Military Review

Air Force Red Army against the Luftwaffe. Stormtroopers


After talking about fighters and bombers, we turn to the third component of the air triad of the two armies. Moreover, there are also many interesting moments.


We can say that the founders of the assault aviation Germans became precisely. The concept of dive bombing, which was actively studied in the USA in the 30s of the last century, played a role. And since the dive bomber very successfully fit into the practice of “blitzkrieg”, work in this direction in Germany began immediately after Hitler came to power.

As a result of the technical task developed already in 1933, the Henschel-1935 aircraft was flown into 123. In its LTH, the aircraft was not very different from the fighters of the time, but it was much inferior to the bombers in terms of bomb load. However, the Hs-123 came to Spain, where it was tested in a light diving bomber.

Tests have shown that the Ju-87 is an order of magnitude better and more efficient, and the Hs-123 was reclassified to attack aircraft, becoming the first Luftwaffe aircraft in this class. In this role, HS-123 took part in the Second World War.

Air Force Red Army against the Luftwaffe. Stormtroopers

Crew: 1
Length: 8,33 m
Wingspan: 10,5 m
Normal takeoff weight: 2217 kg
Powerplant: 1 × PD BMW 132Dc × 870 l. with.

Flight characteristics
Maximum speed: 341 km / h (at a height of 1200 m)
Practical range: 860 km
Service ceiling: 9000 m
Rate of climb: m / s 15

Gun-gun: 2х7,9 mm machine gun MG-17
Suspension Points: 4
Combat load: 4х50 kg of bomb; or containers with 2-kg fragmentation bombs SD2 (each of the two containers could hold 92 bombs); or 2х20 mm guns MG-FF on underwing holders

The plane went through battles in France, Belgium, Poland. It was very good in terms of superiority of the Luftwaffe in the initial period of World War II. At one time, there was even a question about the continuation of serial production, but limited to a remake of the modification Hs-123В with a closed cabin, enhanced booking and a more powerful engine.

A total of 265 aircraft were launched, which fought on the Eastern Front right up to the 1944 year. The meager number of aircraft does not allow us to speak about any outstanding results. But - the plane directly supporting the frontline troops nominally was at the Luftwaffe.

At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War in the Red Army Air Force, the role of attack aircraft was also assigned not to the most modern aircraft. Such was the general concept, the role of direct support aircraft was assigned to obsolete and often inefficient machines.

It is not surprising that aircraft that could not in any way fulfill the role of fighter jets fell into the ground attack aircraft of the Red Army Air Force. We are talking about I-15bis and I-153.

I-15bis, a modification of the Polikarpov fighter I-15, created simultaneously with the Henschel-123 in 1933, began its service in 1937, and by the beginning of the war was really outdated.

Crew: 1 people
Length: 6,275 m
Normal takeoff weight: 1700 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 1870 kg
Powerplant: 1 × M-25В × 700 l. with.

Flight characteristics
Maximum speed:
at the ground: 327 km / h
at height: 379 km / h on 3500 m
Practical range: 520 km (technical)
Service ceiling: 9800 m
Climbing time: 5000 m for 6,8 min

Cannon: 4 × 7,62 mm machine gun PV-1
Combat load: 150 kg on 4's suspension points (2 × AO-25 and 2 × FAB-50)

Obviously, the I-15bis was inferior to the "Henschel", and pretty much. However, 2408 aircraft were produced, which were actively used in the first months of the war.


As the name suggests, the third modification of the I-15. The development has gone quite further than the I-15bis, as it received a retractable landing gear and armor.

I-153 can definitely be called the first Soviet attack aircraft, because already in 1940, when it became clear that the I-15 aircraft was no longer to be upgraded, the conversion of already built I-153 into attack aircraft began.

Alteration was expressed in the installation of guides for launching rockets.

Crew: 1
Length: 6,275 m
Normal takeoff weight: 1 765 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 1 859 kg
Powerplant: 1 × M-62 × 1000 hp

Flight characteristics
Maximum speed:
at the ground: 366 km / h
on the altitude: 426 km / h
Practical range: 740 km
Ceiling: 11 000 m
Rate of climb: m / s 15

Shooting gun: 4 × 7,62 mm ShKAS machine gun
On the suspension: up to 8 × PC-82, up to 200 kg bombs.

A total of 3437 I-153 aircraft were produced.

In general, the concept of acquiring assault aircraft from the opponents was about the same.

It should be noted that until the 1943 year, when problems in the air of the Red Army air forces were eliminated, a similar approach was practiced in the Soviet troops in the future. In particular, in the initial period of the war, when everything that could carry a bomb load and damage the enemy was used as attack aircraft.

An example is the long-suffering LaGG-3. When it finally became clear that the aircraft could not be used as a fighter, as it was much inferior in all TTX to German aircraft, the LaGG-3 was used as a ground attack aircraft.

A whole "anti-tank" series of vehicles (34-I series) was built, with an amount of about 100 units. Instead of the 20-mm SHVAK gun, the 37-mm NS-37 was installed. The aircraft of this series fought in the 1941-42 years near Moscow and Stalingrad.

In general, both in the USSR and in Germany, they came to the conclusion that a new class aircraft was needed, which could not only provide support to the troops, but also successfully fight the enemy’s armored vehicles.


The Germans realized this back in 1937, when they announced a contest to replace the Hs-123. In April 1937, the technical department of RLM (Ministry of Aviation of the Reich) developed the concept of an armored attack aircraft for action against armored vehicles and field fortifications. This class of cars was named Schlachtflugzeug, which can be translated as a strike aircraft or a battlefield aircraft.

The task involved the creation of a single-seater with minimal geometrical dimensions (to reduce the area of ​​the affected surface), equipped with two engines and armed with two MG-FF 20-mm cannons and two machine guns. The cockpit and engines were required to cover anti-bullet armor.

In the finals of the competition were the model "Focke-Wulf" and "Henschel", preference was given to the latter, as the most appropriate task.

129 cannot be called a masterpiece of engineering thought, although many today are trying to do it.

Modification of Hs-129B-2

Wingspan: 14,2 m
Length: 9,75 m
Normal take-off mass: 4 310 kg

Engine type: 2 x "Gnome-Rhone" 14M 4/5 x 700 hp
Maximum speed: 320 km / h
Practical range: 560 km
Maximum rate of climb: 350 m / min
Service ceiling: 7500 m

Standard: two MG-7,9 17-mm machine guns, two MG-20 / 151 20-mm guns
Suspended: one З0-mm cannon MK-101 or four 7,9-mm machine gun МG-17 or 4 50 bombs kg or 96 х 2кг fragmentation bombs.

The pilots rated the aircraft sharply negative. First of all, the extremely narrow and narrow armored cabin caused discontent. To reduce the area and weight of armor plates, its dimensions were reduced to the maximum. As a result, the width of the cabin at the shoulder of the pilot was only 60 centimeters.

The small dimensions of the cabin did not allow the control handle to be installed in its normal length. Instead, she had to put a short joystick, which immediately received the nickname "penis".

In the armored cabin did not fit the dashboard with a full set of instruments. Therefore, the devices controlling the operation of the engines have found a place for themselves outside, right on the engine nacelles (perhaps the only such case in world practice). Collimator sight "Revie" in the cockpit also did not fit. He was enclosed in a special armored casing and hoisted on the fuselage in front of the frontal bulletproof glass.

In addition to the crampedness, a useless sideview and excessive loads on the controls, which made piloting difficult and very tiring for the pilot, were noted.

But as a reward for the inconvenience, the pilot receives increased safety. I had to agree with these arguments, all the more so because there was still no choice: in terms of comfort, the Focke-Wulf product didn’t go far from Henschel, and it flew much worse.

However, the flight data of the Hs-129 were also far from ideal. The most unpleasant surprise was that Henschel could not swoop normally. Even at relatively small angles. If the angle of descent exceeded 30 degrees, the efforts on the output became excessive, exceeding the physical abilities of the person.

As already mentioned, the aircraft was made twin-engined in order to increase survivability, so that if one engine fails, it could return to another. But during the tests, it turned out that the Henschel on one motor cannot fly. It is a fact.

