Military Review

Surrogacy of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War

125
Surrogacy of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War



In the initial period of the war, our fighter aviation suffered heavy losses, and often could not cover the Soviet troops on the front line and in the frontline. Taking advantage of this, German fighter-bombers, dive-bombers and attack aircraft inflicted heavy losses on Soviet troops and refugee convoys. Especially from the raids the infantry units on the march, the trains on the hauls and transport convoys suffered greatly. The situation was aggravated by the acute shortage of anti-aircraft weapons intended for direct cover of troops. The pre-war Soviet industry did not manage to fully equip the troops with the necessary anti-aircraft weapons, as of 22.06.1941, air defense units of the regiment and division were equipped with only 61% anti-aircraft machine guns. For the most part, the troops had rifle-caliber installations based on the Maxim machine gun. The proportion of heavy 12,7 mm machine guns at the beginning of the war was very small.

In 1941, the main military air defense device was the quadruple 7,62-mm anti-aircraft machine gun installation M4 arr. 1931 The installation consisted of four Maxim machine gun arr. 1910 / 30 g, mounted on a zenith machine in the same plane. For better cooling of machine-gun barrels with intensive shooting, a device of forced circulation of water was used. With good fire density, the M4 anti-aircraft gun was too heavy. Its weight in the fighting position with the system of forced water cooling and a welded frame for installation in the car body reached 400 kg.



The quad installation, as a rule, was installed on cargo lorries, on railway platforms and even in horse-drawn sledges. In February, 1943, 7,62-mm machine gun installations, as outdated, were removed from the anti-aircraft regiments and anti-aircraft divisions of the Reserve of the High Command. They were replaced by more efficient 12,7-mm large-caliber machine guns, but on the secondary areas of the front, the surviving M4 was used until the end of hostilities. During the entire war, the Zenith Maxims were part of the machine-gun platoons on anti-aircraft armored trains and were installed on anti-aircraft platforms covering the echelons and individual stations.


Twin anti-aircraft installation arr. Xnumx


In addition to quadruple installations, in smaller quantities at the beginning of the war, the troops had a paired arr. 1930 g and single anti-aircraft installations arr. 1928 d. Maxim infantry machine guns were also used to create them. They all had water cooling, and the rate of fire of 600 shots / min on one barrel. The tabular range of destruction of air targets was 1500 m. In practice, the effective firing range of the aircraft did not exceed 800 m. Quite often, Maxim's machine guns on anti-aircraft machines were forced on the front lines to repel enemy infantry attacks. In this case, for the shooting they used rack-mount sights for infantry machine guns.


Calculation of anti-aircraft installation arr. 1928 G is firing at an air target in the area of ​​Stalingrad


A common drawback of anti-aircraft guns based on the Maxim machine gun was an excessive weight and an unacceptably long transfer time from marching to combat position. Before repelling enemy aviation, it was necessary to fill the cover with water, otherwise the barrel would quickly overheat and the machine gun could not fire.



In 30-s for cavalry units produced a special anti-aircraft machine, mounted on a machine gun tachanka. The disadvantage of this machine was the limitations of the possible sector of anti-aircraft fire. In this connection, cavalrymen needed anti-aircraft machine guns with a roundabout for covering up from air strikes. But since the quadruple M4 was excessively heavy and cumbersome, they installed paired installations on the cart. 1930



For shooting at the air enemy at the front were used Maxim machine guns arr. 1910 / 30, on the universal tripod-wheel machine system S.V. Vladimirova arr. 1931, which allowed firing, both ground and air targets.


Maxim machine gun on the universal machine S.V. Vladimirova arr. 1931


The machine gun was equipped with a ring-mounted anti-aircraft sight that allowed firing at airplanes flying at speeds up to 320 km / h at altitudes up to 1500 m. However, at its advanced installation, as a rule, they did not bother and fired at the aircraft with a standard rack mount sight, which of course reduced the effectiveness anti-aircraft fire. However, the mass production of machine guns on the universal machine began only in 1939 year. Due to the high complexity of the machines, Vladimirova did not release much. For this reason, their troops were several times smaller than the machine guns on the AA wheeled machine. Sokolova arr. 1910. However, Maxim's machine guns on the universal machine were used throughout the war.

In order to at least somehow cover themselves from air strikes, improvised anti-aircraft installations were created in the troops. Most often for this purpose they used Maxim machine guns mounted on handicraft swivels or just cart wheels with an axis dug into the ground.



Directly at the forefront to increase the angle of elevation of the machine gun on the wheel machine, special cells were torn off, in which the trunk for towing was located at an angle up to 45 degrees, and bags with ground were placed under the wheels.

Quite often, the fire on enemy aviation was conducted from the DP-27 light machine guns. As a support, usually used forks of trees, fences, low walls, car body or carts. In extreme cases, it was possible to shoot, leaning on the shoulder of the second number of calculation. Before the war, an anti-aircraft swivel tripod was tested for the DP-27, but it was not accepted for service.


DT-29 machine gun in anti-aircraft shooting position on a BA-64 lightweight armored car


In the initial period of the war, part of the Soviet armored vehicles was equipped with P-40 anti-aircraft turrets with DT-29 machine guns. Tank the option was created taking into account the installation of a machine gun in a tight fighting compartment. Instead of a wooden butt, there was a retractable metal butt. A casing designed to protect the shooter's hands from burns on the barrel was dismantled from the DT-29 machine gun, this made it possible to reduce the dimensions and improve cooling.

According to regulatory documents, one combat vehicle in a tank or armored car company should have been equipped with an additional anti-aircraft machine gun. The first anti-aircraft turrets on the T-26 tanks were tested during the fighting in Spain. Because of the convenience of installation and the simplicity of the design of the P-40 turret, they became quite widespread. They were also installed on armored trains, armored cars, motorcycles and off-road vehicles GAZ-64 and GAZ-67. Compared to the YES-27, the anti-aircraft fire from the DT-29 turret version was higher, which was due to better stability, the possibility of round-up fire, a more capacious disk on the 63 cartridge and the presence of a special anti-aircraft ring sight. Not the last role was played by the best training of tankmen in firing on planes.


P-40 turret with a DT-29 machine gun on an armored car


In the autumn of 1941 of the year, a quadruple anti-aircraft installation of DT-29 machine guns was experimentally created at the Kovrovsky Design Bureau. Machine guns were mounted horizontally in two rows on a Kolesnikov machine. The total rate of fire was 2400 rds / min. However, according to the results of tests, the installation was not transferred to serial production.

By June 1941, a significant amount of obsolete aviation machine guns YES, YES-2 and PV-1 had accumulated in the warehouses. The first two had a lot in common with the DP-27 infantry, and the second one is an Maxim machine gun adapted for use in aviation, air-cooled, and the rate of fire increased to 750 rpm. As for YES and YES-2, there was no uniform standard for their installation for use as anti-aircraft guns.


One of the variants of anti-aircraft machine gun installation using YES-2


Machine guns were mounted on turrets or the simplest swivels created in former civilian enterprises or in armory workshops in the front line.


The surviving anti-aircraft installation DA-2 in the museum


The use of Degtyarev aircraft machine guns was facilitated by the fact that they were initially equipped with sights intended for firing at fast moving air targets.

Since the principle of operation of the automatics YES and YES-2 did not differ from the DP-27 and DT-29, surrogate anti-aircraft installations were quickly mastered by the troops. Machine guns were equipped with a cartridge on the 63 cartridge. A noticeable external difference between the YES and the DT-29 was that instead of the butt, a notched wooden pistol grip and rear grip were installed. On the paired YES-2 there was a shortened shoulder rest. Twin machine guns were equipped with large flame arresters, to prevent blindness of the shooter.



Despite the lack of a uniform standard and the semi-artisan nature of turret production, in general it turned out to be a fairly effective light anti-aircraft weapon with a rate of fire at one barrel of 600 rds / min. A twin installation with two equipped magazines, mounted on a tripod machine, weighed half as much as a Maxim machine gun on an anti-aircraft machine arr. 1928

On the basis of aircraft machine guns PV-1 N.F. Tokarev in August 1941 created a built anti-aircraft gun. This weapon, despite the unsightly appearance, greatly strengthened the army air defense of the Red Army. From the Maxim machine gun, the aviation machine gun was notable for lack of water cooling and a shortened barrel, which made it possible to reduce the mass of weapons. The weight of the PV-1 without cartridge tape was 45 kg. The total rate of fire of the anti-aircraft gun was approximately 2200 rds / min. At the same time, for a much more complex and heavy quadruple M4, this figure was 2400 rds / min. Compared with the SHKAS high-speed machine gun, the more massive PV-1, due to its design features, greater safety margin and a relatively low rate of fire, turned out to be more reliable when operating on the ground. Unlike ShKAS, he easily “digested” lower-quality rifle cartridges used in infantry.



The Tokarev surrogate anti-aircraft installation, created in a short time, with less weight and cost, was almost as effective as a specially designed quad installation. The mass production of anti-aircraft machine guns using the PV-1 began at the end of 1941 in Tambov. Total military 626 adopted such installations. They played a prominent role in the fighting at Stalingrad. As the zenith parts were filled with large-caliber machine guns, 25 and 37-mm anti-aircraft guns, the built-in installations, which remained in a working condition, were transferred to rear anti-aircraft units. Quite a lot of them survived until victory on armored trains.

Soon after the adoption of the ShKAS high-speed aircraft machine gun in 1936, the question arose of creating an anti-aircraft gun at its base. The rate of fire turret ShKAS was 1800 shots / min, and theoretically one rapid-fire machine gun could replace three Maxims. This promised a significant increase in the firepower of the air defense of the ground forces while reducing the mass and dimensions of anti-aircraft installations. In 1938, a technical assignment was issued for the creation of a paired installation of ShKAS machine guns on a light tripod machine, which was supposed to change the production of Maxim's four anti-aircraft machine guns. 1931 and the industry manufactured a small number of paired installations. However, during the field tests, it turned out that, when used on the ground, the SCARC is sensitive to the quality of service. He demanded qualified adjustment, more thorough cleaning and lubrication. And most importantly, in order for the machine gun to fire without delays, special higher-quality ammunition was used in the Air Force. The aviation parts supplied 7,62-mm cartridges with double bullet rolling in the neck of the liner and a more reliable and better insulated primer. Such cartridges were significantly more expensive, and the command of the Red Army refused to create anti-aircraft systems based on ShKAS.


Shkas anti-aircraft machine gun in firing position


However, after the outbreak of hostilities, the ShKAS machine guns still fired at enemy aircraft from the ground. In the Air Force, high-speed rifle-caliber machine guns in the first half of the war were actively used in the air defense of airfields. In this case, there were no problems with the maintenance of machine guns and the supply of conditioned cartridges.


