The five most dangerous fighters of the Second World

293
On the Internet, you can find the most incredible and even absurd collections of "the best fighters of World War II." Recently, one (by the way, highly respected in the world) edition brought one of them to the public. According to its author, among those machines are Supermarine Spitfire, Bf.109, P-51, Yak-9 and ... Zero. And if the first three could still be effectively applied in 44-45, with some reservations, then the “Japanese” is almost hopelessly outdated by the year of 1943. His speed was incomparably lower than that of the decked "Corsairs" and "Hellcat". And by what criteria this plane is the best - it is not clear. At the same time, most versions of the Yak-9 had a very small mass of a second salvo. This fact alone does not allow to put this car on a par with the best Soviet, German, American or British aircraft. In view of the foregoing, we decided to make an alternative assessment of the best fighters of the Second World War. We hope you enjoy it.

Hawker Tempest





The United Kingdom can rightfully be proud of its fighters from the Second World War. We can say that its cars were superior in quality to the fighters of other countries of the same period. Judge for yourself: British aircraft could confidently fight the enemy both at small and medium-sized and at high altitudes (the latter, by the way, is very characteristic of the Western Front). Other countries had a lot of good cars. However, for example, the best Soviet fighters, such as the Yak-3, with all their virtues at a low altitude, very much "handed over" at altitudes of more than four to five thousand meters.

In 1942-43, the British realized that Spitfire was becoming obsolete and at high altitude FW-190 could become an almost invincible adversary. To combat it, they began to use the new Hawker Typhoon aircraft, however, it had sensitive flaws, such as the destruction of the machine during overloads. Errors were taken into account, and a deeply modernized version of this aircraft, called the Hawker Tempest, became one of the most formidable aircraft of its era. Engine power 2180 l. with. I clocked the car at an altitude up to 700 kilometers per hour, which allowed it to destroy even the fastest targets. As early as September 1944, Hawker Tempest had 600-800 downed V-1 missiles on account of Hawker Tempest. Fortunately, the mighty weapons, consisting of four Hispano 20 mm cannons, made it possible with one salvo to "send to the forefathers" of any enemy. Add to this the good maneuverability and the ability to carry two 450 kilogram bombs and get, perhaps, the best screw fighter of those times.


North American P-51D Mustang



It may seem that respect for the "Mustang" - a tribute to the mass culture and the culture of the American weapons. But it is not. This plane not only played one of the most important roles in the war, but also possessed outstanding characteristics that, even at the end of the war, made it possible to consider it the best of the best. Fighter P-51D could not boast of very powerful weapons, outstanding survivability, stunning maneuverability or a huge combat load. His main qualities became a large combat radius. The combat range of the aircraft was 1500 kilometers! In sum, with excellent flight-technical qualities at high altitude, this made it the best choice for tasks associated with accompanying heavy bombers: The Mustangs saved many lives of B-17, B-24 and B-29 crews. In addition, the P-51D could carry two 450-kg bombs or unguided rockets, which allowed the aircraft with a certain amount of luck to be used as a fighter-bomber. Special survivability of the car, as already mentioned, was not. Therefore, the losses in carrying out such missions were high.

Focke-Wulf FW-190D



German aircraft industry in the second half of the war faced incredible difficulties. One of them is the conflicting requirements for a new car. For the Western front, a well-armed high-altitude fighter was needed, while in the East a cheap, unpretentious frontal vehicle with good maneuverability at low and medium altitude was required. This affected the quality of the aircraft, which in many respects began to lose the best machines of the enemy. Bf.109 quickly became outdated. The FW-190А aircraft also did not become a salvation (the Soviet pilots with the Messers were more difficult to fight than with them).

Nevertheless, by the year 1944, Germany managed to create a very successful aircraft for its time - FW-190D, nicknamed “Dora”. The first impression of the pilots about him was pretty bad, because in comparison with the earlier versions of the Focke-Wulf, the plane became even less maneuverable. But then the pilots saw good qualities: high dive speed, good handling and rate of climb, as well as powerful weapons with high ammunition. “Dora” at the height could reach speeds up to 700 km / h and was able to almost equal fight with “Mustangs”. True, the car felt best at mid-altitude. And she could carry bombs weighing up to 500 kilograms, which made the FW-190D a potentially good fighter-bomber.

Lavochkin La-7



The legendary car, which at the end of the war fought the famous Soviet ace Ivan Kozhedub - the most productive pilot of the anti-Hitler coalition, who had 64 aerial victories. La-7 appeared at the front in 1944, and thus marked the final loss of the Luftwaffe of all illusions about domination of the skies in the East. It is believed that the La-7 had a significant superiority over all enemy fighter propellers at low and medium altitudes in such significant characteristics as maneuverability and speed. At the height of the same car could accelerate to 680 km / h.

The plane had powerful by Soviet standards weapons - 20-mm ShVAK guns with good ammunition. This circumstance allows us to state that conceptually the “shop” has become a more successful aircraft than another Soviet fighter, the Yak-3, possessing a smaller mass of a second salvo. However, the Yak, so beloved by many, could boast the best build quality, so the choice of the most advanced Soviet fighter of times of war is traditionally subjective.

Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate



Found in our ranking place for the Japanese car. Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate is the pinnacle of the aircraft industry in the country of the Rising Sun during the Second World War. He was in no way inferior to the best American cars and could reach speeds of almost 700 km / h. At the same time he had very good maneuverability and powerful armament. A later version, the 4-2, could carry weapons consisting of two 12,7-mm machine guns and two 30-mm guns. With such weapons, one volley was enough to destroy a heavy bomber. By the way, until the end of the war the Japanese were able to produce more than three thousand Ki-84, who, of course, had their say. At the same time, the difficult conditions of production and the chronic shortage of fuel and materials led to the fact that the full potential of the machine did not work out.

Separately, it is worth mentioning about fighter jets, which at the time of the war were only taking their first steps. The famous German Messerschmitt Me.262 had very significant flaws, which greatly complicated its operation. For example, the low lifespan of the engines, which was 25 flight hours. The first British jet “Meteors” were also problematic; during the hunt for Fau, they had their weapons jammed and many other problems were observed. In general, neither Me.262, nor Gloster Meteor have become “miracle weapons”, although from a purely technical side they can be considered revolutionary.
293 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +21
    18 December 2018 15: 04
    Something better, something worse. But air supremacy was established by the air force of the spacecraft.
  2. +2
    18 December 2018 15: 18
    It would be interesting to hear the opinion of pilots who would fly on all of the above machines ...
    1. +8
      18 December 2018 17: 14
      Quote: Igor Borisov_2
      that would fly on all of the above machines ...

      It seems to me that there are none. what
      1. +7
        18 December 2018 21: 22
        There is a good book "I Fought in a Fighter". Author A.V. Drabkin. He began collecting material in the mid-80s, when the combatants were still alive. The book is documentary and is all based on conversations with veteran fighters.
        1. +6
          18 December 2018 21: 30
          He began to collect material in the mid-80s, when the participants in the battles were still alive.
          And I think this is a key moment in everything that is happening now. Someone is just trying to "paint" History .. In view of the quote. As far as I remember, there was not even close such pathos among the veterans and personally my Grandfather, who reached Berlin. Even a hint of "show-off" and heroism, or discussion of who is good and who is bad .. But now, what is not an opinion, then an "expert" of the highest category. And all who disagree are almost enemies of the people .. At least not a healthy trend.
          1. +3
            19 December 2018 14: 53
            It was natural, both among the military and in the art material. You can never put your relative or one person in an example of that time. The man saw what was happening in his environment and that’s all. Or do you think the pilots in battle did not see which planes confront them, what are their strong and weak qualities? Could not rate them?
            In the same way, among the tanks, everyone knew which, when and where it was dangerous. Actually, therefore, they could resist.
            And that according to the recollections of our tankers or, for example, I read a book by a German pilot, people very well believed in myths about some special qualities of their vehicles, which were often just myths.
            You cannot draw a story. It can only be presented somehow in its own way, but in a professional environment, such people are instantly calculated and become shaking hands, although ordinary citizens can be deceived. Only these are problems not of history, but of citizens themselves. Unfortunately, the books of various falsifiers diverge in circulation and reprints much larger than professional historians.
          2. 0
            19 December 2018 18: 21
            But now, what is not an opinion, then an "expert" of the highest category

            Yes, we have one "iksperd", in each barrel a plug, as something happens with aviation, climbs under each camera, to each microphone. Hero of the Biryulevsky market.
        2. 0
          20 December 2018 10: 47
          Quote: NikWik
          There is a good book "I Fought in a Fighter". Author A.V. Drabkin.

          Everything is subjective too. I didn’t like it — it didn’t impress me, I didn’t add anything new.
          1. 0
            24 December 2018 20: 09
            Read another book of 100 Stalin's falcons.
      2. 0
        19 December 2018 10: 11
        Quote: Vladimirets
        It seems to me that there are none.

