Air Force Red Army against the Luftwaffe. Bombers. Part of 1




Finishing the series about the evolution of fighters in World War II, he came to the conclusion that this should be organized for all types of combat aircraft without exception. And it is worth starting with bombers, since it is this type of aircraft that provided the maximum impact on the enemy. Naturally, in conjunction with fighters and attack aircraft, but nevertheless, the "contribution" of bombers to the destruction of manpower, equipment and infrastructure of the enemy is obvious.

Since the bombers of the countries under consideration have traveled a rather peculiar path of evolution, I decided to arrange them in chronological order, from the moment they appeared.

It is worth saying that both the Soviet Union and Germany, in principle, started at the same time. Having recovered from the change of ruling regimes and defeat in the First World War. But behind the backs of the Germans there was some kind of experience in aircraft construction at the beginning of the century, but the Soviet Union had to start the way from the very beginning.

Russian aircraft designers, who could continue aircraft building in the USSR, had left the country (Sikorsky, Lebedev) by that time, and it is worth once more to bow to Sikorsky for Polikarpov, and Lebedev for the aircraft factories built in Penza, St. Petersburg, Taganrog and Yaroslavl.

We begin, of course, with the aircraft that took part in the first phase of the Great Patriotic War.

1930-1935 years.

Germany.


Arado Ar-66



The aircraft was the last development of Walter Rethel to the transition to Messerschmitt, so his refinement was already engaged in Walter Blum. Initially, the Arado Ar-66 was developed as a fighter, but had flight performance much lower than necessary.

At the beginning of 1933, an experienced Ar-66 specimen first flew into the sky. And at the end of 1933, mass production was organized at the Arado factory in Warnemünde. A total of 1456 aircraft of this type were built (6 units exported to Spain).

Crew, pers. - 2
Takeoff weight, kg - 1330
Engine - 1 PD Argus As 10C x 240 hp
Maximum speed, km / h - 210
Cruising speed, km / h - 175
Practical range, km - 715
Practical ceiling, m - 4500

Armament: bombs up to 100 kg.

The German Arado Ar.66 aircraft was adopted by Germany since 1934 (according to some sources - since 1933). Before the start of World War II, it was used as a training center for training pilots and assault bombers aviation.

Since the beginning of the war, Ar.66 aircraft were used as night light bombers (similar to the Soviet U-2 aircraft) as part of night bombers on the Eastern Front from autumn 1942 to the end of 1944.

Gota 145



At the end of 1933 of the year, under the direction of A. Kalkert, the Go-145 initial training aircraft was designed in the design office of the Gotaer Waggon Factory. In February, the X-NUMX of the first time went to the sky prototype Go-1934V145.

The production of Go-145 was carried out at the Gotha, AGO, Bayerishe Flugcoygwerke and Focke-Wulf plants in Germany, CASA in Spain (like CASA 1145-L) and TNCs in Turkey. Whereas in Germany, the production of Go-145 was completed in 1944, in Spain, aircraft were produced until the end of 40's.

In total, about 12 000 Gotha Go-145 aircraft were created.

As light night bombers used aircraft modifications:

Go-145А - without small arms (the initial serial training aircraft, which had a duplicated control system).

Go-145C - equipped with 2x7,9 armament (aircraft for training shooters, with MG 15 machine gun of 7,92 mm caliber mounted in the rear cockpit on a hinge).

The main characteristics of the aircraft Go-145A

Takeoff weight, kg - 1380
Engine - 1 PD Argus As 10C x 240 hp
Maximum speed, km / h - 212
Cruising speed, km / h - 180
Practical range, km - 630
Practical ceiling, m - 3700
Bomb load - up to 100 kg.

Since the fall of 1942, light night bombers fought on the Soviet-German front. In October, 1943, the night bomber squadron was renamed the night attack group, which worked on the Eastern Front until the end of the Second World War. German Gota Go-145 aircraft were part of the six groups of night attack aircraft and the Eastern Air Group, which used light bombs, machine guns, rockets and loudspeakers. The last case of widespread use of this type of aircraft was noted in 1945, in the Budapest region.

It should be noted that at this stage all the bombers of Germany were a legacy of the First World War, that is, they were biplanes with a very small bomb load.

Soviet Union.

In the USSR, which, in general, did not receive the heritage, everything developed a little differently.

Polikarpov, being not the worst student of Sikorsky (irony, of course, the best), based on the groundwork for the only Russian bomber "Ilya Muromets" first created TB-1, and then TB-3.

It is not entirely correct to compare TB-3 and German cars, because in essence the Soviet aircraft was heavy (17 tons) and, in fact, a strategic bomber. But this, as they say, is not our problem.



The take-off weight of the aircraft is more than 17 tons, the useful (bomb) load is up to 5 tons, the maximum flight distance reaches 2500 km, and the speed is up to 200 km / h. The full crew of the TB-3 11 man. The aircraft had machine-gun armament on stationary and sliding turrets, which provided almost complete spherical fire.

TECH SPECS
Crew: 11 people
Normal takeoff weight: 17 200 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 19 500 kg

Powerplant: 4 M-17F × 715 hp
Engines power: 4 (4 × 533 kW (take-off))

Maximum speed:
at height: 177 km / h on 3 000 m
at the ground: 197 km / h
Practical range: 1 350 km
Ceiling: 3 800 m

weaponry
Small: 4-8 × 7,62 mm machine gun YES
The combat load:
normal: 2 000 kg
Maximum: 5 000 kg
Bombs:
in bomb bay: 28 × 50 kg or 82 kg or 100 kg bombs
under the wing: 4 × 250 kg or 500 kg or 1000 kg bombs

By the beginning of World War 22 June 1941, the USSR Air Force had 516 ready planes, not counting the 25, which were subordinate to the Soviet Navy. 23 June TB-3 began night bombing of enemy territory. It should be noted that the TB-3 aircraft did not actually suffer in the early days of the war, as they were based far enough from the borders (by August 1941, the TB-3 was 25% of all Red Army bombers) 1941 year for all reasons, including non-combat losses and abandoned during the retreat, less than 40 aircraft were lost.

Forced attempts to use the TB-3 in the afternoon completely failed: despite the very high survivability, low speed made the aircraft vulnerable to anti-aircraft guns, and the circular, but frankly weak, defensive weapons left virtually defenseless against modern fighters.

However, as a night bomber the TB-3 proved to be a very good option, as the low speed contributed to the accuracy of the bombing. It is important that initially the most experienced pilots were selected for the TB-3 crews, and in good weather, one crew could make up to three combat missions during the night. Given the total number of aircraft involved, this made a significant contribution to the night bombing in the first half of the war.

TB-3 took part in all the important battles of 1941 — 1943, including the Battle of Smolensk, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, the breaking of the siege of Leningrad and the Battle of Kursk. By 1 July 1945, the 18 airborne division still had ten TB-3 airplanes on alert.

Y-2 / Po-2



Another brainchild of Polikarpov. The aircraft was not planned as a combat aircraft, it was produced from 1928 to 1954 years, in total more than 33 thousand cars were produced.

But his place on the list is indisputable, since during the war years it was in the image and likeness of the Po-2 that the Germans began to create squadrons of night bombers from among their obsolete aircraft.

So, all the aircraft of this period participated in the war on the sidelines, as night bombers. Which indicates a certain combat potential of the machines. But the place on the battlefield was after all quite different machines.

1936-1940 years.

Germany

Junkers Ju-86



The prototype machine took to the air 4 November 1934, the year in Dessau. It was a bomber with two star engines Siemens SAM 22. He was added a dorsal machine gun in the open position, the same as being in the ventral gondola to protect the lower hemisphere. Other prototypes followed.

Development of the bomber continued Ju-86 V5 with a modified wing, eliminating undesirable controllability on early models, this aircraft began to be considered as a serial predecessor for the Ju-86А bomber.

In February, thirteen Ju-1936-86s arrived for the evaluation of the Luftwaffe in February, followed immediately by the Ju-0-86, which became the basis of the Hindenburg bomber squadron, later renamed 1-bombing squadron.

The crew of the bomber consisted of four people, the plane could carry eight bombs SC 100. Ju-86 bombers acquired many countries.

Although the Ju-86 practically disappeared from the front line on the eve of World War II as an average bomber, it was the fate of the high-altitude bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. The high-altitude Jumo 207 engine with a two-stage centrifugal supercharger and cab sealing systems was developed.

In 1941, the high-altitude Ju-86 made unpunished flights over Moscow, conducting aerial reconnaissance. The aircraft in service with the USSR turned out to be unprepared for conducting combat at high altitudes at low temperatures. It was necessary to urgently arm the air defense of the Red Army with high-altitude fighters and oxygen equipment.

TECH SPECS
Crew: 2 person
Maximum takeoff weight: 11 540 kg
Powerplant: 2 × diesel Jumo-207B-3 x 1000 l. with.
Maximum speed:
420 km / h at an altitude of 9000 m
370 km / h at an altitude of 14 000 m
Cruising speed: 250 km / h at an altitude of 13 700 m
Practical range: 1000 km
Ceiling: 14 400 m
Armament:
Bombs: 4 x 250 kg or 16 x 50 kg

Junkers Ju-87

Air Force Red Army against the Luftwaffe. Bombers. Part of 1


17 September 1935 of the year at the factory Dassau airport took the first flight of the Ju-87V1. No one thought then that literally in 4, this aircraft would become the symbol of the "blitzkrieg".

Despite the low speed and mediocre aerodynamics (the landing gear was non-retractable), was one of the most effective combat aircraft of the Luftwaffe due to the ability to bomb with a steep dive.

Ju-87 at the beginning of the Second World War was used to directly support the troops and fight against ships. These aircraft formed the basis of air raids during the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and Norway in 1940. In May, 1940, the Ju-87, was instrumental in a blitzkrieg against the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Strong, accurate and very effective against ground targets, the Ju-87 aircraft, like many other dive bombers, were vulnerable to modern fighters. During the battle for Britain, there was a lack of maneuverability, speed and defensive armament, the Ju-87 raids demanded strong fighter cover.

When the Luftwaffe lost air superiority, the Ju-87 again became an easy target for enemy fighters. Since the aircraft was not a replacement, this model continued to be produced up to the 1944 year. By the end of the war, the Junkers mostly replaced the assault modifications of the Focke-Wulf FW-190 fighters, but the dive bombers were used until the last days of the war.

Ju-87 production of all versions from 1936 to August 1944 of the year is estimated at 6500 units.

Specifications:

Crew - 2 people.
Maximum take-off weight - 3324 kg
Engine: Junkers Jumo 210D x 720 hp
Maximum speed - 310 km / h
Distance - 800 km
Ceiling - 9430 m

Armament:
Course machine gun 1x × 7,92-mm MG 17, machine gun 7,92 mm MG 15 at the shooter.
Maximum bomb load - 500 kg (without arrow)
Standard bomb load - 1 × 250 kg (under the fuselage)

"Stuck" went through a series of modifications, which will be worth mentioning in the next section.

Junkers Ju-88



Ju-88 was truly the "workhorse" of the Luftwaffe during World War II. He performed tasks of so different nature that he can rightly be called one of the first multi-purpose aircraft. However, such flexibility of combat use was not the result of a conscious choice, but rather an accident.

10 April 1937 of the year made its first flight Ju-88. The plane was tested in Rechlin and showed good results. The bomber received the Junkers Jumo 211A engines, which developed the 1000 l power during takeoff. with. and 975 hp at an altitude of 4200 m. The speed reached 517 km / h. Take-off weight was 8500 kg.

In 1939, Ju-88A went into the series. The bomber was equipped with two Jumo 211В-1 engines, but three-bladed propellers were replaced with four-bladed, and the new chassis reduced the nacelle capacity.

The crew consisted of 4-x people, take-off weight increased to 10 250 kg. Defensive armament consisted of three MG-15 machine guns, the bomb load in the bomb bay reached 500 kg. Air brakes and external suspension bombs became the standard for the first serial Ju 88А-1 and subsequent models.

TECH SPECS
Crew - 4 people.
Normal take-off weight, kg - 12 105
Maximum take-off weight, kg - 14 000
Engine - 2 × Jumo 211J-1 x 1410. with.

Maximum speed at height, km / h (m) - 470 (5300)
Practical range, km - 1700
Practical ceiling, m - 9800
Armament:
Small - 3-4 machine gun 7,92-mm MG-15
Combat load, kg - 2400

Ju-88 was manufactured in quantities of more than 15 000 units in 67 modifications.

Heinkel He 111



The first prototype of the Non-111A was ready in February of the 1935 year. Flights have shown that we have a plane with good flight data. In parallel with the first prototype, two more copies were built: Non-111B (prototype bomber) and Non-111C (prototype passenger aircraft).

A total of over 7300 instances of Non-111 in 59 modifications were built.

The non-111 went through the whole war, becoming on a par with the Junkers-88 the main bomber of the Luftwaffe. The machine is constantly undergoing modifications and improvements.

Crew, pers. - 4
Normal take-off weight, kg - 8600
Maximum take-off weight, kg - 10 000
Engine - 2 × DB 600CG
Engine power, l. with. (kW) - 2 × 930 (684)
Maximum speed at height, km / h (m) - 370 (4000)
Practical range with load, km (kg) - 1630 (800)
Practical ceiling, m - 7000
Small - 3 × 7,92-mm MG-15
Bomb, kg - 1500

"Dornier" Do-17



Nicknamed the "Flying Pencil" for the long narrow fuselage, the Do-17 was designed exclusively for commercial purposes, and above all as a high-speed mail plane that can also take six passengers on board. In this capacity, the Do 17 VI first flew at the end of the 1934 of the year, after which the second and third prototypes were handed over to Lufthansa for testing.

A fourth prototype was ordered with a bomb bay in the fuselage, as well as two keels-washers at the ends of the stabilizer. It was followed by five similar prototypes, three of which were distinguished by glazing of the bow, and the last three provided for the installation of one MG-15 7,9-mm caliber, operated by a radio operator, behind the cockpit to protect the rear hemisphere. This design was approved for mass production.

The first production model was the Do-17-1, which was built in parallel with the almost similar Do 17F-1, designed for long-distance reconnaissance. On both planes, the MG-15 machine gun was installed for firing down through the hatch, located in front of the bomb bay.

In the E-1 version, the bomb bay contained up to 750 kg of bombs, although a more typical load was the weight of the 500 kg, and in the F-1 it contained a pair of cameras. The Luftwaffe quickly formed four squadrons, arming them with new types of aircraft. The reconnaissance air group received Do-17F-1.

In the spring of 1937, these machines were sent to Spain as part of the Condor Legion. The 15 aircraft of the 122 th reconnaissance air group F joined the 1.A / 88. They, like twenty Do-17-1 from 2.K / 88, have demonstrated the ability to escape from enemy fighters.

Do-17 participated in raids on Poland and France, played a major role in the Battle of Britain, where they confirmed their superiority in speed over the majority of fighters in the canopy dive. Nevertheless, the losses were significant - defensive weapons turned out to be weak.