If in general, then the concept of the attack aircraft fell apart. And yet, the Hs-129 was launched into mass production. In the winter of 1940, the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were preparing for major tank battles, and in these conditions, an anti-tank plane, even so miserable, came to the court.

Yes, and to establish any serious mass production firm "Henschel" could not. The 870 units that left the workshops, of course, won theirs up to the 1945 year, the peak of production fell on the 1943 year, when 411 machines were produced, but by that time the Red Army air forces had recovered from the losses, and even if well armed and armed, a slow, slow-moving and with a very bad view attack aircraft was always a welcome guest in the sights of Soviet pilots.

Even the Henschel upgrades didn’t help to reinforce the armament, when the HK-129B-2 / R-3 was equipped with the 37-mm BK-3,7 and Hs-129B-2 / R-4-gun, which was equipped with the Pak-75-mm gun 40. Flight characteristics were becoming sadder.

And the last official sortie Hs-129 made 11 on May 1945, as part of the Romanian Air Force. Romanians bombed parts of the Vlasov army in the vicinity of Prague, which did not want to surrender to the Soviet troops and fought their way westward into the American zone of occupation.

Junkers Ju-87D-3 and D-5

Yes, "Stuck", too, eventually got into the attack aircraft, and also the residual. Strengthening of air defense and fighter cover, the gradual loss of air supremacy by German fighter aircraft on almost all fronts, the success of the combat use of the Il-2 attack aircraft led to an attempt to transform Stuck from a dive bombard.

So in the year 1942 appeared Ju-87D-3, attack aircraft-bomber, still retained the air brakes for a dive, but with enhanced armor. The pilot had a canopy of a flashlight of two-inch armored glass, 8-mm sheets of chromium-nickel steel were installed over the skin of the cabin sides, and even moving flaps were armored on some machines. There were also additional 5-mm armor plate under the oil radiator and armor plates, covering the front and the side of the gas tank in the center section.

The attackers had rather weak offensive (2 machine guns in the 7,92 caliber mm MG 17 in the D-3, and 2 guns in the MG151 / 20 in the D-5) armament. Acting as stormtroopers, Stuka most often used wooden containers on 92 fragmentation 2-kg SC2 aerial bombs, which were ineffective in protected targets. In addition, they used bombs and larger caliber: 500 and 250 kg.

Model Ju-87D-3 was the most popular of all the "pieces", they built 1559. Based on the D-3 built several experimental modifications. The most important was the "anti-tank" version of the D-3 with 37-mm cannons, the future Gustav.

Junkers Ju-87G

The main difference between Gustav and Dora was the armament, namely the installation of two Flak 37 Xnumx cannons under the wings. Together with the shells on the 18 shells, they were fastened under the wing immediately behind the landing gear.

Wing machine guns and bomb weapons were absent. Airplane booking has been weakened. Unlike the standard Ju87D-3, on the anti-tank Gustav there was no booking of the shooter, centroplane gas tanks and water radiator. The thickness of the rear armor of the pilot was increased to 20 mm. The rest of the car reservation remained unchanged. The attack aircraft received the designation Ju87G-1.

Ju87G-1 proved to be slow and very cumbersome, which, combined with reduced armor and weak defensive armament, made the car an ideal target for fighters. The maximum speed of the aircraft decreased by 30-40 km / h.

Ju87G-1 has not dived already, the attack of targets was made from planning at angles no more than 10-12 degrees. But the input to the planning was difficult. Sighting turned out to be difficult, due to the poor stability of the aircraft, due to the aerodynamic influence of the cannons, large spaced masses (the weight of one gun with a gun, excluding the weight of the magazine and projectiles, 473 kg) and the increased flight weight.

The Gustavs at Kursk debuted, and, according to reports, they achieved some success. True, the reports of the Soviet technical services did not confirm these reports. However, there was no evidence of success from the German side, the "gentlemen" were believed to be the word.

However, the calculation of losses and the correctness of the data is a completely different matter.

The facts say that from the 208 “Gustav” and 1559 “Dor”, by the autumn of the 1944, only one Rudel III / SG2 group remained in the Luftwaffe, still flying during the day on Ju-87D and G, along with two 10 anti-tank squadrons. (Pz) / SG2 and 10. (Pz) / SG77.

Junkers Ju-88P

An attempt to create a heavy anti-tank attack aircraft based on the very successful aircraft Ju-88A-4.

Ju-88Р-1 appeared in June 1943 of the year. Air brakes were removed from A-4, bomber weapons were removed. In the large ventral fairing installed 75-mm gun Pak-40. Gun ammunition was 16 shells, reloading was carried out by electropneumatics. The gondola with a cannon could be shot down with squibs and dropped.

The crew consisted of three people. Rifle armament included the exchange gun MG-81 and two MG-81Z in the lower and upper rear defensive installations. Jumo211J-2 engines were armored and cantilever tanks removed. With a normal takeoff weight of 11 000 kg, the maximum speed of the Ju-88Р-1 did not exceed 390 km / h.

From the planned series in 30 Ju-88-1, by September 1943 all 18 machines were manufactured.

Ju-88Р-4, all the same P-1, but with the 50-mm cannon VK 5.

The P-4 series, released at the beginning of 1944, was larger, the 32 instance. In February, an 1944 (9 (Eis) / KG1) squad was formed at the Orsh airfield on the basis of the 6 / KG3 squad and several crews from 14 / KG3, however, there are no data on the successful actions of the squadron.

Focke-Wulf 190F

The idea of ​​reworking this outstanding aircraft dates back to the beginning of 1943 of the year. Since reviews of the Fw-190 fighters were favorable, and by the end of 1942, the Wehrmacht was in urgent need of a modern attack aircraft, RLM decided to speed up the beginning of the mass production of a special assault modification, designated as Fw-190F.

The first mass series of Fw 190F attack aircraft was created on the basis of the Fw 190A-5 / U3 fighter.

It should be noted that there were few constructive differences between the attack aircraft and the Fw-190 fighter. All F-variants, starting with the F-1 and ending with the F-16, were designed to perform tasks for the direct support of the troops and therefore had enhanced armor protection.

Fw-190F-1 was the first shock option "Focke-Wulf." The aircraft could carry an 501-kg bomb on the external ventral bomb racks of the ETC 500. In addition, bomber adapters could be attached to the ETS 501. For example, it was possible to install the adapter "Grosse Bombenelektrik", which allowed hanging up to eight 50-kg bombs SC 50.

Fw 190F-1 small-gun armament consisted of two MG 17 machine guns (900 rounds) and two MG 151 / 20 MG cannons with 250 rounds of ammunition.
The design of the Fw-190F-2 attack aircraft was based on the Fw-190A-5 / U10 modification. The Fw-190A-5 / U17 fighter became the benchmark for the new version of the Fw-190F-3 attack aircraft, which began production in May, 1943.

All F-3 cars were equipped, as well as the basic fighter modification, with the BMW 801D-2 HP hp engine.

The main serial sub-option Fw-190F-3 / R1 possessed four (2 + 2) ETS 50 wing holders and one ventral ETS 501 for hanging bombs or 300-liter discharged fuel tank. Thanks to the use of streamlined bomb racks, the F-3 speed was 23 km / h higher than the speed of the previous attack aircraft.

Modification of Fw-190F-3

Wingspan: 10,5 m
Length: 8,95 m
Normal take-off mass: 4400 kg
Engine type: 1 x VMW-801d-2 x 1700 hp
Maximum speed:
at the ground: 547 km / h
at height: 638 km / h on 4500 m
Practical range: 745 km
Maximum rate of climb: 642 m / min
Ceiling: 10 000 m

Armament: two MG-151 / 20 cannons in the wing root, two MG-7,9 17-mm machine guns on the fuselage,
ventral holder ЕТС-250 per one 250-kg bomb.

on the F-3 / R1, four ETC-50 underwing holders or two underwing 30 mm MK-103 guns.

In total, the X-NUMX F-627 / 1 series aircraft were produced.

However, the “Focke-Wulf” storm-troopers can be considered conditionally. Rather, they were troop support aircraft, with an emphasis on bomb armament, since the 20-mm MG151 / 20 gun did not provide adequate armor penetration and could pose a real threat exclusively to unarmored or lightly-armored vehicles.