Shkas anti-aircraft installation in the gun workshop


Single and twin ShKAS were mounted on tripod machines made in weapons workshops, providing circular firing and height adjustment. Responsibilities for firing and maintenance of machine-gun systems, as a rule, were assigned to aviation technicians and gunsmiths.

In 1939, the machine gun DS-39 developed by V.А. began to arrive in the army to replace the Maxim machine gun. Degtyarev. Compared with Maxim's machine gun, the new machine gun was much easier. For shooting at aerial targets designer GS Garanin developed an anti-aircraft tripod for the machine gun.


DS-39 on anti-aircraft machine tripod


Externally, the DS-39 resembles a large-caliber DShK reduced in size. Compared with the Maxim machine gun, the DS-39 machine gun was much lighter and had air cooling, after intensive firing its barrel could be quickly replaced with a spare one. The machine gun was equipped with a switch rate of fire at ground (600 rds / min) and air targets (1200 rds / min). Before the war, Degtyaryov created a quadruple anti-aircraft installation, which was tested in the back of the "lorry", but it was not mass-produced.

However, with all its merits, the DS-39 could not force out the outdated Maxim machine gun. This is partly the fault of the military itself, who are not ready to abandon the machine-gun machine belts, which ensured unification with the machine guns already in the troops. Initially, Degtyarev designed his heavy machine gun for a metal ribbon, and switching to canvas had a negative effect on the reliability of the automation. In addition, the DS-39 was more sensitive to low temperatures and dustiness. Degtyarev guaranteed that his machine gun could be brought to an acceptable level of operational reliability, but in June 1941, the batch production of DS-39 was stopped and returned to the assembly of Maxim's machine guns.

The Soviet leadership was well aware of the need to replace Maxim machine guns. Although the existing machine guns allowed for the firing of intense fire, they were well mastered and loved by the troops, their excessive weight made it difficult to escort the advancing infantry. While our troops were fighting defensive battles, it was not so critical, but with the transition to offensive operations, all the shortcomings of an outdated easel machine gun appeared to the full.

In 1943, SG-43 designer PM won the competition for a new machine-gun. Goryunova. Unlike Maxim, the new machine gun had a replaceable barrel of air cooling. The machine gun was installed on the Degtyarev wheel machine, or on the Sidorenko-Malinovsky machine. Both options allowed firing at ground and air targets.


SG-43, prepared for anti-aircraft shooting


The composition of the machine gun accessories included an anti-aircraft sight aimed at firing at air targets moving at speeds up to 600 km / h at ranges up to 1000 m.

In addition to domestic anti-aircraft machine guns in the Red Army during the war years, foreign samples were used - captured and lend-leased: American 7,62-mm Browning М1919А4, 12,7-mm Browning М2, 7,62 and 7,7-mm British Vickers machine guns, as well as trophies, as well as trophies, as well as trophies and hooks. MG-7,92, MG-13, MG-15 and MG-34.


Soviet tank crews on the American light tanks М3А1 from the 75-th separate tank battalion imitate a fire on an aerial target, photo staged

American machine guns designed for firing at air targets were usually mounted on armored vehicles supplied to the USSR or used in navy and air defense airfields. This facilitated the operation and supply of ammunition.



At times among the trophy samples there were very original copies. Most often, captured German MG-34 and MG-42 on anti-aircraft machines installed on trucks that accompanied the transport columns, or used for the protection of stationary objects: warehouses, fuel stores, bridges and airfields.

Many captured German machine guns were used in the armament of anti-aircraft armored trains. Such “armored trains” were created quite simply - open railway platforms were sheathed on both sides to a height of one and a half meters with wooden sleepers that protected anti-aircraft gunners from splinters. Anti-aircraft guns and machine guns were installed on the platforms “armored” in this way. The artillery of an anti-aircraft armored train could be the most diverse: medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns - 76,2-mm or 85-mm, 20, 25 and 37-mm anti-aircraft guns, 12,7-mm machine guns of DShK, as well as various rifle-caliber machine guns. On separate platforms were located ranging posts and anti-aircraft fire control devices. With each platform there was a telephone connection, which transmitted commands and data for anti-aircraft fire. Construction of the first armored trains of the air defense began in Leningrad, where they were called railway batteries.



Subsequently, real armored trains with armored cars covered with 7-10 mm anti-bullet armor and anti-aircraft guns mounted in armored top-mounted towers or with splinter shields were created. Compared to the armored platforms, the steam locomotives were more seriously booked: from the board from the pipe to the wheels with armor plates of 25 mm and 15 mm thickness from the roof.



Organizationally, each anti-aircraft armored train included: two crews of locomotive machinists, a platoon of medium-caliber guns, a platoon of control points for artillery-anti-aircraft fire and a rangefinder, two platoons of small-caliber guns and a machine-gun platoon for three or four machine-gun installations, an economic department, a track service and an artillery technical service security. Due to the diverse composition of anti-aircraft armament of an anti-aircraft armored train, they could effectively deal with enemy aircraft operating both at low and medium altitudes. Anti-aircraft armored trains during the war years played an important role in the protection of transport hubs, large bridges, strategically important industrial enterprises and naval bases against air raids.

In the initial period of the war, the low effectiveness of rifle-caliber anti-machine-gun systems against all-metal aircraft was revealed. Already in the 1941, in the Luftwaffe, partially armored fighter-bombers Bf 109E and Bf 110F were used for strikes against ground targets. In 1942, the bodyguard was enhanced on the Hs 123В attack aircraft and the Ju 87D dive bombers. In May, the 1942 of the year appeared on the front armored attack aircraft Hs-129B-1. For their sure defeat, a weapon was needed that could penetrate armor up to 12 mm thick. In addition, 7,62-mm machine guns had a relatively small effective range. In the conditions of an acute shortage of large-caliber DShK machine guns in combat, aviation 12,7-mm machine guns UBT and 20-mm ShVAK guns were used. First of all, this applied to aviation units in which it was possible to dismantle armament from airplanes that are not subject to recovery. If the UBT large-caliber machine guns were used exclusively on artisanal swivels in the air defense of field aerodromes, then anti-aircraft installations based on 20-mm ShVAK cannons were produced in small quantities at industrial enterprises.

Initially, the ShVAK aviation gun was developed for an 12,7-mm cartridge and almost simultaneously with the adoption of an anti-aircraft gun in the Air Force. From 1935 to 1937 year version, intended for the air defense troops, produced in small series.


12,7-mm ShVAK anti-aircraft machine gun on the machine Kolesnikov


A large-caliber machine gun was mounted on a Kolesnikov wheel or tripod machine or an Ershov naval thumbus anti-aircraft installation. An option was also created on an anti-aircraft stand for installation in the back of a GAZ-AA vehicle. However, after the adoption of a large-caliber machine gun DShK, the production of the anti-aircraft variant ShVAK was turned down.

In the initial period of the war, when the troops experienced an acute shortage of anti-aircraft machine guns, the stock of ShVAK aircraft cannons accumulated in arms factories and aircraft armament warehouses went into action. Of course, the weight and size characteristics of the 20-mm gun, designed for use in aviation, were far from ideal, and its ballistic data and reliability in high dusty conditions left much to be desired, but in conditions of total lack of air defense weapons, it was not so important.


ZSU with 20-mm ShVAK gun on the basis of the truck ZIS-5


It is reliably known that in the late autumn of 1941, at the Izhora plant in Leningrad, several partially armored ZSU were built on the basis of the ZiS-5 truck. Anti-aircraft installation served by two people. Cab and engine also booked. In the cabin opposite the passenger seat there was a DT-29 machine gun. In the body covered from the sides of the light armor, a 20-mm ShVAK cannon with 250 rounds of ammunition was mounted on a tumba stand.



The exact number of ShVAK anti-aircraft installations built during the war is unknown, since in the USSR 20-mm anti-aircraft guns were not officially accepted for service. Moreover, part of the anti-aircraft guns was converted from aircraft guns, dismantled from decommissioned aircraft.



Most of the ShVAK anti-aircraft guns were freelance operated by the Air Force and were not taken into account anywhere. Domestic 20-mm anti-aircraft guns also armed the armored train, and in the fleet installed mobilized civilian ships, torpedo and patrol boats.


Light tanks T-60 with guns in position for anti-aircraft shooting


The ShVAK tank variant - the TNSh automatic gun with an extended barrel was mounted on T-60 light tanks. Although the T-60 did not have special anti-aircraft sights with a wide field of view, and the angle of elevation of the gun was just 25 °, light tanks often fired at low-flying aircraft. Although in most cases it was impossible to get on a plane with such anti-aircraft fire, it gave a certain moral effect. Seeing tracer shells flying in their direction, German pilots tended to quickly get rid of the bombs. But sometimes success was accompanied by Soviet tank crews. So, at the beginning of 1942, near Leningrad, a line of 20-mm TNS cannons was shot down by Ju 87. On the basis of light tanks T-60 and T-70 during the war years ZSU were designed, but, unfortunately, they were not mass-produced.

Serial and surrogate anti-aircraft machine gun installations had a significant impact on the course of hostilities, especially in the initial period of the war. At the same time, already in the autumn of 1941, German pilots began to note that the Soviet infantry, caught on the march, often no longer fled in panic, but was met by German dive bombers and attack planes with organized rifle volleys, which affected the growth of the Luftwaffe losses. In some German aviation parts, losses from rifle-and-machine-gun fire in the initial period amounted to 60%. Although on the Messers and Junkers in the frontal part there were bulletproof windows and local booking of the cabin, sometimes one rifle bullet that hit the radiator of a liquid-cooled engine, it was enough for the enemy plane to go for an emergency forced landing.


Red Army soldiers take captive pilot Bf 109, made a forced landing


To reduce losses, the German pilots were forced to increase the height of the bombing, and with a strong rifle and machine-gun fire from the ground, to avoid ground attack using machine-gun and cannon weapons.



Considering the sad experience of the first months of the war, the weakness of the fighter and anti-aircraft cover, in the infantry units, training began on the skills of firing anti-aircraft fire from personal weapons at low-flying enemy aircraft. I must say that it gave a certain result. Thus, in the first year of the war, according to reports received from the front, 3837 enemy aircraft were shot down. Of these, 295 accounted for anti-aircraft machine gun installations, 268 - for rifle-and-machine-gun fire of troops.

