile bodies and frames and in production of refrigerators, washing
machines, radios, television sets, and other consumer durables.
Recent trends in industrial processes indicate an increasing
use of metalforming machines. The major reasons for this trend are
as follows: (1) forming of metal to close tolerances reduces costly
machining time and saves metal; (2) forging improves the density and
stress characteristics of the worked metal; and (3) operation of
metalforming machinery requires in some cases less skilled labor than
does the operation of the necessary machine tools.
II. Production Facilities and Production of Metalforming Machines.
A. History.
Production of metalforming machinery before the Communist
Revolution in Russia was confined to two plants. One, now known
as the Bryansk Steam Locomotive Building Plant, produced small
pneumatic hammers, and a second plant, now known as the Staro-
Kramatorsk Plant imeni Ordzhonikidze, made presses, shears, and
hammers on order. 1/**
* Machine tools are power-driven machines, nonportable by hand, such
as lathes, milling machines, shapers, and planers, which progressively
remove metal in the form of chips and shavings. Grinding, honing, and
lapping machines are also included, although the chips removed are
microscopic.
50X1
- 3 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
The USSR placed little emphasis on production of metalform
ing machinery during the First Five Year Plan (1928-32). Although
production of metalforming machinery received somewhat greater atten-
tion after .1935, production in 1940 was only 4,668 units. Ej
During World War II, numerous Soviet plants producing metal-
forming machinery were overrun and severely damaged. Equipment,
materials, and personnel were removed to the eastern regions of the
USSR, the new plants being given an identical or similar name to
the old plants. 2/ After the war, plants in the Western USSR were
reestablished in their old locations.*
Production of metalforming machinery was established on a
much larger scale after World War II. Many of the plants relocated 6
in the eastern regions were still under construction at the cessa-
tion of hostilities, but some production had started. During the
Fourth Five Year Plan (19)-i-6-50) the plants in the Western USSR were
rebuilt and those in the Eastern USSR completed and maintained. By
1950, therefore, the number of primary producing plants had almost
doubled compared with the 1940 level, with nearly corresponding in-
creases in total production and in the number of type-sizes** produced.
During the Fifth Five Year Plan (1951-55), five new plants,
all in the Western USSR, were under construction, and some of these
* The names of the relocated plants, however, remained similar to
the parent plants in the Western USSR, although, for the most part,
the products manufactured have been differentiated. The following
are examples of old and relocated plants with similar names:
Western USSR Eastern USSR
Forge and Press Equipment Plant Press and Automatics Plant
imeni Kalinin, Voronezh imeni Kalinin, Chimkent
Metallist Forge and Press Metallist Hydraulic Press
Equipment Plant, Taganrog Plant, Chkalov
Forge and Press Equipment Plant Mechanical Press Plant imeni
imeni Eighth Anniversary of the Eighth Anniversary of the
October Revolution, Serpukhov October Revolution, Slavgorod
Forge and Press Equipment Plant Machine Tool Plant imeni Six-
imeni Sixteenth Party Congress, teenth Party Congress, Novo-
Odessa sibirsk (now producing chiefly
machine tools)
** The term type-size is a Soviet term referring to one size of a
particular type of machine. For example, inclinable gap-frame presses
of 10, 20, 30, and 4o tons would represent 4 type-sizes.
- 4 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
plants began to produce metalforming machinery before 1955.* In
addition, preliminary steps were taken for the building of a new
Experimental Scientific Research Institute of Forging and Press
Machine Building (Eksperimental'nyy Nauchno-Issledovatellskiy
Institut Kuznechno-Pressovogo Mashinostroyeniya ENIIKMASh) and
its experimental plant at Voronezh.** LI
B. Ministerial Jurisdiction.
Before the 1957 reorganization of Soviet industry, metalforming
machinery had been produced by many ministries in the USSR,*** with
little or no liaison between the producing ministries. The most im-
portant plants, however, were subordinate to the Ministry of Machine
Tool Building and Tool Industry and the Ministry of Heavy Machine
Building. Plants of the Ministry of Machine Tool Building and Tool
Industry concentrated upon hammers, mechanical presses, sheet metal
shears and bending machines, some hydraulic presses, cold headers,
and other cold forging machines, whereas plants of the Ministry of
Heavy Machine Building generally were responsible for large machines
such as horizontal forging machines, heavy hydraulic presses, heavy
ingot shears, and straightening and bending machines. This division
of labor between the two ministries was the result of the limited
availability of large-size caSting and machining facilities and an
emphasis on production of metalcutting machine tools. The available
large-size casting and machining facilities within the Ministry of
Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry were not at the primary metal-
forming machinery plants but at the heavy machine tool building plants,
where until recently primary emphasis was on the building of heavy
metalcutting machine tools. It was therefore necessary to use the
plants of the Ministry of Heavy Machine Building, which possessed
adequate facilities, for the construction of the heavy presses and
forging machines.
Although it was planned that the Ministry of Heavy Machine
Building would continue to be an important producer of large metal-
forming machines during the original Sixth Five Year Plan (1956-60),
For the first year of operation of each major plant, see Appen-
dix B, Table 7, p. 36, below.
** For a discussion of this research institute, see C, 2, p. 7, below.
*** 26 ministries were engaged in the production
of metalforming machinery during 1957. 2/ This fact, however, over-
emphasizes the spread of production because the six ministries noted
below contributed the vast bulk of production. It is likely, however,
that metalforming machines were produced in plants subordinate to 20
other ministries from time to time. The problem will be discussed in
further detail in D, 4, p. 19, below, under the discussion on juris-
dictional control.
-5-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
the Ministry of Machine Tool BUilding and Tool Industry was to play
the major role in the planned expansion of production. New plantb
capable of building heavier presses and forging machines were to be
placed under the control of the Ministry of Machine Tool Building
and Tool Industry, and greater emphasis was to be given to the pro-
duction of metalforming machinery at the heavy metalcutting machine
tool building plants.
Metalforming machinery also has been produced by the Minis-
try of Agriculture, the Ministry of ferrous Metallurgy, the Ministry
of Construction and Road Building, and the Ministry of Motor Vehicles.
Although plants subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture reportedly
produced 24 percent of the total unit production of metalforming ma-
chinery in 1955, g this machinery included chiefly small hydraulic
presses and small pneumatic hammers for machine tractor stations,
collective farms, and state farms.
No person or group of persons has played a dominant role in the
production of the metaJforming machinery industry as did A.I. Yefremov
and A.I. Kostousov in the Soviet metalcutting machine tool industry.
Kryzhanovskiy headed the Main Administration of Forging and Press
Machine Building (Glavnoye Upravleniye Kuznechno-Pressovogo Mashino-
stroyeniya GUKMASh) of the now defunct Ministry of Machine Tool
Building and Tool Industry, 1/ and GUKMASh had jurisdiction over the
primary metalforming machinery plants. According to reports of the
Soviet press and trade journals, however, Dmitriy A. Ryzhkov, Deputy
Minister for the Introduction of New Technology of the Ministry of
Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry, had played the most promi-
nent role in the drive to increase the production of metalforming
machinery.
The effect of 1957 administrative changes in the USSR is not
yet clear. The decentralization of industrial control and the aboli-
tion of the Ministry of Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry, the
Ministry of Heavy Machine Building, and other ministries producing
metalforming machines makes certain, however, that the continued ex-
pansion of production of metalforming machinery will not follow the
past pattern of machine tool development -- that is, forced draft
development under one primary ministry. The decentralization, how-
ever, is not expected to alter the emphasis given to the production
of metalforming machines, which will continue to be stressed.
C. Production and Research Facilities.
1. Major Plants.
The locations of the principal and the major second-
ary metalforming machinery plants in the USSR are shown on the
- 6 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
accompanying map, Figure 1.* All of the principal plants formerly
were subordinate to GUKMASh, whereas the secondary facilities were
under the jurisdiction of other main administrations of the Minis-
try of Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry or under other minis-
tries. In addition to plants in which production was centrally
planned (that is, those subordinate to all-union and union-republic
ministries), plants subordinate to republic ministries and local
and cooperative industry produced approximately 5,500 units of
metalforming machinery in 1955 (29 percent of total production).
The principal and the major secondary metalforming ma-
chinery plants, their primary products, and the year in which they
began producing metalforming machinery are shown in Table 7.** The
principal metalforming machinery plants (15 plants including those
under construction) produce a variety of small- and medium-size
equipment, whereas the 20 major secondary plants each produce a more
limited number of types. The major secondary plants often concen-
trate on the production of metalforming machines which are directly
applicable to the work of their respective ministries. As shown in
Figure 1,* most of the principal and the major secondary plants are
in the Western USSR, only seven of these plants being located in the
Eastern USSR (the Urals, Siberia, and the Central Asia areas).
For the most part, production of metalforming machinery
is on a custom or small-series basis, utilizing general-purpose
machine tools. Some of the plants have foundries and forging shops
capable of providing the types of castings and forgings necessary
for their products, whereas other plants must rely on larger or
specialized plants to supply these items. The chief limitations
to flexibility of production between types and sizes of machines
rest in the size of the machining and casting facilities, the size
of the cranes, and the available work space.
2. Research Facilities.
In the future, production of new types of metalforming
machinery will be supported by the research carried out by ENIIKMABh
and its experimental plant, both of which are .currently being estab-
lished at Voronezh. The institute, scheduled to be one of the lar-
gest industrial research centers in the USSR, will employ 700 persons
(presumably including plant employees) and was originally slated to
be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry og Machine Tool Building
* Following p. 8.
** P. 36, below.
- 7 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
and Tool Industry.* The institute and the experimental plant are ulti-
mately to have responsibility for experimentation on theoretical ques-
tions concerning the design and operation of metaJ forming machines and
the pressure processing of metal, for working with new processes and
new types of machines, and for emphasizing the development of highly
productive presses and automatic lines (using metalforming machines).
Both the structure and the responsibilities of this institute have a
striking resemblance to those of the Experimental Scientific Research
Institute of Metalcutting Machine Tools (Eksperimentalinyy Nauchno-
Issledovatel'skiy Institut Metallorezhushchikh Stanko ENIMS) in
Moscow. ENIMB and its experimental plant, Stankokonstruktsiya, have
contributed substantially to the progress of the highly developed
metalcutting machine tool industry. IV
In the past the only research in the USSR on forging
and forming processes was conducted by the Central Scientific
Research Institute of Technology and Machine Building (Tsentral'nyy
Nauchno-Issledovatel'skiy Institut Tekhnologii i Mashinostroyeniya --
TsNIITMASh). TsNIITMASh will continue to do research in this field.
Industrial research institutes such as ENIIKMASh, ENIMS,
and TsNIITMASh are designed to investigate and experiment with in-
dustrial processes and equipment with the following two goals in
mind:
a. To permit the USSR to obtain in a relatively
short period of time the knowledge gained by other nations through
long years of practical experience (in part, through a systematic
exploitation of foreign technical literature and foreign equipment)
and
b. To lay a firm theoretical and experimental foun-
dation for future development.