Nevertheless, the FW-190 as a strike aircraft could perform tasks with which the Junkers and Hensheli could no longer cope with the 1943 year, since they exceeded them both in speed and in armament.

Air Force Red Army

In the Soviet Union they actually went along a parallel path in the development of attack aircraft. And from the year 1937, when the Spanish experience showed the need for a “cutting edge” aircraft that could successfully hit armored targets, work was constantly being done.

It was suggested many options. Kocherigin's attack aircraft (BS and LBSH), Polikarpova (VIT-1 and VIT-2), Sukhoi (later became a Su-4 bomber), A. A. Dubrovin (0-AM-35), A. I. Mikoyan (PBSH- 1), Ilyushin (TsKB-55 and TsKB-57).

The closest to the ideal turned out to be Ilyushin BSH-2, which embodied the development of both projects of the Central Design Bureau.

This plane has already been written so much that it is not worth repeating. The most massive aircraft not only of World War II, but also in stories aviation. 36 183 instance of all modifications.


Wingspan: 14,6 m
Length: 11,60 m
Normal take-off mass: 5 310 kg
Engine type: 1 x AM-38 x 1575 hp
Maximum speed: 450 km / h
Practical range: 638 km
Rate of climb: 625 m / min
Ceiling: 7 800 m
Crew: 1 people
Armament: two 23-mm cannons WN-23 or two 20-mm ShVAK cannons, two 7,62-mm ShKAS machine guns, 8 PC-132 (or PC-82)
Bomb load - 400 kg.

Originally planned as a double, the IL-2 went into a single-seater plane. Until now, different versions of the “who's to blame” cycle, the Air Force leadership or Ilushin himself, who “fitted” the aircraft’s performance characteristics to the technical task, have been voiced by removing the arrow and adding an additional fuel tank. In favor of the second version says the very TK, in which the shooter was.

By the end of 1942, the aircraft again became a two-seater, the ShKAS machine gun was added to the armament, and after 1943, the 12,7-mm UBT.

Since January, the more powerful engines AM-1943F (HP 2) were installed on the IL-38, the number of RSs was reduced to 1720-x.

In 1944, the IL-2 NS-37 modification went into the series, two guns of 37-mm 11П-37 caliber OKB-16 with 50 ammunition shells per gun, without missiles, with a bomb load of 100 kV, were installed. 200 kg in reloading. Machine gun weapons remained the same.

The maximum speed of the aircraft dropped to 390 km / h, but under the conditions of Soviet air superiority, this was not significant.

Was the Il-2 a masterpiece airplane? Of course it was. And here the matter is not even in manufacturability (although in it too). In versatility. Sufficiently powerful small arms made it possible to hit both unprotected and lightly armored targets. RS for psychological warfare (will not fall - which often happened - it will scare so), bombs. Yes, the 23-mm gun was not very strong for working on tanks (and the plane is not the best weapon for this), but the Germans suffered losses even among medium and heavy tanks not from IL-2 guns, but from cumulative PTABs.

Actually, you just have to regret the losers and not go into details.

Yes, the losses that the stormtroopers carried were enormous. But it’s not the plane and the pilots who are to blame, but the absence of tactics of application and fighter cover for the first time. After all, since 1943, the main losses were from air defense, and in this case the Germans had full order.

Nevertheless, if we compare the damage that 36 000 "Ilov" caused with the most critical counting and the success of the "Henschel" in the maximum configuration, it becomes clear which aircraft was more efficient. Not "Henschel."


Further development of Ilyushin attack aircraft. The main difference from the IL-2 was that, taking into account the recommendations, the cockpit of the air gunner was fully turned on in the armored compartment (armored case). Increased the thickness of the armor of the engine hood from the bottom and from the sides to mm 8 instead of mm 4 on IL-2.


Crew: 2 person
Length: 11,12 m
Wingspan: 13,40 m
Maximum takeoff weight: 6537 kg
Engine: 1 × AM-42 (V-12 liquid cooling), rated power - 1770 l. s., take-off power - 2000 l. with.

Maximum speed:
on the ground - 507 km / h
at the height of 2300 m - 551 km / h

Combat radius: 800 km
Service ceiling: 7250 m
Rate of climb: m / s 10,42

Two 23-mm guns VYa-23 or НС-23КМ, two 7,62-mm ShKAS machine guns.

Do the arrow: X-NUMX-mm gun UB-20 or 20-mm UBT machine gun.

Combat load: up to 600 kg of various weapons:
In the bomb bay:
144 × PTAB-2,5-1,5 (230 kg) or
136 × AO-2,5SCh or
182 × AO-2,5-2 or
56 × AO-8М4 or
40 × AO-10 type bombs or
2 × FAB-100

Under the wing:
2 × FAB-250 (500 kg) (in reloading version with 2 × FAB-100 in the bomb bay)
8 × RS-82 or PC-132 missiles

A total of 6 566 IL-10 was released, but before 1 in May 1945, the Red Army Air Force received 745 machines.

Yak-XNUMHUI (strike fighter)

Different from the serial Yak-1 presence of external suspension for the 8 PC-82. To this end, the wing was strengthened at the suspension points. The fighter well proved itself the use of the RS.
On all Yak-1, starting with the 80 series, two bomb racks (BI-42 locks with tongs) were installed to suspend 25, 50 and 100 caliber bombs.

Later, the suspensions were removed, according to a GKO resolution of 10 in May of 1942. The main reason that influenced this decision was a large loss of speed (up to 30 km / h) if there was a PO-82 on the plane with suspended PCs.

However, later (from September 23 1943), when the Yak-1 fighters pressed from the first rows of air fighters Yak-9 and La-5 aircraft, bomb racks began to be installed again. This expanded the scope of the machine, exhausted all the possibilities of its improvement.

A total of 1148 Yak-1 was built with the possibility of RS or bombs suspension.

LAGG-3 (11-I series)

Modification LaGG-3, which appeared not from the good life. The fighter catastrophically lost to LTH German aircraft, so it was decided to use the existing aircraft for conversion into light attack aircraft for striking to directly support the attacking troops.

In addition to the six PC-82 rocket launchers, the 11-series aircraft received bomb holders D3-40. Thanks to these LaGG-3 bomb holders, they could use light bombs up to 50 kilograms (high-explosive FAB-50, fragmentation AO-25М and FAB-50М or chemical HUB-25 and AOX-15). Airplanes also received the chemical containers VAP-6М (Vlivnaya Aviation Instrument) with 38 liters of phosphorus gas and an ASBR-2 sprayer capable of throwing all the gas in 3-4 seconds. Incendiary containers ZAP-6 (incendiary aviation device) were also used to destroy enemy personnel.

The combat capabilities of the 11 series aircraft were further increased at the start of 1942, after replacing the PO-82 launchers with missile launchers PC-132.

Shock-assault versions of the LaGG-3 were used on the Kalininsky front at the end of 1941 and at the beginning of 1942. The 129 Aviation Regiment, equipped with LaGG-3 11 series fighters, for the successful operations at the beginning of 1942, received the rank of Guards.

If we evaluate in general, the Luftwaffe completely lost the war of attack aircraft at the forefront. Both German and Soviet attack aircraft in 1943 could not have a significant impact on the heavily armored enemy equipment using cannon armament. But the Soviet attack aircraft except for guns had a wider range of weapons. And, of course, the mass release played a major role.

An attack aircraft (read, Il-2), capable of attacking a target with missiles and bombs, and then “polished” with cannons and machine guns, turned out to be a more significant weapon for the same columns on the march than a diving bomber.

The question is, again, the tactics of application. It is difficult to compare IL-2 and Hs-129, who was better. And there is no need. Enough memoirs of surviving German soldiers and officers who, with rare exceptions, did not write about their impressions of the IL-2. But ours, mentioning "Hensheli" should be very look.

“Stuck”, on the other hand, turned out to be clearly incapable of exerting influence due to its complete obsolescence. The Focke-Wulfs could have become universal strike aircraft if they had not been sacrificed to a fighter program.
However, this is the reasoning in favor of the losers.