        At least one is available, an American test pilot, he flew all types of aircraft that participated in the war in North Korea. He is a fighter pilot by profession. He fought in Korea. Recently I came across an interview with this veteran, who was the only expert in the US Air Force on old types of Russian aircraft. There was a video on yutube
        1. +5
          19 December 2018 10: 13
          Quote: goose
          who participated in the war in North Korea.

          I do not remember that FV-190 participated there. request
        2. +3
          19 December 2018 15: 00
          Sorry, but you are wrong. My friend traveled somewhere in several dozen different cars, can he be considered an expert on them?
          My opinion is no, in no case. Because to understand the machine, to notice its capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, to learn how to use them, you need large hours of flight in real combat operations. Various operations. And this is practically impossible. It is clear that a professional pilot does all this faster, but even application tactics were developed and changed during the war.
          But usually this is not necessary - to try all these types, and again you make a mistake, you take what is written in the article for dogma. What is generally wrong, moreover, initially the article does not describe the criteria and the criteria of the original article to which the answer was written do not coincide.
          Usually this happens - the pilots at a certain theater of operations describe their battles and tactics in them, describe how they act against them and basically I did this description - they could not, I won, they did it, we couldn’t, ours were shot down . This is enough to compare.
    2. +2
      18 December 2018 17: 24
      On the site I remember! There are second ones for Ilya and Yakovlev cars and landlins. If what I am for the memories of real participants.
  3. +8
    18 December 2018 15: 29
    Discovery Channel.
    1. +4
      19 December 2018 07: 42
      Again, a subjective rating that has the right to be, but due to subjectivity, it may not be accepted or rejected altogether. The author rightly points out the shortcomings of the Yaks at high altitudes and immediately mentions that the features of the eastern front of the high-altitude did not require ... So this cannot be written down as a flaw, otherwise we would not stop the production and further development of the MIG series, whose high-quality qualities are not in dispute. The Germans, who were forced to vysotnichat for the western front, but also to maintain the characteristics for the low heights of the eastern, would not be too smart ... The British with excellent altitude could not increase the range, but saved on this margin to improve other characteristics. So, again, everything is debatable.
      1. -11
        19 December 2018 08: 00
        Quote: volodimer
        development of the MIG series, whose high-altitude qualities are not in dispute.

        The high-altitude qualities of the MiG are not disputed simply because everyone on the drum has its high-altitude qualities.
      2. 0
        19 December 2018 23: 05
        At the expense of subjectivity, the opinions of the author absolutely agree with you. How do you understand the term most dangerous? Dangerous to whom? For enemy aircraft colliding with them in the air? Well then, let's raise statistics on downed planes, or rather on which fighters the most enemy planes were shot down. And then the first places can be safely given to Spitfire Mk.1B, Bf-109G, A6M2 Reisen (ZERO) and La-5FN (which our pilots considered the best aircraft of the war).
        Well, as an alaverda: On La-7 there was not one, but two ShVAK guns in the early series, and subsequently 3 B-20S guns (also 20 mm). But this is so by the way.
        1. 0
          20 December 2018 09: 30
          Quote: DMM2006
          Well, as an alaverda: On La-7 there was not one, but two ShVAK guns in the early series, and subsequently 3 B-20S guns (also 20 mm). But this is so by the way.
          Reply

          An analysis of the weapons of the end of the war showed that the BS was in no way inferior to the ShVAK-20 and B-20 in efficiency, while it had better ballistics and less weight. Its installation on fighter aircraft was more profitable. This is a consequence of the unsuccessful design of a 20 mm shell.
          The best guns were NS-23 and NS-37, despite the heavy weight and relatively low rate of fire. Normal caliber machine guns were recommended to be left only for attack aircraft and defensive armament of light aircraft.
  4. +16
    18 December 2018 15: 32
    Maybe the best aircraft should be determined not at the end of the war - it didn’t begin at 44, but on the basis of all the merits.
    Perhaps you need to take the most numerous aircraft in the armed forces of each state, i.e. apparatuses that made the greatest contribution to the war and from their composition to select the best. And yes, so Messer 109 and Zero will get there.
    1. +6
      18 December 2018 15: 45
      Quote: Reichsmarschall
      Perhaps you need to take the most numerous aircraft in the armed forces of each state, i.e. apparatuses that have made the greatest contribution to the war and from their composition to select the best

      The United States had two sets of aircraft. European and pacific. They practically do not intersect.
      Quote: Reichsmarschall
      and Zero.

      Zero was unconditionally the best machine of its theater from the moment of its appearance until the fall of the 43rd. That is 3 years out of five.
    2. +3
      18 December 2018 22: 19
      Quote: Reichsmarschall
      Maybe the best aircraft should be determined not at the end of the war - it didn’t begin at 44, but on the basis of all the merits.
      Perhaps you need to take the most numerous aircraft in the armed forces of each state, i.e. apparatuses that made the greatest contribution to the war and from their composition to select the best. And yes, so Messer 109 and Zero will get there.

      I will say more. In the same strange way, these machines belonged to the losing parties.
      Maybe, after all, the point is not in technical perfection? ... But in something else?
  5. +11
    18 December 2018 15: 43
    It is strange that Bf 109 crossed out !!! jo end war his various modifications fought
    1. +2
      18 December 2018 20: 11

      hi ... Newsreel of WWII times
      ..Aerial battles between bombers and fighters: BOEING B-29, B-17, P-38 P-47, P-5, LA-7 B-24 LIBERATOR, LANCASTER SPITFIRE, HURRICANE vs. BF-109, BF-110, Messerschmitt ME-262, JUNKERS JU-87 STUKA, FOCKE WULF FW-190, MACCHI C-202, ZERO.
    2. +3
      18 December 2018 22: 08
      Modifications BF-109 Emil, Gustav no weaker than Jacob or La-pilot was already irreplaceable. Schools were not enough. One of the most important aspects. Plus repair of equipment.
  6. +6
    18 December 2018 15: 52
    It all depends on who is sitting in the cockpit. The same Aero Cobra under the control of A. Pokryshkin was a very dangerous aircraft.
    1. +1
      18 December 2018 20: 04
      Quote: Comrade Beria
      It all depends on who is sitting in the cockpit. The same Aero Cobra under the control of A. Pokryshkin was a very dangerous aircraft.

      All right! It is important who sits in the cockpit; it is also important in the cockpit of which airplane!
      Let me remind you that Pokryshkin fought from the 41st, shot down 59, Kozhedub shot down from the 43rd. hi
      1. +1
        19 December 2018 14: 57
        I must remind you that Pokryshkin, from the age of 44, commanded an air division. Flights of the division commander were not welcomed ..
        1. 0
          21 December 2018 05: 20
          And Gulaev shot down 57 aircraft and since the summer of 1944, he has been sent to study at the academy.
    2. 0
      18 December 2018 22: 25
      and the shaves from Cobra refused ...
      1. +3
        19 December 2018 07: 47
        and the shaves from Cobra refused ...

        so Cobra had an engine behind the cockpit, the alignment was different, it was possible to enter a flat corkscrew by gently pulling the handle ...
        but our pilots liked it: after the I-16, which was similar in control sensitivity (and was also "unstable" in flight, but maneuverable), plus a 37mm cannon, walkie-talkie, nose wheel (easy landing, excellent taxiing) - Cobras were on good deservedly
        1. Alf
          +1
          19 December 2018 18: 59
          Quote: SASHA OLD
          and the shaves from Cobra refused ...

          so Cobra had an engine behind the cockpit, the alignment was different, it was possible to enter a flat corkscrew by gently pulling the handle ...

          Or maybe because the fighting in the West went on 6-8 thousand, and the Cobra was low-altitude?
          1. +1
            19 December 2018 20: 30
            Or maybe because the fighting in the West went on 6-8 thousand, and the Cobra was low-altitude?
            one doesn’t contradict the other, I don’t know about the altitude of the Cobra engines, but I read about the tendency to a flat corkscrew, because of which the Americans did not take this plane
            1. Alf
              +1
              19 December 2018 21: 04
              Quote: SASHA OLD
              I don’t know about the height of the Cobra engines

              To lighten the car, Larry Bell was forced to remove a turbocharger.The maximum P-39D was 585 km / h at 4200 meters. Both Hurricane and Spitfire gave a maximum of 6100 meters.
              1. +1
                19 December 2018 21: 21
                Quote: Alf
                To facilitate the car, Larry Bell was forced to remove the turbocharger

                There were problems not so much with the weight as with the reliability of the turbocharger.
            2. +2
              19 December 2018 21: 15
              When the British signed up for Cobra, they did not care what kind of fighter to take, if only they were. Cobra, Hawk, unknown animal (future Mustang), anything.
              In the 41st they were somewhat released, so they were able to take a closer look. And they realized that they didn’t need Cobra - they saw an air defense fighter in any machine, and Cobra was definitely not about air defense, there was no altitude, no climb, stupid weapons, according to the limes.
              Quote: SASHA OLD
              because of which the Americans did not take this plane, read

              The Americans used this aircraft quite actively when pressed in the 42nd. She looked good on the background of the P-40 Tommahok. However, the Americans of the 44-45s are better known in Russia, for whom the car on Alyson is already unnecessary: ​​the fleet and army went to planes with a PW engine, Mustang and Merlin climbed to them, primarily due to the price (it cost one and a half times cheaper than P- 47). For the tasks of both the army and the navy, Mustang, Thunder and Corsair were definitely better.
              In the piggy bank of knowledge. America of the 42nd year is a shadow from America of the 45th militarily. An extremely secondary power in this sense. The difference is much greater than the USSR 41 and 45.
              1. Alf
                0
                19 December 2018 21: 32
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                When the British signed up for Cobra, they did not care what kind of fighter to take, if only they were.