The existence of centralized research institutes such as
ENIIKMABh subordinate to various ministries constitute a special
problem in the 1957 reorganization of Soviet industry. As yet no new
control mechanism for ENIIKMASh and the other industrial research
institutes has been announced, although some suggestions have been
advanced. 2/ It is clear, nevertheless, that new mechanisms and
channels must be established for the proper selection of research
* It is not known what administrative arrangements have been made
since the abolition of the ministry. It is practically certain,
however, that ENIIKMASh will not be disbanded, thus making necessary
the establishment of channels through which ENIIKMASh can influence
or control the types of metalforming machines produced at the various
plants. -
- 8 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Figure 1
USSR: PRINCIPAL AND MAJOR SECONDARY PLANTS FOR METALFORMING MACHINERY, 1956
NORTH
? . SEA
80 I 0 160 ieo
?
LENINGRA
SERPUKHOV? K
?
PETROVSK
VO
AA
SVERDLOVSK
SAKHALIN
OVOSIBIRSK
SLAVGOR
BARNAUL
?CHIMKENT
\\.......)
Boundaries ore not necessarily those
recognized by the U.S. Government.
/
80
,---,
? Principal Plant
? Major Secondary Plant
0 250 500
9 250 500
1000 Miles
moo Kilometers
80
26297 1.58
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
50X1
50X1
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E7T
topics and for the dissemination and implementation of new techniques
and equipment developed by the institutes to replace the ministerial
arrangements. Because ENIMS had considerable.success under the
Ministry of Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry, a comparison of
its development under the old system with the development of
ENIIKMASh under the new system should prove interesting at some later
date.
In addition to centralized research institutes, some of
the producing Plants have special design bureaus. Before the re-
organization of industry, a Central (Design) Bureau of Press and
Forging Machine Building (Tsentral'noye Byuro Kuznechno-Pressovogo
Mashinostroyeniya TsBKM) was subordinate to GUKMASh. 12/
D. Past Production .and 1960 Goals.*
1. Annual Production and Product Mix.
Estimated production of metalforming machinery in the USSR
from 1932 through 1956 and in 1960 is shown in Table 1.** In addition
to the increase in the number of units produced, the size and mix of
the machines has changed substantially. Although unit production
in 1955 (19,422 units) was reported to be more than 4 times the
1940 level in units, production in 1955, in tonnage, was 15 times
the 1940 level. Ey
Although all of the principal and a number of the
secondary metalforming machinery plants were formerly subordinate
to the Ministry of Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry, plants
of this ministry produced only 1,700 units in 1940, 3,600 units in
1950, 5,400 units in 1955, and 6,900 units in 1956. 11/
A preliminary estimate of the value of production of
Soviet metalforming machinery in 1955 is approximately 453 million
rubles (at 1955 prices).*** The following index of value of pro-
duction (based upon 1955 prices and estimated 1955 product mix)
has been computed****:
* The USSR announced on 25 September 1957 that various alterations
in conditions, including reorganization and the discovery of new re-
serves, require some modifications of Soviet long-term planning. It
was further announced that the appropriate bodies would prepare new
draft plans for 1959-65. This announcement appears to cancel the
Sixth Five Year Plan (1956-60), but no new plans have been announced. 11/
** Table 1 follows on p. 10.
*** This amount equals US $113 million at the official conversion
rate of 4 to 1.
**** For an explanation of the methodology employed and several impor-
tant reservations about these estimates, see Appendix I.
9
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Year
? Index
1950
100.0
1951
125.4
1952
131.3
1953
151.4
1954
170.9
1955
200.8
Table 1
Reported and Estimated Production of Metalforming Machinery
in the USSR 2/
1932-56 and 1960
Units
Year
Production Year
Production
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1,125 12/
1,500
1,900
2,300
2,700
3,125 12
3,600
4,100
4,668 12/
1,500
500
1,000
1,600
1945
1946
1947
191.1.8
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1960
2,87112/
4,000
5,300
6,500
7,800
8,991 12/
10,218 12/
10,711 12/
12,70712/
15,328 la/
19,422 12/
20,500 12/
Ei
a.112/. For methodology, see Appendix D.
b. Reported production.
c. The 1960 planned production of 25,800 units refers
only to all-union and union-republic ministries, which
were responsible for 13,900 units out of total production
of 19,422 units in 1955.
Table 2* shows the Soviet product mix for selected years.
Figure 2** shows the changing composition of Soviet production in the
* *
Table 2 follows on p. 11.
Following p. 10.
- 10-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
THOUSAND UNITS
20
16
12
8
4
USSR
COMPOSITION OF PRODUCTION OF METALFORMING MACHINERY
1945 AND 1950-55
?
?
? ? ?
*O!'... ?
????????
??????????
?????????
??????????
????????
????????
`k.
????-??? 41?410-
??
,4,*0.4065i
Figure 250X1
Forging Machines
and Others
Straightening-Bending
Machines
Shears
Presses
0 --
1945 1946 1947
26298 1-58
1948
1949
1950 1951
1952 1953
1954
Hammers
1955
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 2
Production of Metalforming Machinery in the USSR, by Type 2/
Selected Years, 1932-55
.10,218
Units
1932
1937
1940
1945
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
Hammers
228
521
325
260
2,327
4,728
4,756
4,497
3,904
2,572
Forging
212
490
281
260
2,262
4,677
4,742
4,470
3,861
2,491
Stamping
16
31
44
65
51
14
27
43
81
Presses
797
2,414
4,061
2,466
4,562
3,508
4,100
6,169
8,323
12,071
Forging machdnes
4
11
12
14
11
27
35
7
Power-driven shears
100
186
278
128
1,263
1,114
1,047
1,098
1,319
2,2307
Straightening and
bending machines
4
6
799
824
754
862
1,694
2,490
Other
28
30
43
54
53
45
Total metalformin
machinery
1,125
3,125
4,668
2,871
8,991
10,711
12,707
15,328
19,422
- 11-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20 : CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
post-World War II period, and Figures 4 through 11* show examples of
Soviet metalforming machinery. In the period before World War II,
production was composed chiefly of small mechanical presses and
hammers. In 1935, for example, more than 50 percent of the units
produced by all-union and union-republic ministries (1,675 units
out of an estimated total production of 2,300 units) were small
mechanical presses of from 12 to 70 tons pressure; and 25 percent
were 1- , 2- , and 3-ton forging hammers. 1W No large machines
were produced, and the range of machine type-sizes probably was less
than 50. By 1950, 99 type-sizes were available to consumers from
centrally controlled production, with total Soviet production equaling
approximately 9,000 units. In 1955, all-union and union-republic
ministries produced 13,900 units (out of a total of 19,422 units)
in 220 type-sizes. 1//
Of considerable importance are the number of hammers in
production during the 1950-53 period and the marked shift away from
hammer production in 1954 and 1955 in line with the increased emphasis
by the Soviet leadership on production of forging machines and forg-
ing presses. Although there undoubtedly have been major increases in
the number of forging presses produced in the USSR since 1953, Soviet
statistics have not itemized forging presses as distinct from produc-
tion of other presses. Compared with hammers, these forging machines
and forging presses will produce forgings with smaller metal waste
and can be better adapted to large series and mass production. Never-
theless, hammers still constituted 13 percent of Soviet annlial pro-
duction in 1955. Equally significant is the very small number of
forging machines produced in the USSR in spite of efforts by the
State Committee for New Technology (Gosudarstvennaya Tekhnicheskaya
Komissiya Gostekhnika), the Communist Party, and the press to
stimulate greater production of these machines.
2. Comparison of Soviet and US Production and Product Mix.
Because a large part of US annual production of metal-
forming machinery is used for production of consumer goods, such as
automobiles, refrigerators, and the like, comparisons of annual
Soviet and US production are, at best, partial and therefore poten-
tially deceptive measures of the relative positions of the two
nations. In addition, comparisons of annual production do not imply
a comparison of productive capacity under full industrial mobilization.
On a quantitative basis, Soviet production in recent years
compares unfavorably with that of the US, as shown in Figure 3.** 2.21,/
* Following p. 34.
** Following p. 12.
- 12 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
THOUSAND UNITS
Figure 50X1
COMPARISON OF US AND SOVIET
ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF METALFORMING MACHINERY
1947 AND 1950-55
40
40
37.2
35.9
35.3
34.1
33.2**
30
28.9*
296
30
20
-19.4
20
15.3
12.7
10.2
10.7
10
10
9.0
5.3
0
0
US USSR US USSR US USSR US USSR US USSR US USSR US USSR
26299 1-58
1947
1950
1951
1952
1953
*Based on incomplete returns.
**A minimum. Excludes approximately /7,645,000 US dollars worth
of equipment for which amount figures are not available.
1954
1955
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Even the original Soviet 1960 goal of 25,800 units (for centrally
controlled production) is substantially below US production during
1951-55.
It is probable, however, that the USSR does not have to
equal US production of this type of equipment to supply adequately
the needs of its defense and capital goods industries, inasmuch as
the US uses a large part of its annual production for production of
consumer goods.
Qualitatively the USSR has lagged behind the US in many
respects. Table 3* compares the mix of machines produced in the
US and the USSR during 1952 and 1955. These years were chosen to
emphasize the shift in the Soviet product mix comipared with the
relatively constant mix of the US. Over this 4-year period the
USSR shifted away from the production of hammers while increasing
the proportion of presses, forging machines, shears (slightly),
and straightening and bending machines -- a change which Soviet
leaders describe as an increase in the level of technology. The
Soviet leaders and the Party press, however, remain critical of
the poor quality of the various presses produced, the small number
of type-sizes produced, and the low unit production of forging
machines. The comparison of US and Soviet production of forging
_machines emphasizes. the low level of Soviet production compared
with that of the US. US production in 1955 included 387 headers
and upsetters, 286 forging rolls and swaging machines, and 155
other forging machines, whereas the USSR produced 37 forging ma-
chines during the year. Although there is a possibility of a dif-
ference in definition (such as the exclusion of headers and up-
setters from the category), it is known that by early 1957 the USSR
had produced only one forging roll and had constructed only a few
horizontal forging machines. In addition, according to available
evidence, the USSR had not produced any horizontal counterblow hammers
(impactors of the Chambersburg type**), 12/ and there is no evidence
of Soviet production of stretch-forming presses and large forming
rolls.
The USSR also has lagged behind the US in the production
of large presses. No press larger than the 12,000-ton hydraulic
pipe-forming press, assembled in late 1955 or early 1956, has ever
* Table 3 follows on p. 14.
** Impactors of the Chambersburg type have two movable rams counter-
posed in horizontal position rather than a movable ram falling against
a stationary block as in the case of ordinary hammers. This arrange-
ment eliminates many of the problems of vibration and reinforcement
prevalent in the use of drop hammers.
-13-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 3
Comparison of Soviet and US Product Mix
of Power-Driven Metalforming Machinery W*
1952 and 1955
Types of Machinery
1952
1955
USSR
US
USSR
US
Hammers
Units
4,756
538
2,572
157
Percent of total
44.4
1.6
13.2
O.
Presses
Units
4,100
17,128 12/
12,071
20,712 12/
Percent of total
38.3
50.2
62.2
55.7
Forging machines
Units
11
724 2./
37
828 2/
Percent of total
0.1
2.1
0.2
2.2
Shears
Units
1,047
4,657
2,207
3,956
Perqent of total
9.8
13.
11.4
10.