Haruk A.I. Fighters of the Second World War.
Shunkov V.N. Luftwaffe Aviation.
Shavrov V. B. The history of aircraft designs in the USSR.
Simakov B.L. Aircraft Country of the Soviets.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Michael newage
    Michael newage 4 October 2017 15: 29
    The author rode well on it. airplanes. A description of Henschel’s shortcomings generally delivered laughing .
    1. Konstantin_758
      Konstantin_758 4 October 2017 20: 56
      This is what the Second World War attack aircraft should have been:

      To this day, disputes about the role and place in the years of the last war of the Soviet legendary attack aircraft Il-2 do not cease. Some consider it to be the pinnacle of Russian design thought, pride and a miracle weapon, while others consider it to be a flying coffin, which covered with its debris half of Europe from Moscow to Berlin.

      Truth, as usual, lies in the middle. The contribution of this soldier airplane and the heroes of the pilots who fought on it is invaluable. But its shortcomings are as global as its advantages. The heavy armored hull that protected IL only from fire infantry weapons "ate" precious horsepower, made the IL-2 inert and inactive. According to wearable combat load, the IL-2 was inferior even to fighters. "He would have a more powerful engine! Thousands of two mares" would say now amateurs dream up ... But there was no powerful aircraft engine in the USSR, and even those that were produced lacked "passport" power. There were objective reasons for this - war! Opponents of the Westerners will say: "The Germans and the Allies managed without the attack aircraft, there were enough fighter-bombers ..." And they will also be right only half. The Germans were not in that position to disperse industry, but the allies were completely satisfied with the enormous numerical superiority in the air, when it was possible to throw a Mustang or Jag squadron to destroy one tank. But in vain the patriots will tear the vest on the chest, claiming that the Allies could not create anything like the IL-2. Towards the end of hostilities in the United States, an attack aircraft appeared that could become a real flying tank - an armored heavily armed monster - a single-seat single-engine Vultee XA-41 ...

      XA-41 was well armored, the total mass of armor exceeded 1.6 tons - And had extremely powerful armament, consisting of four long-barreled 37-mm M9 cannons, much more powerful than those provided for in the M4 project, with 50 shells per barrel, and the same amount of 12.7 mm Browning (600 rounds per barrel), to which was added about 3 tons of various bomb and missile weapons. The aircraft was successfully tested in August 1944, surpassing almost all US strike aircraft of that time. Moreover, training aerial battles with fighter R-47 and R-51 at altitudes up to 4500 m showed that in speed and climb 10-ton attack aircraft is not inferior to them, and even in horizontal maneuverability surpasses, confidently "getting them on the tail" for 3 √ 4 turns. Only the dive speed was slightly worse.
      1. Martian
        Martian 4 October 2017 21: 59
        So here it was necessary to mention that this model of weapons received its characteristics thanks to a very powerful engine of three and a half thousand American ponies wink
      2. kig
        kig 5 October 2017 03: 24
        Forgot to add that the plane did not go into the series. The command considered that the existing aircraft would cope with the tasks of direct support.
      3. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 5 October 2017 09: 57
        You shove your post in the third thread. Super Wafer HA-41. Calm down already! laughing
      4. Babalaykin
        Babalaykin 9 October 2017 21: 17
        First of all, talk about the motor yourself, we did not have a powerful motor, and under which we squeezed the weight to the maximum.
        Secondly, this plane appeared
        Toward the close of battle
        and IL10 was already completely different from that of IL2 - this refers to the experience of military operations + a more powerful motor. But there was no point in massively making IL10 - everyone understood that the future lay in jet planes.

        If I’m not mistaken, the IL2 chip was in a single cabin - body and not in individual armored plates like others.
        1. LastPS
          LastPS 14 November 2017 07: 15
          About 6 thousand of them were fired (along with the Czech B-33s), this is quite the norm, given that the troops still had a lot of twos, which in terms of efficiency could not be said to be very different directly (the combat load, for example, of the two was more). For the attack aircraft, the lack of high speed is not critical, and the capricious first-generation jet engines clearly could not provide the degree of reliability that the attack aircraft needed. There is, by the way, a great example in the form of an American Skyrader who served in the US Air Force until the 70s. Well, and yes - 3,5 thousand mares will make any brick flutter like a swallow (moreover, like an armored swallow and with a good load).
          1. Babalaykin
            Babalaykin 14 November 2017 20: 14
            IL10 appeared when the doors of a new era were already opening, I think then everyone clearly understood that such aircraft were unpromising. And only now comes the understanding that very light attack aircraft are needed
            1. LastPS
              LastPS 18 November 2017 11: 28
              Imagine the direct support of the troops on the reagent of those years without precision weapons and capricious engines, there were still no attack helicopters, and the silt and skyrader were quite effective and were quite effective. The Americans used skies in Korea and Vietnam, in the latter the Texans fought with the Bronco, which were also piston and were used for counter-guerrilla warfare. The problem was more likely with the class of attack aircraft, in principle, at that time there was, however, it still exists - the nature of the hostilities has changed, everyone has MANPADS, and high-precision weapons allow you not to go into the zone of its operation, and then it’s better to use the armor load to increase the useful load, again attack helicopters appeared for the near contact line, much more convenient for tasks performed by attack aircraft. Light toukan-class stormtroopers are stormtroopers for the poor, they are not demanding on fuel, maintenance personnel, pilots and GDP, while the ammunition range is very wide, against more or less serious opponents they are useless.
      5. Fidel
        Fidel 23 December 2017 21: 15
        There is such a thing as value for money. And there is still the principle of necessity and sufficiency. And here is a category of situational effectiveness. So here. You can invent and even build EVERYTHING that is PLEASANT! But there is WAR, there are RESOURCES and there are GOALS and TASKS. Based on the foregoing. So, it was precisely in these criteria, the criteria of REAL conditions, that the IL-2 was almost ideal. Like a T-34. And you can be hungry. Covering the armor with zimmerite and stick the front transmission. Like in Panther. Because it’s because the Russians have a “zapadlo”. Or sculpt a "perfect attack aircraft." And there, you look, and the war is over))
  2. CentDo
    CentDo 4 October 2017 16: 26
    The author has a strange approach: LaGG-3 of the 34th series is recorded in attack aircraft, but the Yak-7-37, Yak-9T, Yak-9K, Yak-9UT are not. Although they also stood 37 mm (on the Yak-9K, so generally 45 mm). And the statement that LaGG cannot be regarded as a fighter is rather strange. Nothing LaGGi released until mid-1944? Just like that, from an overabundance of industrial capacity.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 6 October 2017 12: 00
      But I was amused by the presence of a number of muzzle brakes on the Yu-88 p. Take a closer look at the gun barrel of their pieces 6, tubular, transverse.
      1. CentDo
        CentDo 6 October 2017 13: 14
        Well, so the Pak-40 was initially very strong. Why the hell did the Teutons add it to the plane for some reason. Could KwK-40 adapt. But they decided to show off. Then they also had to change the screws from wooden to metal (the wooden ones broke stupidly, the gas vents were in the plane of the screws). And in general it was possible to shoot only at certain speeds.
  3. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 4 October 2017 16: 28
    In the Soviet Union they actually went along a parallel path in the development of attack aircraft. And from the year 1937, when the Spanish experience showed the need for a “cutting edge” aircraft that could successfully hit armored targets, work was constantly being done.

    Another grinding of the known. It's like not saying anything - where did the topic of IL-2 come from.