Do-17 made a series of impressive massive low-level strikes with overflying obstacles, but some parts began to rearm even more advanced Ju-88 before the end of the battle, and by the time Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, only KG 2 remained fully equipped with airplanes Do-Xnumx. Initially, on the Eastern Front, three air groups flew Do-17. The last one was III / KG 17, which transferred its Croatian aircraft IV / KG 3 (a unit similar to the squadron), which continued to operate them until in November 3 of the year was redirected to combat partisans in Croatia.

Do 17 disappeared from the war fronts by the middle of the 1942 of the year, then the substitution with Yu-88 began. All were released 2139 aircraft.

Features:

Crew - 4 person
Engines - two BMW VI 12-cylinder V-engines
Take-off weight - 7040 kg
Maximum speed - 355 km / h
Practical ceiling - 5100 m
Flight range (with maximum bomb load) - 500 km
Armament:
7,92-mm machine gun on the starboard,
7,92-mm machine gun in the lower lamp,
7,92-mm machine gun on the turret at the back of the cab,
7,92-mm machine gun under the fuselage,
Bomb load - 750 kg

"Dornier" Do-217



This German WWII multipurpose bomber is designed to replace the Do 17 aircraft. The prototype of the Do-217 V1 made the first flight of 4 on October 1938 of the year. The aircraft was built serially from the modification Do 217E-1 to May 1944 of the year, starting in November 1940. In total, 1905 vehicles were produced, which, depending on the modifications, were used by the Luftwaffe as photo reconnaissance aircraft, bombers, night fighters, and also as carriers of radio-controlled planning bombs and for the installation of naval mines.

The new aircraft was created as a larger and more powerful variation of the Do-17. A large number of basic units and structures were repeated on the new aircraft or were similar to the old ones. Even the appearance of the new bomber did not initially differ too much from the last modification of the former Dornier Do-17Z aircraft.

This plane was notable for the new type of Waftenkopf (combat or armed head), where the entire crew was concentrated in one cabin and even the thought arose that this new modification of the “old” Do-17 appeared precisely under the influence of the “Do-217” project. . Both aircraft turned out very similar to each other. But, despite the external similarity and numerous borrowings, the Do-217 had many differences from its predecessor and was completely new in design and in aerodynamics.

A total of 1905 machines were built.

Specifications:

Crew - 4 person
Maximum take-off weight - 16 700 kg
Engines - 2 × 12-cylinder DB 603A × 1 750 hp (1 287 kW)

Flight characteristics:
Maximum speed - 557 km / h at a height of 5700 m
Cruising speed - 400 km / h
Practical range - 2 145 km
Practical ceiling - 7 370 m (with maximum bomb load)
Rate of climb - m / s 3,5

weaponry
Machine gun:
4 × 7,92 mm MG 81 machine gun in the bow and side point
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in the back and bottom point
Bomb load: up to 4 000 kg

Compared to the Do-17Z, the Do-217E-2 defensive armament was significantly enhanced. The planes were equipped with an electrified DL131 type top turret, in which an 13-mm Rheinmetall-Borsig MG.131 machine gun was installed with tape feed and 500 rounds of ammunition. The turret provided a circular fire on the horizon and an angle of vertical guidance from 0 to 85 degrees.

In addition to the DL131 turret, the aircraft’s defensive armament included one 15-mm (or 20-mm) Mauser MG.151 / 15 cannon with 250 rounds of projectiles in the bow fixed installation (intended for firing at surface targets), one Rnhemethe 7,92-mm machine gun, intended for firing at surface targets). MG.15 (ammunition 750 ammo) in the nasal mobile installation. An 13-mm MG.131 large-caliber machine gun was installed in the lower lens installation, and one MG.7,92 15-mm machine gun was placed in the two side blisters of the cabin.

The aircraft could carry up to 4000 kg bombs, of which 2517 kg were suspended in the internal bomb bay. The nominal bomb load included four 500-kg or eight 250-kg bombs. There were other possible battle load options, for example, two LMA non-contact sea mines or one LTF5b torpedo.

The Fokke-Wulf FW200 and Dornier Do-215 conditional bomber did not make the list, as they were used in the bulk as reconnaissance aircraft. About scouts worth talking specifically. For the same reason, the Heinkel of the Non-50, which was used on the Eastern Front in the same incarnation, did not make the first part of the list.

Obviously, the German designers, having broken off the Versailles Treaty chain, and often creating dual-purpose machines, made just a giant leap and created airplanes, which, if they did not become outstanding, then allowed to implement the blitzkrieg tactics.

the USSR

DB-3



Adopted by the Soviet Air Force five years before the start of World War II, the DB-3 and DB-3 (IL-4) aircraft were the main type of combat aircraft of the Soviet long-range and mine-torpedo aircraft until the middle of the 1940.

The planes took part in the Soviet-Finnish war in the winter of 1939 — 1940 of the year, in the Great Patriotic War and in the Soviet-Japanese war as the main long-range bombers of the Red Army air force, as torpedo bombers in the Naval Air Force, and also as transport planes, gliders and reconnaissance towers . The DB-3 and its modifications turned out to be the most massive long-range Soviet bombers of the USSR during the war period.

The first combat sorties of the Great Patriotic War were carried out by long-range bombers during daylight hours, without escorting fighters and at facilities located in the front line. Losses were monstrous. By order of July 3, the highest Soviet command prohibited the use of DB-3 during daylight hours, but the order was not carried out everywhere and not always. At the beginning of August 1941, as a part of four long-range aviation corps, only 75 operational DB-3 and DB-3F remained.

Units produced: 1528

Specifications:
Crew: 3 man (pilot, navigator, side-gunner)
Normal takeoff weight: 7000 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 9000 kg
Powerplant: 2 × M-85 × 760 l. with.

Maximum speed:
at height: 400 km / h on 4500 m
at the ground: 327 km / h
Cruising speed: 310-320 km / h
Practical range: 3100 km (with 1000 kg bombs)
Service ceiling: 8400 m
weaponry
Shooting: 3 × 7,62 mm ShKAS machine gun (2500 patr.)
The combat load:
normal: 1000 kg
Maximum: 2500 kg


DB-3f / IL-4



Further development of the DB-3, with a new navigator cabin, a new fuselage (for a different production technology developed for the Li-2), a wing with a new spar and pneumatic control of the landing gear.

IL-4 has become the main tool of influence on the enemy in the far distance. 5 256 units were produced.

Crew, pers. - 4
Maximum take-off weight, kg - 12 120
Engine - 2 M-88B x 1100 HP
Maximum speed, km / h on the ground - 332
Maximum speed, km / h at a height of 5000 m - 400
Practical range, km - 4000
Practical ceiling, m - 8300
Armament:
one 12,7 mm BT machine gun, two 7,62 mm ShKAS machine guns
Bomb load normal - 1000 kg, limit - 2500 kg

Su-2



Light bomber, the fate of which could be very different. It is believed that the aircraft was underestimated, ceasing production. The aircraft, called Su-2 (or BB-1 - short-range bomber), was commercially produced from 1940. In November 1941, the Su-2 was modified and received the name Su-4. The new modification of the bomber-attack aircraft began to be produced with the engine M-82 (ASH-82) with a capacity of 1400 l. with.; with him the speed of the aircraft reached 486 km / h.

Su-2 and Su-4 production was discontinued at the beginning of 1942, when the vehicle sets that had been evacuated from Kharkov ended.

Sukhoi’s decision to build a dual-controlled aircraft immediately was also a success. When preparing for flight personnel, there was no need for special training vehicles, and in combat conditions, if necessary, the navigator could always replace the pilot.

A total of about 800 Su-2 and Su-4 warplanes were built.

Crew - 2 people.
Maximum ground speed - 430 km / h
Maximum speed at the height of 5850 m - 486 km / h
Flight range - 910 km
Practical ceiling - 8400 m
Empty weight - kg 3220
Weight curb - 4700 kg
Engine M-82A x 1330 hp

Armament:
4 × ShKAS motionless and 2 × ShKAS movable
Bomb load: 400 kg
Suspended armament: 8 NURS PC-82 or PC-132

Su-4 was actually a modification of the Su-2 bomber with a more powerful engine (ASH-82F). In addition, this attack bomber had more effective armament - large-caliber guns were installed instead of conventional machine guns.



Having made about 1941 sorties on the Su-5000 in 2, the Soviet Air Force lost all the 222 of these aircraft in the battle and was missing, that is, one loss fell on the departure 22,5. At the same time, the average combat irretrievable losses of Soviet bombers in 1941 amounted to 1 aircraft on 14 sorties, that is, there were more times in 1,61.

In the units that had both Pe-2 and Su-2 in service at the same time, there were also significantly fewer losses of the latter, despite the formally better TTlyak Petlyakov machines: 66 departure, while the Su-1941 on 2 had a loss 1 departure.

Yak-2 / Yak-4

From 1938, this twin-engine double bomber was developed, which was first given the designation "22 aircraft". The machine was built on the principle of minimizing the size and weight of the structure, which, in combination with powerful engines, was to provide high speed characteristics. In the development was used the experience of creating a twin-engine training aircraft UT-3, which, however, was not commercially available.

Yak-2



TECH SPECS
Crew - 2 person
Curb weight - 5 380 kg
Engines - 2 × M-103 × 960 HP
Maximum speed:
at the height of 5000 m - 515 km / h
on the ground - 439 km / h
Practical range - 800 km
Practical ceiling - 8 900 m
Armament:
Machine-gun - 1 × 7,62 mm ShKAS machine gun
Bomb load - 600 kg (400 kg in bomb bay, 200 kg on external sling)

In 1940, 111 aircraft were built.

Yak-4



Crew - 2 person
Curb weight - 5 845 kg
Engines: 2 × M-105 × 1100 hp
Maximum speed - 574 km / h
Cruising speed - 545 km / h
Practical range - 960-1200 km
Practical ceiling - 9 500 - 10 000 m
weaponry
Machine-gun - 3 × 7,62 mm ShKAS machine gun
Bomb load: 400-800 kg

90 airplanes were released (27 in 1940 and 63 in 1941).

Mass production did not last long and ended due to the fact that the leadership of the Air Force decided that the aircraft did not represent the combat value.

Sat



The question of the name of these aircraft is rather complicated than it may seem at first glance. For many years, in the publications of various authors, telling about the aircraft of the Security Council, there was a certain confusion in the definition of designations of various modifications. SB-2 and SB-3 are known, various combinations of the bis index, most likely introduced for quick identification. During the operation of the aircraft such designations were not.

The official documents of TsAGI used the designation ANT-40 and later when defining the SS aircraft. In 1937, after an unexpected arrest of A.N. Tupolev, his initials were banned, so the plane was called TsAGI-40.

The first SS production aircraft was released in the spring of the 1936 of the year. Over the years, the serial construction of the Security Council has repeatedly modernized. In total, until the serial production was discontinued in 1941, 6656 aircraft of various modifications were produced.

Features:
Crew - 4 pax
Engines - 2 x M-103 x 960 hp
Flight weight, kg - 6380
Maximum speed, km / h - 450
Flight range, km - 1900
Ceiling m - 9300

Bomb load, kg - 1500

The defense armament of the Security Council includes three rifle points.

The bow installation consists of two ShKAS machine guns of 7,62 mm caliber, while shooting could be carried out from a single machine gun.

The aft upper turret of the TUR-9 with one ShKAS machine gun had almost circular shelling of the upper hemisphere. The shooter was located in the seat, mounted on the movable part of the turret using curved steel pipes. Below, to the rolling ring of the turret was attached cartridge box for 1000 cartridges. The turret had a transparent cap, in the upper part of which aerodynamic compensators were equipped, facilitating its rotation in flight.

Luke installation - LU under the ShKAS machine gun was intended to fire the rear lower hemisphere. It was brought to the combat position after the opening of the lower hatch. Shooting was conducted from the seat TUR-9, in some cases from the knees.

The first case of combat use of the Security Council took place on the afternoon of October 28 on 1936, when the Security Council four struck a Franco airfield in Tablada (near Seville). For a long time (before the advent of the Me-109) they were almost invulnerable to German and Italian fighters. The Security Council was also used against the Japanese in China, on Lake Hassan, and on Khalkhin Gol. He participated in the Finnish war.

By the beginning of World War II, the SB was considered obsolete, but formed the basis of the Soviet front-line bomber aircraft. In June, the 1941 was on the western border of the Soviet Union as part of the Red Army Air Force, there were more than 1500 SB aircraft assembled in the 27 bomber and 4 reconnaissance regiments. During the first two days of hostilities, only ground aviation lost around 400 SS. Over the next six days, some more 200 machines were lost.

Sat actively used on the front to 1943 year. It was used not only for its intended purpose as a bomber, but also for towing gliders and targets, as a liaison, for flying over the front line to the partisans, was used in the GVF as a mail and transport.

Ar-2



The plane had several versions of the names: "H" PK, PK, SB-RK - the final version was fixed Ap 2 in accordance with the name of the chief designer of Arkhangelsk. Art-2 was the last modification of the SB bomber, embodying the achievements of several previous machines, starting with the aircraft of the International Modeling Force.

Art-2 was created as an attempt to modernize the SB aircraft by converting it into a dive bomber. Two M-105P engines were installed on the aircraft.

The first flight experienced SB-RK made in 1939 year.

According to some estimates, in terms of its combat capabilities, it was not inferior to the Pe-2 dive bomber: exceeded it in bomb load, placing bombs inside the fuselage and having an automatic withdrawal of bombs inside the aircraft. For comparison, during a dive, only bombs suspended on external hangers were dropped on the Pe-2, however, for several reasons, they did not go into a large series.

TECH SPECS
Crew - 3 people. (pilot, navigator, gunner-radio operator)
Normal take-off weight - 6 600 kg
Maximum take-off weight - 8 150 kg
Engines - 2 × M-105 × 1050 HP
Maximum speed:
on the ground - 415 km / h
at the height of 4700 m - 475 km / h
Cruising speed: 320 km / h
Practical range - 1500 km
Practical ceiling - 10 000 m
weaponry
Small: 4 × 7,62 mm ShKAS machine gun
Bombs: up to 1 500 kg
in the bomb bay: 6 × 100 kg or 4 × 250 kg or 3 × 500 kg

The report’s final material stated that the SB-RK aircraft, manufactured on the basis of the Security Council, is significantly better than the SB aircraft in its flight tactical data, but lagging behind modern foreign and domestic twin-engine bombers in speed (the latter were understood to be SPB, BB-22 and first of all Pe-2, which showed the maximum flight speed of 540 km / h).

Improvements of the Ap-2 dive bomber continued in 1941. Nevertheless, they decided to remove the aircraft from serial production, replacing it with a new diving Pe-2, which not only had higher flight characteristics, but also had significant reserves for subsequent improvement.

A total of about 200 units that were in service with the air regiments using the SS were released.

Pe-2



The most massive dive bomber made in the USSR.

Development started by the forces of designers and engineers led by V. M. Petlyakov in a special design office of the NKVD, SKB-29 in the middle of 1938.

Created on the basis of an experienced twin-engine high-altitude fighter "100" (VI-100), Pe-2 made the first flight of 22 in December 1939 of the year, at the end of the tests began to be mass-produced at the end of 1940 of the year.