Straightening and
bending machines
Units
754
6,516 2/
2,490
6,705 2/
Percent of total
7.0
19.1
12.8
18.0
Other metalforming
machines
Units
43
4,556 Li
45
4,849 I/
Percent of total
o.4
13.4
0.2
13.1
Total units
10,711
34 119
19 422
37,207
Percent
100
100
100
100
Footnotes for Table 3 follow on p. 15.
- 14 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 3
Comparison of Soviet and US Product Mix
of Power-Driven Metalforming Machinery 2/
1952 and 1955
(Continued)
a. 22/. US figures exclude metal-container-making machines, die
casting machines, wireweaving and fabricating machines, and drawing
machines and draw benches believed to be excluded under the Soviet
definition.
b. Including forging presses, undefined in Soviet data.
c. Excluding presses, undefined in Soviet data.
d. Punching and shearing machines.
e. Bending and forming machines (US classification).
f. Riveting machines, except hand-held portable types.
been produced in the USSR, whereas the US has built a number of
presses from 10,000 to 50,000 short tons. 21/ The largest extrusion
presses known to have been built in the USSR are 2 of 5,000 tons,
produced for export in 1956 at the Izhora Metallurgical Plant. 22/
Larger presses, however, are presently in production.* Extrusion
presses up to 12,000 short tons have been built in the US. The
largest vertical forging presses and horizontal forging machines
constructed in the USSR have been of 6,300 and 3,000 tons, respec-
tively. Large vertical forging presses are a relatively new develop-
ment in the USSR. The first 4,000-ton vertical forging press was
test-assembled in November 1955, and in September, 1956 the assembly
of the first 6,300-ton vertical forging press was under way at the
Novo-Kramatorsk Plant imeni Stalin. 21/ There are only 4 sizes of
horizontal forging machines built in the USSR -- 800 tons, 1,200 tons,
2,000 tons, and 3,000 tons (probably in prototype only). Work on
a 3,000-ton horizontal forging machine was begun in late 1954, but
there is no evidence that this model is being built on a small-series
basis as are the other 3 type-sizes. Elij
Indirect evidence of the relatively poor position of
Soviet production compared with that of the US can be found in the
production of closely associated items such as manipulators and die-
making machines. The USSR did not build its first forging manipulator**
* See III, C, p. 25, below.
** A forging manipulator is a wheeled or track-type vehicle designed
to hold, transport, and position ingots during the forging and heating
process.
-15-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
for a press until after early 1955, and, as of January 1956, no floor-
or rail-type manipulators for ingots weighing more than 5 tons had
been constructed. Ejj Similarly, press reports indicate that the
Machine Tool Plant imeni Sverdlov in Leningrad only recently began
the construction of large die-making machines for dies used on large
presses.
In general, therefore, the USSR lags behind the US in
total units produced and in the mix of its machinery, but the Soviet
leaders are attempting with some success to alter the product mix
toward more productive and advanced types of machinery. This move-
ment is relatively new, having begun in 1953-54, and production of
substantial numbers of heavier machines and of highly productive
types is not yet far advanced. Although the building of heavier
types is a relatively new field in the USSR, it is one which the
Soviet planners had hoped to master during the original Sixth Five
Year Plan (1956-60).
3. Soviet Inventory of Metalforming Machinery.
The USSR announced that its inventory of metalforming
machinery was 365,000 units as of 1 January 1956, more than 3 times
the figure of 119,000 for late 1940. El/ Most of this increase has
come from sources other than domestic production -- for example,
postwar removals and postwar imports.*
Soviet domestic production of metalforming machinery
totaled only 108,000 units from 1941 through 1955, and the US
shipped the USSR about 6,000 units during 1941-48. 2.q/ Other ship-
ments from the West during 1941-55 were small and probably did not
exceed 3,000 units. War losses were reported as 34,000 units. 22/
Table 4** summarizes this information and shows that most of the
increase in metalforming machinery was the result of postwar re-
movals from the conquered countries (Germany, Austria, Hungary,
Rumania, and Manchuria) and of exports from the European Satellites,
primarily from East Germany and Czechoslovakia.
Information on European Satellite-Soviet trade and post-
war removals is too scanty to permit an apportionment of the residual
of 174,000 units. Available information on East German and Czecho-
slovak levels of production indicates, however, that all of this
* Removals are defined here as those machines taken from the stock
of installed or stored machines at the end of hostilities as distinct
from reparations from current production, which are treated here as
Soviet imports.
** Table 4 follows on p. 17.
- 16 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table Ii-
Origins of Inventory of Metalforming Machinery in the USSR
1940 - January 1956
Thousand Units
Category of Inventory
Additions Reductions Balance
Total inventory, late 1940 119
Explained additions
Domestic production 108
Less exports
Net addition from domestic
production 97
US shipments (19)-1-48) 6
Other Western shipments
(19)4-1-55) 3
Total explained
additions 106
Explained reductions 12/
War losses
Total explained
reductions
Announced inventory,
1 January 1956
Explained inventory,
1 January 1956
Unexplained increase in
inventory
34
34
365
191
174 121
a. the USSR has exported some
metalforming machinery to the European Satellites and Communist
China, but the only exports of major strategic significance are two
5,000-ton extrusion presses shipped to Communist China during
1956. Ei Another extrusion press of this size is being built for
the Chinese Communists at the Izhora Metallurgical Plant. Large
presses of this type for aluminum or other light metal extrusions
- 17 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 4
Origins of Inventory of Metalforming Machinery in the USSR
1940 - January 1956
(Continued)
will be a definite advantage to China in its plans for the develop-
ment of a modern aircraft industry. .For comparative purposes it
should be noted that the largest installed extrusion press in the US
during World War II was one of 5,500 short tons. 2../ In addition,
the Soviet press has announced that the Moscow Motor Vehicle Plant
imeni Likhachev (formerly imeni Stalin) is building 725- and 3,500-
ton mechanical presses for the motor vehicle industry of China. 2/
b. This figure does not take into account retirements since World
War II.
equipment could not have come from postwar imports,* and other data
suggest that large amounts of metalforming machines -- perhaps up to
100,000 units -- were obtained by removals from the conquered coun-
tries.**
In addition, it is estimated that 75 to 80 percent of
the prewar inventory of 119,000 units was imported. During the
1920's and 1930's, when Soviet production was small, the USSR im-
ported substantial quantities of metalforming machinery from the
US, the UK, Germany, and Czechoslovakia.
Announced information on East German and Czechoslovak production
of metalforming machinery in units 18 as follows
Year
East Germany W
Czechoslovakia
1950
3,706
N.A.
1951
3,928
N.A.
1952
3,866
N.A.
1953
4,519
N.A.
1954
5,586
N.A.
1955
7,409
5,000
1960 Plan
N.A.
6,800
a. Including only eccentric, crank, and
knuckle-joint presses; probably excluding
hydraulic presses and shears.
** For indications of the extent of removals from these countries,
see Appendix H.
- 18 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
One of the most significant areas of interest is the
Soviet inventory of large and special-purpose metalforming machines.
Most of the Soviet inventory of large metalforming machines has been
imported from the West or obtained in the postwar removals. Although
the USSR received only about 6,000 units of US metalforming machinery
from 1941 through 1948, a number of the machines shipped were of major
importance, including extrusion presses up to 3,500 short tons; two
10,000-short-ton and one 6,500-short-ton hydraulic forging press;
other hydraulic forging presses up to 5,000 short tons; a 3,000-
short-ton hydraulic armor-plate bending press; nine 2,500-short-ton
rubber-pad forming presses; hammers of all types and sizes up to
47,000 pounds (23.5 short tons) falling weight; horizontal forging
machines and forging rolls of large sizes; and numerous shell pierc-
ing and drawing presses. 11.Y In addition, a 5,000-short-ton rubber-
pad hydraulic forming press for aircraft and a 5,000-ton extrusion
press were shipped to the USSR in 1938 and 1939. 12/ Together with
the machinery received from Germany during the period of rapprochement
in the late 1930's and the postwar removals, these machines constitute
an important part of the present Soviet inventory of large presses
and forging machines. Among the postwar removals from Germany were
the largest hydraulic closed-die forging press in the world, the
30,000-ton press located at I.G. Farben's Bitterfeld Plant, and the
largest extrusion press in the world, the 12,000-ton Schloemsnn
press installed at Durener Metallwerke AG, at Waren in Mecklenburg,
as well as other large forging and extrusion presses.* 1?../
4. Original 1960 Goals.
Under the original Sixth Five Year Plan (1956-60), annual
unit production of metalforming machinery in the USSR was to increase
to 25,800 units by 1960, 85 percent more than the 1955 level of
production for centrally controlled facilities. This rate of in-
crease approximates that planned for the production of machine
tools. 11/ No less than 29 percent of the planned increase was to
have resulted from more efficient use of existing facilities, and
the remainder presumably was to have been produced by plants under
construction or to be constructed. Le/
Four metalforming machinery plants -- at Azov, Dnepro-
petrovsk, Ryazan', and Voronezh -- are still in various stages of
construction, although production has begun. The plants at Dnepro-
petrovsk and Voronezh began production before the end of the Fifth
Five Year Plan (1951-55). Six metalforming machinery plants were
to be constructed in the Urals and Siberia during the original
Sixth Five Year Plan. 12/ In addition, preparations for the
* For further discussion of these machines, see III, C, below.
- 19 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
construction of a metalforming machinery plant at Syzran' were under
way in June 1956. 40/ ENIIKMABh will be developed during 1956-60,
and the original plan also anticipated changes in the product mix
and in the technical level of production as described above.
By 1960, plants of the Ministry of Machine Tool Building
and Tool Industry were to produce approximately 13,300 units --
52 percent of the total planned production of 25,800 units. )22/
The future range of planned production by these plants was indicated
by an article in a Soviet trade journal in early 1956. Table 5,
based on this article, shows the number of type-sizes available in
1955 and the planned increase in the number of type-sizes during
the original Sixth Five Year Plan.
Table 5
Type-Sizes of Machinery Available at Plants of the Ministry
of Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry of the USSR
and Increases Planned by 1960
Number of Type-Sizes
Type of Machinery
1955
1960
Percentage Increase
1960 Compared with 1955
Mechanical presses
47
121
157
Hydraulic presses
57
154
170
"Automatics" (headers,
upsetters, and
multipunch machines)
71
112
58
Forging machines
6
20
233
Total
181
407
125
During 1950-53, emphasis within the Ministry of Machine
Tool Building and Tool Industry was placed on the production of
"automatics" and has now shifted to mechanical presses, hydraulic
presses, and forging machines. By 1960, 500 type-sizes were to be
produced by plants of this ministry. This total presumably included
hammers, shears, and other types in addition to the types listed
above. Ill/ Additional type-sizes, of course, will be produced by
plants formerly subordinate to other ministries as in the past.
- 20 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Unfortunately, information relating to the value of
Soviet production of metalforming machinery in current rubles is
not available. A preliminary estimate of the annual value of
production for selected years in 1955 rubles is included in Appen-
dix I and in 2, above.*
III. Major Problems in Production and Use of Metalforming Machinery.
A. Ministerial Inertia and Lack of Coordination.
As previously noted, 26 ministries in the USSR were engaged
in the production of metalforming machinery during early 1957. Al-
though this figure overemphasizes the spread of production between
ministries and implicitly overemphasizes the problem of coordina-
tion and planning, numerous difficulties in coordination and planning
have existed between the six major producing ministries.