    There are a lot of stormtrooper projects in the USSR:

    "... In the interwar period of the 20s and 30s, the Soviet Union was perhaps the only country that systematically developed the theme of aviation for direct support of troops. The USSR had no equal among other countries in the number of completed projects of various classes and directions of attack aircraft.
    The pre-war Soviet searches for the optimal concept of attack aircraft are discussed in detail in the book by V. I. Perov and O. V. Rastrenin, “Red Army Assault Troops T.1 Formation”

    TSH-B (TSH-1) was commissioned by TsAGI and conducted by A.N. Tupolev,
    single-engine LSH-1 - Central Design Bureau of Plant No. 39 Polikarpov
    Light attack aircraft "SHON" N. N. Polikarpova, S. A. Kocherigin, and D. P. Grigorovich.
    TSH-3 S.A. Kocherigin and M.I. Gurevich.
    R-5Sh R-5SSS, PZ, LSh-1..5, LBSh-3 (as the development of TSh-2), TsKB-38 (Di-6Sh),
    R-9 (TsKB-27) S.A. Kocherigina. (or "SR" - high-speed reconnaissance)
    R-10 (KhAI-5) Neman I.G.
    The licensed release of Vultee V-11, which received the designation BSh-1 in the USSR (it was not put into service, was used as high-speed transport, passenger and postal service under the designation PS-43).
    ANT-51 or "SZ" Sukhoi (aka BB-1, later Su-2)
    Attack aircraft BB-2 ("SB") P.O. Dry.
    "Sh-Tandem" (other machine names: "Sh-MAI", MAI-3, "MAI-Tandem") P. D. Grushina experienced light attack aircraft
    Anti-tank attack aircraft VIT-1 and VIT-2.
    Multipurpose fighter-attack aircraft Ta-3 (OKO-6).

    And how many projects — not appearing in the metal — were a few dozen!

    Here is a very brief about the main developments that saw the light in metal
    1. Curious
      Curious 4 October 2017 21: 47
      Only in metal, starting from about 1935, dozens of attack aircraft appeared in the USSR (sorry if I repeat).

      Kocherigin BSh-1 Sturmovik
      Ilyushin BSh-2 (TsKB-55) Armored attack aircraft
      Ilyushin BSh-2 (TsKB-57) Armored attack aircraft
      Polikarpov VIT-1 Anti-tank attack aircraft
      Polikarpov VIT-2 Anti-tank attack aircraft
      Kochergin, Yatsenko DI-6Sh Light attack aircraft
      Ilyushin IL-2 - Attack aircraft.
      Ilyushin IL-4 Heavy attack aircraft
      Ilyushin IL-8 Heavy attack aircraft
      Ilyushin IL-10 Heavy attack aircraft
      Ilyushin IL-10M Heavy attack aircraft
      Ilyushin IL-16 Attack aircraft
      Kocherigin LBS Light attack aircraft
      Moskalev LT (SAM-23) Light attack aircraft
      Polikarpov MPI-1 Aircraft of fire support of troops
      Tomashevich PEGAS Sturmovik
      Mikoyan, Gurevich PBSh-1 Dive attack aircraft
      Polikarpov SVB Aircraft fire support troops
      Polikarpov SSS High-speed light attack aircraft
      Sukhoi Su-4 Light Attack Bomber
      Sukhoi Su-6 attack aircraft
      Sukhoi Su-8 Super heavy attack aircraft
      Tupolev Tu-2Sh Heavy attack aircraft
      Polikarpov U-2LSh Multipurpose light attack aircraft
      Yakovlev UT-1B Light attack aircraft
      Yakovlev UT-2MV Light attack aircraft
      Neman HAI-51 Sturmovik
      Neman HAI-52 Sturmovik
      Kocherigin Sh Light attack aircraft
      Dry ShB Attack bomber
      Grushin SH-TANDEM Sturmovik
      Yakovlev YAK-2 KABB Sturmovik

      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 10: 57
        Quote: Curious
        Only in metal, starting from about 1935, several dozen attack aircraft appeared in the USSR

        + Right, right.
        Plus several dozens of original projects, from completely unrealized ones, to quite interesting and promising ones.
        Those. to say that the USSR conducted work on attack aircraft - this is how to say that Britain designed and built some kind of warships ...
      2. ty60
        ty60 10 October 2017 21: 36
        IL-4 is DB3F. Do not confuse
        1. Curious
          Curious 10 October 2017 21: 57
          And I don’t confuse. In order to expand the Il-2 engine base and increase its combat survivability, S.V. Ilyushin turned to the People's Commissar of the Aviation Industry A.I.Shakhurin (letter No. 21) on July 1941, 924 with a proposal to install an air-cooled motor M-82 with take-off power of 1675 hp
          Immediately upon completion of the factory flight tests, S.V. Ilyushin went to the leadership of the NKAP and the Air Force with a proposal to immediately release 18 double IL-30 M-2s at the 82th aircraft plant with the aim of conducting comprehensive military tests. From this number it was proposed to form one aviation regiment, fully equipped with new machines, and one mixed aviation regiment, equipped with both single IL-2 AM-38, and two-seater "Ilami" with M-82 in a 2: 1 ratio, that is, each two single " Ilyushin "give one" ... double IL-2, which would solve the tasks of the group leader. In this case, the IL-2 with the M-82 would be referred to as IL-4. "
          In accordance with GKO Decree No.1502 of 28.03.42/2/82, the IL-381 with the M-1IR was launched into serial production at No. 42 with the manufacture of the first production car by May 56, 2nd. In total, 82 copies of the Il-XNUMX with the M-XNUMXIR were to be released in May. The same number in June.

          However, in view of the fact that by this time mass production of AM-38 engines and single-seat Il-2 attack aircraft had already been established with them, and the M-82 motor was decided to be installed on LaGG-3, which he needed, Decree of GKO No. 1658 from 26.04.42/XNUMX/XNUMX

          Further work on the IL-2 M-82IR was discontinued. S.V. Ilyushin was asked to consider the possibility of remaking a single-seat serial IL-2 aircraft with an AM-38 engine into a two-seater version with a rear firing point and putting it into serial production without stopping the factory conveyor.

  4. Mik13
    Mik13 4 October 2017 16: 40
    About Hs-129:
    Therefore, control devices for engine operation found a place outside, right on the engine nacelles (perhaps the only such case in world practice).

    Not the only one. A similar solution was used on the Bf 110. Although there would seem to be enough space.
  5. GSPDJGneva
    GSPDJGneva 4 October 2017 18: 18
    IL-2 is initially the wrong concept. And 30 lost during the IL-000 war - this is confirmed.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 October 2017 19: 13
      Quote: GspdjGneva
      IL-2 is initially the wrong concept. And 30 lost during the IL-000 war - this is confirmed.

      Again, all in one pile - military, non-military, decommissioned ...
      The combat losses of attack aircraft for all the years of the war amounted to 10759 spacecraft Air Force planes (28,9% of the total number of aircraft lost in the war) and 807 Ilov lost by the Air Force Navy.
      The average number of Il-2 sorties per one combat loss during the war years was 53,5 sorties. For comparison, the fighter survivability averaged over the war period amounted to 104,5 sorties, and bombers - 80 sorties. In total, during the war years, 356 assault aviation regiments were prepared and sent to the front, of which 140 regiments underwent reorganization in the rear once, 103 aviation regiments twice, 61 three times, 31-4 times and 21 five times.
      The flight during the training of one attack pilot in the reserve aviation regiments in 1941 was 3-5 hours, in 1942 -13 hours and in the 44th - 20 hours.
      The combat losses of attack pilots for the entire time of the war amounted to 7837 people, or 28,4% of the total combat losses of the flight crew of the air force of the spacecraft. The distribution of combat losses according to the degree of training of pilots shows that 27% of all losses occurred in the first 10 combat sorties at the front, 40% of the losses were pilots who had a raid on the front from 10 to 30 sorties, about 18% were pilots with a raid from 30 to 50 sorties, about 10% - pilots with a raid of 50 to 100 sorties, 4% - pilots who had a raid of 100 to 150 sorties and 2% - pilots with a raid of more than 150 sorties.
      At the same time, losses of the command staff (regiment, komeski, command and control unit, their deputies and senior pilots) accounted for approximately 41% of the total losses of attack pilots, the remaining losses were ordinary pilots.
      © Perov / Rastrenin
      1. GSPDJGneva
        GSPDJGneva 4 October 2017 19: 27
        Remember what Disraeli said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, blatant lies and statistics”?
        They released 38000 by the end of the war, about 3500 remained, but lost about 11 000. Yes, funny.
        About sorties. Here, too, operated on statistics. In 1941, for 10 attack flights (real sorties), the Hero was given. And the number of combat sorties IL-2 in different places is estimated differently from 3 for 1941 to 10 for 1945
        And in order to put an end to the discussion: the fact that the fined pilot could have been transferred to attack aircraft says something.
        1. Mik13
          Mik13 4 October 2017 20: 34
          Quote: GspdjGneva
          Remember what Disraeli said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, blatant lies and statistics”?
          This phrase is very often liked to lead to a place and out of place characters who do not know mathematics in general and statistics in particular. Being a humanist is not at all embarrassing, but one must realize this quality and draw appropriate conclusions from it. In order not to make the rest funny.