However, the threat to low-flying aircraft was not only fire from rifles and machine guns that were at the disposal of the Soviet infantry. In 1942, the troops began to be actively saturated with submachine guns. In the Soviet PPD-40, PPSH-41 and PPS-43, a very powerful 7,62 × 25 mm cartridge was used with an initial bullet velocity up to 500 m / s. In 1941, a cartridge with an P-41 armor-piercing incendiary bullet entered service. Armor-piercing incendiary bullets were intended for shooting at motorcycles, cars and low-flying aircraft. Under the shell of the P-41 armor piercing incendiary bullet there is a steel armored piercing core with a pointed apex, placed in a lead shirt, and the head of the bullet between the shell and the core is filled with an incendiary composition. And the usual bullets fired from the PPSH-41, at a distance of 100-150 meters, represented a certain threat to the unarmored parts of the aircraft. A pistol bullet with a mass of 5,5 g was quite capable of penetrating the cabin board, not covered with armor, or a plexiglass flashlight.

In 1942, the Soviet military air defense system increased slightly, but the infantry continued to achieve good results in the fight against enemy aircraft. For example, 10-I, 65-I, 92-I and 259-I guards divisions reported on 129 shot down enemy aircraft, and this is only those victories that infantrymen were able to confirm. A significant part of the enemy aircraft managed to shoot down from the 14,5-mm anti-tank guns PTRD-41 and PTRS-41.



Initially, this weapon was not intended for firing at air targets, but with a creative approach it showed very good results. At a distance of 500 m bullet BS-32 mass 64 g, with steel heat-treated core, leaving the barrel with an initial speed of a little more than 1000 m / s, pierced 22 mm armor. Such characteristics of armor penetration allowed to penetrate guaranteed through a protected tank with fuel or a pilot's cabin covered with light armor.



At first, the firing of anti-tank guns at enemy aircraft was carried out spontaneously, and since no one armored was taught how to determine the advance in terms of range and speed of flight, it was not very effective. However, by the beginning of 1942, the use of anti-tank weapons in military air defense began to be organized and, with personnel, armed with anti-tank guns, underwent appropriate training.



When equipping rifle positions for firing at air targets on the parapet of a trench, a wooden device, like a slingshot, was installed, which served as a stop for the barrel of the MWT. In the field, in the absence of a better support, could be the shoulder of the second calculation number.



Often for the best emphasis used various improvised improvised designs and forks of tree trunks. During urban battles, low walls and fences served as an emphasis. In some cases, when arranging a position for shooting at airplanes, a cart axle or a pole with a rotating wheel fixed on it was dug into the ground as a stop for the PTR barrel - the rotation of the wheel ensured that the PTR barrel could be quickly moved along the horizontal plane. Often, cells were dug to a depth of up to 1,5 m, which were interconnected by message strokes, under the anti-aircraft positions of the PTR, with the possibility of circular shelling. Such cells defended on the front line duty calculations from the fragments of aerial bombs and shells.



In a number of cases, anti-tank guns were mounted on machine tools of defective or broken anti-aircraft machine guns. But the arrangement of such a position required time and was used, as a rule, in a long-term defense.



The air defense units in which the anti-aircraft missiles were used were organized to protect battalion and regimental headquarters, medical sanatoriums, artillery and mortar positions and warehouses from air strikes. With a combat rate of fire of 10-15 rounds per minute, the 6-8 PTR on anti-aircraft guns could successfully replace one large-bore DShK machine gun.

A significant contribution to the development of methods of firing from the PTR on aircraft was made by the rifleman-armor-piercer of the 284 th rifle division Dmitry Shumakov. During the Battle of Stalingrad, he drew up schemes and methods for shooting at planes flying at different heights and at different angles relative to the shooter. The developed schemes and memos began to be used by the armored personnel of the 284 Infantry Division, and then other units.


Fw 190, made an emergency landing in the Soviet near rear


Anti-tank guns significantly exceeded the range of fire and the destructive effect in the case of hitting the target all other types of infantry small arms. Even the heaviest armor of the Hs-14,5 and Fw 129F attack aircraft did not save heavy 190-mm bullets. Noticeable losses from the fire of Soviet MTRs in 1942 were carried by Ju 87 dive bombers.


Downed Ju 87


Of the anti-tank guns, they repeatedly succeeded in shooting down Fw 189 scout-spotters, especially hated by our infantry, whose pilots kept the height over 1000 m outside the effective fire zone of rifles.

This is how the military correspondent Lt. P. Kozlov described this episode in the newspaper 236 of the Infantry Division “To the Glory of the Motherland” from 25 of May 1944 of the year:
“All fighters quickly dispersed and lay down. The machine-gunners, armored soldiers all. Who had a weapon, adapted it for shooting at the plane. Having made a circle over the bridgehead, the “frame” continued its course. Red Army soldiers tt. Drozak and Lebed installed the Simonov anti-tank gun on the tubercle and waited for a convenient moment to open fire. “Focke-Wulf” was approaching their area of ​​defense.
Taking the lead on the 3 figure, Drozak fired several shots. Haze gaps thermite bullets lay ahead of the Nazi vulture.
Then Drozak took the lead on the smaller 1,5 figure and fired.
The enemy aircraft started slightly and squinted. And after a few seconds, the “frame” began to smoke and, with a burning torch, flew down.
- Hooray! - fighters shouted with joy, - “Focke-Wulf” is burning ...
This example convincingly shows that infantry weapons can successfully repel enemy air raids. It is necessary to comply with the following requirements: to be calm, time to hide in the gap, disguise. And as soon as the plane is reduced, conduct aimed fire at it.
The armored operators Drozak and Lebed received commendation from the unit commander and were presented with government awards. ”




The most effective fire on air targets had a self-loading anti-tank gun of the Simonov system with a magazine for 5 cartridges. When firing at planes, it was recommended to use armor-piercing tracer cartridges, which made it possible to quickly amend the tip of the weapon. Although from 1943, large-caliber anti-aircraft machine guns and high-speed anti-aircraft guns of domestic production and supplied by the allies came to the troops in ever-increasing volumes and were delivered by the allies, the PTR value in the air defense of small infantry units remained until the very end of the war.

Probably the most unusual Soviet surrogate anti-aircraft weapons were anti-aircraft installations, adapted for launching aviation missiles RS-82. 82-mm rockets were used by our aircraft from the first days of the war and proved to be quite good against ground and air targets. In the case of use against ground targets, aviation rockets were completed with percussion weapons (AM-A), while firing at airborne missiles - with a remote fuse (AGDT-A). When preparing the PC-82 with a remote fuse for combat use, the range of detonation of the warhead after launch was pre-set on the ground.


RS-82 missiles with shock and remote fuses


PC-82 with a length of 600 mm weighed 6,8 kg. Fragment warhead contained 360 g of TNT or surrogate explosives based on ammonium nitrate. The jet engine on pyroxylin-trotyl powder consisted of 28 powder checkers with a total mass of 1,1 kg. The maximum speed of a missile without taking into account the speed of the carrier is 340 m / s. The radius of the solid zone of destruction by shrapnel 6-7 m.

In the initial period of the war, the RS-82 was used on all types of Soviet fighters, on Il-2 attack planes, Su-2 and Pe-2 bombers. It was an easy-to-use, inexpensive, and fairly effective weapon when firing at areal targets. In aerial combat, the highest efficiency was achieved with the launch of fragmentation of the PC-82 with a remote fuse on air targets, going in a close closed formation.



Due to the acute shortage of standard anti-aircraft guns in the fall of 1941, the airfield craftsmen began to create anti-aircraft guns using PC-82 projectiles with a remote fuse with a number of guides from 2 to 24.



In 1942, the production of anti-aircraft launchers was conducted in the regimental and divisional workshops of the Air Force. In most cases, standard guides with a length of 82 mm, mounted on a welded or riveted frame, with the possibility of circular shelling and changing the angle of elevation, were used to launch the PC-835. Launching rocket projectiles was carried out using electric igniters from a battery or from pyro pistols. The sights were used both mechanically from aircraft turret machine guns, with a ring net and a vane-front sight, and collimator ones. The question of protecting the shooter from hot gases at the launch of the missiles was decided by installing screens, spacing guides and anti-aircraft installation controls, using goggles, a helmet and gloves. The personnel of the maintenance battalion were usually involved in the duty of improvised anti-aircraft missile launchers.

When collecting material for this publication, it was not possible to find reliable documented cases of the defeat of enemy aircraft using ground-based launchers PC-82. However, given that such installations were used quite widely before the summer of 1943, it can be assumed that there were still cases of defeat of German fighters and bombers by antiaircraft PC-82. In general, the combat capabilities of improvised anti-aircraft guns were low, which was primarily due to the characteristics of the missiles. At a distance of 300 m, PC-82 projectile dispersion in the lateral direction was 3 m, and almost 4 m in height. The active part of the trajectory of PC-82 projectiles at the end of which the ammunition accelerated to maximum speed, was within 220 – 280 m (depending on the temperature of the jet engine charge). The relatively straightforward flight path was maintained at a distance of up to 700 m. Given that the projectile flew relatively slowly, and the dispersion was very significant, major problems arose with the choice of the correct aiming point and the moment of opening fire. However, artisanal anti-aircraft missile systems played a certain role in protecting our airfields from air strikes. Having noticed missile launches to their side, the pilots of enemy aircraft, as a rule, stopped the attack and tried to get rid of the bombs as soon as possible. Well-marked breaks in the course also did not add optimism to the crews of German bombers, and on the flight maps appeared marks that the airfield had anti-aircraft cover. Thus, the PC-82 anti-aircraft guns mainly played the role of a kind of “scarecrow” and coped with it very successfully. In the second half of the war, as the number of anti-aircraft guns covering airfields increased, the need for such a peculiar way of using the PC-82 disappeared.

After many years, serious miscalculations made by our military and political leadership on the eve of the war in building the country's air defense and air defense were visible. It is quite obvious that the quadruple machine gun М4, which at first was the main anti-aircraft weapon of the military air defense, was outdated by the beginning of World War II, and the saturation of the troops with very successful large-bore machine guns of the DShK in 1941 was very low. During the war years, the DShK became the main weapon in repelling German dive bombers and attack aircraft. However, the gap between the 12,7-mm machine guns and the 37-mm anti-aircraft guns was virtually filled with nothing. The design of the 25-mm anti-aircraft gun 72-K arr. 1940 g was frankly unsuccessful. In general, he copied the device 37-mm 61-K anti-aircraft guns and also had a charger loading, which adversely affected the combat rate of fire. If such a loading scheme in the 37-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun, which had much larger and heavier projectiles, was justified, then for 25-mm projectiles, tape feed was more suitable. Simply reducing the caliber from 37 to 25-mm did not lead to a corresponding reduction in weight and size. The 72-K anti-aircraft guns were designed for air defense of the regimental level, but were too heavy and cumbersome for this. The rate of fire of the 72-K gun was 240 rds / min, while the 37-mm 61-K gave 170 rds / min. The weight of the 25-mm armor-piercing projectile was 280 g, and the 37-mm projectile - 770 g. Due to the large mass, size and loading-over loading the 25-mm gun was 6-7 guns - the same as the 37-mm Xnum guns -TO.