                That is yes. There was such a phrase-Before the war in Europe, scared by the Germans, you could sell absolutely any plane.
              2. 0
                19 December 2018 21: 35
                In the piggy bank of knowledge. America of the 42nd year is a shadow from America of the 45th militarily. An extremely secondary power in this sense. The difference is much greater than the USSR 41 and 45.

                thank you
          2. 0
            21 December 2018 05: 29
            Many front-line soldiers recalled that the Cobra at low altitudes was an iron, and its maximum characteristics were at altitudes of 5-6km. Dive well, so the tactic of application was appropriate. If it was possible, the Yaks were accompanied, and La or Cobras were sent for clearance.
            1. Alf
              0
              21 December 2018 18: 42
              Quote: Andrey NM
              Many war veterans recalled that Cobra was an iron at low altitudes,

              Quote: Andrey NM
              and La or Cobras were sent for clearing.

              Clearing is always a fight, but how can you send a plane into battle if it is an iron? Where is the logic ?
              1. 0
                21 December 2018 21: 14
                Quote: Alf
                Where is the logic ?

                The cobra was really poorly suited for direct escort of attack aircraft. Her strength is a vertical maneuver. Nowhere to dive at low altitude. So her task was an indirect cover - to cover the attack aircraft from above, if necessary, to tie German fighters in battle.
                1. 0
                  21 December 2018 23: 17
                  Nikolai. Golodnikov -
                  For example, we cover attack aircraft. German fighters appear, spin, but do not attack, they believe that they are few. "Ilya" work on the cutting edge, and the Germans do not attack, concentrate, pull fighters from other areas. “Silts” depart from the target, and here the attack begins. By this time, the Germans had concentrated and gained a numerical superiority of three times. Well, what's the point of this attack? "Ilya" has already worked out. Only on a personal account. And that was often.
                  The Germans could scroll around us like this and not attack at all. They're not stupid, intelligence worked for them. “Red-nosed“ cobras ”- 2nd GIAP Navy KSF. Well, are they completely headless with an elite guards regiment to mess with? These can bring down. Better to wait for someone simpler. Very prudent.

                  The main thing is THE SOBER CALCULATION (German) - and to bring down your own head and not to add your head ...
              2. 0
                23 December 2018 18: 15
                Clearing is always a fight, but how can you send a plane into battle if it is an iron? Where is the logic ?

                iron it was at low altitudes, and on average behaved very worthy. Dived well, translating altitude into speed.
  7. +12
    18 December 2018 15: 56
    It depends on what is meant by the concept of "the most dangerous". It is one thing to take the best aircraft in terms of performance characteristics by the end of the war - then there will definitely be neither Zero nor Bf-109. Another thing is to take planes, for example, more than others, which caused fear to the enemy - then on the contrary, both Zero and Bf-109 should be left, because at the beginning of the war, a meeting with them promised death with a high degree of probability for any Allied pilot. Or you can take the most hard workers of the war, on which the average pilots flew who bore the brunt of the war and inflicted the greatest harm on the enemy - then the Yak-9 is mandatory on the list, and the Spitfire and Zero and the Bf-109.
    1. +1
      18 December 2018 22: 26
      I-16 1941 and 1942 ...
      1. 0
        19 December 2018 18: 25
        And even I-153, which in miracles in the Elbrus region did wonders due to their maneuverability
  8. +2
    18 December 2018 16: 25
    Likely the criterion should be one - the ratio of the number of fighters released to the number of them shot down
    1. +3
      18 December 2018 18: 10
      Even this criterion cannot be called complete. Say, on one side fighters could be better, but they are trite much smaller, and pilots have a 30-hour raid. No car can help here.
      If you choose the best, you will have to enter in addition to TTX many other estimates: cost, complexity of development and piloting, resource, complexity of maintenance, ability to solve various problems, advantages and disadvantages relative to competitors at a particular stage. But if you approach the matter in this way, it turns out that there is simply no better.
      1. 0
        18 December 2018 20: 08
        The most "deadly" (as I understand it) - this means those who inflicted the greatest damage in air battles during the war on one individual fighter "soul"; the rest are simply "good", "wonderful", "not understood", "handsome", maybe even "darlings" - and only ...
        1. 0
          18 December 2018 21: 57
          Quote: mark1
          this means those who inflicted the greatest damage during the war period in aerial battles per single destructive "soul"

          No, it won’t work. If you have 10 times more planes than the enemy, then you will not bring down a lot, no matter how hard you try. Accordingly, not only the thin ones will get the best, which may be true, but also some Finnish fokers.
          And the best war planes are, as a rule, those that do not have time for war. Spitful, Birkat, Shutingstar, etc.
          1. +1
            18 December 2018 23: 28
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Accordingly, not only the thin ones will get the best, which may be true, but also some Finnish fokers.

            Not to the best, but to the most dangerous - and this is generally a subjective judgment, in Karelia, under certain conditions, Finnish Fokkers could have appeared, in Yugoslavia above the airfield - Yaki, in Germany at 8000 m and higher oddly enough "Thunderbolts" and "Mustangs" .... In the 19th century, discussions were generally held which is better "a man or a woman ..." not from a great mind, of course. My personal opinion is that the most dangerous throughout WWII was the BF-109 due to its versatility at different latitudes and different heights.
            1. +1
              19 December 2018 00: 15
              Quote: mark1
              in Germany at 8000 m and higher oddly enough "Thunderbolts" and "Mustangs".

              And what's so strange? Only two of them were suitable for the escort of battleblocks. Still lightning, but their Germans quickly weaned them from flying.
              Quote: mark1
              was a BF-109 by virtue of its versatility at different latitudes and different heights.

              Thin was like zero, oddly enough. A masterpiece of the outbreak of war, it was initially almost the ultimate machine, and in the 43rd year it ceased to withstand the pace of the race. Moreover, I had to chase two birds with one stone, one from below, the other from above.
              1. 0
                19 December 2018 08: 38
                There is nothing in common between the BF109 and the A6M except for the aerodynamic design and the CM design. "Zero" is the most weakened design and, therefore, has no prospects for modernization, and the "Messer" originally had a huge modernization potential and it corresponded to the entire period of use on both fronts, you must agree 720 km hour and 24 ms are very decent indicators for 45- th year. "Zero" in Europe and on our front would not have survived - this is a purely naval Pacific machine, the main advantage - the huge range had an advantage only over American house-sized decks.
                1. +1
                  19 December 2018 08: 47
                  Quote: mark1
                  Nothing in common between BF109 and A6M

                  I explained my point. These were beautiful cars of the beginning of the war, but over time it became impossible to upgrade them and there was nothing to change.
                  Quote: mark1
                  720 km per hour and 24 ms are very decent indicators for the 45th year

                  As it was rightly noted here, even the USSR was able in 45 to make plywood machines competitive with respect to German ones. 605th on nitro gave less than 130th Merlin without nitro.
                  On the other hand, this is not quite a Messerschmidt problem.
                  Quote: mark1
                  had an advantage only over American decks the size of a house.

                  And also in front of the Hawks, Cobras and in general everything that flew on his theater. As for the flying American sheds, the biggest one - Hellcat - did away with it.
                  1. +2
                    19 December 2018 10: 46
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    As it was rightly noted here, even the USSR was able in 45 to make plywood machines competitive with German ones

                    Tales about the white bull-calf of the car were not made of plywood, but of a mixed design with a centimeter wing, and they reached the technical specifications only in experimental specimens
                    Victories and failures of "zero" are a topic for another conversation, but he had no prospects.
                    1. 0
                      19 December 2018 10: 51
                      Quote: mark1
                      the cars were not made of plywood but of mixed construction

                      Yes, you are right about that.
                      Quote: mark1
                      zero ... he had no prospects.