In the eyes of the Soviet leaders the Ministry of Machine
Tool Building and Tool Industry was negligent in the production of
metalforming machines. The following examples illustrate the re-
luctance and inertia which has characterized the behavior of this
ministry. In spite of the decree issued in mid-1954 to establish
a research organization, the construction of the main building and
the hiring of personnel for ENIIKMABh was still in preliminary stages
in mid-1956. Li/ Second, the product lists (number of type-sizes)
produced at each of the metalforming machinery plants (under GUKMASh)
were very large, and there had been little progress made in plant
specialization as late as February 1956. Plants of the Main Adminis-
tration of Heavy Machine Tool Building which possessed large casting
and machining facilities were emphasizing the production of machine
tools at the expense of planned production of metalforming machinery.
Moreover, the various metalforming machinery plants were plagued by
irregular deliveries of semifinished articles, such as castings and
forgings, from other plants within the ministry. 14j./
The best indication of the difficulties experienced by the
Soviet leadership with the Ministry of Machine Tool Building and
Tool Industry was the pressure campaign conducted by Promyshlenno-
ekonomicheskaya gazeta (Industrial-Economic Newspaper) from 16 May
through 27 July 1956. This newspaper, at that time the official
organ for Gostekhnika, sent its correspondents to "raid" the plants
of the ministry, to investigate conditions, and to report the find-
ings in a series of articles. The team of correspondents was highly
critical of the ministry for not recognizing and rectifying the poor
* P. 10, above.
- 21 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
conditions found at these plants,* and they urged immediate remedies
for the conditions delaying production.
Ministerial inertia with regard to the production of metal-
forming machines has not been confined to the Ministry of Machine
Tool Building and Tool Industry. The Ministry of Heavy Machine
Building, was criticized for overemphasizing rolling mill equipment
to the detriment of metalforming machinery in a manner similar to
the criticisms of the Ministry of Machine Tool Building and Tool
Industry for overemphasizing production of metalcutting machine
tools. LY
In addition to the difficulties experienced within individual
ministries, there has been a decided lack of coordination among the
various ministries. The following example, emphasizing the nature of
the problem, is only one of the numerous instances of coordination
difficulties. The Ministry of Machine Tool Building and Tool In-
dustry and the Ministry of Heavy Machine Building were primarily
responsible for the production of medium and large hydraulic presses,
but the two ministries never negotiated a working agreement on the
production of hydraulic apparatus and pumps for these presses.
Plants such as the Ural Heavy Machine Building Plant, therefore,
have had to manufacture these products in addition to the regular
casting, machining, and assembly work and in addition to the large
number of products already manufactured.** 1.1W
Although incidents like those cited above are good examples
of the "narrow ministerial approach," prospects for increased
specialization, better flow of semifinished goods, and increased
subcontracting under the new system are not too good. In all like-
lihood the Barnaul Mechanical Press Plant would receive its cast-
ings from the Yefremov Plant at Novosibirsk more rapidly if both
were responsible to a Council of National Economy (Sovet Narodnogo
Khozyaystva Sovnarkhoz) located nearby rather than to the same
ministry centered in Moscow. Considerable difficulties might still
be encountered, however, in obtaining semifinished products from
plants under the jurisdiction of other Councils of National Economy
* A summary of the "raid" articles is included in Appendix C as an
interesting commentary on the condition of the plants and on the status
of management in the USSR.
- 22 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
the danger described as "narrow regionalism." In addition, individual
plant managers will certainly be cautious about dependence on other
plants for crucial inputs, even though enforcement of supply contracts
is stiffened and permission for inventory expansion is granted as
suggested. Therefore, although the new system is designed to meet
some of the problems, the optimum operation of the new system will
require a significant alteration in the thinking and instincts of
Soviet managers at the plant level after the initial period of con-
fusion -- a process that may require a few years time.
B. Obsolescence, Replacement, and Modernization of Inventory.
The problem of a diverse and antiquated inventory in the
USSR was highlighted in 1955 by V.A. Malyshev (now deceased), the
former Chairman of Gostekhnika, who listed the forging and foundry
shops as the major bottlenecks in the Soviet machine building in-
dustries. More specifically he stated that the reequipment of
the machine building plants must begin with the forging and foundry
departments. )12/ Further evidence of the difficulties inherent in
the present Soviet inventory are the following ratios, showing the
percentage of forging done by free-falling hammers rather than by
mechanical or hydraulic forging presses, counterblow hammers, or
horizontal forging machines in selected machine building ministries
during 1955 22/:
Plants of the Ministry of Machine
Building and Instruments
Plants of the Ministry of Con-
struction and Road Building
Plants of the Ministry of Trans-
port Machine Building
Percent
70
85
la
One of the major tasks of the original Sixth Five Year Plan was the
replacement of these hammers with forging presses and forging ma-
chines, thereby improving the quality of the product, reducing the
loss of metal, and increasing the rate of production. 21 This plan
envisioned the establishment of centralized forging shops, equipped
with the most modern machinery to serve all of the industries within
an area. Among these shops a metalforming shop with a capacity
of 120,000 tons of forged metal per year was to be built in the Urals,
and 2 more of 95,000 tons each were to be constructed at the Pavlodar
Combine Plant and the Petropavlovsk Metallurgical Equipment Plant. 22/
These specialized shops were designed to make available the most up-
to-date equipment for the greatest number of enterprises and to use
the new equipment to the best advantage.
- 23 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
The data on the size, composition, and origin of the Soviet
inventory cited above* provide some of the reasons for the present
bottleneck condition and some measure of the extent of the difficulty.
From these data it is apparent that the Soviet inventory is a con-
glomeration of machines of diverse origin, a fact that has undoubtedly
created many problems of operation, maintenance, and repair. Further-
more, up to 1955 little or no replacement or modernization was taking
place.
In previous sections it has been noted that the product mix
of machines manufactured in the postwar period has not been satis-
factory to the Soviet leaders. In addition, hammers comprised ap-
proximately 10 percent of the 1955-56 inventory (compared with about
2 percent in the US). 21/ These few facts suggest that the inventory,
although respectable in numbers of units, is not highly productive
and is in need of substantial renovation.**
The Soviet inventory of metalforming machinery will be a con-
tinuing problem for the USSR. During the original Sixth Five Year
Plan, for example, the USSR planned to replace 20 percent of its
1 January 1956 inventory.211/ This high rate of replacement would
have involved approximately 73,000xxx machines, an amount equal to more
than 3-1/2 years of production at the 1955 rate. In this regard it
is important to remember that only a portion of the production for
each year probably will serve as replacements -- presuming that the
product mix is altered in a satisfactory manner.
If this replacement program is still applicable, the USSR
will have considerable difficulty implementing the program and
eliminating the industrial bottleneck without purchases from other
nations. Present purchases are restricted primarily to East Germany
and Czechoslovakia, although the USSR would like to purchase from
the West.****
* See p. 17, above.
** For US wartime deliveries of metalforming machinery to the
USSR, see Appendix E.
*** It is not clear that the term replacement as used by the USSR
in this context means scrapping or removal of the machinery from the
inventory. It is more likely that it refers to the replacement of
machines of low productivity with new models in important plants,
relegating the old machinery to repair shops or low-priority work.
**** For a list of types of metalforming machinery which the USSR
would like to purchase from the UK, see Appendix F.
- 24 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
C. Production and Use of Heavy Presses.*
Production and use of heavy presses constitute special prob-
lems for the USSR because the USSR has had little experience in the
construction of heavy presses. The largest presses known to have
been built in the USSR -- none of which are forging presses -- are
as follows:
1. A hydraulic bending press of 8,000 tons pressure,
constructed at Uraltmash in 1954 and now installed at the Barnaul
Boiler Plant. This press is very similar to the armor plate bend-
ing press of a leading US company which is built in sizes up to
8,000 short tons. During World War II the US shipped a 3,000-
short-ton press of this type to the USSR. 22/
2. Two .,000-ton hydraulic extrusion presses built at
the Izhora Metallurgical Plant during 1956. 2?,./
3. A 9,600-ton hydraulic rubber-pad forming press
assembled and tested at the Kolomna Heavy Machine Tool Plant in
May 1956. 22/
4. A 12,000-ton hydraulic pipe-forming press under
assembly at the Kolomna Heavy Machine Tool Plant in early 1956 and
destined for the Chelyabinsk Pipe Rolling Plant along with two
ancillary presses of smaller size. 58/
Notwithstanding the Soviet lack of experience, production of
a 30,000-ton hydraulic press in the USSR was revealed in two news-
paper articles in January 1956. The Ural Heavy Machine Building Plant
imeni Ordzhonikidze (Uralimash) in Sverdlovsk is responsible for the
over-all supervision of the project with the assistance of the Novo-
Kramatorsk Plant tmeni Stalin. In late 1955, Novo-Kramatorsk com-
pleted a 220-ton casting for the press, 59/ and other plants such as
the Zhdanov Metallurgical Plant imeni Iltieh are assisting in the
fabrication and welding of parts. A newspaper report of January 1957
stated that Uraltmash had completed making the parts for the press,
but no mention was made of the site of erection or the progress of
installation. L/
This press appears to be the first of a number of large presses
planned for the USSR. Shortly after the publication of the initial
references the Soviet government reported that the designers of
* The Soviet definition of the term heavy presses is not known,
but the term as here defined includes hydraulic forging presses
of 10,000 or more tons and extrusion presses of 5,000 or more tons.
-25-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Ural'mash, Novo-Kramatorsk, and TsNIITMABh had completed the tech-
nical plans and most of the working drawings for hydraulic presses
with pressures of "tens of thousands of tons," LI and 1957 reports
have discussed a 1112,000-ton horizontal press," presumably an ex-
trusion press, that is under construction. ?2./
In the past, reports have stated that Ural'mash was producing
presses "up to" 10,000 tons.* the 50X1
plant produces presses "up to" 70,000 tons, _V even though there is
no evidence of any press larger than 30,000 tons under construction.
the new Syzran' plant will produce hydraulic 50X1
presses with pressures "up to" 100,000 tons and extrusion presses
with pressures "up to" 20,000 tons. L/
It is probable that the building of accumulators, pumps,
valves, and hydraulic lines will be undertaken at the Tyazhstanko-
gidropress Plant in Novosibirsk, the Slavgorod Plant imeni Eighth
Anniversary of the October Revolution, the Khar'kov Hydraulic Equip-
ment Plant, and similar establishments already producing tuch items
for smaller presses. In view of the difficulties in coordination
experienced in the past, however, it is probable that Ural'mash and
Novo-Kramatorsk also will build these necessary items.
Heavy hydraulic presses, such as the one of 30,000 tons being
built and to be erected by Ural'mash, are used primarily for the
production of aircraft parts including support beams, wing spars,
wing caps, and the like. The increased strength imparted to these
large pieces by forging as against machining or machining and fasten-
ing is a valuable asset in high-speed aircraft.**
* The peculiar use of the term up to (do in Russian) apparently de-
scribe the upper limit in the size of presses for which the plant
will be held responsible in the foreseeable future and therefore
serves as a possible indication of intentions.