25-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun model 1940 of the year (72-K)


Since the 25-mm gun was mounted on a four-wheel carriage, its weight in the combat position was 1200 kg. French and Japanese 25-mm anti-aircraft guns in the combat position had about half the weight, with comparable range and rate of fire.

As a result, the Soviet 25-mm anti-aircraft guns went completely unnoticed on the background of 12,7-mm machine guns, 37-mm domestic and 40-mm imported anti-aircraft guns. The mass production of 25-mm 72-K guns began in the second half of 1943, when, by and large, there was no longer any need for them. It is completely incomprehensible why during the war years in our country 14,5 and 23-mm rapid-fire anti-aircraft systems with band feed were not created. The resources spent on launching the 25-mm anti-aircraft guns and their projectiles into mass production could be effectively used to create high-speed anti-aircraft guns based on the VYa-23 aircraft gun.


Assembly of aviation guns VYa-23 at the Tula Arms Plant


This rather successful aircraft gun, which was used as part of the attack aircraft Il-2 and Il-10, has proven itself in combat. With a weight of 66 kg gun, it had a rate of fire of about 600 shots / min. An armor-piercing incendiary 23-mm projectile with a mass of 198 g, at a distance of 400 meters normal pierced through 25-mm armor. In the case of using a WN-23 as part of an anti-aircraft installation, our military air defense units during the war years could receive weapons comparable in efficiency to the post-war ZU-23 installations. Also, on the basis of VYa-23, it was possible to create an anti-aircraft gun of caliber 14,5-mm chambered for anti-tank guns, which allowed reducing the weight of the weapon itself and increasing the ammunition, while maintaining the effective firing range at the level of the 23-mm projectile. During the war years, the Luftwaffe did not have attack aircraft with armor capable of withstanding hitting 14,5-mm bullets and 23-mm projectiles. Unfortunately, this promising direction of creating effective anti-aircraft installations was realized only in the post-war time.

Based on:
http://topast.ru/strochit-pylemetchik-za-sinii-platochek/
http://forums.airbase.ru/2014/09/t90124--protivotankovoe-ruzhe-kak-sredstvo-pvo.html
https://borianm.livejournal.com/362180.html
http://history.milportal.ru/2012/11/zenitnye-bronepoezda-pvo/
https://coollib.net/b/284572/read
https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/207540-zsu-zis-5-s-pushkoi-shvak-20-mm/
https://pikabu.ru/story/sovetskie_broneboyshchiki_protiv_asov_lyuftvaffe_4040540
Author:
125 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Strashila
    Strashila 1 February 2018 15: 33
    +3
    The story goes in a circle ... you look homemade Syria ... Ukraine ... Armenia ... all when it was, in one way or another.
    1. Bongo
      1 February 2018 15: 37
      +4
      Quote: Strashila
      The story goes in a circle ... you look homemade Syria ... Ukraine ... Armenia ... all when it was, in one way or another.

      What anti-aircraft homemade products in Syria, Ukraine and Armenia mean? what
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 1 February 2018 15: 47
        +2
        No ... they just shoot from RPG-7 and from everything that can shoot ... they didn’t notice the home-made "carts" ... ???
        1. Bongo
          1 February 2018 15: 52
          +8
          Quote: Strashila
          No ... there they just shoot from RPG-7 and from everything that can shoot ...

          I did not notice that RPG-7 would be used against aviation in the Second World War.
          Quote: Strashila
          homemade "carts" did not notice ... ???

          And about the "War Toyot" did not hear, or about how the Frente POLISARIO fought in Western Sahara?
          I do not understand why write banality in the discussion of the article? Now, if you could find a photo of the GSH-23 on an anti-aircraft machine gun or an NAR UB-32 aircraft unit adapted for firing at air targets, that would be really interesting.
          1. Freeman
            Freeman 1 February 2018 20: 41
            11
            Bongo Today, 15:52 AM
            Now, if you found a photo of the GSH-23 on an anti-aircraft machine gun or the NAR UB-32 aviation unit adapted for firing at air targets, that would be really interesting.

            Photo seems to be from Libya. It seems that separate guides were removed from the NAR, they screwed the battery pack, and began to be used as improvised "bazookas". I think from such a thing you can shoot at helicopters.
  2. Sergeant71
    Sergeant71 1 February 2018 15: 38
    13
    Thanks to the author for an interesting review.
    1. avt
      avt 1 February 2018 17: 05
      12
      Quote: Sergeant71
      Thanks to the author for an interesting review.

      Yes . good It’s quite an excellent review and is illustrated very soundly. The only thing that I think is wrong is the words
      Surrogate funds
      request especially with respect to quad maxim. Most of the description is staffing. Again, if you look at the instructions of those years, it’s not at all except for machine tools for weapons made from improvised means by the forces of the personnel. But this is my opinion for my taste and I repeat - excellent review! good Even as I recalled the stories of a colonel who was in Vietnam through the air defense line, he spoke very flatteringly about the Vietnamese, saying that during the raid there was a feeling that everyone was shooting and with all that they could. Down to the sticks bully
      1. captain
        captain 1 February 2018 21: 50
        +8
        Thanks to the author for the article, informative and interesting.
      2. Bongo
        2 February 2018 10: 06
        +7
        Quote: avt
        Yes . good Quite a good review and is illustrated very well. The only thing I think is wrong is the words
        Surrogate funds
        request especially with respect to the quad max.

        Perhaps this is my mistake, I thought that the adjective "basic" for readers will be enough.
        Quote: avt
        But this is my opinion for my taste and I repeat - excellent review!

        drinks
  3. hohol95
    hohol95 1 February 2018 15: 59
    +8
    Relate anti-aircraft installations of pre-war production to surrogate ... Strange! They were designed, tested! And built memory with the use of PV-1, developed N.F. Tokarev. 626 units were made! The production of these plants was organized at the Tambov factory Revtrud.
    Here are the memories created in the troops - then YES ...

    Built-in memory using machine guns DT!
    I still can’t find a photo using the Berezin machine gun as an anti-aircraft gun on one of the armored trains - a thick stump, on which is part of the bridge from GAZ or ZiS to which the Berezin heavy machine gun is attached !!!
    1. Bongo
      1 February 2018 16: 16
      +5
      Quote: hohol95
      To relate pre-war anti-aircraft installations to surrogacy ... Strange!

      Excuse me, but where does the publication say that they are surrogate? These ZPU are given for completeness of the picture and comparison.
      Quote: hohol95
      And built-in memory using the PV-1, developed by NF Tokarev. It was made 626 installations! The production of these units was organized at the Tambov plant Revtrud.

      I do not agree, with all due respect. It was just a surrogate wartime, as well as using YES / YES-2.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 22
        0
        Surrogacy of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War

        The name speaks for itself!
        But maybe I skimmed through the article ... I’ll read it later in more detail!
        What is your memory with PV-1 not pleased?
        If these machine guns were not stored before the war, but used for the production of memory, the Germans would have been less comfortable in the sky in the summer of 1941!
        In addition, first PV-1 was used in this version - 3 PV-1 and 1 Maxim! Then we switched to the built memory!
        1. Bongo
          1 February 2018 16: 25
          +5
          Quote: hohol95
          What is your memory with PV-1 not pleased?

          It is quite justified, as other YES / YES-2. But before the war, there was no talk of mass production of such facilities. It was designed in a great hurry and was manufactured using B / Aural machine guns. How not cool - this is a surrogate.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 31
            +2
            Maybe so! I repeat - they should not have been stored, but used before the start of the war! But it’s easy to reason sitting on ... hi
        2. Amurets
          Amurets 1 February 2018 17: 07
          +6
          Quote: hohol95
          In addition, first PV-1 was used in this version - 3 PV-1 and 1 Maxim! Then we switched to the built memory!

          Yes, Bolotin's “Soviet Small Arms and Ammunition” mentioned such an installation, but he writes that only a prototype was released. The installation was too complicated and therefore the installation of the M-3 with the PV-1 machine guns was recognized as promising.
        3. serg.shishkov2015
          serg.shishkov2015 2 February 2018 06: 40
          +4
          yes, it was an attempt to reduce the cost of ZPU-4, they left the second Maxim connected with the sight, and we also had ZPUs from captured air-raids, the MG-15 turret was driven into the end of the log
  4. hohol95
    hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 07
    +6

    The built anti-aircraft machine-gun mount of the design of the guard of senior lieutenant N.G. Kungurtsev, air defense platoon commander of the 30th Infantry Regiment of the 8th Panfilov Guards Rifle Division in the firing position; senior sergeant gunner G.A. Troitsky, corporal Imanamiev.
    22 April 1943.

    Northwest Front
  5. hohol95
    hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 12
    +2
    Four anti-aircraft mount arr. 1931 at 7.62 mm. Maxim machine gun
    guns.allzip.org

    Dear author, follow the link and find a lot of interesting on the subject of anti-aircraft machine guns factory and handicraft performance!
    1. Bongo
      1 February 2018 16: 19
      +3
      Quote: hohol95
      Dear author, follow the link and find a lot of interesting on the subject of anti-aircraft machine guns factory and handicraft performance!

      I could not resist, despite the late time looked.

      If you still indicated in which section to watch?
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 24
        +1
        Four anti-aircraft mount arr. 1931 at 7.62 mm. Maxim machine gun
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 27
        +2

        Photos from there ...
        1. Bongo
          1 February 2018 16: 29
          +4
          Quote: hohol95
          Photos from there ...

          I know about this, but this sample did not participate in the war. request
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 33
            +3
            So, like photos without information, I just laid them out! So did not participate! good
      3. hohol95
        hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 29
        +3

        But the installation itself with such machine guns. But without information!
        1. Bongo
          1 February 2018 16: 34
          +8
          Quote: hohol95
          But the installation itself with such machine guns. But without information!

          Tested before the war, but the series did not run. When collecting information for publication, she came across to me. But in any case, thank you for the interesting photos and competent comments! hi
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 38
            +3
            Come on! Literate comments from a pure civilian ...
            Thanks for the GOOD WORD! good drinks
            Congratulations on Happy Elevator Worker!!!
            There are a lot of handicraft memory in photos of armored trains made during the war!
          2. Glory1974
            Glory1974 1 February 2018 20: 42
            +5
            Thanks, interesting article! At one time, the Red Army did not appreciate or could not master the production of small-caliber automatic guns and large-caliber machine guns. But for some reason we still do not have such installations, unlike potential friends. Was ZSU-23-4 "Shilka", there was a large-caliber quad tribe, in the fleet of AK-630 and all? In the USA there is also a six-barrel machine gun with a colossal density of fire. We save cartridges or multi-barrel installations are not effective.
            1. Alf
              Alf 1 February 2018 21: 52
              0
              Quote: glory1974
              Was ZSU-23-4 "Shilka", there was a large-caliber quad tribe, in the fleet AK-630 and that? AT

              There is a Tunguska-2x30 mm.
              There is
              GShG-7,62, (factory index TKB-621, Air Force Air Force Index - 9-A-622, factory series No. 575) - a four-barrel 7,62 mm caliber machine gun developed by the Design Bureau of Instrument Engineering MOS. Adopted in 1979. Constructors: E. B. Glagolev, A. G. Shipunov, V. P. Gryazev.
              Designed for armament of the Mi-24 helicopter by Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR 1044–381 of December 26, 1968, together with the YakB machine gun. It is currently used in Ka-29 helicopters and in helicopter gondolas of the GUV along with the YakB machine gun.