The aircraft had an intra-body compartment with four suspension points (two on each of the Der-21 cassettes), and two more compartments in the rear of the nacelle, in which one DZ-40 bomb rack was mounted. Four FAB-40 bombs, or two FAB-250 bombs could be hung on the external sling on four DZ-500 holders. The bomb load in 600 kg was considered normal, up to a maximum of 1000 kg.

Dive bombing was only possible with an external suspension. Pe-2 could carry all the main types of bombs that were in service with the Soviet Air Force - high-explosive, fragmentation, incendiary, armor-piercing and special caliber to 500. For precision bombing, the navigator used the OPB-1М day sight and the night NKPB-3 sight. From a dive of a bomb, the pilot dropped a PBL-1 sight.

Inherited from the 100 high-altitude fighter on the Pe-2 dive bomber, there was the option of loading bomb-cassettes with K-76 cassettes and K-100 cassettes developed some time later. The K-76 cassette was loaded with non-warped 76,2-mm projectiles with aviation fuses, and fragmentation bombs from AO-100 to AO-2,5 were loaded into K-20. After testing, the use of K-76 cassettes was considered dangerous and prohibited, and K-100 cassettes were considered ineffective.

The small arms of the machine initially consisted of four ShKAS machine guns of rifle caliber. The navigator was turret TSS-1. From the bottom of the cockpit of the gunner-radio operator under the fuselage mounted the rifle installation MB-2, similar to that used on the SB and DB-3F. Two fixed machine guns provided shelling forward. Already with the 13-series, the ShKAS hatch was replaced with a large-caliber turret machine gun of the Berezin design BT with 200 ammunition ammunition. The right front SHKAS was also replaced by the heavy machine gun Berezina BK.

A revision was made on the 110-series airplanes - the ShKAS on-board unit appeared in the cockpit of the radio operator.

After the 275 series, the DAG-10 grenade launcher with 10 anti-aircraft grenades AG-2 began to be installed on the plane.

The second Pe-2 salvo, armed only with ShKAS, was 1,152 kg, and with the Berezin machine guns it almost doubled and became equal to 2,2 kg.

TECH SPECS
Crew - 3 man (pilot, navigator, gunner-radio operator)
Normal take-off weight - 7 550 kg
Maximum take-off weight - 8 500 kg
Engines: 2 × M-105 × 1100 l. with.
Maximum speed:
at height - 540 km / h on 5100 m
on the ground - 452 km / h
Practical range - 1200 km
Practical ceiling - 8700 m

Units produced - 11 247 in 22 modifications

TB-7 / Pe-8



For the first time, the question of building a high-altitude heavy bomber (not yet high-speed) was raised by the military in front of the domestic aviation industry in 1931. On June 23, 1931, the Red Army Air Force Research Institute informed TsAGI of its tactical and technical requirements for a high-altitude bomber designated in this document as TB-7. According to preliminary requirements of the Air Force, the aircraft was intended for the destruction of state and strategic targets, attacks on bases fleet enemy and landing operations. According to the requirements of the Air Force Department, the future TB-7 was supposed to have: a combat flight altitude of 7000 m, a maximum flight speed of 250 km / h, a radius of 1500-2000 km, a bomb load of 10000 kg, the crew should consist of 10-14 people.

The design of the aircraft was supposed to allow the use of the aircraft as an escort cruiser. In this case, due to the removal of bomb weapons and the abandonment of the bomb load, additional firing points were established. The cruiser was supposed to be used to escort long-range bomber formations of the main base modification.

Defensive weapons offered extremely powerful. It provided reliable protection from almost all sides. The rear hemisphere was especially strongly defended, as the most likely for fighter attacks.

The option with a stern turret under the gun ShVAK was offered. In addition to it, the upper part of the rear hemisphere was covered by a cannon mount mounted on the back of the fuselage behind the ATSN compartment. The lower part of the rear hemisphere was effectively defended by two Berezin 12,7-mm machine guns, located in the chassis fairings. The upper gun mount also defended the entire upper part of the front hemisphere. In the nose of the fuselage in the ball tower there was a Spark machine gun ShKAS. This whole set of defensive gunnery weapons made this bomber a real “flying fortress”.

Characteristics

Crew - 11 man
Flight weight, kg - 18500
Maximum ground speed, km / h - 305
At the height of 5 000 m, km / h - 443
Practical ceiling, m - 9300
Flight range, km - 7200
Engines - 4 x V-12 AM-35A x 1350 l. with.

The list of weapons and equipment of the aircraft: (In both versions of the aircraft - the crew of 8 people).

a) The commander of the ship is navigator-scorer - 1 man.
b) Pilots - 2 person.
c) Radioman - 1 man.
d) On-board technicians - 1 man.
e) Gunners-3 man.

weaponry

2 × 20-mm guns
2 × 12,7-mm machine gun
2 × 7,62-mm machine gun

Bombs caliber from 50 kg to 1000 kg with internal suspension, total weight 2000 kg, in the overload version - 5000 kg.

Mass production of TB-7 was launched at the end of 1939 of the year. On the armament of the Red Army Air Force aircraft entered the spring 1941 year. In 1942, all airplanes TB-7 received the designation Pe-8. Discontinued at the end of 1944. In total, taking into account two experimental prototypes, 97 aircraft were built.

During World War II, the Pe-8 aircraft was used mainly for strategic bombardment of enemy rear facilities: Berlin facilities (the first raid was in August 1941 of the year), Königsberg, Danzig, and Helsinki. Along with the distant medium-sized twin-engined bomber DB-3, Il-4 and Ep-2, the heavy Pe-8 was also used to strike in the frontline zone and operational rear of the enemy: in August 1942 of the year - in the Battle of Stalingrad and in the summer of 1943 - in Kursk the battle. The aircraft was in service with parts of long-range aviation. After the war, was used to transport goods in the Arctic. Decommissioned by the Air Force at the start of the 1945 of the year.

Ep-xnumx



Long-range bomber, twin-engine monoplane with a reverse-seagull wing. The plane was designed in the OKB-240 under the direction of R. L. Bartini, but in connection with the arrest of the chief designer, VG Ermolaev continued the work.

Mass production started in October 1940. Ер-2 was produced at the factories № 18 in Voronezh and № 125 (39) in Irkutsk. Production was interrupted in September 1941 and resumed in 1944 year. Total 462 instance was built. In August and September of 1941, the Yer-2 and TB-7 aircraft took part in a series of air raids on Berlin.

Bomb weapons were placed both on the inside and the outside of the suspension. In the bomb bay there were six cluster holders: in the front and rear parts - two KD-2-240 (for bombs in caliber up to 100 kg), and in the middle - two KD-3-240 (from 250 to 500 kg).

On CD-2-240, it was also possible to hang up ampoule cassettes of ABK-240 (two for each). In addition, the bombs could be hung on two external beams Der-19-20 (for bombs up to 1000 kg). Normal bomb load in the bomb compartment did not exceed 1000 kg and allowed in the following variants: . The suspension of the bombs on the internal cassette holders was carried out with a manual winch BL-10, which was located in the cockpit of the radio operator.

Outside, a suspension of two bombs of caliber from 100 to 1000 kg or two pourer chemical devices VAP-500U or UHAP-500 was allowed. The maximum bomb load reached four tons. The bombing was carried out during the day with the help of OPB-2M with electric heating, and at night - NKPB-3.

Defensive armament Er-2 consisted of three machine guns. In the forward part of the fuselage there was an installation of type DB-3F, on which a 7,62-mm ShKAS machine gun was attached to the ball joint.

In the lower hatch there was an MB-2 retractable unit with a second ShKAS machine gun. In the stowed position, it was hidden in the fuselage, but in the combat position it went down (the hatch had to be opened first). The shooter fired from his knee, aiming through the OP-2L periscope sight. The overhanging part of the installation was covered by a fairing, the side flaps of which were made of Plexiglas. Pin-limiter did not allow to direct the barrel to the tail wheel.

On top of the fuselage was a shielded TAT-BT turret with an 12,7-mm BT machine gun. She had a retractable aerodynamic compensator.

TECH SPECS

Crew - 4-5 people
Curb weight - 12 000 kg
Maximum take-off weight - 13 460 kg
Engines: 2 × M-105 × 1100 hp
Maximum speed:
at height - 445 km / h
on the ground - 395 km / h
Practical range - 4 100 km
Practical ceiling - 7 700 m
Bomb load:
normal: 1 000 kg
Maximum: 5 000 kg (for later versions)

462 units released.

An interesting and promising aircraft was simply destroyed by the lack of a proper engine, and gained fame as a not very reliable machine. However, more 200 machines took part in the Great Patriotic War.

Results The results are very original. Despite the fact that the Soviet designers did not have such a past as their German counterparts, the planes that were created before the start of the war in the USSR, at least, were not inferior to the German ones.

Moreover, a heavy long-range bomber was created in the USSR, which the Germans never did. For which, in fact, paid when they could not work on enterprises evacuated beyond the Urals. Another issue is that our industry could not create Pe-8 in amounts comparable to the US. But that's another topic. As the one in which it will be said about the expediency of the use of bombers.

Sources:
Haruk A. All aircraft Luftwaffe.
Shunkov V.N. Luftwaffe Aviation.
Shunkov V.N. Red Army.
Shavrov V. B. History designs of aircraft in the USSR 1938-1950
Yudenok V.Ye. USSR Aircraft of the Second World War.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

201 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. hohol95 10 August 2017 08: 28 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    Dear Roman, why is the P-5 missing from the list of Soviet cars?
    Or is this Polikarpov Design Bureau less worthy of attention even against the background of Goth and Arado?
    1. bandabas 10 August 2017 08: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The article is once again good. And to you "plus" for the addition.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. hohol95 10 August 2017 16: 31 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Dear bandabas - P-5 NOT SUPPLEMENT - P-5 MILITARY HORSE of many WARS!
        And skip it - .............................................. ...
        ........................
        1. NIKNN 14 September 2017 19: 08 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: hohol95
          Dear bandabas - P-5 NOT SUPPLEMENT - P-5 MILITARY HORSE of many WARS!
          And skip it - .............................................. ...

          I do not argue...
          However, it’s nice to read the author who is savvy in the subject .., well, at the expense of the supplement ... Heinkel 111 was a so-so plane, but there were little equal among the bombers in terms of vitality ...
          1. yehat 6 August 2018 12: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The he-111 was valued for its reliability and its ability to withstand rifle-caliber machine gun fire, so it was a difficult target for Mig or Yak aircraft, which quickly ran out of shells from a cannon, as well as for 16 with machine-gun weapons.
            I managed to fly on it in virpil il-2 - I really liked the car, although it does not represent anything outstanding in terms of performance characteristics.
      3. Duke 11 August 2017 02: 32 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        UT-1
        A training aircraft created at the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Used to train highly qualified pilots in peacetime. During the war years, about 50 aircraft were armed with 1-2 machine guns and suspensions for the 2-4 small bombs or rockets of the RS-82. This assault version was called UT-1b,

        Due to the huge losses in the material part and the rare replenishment of new equipment, the command of the Air Force of the Black Sea Fleet decided on the usual step in such cases: “under the gun” they put all aircraft capable of performing military operations and inflicting damage to the enemy. So from the aviation schools and units of the Civil Air Fleet, almost all the old cars were “raked out”, which no one had ever thought about the combat use. Everything went into play: heavy bombers TB-1, fighter I-5, reconnaissance P-5, multipurpose aircraft U-2 and training aircraft UT-1 and UT-2. As for the UT-1, according to the order of the Black Sea Fleet commander, Major General N. A. Ostryakov, it was planned to install one ShKAS machine gun and four beams for the RS-82 on them. The decision was finalized at the November 10 meeting of the 1941 of the year, and the process of remaking the aircraft began in December at the Stalin Naval Aviation School (later it was renamed the Yeisk VVAUL). A design team worked on the UT-1 weapons scheme, which in February 1942 managed to build and test the first armed aircraft that received their own designation UT-16. They were installed two ShKAS with ammunition 450 cartridges on the barrel, mounted on special farms on the wing. Two guides for the PC-82 were attached under the wing, and the lower surface of the wing at this point was sheathed with duralumin, in order to avoid damage when firing rockets. The weapon reload system was purely mechanical and consisted of blocks and cables.

        On May 23 of 1942, the first UT-1 sortie took place during the defense of Sevastopol (all in all, until 1 of July 1942 of the year, 778 sorties were made). In August and September, aircraft fought in the Caucasus. In battles for Novorossiysk, 517 sorties were made (of which 335 were overnight). The actions of UT-1 allowed to slow down the German attack on the Caucasus.
        1. Nikolaevich I 11 August 2017 10: 17 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Thank you for your information on the UT-1! I met a brief mention of the combat use of the UT-1, but did not dare to mention it in the previous comment about the "missed" aircraft. You helped to "dispel" doubts.
  2. hohol95 10 August 2017 08: 42 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    And TU-2 was also left out of sight ...

    Why?
    1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 09: 45 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The novel was not reported either by ours (not LEND_LIZ!) And by German bombers. By the types that were in service.
    2. CentDo 10 August 2017 12: 58 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      The article considers the aircraft, the production of which was established before 1940. And where does the Tu-2?
      1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 13: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In this aspect (the first flight to 1940), yes, it’s "dumped" almost correctly.
      2. hohol95 10 August 2017 13: 34 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        We will WAIT about TU-2 in other parts! BUT R-5 and R-10 MISSED!
        1. CentDo 10 August 2017 13: 45 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          For P-5 and P-10 I completely agree. It is strange that these machines are not mentioned.
          1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 14: 28 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            What is so strange? Page in Shavrov torn out.
            1. fighter angel 10 August 2017 16: 04 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Yes, if in Shavrov ... We would not have read then that Polikarpov was the creator of TB-1 and TB-3 ... Vadim Borisovich doesn’t have such nonsense.
              1. Nikolaevich I 11 August 2017 01: 53 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Quote: fighter angel
                We would not read then that Polikarpov is the creator of TB-1 and TB-3.

                Well ... anything can happen wink : ... there are also cases of renaming aircraft. yes ... Roman decided to "rename" the aircraft designer .... maybe he "has the right" request ?
                1. Reklastik 30 August 2017 17: 09 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  That is what makes most of his articles so good. laughing
          2. San Sanych 10 August 2017 14: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            for some reason, the author also ignored Junkers-52, because he was created as a bomber
            1. hohol95 10 August 2017 15: 21 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              It was created as a transport with a conversion (in case of war) in the BOMBERS!
              1. Nikolaevich I 11 August 2017 01: 44 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                There are references that the Yu-52 transporter was also used in the bomber version (as was the Li-2).
            2. avt
              avt 10 August 2017 15: 32 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: San Sanych
              for some reason, the author ignored Junkers-52 for some reason, because he was created as a bomber

              You confuse it with G.24, known in the USSR as Yug-1 and which the Germans assembled in Sweden. ,, Iron Anna "transporter of life.
              1. hohol95 10 August 2017 15: 49 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                IN SPAIN THERE WAS ANNA - A BOMBER ...
                "But the Ju 52 / 3mg3e was used in Spain not only as military transport aircraft. From the beginning of August they began to work as bombers. On August 3, 1936, the German crew bombed for the first time with a concentration of Republican troops. Ten days later, two Junkers attacked nearby from Malaga, the battleship Jaime I. The leading pair, Lieutenant von Moreau, could not hit the target, but the crew of his wingman, already mentioned pilot Henke, made two 250-kg high-explosive bombs. 47 sailors were killed and wounded on the battleship . "
                1. avt
                  avt 10 August 2017 16: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: hohol95
                  IN SPAIN THERE WAS ANNA - A BOMBER ...

                  request I do not argue about the application, as with Lee -2, the same ersatz as B-18, only the latter was really based on DC, and not ersatz. But if you still see how ,, Junkers "led the line from ,, underground Swedish"
                  Quote: avt
                  G.24

                  And practically the Soviet bomber Yug-1, ,, Iron Anna "all the same
                  Quote: avt
                  transporter for life.

                  and even the passenger one was already designed for Junkers. And then mobilization potential, like on the same Condor and the same U-90, turned into U-290. Moreover, the line of clean bombers was actually brought from U- 86 and not brought to the U-89 series.
              2. San Sanych 10 August 2017 15: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                no, it is Junkers-52 aka Aunt Yu (Ju-52 3 mge)
        2. tomket 10 August 2017 19: 31 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: hohol95
          BUT P-5 and P-10 MISSED!