** Although there is a clear advantage in strength gained by forg-
ing of parts, the economics of the use of heavy hydraulic forging
presses compared with the production of the same parts by machining
has not yet been adequately determined. Theoretically, given long
production runs, the use of heavy hydraulic forging presses for light
metal forming should save metal and speed up production by eliminating
construction of bits and pieces. Although there has been some discus-
sion of the use of heavy hydraulic forging presses for the forging of
locomotive, ship, and motor vehicle parts in addition to aircraft
parts, it is obvious that the items forged would not utilize the full
capacity of the presses in many cases or that the production runs
would be too short (or changes in design too frequent) to warrant the
high overhead cost of the press and its gootnote continued on p. 21.7
- 26 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Heavy extrusion presses also are used for production of air-
craft components, generally producing parts of a more symmetrical
shape than those produced on heavy forging presses -- for example,
integrally stiffened wing panels. Although there is some duplication
in the parts that can be produced by either forging or extrusion
presses, extrusion presses are of particular importance for produc-
tion of jet aircraft and are being used in US production of missiles.
According to a report of the US Air Force,
"Sections with desirable metallurgical proper-
ties can be extruded simply and rapidly on single
or multiple extrusion dies. Also, dies for ex-
truding sections are simpler and less expensive
than forging dies. The possible potential, there-
fore, for application to jet engine production,
particularly for axial-flow engines, is of con-
siderable importance. Extruded stock can be sub-
sequently forged or machined into compressor
blades and gears. Moreover, shroud rings, channel
rings, sealer and spacer rings (multiple quantities
of which are required in axial-flow engines) can
be extruded as straight sections and then formed
into circular sections by rolling or welding. The
possibility also exists for extruding hollow com-
pressor and turbine shafts and extruding billets
which are later forged into compressor disks." Li
As the speed of aircraft increases, more use probably will
be made of titanium alloys and stainless steel to avoid or minimize
the effects of thermal fatigue. Heavy forging and extrusion presses,
now working light metals, will be used for steel and titanium
forgings and for steel extrusions. Some problems will be encountered
in any such changeover. For example, even the hot extrusion of
steel by means of the Ugine-Sejournet process, a method designed to
reduce friction,* involves considerable costly die erosion. In addi-
tion, a considerable amount of research and experimentation must be
done on the forging of some titanium alloys before extensive use of
such alloys can become operationally feasible.
supporting equipment plus the cost of the dies. Many of the parts for
motor vehicles, in particular, can be and are being forged on smaller
mechanical and hydraulic forging presses;
* The Ugine-Sejournet process uses glass lubricants to reduce fric-
tion and erosion.
-27-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Although it is impossible to estimate the capacity of a coun-
try to produce modern.aircraft by the number and size of its heavy
forging and extrusion presses, the existence of such facilities im-
plies an advanced technology. In addition, the construction of new
heavy presses in the USSR, together with discussions in technical
magazines and newspapers, probably indicates the intentions of the
USSR to alter its methods of aircraft production toward greater use
of forging and extrusion techniques rather than to continue the
older fabricating methods presently employed.
Except for two 5,000-ton extrusion presses for Communist
China, the USSR has not completed the construction and erection
of any known heavy forging and extrusion presses, although at least
1 and possibly 2 are currently being produced and erected. Con-
siderable experience, however, has been gained in the erection and
operation of the heavy presses removed from Germany in the immediate
post-World War II period. The heavy presses removed from Germany
are included in Table 6.*
Along with the heavy presses removed from Gertany, numerous
other smaller presses were removed from German light metal fabricating
plants together with many furnaces, straightening machines, pumps,
accumulators, electrolytic baths, and other ancillary equipment. A
large part of the equipment taken from the I.G. Farben Plant at
Bitterfeld was erected at Plant No. 268, an aircraft parts plant at
Kamensk-Ural'skiy in the Urals constructed in the early 1940's and
equipped primarily with US-built metalforming machines.
The erection of the 30,000- and the 15,000-ton forging
presses taken from Germany was completed in April-May 1951, and tests
began immediately. Because aircraft design must be tailored to the
use of heavy forging presses, some design lag probably occurred. If
design changes were made immediately, the two presses probably could
not have been utilized generally on a full-time basis until late 1952
or early 1953.** Because of a lack of parts and of instructions, the
12,000-ton extrusion press had not been operated in late 1953. The
5,000-ton extrusion press at Kamensk-Ural'skiy, together with some
smaller ones, was used primarily to "rough out" billets for the forging
presses.
* Table 6 follows on p. 29.
** All evidence concerning the "Bitterfeld" presses indicates that
they are used currently in the production of aircraft components.
However, Soviet-built aircraft now in Western hands -- 1953 models
or older -- show no extensive use of heavy forging and extrusion
techniques.
-28-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 6
Known Heavy Presses in the USSR 2/
Press Type and Size
Forging presses
30,000 metric tons
15,000 metric tons
15,000 metric tons
Location
Plant No. 268, Kamensk-Ural'skly
Plant No. 268, Kamensk-Ural'skiy
Unknown
12,000 Metric tons Kirov Heavy Machine Building
Plant, Leningrad
12,000 metric tons Izhora Metallurgical Plant,
Leningrad
10,000 metric tons
10,000 metric tons
10,000 short tons
10,000 short tons
Extrusion presses h/
12,000 metric
5,000 metric
5,000 metric
tons
tons
tons
5,000 short tons
Ural Heavy Machine Building
Plant, Sverdlovsk
Ural Heavy Machine Building
Plant, Sverdlovsk
Plant No. 268, Kamensk-Ural'skiy
Leningrad
Plant
Plant
No. 268, Kamensk-Ural'skiy
No. 268, Kamensk-Ural'skiy
Unknown
Unknown
Manufacturer and National Origin
Schloemann, Germany
Schloemann, Germany
Schloemann, Germany
Davy and United Engineering
Company, Ltd., UK
Unknown
Hydraulic-Duisburg GmbH.,
Germany
Hydraulic-Duisburg GMbH.,
Germany
US built
US built
Schloemann, Germany
Eumuco, Germany
Hydraulic-Duisburg GmbH.,
Germany
US built
Comments
Post-World War II removal
Post-World War II removal
Delivered to Kramatorsk
in 1936
Present location unknown
Delivered in 1939
Installed during 1956.
Origin could be Czecho-
slovakia, where presses
of this size are in
production
Delivered in 1934
Delivered in 1934
Post-World War II removal
Post-World War II removal
Purchased by Mashino-
import during post-World
War II period
Shipped in 1939
Perhaps the press now
located at Plant No. 26,
Ufa
a. 2/
b. In addition to the extrusion presses listed below, there were three 5,000-metric-ton extrusion presses installed
at Durener Metallwerke AG, at Waren in Mecklenburg (former location of the 12,000-metric-ton extrusion press),
about which no information is available.
- 29 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
In addition to the presses installed at Kamensk-Ural'skiy, other
German presses were set up in light metal fabricating plants in Kazan'
and Kiev. Numerous mistakes were made in erecting, testing, and oper-
ating the presses, and the effect of these mistakes, together with de-
signing errors, resulted in the breaking of columns, cylinders, and
cylinder casings, causing excessive "down time." In the case of the
15,000-ton Schloemann press at Plant No. 268, a cracked cylinder casing
reduced the pressure of the press to 5,000 to 7,500 tons. No precision
die forging was attempted as late as 1953, as the USSR apparently em-
phasized large tolerances to insure rapid production with a low reject
rate and preferred to machine off the surplus.
It is apparent from Table 6* that most of the heavy presses in-
stalled in the USSR are of US and German manufacture. No complete list
of Soviet heavy presses, however, can be compiled at this time.
For purpoges of comparison, the presses constructed under the
US Air Force Heavy Press Program during 1951-57 are listed in Table 8.**
Included under the US Air Force Heavy Press Program were two 50,000-short-
ton and two 35,000-short-ton forging presses and six extrusion presses of
from 8,000 to 14,000 short tons. The last of these was undergoing tests
in mid-1957. These presses are in addition to the 18,000-short-ton
Mesta forging press at North Grafton, Massachusetts; two 15,000-ton
Schloemann forging presses taken from Germany and located at Alcoa's
Cleveland Plant and the US Air Force Plant at Adrian, Michigan, respec-
tively; and two 14,000-short-ton forging presses at the US Navy Yard,
Charleston.xxx Some of these are used for steel rather than light metal
forging. 6.81
In addition to beginning the production of forging and extrusion
presses, the USSR has consistently sought to import large metalforming
.machines, presently under embargo, from the UK, the US, and other Wes-
tern nations. The extent of the desire of the USSR to import metalform-
ing machinery from the UK is indicated by a recent list of possible
Soviet orders for 456 large and critical metalforming machines to be
obtained during 1956-60 "under proper conditions for normalizing Soviet-
British trade.
Although the list probably is overstated as part of the contin-
ued attempt to disrupt US-UK relations, analysis of Soviet produc-
tion indicates that the list represents, at least in part, real
* P. 29, above.
** See Appendix G, p. 51, below.
XXX These presses are not intended to represent a complete inventory
when taken with those listed in Table 8 but rather to indicate the
existence of large presses other than those built under US Air Force
auspices in the 1950's.
XXXX For a list of types of metalforming machinery which the USSR
would like to purchase from the UK, see Appendix F.
-30-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
and important Soviet requirements. As noted above, the USSR has only
recently begun to produce many heavy machine types, and some items on
the list (such as impact hammers, 10- to 15-ton rail-type manipulators,
and 15,000--to 25,000-ton extrusion presses) have never been produced
in the USSR.
In summary, although the. USSR has had little experience in
the construction of large presses, the Soviet leaders have begun a
program to build heavy presses, including a 30,000-ton press cur-
rently under construction and erection. The experience gained in
assembling, testing, and operating the Bitterfeld presses probably
proved valuable to the USSR in the design and construction of the
30,000-ton press and in the design, construction, and erection of
other heavy presses. The errors made in the erection and operation
of these presses probably will not be repeated. In addition,
Soviet technical publications have followed very closely the US
program for building heavy presses. The 220-ton casting completed
at Novo-Kramatorsk confirms the existence of casting capacity
capable of producing the cast parts necessary for large presses,
and it is known that the USSR has produced large milling machines
and other large machine tools for the necessary machining opera-
tions. Any necessary large forgings can be produced on existing
presses. Given time to work out the problems of valving, control,
lubrication, and the like, the USSR can erect the 30,000-ton press
and build a number of heavy presses. In addition, the USSR would
like to purchase heavy presses from advanced Western nations such
as the US, the UK, and West Germany.
The construction and attempted imports of heavy forging and
extrusion presses probably reflect a move toward greater use of
forging and extrusion techniques in aircraft production to replace
the older methods of fabrication. This move is in line with the
growing appreciation of the benefits of metalforming techniques in
the USSR and with the attempt to use the most advanced of these
techniques available throughout Soviet industry.
D. Fulfillment of the Original Sixth Five Year Plan.
Fulfillment of the original Sixth Five Year Plan (1956-60)
posed still another problem for the USSR. The 1960 goals, as stated
previously, called for increased unit production (25,800 units of
metalforming machinery to be produced in 1960 at plants formerly
controlled by all-union and union-republic ministries), improvements
in the product mix and increases in the range of type-sizes produced,
and elimination of the forging shop bottleneck by replacement of old,
low productive types with new equipment. To accomplish these tasks,
construction of 4 primary metalforming machinery producing plants,
- 31 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
already in partial production, was to be completed, and 7 plants were
to be built during the period of the original Sixth Five Year Plan.