              Quote: glory1974
              We save cartridges or multi-barrel installations are not effective.

              Rather, the second. Very high consumption of BC, even with a cutoff. Narrow scope, mainly in helicopters.
    2. Berkut
      Berkut 1 February 2018 19: 56
      +3
      Maybe you should give a link to the original source, and not to the one whose owners, desperate to squeeze someone else's domain, stupidly steal all the content? Or have you heard about the Hansa? Let me remind you: www.guns.ru
  6. Amurets
    Amurets 1 February 2018 16: 43
    +4
    It is completely incomprehensible why during the war years in our country, 14,5 and 23 mm quick-firing anti-aircraft installations with tape power were not created. The resources spent on the serial production of 25-mm anti-aircraft guns and shells for them could be effectively used to create high-speed anti-aircraft guns based on the VYA-23 aircraft gun.
    Sergey, hello Refreshed memory. About the gun VYA. There were separate surrogate installations. It was not a description but just a mention that the weapons technicians and mechanics made anti-aircraft installations for the defense of airfields from a combination of an aircraft jack and a VL gun. It seems even Pokryshkin had a mention of such a setup.
    And the secret of anti-aircraft guns was discovered by Shirokorad, in the magazine "Aviation and Cosmonautics 1996year No. 10 in the article" Anti-aircraft guns "It is clear that the production of a 20-mm gun of model 1930 was transferred to factory No. 8, where it was assigned the 2-K index. Trunks for cannons made factory number 92 (Gorky), and the front end - factory number 13 (Bryansk), a number of parts were supplied by Rheinmetall.
    Gross production of guns was started by factory number 8 in 1932. For this year, the plant was given a plan - 100 guns. The plant presented 44 guns to the military envoys, and they only accepted 3. In 1933, the plan was 50 guns, 30 were presented, 6 were delivered (among the latter, guns manufactured in 1932).
    The 2-K cannon was made according to German drawings, which, according to the management of the plant, were unsatisfactory. The guns were assembled with an individual fit. The quality of the machine guns was very low. "The same picture was observed with the Bofors machine guns. These are Soviet analogues of the Bofors 72K and 61K
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 2 February 2018 11: 00
      +2
      Pokryshkin mentioned the Berezin machine gun on the jack.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 2 February 2018 11: 35
        +2
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        Pokryshkin mentioned the Berezin machine gun on the jack

        Thanks for the clarification.
  7. Molot1979
    Molot1979 1 February 2018 16: 47
    +2
    Did not find examples of the successful use of 82-mm RS as anti-aircraft? In the old Soviet magazine, unfortunately, I don’t remember the name and numbers, I read an article about this in my early youth. There were several documented examples of the successful use of RS as unguided anti-aircraft missiles. Although it was also noted that the aiming of the fire was very low, there were several examples of successful launches.
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 2 February 2018 11: 10
      +2
      So after all, NURS where it was adopted as anti-aircraft guns (in England, for example) were used for barrage fire, which implied the launching of a large number of missiles. Launching several rockets from a makeshift machine is almost nothing.
  8. NF68
    NF68 1 February 2018 16: 47
    +4
    Interesting stuff.
  9. hohol95
    hohol95 1 February 2018 16: 49
    +3
    On the issue of 72-K -
    The need for anti-aircraft self-propelled guns at the beginning of the war was obvious, and, as mentioned above, on July 1, 1941, D.F. Ustinov, in an order to create the first self-propelled guns of war, noted special tasks for factories No. 4 and No. 8 for the development of 37-mm and 85-mm artillery systems on a car or tractor chassis.
    It is hard to say who came up with the bright idea to conduct similar tests with a 25-mm automatic machine in the back of a GAZ-MM, but they ended successfully. Moreover, since the shipment of the army of 25 mm anti-aircraft guns mod. 1940 72K was restrained by the lack of an anti-aircraft vehicle, which there was nowhere and no one to release, then placing a gun in the back of a GAZ-MM killed two birds with one stone. It gave both a cart and a truck for an anti-aircraft machine gun in one person. At the beginning of July in Kolomna, the production of combat platforms and their installation in the back of a car was organized.
    In total, until December 1941, the Red Army received about 200 units. such ersatz anti-aircraft self-propelled guns, the release of which was interrupted by the evacuation of the Kolomensky steam locomotive plant. But the design of the combat vehicle was considered successful, and therefore their release was also organized in Leningrad and the besieged Sevastopol, under the leadership of the chiefs of the art management of the fronts. So, for example, during the defense of Sevastopol in early 1942, one battery of similar self-propelled guns was manufactured in truck bodies, to which went 2 anti-aircraft guns of a caliber of 37 mm, one caliber of 25 mm removed from damaged ships, and 3 semi-automatic 45 mm guns 21 K. At the same time, the design of the platform was identical to the 25-mm self-propelled automatic machine for producing the bullpen.
    A little earlier, two 45-mm semi-automatic 21 K ground-mounted anti-aircraft guns mounted on the T-20 Komsomolets crawler tractor were fought during the defense of Odessa, and installation of a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun was carried out. 1931 on the chassis of the ChTZ tractor.

    Mikhail Nikolaevich Svirin
    Self-propelled guns of Stalin. History of the Soviet self-propelled guns 1919 - 1945
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 1 February 2018 23: 58
      +4
      Alex, by the way, the esteemed Bongo used rare photographs of the armored cars of the Izhora plant, which are not in the book of Kolomiyets. Grateful! hi and you too! drinks
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 2 February 2018 08: 15
        +4
        Hi Nikolay! I myself only yesterday saw such high-quality photographs of the "Izhora Brontosaurus" armed with ShVAK! Thanks to the author! Then he rummaged through the net and stumbled upon them! The Colomian probably did not allow them to use the restrictions on the volume of the book!
        It is a pity that these very ShVAK-TNSh were not turned into anti-aircraft guns and were not used for arming torpedo and patrol boats and other small vessels! Then it would be easier to fight our sailors with German and Finnish boats!
        1. Mikado
          Mikado 2 February 2018 10: 01
          +7
          Then it would be easier to fight our sailors with German and Finnish boats!

          yes, because even our patrol boats found it difficult to fight with the “ship boats”. German "automatic" quickly inflicted losses. In particular, in this situation, General Novikov from Sevastopol was captured. A very worthy general ... soldier
          and Bongo did a great job all the same! hi
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 2 February 2018 10: 17
            +3
            Exactly! G-5 at first armed with machine guns YES! - 175 boats !!!
            The DShKs were installed later and such information flashed in the memoirs of katerniki - they removed the DShKs from the boats that returned from the mission and put them on the boats LEAVING for the tasks !!!
            Yes, it was difficult for combatants on the MO-4 with their two 45th fortieth and two DShKs to fight with “snorkels” and “rumbots”, and with enemy aircraft!
            1. serg.shishkov2015
              serg.shishkov2015 3 February 2018 10: 18
              +1
              on MO-4 they additionally set 2 DA-1 or Maxim on the pedestals, the Lend-Lease Oerlikon or our 94-K, and on the border-2 easel Maxim
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 3 February 2018 11: 48
                +1
                Do you have photos of such an “upgrade” of MO-4? Yes, and "Oerlikon" appeared on boats not in 1941 !!!
                1. serg.shishkov2015
                  serg.shishkov2015 3 February 2018 13: 05
                  +2
                  About 3 years ago I found a book on the Internet about MO-4, there are images there, I don’t invent anything, I don’t know how!
                2. serg.shishkov2015
                  serg.shishkov2015 3 February 2018 13: 09
                  +2
                  about easel Maximov on the MO-4
                  1941 Landing Book, it was on the Danube Flotilla
            2. Amurets
              Amurets 3 February 2018 12: 22
              +3
              Quote: hohol95
              The DShKs were installed later and such information flashed in the memoirs of katerniki - they removed the DShKs from the boats that returned from the mission and put them on the boats LEAVING for the tasks !!!

              I read about V.S.Pilipenko about the Hero of the Soviet Union and such moments were mentioned there.
  10. inkass_98
    inkass_98 1 February 2018 16: 52
    +4
    Thank. Great review.
  11. Blue fox
    Blue fox 1 February 2018 17: 16
    +2
    Nuance, with the spark DA-2 works in the workshop of the Finnish gunsmith



    Jalkaväen asekorjaamosta: Kunnostettu sotasaalis ilmatorjuntapikakivääri.
    Ruoppoja 1942.04.08
  12. ares1988
    ares1988 1 February 2018 18: 40
    +2
    Good article. The need for invention is cunning, as they say. The British arr. 1940-41 can confirm, yes.
  13. Berkut
    Berkut 1 February 2018 19: 48
    +4
    Very interesting and interesting selection of thematic photos. Thanks to the author
  14. Freeman
    Freeman 1 February 2018 20: 14
    +5
    One of the first attempts.

    Machine gun mount on a Ford-A car. Maneuvers of an experienced mechanized regiment. 1929 year.
    source
    http://popgun.ru/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=696556
    & hilit = Armored Train & start = 600
  15. polpot
    polpot 1 February 2018 20: 41
    +4
    Thanks for the article, the product assembled from MG is simply luxurious, the grandson of Kulibin who assembled this device for the mass destruction of the enemy was clearly familiar with the Port Arthur machine gun of the Russian-Japanese war
  16. BAI
    BAI 1 February 2018 20: 50
    +1
    In aerial combat, the greatest efficiency was achieved with the volley launch of fragmentation RS-82 with a remote fuse for aerial targets marching in a dense closed formation.