          But are they not classified as scouts?
          1. Nikolaevich I 11 August 2017 01: 34 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: tomket
            But are they not classified as scouts?

            R-5, R-10-multipurpose aircraft ... R-5, for example, was used as a reconnaissance aircraft, attack aircraft, night bomber, liaison, light transport ...
        3. Nikolaevich I 11 August 2017 01: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Duc, no current erki were lost ... Li-2 is not mentioned in the bomber version ...
          1. yehat 6 August 2018 12: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            you would also mention Mig-3 with a bomb under his belly.
      3. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 15: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yu-52 also wore bombs. And before 1940 it took off.
        1. hohol95 10 August 2017 15: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Perhaps there will be an article about TRANSPORTERS ... Let's WAIT ...
          1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 20: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, wait, have some fun ...
    3. Fitter65 10 August 2017 16: 31 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: hohol95
      And TU-2 was also left out of sight ...

      Quote: hohol95
      Why
      Well, probably because Polikarpov did not design it, like the TB-1 (ANT-4) and TB-3 (ANT-6), although the Tu-2 is the ANT-58 wink
    4. yehat 6 August 2018 12: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      because it’s not a war plane
  3. evil partisan 10 August 2017 08: 46 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Li-2 is ignored.
    The use of Li-2 in ADD was constantly expanding. In 1942, she received a total of 221 aircraft. In August-September, regiments of the 53rd and 62nd divisions, previously armed with TB-3, began to switch to new equipment.
    Li-2 as night bombers were actively used in November - December 1942 in the battles for Stalingrad. Starting from the jump airfields, in the dark they approached the Volga, where the bombing strip was designated by spotlights from the left bank. Soviet troops held only a narrow strip along the river. Therefore, the aircraft immediately began to be freed from the bomb load.
    A load of 1000 kg was determined for maximum range, so the car could take much more on the "short shoulder". Additionally, small bombs were taken into the fuselage. They were thrown out through the doors manually. With a shortage of bombs, any scrap metal was loaded, for example, railway crutches were dumped on German infantry trenches. Used and hand grenades .... By February 1944, Li-2 was already used in three buildings ADD - 5, 6th and 7th. They were involved in massive raids on cities in Finland. Only Helsinki was bombed three times in a row. Li-2 from the airfields on the Karelian Isthmus made up to three sorties per night. In September, similar attacks by large bombers were carried out against targets in Hungary.
    1. hohol95 10 August 2017 08: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      About Li-2 and I did not remember!

      hi
    2. CentDo 10 August 2017 13: 00 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I repeat: the article discusses aircraft whose production was established before 1940.
      Production of the Li-2 began in 1942.
      1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 13: 32 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        PS-84, - Does this designation tell you anything? He is DS-3 in girlhood, he is Lee-2 from 42. The first flight, September 1939, before the evacuation in the fall of the 41, the factory produced 230 aircraft.
        1. CentDo 10 August 2017 13: 49 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          PS-84 - a civilian aircraft. He did not participate in any military operations. Yes, Li-2 was, in fact, the same PS-84 with minor modifications, but formally the author is right.
          1. hohol95 10 August 2017 14: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Then WHERE R-6 (ANT-7) (406 pieces)? Or WILL THE ARTICLE ON TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT GREAT DOMESTIC? And in TRANSPORT AVIATION there are many models -SCHE-2; Yak-6; Sh-2; G-2; PS-5 (P-10); PS-84 ...
          2. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 14: 44 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            IL-4 is formally the same plane as the DB-3F, but with minor modifications. The X-NUMX is formally the same aircraft as the U-2, with minor modifications. Argument? Then why did the author mention Po-2 and Il-2, and left Lee-4 behind the scenes?
            PS-84 - a civilian aircraft. He did not participate in any military operations

            ??
            Yes, Lee-2 was essentially the same PS-84

            Did 2 take part in hostilities?
            "The need to increase the quantitative composition of the DBA (from the beginning of 1942 - Long-Range Aviation - ADD) led to a compelled decision - to produce a bomber variant of the PS-84 passenger aircraft. The machine was mastered by production in 1939 at aircraft plant No.84 in Khimki, Moscow Region. according to the licensed documentation of the Douglas DC-3 aircraft. Since the beginning of 1942, serial production of the bomber began at Tashkent aircraft plant No.34, which in September of the same year received the designation Li-2ВВ. " from here: http://www.proza.ru/2016/07/29/993
            Thus, the bomber variant PS-84 first appeared, and then it became Li-2. BUT! The first flight BEFORE 1940., And participated in hostilities. By the way, as part of the special squadron GA PS-84 supplied the besieged Leningrad. Why not fighting?
            1. CentDo 10 August 2017 15: 50 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              "The deployment of the PS-84 multipurpose military modification, which later received the designation Li-2VP (military use), began immediately after June 22, 1941 In addition to performing the above design improvements, air navigation equipment was simplified, special military equipment and weapons were installed. Changes were not made immediately, but in series, and the result was at the end of December 1941, starting with copy No. 1842001, the car acquired a complete look. However, it turned out to be somewhat more simplified than expected in 1939. For example, they refused to use a crane.

              Even before the war, Senkov proposed creating an attack aircraft based on the PS-84. However, this idea was realized only at the beginning of 1942, when the military aircraft was modified under a night bomber, while retaining the ability to carry out transport tasks. At the same time, in the cockpit on the port side behind the crew commander’s chair, the navigator’s workplace was organized, which was equipped with the NKPB-7 bomb sight, and the front door was replaced with glazing. Two armored plates with a thickness of 8 mm each, having dimensions of 720x460 mm, were installed on the partition of the cockpit. Under the center wing placed holders with electric spreaders, designed for bombs up to 100 kg. In the future, the car was able to carry the FAB-250/500. The normal bomb load on the external suspension was 1000 kg (in the combat units, often additional small bombs were taken on board in the boxes, which were thrown through the main door). The crew of the bomber consisted of six people: two pilots, a navigator, a flight engineer, a radio operator and a gunner.

              After conducting military tests of the bomber, the GKO made a decision to re-equip part of the existing PS-84 accordingly and to introduce this option into mass production. By mid-1942, the number of percussion machines was 180 units, and subsequently their production reached 40 aircraft per month. In mass production, a Li-2VP system was introduced to fill gas tanks with neutral gas, which reduced the number of fires and explosions when bullets and shell fragments hit the tanks. The leading edges of the wing, keel and stabilizer were supplied with electrothermal PIC. On individual Li-2s, four rockets of the RS-82 could be suspended under each wing console. "

              http://www.airwar.ru/enc/cww2/li2.html
      2. hohol95 10 August 2017 13: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        We are waiting ... We are waiting ... P-5 and P-10 - enter ...
        1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 13: 42 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          What are we waiting for? Again "galloping to the top"?
        2. Black Colonel 10 August 2017 15: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Dear, open the "Corner of the sky" on airwar.ru. You will find all the planes there.
      3. evil partisan 10 August 2017 13: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: CentDo
        Production of the Li-2 began in 1942.

        Not production began, but the PS-84 was renamed Li-2. And so it is possible to agree to the fact that Po-2 did not fight until 1944!
    3. avt
      avt 10 August 2017 15: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: wicked partisan
      Li-2 is ignored.

      Well, then get to the American version of the bomber from Douglas - B-18 ,, Bolo "it seems.
  4. Amurets 10 August 2017 08: 47 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Polikarpov, being not the worst student of Sikorsky (irony, of course, the best), based on the groundwork for the only Russian bomber "Ilya Muromets" first created TB-1, and then TB-3.
    Author, where did you wander? These are Tupolev planes. See Saukke: “ANT aircraft. N. Yakubovich.“ Tupolev’s combat aircraft. ”V. Kotelnikov:“ TB-3 bomber. ”
  5. doktorkurgan 10 August 2017 08: 48 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Polikarpov, being not the worst student of Sikorsky (irony, of course, the best), based on the groundwork for the only Russian bomber "Ilya Muromets" first created TB-1, and then TB-3.

    Polikarpov? !!!!!!!!!!
    1. avt
      avt 10 August 2017 14: 08 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      doktorkurgan Today, 08:48
      Polikarpov, being not the worst student of Sikorsky (irony, of course, the best), based on the groundwork for the only Russian bomber "Ilya Muromets" first created TB-1, and then TB-3.
      Polikarpov? !!!!!!!!!!

      Hmhhhhhhh! Quiet ! Polikarpov, it was Polikarpov who created the TB-1 and TB-3! I’ve been taken off a run on a branch today for this bully And after
      It should be noted that at this stage all the bombers of Germany were a legacy of the First World War, that is, they were biplanes with a very small bomb load.
      for the wish to the author to look at what kind of machines, Junkers "in Fili for the USSR laid, before .... Polikarpov, a student of Sikorsky created TB-1, TB-3 bully
  6. doktorkurgan 10 August 2017 08: 57 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    And as the He-111, a photo of the CASA C-2111D is presented - the Spanish modernization of the base aircraft under the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, after the war remotorization was carried out.
    And judging by the fact that the plane in the colors of the Luftwaffe - Duc is a frame from the film (either "Battle for Britain" or "Patton").
    1. Velizariy 10 August 2017 10: 00 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The author learns to write articles, but articles are not written by copy-paste of a couple of books. Heinkel even wrote the bomb load incorrectly, it is not 1500 kg, but 3000 kg.
      1. EvilLion 10 August 2017 10: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yes, and Ju-87 bombs to a ton of EMNIP carried without problems.
        1. Velizariy 10 August 2017 11: 06 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Even 1800 raised. And they threw, in my opinion, the Brest Fortress.
          copy-paste without knowledge is like ... well, in any way))))
          1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 06: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They drove something, but with overload and with problems - and the range is not the same, and the shooter on the ground of the pilot from such a flight was waiting.
        2. hohol95 10 August 2017 13: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is from model D starting ...
    2. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 13: 54 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Novel pictures for the article grabbed without looking. Take a closer look at the Stuck. The photo shows a modern replica remake on a reduced scale from the original. An article is hack work in every way. How did the moderation go? By the principle of the absence of grammatical errors? A joke, if that.
      1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 14: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Here is a video of that pseudo-thing, whose photo Roman inserted into the article:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIUpvtoX0_E&N
        R = 1
        The airplane is interesting. But not Piece.
  7. evil partisan 10 August 2017 09: 15 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Here, by the way, is another plane that was used as a bomber:
  8. rubin6286 10 August 2017 09: 22 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Dear author!

    The development and creation of the TB-1 and TB-3 aircraft was carried out by A.N. Tupolev, and not N.N. Polikarpov. There is a lot of literature about this, for example, V.R. Kotelnikov "TB-3. Stalin's Air Superlinker. ”M. Yauza, EXMO, 2008.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  9. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 09: 24 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    For targeted bombing, the navigator used the OPB-1M day sight and the NKPB-3 night sight. A pilot with a PBL-1 sight was dropping from a dive bomb.

    The author is somewhat wrong. The pilot had TWO sights. PBP-1 (in options "a" / "b", depending on the year of manufacture) for dive bombing и PBL-1 / 2 (depending on the year of manufacture), for bombing from the horizon. PBL carried an auxiliary function, was used for preliminary aiming and access to the combat course.

    Source - "Pe-2. Description of the aircraft", edition 1945g.
    It would be nice to edit the article.
  10. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 09: 41 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    IMHO, as with the first cycle of fighter jets, the author has a concise retelling of popular books with a touch of their own interpretation (books). For serious work does not pull.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. EvilLion 10 August 2017 09: 58 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Let's immediately clarify one point. In order to get somewhere in general, the plane of those years must either hammer somewhere right on the course, this is without taking into account the factors that guns and RSs are flying at more than one point. Throwing bombs is a separate issue. About the "Device Hitting Pilot 1 It Hurts Once", everyone probably heard it already. Dive bombers appeared precisely as a solution to the problem of accurate bombing by avoiding it, by minimizing the translational speed.

    The bombardment from a more or less decent height suggested that the navigator in the lead car with a pencil and a slide rule on the approach would calculate the physics of a bomb falling from a known height at a known carrier speed. And the entire formation will be required to withstand them to the delight of anti-aircraft gunners, who also know all this, and even in those years had even automated control facilities. And then, at the command of the navigator, they all reset at once. Instrument error, wind drift, in general, will fall somewhere nearby, maybe even on target. It’s now possible to put automation on the old Su-25, and it will calculate everything in real time, taking into account dozens of parameters, with complete freedom of maneuvering the machine, and then you have to do sighting reliefs.

    Attention is the question of what impact capabilities the Su-2 and even the “shock” FW-190 could have without a crew of at least 3 people. so that there was someone to aim and bomb, and shooter to work. And why was the Su-2 better than the Il-2 as an attack aircraft? 20 km / h more? It is not surprising that such happiness was quickly abandoned. Similarly, the light bomber class quickly died out in other countries, either attack aircraft, or dive bombers who do not need a navigator, or full-fledged 2 / 4-engine heavy bombers.
    1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 10: 19 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Su-2, FV-190, and IL-2 could be bombed either from a gentle dive or from the horizon using a standard collimator sight or BB-1 (Il-2). Yes. accuracy is not like a dive. Therefore bombed area targets and accumulations of equipment. Nobody aimed at them from the hatch of a separate tank. Each goal has its own outfit of strength.
      By the way, good work (not mine!) On WWII air sights and their implementation in flight simulators:
      https://sites.google.com/site/ishadross/NII_VVVS/
      reports / report5
      In detail, based on quality starting material.
      1. yehat 11 August 2017 10: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        about how I tormented with bomb sights in the simulator Il-2)))
    2. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 10: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Su-2, by the way, besides the PBP-1 for the pilot, had an OPB-1 for the navigator for bombing from the horizon. True, the sight and the lower transparent hatch of the navigator sometimes had the “happiness” of being oiled by emissions from the engine at the most inopportune moment.
      1. hohol95 10 August 2017 13: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In the SU-2 diagram, the PAK-1 sight is only with the pilot ...
        But if you have other schemes ...
        1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 14: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There are different schemes.
          1. hohol95 10 August 2017 15: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            AND BE GOOD SCHEME ... TO THE STUDIO ...
            1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 15: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Only after you.
              1. hohol95 10 August 2017 15: 52 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Please ...