Of these plants, one was to be built in Syzran' and the others were
to be built in Siberia and the Urals. The building of a new research
institute at Voronezh and the establishment of new centralized forg-
ing shops also were designed to aid in the fulfillment of Soviet plans
for production and use of metalforming machinery.
Although centrally controlled production probably can be in-
creased from 13,900 units (1955) to 17,000 to 18,000 units without
extensive investment in new plants and equipment, success or failure
in reaching the original 1960 goal probably will depend on the prog-
ress of new plant construction and operation. Difficulties in co-
ordination and specialization of production, which existed under the
old ministerial framework, probably will continue to exist under the
new organizational system and will continue to affect adversely the
number and types of machines produced. It is felt, however, that
the fulfillment of the original 1960 plan both in unit production
and in product mix will depend on the building of new plants and on
the development of new types of metalforming machines at ENIIKMASh,
TsNIITNASh, and the various design bureaus.
Soviet production of metalforming machinery in 1955 ad-
mittedly failed to meet the needs of the Soviet economy 70/ accord-
ing to all available information on Soviet unit production and
product mix. If plans for unit production and product mix are ful-
filled, it is probable that the requirements of the Soviet defense
and heavy industries will be met adequately from domestic production
as a result of the priorities granted to these industries. These
industries will therefore accomplish a degree of inventory moderniza-
tion and replacement by 1960. The total inventory in 1960, however,
probably will still contain much low productive machinery and/or
machinery of diverse origins, especially in light industry, local
' industry, and other low priority branches of the economy.
- 32 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS
1. Metalforming Machinery.
The Russian term kuznechno-pressovyye mashiny, literally translated
as "forge-press machines" or "forging and pressing machines," has been
translated here as "metalforming machinery." As a statistical classi-
fication used by the USSR, this category is narrower than its US statis-
tical counterpart, the Metalworking Machinery (Except Machine Tools)
Group -- Standard Industrial Classification, No. 3542. /1/ Although
the Soviet category includes hot and cold forging machines, mechanical
and hydraulic presses, straightening and bending machines, punching and
shearing machines, and riveting machines, /2/ it excludes the rolling
mill equipment, wire-drawing machines, die-casting machines, and acety-
lene welding and cutting apparatus included in the US classification.*
In publishing production statistics, the USSR excludes hand-powered
equipment, unlike the US, which collects and publishes statistics on
both hand- and power-driven machines.
2. Major Types of Metalforming Machinery.
The following definitions describe major types of metalforming ma-
chines. Photographs of selected Soviet models are shown in Figures 4
through 11.**
a. Straightening and Bending Machines.
Mechanically or hydraulically driven machines used for bending
sheets, plates, bars, pipes, tubes, and other metal forms, including the
following types: sheet and plate bending rolls; vertical and horizontal
bending rolls for angles, bars, and shapes; bending brakes and folders;
straightening machines; rotary bending and forming machines; pipe, tube,
and bar bending machines; and miscellaneous types.
b. Forging Machines.
Machines designed for the forging of metal under pressure (except
hydraulic and mechanical forging presses), including the following types:
* In the USSR this equipment presumably is classified as metallurgical
equipment, foundry equipment, or miscellaneous equipment.
** Following p. 34.
- 33 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E,T
steam, air, gravity-drop, spring, and helve hammers; hot and cold forging
machines; forging rolls; swaging machines; and miscellaneous types.
c. Hydraulic Presses.
Machines which perform some forcing, forging, or pressing oper-
ation by means of power transmitted through confined fluid under pres-
sure, including the following types: vertical and horizontal presses,
multidie slide and die spotting presses, forging presses, and miscel-
laneous types.
d. Mechanical Presses.
Machines which perform some forcing, forging, or pressing oper-
ation through power transmitted by mechanical means, including the fol-
lowing types: presses for punching, blanking, forming, and embossing
with straight-sided, arch, gap, or C-frame; horning presses; forging
presses; bulldozers; and miscellaneous types.
e. Punching and Shearing Machines.
Machines utilizing pressure for punching, perforating, or
shearing actions, including the following types: punching machines;
plate, sheet bar, angle, and alligator shears; nibbling machines; com-
bination punching, shearing, and copying machines; and miscellaneous
types.
f. Riveting Machines.
Machines used for rivet setting, except hand-held, portable
types.
- 34 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
4.??? .11.1....?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Figure 4. USSR: M-133
2-Ton Steam-Air Forging Hammer.
SECRET
Figure 5. USSR: A-231
Automatic Bolthead Trimming Machine.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Figure 6. USSR: A-121
Cold Heading Automatic for Bolts,
Screws, and the Like.
SECRET
SECRET
Figure 7. USSR: P-142 800-Ton 4-Column Steam-Hydraulic Forging Press.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
SEDeclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
%RC
II r
Figure 8. USSR: K-115 50-Ton Gap-Frame Crank Press. Figure 9. USSR: K-273 200-Ton Straight-Sided Crank Press.
ccrcocT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
SECR
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
N. s
Figure 10. USSR: N-633
Combination Punching, Shearing,
and Coping Machine.
(Soviet Terminology: Press-shear)
Figure 11. USSR: N-313
50-Millimeter Alligator Shear.
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL AND MAJOR SECONDARY METALFORMING MACBINERY PLANTS
IN TBE USSR AND THEIR PRIMARY PRODUCTS 2/*
?
* Footnotes for this appendix follow on p. 39.
- 35 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 7
Plants
Principal plants
Location Region Iv
Azov Press and Forging Equipment Azov
Plant
Barnaul Mechanical Press Plant Barnaul
Primary Products
IV Hydraulic press production begun. 2/
Mechanical crank presses of various sizes
up to 800 metric tons (mt) in hot and .
cold stamping, deep drawing, and forging.
Automatic multiposition stamping
presses. 01/
First Year of Production of Metalforming Machinery
Still under construction. Began production in 1956.
1943-44
Chimkent Press and Automatic
Plant imeni Kalinin
Chkalov Hydraulic Press Plant
"Metallist"
Dnepropetrovsk Medium Hydraulic
and Heavy Mechanical Press
Chimkent
Chkalov
Dnepropetrovsk
Xa
VIII
III
Cold headers, friction presses, gap frame
crank presses up to 100 mt, and alli-
gator and combination shears. To produce
V-112 and V-113 horizontal forging ma-
Chines. 2/
Universal hydraulic presses and pumps. 1/
Platen presses. To produce universal
crank presses and hydraulic presses. gi
Approximately 1944. Being expanded in 1956.
1943-44
Still under construction. Began production in 1955.
Plant
Odessa Press Plant
Odessa
III
Hydraulic presses for briqueting and
bending. Mechanical presses for deep
drawing and automatic bolt headers. h/
1953
Odessa Forge and Press Equipment
Odessa
III
Cold headers. 1/
1934
Plant imeni 16th Party Congress
Ryazan Heavy Forge and Press
Ryazan'
VII
Has produced a few cold headers. To
Still under construction. Began production in 1956.
Equipment Plant
Serpukhov Forge and Press Equip- Serpukhov
merit, Plant imeni 8th Anniversary
of the October Revolution
VII
produce horizontal forging machines
and pumps as well as hydraulic and
mechanical presses. 1/
Cold headers, multipunch machines, and
small hydraulic presses. h/
- 36 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
1940
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 7
(Continued)
Plants
Principal plants (Continued)
Location Region IV
Slavgorod Mechanical Press Plant Slavgorod
imeni 8th Anniversary of the
October Revolution
Syzran' Heavy Forge and Press Syzran'
Equipment Plant
Taganrog Forge and Press Equip- Taganrog
ment Plant "Metallist"
Taganrog Forge and Press Equip- Taganrog
ment Plant "Vpered"
Voronezh Heavy Mechanical Press Voronezh
Plant
Voronezh Forge and Press Equip- Voronezh
ment Plant imeni Kalinin
Secondary plants
Gor'kiy Milling Machine Plant
Gor'kiy
Kolomna Heavy Machine Tool Plant Kolomna
IX
VI
Primary Products
Small inclinable presses, small vertical
forging machines (V-311), pumps, M-611
30-kilogram spring hammer. 1/
First Year of Production of Metalforming Machinery
l93-
Plant will produce hydraulic stamping Preparations for construction under way.
(probably forging) presses up to
100,000 mt, extrusion presses up to
20,000 mt, steam-air hammers, and other
large mechanisms. 11/
Swaging machines and gap frame presses. pi
Plate, guillotine, lever, and other types
of shears including nibbling machines
and a 10-mt double-sided inclinable
press (1950). 2/
To build mechanical forging and stamping
presses of 630, 1,000, 1,600, 2,000
and 4,0oo mt and coining presses of
1,250, 1,600 and 2,500 mt pressure. 1/
Pneumatic and steam-pneumatic hammers,
straight-sided crank presses, hydraulic
bending and straightening presses, hy-
draulic cold extrusion presses, and
other products. a/
Machine tools. Also produces A-166,
A-413, and A-415 nut and bolt heading
machines. .1./
Heavy machine tools. Also produces hy-
draulic presses, both universal and
special types, including pipe forming
presses from 2,000 to 12,000 mt,
2,000-mt extrusion presses, and a
9,600-mt rubber pad forming press
(1955-56). pi
- 37 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Probably in
Still under
1953-54.
1934
early 1940's.
construction. Began production in
1934
1951
LA.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 7
(Continued)
Plants Location Region 12/
Secondary plants (Continued)
Minsk "Automatic Line Plant" Minsk II
Novosibirsk Heavy Machine Tool Novosibirsk IX
and Hydraulic Press Plant imeni
Yefremov
Novosibirsk Machine Tool Build- Novosibirsk
log Plant imeni 16th Party
Congress
Ryazan' Heavy Machine Tool Plant Ryazan'
Irkutsk Heavy Machine Building Irkutsk
Plant imeni Kuybyshev
Novo-Kramatorsk Heavy Machine Kramatorsk
Building Plant
Staro-Kramatorsk Heavy Machine Kramatorsk
Building Plant
Ural Heavy Machine Building Plant Sverdlovsk
imeni Ordzhonikidze
Primary Products
First Year of Production of Metalforming Machinery
Will produce automatic lines, including Under construction.
hydraulic presses for stamping and
straightening intermediate parts. I/
Heavy machine tools and universal and 1941-43. Being expanded.
special hydraulic presses, including
forging and extrusion presses and
pumps and accumulators. 11/
Machine tools. Also produces the A-453, Before 1949.
a cold header. lr/
Heavy machine tools. Also built hy-
draulic strength testing presses of
150 at.
Drawing machines and metallurgical
equipment. Also to produce presses
in the next 5 years. 2s/
Metallurgical equipment, vertical and
horizontal forging machines, large
ingot shears, straightening machines,
and embossing presses. 2/
Metallurgical equipment, cranes, large
ingot shears', straightening and bend-
ing machines, forging'rolls, small
stamping presses, and 3- and 5-mt
steam-air hammers in the late
1940's. !/
1954
1956-60
N.A.