                      Here too.
                      1. 0
                        19 December 2018 11: 00
                        Thank. It was nice to talk.
    2. 0
      19 December 2018 18: 28
      Quote: mark1
      ratio of the number of fighters released to the number of them shot down

      It will be very difficult here with statistics, it is very different, as well as "methods of calculation". For if we take, for example, the German one, then the Luftwaffe pilots shot down several times more aircraft than we built during the whole war.
      1. 0
        19 December 2018 18: 44
        And which of us is without sin? It is clear that if one engine is counted as one aircraft, then how much will work (here they are the notorious Western standards). But still, the Germans had high performance, they cut into two fronts and very brutally few did not seem to anyone. this is not a small merit of their high-quality mat parts (no matter how on some planes from start to finish).
        1. 0
          19 December 2018 19: 13
          No one argues about high performance, training, professionalism. But not dozens of times! What is it, the cyborgs were at the helm?
          And what about the whole war on one technique - and this is not true, just look at the modernization of the main Luftwaffe fighter - Me-109, from "Bruno" to "Gustav" with all the modifications - an abyss.
          1. +2
            19 December 2018 19: 44
            The Germans claim 70 shot down their losses (officially) 000, our combat losses 57 (non-combat 000) our allies claim 46 victories for 000.
            Naturally, the technique developed, modified, but ... the basic assembly technology remained the same, geometric dimensions, wing profile, chassis operation diagram, gas tank layout and much more did not change what's wrong? there is no reason to present the changes as a new model.
            1. +1
              19 December 2018 20: 02
              At least the engine power, which increased from 700 to 2000+ hp, the takeoff weight increased by 50% and the speed by 200 km / h - is this exactly "the same plane"? Well, no.
              1. 0
                19 December 2018 20: 15
                Well, yes - this is not a horse on which you can ride the whole war with a checker (not a horse will not change a checker), the plane is accompanied all its life, changes are made to it in order to increase the performance characteristics within the limits of its design, but here it is all "mulka" different designs have different possibilities for modernization, some are generally difficult to modernize, because the limiting parameters were initially taken.
  9. -12
    18 December 2018 16: 48
    P47 Thunderbolt, Me 109, Spitfire, Zero and on the eastern front of Aircobra. Me109 fighter that gave Germany success in conquering Europe in 1939-40. Spitfire fighter who saved Britain 1940. Zero fighter who gave Japan success in conquering Southeast Asia. Aircobra, a fighter that limited the hegemony of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front, thanks to which the Russians had a chance to recover from the first German strike. P47, a fighter that changed the balance of power in favor of the West.
    1. 0
      18 December 2018 17: 02
      Quote: white.eagle
      Aircobra, a fighter that limited the hegemony of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front

      If you continue your line of "most significant" aircraft, then in the East there will be Yak 1/9, no options. Hullcut should be added to Tander.
    2. Alf
      +6
      18 December 2018 21: 02
      Quote: white.eagle
      the Russians

      Do you hear the white eagle! Not among Russians, but among Soviet pilots.
      1. -2
        19 December 2018 15: 03
        And you can only find fault with the words and minus for it, but essentially nothing to say?
        1. Alf
          -1
          19 December 2018 18: 17
          Quote: Red_Baron
          And you can only find fault with the words and minus for it, but essentially nothing to say?

          And before you say, I have not tried to think?
          1. 0
            20 December 2018 10: 44
            Vaska, are you still being rude?
            1. Alf
              0
              20 December 2018 18: 43
              I don’t communicate with piglets.
              1. 0
                20 December 2018 18: 45
                Vaska, you don’t know how to communicate, only to crap, you probably didn’t teach culture in childhood.
  10. 0
    18 December 2018 16: 58
    I do not in any way dispute the findings of the Author, but the most productive USAF fighter is still the P-38!
    Yes, and handsome, little devil!
    1. Alf
      +1
      18 December 2018 21: 04
      Quote: andrewkor
      USAF's most productive fighter is still the P-38!

      That was something it was on the European in comparison with the P-51 was a little.
  11. +5
    18 December 2018 17: 07
    The P-51D fighter could not boast of very powerful weapons,


    So it could not with the 6 th 12,7 mm. machine guns and decent ammunition?

    In 1942-43, the British realized that Spitfire was beginning to become obsolete and at high altitude the FW-190 could become an almost unbeatable opponent.


    However, it was the British who were the first in the world back in 1942 to start mass production of high-altitude versions of Spitfires with 60-series Merlin with two-stage mechanical superchargers, which were clearly better than German fighters with the GM-1 system, and German serial high-altitude FW-190s appeared only in 1944 and in very small numbers.
  12. 0
    18 December 2018 17: 10
    In principle, it is logical. For "palubniks", of course, it is necessary to draw a separate rating, because there, the flight range is, if not of primary importance, then at least secondary, that's for sure!
  13. +5
    18 December 2018 17: 23
    Not a good comparison.
    The industry of the USSR, Germany, Italy and Japan was severely limited by the fuel balance and access to the extraction of non-ferrous metals. And this VERY strongly influenced the design of the aircraft. If you do not have enough aluminum - the plane will be heavy, slow and not tenacious, if you do not have components for creating heat-resistant alloys - you will not have an effective turbocharger and altitude, if you have a problem with oil production and refining, you will not be able to force engines in terms of speed, and they will be heavy if you do not have skilled workers who have 25 years experience - you will not be able to assemble products with minimal tolerances, and everything in general will be 10-20% worse than analogs (as an example, Merlin engines in the USA could not release). All this was only in the USA, Great Britain and France, and it is simply amazing that other nations were able to construct something that was competitive.
    1. +4
      18 December 2018 17: 38
      Quote: goose
      as an example - Merlin engines in the US could not produce

      Sorry?
      Merlin Production:
      Packard - 55 523
      Rolls Royce Derby Plant - 32
      Ford Factory at Trafford Park - 30
      Rolls Royce Crew Factory - 26
      Glasgow State Plant - 23.

      The Americans made more Merlins than the British.
      1. +4
        18 December 2018 17: 53
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        The Americans made more Merlins than the British.

        When the British handed over the technological documentation to Packard for the production of the Merlin, it turned out that in the United States there was no production culture sufficient to produce such engines. As a result, British specialists came and taught Americans to work with high technologies and a new level of technological quality. The delay in production was about half a year. This is official information, you can read.
        If we consider that the Germans had the same level of technological production in the USA as before the Moon, we can only envy the technical excellence of engine production in Great Britain of those times.
        What can we compare then the USSR, Italy and Japan, where even in the field of oil refining everything was not going smoothly.
        1. +4
          18 December 2018 18: 12
          Quote: goose
          When the British handed over the technological documentation to Packard for the production of the Merlin, it turned out that in the United States there was no production culture sufficient to produce such engines. As a result, British specialists came and taught Americans to work with high technologies and a new level of technological quality. The delay in production was about half a year. This is official information, you can read.

          Yes, that's usually how it is presented. The reality was somewhat different. In Britain (and elsewhere) there were excellent designers, but lousy technologists by American standards. The main efforts of both Packard and Ford were aimed at remaking the artisanal British design in an industrial way. "Fit in place", "file off", that's all.

          Once again I draw your attention to the fact that Packard, who began producing engines from August 41st, made them almost twice as much as Derby, who had been producing this engine since his 35th year. Having accelerated, the plant in Trafford Park produced as many engines per week as the Glasgow State Plant per month, with the same number of employees.
          1. +2
            19 December 2018 14: 33
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            There were great designers in Britain (and elsewhere), but technologists were useless by American standards.

            It’s just that Europeans and Americans had different ideas about what mass release. smile
            For peacetime, European technologies with their "drill in place after assembly" or "finalize with a file during assembly" were quite suitable. And only when the war began, it became clear that it was simply not possible to find such a number of experienced workers to compensate for the increased production volumes.
            1. +1
              19 December 2018 14: 40
              Quote: Alexey RA
              It’s just that Europeans and Americans had different ideas about what mass production

              You can already turn it))
          2. -1
            19 December 2018 17: 24
            So the guardians asked the "bast shoes" of the Russians for M-105 (Hispanu-Suizu)! Not allowed. And they themselves are not enough, and they were bungling! And I thought the English goods were better than the Swabian ones ...
            1. Alf
              +1
              19 December 2018 19: 03
              Quote: hohol95
              So the guardians asked the "bast shoes" of the Russians for M-105 (Hispanu-Suizu)! Not allowed.

              From this place in more detail, please.
              1. +2
                19 December 2018 20: 00
                Quote: Alf
                From this place in more detail, please.

                There was a case - the French in 1939 wanted to buy Soviet Hispano engines, but not the M-105 (they were not there yet), but the M-103A.
                The M-105A engine can be considered a transitional stage to the M-103. Despite the fact that it was considered a modification of the M-103, it differed quite significantly from the latter. The M-103 and M-103A motors were not interchangeable in the cylinder-piston group. The new inner diameter of the cylinder, equal to 148 mm, became the norm for all subsequent piston engines of V.Ya. Klimov. The M-103A managed to get a takeoff power of 1000 hp. According to the Air Force Research Institute, this motor was roughly equivalent to the French Hispano-Suiza 12Y51 in its characteristics.

                Perhaps it was the M-103A that the French military had in mind when in May 1939 they asked the Soviet government about the possibility of supplying Hispano engines.