                Maybe too small, but what is.
                1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 20: 32 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Indeed, I was mistaken with the PBP-1, the pilot was PAK-1. And there is no OPB-1 on your circuit. But. Where you got the scheme (http://www.airwiki.org/enc/bww2/su2.html)
                  it is written: "Castor oil thrown from the breather of the motor splashed the lower transparent part of the navigator’s cabin and OPB-1m sight, not allowing the bomber to aim at the target. "This time. There is another phrase:"Navigators We switched to bombing not “according to the leader,” as was the practice in the summer, but with individual aiming. "These are two. Well, and three:
                  On this diagram
                  POS.21 "Fifth Bomb Sight" is indicated.
                  Thus, we can conclude that there was an OPB-2 on the Su-1, and it allowed the navigator to aim for accurate bombing in the horizon.
    3. Looking for 12 August 2017 19: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I advise you to clarify when the double IL-2 began to arrive at the troops, and also refresh the memory of the colossal losses of single ILs. And compare the losses of the SU-2 for the same period, then it will become clear to you which plane was better.
      1. Dooplet11 14 August 2017 08: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        At the same time, in order to draw conclusions, it is necessary to compare at least a few more parameters: Number of sorties per irrevocable loss, number of personnel lost / number of aircraft lost; the number of hits to disable the aircraft, the percentage of losses when performing the same tasks. And only then will something become clear. And that is not until the end.
  13. fighter angel 10 August 2017 11: 05 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Dear author, tells us: "... TB-3 took part in all the important battles of 1941-1943, including the Battle of Smolensk, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, the breaking of the blockade of Leningrad and the Battle of Kursk. By July 1, 1945, the 18th Aerial the division also had ten TB-3 aircraft on alert ... "

    TB-3 vehicles were completely withdrawn from combat units in the second half of 1942, converted into transport vehicles - G-2, and used only for transportation. They did not conduct any military activity. Source- A.E. Golovanov. "Memoirs of the Chief Marshal of Aviation."
    1. evil partisan 10 August 2017 17: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: fighter angel
      TB-3 vehicles were completely withdrawn from combat units in the second half of 1942, converted into transport vehicles - G-2, and used only for transportation. They did not conduct any military activity.

      Veli. At night. Here is information on the use of TB-3 as a night bomber in the Battle of Kursk:

      1. fighter angel 11 August 2017 11: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Very strange somehow. The fighting was conducted, but it turns out the Commander-in-Chief of the DBA was not in the know ... Or forgot? Or Khazanov is confusing something, maybe a typo in the book - not TB-3, but TB-7 (Pe-8) ??? These walked right at night, and alone and several cars ...
      2. Dooplet11 14 August 2017 16: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Backfill question: What modification is shown on the cover?
        https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2017-08/150237376
        9_1007511590.jpg

        Could such a Phoca participate in the Battle of Kursk?
  14. fighter angel 10 August 2017 11: 25 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The author writes about Er-2: "... A long-range bomber, a twin-engine monoplane with a" reverse gull type "wing. The aircraft was designed in OKB-240 under the leadership of R. L. Bartini, but V. continued to work in connection with the arrest of the chief designer. G. Ermolaev ... "

    Let it become known to you, dear Roman, that Roberto Bartini did NOT DESIGN ER-2! From the word "AT ALL". Bartini created a passenger high-speed car "Steel-7", and nothing more. But after the arrest, his student and deputy - Vladimir Ermolaev, taking "Steel-7" as the basis, thoroughly redesigned the car, essentially creating a completely new plane. From "Steel-7" in DB-240 there was practically nothing, except perhaps the "reverse gull" wing circuit. The wing itself was also redone. DB-240 and Steel-7 are completely different machines. Bartini made Steel-7, and Yermolaev and his design bureau worked on Er-2 completely.
  15. Potter 10 August 2017 11: 39 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: fighter angel
    DB-240 and Steel-7 are completely different machines. Bartini made Steel-7, and Yermolaev and his design bureau worked on Er-2 completely.

    The way it is. Of course, from Steel-7 to EP-2 there are only individual structural elements.
    Here are just a large number of our literary sources write in the presentation given by the novel.
    But about Polikarpov as the creator of TB-1 and TB-3 amused a little. It seems like Petlyakov worked on TB-3, among others, and this work became the basis for the creation of TB-7 (ANT-42).
  16. rubin6286 10 August 2017 11: 41 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Dear author!

    Maybe you are revising the article?

    If you agree with the results set forth by you in the first part of the article, then there’s nothing more to tell about, because , practically, each type of aircraft of the warring parties is described in sufficient detail in the literature and on the VO website as well.

    The start in the creation of bomber aviation could not be the same for the USSR and Germany, because we had nothing, and they wouldn’t have “any experience in aircraft building at the beginning of the century”, but the aircraft industry and training system practically debugged during the First World War , advanced aviation and design thought. Despite the defeat in the war and the subsequent restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, the views on the combat use of aviation made by the German command were fundamentally different from the doctrines of the Anglo-French and American General Staff and were sufficiently flexible and versatile, which subsequently influenced the decision to adopt into the arsenal of various types of aircraft.

    Further in the first part, in my opinion, it would be necessary to tell readers about the German aircraft industry in the early 30s, the main companies and aircraft designers, their age, the most successful aircraft models created during this period. But only after that you can talk about the training machines, bombers Do-26, Ju-52, acquired abroad "Helldeivers" and so on.

    The concept of "air war", which prevailed at that time in the world, provided for the creation of long-range bomber aviation, medium and direct support aircraft for the troops (close bomber), which later transformed into an assault. A special place was occupied by naval aviation (bomber and torpedo bombing).

    With the advent of Hitler to power, the abolition of the Treaty of Versailles and the creation of the Luftwaffe, the construction of combat aircraft was given a "green light". The role of organizer and customer of promising samples was taken by Reichluftmunisterium (RLM) - the Ministry of Aviation and Oberkommando Luftwaffe (OKL). They developed the basic requirements for the performance characteristics of bombers, the composition and deployment of the crew, systems and equipment, weapons, armor protection, radio communications, etc. etc. One of the most important requirements was the organization of the production of all necessary equipment and property from domestic materials and in the Reich. Placing orders was carried out on the basis of competitions among aviation companies.

    By the time of the attack on the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe had 3909 combat aircraft in the East of Europe. Of these, 932 are bombers, 156 dive bombers, 102 twin-engine fighters, 965 single-engine fighters.

    The main Luftwaffe bombers were:

    Here, probably, there should be your story about the types and quantity of German cars, performance characteristics and design features. distinguishing them from each other. Agree, it is unreasonable in wartime, to produce two different aircraft only because the flight range of one of them is 200-300 km longer than the other. At Shunkov, for example, you can find a number of design differences between the Do-217 and Yu-88.

    In my opinion, it was worth mentioning the bombers created in Germany already in wartime - the He-177 and the jet Ar-234. Both of them were not without design and technological flaws, but they had construction reserves and were used at the final stage of the war.

    In the same way, I would write about Soviet bombers. I think that in literature today you can find a lot of interesting things in this matter.
    1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 11: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Plus. In addition, if we consider the confrontation between the Air Force of the Red Army and the Luftwaffe, it is worthwhile to dwell in detail on the tactics of strike aircraft, the differences between the warring parties, and give examples of its successful / unsuccessful use. The fighting is not individual planes, but formations. Comparing individual planes with each other, one cannot judge the effectiveness of aviation as a whole. Score will come out curve.
      1. Curious 10 August 2017 13: 09 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        The author's articles on this subject resemble karaoke singing of a person who really wants to sing, but does not know how. There are words on the screen and music, but there is no singing. Of course, 5% say they are successful, the rest is hard work. But then you have to go to a music school and study. And then Polikarpov - designer of TB and write articles - maybe not worth it?
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Operator 10 August 2017 12: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And where is the most successful Tu-2 and the most unsuccessful Il-2 Soviet attack aircraft and bomber aircraft?
    1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 13: 00 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      News from the front about the "unsuccessful" IL-2:

      1. Operator 10 August 2017 13: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Political leaders, political leaders and newspaper men also could not portray such "news from the front" from a half-turn - propaganda is called.
        1. hohol95 10 August 2017 13: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But by 1941, the IL-2 was on ARMED - WAITING FOR THE SECOND PART!
        2. fighter angel 10 August 2017 14: 02 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Operator: - "Political officers, political leaders and newspaper men still couldn’t depict such" news from the front "from a half-turn - propaganda is called."


          Maybe they could, but only now all this information, “up there”, was very carefully checked and double-checked, and in the case of “fraud”, the perpetrators became very interested in the “relevant bodies” ... Once, twice, he lied - and went to the penal battalion, or went to the tribunal. For spreading false information and misinformation of the higher leadership ... Therefore, it is not necessary to hang all the dogs here.
          It is called military censorship.
        3. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 14: 04 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Have you read this source? This is not the work of "political instructors." This is a technical report signed by the Division Commander and the Chief of Staff. Under the heading "secret", with numbers, examples from combat activities and conclusions of experts. Official document. For fraud in such a document, a penal battalion is a good reward. Advocating your post, Mr. Operator!
          1. Operator 10 August 2017 14: 53 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The propaganda text only refers to the survivability of the Il-Xnumx and does not say anything about its capabilities as an attack aircraft, which were close to zero.

            The only function of the Il-2 in WWII was to raise the morale of the infantry before attacking enemy positions - such as flying on a low-level flight above the battlefield, dropping it from a horizontal flight into white light like a penny 50-kg bombs, raising a cloud of dust from explosions, got its portion lead from MZA and you can return to your home airfield with a sense of accomplishment.

            After this, the enthusiastic infantry of the Red Army rises to attack the unsuppressed enemy positions.

            IL-2 - transfer of resources to the wind in the aircraft and engine manufacturing of the USSR. With the wasted money, it was possible to produce 100000 aircraft - artillery spotters, plus 10000 aircraft - Tu-2-class dive bombers.
            1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 16: 44 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              So you find and read the WHOLE document. In the text there are also opportunities as an attack aircraft, and as a bomber, and (even!) As a fighter. About a "zero" not a word.
              Photofact, - "flew on a shaving IL-2":


              After such an enthusiastic infantry rises to the attack, and IL-2 will be a transfer of resources. Wehrmacht Resources.
              Your post, dear Operator, propaganda. Clean and deceitful.
              1. Operator 10 August 2017 17: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Pe-2 or fighters with 50 / 100 kg bombs could fly over the column with the same success.

                You’d better read the report on the accuracy tests of bombing and launching rockets from IL-2 on naval targets (several tens of meters in size), which were carried out in Port Arthur in the 1945 year - plus or minus bast shoes (did not hit any ship).
                1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 19: 09 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Yes, the IL-2 is clearly not intended for naval purposes, and the RS-132 too. Does this prove that the IL is an ineffective attack aircraft?
                  1. Operator 10 August 2017 19: 40 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    If IL-2 from a horizontal flight could not hit a target with a length of 100 meters, then how did he manage to hit target targets like the firing positions of guns and tanks in battle formations, not to mention pillboxes, bunkers and machine gun nests? laughing
                    1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 20: 37 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      You're right. The photo that I brought you is a fake. IL-2 never hit anyone. In GKO sat full and plans for the release of IL-2 gave for the transfer of resources.
                      1. Operator 10 August 2017 21: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        What do you think, how often did IL-2 attack enemy columns moving in tight order (what would any fighter with bombs on the suspension handle), and how often - German field defenses fortified by MZA?
              2. yehat 11 August 2017 10: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                during raids on aerodromes by mixed groups - fighters and bombers, the IL-2 is often often directly attributed to the functions of a fighter,
                and fighters, on the contrary, were often forbidden to intervene and ordered to engage exclusively in cover
              3. fighter angel 11 August 2017 11: 46 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Good photo! Eloquently confirms the "zero" combat capabilities of the IL-2 !!! Mr. Operator, if the "zero" combat effectiveness, then why did the Wehrmacht soldiers appropriate the IL-2 an ominous nickname - "fleischer", in our opinion - "butcher"?
                1. Operator 11 August 2017 14: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Because sometimes, by chance, one of the 30000 released IL-2 hit the target.
                  1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 15: 18 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Well, yes, yes ... The Red Army drove the Wehrmacht with absolutely no air support. Due to meat and naked enthusiasm. The recollections of German soldiers about the attacks of Soviet attack aircraft are an inflamed delirium of consciousness. And you are the new messiah, bearing the truth. Can you throw the facts together with the "truth"?
                  2. fighter angel 11 August 2017 16: 01 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    You’re not talking nonsense here, dear Operator!
                    Find and read about our attack aircraft, offhand I’ll give a few names: EFIMOV, BONDAR, KADOMTSEV, Emelianenko, Mochalov, Begeltdin ... All of them are Heroes of the Soviet Union, some are Twice Heroes, all have about 130-170 sorties, and they are destroyed - only tanks not less than 30 EVERYONE! And I will not even talk about locomotives, armored personnel carriers and trucks and manpower. Find, read and understand yourself! And think another time before you write something.
                  3. fighter angel 11 August 2017 16: 05 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Operator, I just want to ask, humanly: What does a person feel when pouring slop on the head of the generation who fought for him? Do you have a conscience at all?
    2. hohol95 10 August 2017 16: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1

      IL-2 is here.
      1. Operator 10 August 2017 17: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        As a means of bombing - definitely "lappethnik".
    3. Kolyma 11 August 2017 08: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      where, where - in the library! - in Russian it is written - "... it’s worth starting with the bombers ..." + "We will begin, of course, with the planes that took part in the first phase of the Great Patriotic War." Wait and you will be happy.
      As for "unsuccessful IL-2," the most unsuccessful is YOUR comment on this topic))) you, as I understand it, did not like the simulator from 1C? Because it’s not entirely clear what claims to the aircraft there can be, the field of application of which cannot be called fire hell when they hit you at everything that shoots !! At the same time, the IL-2 adequately coped with the tasks. Yes, with losses and not small, but if not who then? There are options? You can not answer - they were not. The Germans, for example, could not create something like this, despite the fact that they really wanted to. Here, their attempts were unsuccessful. I am not indignant. I just think that grandfathers did everything right and those who beat the Nazis on the fronts and those who were drawing day and night over drawings and machines, not seeing white light ... they thought and how they thought of each decision not for fear, but for good conscience ... thanks to me, what are we indulging in in the forums here))) ... Again, consider the situation of that time.
      1. Operator 11 August 2017 14: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Aviation for attacking the front edge is generally not suitable, for this there is artillery and artillery gunners, including aviation.

        The Americans had the best artillery in the WWII - in Europe from June 1944 to May 1945 of the year it used up more shells than Soviet, German and British artillery combined.

        The Americans carried out effective assault on German technology columns on the march using fighters with 250 / 500 kg of bombs suspended to them.
        1. stalkerwalker 11 August 2017 14: 28 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: Operator
          Aviation for attacking the front edge is generally not suitable, for this there is artillery and artillery gunners, including aviation

          It is difficult to live in the world pionEru Pete ..... lol
          The "piece" of Yu-87 completely refutes this with its capabilities and achievements, sorry, nonsense ....