Prerevolution
XIII Metallurgical equipment, walking exca- N.A. Under expansion.
vators, heavy petroleum drilling
equipment and similar items. Also
produces hydraulic presses of large
sizes. To produce rubber pad forming
presses. 241/
- 38 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 7
(Continued)
Plants Location Region 12/,
Primary Products
First Year of Production of Metalforming Machinery
Secondary plants (Continued)
Izhora Metallurgical Plant imeni Kolpino (near
Zhdanov Leningrad)
Steel and various types of equipment in-
eluding hydraulic presses. hb/
First reference,
1934. Next references,
1956.
Dnepropetrovsk Metallurgical Dnepropetrovsk III
Equipment Plant
Metallurgical equipment, alligator shears, First reference,
and fagoting presses. 2E/
1955
Moscow Motor Vehicle Plant imeni Moscow VII
Likhachev (formerly Plant imeni
Stalin)
Motor vehicles, including trucks and
passenger cars. Also produces stamping
presses. dd/
1950-53
Leningrad Construction Machinery Leningrad
Plant
Cement unloaders, other construction
machinery, and bending machines and
shears. 22/
N.A.
Slavyansk Construction Machinery Slavyansk III
Plant
Construction machinery, including bend-
ing machines. 11/
N.A.
Kusa Construction Machinery Plant Kusa VIII
Construction machinery, including bend-
ing machines. gg/
N.A.
Stryy Machine Building Plant Stryy III
imeni Kirov
Small mechanical presses. hh/
1945-48 (known)
Kishinev Machinery Plant imeni Kishinev III
Kotovskiy
Pneumatic hammers, ball mills, stone
cutting machines, spare parts for
tractors, and agricultural ma-
chinery. 11/
Late 1940's. Under expansion.
L'vov Power Press Plant Lvov III
Guillotine shears and small mechanical
presses.
First reference,
1951
Kuybyshevka-Vostochnaya Motor Kuybyshevka XII
Repair Plant
Pneumatic hammers, fuel tanks, car and
tractor motors, and various agricul-
tural machines. To build small:mechani-
cal presses in 1957. Ish/
1950
a. Although this list is not exhaustive of secondary plants
h. '&2/
s. 22/
dd.
1E1/
which have produced metalforming machinery from time to time,
the more important secondary plants have been included.
b. The term region refers to the economic regions defined
i.j. ? 33://
k.
t. 21/
u. 22/
ee.
ff.
gg.
102/
103/
104/
and numbered on CIA Map 13702 (4-55), USSR: Administrative
1. ;Ii/
w.
hh.
125/
Divisions and Economic Regions, January 1955.
m.
x.
ii.
i6/
c.
n.
1P7/
d. 75/
e.
f. 77/
g ?
d.
P. WI
q.J
z. 97
aa.
bb. 22/
cc. 12E/
kk.
- 39
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF "RAID" ARTICLES*
The Soviet Promyshlenno-ekonomicheskaya gazeta (Industrial Economic
Newspaper), acting as the official organ of Gostekhnika, sent its cor-
respondents to "raid" various plants of the Ministry of Machine Tool
Building and Tool Industry that made metalforming machinery. The re-
ports of this team concerning the unsatisfactory situation at these
plants were published in a series of newspaper articles from 16 May
to 27 July 1956. In retrospect, this campaign of pressure or persua-
sion by an agency of the Council of Ministers, USSR, was an interesting
and informative prelude to the reorganization of industry and the abo-
lition of the machine building ministries, including the Ministry of
Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry.
The following excerpts provide examples of the conditions which
have existed at these plants and highlight the major areas of diffi-
culty.
These areas are as follows:
1. Inadequate or sporadic deliveries of raw materials and
semifinished products and lack of coordination between plants and be-
tween ministries.
"The Novosibirsk Tyazhstankogidropress Plant ...
regularly fails to deliver foEgings and castings to
the 5arnaul Mechanical Pres/ plant, but the main
administration and ministry take no action to rectify
the situation."
"It took the Novosibirsk Tyazhstankogidropress
Plant 1-1/2 years to fulfill the order for casting
the 5resE7'frames Lror the ChiMkent Press and Auto-
matics Planj."
The 50X1
deplorable situations outlined in this appendix should be regarded as
the worst conditions rather than typical or average conditions in plants
making metRlforming machinery. Nevertheless, the existence of such con-
ditions in a number of large metalforming machinery plants emphasizes
the inertia of the Ministry of Machine Tool Building and Tool Industry
in the production of metalforming machinery.
- 41 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
"The Sverdlovsk Industrial Rubber Products
Plant of the Ministry of Chemical Industry. was
supposed to supply five rubber cushions LIp the
Kolomna Heavy Machine Tool Plang for P 307
presses in 1955 but has not produced a single
one to this day. In 1956 it was given the
5ash7 of producing 11 more cushions, but only
3 have arrived at Kolomna iTy 15 July 195
and even these turned out to be useless."
2. Poor production planning and managerial inertia.
"The 1956 plan, which called for the 5oro-
nezh Ka1inin7 plant to turn out over 1,200 ma-
chines of various types, ... was based on the
utilization of production facilities which are
not yet completed."
"Although the ffolomna Heavy Machine Tool7
plant had received a preliminary plan for 19-56
during the middle of 5952 and had begun prepa-
rations, this plan was almost completely changed
the following December."
"Although the foundrz.
at the Lyoronezh Kalinin/
ment turns a deaf ear to
ment which would improve
of the foundry, but also
is the worst bottleneck
plant, the plant manage-
requests for needed equip-
the operation not only
of the plant as a whole."
3. Technical problems (such as inadequate utilization of facil-
ities, design difficulties, and a low level of technology).
"The equipment for production of the K 117
press Lpt the Dnepropetrovsk plangwas completed
much later than scheduled, and then it was of
such poor quality that 70 tools and devices had
to be made again."
"The 5arnaul7plant's low level of technol-
ogy is another factor hindering the plan fulfill-
ment. Gears, which, by the way, are not heat
treated, are set on shafts in the following man-
ner: the unit (shaft and gear) is suspended on
ropes, set into a swinging motion, and beat
against a heavy object. Bronze inserts are
pressed into large gears by dropping a 5-ton
- 42 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8 ?
S-E-C-R-E-T
platform onto the part from a height of several
meters. Can there by any question as to the qual-
ity of such production?"
"Chernyak designejwent and determined
that it is necessary to make 56 essential design
changes in Lth27.presses."
"It is enough to say that, in the first quar-
ter of 1956 alone.4. the down time of equipment Lp.t
the Barnaul Plan-Li exceeded 120,000 machine tool
hours."
"Owing to mistakes in the blueprints of the
I 337 press,. designed by engineers of Lthe Cen-
tral Bureau of Press and Forging Machine Build-
inj, the Lpiavosibirsh7plant has lost over
100,000 rubles just in setting up the machine."
"In the first half of 1956 the LC?himkeng
plant's reject losses amounted to 700,000 rubles.
The foundry reject rate for iron castings in-
creased in this period 5.9 percent above the rate
for the first half of 1955 . When the assem-
bly shop was checking a completed A 124 machine,
it discovered that 52 parts had to be made over
and 80 parts required additional processing."
4. Incomplete or faulty construction.
"Although the 5oronezh Heavy Mechanical
Pressejplant is considered to be in operation
and has a production program, it is still not a
plant in the usual meaning of the word. The iron
foundry, steel foundry, and press shop have not
been completed, nor have the main building, rail
siding, laboratories, and other facilities."
"When the shop ?ress shop at the Kolomna
Heavy Machine Tool Plang was erected, the na-
ture of the site was not studied ... subterra-
nean waters are located under the shop. These
waters ooze out in little depressions around the
foundation of heavy machine tools ... . L1117' the
past winter ... water froze in the shop ... bon-
fires had to be built ... . Spring brought lit-
tle joy. Although it got warm in the shop, the
- 43 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
roof began to leak, and it was necessary to build
canopies and drapes over the unit-type machine
tools. To this ... day the construction of sky-
lights has not been completed in the shop. Al-
though the proper document concerning this and
other problems was drawn up, ... the situation
remains unchanged."
- 44 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX D
METHODOLOGY FOR ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF METALFORMING MACHINERY
IN THE USSR
1932-56
Soviet production of metalforming machinery for the years 1932, 1937,
1940, 1945, and 1950-55 was reported in Industry, USSR, A Statistical
Handbook. 110/ In addition, a Soviet newspaper reported that 6,000
units were produced during World War II. 111/ This wartime production
was distributed by year, based on known Soviet plants and the extent of
German penetration into the USSR.
Soviet annual production of metalforming machinery for the years
1933-36, 1938-39, and 1946-49 were estimated by linear interpolation.
Production for 1956 was reported in The National Economy of the USSR,
1956. 112/
Additional information on Soviet production and planning was reported
in The National Economy of the USSR, A Statistical Compilation, 113/ in
two statistical series. One series included total annual production by
years -- obviously the same series as that reported in Industry, USSR,
A Statistical Handbook. The second, including the 1960 Plan figure,
apparently referred only to production in plants under central planning
and control -- that is, those plants which had been subordinate to all-
union and union-republic ministries.
- 45 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX E
US WARTIME DELIVERIES OF METALFORMING MACHINERY
TO THE USSR
Under both lend-lease and private sales, 1,715 units of metalforming
machinery were shipped from the US to the USSR from the beginning of
lend-lease through 31 January 1944, totaling $28,605,405.* Price per
unit therefore averaged $16,680. Available evidence concerning require-
ments for deliveries after 1 July 1944 shows an average value of approx-
imately $14,800. 113/ By dividing the various average values into the
value figures (minus parts) as shown in Foreign Commerce and Navigation
of the United States published by the Bureau of the Census, the follow-
ing estimates were derived:
Year
Value of US Shipments
of Metalforming Machinery
to the USSR 114/
Divided by
(US $)
Estimated Number
of Units Shipped**
(us $)
1940
4,174,112
16,700
250
1941
1,462,127
16,700
loo
1942
6,557,979
16,700
11.00
1943
24,886,727
16,700
1,500
1944
38,586,403
15,700
2,450
1945
10,053,227
14,800
700
1946
3,442,812
14,80o
250
191.1.7
3,950,041
14,80o
250
1948
1,896,818
14,80o
150
1949
25,270
14,800
Negligible
Total
5,035,516
6,050
Although there were some losses resulting from sinking or from some
diversions to other destinations, these losses constituted only about
1.5 percent by value from 22 June 1941 to 20 September 1945. 115/ Be-
cause of the large amount of rounding involved in the estimating pro-
cedure, it is felt that no adjustment for these losses or diversions is
necessary.
* These data were collected on a day-to-day basis and probably repre-
sent an underenumeration compared with the figures of the Bureau of the
Census listed below. However, the average unit price is felt to be
sufficiently representative for this type of analysis.