                © V. Kotelnikov. Improvement of motors "Hispano-Suiza" 12Y by Vladimir Yakovlevich Klimov. - Journal "Engine", No. 4 (40), 2005
                1. Alf
                  +1
                  19 December 2018 21: 05
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  There was a case - in 1939 the French wanted to buy Soviet Hispano engines,

                  Was it really enough? This is news, I did not know.
                  1. 0
                    19 December 2018 23: 53
                    "French fighters of the Second World War".
                    Posted by Andrei Haruk.
                2. +1
                  19 December 2018 23: 52
                  Could confuse the M-105 with the M-103! But the point is in the requests of the FRENCH!
                  And I got this information in the book "French fighters of the Second World War".
                  Posted by Andrei Haruk.
                  1. Alf
                    0
                    20 December 2018 18: 44
                    Quote: hohol95
                    And I got this information in the book "French fighters of the Second World War".
                    Posted by Andrei Haruk.

                    Thank you, read.
        2. 0
          18 December 2018 19: 22
          Our Victory is even more expensive!
      2. +1
        18 December 2018 18: 41
        Of course, the Americans made "Merlins" as much as was required, another thing is that at first from England to the States, to organize and establish the production of "Merlins", not only engineers, but also just workers of various specialties were seconded. This engine was so difficult to manufacture that even the Amers, with their high production culture and excellent machine tool park, had to learn a lot from the Britts.
    2. +5
      18 December 2018 18: 15
      (As an example, Merlin engines in the USA could not be produced).


      Even as they could. What does the American version of the Merlin were more powerful than their English options-

      Versions
      V-1650-1 - Erste Version wie Rolls-Royce Merlin der 20er Serie (1280 PS / 941 kW)
      V-1650-3 - Version für mittlere Höhen (1650 PS / 1214 kW)
      V-1650-7 - Version für große Höhen (1719 PS / 1264 kW)
      V-1650-9 - Version für große Höhen mit automatischer Lader-Kontrolle von Simmons und Wassereinspritzung (maximal 2039 PS / 1500 kW)
      V-1650-9A - Wie Version -9 jedoch ohne Wassereinspritzung (ca. 1830 PS / 1346 kW)
      V-1650-11 - Wie Version -9 jedoch mit nochmals gesteigerter Leistung (maximal 2270 PS / 1670 kW)
      Notes:

      Versionen V-1650-9 nach Kriegsende noch weitergebaut, -9A und -11 waren Nachkriegsversionen
      Leistung des V-1650-9 nach anderer Quelle auch 2218 PS / 1631 kW
      Version V-1650-11 nicht mehr bei Serienflugzeugen verwendet

      erlin 130 / 131
      2,060 hp (1,536 kW); redesigned "slimline" versions for the de Havilland Hornet. Engine design modified to decrease frontal area to a minimum and was the first Merlin series to use down-draft induction systems. Coolant pump moved from the bottom of the engine to the starboard side. Two-speed, two-stage supercharger and SU injection carburettor. Corliss throttle. Maximum boost was 25 psi (170 kPa gauge; or an absolute pressure of 270 kPa or 2.7 atm). On the Hornet the Merlin 130 was fitted in the port nacelle: the Merlin 131, fitted in the starboard nacelle, was converted to a "reverse" or left-hand tractor engine using an additional idler gear in the reduction gear casing. [113]

      Merlin 133 / 134
      2,030 hp (1,514 kW); derated for use at low altitude 130 / 131 variants used in Sea Hornet F. Mk. 20, NF Mk. 21 and PR Mk. 22. Maximum boost was lowered to + 18 psi gauge (230 kPa or 2.2 atm absolute).
      1. +4
        18 December 2018 18: 22
        Quote: NF68
        What did the American variants of the Merlin were more powerful than their English variants

        This is cheating. Later Packards had an injection of water / methanol. English - old school pumping, purely boost, speed, etc.
        Although, on the other hand, the pilot doesn’t matter how power is taken off, he is either alive or not.
        1. +1
          19 December 2018 17: 01
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Quote: NF68
          What did the American variants of the Merlin were more powerful than their English variants
          This is cheating. Later Packards had an injection of water / methanol. English - old school pumping, purely boost, speed, etc.
          Although, on the other hand, the pilot doesn’t matter how power is taken off, he is either alive or not.


          The fact of the matter is that the pilot does not care at the expense of what the higher power is obtained. "Extra / extra" 100-200 or more horsepower was actually not superfluous. Especially considering the fact that with water-methanol boost, the engines could work continuously for up to 10 minutes.
  14. +6
    18 December 2018 17: 34
    The next comparison is not comparable, machines for various purposes with different tactics. Take Aerocobra as an example, in the West it did not take root, but it fit perfectly into the tactics of the Red Army Air Force.
  15. 0
    18 December 2018 18: 50
    I do not agree with the author, but he does not allow arguing about the format of the site. For me, the Corsair and I16
    1. +1
      18 December 2018 18: 58
      I-16 for what?
      1. 0
        18 December 2018 20: 11
        Conceptually, this is an interesting aircraft, high speed, maneuverability, a large reserve for various modifications. It appeared three four years earlier than its Western counterparts. The trouble with our aircraft is the lack of a powerful engine. The Americans did not bother, they had engines of 2000 hp and around this motor they built a plane (P 47, F 4, F 6).
        1. 0
          18 December 2018 20: 32
          This M-82 was not enough, do I understand you correctly? Doublevasp on I-16 is not worth discussing.
          1. 0
            18 December 2018 22: 15
            Doublevasp sorry did not understand the word.
            I believe that Nikolai Nikolayevich is the most serious fighter designer of 30 years in the UNION. And high maneuverability (resulting in low exchange rate stability) was laid at the request of the military. Damaged I153 was done to him only because of their delusional concepts of air war.
            1. +3
              18 December 2018 23: 21
              Quote: mr.ZinGer
              Doublevasp sorry did not understand the word.

              Quote: mr.ZinGer
              2000 hp engines and around this engine they built a plane (P 47, F 4, F 6).

              This is the same engine, the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp. I hope you meant F4U, not F4F, these are completely different aircraft.
              In the case of American planes of those years, writing indices with spaces is not accepted. Army hyphenated, naval in a row. Thunder - R-47, Hellcat - F6F.
              Quote: mr.ZinGer
              high maneuverability (resulting in low exchange rate stability) was laid at the request of the military

              Yes. But the plane, designed for the wrong concept, considered the best somehow strange. I don’t recall any Western analogues - with a psycho-controlled handling.
              1. +2
                18 December 2018 23: 42
                Yes, the word is better, not at all appropriate.
                This article has only one plus, there is an exchange of views, and each will remain at its own.
                In general, my favorite plane is the Fi156 (Storch).
                1. +1
                  19 December 2018 00: 07
                  Quote: mr.ZinGer
                  Fi156 (Storch).

                  Yes, cool car.
        2. 0
          19 December 2018 18: 24
          Quote: mr.ZinGer
          The trouble with our aircraft is the lack of a powerful engine. The Americans did not bother, they had engines of 2000 hp and around this motor they built a plane (P 47, F 4, F 6).

          Sorry, but what about the M-71 and M-71F? In August 1941, a batch of these engines passed life tests for 100 hours. By 1942, when new fuel equipment arrived, due to which the M-82 and M-71 became actually reliable, the engine produced 2100 hp. Selected engines could work for 200 hours or more, more than the M-82 or M-105F in 1944.
          1. +2
            19 December 2018 18: 33
            Quote: goose
            Sorry, but what about the M-71 and M-71F?

            They were not.
            The bench model and serial are two big differences. The Soviet serial double nine - ASH-73 - even after 10 years worked on the Tu-4 from a favor.
  16. -2
    18 December 2018 19: 03
    According to its author, among such machines are Supermarine Spitfire, Bf.109, P-51, Yak-9 and ... Zero.

    After the war, in 1945, training battles were held between the planes of the USSR and the planes of the Allies in the skies of Paris. In all battles, the planes of the USSR won. For me - so the best aircraft of the war was Me.109, the plane went through the whole war, thanks to the designers, who even before the war correctly determined the development of aviation.
    For our part, the best aircraft would be a Yak-3 with a VK-107 engine, if Klimov managed to bring it to mind in 1941-42.
    1. +1
      18 December 2018 22: 19
      And how much Yak 3 was released, and he had a bunch of childhood illnesses, air combat is not an indicator, tactics can always be contrasted. And besides the flight characteristics, there are also operational ones.
    2. +1
      18 December 2018 22: 31
      Did you bring VK-107 to mind? And what was the resource there?
      1. +1
        19 December 2018 14: 48
        Quote: VIK1711
        Did you bring VK-107 to mind? And what was the resource there?

        The resource depended on the straightforwardness of the technicians. In 139 giap 303 Iads, they used strong sorcery - training technicians with factory specialists and working according to instructions. As a result, the VK-107 resource in the field was brought up to 115 hours.
        1. Alf
          0
          19 December 2018 19: 06
          Once I came across a photocopy of a report from German technicians that in the "field" the resource of the DB-605 at 109G dropped to 30 hours.
  17. -2
    18 December 2018 19: 05
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    I-16 for what?

    But nothing that the concept / philosophy of I-16 formed the basis of the SU-27? )))
    1. +2
      18 December 2018 19: 24
      Quote: lucul
      I-16 concept / philosophy formed the basis of the SU-27?