    - a record of just 12 aircraft near Moscow, but I saw the mention of this battle in only one paper book. The pilot was probably shot down on his return, otherwise the official report would have been widely known.
    In general, most of the losses of the Luftwaffe in Russia are from the fire of anti-aircraft guns, and not from aviation.
    1. Alf
      Alf 1 February 2018 21: 59
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      from the fire of anti-aircraft guns

      Anti-aircraft guns, which were missing, shot down most of the German aircraft. Red Army fighters smoked aside.
      Funny.
      1. BAI
        BAI 2 February 2018 15: 53
        +1

        When you try to summarize the general impression of the German aviation, army and navy officers about the Soviet air force in 1941, the following picture emerges:
        2. The Soviet Air Forces during this phase of the company were inferior to the German and were forced to confine themselves to defensive operations. Nevertheless, in certain parts of the front, at certain periods, the Russians had superiority in the air, which more influenced the emotions of the German army commanders than the overall picture.
        6.Soviet anti-aircraft artillery, as well as other parts of the air defense, often acted extremely efficiently and quickly came to their senses after the first shock. They were significantly more combat-ready than the High Command of the Luftwaffe
    2. Curious
      Curious 1 February 2018 22: 39
      +4
      In 1962, the book "Soviet Aviation in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 in numbers, M., 1962" was published.
      According to the data presented in it, on the Soviet-German front, the Luftwaffe lost 52850 aircraft, of which 21645 were shot down by anti-aircraft gunners, i.e. 40% And where did you get the statistics from?
      1. BAI
        BAI 2 February 2018 15: 49
        +1
        From analyzes of German sources.
        When analyzing the victories declared during this period by JG3 pilots, we can conclude that their actual victories are confirmed by a maximum of 60 percent, and the number of aircraft and other equipment “destroyed” on the ground is at least 5 times higher than the actual number destroyed and damaged Soviet technology. At the same time, German losses were much heavier than those described in post-war memoirs and Western works. For example, in the first four days of battles, the loss of SKG 210 amounted to 13 irretrievably lost fighter-bombers, another 12 aircraft were damaged, 16 crew members died and went missing. Losses were mainly caused by anti-aircraft fire. Only on June 25, 4 aircraft were lost in the squadron, including three of them are irrevocable, and in just a day, German aviation lost eight Bf-110s, of which only one was under repair, 7 crew members were killed.
  17. Alf
    Alf 1 February 2018 21: 56
    +2
    Several times in the memoirs of pilots I read how turrets with SB, PE-2, DB-3 were used as air defense at airfields.
    1. Declarant
      Declarant 1 February 2018 22: 35
      +3
      I also read that the air shooters of airplanes standing on the ground opened fire on air targets during air raids on an airfield.
      1. serg.shishkov2015
        serg.shishkov2015 2 February 2018 08: 33
        +3
        In China, our technicians were on duty in the cabin of the Security Council near the bow of the ShKAS, and when the Japanese raided
  18. shuravi
    shuravi 1 February 2018 23: 12
    +1
    About this photo:


    In the opus under his signature:
    Light tanks T-60 with guns in position for anti-aircraft shooting
    I do not know why the author has distorted, rather by thoughtlessness, but the real story of the photo is this:
    T-60 tanks are preparing to conduct anti-aircraft fire.
    Southwest Front, 1942 year.


    Well, at the same time, it should be noted that the military air defense does not at all have the task of destroying air targets as such. For the main thing is to cover the defended object, not to allow enemy aircraft to work on it. And it’s quite enough just to disrupt the enemy’s attacks, and the destruction of his aircraft is already a bonus. Moreover, this is a bonus only if the main task is completed.
    Therefore, a competently organized barrage fire is much more effective than when anti-aircraft gunners begin to get involved in a personal account.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 2 February 2018 05: 31
      +6
      Quote: shuravi
      I do not know why the author has distorted, rather by thoughtlessness ...
      Come on, what is there on the "thoughtlessness" write immediately "on stupidity." wassat However, everyone is judging by himself. You offered to shoot down missiles from a machine gun, because no stranger to pour the mud on others. negative
      Quote: shuravi
      Light tanks T-60 with guns in position for anti-aircraft shooting
      The real story of the photo is:
      T-60 tanks are preparing to conduct anti-aircraft fire.

      Signature can be anything, as long as it was in the subject. What is the contradiction in this case? You would just have to bite, wouldn't you?
      Quote: shuravi
      Well, and at the same time it should be noted that the front air defense does not at all face the task of destroying air targets as such. For the main thing is to cover the object being defended, not to allow enemy aircraft to work on it.

      stop And where in the article it is stated! No. Or do you want to teach Sergei the basics of air defense tasks? lol
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. EvgNik
          EvgNik 2 February 2018 17: 12
          +5
          Quote: shuravi
          You know, feeble mind is more and more applicable to you.

          Ham and idiot. Absolute. You Fox, you.
          1. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 3 February 2018 02: 58
            +5
            Quote: EvgNik
            Ham and idiot. Absolute. You Fox, you.

            Eugene, thanks for the support! But still you should not stoop to its level. After all, because of this ... you can get a ban. I would really miss you!
            1. EvgNik
              EvgNik 3 February 2018 06: 23
              +4
              Good afternoon Olya! love Hello to Sergey! hi Better to get a ban than to leave the boor unpunished. I have Afghans friends, but they are good, honest people. Recently died Mashenka Artemyev, a heart attack. Bagram, 1987, a nurse. But such smoky skies.
              1. Bongo
                3 February 2018 09: 59
                +3
                Quote: EvgNik
                Good day Olya! love Hello Sergey!

                Eugene, good evening! Olya is busy in the kitchen, we are celebrating housewarming in a new apartment today. Thank you very much for your support, unfortunately Olya is very sensitive to injustice and reacts too emotionally. I basically do not communicate with this "stupid man". Unfortunately, such individuals with inflated self-conceit and boorish attitude towards others are found everywhere. Including in the armed forces. It happens that the kind of specialist and literate, but as a man sucks. He considers himself the most intelligent, communicates with the younger in rank down and does not consider conscripts for people. Not surprisingly, with such, not only no one wants to keep combat duty nearby, but also drink vodka.
                Quote: EvgNik
                I have friends, Afghans, but they are good, honest people. Masha Artemyeva, a heart attack, recently died. Bagram, 1987 year, nurse. And such here the sky is smoked.

                My condolences!
                Olya and I, too, have friends who have fought a lot, including those who have recently returned from the UAR. But no one ever brags about it.
                1. EvgNik
                  EvgNik 3 February 2018 10: 06
                  +4
                  Hello, Sergey! Unfortunately, and with such had to face. There are similar types of verse, consider themselves the crown of creation, and for the soul there is nothing but aplomb.
                  Good housewarming to you!
                  1. Bongo
                    3 February 2018 10: 10
                    +3
                    Quote: EvgNik
                    Hello, Sergey! Unfortunately, and with such had to face. There are similar types of verse, consider themselves the crown of creation, and for the soul there is nothing but aplomb.

                    Every person has positive qualities and "features" and no one is perfect. But as soon as the critical attitude towards oneself is turned off, the person ceases to be human. In my opinion it is better not to live at all, than to become so! negative
                    Quote: EvgNik
                    Good housewarming to you!

                    Thank! And you be healthy! drinks
              2. shuravi
                shuravi 5 February 2018 11: 10
                -1
                Quote: EvgNik
                Good afternoon Olya! love Hello to Sergey! hi Better to get a ban than to leave the boor unpunished. I have Afghans friends


                What a familiar cliche, just asks to arrange in this way:
                I myself was not, did not belong, did not participate (emphasize necessary) but my friend, brother, matchmaker, godfather, acquaintance (emphasize necessary) was, consist, participate (emphasize necessary) (and then post any garbage that only comes to mind )
                This is so that you and others like you would not once again torment the keyboard.

                but these are good, honest people.


                Have you found me lying somewhere? Or did you have to lie for a red word?

                Recently died Mashenka Artemyev, a heart attack. Bagram, 1987 year, nurse.


                I'm sorry. For I know perfectly well what kind of work they had, especially in the surgical department.

                But such smoky skies.


                Thank you for the wish of health and many years to come.
                And one more thing, in Moscow, if not annually then very often meetings of 860 OSH veterans are held. If you are an opportunity at this time there, drop by and tell your thoughts to them about one of the pilots assigned to them by the Mi-24 link. hi
          2. shuravi
            shuravi 5 February 2018 10: 48
            0
            Quote: EvgNik
            Quote: shuravi
            You know, feeble mind is more and more applicable to you.

            Ham and idiot. Absolute. You Fox, you.

            How do you feel better? You can rejoice, there was a ban for three days.
            As for the rest, as my friend says, “I'm not a dime, to please everyone.”
            Therefore, when the next couch strategist decides to teach me, let him not expect courtesies from me.
            1. EvgNik
              EvgNik 5 February 2018 11: 06
              +3
              You disgrace the title of Afghan, wipe your pants at the headquarters? If you are rude everywhere and everyone, then do not wait for reciprocal courtesy.
              1. shuravi
                shuravi 5 February 2018 20: 19
                0
                Quote: EvgNik
                You disgrace the title of Afghan, wipe your pants at the headquarters? If you are rude everywhere and everyone, then do not wait for reciprocal courtesy.


                Yeah, how you guessed it. He sat a pair of pants a year before the holes. Here in this office:


                And yet, not for you to judge someone's honor. And I don’t give a damn about your pleasantries, good luck on the poem. hi
        3. Mister X
          Mister X 2 February 2018 17: 27
          +6
          Quote: shuravi
          You know, feeble mind is more and more applicable to you.

          Sir, you, as always with your repertoire. To insult a woman can only be a man offended by fate. Please show nobility and restraint.

          You can not respond to my reply. Better follow my advice.
          Thank you!
          1. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 3 February 2018 03: 59
            +5
            Quote: Mister X
            Sir, you, as always with your repertoire. To insult a woman can only be a man offended by fate.

            Michael, Anton about this frame already wrote: "this is a sign of complex impotence." So why be surprised?
      2. shuravi
        shuravi 5 February 2018 10: 51
        -1
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Or do you want to teach Sergei the basics of air defense tasks? lol


        Two points are obvious here:
        1. The article was clearly written not by an expert in the field of air defense, it was painfully illiterate presentation of material.
        2. No one is so familiar with the work of air defense as aviation. hi
    2. Mister X
      Mister X 3 February 2018 12: 42
      +4
      Quote: shuravi
      In the opus under his signature:
      Light tanks T-60 with guns in position for anti-aircraft shooting
      I do not know why the author has distorted, rather by thoughtlessness, but the real story of the photo is this:
      T-60 tanks are preparing to conduct anti-aircraft fire.
      Southwest Front, 1942 year.

      By the way - about distortion. I don’t know where the commentator has the “real” story of this photo.

      In the article "Light tanks T-40 and T-60" E. I. Prochko so signed the photo: A group of tanks T-60 is preparing to conduct anti-aircraft fire. Southwest Front, 1942 year.