          Quote: GspdjGneva
          They released 38000 by the end of the war, about 3500 remained, but lost about 11 000. Yes, funny.
          And this is because it is necessary to look, for what reason, in general, an airplane can be decommissioned. For example, an airplane sometimes runs out of resources (and the resource also varies). Sometimes a pilot can lay out a perfectly serviceable aircraft on landing so that it is easier to write off than to repair ...
          1. GSPDJGneva
            GSPDJGneva 4 October 2017 20: 56
            Quote: Mik13
            characters who do not know math in general and statistics in particular

            Our historiography and statistics successfully masked the Rzhev-Vyazma operation, the Kharkov and two unsuccessful Bagration.
            Rotmistrov was so entangled in the statistics of his own losses that he had to come up with Prokhorovka.
            And with Ilami, it’s even easier to get angry ...
            Quote: Mik13
            SOMETIMES a pilot can decompose a perfectly functional aircraft on landing
            here it turns out statistics for the demented ... 11 combat losses and 000 it is IT, your SOMETIMES
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 5 October 2017 11: 06
              Quote: GspdjGneva
              here it turns out statistics for the demented ... 11 combat losses and 000 it is IT, your SOMETIMES

              See the statistics for 1944. Suddenly there is a sharp increase in fighter aircraft losses due to the same "average temperature in the hospital. taking into account the morgue"-" mass losses of airplanes due to physical depreciation and obsolescence were recorded in the "loss". This year, "pieces of wood" of release before the war and the first year of the war went into the scrap.
              A classic example of "lossless loss" is the Moscow defensive operation. In which all the rubbish that was first distributed to all militia groups and then replaced with normal weapons and decommissioned was recorded as a “loss”.
            2. ty60
              ty60 10 October 2017 21: 42
              You go to Begeldinov. Ily attack. Hero of the Soviet Union, attack pilot
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 4 October 2017 21: 00
          And where did the fired tankers go? The submariners?
          You forgot about the write-off of cars after the development of RESOURCE!
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 11: 08
            Quote: hohol95
            You forgot about the write-off of cars after the development of RESOURCE!

            It’s not that the development of the resource - the resource of the glider did not fly out during the years of the war, the engines changed according to the development of the resource. But combat damage could be such that the aircraft was decommissioned due to the irrationality of the repair - for example, power components of the structure were damaged.

            In addition, up to 30% could be lost in flight accidents.
            Losses during raids on airfields.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 5 October 2017 11: 27
              And 1 IL-2 from 2, 3, 4, XNUMX lined and sat down on the emergency could be ASSEMBLED!
              But at the same time, the disassembled ones were written off, and the repaired was considered REPAIR, and not AGAIN MADE !!!
              In memoirs, such episodes are not uncommon - teams of mechanics bring landed aircraft onto emergency aircraft or their suitable parts and are allowed to assemble or repair a machine suitable for flying!
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 13: 01
                + Definitely this happened.
                However, an emergency landing with deformation of the armored hull is a decommissioned part in PARM, for the restoration of machines without spare parts.

                Here are the statistics - as of May 10, 1945, there were 3075 Il-2 and Il-2U attack aircraft (450 of them were malfunctioning) as part of the air armies of the fronts - that’s precisely among the 450 malfunctioning IL-2 aircraft are “donors” who of the "faulty" could either go to an aircraft repair plant, or be decommissioned. The engineer of the regiment was responsible for this, who determined to make repairs by the forces of those personnel, send them to PARM or for more serious repairs to an aircraft repair plant, or write them off.
        3. BAI
          BAI 5 October 2017 14: 12
          Remember what Disraeli said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, blatant lies and statistics”?

          “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics) - a statement attributed to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Benjamin. (Full version: There are three types of lies: lies, arrogant lies and statistics). Disraeli, and it gained fame thanks to Mark Twain after the publication of "The Head of My Autobiography" in the journal North American Review July 5, 1907 [1]: However, this phrase is not in Disraeli's works. She was also not known during his lifetime, nor shortly after death.
          It is now known that the phrase was first used in a letter written on June 8, 1891 and published on June 13, 1891 in the National Observer (p.93 (-94): NATIONAL PENSIONS [To the Editor of _The National Observer_] London, 8th June, 1891 ): “Sir, ... it’s been very witty that there are three types of lies: the first is untruth, the second is a direct lie, and finally, the worst is statistics.” A little later, in October 1891, in the journal Notes and Queries, a man under the pseudonym "St Swithin" sent a question about the authorship of this phrase, which indicates its wide distribution even in those days.
          In 1941, for 10 attack flights (real sorties), the Hero was given.

          "Given the high risk of using IL-2, the title of Hero of the Soviet Union was awarded for 10 sorties. According to other sources, until 1943 the title of Hero of the Soviet Union was awarded for 30 sorties" ... but already ... "after 1943 this qualification was increased to 80. "
          They released 38000 by the end of the war, about 3500 remained, but lost about 11 000. Yes, funny.

          What's so funny? If they were used similarly to the infantry?
          “In total, over the years of the war, 34943 IL-2 and IL-2KR reconnaissance and reconnaissance spotters were also built, as well as 1211 UIL-2 trainers. By May 10, 1945, there were 3075 IL-2 and UIL attack aircraft in the air forces of the fronts -2, 214 Il-2KR In addition to the Navy Air Force there were another 197 Il-2.
          In total, during the years 1941-1945, the USSR lost 23,6 thousand attack aircraft, of which 12,4 thousand were combat losses. A total of 7837 attack pilots were lost. "
          Discrepancy in numbers? Not all produced cars reached the front. The territory of the USSR was large, there were flight schools, training regiments, not front-line districts, where they also received airplanes and lost them during training.
          And in order to put an end to the discussion: the fact that the fined pilot could have been transferred to attack aircraft says something.

          It talks about:
          1. On the intensity of work.
          2. About the danger of work.
          But not about the technical level of the aircraft. Because:
          “The overall survival of the IL-2 during the war was about 53 sorties per one irretrievable loss. Throughout the war, survival in attack aircraft was lower than in bomber and fighter aircraft, despite the fact that IL-2 was superior in protection to all Soviet aircraft. The reason for this is the tactic of use, Ilya most of the time hanging over the front line at low altitudes, attracting the fire of all enemy anti-aircraft artillery. "
          1. IQ12NHJ21az
            IQ12NHJ21az 10 October 2017 21: 59
            Everyone forgot to clarify that the biggest losses of the IL-2 were in the first half of the war, when the attack aircraft worked without fighter cover and the IL-2 was in a modification without a gunner. The aircraft itself was quite difficult to control, and the pilots at the beginning of the war had poor preparation (small flying hours) - hence the great losses of both pilots and aircraft.
    2. Bogatyrev
      Bogatyrev 4 October 2017 23: 23
      I do not agree with your logic.
      In one case, I dug a hole 4 meters and did not break a single shovel.
      In another, he dug up 500 meters and broke 30 shovels.
      What's better? Do not break shovels or dig holes?
      It’s me that the losses are big, yes, but the result is Victory, achieved, isn't it?
  6. hohol95
    hohol95 4 October 2017 18: 49
    Again about R-5 forgot to mention crying
  7. Pan_hrabio
    Pan_hrabio 4 October 2017 19: 07
    Thank you for the article! The only thing I personally do not quite understand why

    The I-15bis was inferior to Henschel, and to a considerable extent.