** Rounded to the nearest 50 units.
- 14-7 -
S -E -C -R -E -T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX F
NETALFORMING MACHINERY SOUGHT FOR PURCHASE
IN THE UK BY THE USSR
The items which the USSR wished to purchase in the UK included the
following metalforming machines and ancillary equipment as well as
other industrial equipment and supplies:
Item Number of Units
Mechanical maxipresses, capacity of 6,000 tons 30
Steam and air? double-acting drop hammers, falling
weight of 4,000 to 6,000 kilograms 50
Straight-sided mechanical presses, working capacity of
500 to 2,000 tons 70
Hydraulic presses for stamping plattics with top
pressure of 200 tons and side pressure of 500 tons 10
Hydraulic forging presses, capacity of 3,000 to 15,000
tons complete with pump and accumulator station 10
Forging manipulators with rubber wheels, capacity of
1 to 10 tons 100
Forging manipulators on rails, capacity of 10 to 15 tons 20
Plate-straightening and section-straightening machines 16
Impact hammers, capacity of 100,000 kilogram-meters 5
Equipment for cold heading, trimming, and threading
bolts of one-half. inch diameter and over 70
Nut-forming machines 70
Extrusion presses, capacity of 15,000 to 25,000 tons 2
Steam or air drop hammers with falling weight of 15 tons 3
Total ?IL
-49-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX G
HEAVY PRESSES CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE HEAVY PRESS PROGRAM
OF THE US AIR FORCE 2/
1951-57
Table 8
Type and Size
of Press Qperator and Location
Forging Presses
50,000 short tons Wyman-Gordon,
North Grafton, Mass.
50,000 short tons Alcoa,
Cleveland, Ohio
35,000 short tons Wyman-Gordon,
North Grafton, Mass.
35,000 short tons Alcoa,
Cleveland, Ohio
25,000 short tons (Completed parts stored
as part of the Air
Force Industrial Reserve
Program)
Extrusion Presses 12/
14,000 metric tons Alcoa,
Lafayette, Ind. z/
12,000 short tons Curtiss Wright,
Buffalo, N.Y.
12,000 short tons Harvey Aluminum Co.,
Torrance, Calif.
8,000 short tons Harvey Aluminum Co.,
Torrance, Calif.
8,000 short tons Kaiser Aluminum,
Halethrope, Md.
8,000 short tons Kaiser Aluminum,
Halethrope, Md.
Builder
Loewy Hydropress Co.
Mesta Machine Co.
Loewy Hydropress Co.
United Engineering
and Foundry Co.
E.W. Bliss Co.
Schloemann Engineering Co.
Loewy Hydropress Co.
Lombard Corporation
Loewy Hydropress Co.
Loewy Hydropress Co.
Loewy Hydropress Co.
a. 116/
b. In addition, there is a 12,000-ton Hydraulic-Duisburg extrusion press
located at the Dow Chemical Co., Madison, Illinois, which was funded differ-
ently from the presses under the program.
c. Alcoa is purchasing an additional 14,000-ton Schloemann extrusion press
to be installed in 1958.
- 51 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX H
EXTENT OF REMOVALS OF METALFORMING MACHINERY
FROM CONQUERED AREAS
Although it is impossible to ascertain the actual removals from
Germany, Hungary, Rumania, Austria, Korea, and Manchuria, the following
information indicates that removals were substantial -- perhaps as much
as 80,000 to 100,000 units.
1. East Germany.
The US Strategic Bombing Survey reported metalworking machinery
inventory figures for Germany from 1939 through 1944. lid/ The 1944
figure for all metalworking machinery equalled 2,266,000 units, of which
1,737,100 units were metalcutting machine tools and about 2 percent
(45,300) combined special-purpose machines. After the machine tools
and the combined special-purpose machines were subtracted from the total,
the estimated 1944 inventory of metalforming machinery was computed to
be 483,600 units.
Approximately 30 percent of the machine building industry in Germany
was located in East Germany, 1.1_q/ and this percentage of the total was
used to estimate the approximate number of metalforming machines located
in East Germany.
This method was applied to the 1939 and the 1944 figures as follows:
1939. 1,498,000 - (1,177,600 + 29,960) = 290,400 units
(rounded)
290,400 x 0.30 = 87,000 units (rounded)
1944 2,266,000 - (1,737,100 + 45,300) = 483,600 units
(rounded)
483,600 x 0.30 = 145,000 units (rounded)
No exact census or count of removals from East Germany has been made.
Various persons, however, have estimated the total industrial capacity
remaining in East Germany after dismantling. From one source, these
estimates range from 95 percent to 5 percent in various industrial sec-
tors, with heavy industry in 1945 estimated to be at approximately 35
percent of its 1938 capacity. 119/ In a 1951 book, J.P. Nettl estimated
1946 capacity in terms of that of 1936. 122/ Nettlfs figures ranged
from 10 to 80 percent of 1936 capacity by industry, averaging 40 to 50
percent.
-53-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
On the assumption that the removals of metalforming machinery would
be in somewhat the same proportion as that of reduction in industrial
capacity and on the basis of a conservative figure of slightly more than
50 percent of the 1939 total, the East German inventory of metalforming
machinery after the removals was estimated to be 45,000 units.
When 45,000 units were subtracted from 145,000 units (the 1944 in-
ventory), estimated Soviet removals and war damage totaled 100,000 units.
Although it is impossible to estimate the extent of war damage, general
information concerning damage to metalworking machines in bombed plants
published in the Strategic Bombing Survey indicates that these machines
were relatively durable even under intense bombing. Of the total, there-
fore, war-destroyed machines probably were fewer than those removed to
the USSR, and these removals from East Germany easily could have been
in the range of 50,000 to 80,000 units.
2. Hungary, Rumania, and Austria.
There are numerous reports concerning dismantlings and removals
of industrial equipment (including metalforming machines) from in-
dividual Hungarian, Rumanian, and Austrian plants, but totals are not
available, and there is inadequate information on which to estimate the
extent of these removals. If removals from these countries were in
somewhat the same proportion as estimated removals from East Germany,
however, total removals of 10,000 to 20,000 units would not be unlikely.
3. Manchuria and Korea.
It is reported that 14,500 units of metalworking machinery were
removed to the USSR from Manchuria after World War II. No substantial
removal of plant equipment was undertaken in Korea. 121/ Although the
proportion of metalforming machinery to the total number of metalwork-
ing machines is not known, a figure of 20 percent, or approximately
3,000 units, would not appear to be unrealistic or exaggerated.
- 514--
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
APPENDIX I
ESTIMATED VAIUE OF SOVIET PRODUCTION OF METAIFORMING MACHINERY
A preliminary estimate of the value of Soviet production of metal-
forming machinery was made possible by the acquisition of a 1955 price
list 222/ and by the publication of more detailed information on pro-
duction in the statistical handbook USSR Industry. 123/
The USSR has neither reported data on production of metalforming
machinery in value terms nor published any clues as to the value of
production, such as average value figures for total production or for
various categories, the percent change in the average value over a
period of time, and the like.
Given the prices of various Soviet models in the price lists, total
value of production could be computed by multiplying the number of each
model produced by its respective price. Available data, however, do not
permit a breakdown of production by model, although unit production has
been reported in-major categories, such as hammers, presses, forging
machines, shears, bending and straightening machines, and other metal-
forming machines, as shown in Table 2.* Because of the lack of data on
production by model, numerous methods were used to estimate the mean
price per unit in each major category. Among the methods tried was the
use of implicit price weights based on the average price per ton of models
in the various categories. Unfortunately, insufficient similarity existed
between the prices per ton of the various models within and between
categories, and there was insufficient information on the average weight
of Soviet metalforming machines to provide satisfactory results from any
method based on price per ton.
The method used in this estimate includes the following steps:
1. In each category, selection of a model which has a price
believed to be representative of the average price of the machines pro-
duced in that category during 1955.
2. Multiplication of the selected mean price in each category
by the number of units produced in each category in 1945 and in each
year during 1950-55.
3. Summation of the estimated values of production of the var-
ious categories to obtain the total value of production for each year in
* See Table 2, p. 11, above.
-55-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
1955 rubles and according to the estimated 1955 product mix.
Selection of representative hammers, presses, forging machines, and
the like was made by assuming that the mean price in the various cate-
gories would approximate the median price of the models included in the
1955 price list in the smaller categories and would fall below the median
model price in the larger categories. Because it is probable that the
large and therefore expensive machines in each category are produced
individually or in small series whereas the smaller machines are pro-
duced in far greater numbers, this assumption appears to be defensible.
Although use of the median price or a close approximation thereto in
the smaller categories probably overstates the unit mean value in these
categories, such a median price is more conservative than the mean of
model prices and appears to be the best measure available. Table 9
shows the mean model price, the median model price, and the representa-
tive model price for each category.
Table 9
Prices of Metalforming Machinery in the USSR 2/
1
1
Type Mean Median Representative Number 1
of Model Model Model of
Machinery Price Price 12/ Price Models
Hammers 80,289 51,125 35,340 14
Presses 84,687 33,200 24,260 85
Forging machines 449,285 123,300 123,300 7
Shears 32,011 20,500 18,000 20
Straightening and
bencling machines 11,320 9,412 9,365 10
Others 26,420 26,420 26,420 1
a. All value figures are in 1955 rubles.
b. In cases where no one model represented a median (cate-
gories possessing an equal number of models), a simple aver-
aging of the two surrounding model prices was used to compute
an unweighted median.
Table 10* shows the actual calculation of the estimated value of
production. A similar calculation based on 1950 prices and estimated
* Table 10 follows on p. 57.
- 56 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
Table 10
Estimating Method for Computing the Value of Production of Metal forming Machinery
in the USSR/
1911.5
1945 and 1950-55
Representative
1955
Price
Price x
Quantity
1945
Price x
Quantity
1950
Price x
Quantity
1951
Price x
Quantity
1952
Category
Model
(P55)
(P55 05)
(P55 Q50)
(P55 Q51)
(P55 Q52)
Hammers
MFN 300
35,340
9,188,400
82,236,180
167,087,520
168,077,040
Presses
A 121 A
24,260
59,825,160
110,674,120
85,104,080
99,466,000
Forging machines
V 111
123,300
1,356,300
1,479,600
1,726,200
1,356,300
Shears
NA 633
18,000
2,304,000
22,734,000
20,052,000
18,846,000
Straightening and
bending machines
LOV 1800/12
9,365
56,190
7,482,635
7,716,760
7,061,210
Other metalforming
machines
3 c 1
26,420
739,760
792,600
1,136,060
Total
72,730,050
225,346,295
282,479,160
295,942,610
Index number 12/
32.3
100.0
125.4
131.3
Price x
Quantity Zln-etiltcy Price x
Quantity
(P55 Q53) (P55 Q54) (P55 Q55)
1953 1954
158,923,980 137,967,360 90,894,480
149,659,940 201,915,980 292,842,460
3,329,100 4,315,500 4,562,100
19,764,000 23,742,000 39,726,000
8,072,630 15,864,310 23,318,850
1,426,6801,400,260 1,188,900
341,176,330 385,205,4'o 452,533,000
'51.4 170.9
200.8
a. All values are given in 1955 rubles.
b. P55 Qn
P55 Q50
-57-
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
S-E-C-R-E-T
1950 product mix was made. The index of value production resulting
from this calculation, however, was not sufficiently dissimilar from
the one based on 1955 prices and 1955 product mix to warrant its in-
clusion.
The estimates of value of Soviet production included in this appen-
dix represent a first approximation subject to refinement and reflect
the methodological problems discussed above. As more data become avail-
able, these estimates will be further refined. Because there is in-
adequate information on which to compute acceptable ruble-dollar ratios
for production of metalforming machinery in 1955, all conversions into
US dollars were at the official rate of exchange of 4 rubles to $1 US.
- 58 -
S-E-C-R-E-T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
R
Next 7 Page(s) In Document Denied
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20:
CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
50X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8
SECRET
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/05/20: CIA-RDP79R01141A001000090002-8