      Oh my God.
      Quote: lucul
      USSR aircraft won in all battles

      In all training battles on horizontal, low speeds and heights, the Yak-3 won, apparently you had in mind. In such a battle, his flaws did not matter.
      Quote: lucul
      was would Yak-3

      There were problems with both the engine and the plane.
      1. +1
        18 December 2018 22: 33
        And where were these fights? U№dar at speed and care - that’s how they scored accounts ...
        With a few exceptions.
        1. +1
          18 December 2018 23: 07
          Quote: VIK1711
          where were these fights?

          They said so. In the sky over Paris. After the war.

          And so even the Japanese in their super-maneuverable Zero near Midway: hit with a kite - and the clip back to the top.
          1. 0
            19 December 2018 11: 21
            What is there super-maneuverable?

            Zero only had good cornering times, but this is again the merit of the "big wing". The roll speed was very low - at 300 km / h it was 56g / sec !! At 500 km per hour, the roll rate dropped to almost zero))
            If anyone does not know - before entering into a bend - the plane must roll))
            1. +1
              19 December 2018 11: 44
              Quote: lucul
              Zero only had a good turn time

              Quote: lucul
              The roll speed was very low.

              Quote: lucul
              If anyone does not know - before entering into a bend - the plane must roll))

              Well, something like this.
        2. Alf
          0
          19 December 2018 19: 07
          Quote: VIK1711
          U№dar at speed and care - that’s how they scored accounts ...

          And the result of the war is appropriate.
  18. 0
    18 December 2018 19: 17
    and where is la-5fn, where is la-7?
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. 0
    18 December 2018 20: 29
    Oh my God.

    Is this news for you? )))
    In all training battles on horizontal, low speeds and heights, the Yak-3 won, apparently you had in mind.

    As it were, yes ... at 350 km / h the overload in the turn was close to 2.5-3 G. With a further increase in speed, maneuvering combat is impossible without anti-overload suits.
    There were problems with both the engine and the plane.

    Everyone had problems ..
    Everything was decided by proper R&D funding. All the best engine builders were thrown on the tank V-2))
    1. Alf
      0
      18 December 2018 21: 15
      Quote: lucul
      Everything was decided by proper R&D funding.

      Like everything is just that. You just have to give a lot of money to the designers. Not machine tools, not skilled workers, not duralumin, no, I just had to give money to the designers .. It's not funny. Yakovlev back in 1940 made an I-30, speed 665, 3 guns, an M-107 engine. And what is the use of such a design if there is no motor or duralumin.
    2. -1
      18 December 2018 21: 52
      Quote: lucul
      This is news for you.

      That the aerodynamic instability of the Su-27, which is held by electronics, and designed through the I-16, is one concept, it turns out? Yes, the news.
      Quote: lucul
      Yes

      As if the problem is that WWII fought differently. Here a decent candle and a Yak-3 combat U-turn are interesting. Decent, but not a record.
      More importantly, no range, survivability, equipment and weapons in an indicative battle do not interfere, unlike.
      Quote: lucul
      Everything was decided by proper R&D funding.

      Nothing was decided by financing. And it was never decided only by financing.
      Quote: lucul
      tank V-2)

      If before the war - VK with a diesel engine did not intersect. If it’s too late during the war, doctor. The new motor is no longer bring tea, not in England.
      1. 0
        19 December 2018 11: 08
        That the aerodynamic instability of the Su-27, which is held by electronics, and designed through the I-16, is one concept, it turns out? Yes, the news.

        Then probably do not have a conversation))
        When designing an aircraft, the designers try to balance all the forces acting on the aircraft in flight. An airplane constructed in this way flies "like on rails" and resists any change in the position of the rudders. Ie, the responsiveness in such an aircraft is reduced. But in free (without a fight) flight, the pilot is comfortable - he leveled the plane and relaxed - the plane flies itself as if on rails.
        In the I-16, the center of forces is shifted, and the plane "walks behind the handle" in the literal sense. In a dog dump, this is an important moment, but in free flight it is terribly tiring for the pilot - concentration is necessary throughout the flight. This is the main drawback of the I-16.
        More importantly, no range, survivability, equipment and weapons in an indicative battle do not interfere

        Well, what range do you need? )) Aircraft on the Eastern Front took off from front-line airfields and before they had time to gain altitude they entered the battle. Here neither range nor altitude played a primary role. Well, escorted by bombers, yes - that’s all you need, but for these purposes there was a MiG-3, in which everything was all right with range and altitude.
        Nothing was decided by financing. And it was never decided only by financing.

        It is written by R&D financing (scientific research and development work).
        With conventional funding, you can build an airplane, as they say - "by eye" with rough calculations.
        And R&D allows you to build an airplane according to science, according to accurate calculations - the efficiency of this rolls over.
        This is a huge difference - it is like the first plane of the Wright brothers and for example, like the plane of the Second World Me.109.
        1. 0
          19 December 2018 11: 37
          Quote: lucul
          In the I-16, the center of forces is shifted, and the plane "walks behind the handle" in the literal sense

          Uh-huh.
          Only all this makes the Su-27 an aircraft of "the same philosophy" with the I-16 only in a lyrical and poetic sense.
          Quote: lucul
          Well, what range do you need? )))

          Yak-3 did not limit the range of only IL-2. Neither IL-10 nor Pe-2 could accompany them to their combat radius. Frontline air defense fighter, so to speak.
          Quote: lucul
          all this is necessary, but for these purposes there was a MiG-3, in which everything was in order with range and altitude.

          1. MiG-3 has not been since the 41st year.
          2. Its range was not even enough Pe-2.
          In general, Soviet fighter jets for decent LTX paid with range in the first place.
          Quote: lucul
          This is a huge difference - it is like the first plane of the Wright brothers and for example, like the plane of the Second World Me.109.

          Like Me109 and LaGG, it would be appropriate to say here. What could be done under the license - they did so. It would be useful to find out what incredible efforts such a relatively simple aircraft as the Li-2 required from Soviet industry.
          Against this background, to your own engineering school - still swim and swim. By the end of the 40s and taking into account the GDR, the MiG-15.
          1. -2
            19 December 2018 14: 56
            Against this background, to your own engineering school - still swim and swim.

            I see that you and I have a serious difference in thinking / mentality, from which I conclude that I am conducting a dialogue with a Jew.
            Which is just a troll in this thread))
            1. 0
              19 December 2018 23: 33
              Quote: lucul
              Against this background, to your own engineering school - still swim and swim.

              I see that you and I have a serious difference in thinking / mentality, from which I conclude that I am conducting a dialogue with a Jew.
              Which is just a troll in this thread))

              I will say more. This "cherry" individual not only trolls, but also grazes on this resource. And his words like "ganship" or "doublevosp" in Russian transcription are simply touching ...
              1. 0
                20 December 2018 00: 11
                Quote: pro100y.belarus
                grazes on this resource

                Sorry?
                Quote: pro100y.belarus
                buzzwords ... just touching ...

                Do not thank.
        2. +3
          19 December 2018 14: 55
          Quote: lucul
          With conventional funding, you can build an airplane, as they say - "by eye" with rough calculations.
          And R&D allows you to build an airplane according to science, according to accurate calculations - the efficiency of this rolls over.

          But the same people who before this will conduct R&D built on the eye with rough calculations. Because the USSR has no other specialists. And there is no direct connection between the level of financing and the qualifications of the designer - Sylvan is an example of this.
  21. Alf
    +2
    18 December 2018 21: 11
    In 1942-43, the British realized that Spitfire was beginning to become obsolete

    And they created the Mk-8, Mk-14, Mk-21/22.
  22. -2
    18 December 2018 21: 28
    Quote: Alf
    no duralumin

    Well this is debatable ...
    The B-2 motor on the T-34 was from duralumin, and the T-34s were produced by tens of thousands.
    1. Alf
      0
      19 December 2018 19: 17
      Quote: lucul
      Quote: Alf
      no duralumin

      Well this is debatable ...
      The B-2 motor on the T-34 was from duralumin, and the T-34s were produced by tens of thousands.

      And he went on a V-2 duralumin, do not forget also PE-2, IL-4, EP-2.
  23. +1
    18 December 2018 21: 34
    Quote: Alf
    In 1942-43, the British realized that Spitfire was beginning to become obsolete

    And they created the Mk-8, Mk-14, Mk-21/22.

    The main disadvantage of Spitfire - lack of controllability - low roll speed (90g / s) - in fact, exactly the same drawback was on the A6M Zero. Large lifting force of the wing and, as a consequence, poor handling. These two aircraft were created according to the same concept, only Spit had a much better motor.
    1. +2
      18 December 2018 21: 42
      Quote: lucul
      These two aircraft were created according to the same concept, only Spit had a much better motor.

      Sleeps - air defense fighter, zero - deck. No, this is not just one concept.
    2. +1
      19 December 2018 00: 13
      only Spit had a much better motor.

      Which motor ... Rolls-Royce Merlin or Rolls-Royce Griffon.
  24. -1
    18 December 2018 21: 55
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: lucul
    These two aircraft were created according to the same concept, only Spit had a much better motor.