    At least from tabular data. Comparable speeds and bomb load, I-15bis has even more machine guns. True, Henschel’s practical range is 300 km higher, but is it essential for an attack aircraft?
  8. Arkady Gaidar
    Arkady Gaidar 4 October 2017 19: 35
    I can’t call myself a good expert on WWII aviation, but even I noticed that the author is inclined to give priority to the winners, for the simple reason that they won the war. But here it should be remembered that victory in combined arms battles weakly reflects the successes of a particular type of equipment. And therefore, to argue that the "pieces" were not effective stormtroopers and did not work well on Soviet columns, while the Il-2 performed this role much better, it would probably be a big excess.
    Battlefield aviation is able to realize its potential most powerfully, only with the dominance of its forces and allies in the air. Therefore, at the beginning of the Second World War our attack aircraft rained down from the sky, and from the end of the 1943 of the year, German bombardiers of the battlefield.
    Conclusion: the concept of using battlefield aircraft in different armies remained different. So it is necessary to take specific aircraft models and insert them into the performance table. For example: the number of sorties that seriously upset the enemy’s defenses; the number of confirmed affected equipment and the defeat of enemy positions (columns on the march); the number of shells (bombs, and for cluster weapons the number of containers) to destroy one piece of equipment, a soldier (in the trench and separately on the march), pillboxes, bunkers. I need it
    such painstaking work. otherwise, it is difficult to reflect which planes showed themselves excellently and which mediocre ones.
    Here there was another listing of aircraft used as shock, without regard to the quality of their use on the enemy. The article is interesting, but the author threshes the water in a mortar.
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 4 October 2017 21: 24
      Quote: Arkady Gaidar
      The article is interesting, but the author threshes the water in a mortar.

      I agree. I’ll add, from article to article, there was a feeling that the author was running out of breath (he was exhausted at all) ... what
  9. Strashila
    Strashila 4 October 2017 19: 47
    about LaGG-3 ... they wouldn’t let out a worthless aircraft until 1944, the question is how to use it ... a high-altitude air defense fighter ... as an attack aircraft, this is only because of hopelessness in difficult times.
    1. Alf
      Alf 4 October 2017 21: 55
      Quote: Strashila
      air defense fighter high altitude ...

      Is this LaGG-3 high-altitude? With a maximum speed of 3,5 thousand?
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 5 October 2017 07: 35
        an interesting approach ... in your 10 m practical ceiling ... it's a low-flying flight ... and the oxygen equipment was set for it by weight, during the war it was primarily used as an air defense fighter, and not as a front-line fighter.
        1. Alf
          Alf 5 October 2017 21: 51
          Quote: Strashila
          oxygen equipment was set for him by weight,

          Oxygen equipment was installed on all fighters of the USSR, but no one considers the Yak-1 or Yak-3 high-altitude. LaGG's maximum speed was reached at an altitude of 3-3,5 thousand, which is not an indicator of a high-altitude fighter, unlike the MiG, which accelerated to a maximum of 8000. Tell me what maximum speed the LaGG-3 will have at 8-9 thousand . And it will immediately become clear whether the altitude LaGG or not.
    2. ty60
      ty60 10 October 2017 21: 47
      The high-altitude was a Mig-3 supercharged
  10. andrewkor
    andrewkor 4 October 2017 20: 12
    With all the obvious and invented shortcomings of the IL-2, no one in the world was able to integrate the armored hull directly into the design of the attack aircraft and this is its main advantage!
    1. Bask
      Bask 4 October 2017 20: 32
      The Hs-129 also had armor, so they could.
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 11: 17
      Quote: andrewkor
      With all the obvious and invented shortcomings of the IL-2, no one in the world was able to integrate the armored hull directly into the design of the attack aircraft and this is its main advantage!

      And this is his own drawback, since a large mass of armor entailed - low maneuverability and low speed - which dramatically affected its survivability.
      Integrated armor - protection against small arms.
      And when air defense is saturated with 20 mm Erlikons - that integrated armor, that mounted - it makes no difference.
      Quad airlikon - guaranteed shot down of IL-2 - the main losses from MZA.

      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 11: 56
        "... The main enemy of the IL-2 was the German anti-aircraft artillery, in connection with which the flight performance of the attack aircraft, especially at low altitudes, more and more came into conflict with the tactical and technical requirements for the attack aircraft at the final stages war.

        The average percentage of armor penetration from anti-aircraft artillery fire was almost double that from enemy fighter fire. The nature of the holes in the armored shells of the decommissioned IL-2 attack aircraft (due to the impossibility of repair) allows us to conclude that the angular cone of the IL-2 during the shelling of the German anti-aircraft artillery did not exceed 20-25 ° to the normal in the horizontal plane and 10-15 ° to the vertical normal. That is, all the hits in the armored hull “Ila” from cannon-machine gun anti-aircraft fire fell exclusively on its side, while the transverse armor, as well as the upper and lower parts of the longitudinal armor, were not hit by anti-aircraft fire.
        Combat experience has shown that when firing a 9-12-gun MZA battery at a distance of 2000 m with aiming at an “average plane”, all IL-2s 50-70 m away from it could be equally likely to be hit.
        In addition, it was found that the maneuver only by course, height or speed did not give the desired result - “Ilya” suffered losses. The fact is that the MZA guns possessed high maneuverability both in horizontal and vertical planes and, in addition, they were adjusted for firing along the highway, and not according to shell ruptures. That is, attack aircraft could provide effective counteraction to the MZA fire only by abrupt and simultaneous changes in course, altitude and speed.
        In other words, anti-aircraft guns of caliber 37 and 20 mm were very dangerous opponents for the Ilovs, since, in addition to the significant striking power of the shells, these guns also had a fairly high rate of fire - from 188 (3.7cm FlaK36) to 480 (2cm FlaK38 ) rounds per minute, which allowed them to provide a pretty decent probability of IL-2 defeat ... "
        Attack aircraft "IL-2" / V.I. Perov, O.V. Rastrenin /
      2. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 5 October 2017 13: 03

        20 mm shell. How to explain such a difference in the required number of hits for incapacitation, if not the armored corps?
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 14: 10
          20 mm shell. How to explain such a difference in the required number of hits for incapacitation, if not the armored corps?

          Excuse me - this is an excerpt from the report where the tests were carried out by shelling: the 20 mm caliber was presented by the Soviet G-20 air gun, the English Ispano Mk.ll and the German MG151 / 20?

          First: in this study, the averaging technique was used (separately for firing in the front and rear hemispheres) - i.e. for fire characteristic of fighter attacks (not anti-aircraft fire, when the projectile hits the side at an angle of 8-15 degrees normal).

          Each plane was shot both from the rear and the front hemisphere. The main thing during the shooting was the direction under the angle 1 / 8-1 / 4 in the horizontal plane, with the angle 1/8 in the vertical plane. The specified range of shooting directions was chosen based on from statistics of air battles on the Soviet-German front.

          Secondly, I am not familiar with the G-20 cannon (one of the ShVAK versions is obvious), but the ammunition is clearly similar to the 20 mm ShVAK cannon - the initial projectile speed is 800 m / s and the projectile weight is 91-96 grams.
          ShVAK, had a whole bunch of flaws, the main one being a very weak cartridge with poor ballistics.

          Oerlikon gun 20 mm - initial projectile speed 835 - 870 m / s, projectile weight 120 grams
          The ammunition of 20-mm guns of Oerlikon of all types included shells weighing about 124 g:
          a) fragmentation (about 9 g of TNT);
          b) tracer (4 g of TNT and luminous composition, the length of the route is 1500 m);
          c) incendiary (4 g of TNT and 3 g of white phosphorus);
          d) armor-piercing (4 g detonite);
          e) armor-piercing incendiary (equipped with white phosphorus).

          And here are the conclusions:
          December 26, 1938 Colonel G.M. Shevchenko wrote a letter to the head of the Special Department:

          on its own initiative in 1934, the Shpitalny began working on his 20 mm Shvak gun .... Disadvantages as guns: low projectile efficiency - almost 2-2,5 times less than the efficiency of the Oerlikon projectile 20 mm. The weight of the projectile is 92 grams with the Oerlikon gun 128 grams. A large loss of projectile velocity on the trajectory, which allows real fire to be fired only at distances up to 600 m. The Oerlikon projectile has much less loss ... "

          Hence the controversy of the table, as the interpretation of the fire MZA.
          When firing at the MZA - the probability of critical damage is significantly higher, because from the statistics of combat damage, most MZA hits are different from firing by fighters.