      Once you are for absolute accuracy - where in your amendment is the combination "Group of tanks"? The meaning, of course, does not change from this, but the distortion of the original text is obvious.
      Do you agree?
      So the author of this material: "with guns in anti-aircraft shooting", but not "preparing to conduct anti-aircraft fire"Anyway, this is about shooting at air targets, not about ballet. Right?
      That's the same wink
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 5 February 2018 10: 53
        -1
        Quote: Mister X

        Once you are for absolute accuracy - where in your amendment is the combination "Group of tanks"? The meaning, of course, does not change from this, but the distortion of the original text is obvious.
        Do you agree?


        Because the tactical unit "group" does not exist.
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 5 February 2018 19: 46
          +2
          Quote: shuravi
          Because the tactical unit "group" does not exist.

          As the saying goes, "There is always something to say to a true gentleman." Even if he is wrong.
          Do not go away from the topic, you have accused the author of distorting the caption under the photo.
          I pointed to your mistake and brought a photo from the source. If you think that Comrade. I used the wrong wording - ask him to amend the text.
          1. shuravi
            shuravi 5 February 2018 20: 07
            0
            Quote: Mister X
            Quote: shuravi
            Because the tactical unit "group" does not exist.

            As the saying goes, "There is always something to say to a true gentleman." Even if he is wrong.
            Do not go away from the topic, you have accused the author of distorting the caption under the photo.
            I pointed to your mistake and brought a photo from the source. If you think that Comrade. I used the wrong wording - ask him to amend the text.


            Or maybe your source is not correct? If it has a “group” of tanks, unlike mine.
            http://www.zlev.ru/index.php?article=2357&nom
            er = 41 & p = article
            1. Mister X
              Mister X 6 February 2018 20: 05
              +2
              Quote: shuravi
              Or maybe your source is not correct?

              My dear sir, I propose to analyze: what sources do we refer to, when were published and who are the authors of these works.
              I refer to material published 20 years ago (1997-th year). Edition of "Armored collection", supplement to the magazine "Model-Designer". This is a scientific and technical journal of the Central Committee of the Komsomol. At that time, no one was printed on his pages, all materials were censored, corrected, etc.

              The work "Light tanks T-40 and T-60" is presented on 30 + pages and is a solid work on the history of these machines. It is called a monograph. The author of the monograph is Eugene Ignatievich Prochko (1938-2009). The author is a student of the famous designer V. A. Grachev. Tov. Prochko Candidate of Technical Sciences, design engineer at SKB ZIL, a researcher of the history of domestic technology. He is the author of other monographs: "Red Army ATVs", "BTR-152 Armored personnel carrier", "Red Army artillery tractors", "Red Army passenger all-terrain vehicles", etc.
              Agree, this is the size and authority.
              Photographic materials for the monograph were obtained in the archives, the list and the authors of the photo are indicated. Military review also requires to indicate the sources and origins of photographs.
              E. And Prochko is the son of Lieutenant General Prochko Ignaty Stepanovich. Candidate of Military Sciences, deputy head of the operational-tactical training department, and so on and so forth. It is quite possible that the father advised his son.
              In addition, the author was assisted by an expert on armored vehicles when working on a monograph: Mikhail Nikolaevich Svirin, an engineer and a journalist. Famous for studying the history of Soviet tanks of the Great Patriotic War. Maxim Viktorovich Kolomiets is a Russian military historian and writer, author of books on the subject of armored vehicles.
              Do you question the authority of the journal or the competence of the designated group of experts?
              Are you still saying that I am referring to the wrong source?
              1. Mister X
                Mister X 6 February 2018 20: 09
                +2
                You refer to the material published in the magazine "Golden Lion" (zlev.ru). This domain is registered 12,5 years ago (According to Whois of the service from nic.ru - 20.06.2005).
                Published material A. Zorich. Alexander Zorich is the pseudonym of the writer’s tandem Dmitry Vyacheslavovich Gordevsky and Yana Vladimirovna Botsman. The authors have two higher educations: mathematical and philosophical. Both are candidates of philosophical sciences. Professional writers, authors of 40 novels.
                That is, these authors are philosophers and novelists.
                Do you think A. Zorich tandem is more competent in military affairs than military historians and candidates of military sciences?

                The work "The Unknown Technique of the Great Patriotic War" to which you refer consists of less than 2 thousand words. At the beginning of the material, the author writes: "I made a modest selection of military photographs."
                Agree that this work on the monograph "does not pull." I propose to call the work a review article. Who signed the photos and wrote a short explanation of the article is not clear. Perhaps the author wrote in his own words (rewrite).

                Smiled a caption under another photo from the same work:
                The Russian crew of the M3А1 "Stewart" is preparing to repel an air enemy. North Caucasus, 1943

                Who uses the expression "Russian crew"? The nazis? Allies? NATO?
                Do you also refer to it as a "real photo story"?

                conclusions
                I refer to the monograph of a specialist, written with the participation of experts. You are on the review article amateur military equipment.

                Will you insist on quoting the caption under the original photo?
                Despite the fact that your source is later?
                Despite the fact that he was a lover of military affairs?
                1. Mister X
                  Mister X 6 February 2018 20: 11
                  +2
                  Quote: shuravi
                  Because the tactical unit "group" does not exist.

                  You're a pilot, not a tanker. Do you really have encyclopedic knowledge of the terminology of all the armed forces?
                  Still, the term "group of tanks" is used:
                  And finally, in the depths of the enemy’s defensive location, there is a group of long-range tanks (TDD)

                  "Tank strike", Voenizdat, 1977. Author - Hero of the Soviet Union, Army General Alexei Ivanovich Radzievsky.
                  Have something to argue on the merits? And conclusively. Without empty controversy. You are welcome!
  19. Curious
    Curious 1 February 2018 23: 24
    +1
    The author mixed everything in a heap. A surrogate is a product, an object, only partly, by some similarity, which is a substitute for another, usually inferior. What side fit into this definition, manufactured by the industry and armed with the air defense of the Red Army samples, like the same "7,62-mm quad anti-aircraft gun mod. 1931 " - unclear. By the way - such "surrogates" were used not only by the Red Army, and not only in the initial period of the war.

    Coaxial MG-42 anti-aircraft machine gun on an anti-aircraft installation. In 1956, the Hungarians shot down an IL-28 from this.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 2 February 2018 05: 33
      +4
      Quote: Curious
      What kind of side-by-definition do the models produced by industry and armed with the RKKA Air Defense Company weapons are the same as the “7,62-mm quadruple anti-aircraft installation arr 1931 G. ”- unclear.

      Did you read the comments at all?
      Quote: Bongo
      Excuse me, but where does the publication say that they are surrogate? These ZPU are given for completeness of the picture and comparison.
      1. Curious
        Curious 2 February 2018 08: 14
        +1
        And where "in the article " Is it written that they do not apply and are given for completeness and comparison?
        1. Bongo
          2 February 2018 10: 13
          +5
          Quote: Curious
          And where is the "article" written that does not apply and are given for completeness and comparison?

          In 1941 year main air defense force was the quad 7,62-mm anti-aircraft machine gun installation M4 arr.
          Not?
          1. Curious
            Curious 2 February 2018 19: 37
            0
            NOT!!!. Work out the style, the design is good, but the thoughts and presentation are torn apart.
            1. Bongo
              3 February 2018 10: 04
              +2
              Quote: Curious
              Work out the style, the idea is good, but thoughts and presentation are troublesome.

              Write better, if of course you can. And we will get acquainted with your work with interest. hi
              1. Curious
                Curious 3 February 2018 21: 58
                0
                You can not wait until the desire and inspiration visit me. There are two dozen articles on the site. You can read.
                1. Bongo
                  4 February 2018 02: 18
                  +3
                  Quote: Curious
                  You can not wait until the desire and inspiration visit me. There are two dozen articles on the site. You can read.

                  Sorry, but your profile is empty! request
                  1. Curious
                    Curious 4 February 2018 08: 03
                    +1
                    I'm sorry, now I just saw that I did not finish the comment. Articles under the banned nickname Dekabrist.
                2. zyablik.olga
                  zyablik.olga 4 February 2018 07: 30
                  +2
                  Quote: Curious
                  You can not wait until the desire and inspiration visit me. There are two dozen articles on the site. You can read.

                  And where are they? Pak, that blah, blah, blah ...
            2. 505506
              505506 25 March 2018 14: 43
              0
              Unfortunately, Sergei does not heed such criticism, although it is clear that the person is smart. And Olga, a faithful guardian, reduces the discussion to the ridiculous “get it first”.
  20. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 2 February 2018 03: 09
    +2
    After many years, serious miscalculations are made by our military-political leadership on the eve of the war in the construction of military air defense and air defense of the country. It is quite obvious that the M4 four-machine gun mount, which was at first the main anti-aircraft weapon of military air defense, was outdated by the beginning of World War II, and the saturation of troops with very successful large-caliber machine guns DShK in 1941 was very low. It was the DShK that during the war years became the main weapon in repelling the attacks of German dive bombers and attack aircraft.
    “Thank” for this should be Tukhach, who raved with universal 76-mm divisional cannons, which could shoot at both ground and air targets, as a result of which, when he was the deputy commissar of defense and the chief of armament of the Red Army, he chopped down all the proposals for creating MZA and large-caliber anti-aircraft machine guns. Note that the DShK were adopted in 1939, two years after his resignation, and the 37-mm anti-aircraft machine gun was adopted in 1940. But the DKhKs were adopted as early as 1933, but they were released in small series in 1935 stopped production. And what would happen if the DShK were adopted in 1935, and the 37-mm machine gun in 1936? I think by June 1941 the troops would already be staffed with these effective air defense systems.
    1. Pre-cat
      Pre-cat 2 February 2018 06: 47
      +4
      DK was difficult to manufacture, expensive, and most importantly, had disk rather than tape power. The first version of the DShK was also difficult to manufacture, heavy and expensive. This explains the low saturation of the ground forces with this machine gun. In fact, until the end of the war he was in a deficit. And, yes, Tukhaevsky, with his squeezing of divisions of universalists, caused enormous damage to the country's defense. Indeed, according to securities, they were taken into account as air defense systems. But in fact, there was no sense in them.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 2 February 2018 09: 43
        +2
        Yes, the recreation center had disk power, and therefore was not suitable as an anti-aircraft machine gun. But the order for the alteration of the Palace of Culture for the tape supply was given only in 1938, when Tukhach was no longer there, and this immediately suggests that if Tukhach had remained comrade, it is quite possible that the order for the alteration of the Palace of Culture in DShK would have been given in 1934, after the adoption of the DC in 1933 and the conviction that disk power was not suitable for an air defense machine gun.
        I do not think that the DShK was so much more expensive to manufacture than the quad-mount anti-aircraft Maxim.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 2 February 2018 13: 17
          +4
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Yes, the recreation center had disk power, and therefore was not suitable as an anti-aircraft machine gun. But the order for the alteration of the Palace of Culture for the tape supply was given only in 1938, when Tukhach was no longer there, and this immediately suggests that if Tukhach had remained comrade, it is quite possible that the order for the alteration of the Palace of Culture in DShK would have been given in 1934, after the adoption of the DC in 1933 and the conviction that disk power was not suitable for an air defense machine gun.