    Sleeps - air defense fighter, zero - deck. No, this is not just one concept.

    Glider concept - big wing. )))
    A large wing gives a low specific load on the wing, but reduces the maximum speed and roll speed. But for a bend is ideal)). And it has a very beneficial effect on the combat radius of the aircraft.
    And air defense / deck - this is not the criteria))
  25. -1
    18 December 2018 23: 59
    For myself, I personally consider the best aircraft of the Second World War - P40, because they were flown by the famous Flying Tigers First Volunteer American Air Group. smile


    PS
    In my humble opinion, the best Soviet fighter-I16, if only by the fact that it carried the whole brunt of air battles on "its shoulders". Many famous knights of the sky flew on it: from Valery Pavlovich Chkalov to Safonov Boris Feoktistovich. smile
    http://military-photo.com/ussr/aviation/i-16/5407-photo.html

    And, for the Tempest, I can say that for me he became famous for "ditching" the veteran tanker Michael Wittmann. smile
    1. Alf
      0
      19 December 2018 18: 25
      Quote: VictorZhivilov
      For myself, I personally consider the best aircraft of the Second World War - P40, because they were flown by the famous Flying Tigers First Volunteer American Air Group.

      The argument is iron ... That's why after the war the Congress Commission, knocking out grandmas, was surprised how such an aircraft as the P-40 lasted in production until the end of the war.
      1. 0
        19 December 2018 21: 42
        The argument is iron ...

        Reinforced concrete smile
        It was after the war that the Congress commission, knocking out grandmas, was surprised how such an aircraft as the P-40 lasted in production until the end of the war.

        And what is wrong with the P-40? I remember so perfect product and fighting friend ...
        “Four months after the P-40F, another modification, the P-40K, was put into production. It was an improved version of the P-40E with the new Allison model V-1710-73 with a takeoff power of 1325 hp. Its flight characteristics were little different from the P-40E. The aircraft of modification K were mainly intended for supply to the Allies under Lend-Lease. Some of these aircraft were used by the American Air Force in China, India, Burma, Australia, and 21 fighters were sent to Great Britain, where they were called Kittyhawk III They were subsequently shipped to North Africa, where they served until early 1944. Many vehicles of this type ended up in the Soviet Union. " Source: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/p40m.htm
        l

        "On" Tomahawk "and" Kittyhawk "our pilots bravely fought the enemy. For example, Major Naydenov on" Tomahawk "and" Kittyhawk "until May 1942 shot down 16 German planes and became a Hero of the Soviet Union. He was far from the only one. The hero was P. A. Pokryshev from the 154th regiment, in which besides him there were more than fifteen Heroes of the Soviet Union. The title of Hero was received in March 1954 and captain V. P. Strelnikov - master of mast strikes. This list can be continued. " Source: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/p40d.html
        1. +1
          19 December 2018 23: 29
          Quote: VictorZhivilov
          differed little from the P-40E. Modification K aircraft were mainly intended for supply to the Allies under Lend-Lease. Some of these aircraft were used by the American Air Force in China, India, Burma, Australia, and 21 fighters were sent to Great Britain, where they were named Kittyhawk III. They were subsequently shipped to North Africa, where they served until early 1944. Many vehicles of this type ended up in the Soviet Union.

          Aircraft for secondary theaters, so-called. "colonial fighter"
          1. 0
            20 December 2018 22: 31
            Aircraft for secondary theaters, so-called. "colonial fighter"

            It all depended on the pilot in the P-40 cockpit !!!
            30 May 1943 years 8 "kittyhawks" The 191st IAP participated in repelling the raid of 48 German bombers He-111 and Ju-88, which covered about 20 Fw-190A-5 fighters. True, the main battle was conducted by the pilots of the 240th and 275th IAD, flying on "yaks" and "shops".
            When the enemy bombers, one by one, began to go west, they were attacked by "kittyhawks." In the Shlisselburg area, Major Mitrokhin destroyed two Heinkels within 15 minutes and entered the fray with the Fw-190. The P-40K was significantly inferior in speed to the German fighter, however, it had an advantage in maneuvering horizontally. An experienced German pilot made a clear mistake by accepting a bend in bends, for which he paid. The line of a heavy machine gun hit the Fokke-Wulf motor, which, breaking out, went to the ground. Hauptman Herbert Erdmann (34 victories) from the staff staffel escaped by parachute and was captured.
            During interrogation at the headquarters of the 13th VA, Erdmann said that “the main disappointment for him was a mistake in the battle with the outdated“ kittyhawk ”, six of which he easily shot down, fighting in Africa as part of the JG27.”
            The German pilot somewhat calmed the track record of his opponent: Major Mitrokhin participated in battles from the first days of the war, destroying 19 aircraft and another 6 in a group with his comrades.
            1. 0
              20 December 2018 22: 43
              Quote: hohol95
              It all depended on the pilot in the P-40 cockpit!

              Yes, this is a pretty common nonsense.

              Below is an excerpt from the answer To. Tacha
              1. 0
                20 December 2018 22: 54
                Yes, this is a pretty common nonsense.

                Explain without sarcasm and other "fog".
              2. +2
                20 December 2018 23: 02
                Report by D. Tach after the battle with Zero on Wildcat.
                In general, it is surprising that at least one of our pilots was able to return alive. All the successes that the pilots of our fighters were able to achieve in the battle with the Japanese Zero fighters were achieved not due to the characteristics of the machines on which we fly, but as a result of the relatively low accuracy of shooting of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by several of their pilots, and also due to the superior accuracy of shooting and teamwork of our pilots. ... F4F aircraft are deplorably inferior in climb rate, maneuverability and speed. The author had to fly on the F4F model, which did not yet have armored protection and protected gas tanks. Removing these vital defenses would not improve the performance of the F4F enough to come close to that of the Zero fighter. These serious shortcomings not only prevent our fighters from performing combat missions properly, but also have a clear and worrying effect on the morale of our carrier-based fighter pilots. If we intend to keep our aircraft carriers afloat, then we must provide a fighter superior to the Japanese Zero, if not in maneuverability, then at least in the rate of climb and speed.
                1. 0
                  21 December 2018 18: 52
                  So you think that Major Mitrokhin defeated only THANKS to Captain Herbert Erdmann’s tactical mistake?
                  But the captain in Africa shot down 6 such fighters! And his mistake is his own!
                  It is clear that the Soviet pilots did not fly on Baba-Yaga's brooms!
                  Let me give you another example - Guard Captain P. D. Klimov!
                  In a battle on October 30, 1942, in the sky over Murmansk, he shot down 2 pieces of Yu-88 and knocked out ONE! A young pilot, flying with him in a pair, simply covered him and the enemy bombers did not attack! And they flew ha P-40!
                  The mistake of one pilot NOT ALWAYS became the guarantee of victory of his opponent!
                  P. S. Read how Kozhedub was shot down in 1943 ...
                  1. 0
                    21 December 2018 20: 37
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Let me give you another example - Guard Captain P. D. Klimov!

                    You really do not understand?
                    There is no problem finding a hundred, two hundred, three hundred examples when a weaker plane hits a stronger one. Here below they talk about the loss of a shootingstar after the attack of the Yak-9.

                    But these cases will remain an exception to the rule. What, it seems to me, is quite intelligibly written by Touch.
                    1. 0
                      21 December 2018 23: 12
                      But these cases will remain an exception to the rule.

                      The rule is a requirement for the fulfillment of certain conditions (the norm on behavior) by all participants of an action (game, spelling, litigation, organization, institution), for the implementation of which an incentive is provided, and for non-fulfillment - a punishment.

                      If the rule is violated by the EXCLUSION then IT ceases to ACT!
                      If in front of you the car will pass under the sign "No entry" - will you also go under this sign?
                      Or look for another entrance to the area you need?
                      Or do you have a lot of money to pay a fine?
                      RULES, like LAWS, have no retroactive effect and exceptions!
                      Anyone who proves that the law of Attraction can be changed will change many PHYSICAL LAWS!
                      If an infantryman shot down an enemy aircraft with ONE shot from a rifle, this does not mean that the designers did not foresee this or did not know! There is always a certain percentage of the probability of the death of the most modern car from the most INCREDIBLE impact!
                      Who is to blame for the MICE disabling the tanks of the 22nd Wehrmacht tank division by November 1942? Soviet MYSTERIAN spellcasters?
                      Or are the Germans themselves?
                      Or did the designers in the Czech Republic and Moravia KNOW that mice are the main enemy of the 38 (t) tank?
                      As for the 22nd Panzer Division, in the fall of 1942 it was part of the 48th Panzer Corps of the 4th Panzer Army of General Goth. In September, the corps was temporarily withdrawn from the army and transferred to the area south of Serafimovich to the rear of the 3rd Romanian army. The 22nd division, which formed the basis of the corps forces (in addition to it, the 1st Romanian Panzer Division was part of the corps), despite an order from the command of the ground forces, was not yet rearmament of German tanks to replace the Czechoslovak Pz.38 (t). Occupying a position in a quiet sector of the front, the division was in rather poor condition. The equipment of its 204th tank regiment was sheltered in deep trenches, protected from frost by straw. Tankers did not receive fuel, and therefore could not check the engines. When the order to advance to the front line was received and the tanks had to be hastily withdrawn from the trenches, only 39 out of 104 vehicles were able to start engines, and even that was difficult. On the march, tanks often failed due to a malfunction of electrical equipment. As it turned out, the mice that wound up in the straw simply ate part of the electrical wires. As a result, the division reached its starting position with 31 combat vehicles. Later 11 more were pulled up. From these forces a battle group was formed, which on November 19, 1942, on the first day of the Soviet counteroffensive near Stalingrad, in the Peschanoy area, was drawn into stubborn battles with the 1st tank corps of the Red Army.