          Quote: Operator
          The Americans had the best artillery in the WWII - in Europe from June 1944 to May 1945 of the year it used up more shells than Soviet, German and British artillery combined.

          From the same opera .... wassat
          Will my person be the next to add to your “black list” proudly posted on your profile? laughing
          1. Operator 11 August 2017 14: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The answer is pionEru Pete, who finds it difficult to live in the world.

            Baby, ask your grandfather to read you something about the tactics of using the Yu-87 and the statistics on the consumption of shells in the armies of the USA, USSR, Third Reich and the British Empire.

            Grow up, talk.
            1. stalkerwalker 11 August 2017 14: 39 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: Operator
              Baby, ask your grandfather to read you something about the tactics of using the Yu-87 and the statistics on the consumption of shells in the armies of the USA, USSR, Third Reich and the British Empire.

              Well, I didn’t know that in your madhouse "Open Day".
              repeat
            2. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 15: 23 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              ask your grandfather to read you something about the tactics of using the Yu-87 and statistics on the consumption of shells in the armies of the USA, USSR, Third Reich and the British Empire.


              Do you have these statistics? Is there a source scan? Does it indicate how many American shells hit the target? It’s important, after all, not to shoot the ammunition, but to put it where it is needed and when necessary. Do not find?
        2. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 16: 02 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2


          Operator: "The Americans had the best artillery in the WWII - in Europe, from June 1944 to May 1945, it used up more shells than Soviet, German and British artillery combined.
          The Americans carried out effective assault on German equipment columns on the march using fighter aircraft with 250 / 500 kg of bombs suspended to them. "

          More shells in pieces or in kilograms?

          Who and how determined the effectiveness of the assault on German columns? What are the parameters?
      2. yehat 11 August 2017 14: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yes, not all grandfathers did the right thing. They just did what they could.
        the same double IL-2 appeared only because fighter aircraft lost the sky for two years and lost its payload.
        with hinges due to dive speed, db-3 massacre and more.
        or do you praise the fact that for the entire war did not create a sane compressor for high-altitude motors?
        1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 15: 28 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          When the Americans had a need not to pour bombs from a height on cities, but to provide direct support to troops from low altitudes, then turbochargers of high-altitude engines became an extra burden for Mustangs and Thunderbolts. Perhaps it is good that ours did not divert resources to the accelerated development of turbocompressors without special need? Not a statement! Reason for reflection.
          1. yehat 6 August 2018 12: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Americans even put warning radars on the Mustang on the enemy in the rear hemisphere, so that turbochargers were not the most redundant.
  19. hohol95 10 August 2017 14: 01 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Here you are the AUTHOR not happy with criticism, and in the articles about the fighters missed the Soviet DI-6

    It is clear that there were 222 of them ... But WERE!
    This article skipped the P-5; P-10; ICBM-2!
    And they forgot to mention that VLASOVETS (VVR KONR - RAA ROA) flew to Gotha and Arado to fight the “PARTISAN VILLAGES” - I read an article about their “EXPLOSIONS” (I will remember it later)!
    1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 14: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And is he dissatisfied with criticism? In vain. All criticism, which is here in the comments, IMHO, is very specific and reasoned. And, therefore, useful for the Author! ))))
      1. hohol95 10 August 2017 16: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        BEST PROTECTION - ATTACK!
        Here you are the author is not happy with criticism - I wrote with HOT, but maybe not in vain ...
  20. Petrol cutter 10 August 2017 14: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Very informative. Something I previously missed a series about fighters sad .
  21. Des10 10 August 2017 15: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: 10101977
    It is simply impossible to pass by this opus, “One among strangers. Sir Hariton Pterodactyl, the Worst of the Worst, signed by Roman Skomorokhov! The arrogance of such “authors” is constantly surprising, which in their “articles” they publish for a long time already well-known material developed by others, and at the same time still manage to twist everything that is possible. Even the name of the famous North Sea ace - Hero of the Soviet Union Pyotr Georgievich Sgibnev could not write correctly. It’s a shame! The site’s format doesn’t allow you to list and correct all fabrications that were carelessly and biased by the “author” from various sources.

    this is one of many similar comments on the article already about Hurricane, December 2016. laughing
    Maybe this is specially done so - stir up, shock the audience of VO? smile
    1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 15: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Some information from such articles is accepted as the ultimate truth. So the story turns into mythology. )))
  22. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 15: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Moreover, a heavy long-range bomber was created in the USSR, which the Germans never did. For what, in fact, they paid when they were unable to work on enterprises evacuated from the Urals. Another question is that our industry was not able to create Pe-8 in quantities comparable to American ones. But that is another topic. Like the one that will talk about the appropriateness of using bombers

    Eh, Roman, Roman! More accurate with generalizations!
    Did the Germans strategists. He-177. By all accounts, a strategist! The first flight of November 19 1939. Over 1000 pieces released. Or these cars:


    They were made and flew. Serially not produced, yes. But strategists are done!
    1. hohol95 10 August 2017 15: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      YOU do not have the 177th GRIF in the photo! What kind of car? And you yourself missed the FV-200 CONDOR - a long-range reconnaissance bomber!

      Here is a book with an illustration of V. PETELIN (possibly already on sale)! The cover is taken from his LJ!
      Flight in 1939 - but it was accepted for WEAPONS in 1942!
      1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 16: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I did not post a photo of the Vulture. Read carefully. And Condor is a universal machine. Not only a scout / bomber, but also a transporter / member. I did not forget him, I talked about strategists, which Condor is difficult to call.
        1. hohol95 10 August 2017 17: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And why then do you have a photo without a TECHNICAL SIGNATURE? Or signature - Or these cars: not yours
          MISCELLANEOUS ...
          1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 20: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Really, what is it me? Text about Grif without a photo, photo Me and Yu without a signature. And the union between them "or" does not mean anything. wink Mess, I agree!
            I explain the meaning of my post: Grif strategist. Or Me and Yu strategists. The Germans made strategists. But they could not create strategic aviation. There were not enough resources.
    2. fighter angel 10 August 2017 15: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Doopletу11: Sorry, but you see the U-290, built in 1 instance, on this photo. This car even reached the coast of America during the tests. As for the Ne-177, the Germans could not bring this “flying lighter” with twin engines to mind, they fought with it for a long time, and the result is close to zero, since by the end of 1943 all Vultures had become “on joke. " And 1093 pieces made them (or something like that), but they did not have any influence on the course of the war.
      1. hohol95 10 August 2017 16: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        We read the BOOK of Degtev-Zubov - we LEARN ...
      2. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 16: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I'm sorry. You and the previous speaker read inattentively. I will highlight what you missed:
        Or these cars

        Next photo Me and Yu.
        And I didn’t post the photo of the Vulture; they are on the Internet above the roof.
      3. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 21: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        as already at the end of 1943 all the Vultures became "funny"

        I read somewhere that in 44 from East Prussia the Great Onions worked. Bombed the station. Maybe in the 44, in the end, put on a joke?
        1. fighter angel 11 August 2017 10: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Doopletu11: I would like to clarify first, I was a little mistaken - you posted the photo, and so on it is a 6-motor Yu-390, and not the 290th, it was 4-motor. I'm sorry. And on He-177, I looked “in my own way”, they were armed with the KG40 and KG100, flew over the Atlantic and were used for raids on England, using the Hs293, and yes, you are right, in the beginning of 1944 they were still used. .. As for the Great Onions, I don’t know, I didn’t find anything. If you know the source, share, of course, if it does not complicate ...
          1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 15: 33 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            If I'm not mistaken, then here: Andrey Kharuk. All Luftwaffe aircraft. - Moscow: Yauza. EXMO, 2013
            I'm sorry
            Nothing, everyone is mistaken. The main thing is to fix the error. drinks
  23. hohol95 10 August 2017 15: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Hopefully the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor will appear in the following parts -
    "In the summer of 1940, the German fleet turned to aviation for help in finding convoys and single vessels traveling to the UK, and from the beginning of August around 15 He 111 and 6-8 Fw 200 of the West Marine Group began to operate in its interests; Fw 200C operated from the Bordeaux area. "
    1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 17: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I hope that in the next article there will be fewer mistakes and inaccuracies, more original documents and sources. And the analysis of the material is deeper than a brief retelling of other people's research.
  24. Fitter65 10 August 2017 16: 23 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Polikarpov, being not the worst student of Sikorsky (irony, of course, the best), based on the groundwork for the only Russian bomber "Ilya Muromets" first created TB-1, and then TB-3.

    Author: Roman Skomorokhov

    Well, after this phrase, I started “trudging like a pike perch on the Yenisei.” Is Sikorsky a student of Polikarpov? Is it interesting when they crossed in anyway (as the youth say)? Honestly, I read Roman’s articles constantly ... But such a blunder, although you can’t even name it blunder !!! TB-1 (ANT-4) and TB-3 (ANT-6) These are aircraft that were developed under the leadership of Andrei Nikolaevich Tupolev-NN Polikarpov, they had no relation whatsoever to them, from the word at all. But here the relationship between TB-1 and Ilya Muromets by I. Sikorsky can be seen in the fact that they were produced on the territory of Russia (although in different e times). Of course there are no small mistakes in the series about fighters, FIGs on them, even Claudia was too lazy to press, but Polikarpov was a disciple of Sikorsky who designed metal-free (chain-mail aluminum) frameless MONOPLANS TB-1 and TB based on the wooden brace biplane "Ilya Muromets" -3 ... THIS IS SUPER !!!!!!!!!!!
  25. andrewkor 10 August 2017 18: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Operator
    Pe-2 or fighters with 50 / 100 kg bombs could fly over the column with the same success.

    You’d better read the report on the accuracy tests of bombing and launching rockets from IL-2 on naval targets (several tens of meters in size), which were carried out in Port Arthur in the 1945 year - plus or minus bast shoes (did not hit any ship).

    how do you like top-mast bombing on the same ships, bombs actually replaced torpedoes from a distance of 50-100 m.
    1. Operator 10 August 2017 19: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Top-mast (jumping) bombing on land targets is not applicable, however.
      1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 20: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        However, there are not many land targets for the "top-mast" bombing. Yes, and the trees interfere at low altitude to approach the goal.
        1. Operator 10 August 2017 21: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Do you understand the meaning of the term "top mast bombing"? laughing
          1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 21: 50 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Absolutely. We go down to the height of 40-20m, eliminate sliding and level off, carry out the reset for 250-300m to the target. The bomb, ricocheting from the SURFACE, moves toward the target:

            Do you know that bombs ricochet not only from water?
            But your message is clear: IL-2 is a very ineffective attack aircraft.
            1. Operator 10 August 2017 22: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Bombs ricochet (primarily) from a flat surface - where did you see a flat surface on rough terrain? laughing

              Share your source of knowledge on land topmast bombing.
              1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 22: 49 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Did I say that it exists? I mentioned a couple of reasons why not. You called the third. But all this is not proof that the Il-2 is a poor attack aircraft and worthless aircraft.
      2. Fitter65 11 August 2017 00: 57 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Operator
        Top-mast (jumping) bombing on land targets is not applicable, however.

        I don’t know how it is now, but in the late 50s and early 60s this method of bombing from the Su-7 was worked out, specifically even a bomb with a reinforced hull was developed. The method was described in one of the issues of Aviation and Cosmonautics.
        1. Operator 11 August 2017 14: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          What ended this budget sawing?
          1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 15: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The creation of precision weapons.
          2. Fitter65 12 August 2017 05: 12 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            What ended this budget sawing?

            The development of bombing techniques with re-shelling from the surface of the earth. With the help of which it was possible to hit various shelters having a powerful overlap through the gate leaves. I clarified with knowledgeable people, this exercise still has a place to be in combat training, even despite the presence of a modern controlled and high-precision weapons ...
  26. tchoni 10 August 2017 19: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Copy-paste from the wiki !? The site is already degrading in the teeth.
  27. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 22: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Operator: "How do you think how often IL-2 attacked enemy columns moving in tight order (what can any fighter with bombs on the suspension handle), and how often are the German field defenses fortified by MZA?" ,
    I will again refer you to the IL-2 survivability report. There, and about the tasks performed by IL-2 there. And about the survivability of Ila in comparison with a fighter in the conditions of counteraction to MZA. Read. And think about how long a fighter can hang over an enemy column moving in tight order, and tightly, "in German", covered by MZA? It will drop two of its 50-ki, it will damage a couple of tanks (if it exactly drops!), And legs. But 220 PTABs from Il will cover the 10x150m band, and two more 37-mm will be added at the next calls.
    1. Operator 10 August 2017 22: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You did not answer the question "how often".

      PTABs were placed in cassettes that could be suspended from fighters

      1. Dooplet11 10 August 2017 22: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Answered. See the source that I told you about. And you will not answer, how often, where and when did the fighter take this cartridge?
        1. Operator 11 August 2017 14: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This cartridge with the PTABs was hardly used at all, since after the Battle of Kursk the Germans began to move in open front columns in the front line.
          1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 15: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            You did not answer, When, where and how it was used. At least until the Battle of Kursk. Or after Kursk. At least a little, but where and when? Document confirmed example, please!
      2. Michael newage 11 August 2017 05: 00 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        And you did not answer the question "how long". Name at least one, even a fighter bomber, with the same survivability and armor as the IL-2. Yes, in 1944, Americans and Germans successfully used their FV-190 and P-47 as bombers, though we used our IL-2 with the same tactics already in 1941. At the same time, it was better armored and in the latest versions it was better armed (American P-47s couldn’t do anything to their tanks with machine guns), plus the rear side of the shooter. So do not interfere with a bunch of attack aircraft and fighters, saying that the latter could also work well on the ground. Fighters are more difficult to control, the best pilots were taken to fighters, who could have mastered the IL-2 worse. It is easier both on take-off and on landing, not as willingly falling into a tailspin as a fighter, etc. Vitality is simply incomparable. This is the first time that I ever see anyone questioning the effectiveness of Il as a combat aircraft. Do you think they built packs just like that? This is the most massive combat aircraft in the history of aviation. Well, enlighten then why they were built 36 thousand pieces, since it was ineffective? Yes, they suffered heavy losses, but they were always in the heat of fire and often without fighter cover. But they caused very serious damage. And psychologically they were afraid. Black Death, you probably heard? And after the war they said about them, "he made the whole war on his hump", too, a well-known phrase. And your planting about flying, dropping bombs, shooting a little, without much effect, in order to raise the infantry, generally nonsense, into the attack. What is the infantry in the attack? These aircraft were used Beyond the front line, for the defeat of convoys, airfields, railway junctions, warehouses, etc. The artillery raises the infantry in the attack, and the tanks support, the aircraft have nothing to do with it. Aviation, on the offensive, flies off the front line and works there. For soldiers in the trenches from the air, they only shoot in films, or if there is nothing to do. Plus, Ilya was effective against tanks and WITHOUT bombs and ERES. In the latest versions, there were 2 37 mm guns that perfectly pierced the armor from above. Tell me which fighter of the Air Force of the Red Army was such weapons? In general, in which world if there is one? At the same time, imagine what the return will be if you put it there. The 9th yaks were built with 37 and 45 mm type against the tanks, they were so shaken that they didn’t succeed in the exact shooting and they didn’t find any particular glory in the fight against the tanks. In short, if you are talking nonsense, do it more reasonably and thoughtfully ... well, mate. Give a part there and statistics. And then you have a "report on tests on the accuracy of bombing and launching rockets from IL-2 to marine purposes (dimensions of several tens of meters), which were carried out in Port Arthur in 1945. "Lord, what kind of nonsense ... Were such tests really carried out? And did you really read the reports? There was poor accuracy and this was to blame ... the plane? Neither pilots, nor equipment, nor weapons .. outdated (IL-10 has already flown) ground attack aircraft? No, really explain what kind of tests were carried out in 1945 and whylol ? It became already interesting ... laughing
        1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 08: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I will help dokoy smile :


          We read the section "Operational Use of Il-2 Aircraft"
        2. Operator 11 August 2017 14: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Nobody really needs armored attack aircraft in FIG (well, except to drive slippers in Afghanistan and Iraq) - they get off at times by anti-aircraft guns and (now) missiles (see Donbass).