          ".... The average percentage of penetration of armor from anti-aircraft artillery fire was almost double that of enemy fighter fire. The nature of the holes in the armored shells of decommissioned IL-2 attack aircraft (due to the impossibility of repair) allows us to conclude that the angular cone of IL-2 during shelling German anti-aircraft artillery did not exceed in the horizontal plane 20-25 ° to the normal and in the vertical plane - 10-15 ° to the normal. (That is, shooting almost to the side) That is, all hits in the armored hull “Ila” from the cannon-machine gun anti-aircraft fire accounted for but on its side portion, while the transverse armor, as well as the upper and lower parts of the longitudinal armor hit by anti-aircraft fire had virtually no ... "
          Attack aircraft "IL-2" V.I. Perov, O.V. Rastrenin
          1. Dooplet11
            Dooplet11 5 October 2017 15: 03
            Here I completely agree with you.
            But the same weight of the built-in armor (compared to the integrated one) would lead to a greater weight of the airframe as a whole, which, with the same security, would lead to worse maneuverability. And, therefore, to the deterioration of vitality.
            After all, this discussion began with this? :
            Quote: andrewkor
            With all the obvious and invented shortcomings of the IL-2, no one in the world was able to integrate the armored hull directly into the design of the attack aircraft and this is its main advantage!
            And this is his own drawback, since a large mass of armor entailed - low maneuverability and low speed - which dramatically affected its survivability.
      3. Alf
        Alf 5 October 2017 21: 55
        Does the anti-aircraft gun guard the chicken or does the chicken guard the anti-aircraft gun? laughing
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 15: 40
      Quote: andrewkor
      With all the obvious and invented shortcomings of the IL-2, no one in the world was able to integrate the armored hull directly into the design of the attack aircraft and this is its main advantage!

      By the way, integrated armor is also a definite drawback - if the plane remained intact after reaching the shell in the armor and reached the base:
      an airplane with penetration of hinged armor could still be repaired, and certain holes in the integrated armored hull - led to the cancellation of the entire armored hull - the plane went to spare parts, since the strength of the bearing armored hull irreparably decreased.
      1. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 5 October 2017 17: 03
        But he drove the pilot home. Or, at least through the front to the emergency. After all, the armored action of ammunition when penetrating armor was significantly reduced. And such a booking area as that of the Il-2, it is probably difficult to find in aircraft of similar flight weight with mounted armor.
      2. shuravi
        shuravi 8 October 2017 00: 03
        Rave. The armored hull had a margin of safety in excess.
      3. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 10 October 2017 15: 33
        IL-2017, restored in Novosibirsk, flew at MAX 2. With a hole from the armor-piercing 20mm. Strength has not decreased. At least it hasn’t decreased so much as not to get an LG certificate.
  11. Potter
    Potter 4 October 2017 22: 54
    There was armor (mounted) and power (carrying loads) integrated into the design of the armored corps - two different things.
    Losses of the IL-2 were of course very large, but the actual combat losses were really just over 11000, 37% of all losses. Almost as much - non-combat losses, as a whole for our Air Force (and the Germans had non-combat losses about half of the total). The rest is written off after exhaustion of the resource. In the war he was exhausted quickly. Here you have 30 thousand of 36163 aircraft that did not survive to victory.
    As for the assessment of the Yu-87 as a poor attack aircraft, it is not consistent with the dislike of the Lapptellers by our ground, infantry and artillery army. Maybe this refers more to the dive thing, but he annoyed us firmly in all forms.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 11: 46
      Quote: Potter
      The rest is written off after exhaustion of the resource. In the war he was exhausted quickly.

      Nonsense - nothing was written off, if only it was impossible to restore.
      Resource glider for at least 5 years. The engine resource was exhausted - the engine changed.
      Another thing is that numerous combat damage led to the fact that the wing could no longer bear the load - the power set was damaged.
      There were rarely spare parts in the BAO - mainly consumables (first of all, candles with their resource of 5-10 hours, their components motors, small arms parts, chassis parts - tires, etc.).

      If it is impossible to completely change the wing, they let the aircraft go on a “donation” or send it to a repair plant (NKAP). In PARM, the aircraft could not be repaired in case of deformations, violation of the geometry of the center section and the hull.
      Typically, they wrote off non-recoverable and de-partsed machines that served as donors to restore the combat readiness of other aircraft.

      "... An analysis of the combat damage to the 3rd VA attack aircraft, received from June to October the 44th, shows that: 10% of all damage to the IL-2 structure occurred on the center section (skin, ribs, spars), 15% - on the fuselage (lining, stringer, frames), 20% on the plane (console), 10% on the elements of the chassis structure (pyramid, struts, exhaust cylinders), 20% on the tail unit with control wiring, 2% of damage on engine and hoods, 3% for radiators, 2% for oil tank, 3% of damage was made by holes in the blades and the cylinder of the permutation pitch of the screw and the remaining Xia 15% occurred in the various units and parts of the aircraft (crutch bronespinka, bronelyuki engine, exhaust pipes, etc.).
      About 10% of damaged IL-2 attack aircraft were sent to repair bodies or written off due to the impossibility of repair in PARM. The remaining 90% of the damaged Ilovs were restored by the technical staff and field aircraft repair shops.
      Of the total number of damaged IL-2 attack aircraft of the 3rd VA, who were able to return from a combat mission and land on a forced mission on their territory, only 6% of the forced landings were associated with a wounded pilot or engine malfunction ... "IL-2 attack aircraft / V.I. Perov, O.V. Rastrenin /
      1. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 5 October 2017 13: 08
        So what's the nonsense? The airframe resource could have “run out” not by the service time, but by the allowable number of patches. Naturally, such an aircraft was not written off under the “combat loss” column.
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 5 October 2017 15: 27
          Quote: Dooplet11
          So what's the nonsense? The airframe resource could have “run out” not by the service time, but by the allowable number of patches. Naturally, such an aircraft was not written off under the “combat loss” column.

          Not certainly in that way.
          If the power pack has already been damaged and repaired, then combat damage in the neighboring area during the repair will not provide the necessary strength (for example, a very important part - the spar has already been repaired). This is not related to the term "resource" - the aircraft is decommissioned due to combat damage and the impossibility of repair.
          1. Dooplet11
            Dooplet11 5 October 2017 15: 45
            Not quite like that "not really like that." wink Although generally agree. A frequently repaired glider (or its spar, for example) will give a fatigue crack faster and may not be written off under the “resource development” column, but certainly not under the “combat loss” column.
      2. shuravi
        shuravi 8 October 2017 00: 05
        During the war, no one bothered to ensure such a long resource.
      3. Babalaykin
        Babalaykin 9 October 2017 21: 37
        what is surprising in the fact that they could write off a damaged plane ?? Given that it was half made of wood. It is possible that after a couple of hits it was easier to make a new one than shabby patching. The same armored capsule was sent to the factory and made a new plane
      4. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 21 February 2018 12: 53
        "Resource glider for at least 5 years"
        Since when is the airframe resource calculated in years (especially in war)?
        Usually in hours, takeoffs and landings and in technical condition
        Since the IL-2 had a mixed design, this deterioration (especially when used from field airfields) occurred much faster
    2. ty60
      ty60 10 October 2017 21: 59
      Like non-combat losses, enemy air raids on the airfield. The breakthrough of enemy tanks is random. These are not combat losses. Statistics.
  12. exo
    exo 4 October 2017 23: 21
    Thank! About the instruments, on the engine nacelle, I heard for the first time.
    And the “movable lantern flaps” is probably: the movable part of the lantern?
    I liked the article.
  13. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 5 October 2017 10: 00
    Like the entire previous cycle - weakly. Superficially, many errors and controversial statements. The article is a huge minus.
  14. shuravi
    shuravi 8 October 2017 00: 08
    In general, attack aircraft played a major role in the USSR. The Germans relied more on the IBA (after writing off the "pieces").
  15. Babalaykin
    Babalaykin 9 October 2017 21: 45
    Big losses at IL-2? Do not forget that the enemy’s air defenses had much more potential for impact than other types of aircraft.
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 10 October 2017 09: 44
      Plus the IL-2 themselves were very many. But the main thing is that the impact of attack aircraft on the enemy was very significant.
  16. vladi4ik
    vladi4ik 30 January 2018 13: 21
    Interesting enough. good