          And how about this version: But in 1934 the production of the recreation center was suspended, and in 1935 it was stopped. To a large extent, stopping work on improving the Degtyarev heavy machine gun was facilitated by B.G. Shpitalny, who promised I.V. Stalin a large-caliber machine gun with the best characteristics on the basis of the ShKAS aviation machine gun.
          It is curious that the “large-caliber ShKAS” formally developed at the end of 1932 by OKB-15 designer Semen Vladimirov in 1934 turned out to be together with the developer in KB-2, where it was supposed to be fine-tuning and introducing a 12,7-mm machine gun, designated SHVAK, into the series . The transfer of Vladimirov along with the project of the machine gun to Kovrov surprisingly coincided with the stoppage of production of the machine gun DK. Perhaps this, of course, is a coincidence, but knowing the penetrative nature of the Shpitalny, one cannot exclude the use of an administrative resource by him. However, the fate of the 12,7 mm ShVAK machine gun did not work out. Partly due to the complexity of the design inherited from ShKAS, partly due to the impossibility of using a standard 12,7 x 108 cartridge in SHVAK automation. As a result, in parallel with the degtyarevsky cartridge, a ballistic-identical cartridge for the ShVAK 12,7x108R with a protruding edge was put into production. "
          http://авиару.рф/aviamuseum/dvigateli-i-vooruzhen
          ie / aviatsionnoe-vooruzhenie / sssr / aviatsionnye-pul
          emety / aviatsionnyj-krupnokalibernyj-pulemet-dak-3
          2-dnk-dshka-dshta /
        2. Pre-cat
          Pre-cat 2 February 2018 14: 35
          +3
          Yes, I found it - one maxim machine gun in 1940 cost 575 rubles. A DShK about 1800. And it required more skilled workers in the production, more accurate machines. There were problems when starting production. In addition, steel for DShK was needed more qualitatively than for maxki. But, undoubtedly, if the decision on modernization were made in the year 1934, then mass production would undoubtedly be established for the war. Late Tukhaevsky and K were shot, a lot of mischief.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 3 February 2018 13: 06
            +1
            Quote: The cat is half-educated
            Yes, I found it - one maxim machine gun in 1940 cost 575 rubles. A DShK about 1800. And it required more skilled workers in the production, more accurate machines.

            Interesting figures, but IMHO, knowing how the Soviet normalizers worked, that with serial production the price of a DShK machine gun would fall by 25-30%
  21. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 2 February 2018 06: 35
    +3
    the fact that the T-60 fired at aircraft, and even brought down the first time I learned, Thank you!
  22. hohol95
    hohol95 2 February 2018 08: 15
    +2
    It is a pity that these very ShVAK-TNSh were not turned into anti-aircraft guns and were not used for arming torpedo and patrol boats and other small vessels!
    Then it would be easier to fight our sailors with German and Finnish boats!
    1. serg.shishkov2015
      serg.shishkov2015 3 February 2018 06: 13
      +2
      20 TCs G-5 were equipped with makeshift memory with ShVAK, 10 at the Black Sea Fleet, 10 at the Baltic, it is clear that this is a drop in the bucket, therefore, you are right!
  23. Russia
    Russia 2 February 2018 09: 56
    +3
    This, so to speak, front-line “surrogate” landed more than a dozen “Goering chicks” and saved hundreds of lives of our soldiers! We learned to use and use weapons as efficiently as possible. Even a plane was shot down from a mortar!
    And how many home-made partisans had - so it is generally necessary to write a separate book!
  24. iouris
    iouris 2 February 2018 12: 40
    +2
    First met with the concept of "surrogate defense systems." Very accurate definition! This should not be repeated.
  25. hohol95
    hohol95 2 February 2018 14: 48
    +4

    Here HE is a real SURROGATE ... 12,7 mm Universal Berezina + automobile axle + wood FUM!
    BEPO "UFA" of the 60th ODBP, 1st Baltic Front, summer 1944.
    1. faiver
      faiver 2 February 2018 15: 50
      +3
      excuse me, but this is not half axis half of the bridge ...
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 2 February 2018 15: 54
        +2
        The photo was signed that way! The bridge is so bridge. Stump, so stump ....
        1. faiver
          faiver 2 February 2018 16: 27
          +4
          the semi-axis is inserted into the bridge and transmits rotation from the gearbox to the hub, in the photo, to be more precise, the stocking of the bridge ...
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 2 February 2018 19: 02
            +2
            Write a claim about the signature of the photo to Kolomiyts Maxim Viktorovich himself! This is a photo from a book. "Land battleships" of the Red Army.
            1. faiver
              faiver 2 February 2018 20: 20
              +3
              sue for misrepresentation laughing
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 2 February 2018 20: 37
                0
                Try it. hi
    2. serg.shishkov2015
      serg.shishkov2015 3 February 2018 06: 13
      +2
      5555555 !!!!!!!
  26. hohol95
    hohol95 2 February 2018 20: 47
    +2
    SHOOTING INSTRUCTION (NSD-42) ANTI-TANK SELF-LOADED Shotgun Arr. 1941 G. SIMONOV'S SYSTEMS - PTRS AND SINGLE-CHARGED ANTI-TANK Shotgun SYSTEM DEGTYAREV MOD. 1941 - PTRD
    Fig. 58. Using a tree to fire aircraft
  27. hohol95
    hohol95 2 February 2018 20: 47
    +2
    SHOOTING INSTRUCTION (NSD-42) ANTI-TANK SELF-LOADED Shotgun Arr. 1941 G. SIMONOV'S SYSTEMS - PTRS AND SINGLE-CHARGED ANTI-TANK Shotgun SYSTEM DEGTYAREV MOD. 1941 - PTRD
    Fig. 55. Use of the pillar for firing at aircraft (option one)
  28. hohol95
    hohol95 2 February 2018 20: 50
    +4
    But before this Finnish "boy" to our fighters ... laughing

    Finnish 20 mm PTR Lahti L39 / 44 as an anti-aircraft gun.
    1. serg.shishkov2015
      serg.shishkov2015 3 February 2018 10: 13
      +3
      Yeah! this monster will be worse than our PTR!
  29. maximghost
    maximghost 2 February 2018 21: 11
    +4
    Great article. But kmk, it would be worth adding that the t-80s were also equipped with a collimation sight for firing at air targets (although with their 45mm gun they were unlikely to show themselves in this regard).

    I also saw somewhere that unsuccessful air guns were put into the manufacture of anti-aircraft guns during the defense of Tula. Unfortunately I don’t remember either the marking of this air gun and the article where I read it, but does anyone know MB?
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 2 February 2018 22: 57
      +4
      It is curious that part of the manufactured 23-mm MP-6 cannons in the autumn of 1941 was placed on simplified anti-aircraft mounts of the N.F. Tokarev system and participated in the defense of Tula.

      Could aircraft guns be anti-aircraft?
      e-reading.mobi
      The fate of most of the issued cannons MP-6 ended as anti-aircraft guns. Decree of the GKO on July 11, 1941 to the drug addict D.F. Ustinov was given the task: “to equip the 23-mm MP-6 guns with installations, reloading mechanisms and anti-aircraft sights and surrender all 400 pieces of GAU KA, including 200 pieces - by 26.8.41, and the remaining 200 pieces - by September 10.9.1941, 6 ". How many of them were actually put into operation, remains behind the scenes. It is known that the design of a simplified anti-aircraft gun with MP-1941 was developed by the famous domestic gunsmith N.F. Tokarev, and that a large number of such installations were used during the defense of Tula in the fall of XNUMX.
      There is, however, information that in the fall of 1941 a small series of LaGG-3 fighters was launched, armed with MP-6 guns, which took part in the battles, and some even survived until 1943.
      Unfortunately, to date, not a single "living" model of the MP-6 gun has been preserved.

      airwar.ru

      23-mm gun PTB-23 (MP-6) Taubin and Baburin in the version of anti-aircraft machine AZP-23 on a German carriage Flak-30.
    2. serg.shishkov2015
      serg.shishkov2015 3 February 2018 06: 17
      +2
      these are MP-6 Taubin and Baburin, and Tule which they just didn’t use, is Korovin’s PP, it’s the same mortar, and according to some reports, Berdan number 2 (namely, a rifle)
  30. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 4 February 2018 08: 26
    +3
    Sorry, that is not about the topic of the article, but since my favorite MO-4s were mentioned in the comments, allow a small addition. The standard armament included 13 rifles and 1 DP, and one boat was armed with a 76 mm gun of an unspecified model, But since the center of gravity shifted up, there was a danger of overkill in a strong storm, they refused this option, but there is really no information about the so-called upgrades on the ship’s website, a standard, well-known option is given, Regards, Sergey Borisovich Shishkov, Russian Post, Sarov,
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 4 February 2018 12: 02
      0
      Good afternoon, dear Boris! Recently, many books have been published about airplanes, various armored vehicles, ships and boats! But I haven’t seen books about boats like MO-4 yet! hi
      Alex.
      1. serg.shishkov2015
        serg.shishkov2015 5 February 2018 06: 06
        +1
        I can’t help, a stupid admin admin was cleaning office computers and demolished this bookmark from me like some kind of porn, What I could squeeze out then, so I share it!
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 5 February 2018 16: 56
          0
          I myself have 2 "hard dead" with literature.
          1. serg.shishkov2015
            serg.shishkov2015 6 February 2018 06: 14
            +1
            who’s talking about everything, and everything about MO-4 — yesterday I looked at my ship’s notebook — they put another 12,7 mm twin Browning on them, but all these enhancements due to a decrease in the number of GBs, Regards, Sergey,
  31. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 5 February 2018 06: 22
    +3
    I have a notebook with the conventional name Weapons of the Soviet infantry and irregular units 1941-1945, the Air Defense Means section of the 3 page ZPU, PTR, PUR NAR and there is a certain ZPU of the Filchenko system from ShKAS, presumably for 2 st of oxen, if the memory does not change made in Sevastopol
  32. Sivasa
    Sivasa April 17 2019 00: 40
    0
    Dear Author!

    Look at the shot down from the PC here.

    https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=455148786&backurl=q%5C%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%A0%D0%A1::use_main_string%5Ctrue::group%5Call::types%5Copersvodki:rasporyajeniya:otcheti:peregovori:jbd:direktivi:prikazi:posnatovleniya:dokladi:raporti:doneseniya:svedeniya:plani:plani_operaciy:karti:shemi:spravki:drugie::page%5C37