          To destroy transport columns in the rear of the enemy, there are enough unarmored fighters (with bombs and RS on external sling). Against other ground targets, there are bombers, including diving ones.
          1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 15: 50 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Okay, Russian bastard fools. What about Kurt Tank? For what kind of crap on FW-190F or G 310 kg of armor added? They would bomb and storm the columns on the regular FW-190A. What about Junkers? Would you dive at Ju-87D, so no, in 43, when Russian tanks were massed westwards, did you have to hang 37mm guns and 200kg armor, while limiting the diving angle to 10 degrees? What all this iron irrelevance? ?
          2. Michael newage 11 August 2017 16: 17 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            I didn’t know that you were such a PROFAN. You thought more appropriately ... As a rule, there are ... in the military convoy ... the military and these military have weapons. And if 20 Opel trucks are driving and each has 20 soldiers, then even if there is no anti-aircraft cover, then these 400 foot soldiers, on command, jump out of the trucks, run like cockroaches and put 400 barrels in the air. Attention question! Do you need armor to destroy some trucks without anti-aircraft cover? Just in case, tips: 1) Il 2 armor easily held rifle-caliber bullets, unlike the same fighters that they fired at times, and if there was also a liquid-cooled engine .... 2) After dropping bombs, in case of miss , IL-2 could hang for a long time over the column, making sunset after sunset and ironing it with powerful small arms from cannons and machine guns. The same 87 and Pe 2 was advantageous just to dump, since they flew without armor and with weak small arms. The same with fighters. At 47 and 190 was a good weapon, but again there wasn’t much armor. 3) There were no stingers then laughing that does not negate the importance of armor even today. Su 34, Mi-28. Chewed enough, or will you continue to persist in your stupidity?
        3. Operator 11 August 2017 14: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The main thing for a military aircraft is not survivability, but efficiency.

          Survivability is ensured by the correct tactics of using the aircraft - for example, non-participation in pointless head-on assaults of field defensive areas from a low-level flight.
          1. Dooplet11 11 August 2017 15: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The main thing for a military aircraft is not survivability, but efficiency.
            Survivability is ensured by the correct tactics of using the aircraft - for example, non-participation in pointless head-on assaults of field defensive areas from a low-level flight.

            Gold words! But why do you think that Il-Xnumx was used only "in pointless frontal assaults of field defensive areas from a low-level flight"?
          2. Michael newage 11 August 2017 18: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Vitality is part of the effectiveness. Aircraft falling from a single machine gun burst cannot be effective. Survivability is NOT provided by "proper application tactics." It is provided by the CONSTRUCTION FEATURES of a particular aircraft. If the plane does not fly into the range of anti-aircraft guns, it does not become more tenacious from this. Pointless or not, head-on assaults of defensive areas are decided by the command, not the designers and pilots. Demagogue...
      3. Kolyma 11 August 2017 08: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        yes, but the survivability of the fighters from this did not improve)
      4. fighter angel 11 August 2017 10: 46 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Dear Operator, Your personal hostility to the well-deserved, effective Il-2 attack aircraft, let it remain with you! I do not know and do not want to know what caused it. Most writers and readers here, fortunately, think just the opposite of you. Therefore, probably, you should already “stop bugging” about IL-2, you still haven’t brought any intelligible arguments, and you won’t be able to. And by this, stop sweeping at the sacred!
  28. Technician72 10 August 2017 22: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Girls, do not quarrel! All the same, the most beautiful airplanes, these are 2MV airplanes!
  29. Tochilka 10 August 2017 22: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Sat something Finnish in the photo! Even the swastika is visible. Wasn’t there a photo of SB with stars?
  30. Vladimir SHajkin 10 August 2017 23: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And they didn’t say anything about TU -2
  31. Nikolaevich I 11 August 2017 01: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It would be nice to mention that a certain number of EP-2 and TB-7 were released in the "diesel" version ...
    1. fighter angel 11 August 2017 13: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yes, yes, there were those with the engines of Charomsky, ACh-30B.
  32. Caduc 11 August 2017 13: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Novel!!!
    Did Polikarpov create TB 1 and TB 3?
    They were created in the Tupolev Design Bureau, which Sikorsky had at one time, not without the help of Polikarpov, kicked out of the company.
    1. fighter angel 11 August 2017 14: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Hour by hour, everything is more interesting and interesting! Now it turns out that Sikorsky kicked out Tupolev with the help of Polikarpov ... I hesitate to ask, where do you get all this from? Though tell me, I will also know ...
      1. Caduc 11 August 2017 14: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I was mistaken a little.
        Julius von Meller expelled from Dux Tupolev with the filing of Polikarpov.
        But Polikarpov had nothing to do with TB 3.
        1. fighter angel 11 August 2017 15: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I’m embarrassed to ask, when was this? Until 1917, when "Duks" spied for the Russian imperial air fleet under license, the obsolete "Newporov" models - 11, 12, 17. Then where did the "background" at the defense enterprise come from - is there a war with Germany ... Or after 1917? So then it was no longer called "Duks" ... Clear.
          1. Caduc 12 August 2017 16: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Have you been banned in Google or Yandex?
            Ask them.
            Do not be shy.
            What is the difference when it was?
            You consider Tupolev a brilliant designer, and I am a good organizer - no more.
            Which, for the sake of orders and prizes, flooded the USSR with obsolete airplanes practically without creating anything in 7-8 years apart from the one created by the Arkhangelsk Security Council.
            As for Pe 2 and Tu 2, they could not have been created just for the release of the “planted” aircraft designers, having the AP 2 which was not just inferior, but superior to the aforementioned bombers.
            As for IL 2- you would be put in the rear cockpit of this aircraft of 42-43 years of release, an armor-less shooter and armed with ShKASS.
            It is not necessary here to depict the world's only connoisseur-patriot of the USSR military aviation.
            But Polikarpov is a brilliant aircraft designer.
            1. Dooplet11 13 August 2017 15: 04 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              That Ar-2 outperformed Pe-2 is debatable. The fact that he was superior to the Tu-2 - is absolutely wrong.
              1. fighter angel 14 August 2017 10: 05 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Yes, more than debatable ...
            2. fighter angel 14 August 2017 09: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Kaduku: Why are you so nervous? What kind of reaction to the question? If the nerves are not in order, then there is nothing to do here, be treated, dear!
              Point by point:
              Tupolev is a brilliant aircraft designer who created advanced aircraft based on the capabilities of industry at a given time. Polikarpov is also a genius who created wonderful machines — but, as a rule, Nikolai Nikolaevich “did not guess” either with a “prospective” engine, then with a “serial” plant, then with production technology, then with a test pilot ... If Tupolev - Arkhangelsky, Petlyakov, Sukhoi and others worked .. and from this you conclude that Tupolev is only an "organizer", right? Even Polikarpov worked at Mikoyan, Gurevich, Tairov, Yangel, Chelomei ... so, according to your logic, Polikarpov is the same “organizer” as Tupolev!
              Pawn and Tu-2 - could not be created ??? What do you say, on Ar-2 alone the whole war ??? Yes, you look, even if it’s just defensive weapons: you can’t put anything except 3-4 SHKAS on it - the dimensions, the fuselage are “squeezed” strongly. And according to the maximum bomb load, in 1942 he was inferior to all the other "classmates".
              And about the rear cockpit of the IL-2. Yes, there was no ShKAS there, but a UBT machine gun, a Berezin system, caliber 12.7. A very serious argument in aerial combat.
              And the last thing about “You would be put in the back cabin” - If it is VERY NECESSARY, I AM READY! Here is my answer to you!

              So do not be nervous, and everything will turn out!
              1. Caduc 15 August 2017 11: 03 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Dad advise at home what to do and where he is being treated.
                Next:
                Il 2 sample 1941 did not have a rear firing point,
                As for the armament of the rear shooter - read here:
                http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/il2m.html
                Tupolev is not an aircraft designer, but the Chief Designer, who has assembled truly ingenious aircraft designers under his wing.
                By the way.
                Name at least one plane created personally by Tupolev.
                As for Polikarpov, he did not guess, but based on the capabilities of industry and with an eye on the country's production and financial capabilities, he created masterpieces.
                And it’s not his fault that the same engine builders were not able to “bring to mind” the engines required for performance characteristics.
                1. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 12: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Not a single Chief Designer then created aircraft alone, but led the whole design bureau (both Tupolev and Polikarpov). Plus, TsAGI, TsIAM and a bunch of other specialized institutes worked for them.
                2. fighter angel 15 August 2017 14: 09 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Kaduku: Let's not touch dads, moms, aunts with uncles, and generally all relatives. Do not tell me what to do if you do not want to go on an erotic trip. Have you agreed ?!
                  You write: "... Il 2 sample 1941 did not have a rear firing point, ..." -BRAVO! You make amazing discoveries! Congratulations!
                  And here is what you want to tell me by reference; to be honest, I still don’t understand ... I, even without you, my dear, studied AirWar far and wide. Or are you trying to justify your "cant" about ShKAS at the shooter? You will not justify, the Ilyushinsky shooters did not have SHKASOV! And there were "Berezina" -12.7mm! Experienced and front-line "home-made" - do not count!
                  We go further: you write, ".... Tupolev is not an aircraft designer, but the Chief Designer who has assembled truly ingenious aircraft designers under his wing ..." You can lead (and Andrei Nikolaevich did it perfectly) with brilliant designers only on condition that you yourself are also a genius, otherwise, the whole team will run away! The personnel did not run away, then the Genius is in charge! Moreover, the genius leader in the case of Tupolev is professionally “a cut above” his genius subordinates. The aircraft personally created by one designer is the first "Farmans" and "Bleriot", created by single enthusiasts. All other cars are the RESULTS OF COLLECTIVE LABOR! Already at the beginning of the 20s no one "alone" made airplanes anywhere! Your question: "... Name at least one plane created personally by Tupolev ..." - IN THE ROOT IS NOT CORRECT! Gives amateurism.
                  Now about Nikolay Nikolaevich. Creating his own without any doubt - ingenious machines - he proceeded from the plan of pilot aircraft construction and engine building, which included "the planned dates of the planned products." Polikarpov focused on them, BUT! 80% of these plans remained experimental and did not go into the series. Accordingly, his cars, for example, I-185 M71 and ITP, excellent aircraft, BUT! NO SERIAL ENGINE - NO AIRCRAFT! So do you understand? Unlike him, Tupolev and Yakovlev worked with what was already mastered by the industry! I’m talking about engines now. And even if Yaki and Tu of those years didn’t have such high performance characteristics as Polykarpov’s planes, they quickly mastered, successfully built, passed tests and flied and operated quite normally.
            3. fighter angel 14 August 2017 10: 55 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Dear Kaduk! I don’t depict anything here, but if you don’t know something, and still try to affirm and prove something to others, it doesn’t look at all and doesn’t do you any honor.
              Write about Tupolev: "... which for the sake of orders and prizes overwhelmed the USSR with obsolete planes without practically creating anything in 7-8 years apart from the one created by the Arkhangelsk Security Council ...." Orders and prizes say that it’s possible, but add to this also an article and a prison term! For a comprehensive picture! And I’ll list you “obsolete” planes, not all, but many, for 7-8 years, as you say, “didn’t create anything,” from 1932 to 1940, the ANT-6 (TB-3) flew , ANT-7 (R-6), ANT-20 (Maxim Gorky), fighters - I-4, I-14, multi-seat fighter ANT-21 (MI-3), seaplane ANT-22 (MK- 1), ANT-8, ANT-27, ANT-44, the ANT-40 (SB) bomber and its modifications, the record ANT-25, passenger - ANT-9, ANT-14, ANT-35, ANT-20bis (PS -124) ... If we take into account that nothing like this has happened in the country (and in some cases in the world) before, then it’s just not clear, to put it mildly, on what basis Vania You called these machines "obsolete" ???
              1. Caduc 15 August 2017 11: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Have you listed the aircraft created by the designers of Tupolev Design Bureau or personally designed by Tupolev aircraft?
                For example, the Security Council was created by Arkhangelsky. And this is the only combat aircraft that the country needed. All the rest are either single copies or passenger ones not being built in a large series.
                Now, as a specialist, explain to me how an amateur in what Pe 2 and Tu 2 exceeded Ap 2.
                Only in detail and simpler.
                Not nodding at the performance characteristics, but by comparing the operating reviews and making your conclusions.
                Like a pilot if you are.
                Ar 2 was mastered in production, its command and control almost did not differ from the SB, which had been in service for several years and was mastered by pilots. It could be not only a dive pilot, but also a front-line bomber.
                That is, he could do everything that the Yu 88 did all the war.
                Could Pe 2 reconstructed from the fighter and stop dive Tu 2 compare with it?
                1. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 13: 01 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  1. Are you a pilot
                  2. What are the “operating reviews” to compare? According to the memoirs? According to test reports? By operational bulletins? By ZhBD? By Airplane Forms?
                  3. What are the parameters to compare combat effectiveness if you do not recommend performance characteristics?
                  1. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 13: 48 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Let's start with mastery. Personnel was mastered SB with the M-103 engine. But. Dive bombing in regiments that had an Ar-2 was not massively mastered. Apart from individual pilots. And mastery of this method has been an issue throughout the war. The M-105 engine is not an M-103. And the assimilation of the Security Council does not mean that the technical staff is ready to operate the M-105. Under it, you need to prepare both personnel and logistics. Hence: the argument in favor of Ap-2 based on the assimilation of the Security Council is becoming doubtful. Also dubious is the argument that the Tu-2 could not dive, and the Ar-2 could. A plane could, if it was launched into mass production, but the method of application is still not massively mastered. Then the unmistakably better non-diving Tu-2 with greater speed, twice the bomb load, better defensive weapons than the theoretically diving Ar-2.
                    Now we’ll try to put ourselves in the place of the decision maker on the launch of the Pe-2 / Ap-2 dive.
                    Ar-2. Pros. 40% large nominal bomb load. The best take-off and landing characteristics. Mastery in production. Minuses. Poor stability at full load. Unresolved problems with engine overheating. Technological and design solutions of the early 30's.
                    Pe-Xnumx. Pros. Great speed and rate of climb, margin of safety of the glider according to fighter standards. Damage-resistant control system (the most electrified aircraft of the time). The best sectors of firing defensive weapons. Technological and design solutions of the end of the 2-beginning of 30-x with great modernization potential. Minuses. Smaller bomb load. Difficulty landing.
                    I deliberately did not indicate in the advantages of the Ar-2 the possibility of bombing from the internal suspension. For real cruising flight speeds in the parameter “internal / external placement of caliber bombs> 100kg”, the Ar-2 had no advantages in comparison with Pe-2 in the performance characteristics.
                    I would, making a decision, and assuming that before the start of the war a couple more years, chose Pe-2. You would ar-xnumx. Therefore, I say that the Ar-2 is "better" is debatable.
                    1. fighter angel 15 August 2017 14: 32 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      It can be added that the Pe-2 was much more effective than the Ar-2 in defensive armaments. The Pawns have 2-UB-12.7mm, or 1-ShVAK-20 mm, 1-UB-12.7mm and up to 3 - ShKAS-7.62 mm. The "Arochka" - 4 ShKAS-7.62 mm. Can you imagine what easy prey Ar-2 would be for the FV-190 in the 42nd, when the Foki appeared on the Eastern Front? “Pawns” - and those with great difficulty fought back, and Ar-2- would have no chance at all! According to the bomb load, taking into account the strength, the Pawn could take 2 - FAB500 plus 2 - FAB250. Total 1500 kg. (Ar-2 has a maximum load of 1600 kg.) Veterans of the division Ivan Polbin write about this in their memoirs. If interested, I’ll call the source later.
                      1. Caduc 15 August 2017 15: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        But don’t you know that the Red Army bombing aircraft suffered the main losses because it flew without fighter cover?
                        In 1943 (as far as I remember) an order was issued on the personal responsibility of leading cover groups for bombers and attack aircraft shot down by enemy fighters.
                        All these “songs” about maximum speed and the best defensive weapon are nonsense.
                        Speaking of one and a half tons of bombs on Pe 2 and just 1600 on Ap 2.
                        Is it all Pe 2 could take 1,5 tons or single sorties of pilots for example such as Rakov?
                        Further, both of you are clearly not pilots, and you are not familiar with technology at all.
                        The main speed regime of the same bomber is cruising.
                        Why?
                        I explain for the ignoramus: the most optimal fuel consumption.
                        Here on it and you need to compare the performance characteristics of aircraft.
                        Increased the speed several times to a maximum - you risk not flying to your airfield.
                        Now, with regard to defensive weapons - if you do not know how to shoot - no weapon will help.
                      2. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 15: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Nevertheless, it must be clarified that the peers Pe and Ar both looked into the back hemisphere by ShKAS. Berezin on Pawn did not appear immediately. He could also appear on Ar-2. But the sectors of fire on Ar were less. And the turret vibrated in the stream.
                    2. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 14: 55 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Amendment: Pe-2 is the most electrified SOVIET aircraft of the time.
                      One more thing.
                      Punev about SB: “A completely outdated car. It burned terribly. The tanks were without protection. The speed is low.

                      SB was "oak", there is such a concept for pilots. This is the name of the aircraft, which is so stable that great efforts must be made to change its course. At SB, everything was controlled by cable drives, so the effort on the steering wheels, it was necessary to apply decent. He reacted to the cottage with rudders not willingly and slowly. An anti-destructive maneuver on the Security Council is unrealistic. One word is “oak.” "Http://topwar.ru/39842-besedy-s-timof
                      eem-panteleevichem-punevym.html
                      Punev about Pawn: “when on a combat course, the anti-aircraft gun hits (and it hits according to certain mathematical laws), and I have to give something to this mathematical science as a counterweight. I have to maneuver. So, when the anti-aircraft gun hits, then you "Pawn" "put your foot in" and it slides away from the anti-aircraft fire with a sharp slip and here no one, for some reason, has broken. "

                      "The maneuverability is magnificent! For me - it is beyond praise. I said," put your foot in "and hop! You are not already in this place." Http://topwar.ru/39842-besedy-s-timofeem-pa
                      nteleevichem-punevym.html
                      1. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 15: 21 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        One more thought. Not mine. But I am in agreement.
                        Tov. snmon warwarwetterweg :
                        “It may not be amiss to once again emphasize the fact that the Pe-2 was created on the basis of a heavy fighter. Which, in turn, was created on the basis of the requirements for controllability, maneuverability and strength, presented specifically to fighters. Hence the enthusiasm of the veteran who fought on it No matter how much it is argued here that he had “nothing to compare with,” it is hard to believe that a professional in his field did not have comprehensive information and skills on the material of his time.

                        If Ar-2 was created along the path of maximum modernization of an outdated aircraft, that is, as a whole, to improve and facilitate the design, then the Pe-2 was the product of a trend in equipping fighters with strike weapons. And as rightly pointed out, this was a ubiquitous process.

                        In addition to the ability to carry more bombs, there are many factors of aircraft efficiency. Including the ability to dive and independently confront enemy fighters. And if the Pe-2 was a fighter converted into a bomber, then the Ar-2 was a bomber, similar in quality to diving bomber.

                        The fact that the argument about insufficient overload in 4,0-4,5 (overload limited by automatic reloading machine in Ap-2, my comment) units for maneuvering combat, a rather strong delusion. I can simply say from experience that taking an airplane out of a dive if there is a lack of altitude or the need for an abnormal maneuver (which is hardly a rarity in a combat situation, if it often happens in sports practice), almost always leads to an excess of the standard overload. And 4,5 units - this is almost no overload.

                        And if at the end of the war the Pe-2 was seriously compared with a plane such as the Me-410, which was not inferior even to single-engine fighters, then talking about the same "battles" with the Ar-2 would be completely frivolous. "
                      2. Caduc 15 August 2017 15: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Rakov has a story that a pilot helped a navigator pull a control knob on takeoff.
                        What are you writing about?
                        What exactly in Pe 2 was controlled by electricity?
                        Steering wheels, ailerons?
                    3. Caduc 15 August 2017 15: 22 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      On the basis of what would you choose Pe 2 as a front-line and pitching bomber?
                      Based on the fact that he is not able to "work" as a front-line bomber, but only as a dive?
                      Just because his speed is greater or the angle of fire?
                      How many 50 kg of bombs could Pe 2 carry on its suspension units?
                      3?
                      And Ar-2 - 20.
                      What matters to the bomber is not the maximum speed, but the nomenclature and the number of bombs loaded into it.
                      1. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 15: 52 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        I did not choose. They chose the NKAP and the Air Force. I agree with their choice, taking into account their background information.
                        In 41-m-42-m, the general trend of the Air Force (for both SB (Ar) and Pe) is the main type of ammunition actually used for characteristic purposes - FAB-100 or FAB-250. From the 43 go Pe carried the 400 PTAB.
                      2. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 19: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        http://www.razlib.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacij
                        a_i_kosmonavtika_2008_05 / p8.php
                        Quote:
                        Pe-2 firing tests with "modified weapons" were held at the NPC AV in March 1941 under the leadership of the 1st rank military engineer S. Onisko. This time, there were practically no serious claims to the bomb weapons. An increase in the number of small bombs was made possible by the use of ABK-500P underwing cartridges, which, in various versions, contained up to 108 incendiary ZAB-1 or 67 fragmentation bombs AO-2,5. In addition, the “pawn” could carry two discarded cassettes (RRAB-3 rotationally scattering bombs of 250 kg caliber) with 116 AO-2,5 or 25 AO-S. The third type of hanging cassettes was the BAS-1 bomb-ampoule bundles, which provided combined equipment with both small air bombs and AZ-2 ampoules with a self-igniting liquid. But they used BAS-1 less often than others, because they contained less ammunition.
                        Another quote:
                        More attention to this version of weapons showed the command of the Air Force of the Navy. Especially for naval aviators in the NII-3 NKB "General A.G. Kostikov" developed 132-mm missile-armor-piercing shells. Since, from August 1941, the guards of mortar units (and there they didn’t shoot with Katyusha armor-piercing shells) received the functions of the gas supplier for rocket weapons in the Red Army, they stopped making these ammunition for aviation. But the ROFS-1939 missile-high-explosive fragmentation shells developed for bomber aviation as early as 132 (in 1941 they were called M-13 shells in the "infantry") completely replaced the RBS-132. Their ballistics was comparable, in armor penetration they were slightly inferior

                        armor-piercing, and three times superior in explosive capacity. During the war, Pe-2 aircraft with such PCs repeatedly successfully attacked sea targets. It is not surprising - the Germans had few ships with serious deck armor, and the attack on transports and guard patrols was also successful on I-153 fighters with RS-82 missiles. What can I say about the Pe-2 with a 132-mm ROFS.
                        How do you like the nomenclature?
                  2. Caduc 15 August 2017 15: 13 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Not a pilot.
                    What reviews to compare?
                    Yes, because L.A. “could do” practically, not theoretically.
                    For example, the opinion of pilots about take-off and landing.
                    Ease of flight control, etc.
                    1. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 15: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Then re-read the interview with Punev. There is a site here.
                      1. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 15: 54 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        About the fact that, according to your statement, the Ar-2 is better than the Tu-2 is no longer relevant, I hope?
  33. The comment was deleted.
  34. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 15: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Dooplet11,
    I did not find the cost of production of Ar-2. Sat in the 40 year, the 22 plant cost 265t.r. I do not think that Ar-2 was cheaper. Pe-2 according to the 43 year, at the same factory, 279t.r.
  35. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 16: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Caduc,
    But don’t you know that the Red Army bombing aircraft suffered the main losses because it flew without fighter cover?
    In 1943 (as far as I remember) an order was issued on the personal responsibility of leading cover groups for bombers and attack aircraft shot down by enemy fighters.
    All these “songs” about maximum speed and the best defensive weapon are nonsense.
    Speaking of one and a half tons of bombs on Pe 2 and just 1600 on Ap 2.
    Is it all Pe 2 could take 1,5 tons or single sorties of pilots for example such as Rakov?
    Further, both of you are clearly not pilots, and you are not familiar with technology at all.
    The main speed regime of the same bomber is cruising.
    Why?
    I explain for the ignoramus: the most optimal fuel consumption.
    Here on it and you need to compare the performance characteristics of aircraft.
    Increased the speed several times to a maximum - you risk not flying to your airfield.
    Now, with regard to defensive weapons - if you do not know how to shoot - no weapon will help.

    You already decide what to compare. According to the performance characteristics or reviews of the operation. And then you can and should be on TTX, but we do not. laughing
    1600 on Ar-2 is also in overload. This means, not from every airfield, not every pilot and not every goal.
    PS. I am not a pilot. But I have a specialized aviation education (MAI). Maybe I'm ignorant. But about cruising speed in the know. In addition to the maximum range in aviation, there is the concept of speed range. And all the options are between these two quantities. When flying in a group, it is necessary to have a speed margin to maintain a place in the ranks. So optimal fuel consumption is not all that determines the cruising speed selected for a given flight.
  36. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 16: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Caduc,
    Rakov has a story that a pilot helped a navigator pull a control knob on takeoff.
    What are you writing about?
    What exactly in Pe 2 was controlled by electricity?
    Steering wheels, ailerons?

    "Features of piloting the Pe-2", 1942. : https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8z3Y/cNQPjNGJZ
    If the plane is improperly trimmed, it will not be easy to take off. wink
    What was controlled by electricity: trim tabs, landing flaps, stabilizer angle, radiator shutters, RPO in the first series. The aircraft was designed as a high-altitude fighter with a pressurized cockpit. Hence the preferences for electric drives. Details on the Pe-2 device here (Technical description): https://cloud.mail.ru/public/BW97/Qy279CXkp
    1. Caduc 24 August 2017 13: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Thank you. I read about it about 30 years ago.
  37. Dooplet11 15 August 2017 19: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Caduc,
    But don’t you know that the Red Army bombing aircraft suffered the main losses because it flew without fighter cover?
    In 1943 (as far as I remember) an order was issued on the personal responsibility of leading cover groups for bombers and attack aircraft shot down by enemy fighters.
    All these “songs” about maximum speed and the best defensive weapon are nonsense.


    Ar-2: (http://pro-samolet.ru/samolety-sssr-ww2/bomberdi
    r / 79-bombardir-ar2? start = 1)
    At the beginning of 1941, Ar-2 aircraft entered service with the 27 IAP of the Moscow Military District. Previously, the regiment operated fighter I-14, I-15 and I-16 in five squadrons. Pilots of some squadrons took part in the Soviet-Finnish war 1939-40. By the time of rearmament, the regiment was based at the Central Airfield of Moscow, consisted of three squadrons, its commander was Lt. Col. P.K. Demidov. In February 1941, the 2 Squadron (commander I.I. Voronin), as part of the 11 crews, began retraining for the Ar-2 dive bomber, while the main goal was to practice diving flights.
    23 June 1941 Propulsion 2-I squadron 27 IAP in full force flew to the Western Front in order to counter the advance of enemy mechanized columns. It was based at the Borisov airfield in Belarus, the first blow to German troops was inflicted in the vicinity of the village of Vileyka. In total, the squadron performed 89 sorties, of which 41 - to dive. Prior to the withdrawal of 15 reorganization, people of the squadron's flight crew died and went missing

    Thus, at least 5 aircraft were lost. Total - 18 loss flights.
    Pe-2: (http://www.airwiki.org/history/av2ww/soviet/su2/
    su2.html)
    Interesting statistics are given at the end of 1941 in the final summary of the 66 Air Division. Although the command of the compound had many complaints about the leadership of the 288 go-cart for the poor organization of combat work, the poor preparation of pilots and navigators (in one of the first sorties, due to an error in piloting, Lieutenant Gil’s crew crashed and crashed), the regiment suffered relatively less losses than the parts of the division on the Pe-2 and SB. Major Artamonov, the commander of the 288 bap, noted that some Su-2 were returning to their airfield with up to a hundred holes.

    Type Number of sorties Combat losses Departures per loss
    Pe-2 1288 40 32
    Sat 180 22 8
    Su-2 785 11 71

    No comment.
    1. Caduc 24 August 2017 13: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And why "no comment"?
      After all, the conversation was about diving bombers, and not about the "neighbors" to whom Su 2 belongs.
      Like the SB though.
      I talked about the fact that Ap 2 was both a dive and front-line bomber, unlike the Pe 2 dive.
      By the way, the SB as the fastest and Ar 2 were armed with Molotov Bread Baskets.
      Did Pe 2 have such ammunition in the nomenclature or Su 2 you liked?
  38. nnz226 14 September 2017 21: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers aren't Tupolevsky ??? Polikarpov was the “king of fighters” and attributing to him these 2 aircraft is somehow not comme il faut ....
  39. sh3roman 26 May 2019 12: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To bring the engines to mind, increase reliability, put Amer’s sights and radio navigation equipment, replace all cabinets with birch, replace oil and gasoline with Amer’s, and increase the flight time of pilots at least to 100-150 hours, and then our troops and the Motherland would be happy .
  40. Datarem 7 September 2019 14: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Dooplet11
    Gold words! But why do you think that the IL-2 was used exclusively "in senseless frontal assaults of field defensive areas from a low-level flight"?

    And how else could it be used ??? Sign up.