                      For this, it is not necessary to say about exceptions!
                      On a car with excellent performance characteristics, a pilot without good training was a complete ZERO against a pilot with good combat training on a "colonial" fighter!

                      Gerhard Barkhorn -
                      “I fought against all types of Soviet aircraft, including those received by Russians under Lend-Lease. I think the Yak-9 is the best fighter ... At the beginning of the war, the Russians were imprudent in the air, acted constrained, and I easily shot down with unexpected attacks, but still we must admit that they were much better than the pilots of other European countries that we had to fight . During the war, Russian pilots became more and more skilled air fighters. I will give an example. Once, in 1943, it so happened that I had to fight a Russian on Me-109-g LaGG-3. The cook of his car was painted red. It was a pilot from the guards regiment. We knew this according to our intelligence. The fight lasted about 40 minutes, and I could not overcome it. We did everything in our cars that we knew and could, and yet we were forced to disperse. Yes, it was a real master! ” (From the book of R. Toliver and T. Constable "Horrido", published in the USA in 1976, with 136).

                      And LaGG-3 in the Red Army Air Force was considered a VERY bad FIGHTER - Lacquered Guaranteed Coffin!
                      There were problems with the quality of domestic vehicles, there were problems with spare parts for fighters from Britain (the Kharitons were without WOODEN propellers) and the USA (the R-40 and R-39 engines could not withstand the “Russian” modes of combat operation)!
                      But if the German ASA was shot down by a Soviet pilot with the rank of CAPTAIN and ABOVE, it meant that the victory was deserved and this pilot himself was an ASOM!
                      ... German ace is all the same ace and you cannot beat him for free. This is work for a man, not a boy, and rare in the air majors and lieutenant colonels shot down German aces almost as much as numerous lieutenants.
                      1. 0
                        22 December 2018 11: 07
                        I do not intend to conduct philological discussions.
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Gerhard Barkhorn

                        Herr Gerhard was too polite. He once said something pleasant to the interlocutor, and now this nonsense has been waved for so many years.
                      2. 0
                        22 December 2018 21: 29
                        On June 22, 1941, at one thirty minutes in the morning, Staffelkapitan 5 / JG54 Hubert Mutterich with a mug of steaming coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other approached the Messerschmitt of his deputy Joachim Wandel. “Don't be sad,“ Dwarf, ”he said to a thoughtful comrade. “The hunt will be fun!”
                        Nevertheless, exactly one month after the outbreak of war Grunherz commander Major Trautloft signed an order for the squadron, which said, in particular: “One cannot welcome the enthusiasm of some of our comrades for maneuvering battles with the“ rats ”and“ Ivanes ”. Knightly fights are not for the East. We must just win. ”

                        In addition to Barkhorn, there were many pilots who left written sources about the air war in the skies of the USSR! Orders, letters and so on ...
                        On August 9, JG54 pilots experienced a real shock: in the battle with a Soviet fighter, the most successful and productive “air hunter” of that time was killed holder of all conceivable awards of the Third Reich, commander of the 7th staffel, Lieutenant Max-Helmut Ostermann (102 victories). His "Messerschmitt" fell into Lake Ilmen and sank.
                        “What to hide,” recalled Sukov Arkady Ivanovich, “ in the first phase of the battle I was just lucky: the lines of the “hunter” passed by my “LaGG”. After the attack, the German jumped forward, and here I was in a favorable position. He spun expertly, but could not tear himself away, and after three minutes he fit snugly into the sight of my fighter. And then it’s a matter of technology: the weapons on the LaGG were powerful. ”
                      3. +1
                        22 December 2018 21: 47
                        Quote: hohol95
                        in a battle with a Soviet fighter, the most successful and productive “air hunter” of that period was killed

                        So what? The kid walked to success, it didn’t work, he didn’t fartanulo.
        2. Alf
          0
          20 December 2018 18: 49
          And in the 44th P-40 with whom could he fight on equal terms? And by the 44th Hoki disappeared from combat units.
          In the Soviet Air Force, the Kittyhawk was considered an “average” machine: better than the I-15, I-16 and Hurricane, but worse than the R-39, Yaki or Lavochkin. Therefore, the story of a typical regiment on the P-40 looked like this. He started the war on the I-15, I-16 or MiG-3; having lost them in battles by the beginning or middle of 1942, he received the R-40S; gradually replenished P-40E, K, which replaced out-of-order previously received machines. Then two options followed: if the regiment didn’t especially show itself in battles, then it was transferred to air defense and received P-40M and N; if he achieved noticeable success, he became a guard and rearmament on the P-39, Yak-7, -9 or La-5. This continued until the end of 1943, when the "Kittyhawks" practically disappeared from the Red Army Air Force, almost completely switching to air defense and naval aviation. In May 1945, only one regiment (24 Kittyhawks) was listed in the 1st IA of the III Belorussian Front, but in the air defense there were 409 Kittyhauks and Tomahauks, 96 pieces in the Air Force of the Black Sea Fleet and about fifty in the Air Force Northern.
    2. +1
      20 December 2018 00: 06
      On the P-40 and Safonov flew! And he died in this car ...
      "Tigers" then why are you nicer to "Normandie-Niemen"?
  26. +1
    19 December 2018 08: 17

    almost any airplane can be a crusher, and judging by the combination of characteristics ...
    here Tashka is an excellent crusher, but he did not show himself in WWII
    1. +3
      19 December 2018 12: 56
      Quote: SASHA OLD
      here is Tashka - an excellent crusher,


      Especially when the computer calculates the lead point :))
      1. +1
        19 December 2018 15: 13
        Especially when the computer calculates the lead point :))

        in RB (Realistic Battles) it is not there, only in AB (Arcade Battles) there is, in the video - RB, there you can catch flutter, and different engines at different heights manifest themselves differently ...
        But in general, what am I doing? Ta-152 on paper was just a fairy tale and not an airplane: a large second volley, weapons in the root parts of the wings and in the nose - perfect, solid construction, excellent pique, armor ...
        what's the point? had no influence on the course of the war.
        But in general, the modest Yak-7 took out many battles and left behind a memory, and few heard about the tricked-out Tashka-152 (essentially the crown of the Fokke-Wulf company)
        1. +2
          19 December 2018 15: 29
          Quote: SASHA OLD
          generally few heard


          Ta-152 lit up a little on the eastern front, it is quite possible that it was confused with the long-nosed Dora.
          Klosterman had a very high opinion of the Ta-152, placing this aircraft in importance after the Me-262
          1. 0
            19 December 2018 16: 38
            Ta-152 lit up a little on the eastern front, it is quite possible that it was confused with the long-nosed Dora.

            most likely it is, apparently they are almost twins
            Klosterman had a very high opinion of the Ta-152, placing this aircraft in importance after the Me-262

            If Tashka appeared early and in "commercial" quantities - who knows what would have happened ...
            But Schwalb personally hacked Aloizych: all the while interfering in work on it and demanding a bomber and not a fighter, that's why it turned out to be done later and not as intended ... well, this is what I read before from open sources, in general Hitler liked to interfere in the work of designers or demanding an uber machine without defining tasks for it, Mouse as an example by the way - no matter how he is to the village or the city - the tenacity of the gloomy Teutonic genius thought ... more than once played against the genius himself))
            1. 0
              19 December 2018 17: 05
              Quote: SASHA OLD
              But Schwalb personally hacked Aloizych: all the while interfering in work on it and demanding a bomber and not a fighter, that's why it turned out to be done later and not as intended ... well, this is what I read before from open sources, in general Hitler liked to interfere in the work of designers or demanding an uber machine without defining tasks for it, Mouse as an example by the way - no matter how he is to the village or the city - the tenacity of the gloomy Teutonic genius thought ... more than once played against the genius himself))


              In addition to the intervention of Adolf Aloizovich, all German jet engines of that time had a carriage and a couple of small carts of flaws, which significantly reduced the efficiency of German aircraft with jet engines.
              1. +2
                19 December 2018 17: 11
                Quote: NF68
                all German jet engines of that time had a carriage and a couple of small trolley of flaws, which significantly reduced the efficiency of German jet aircraft.

                Not only German.
                Another thing is that someone, like the Americans, could calmly sit with their shootingstar in their America, teach pilots and technicians, deal with accidents, and the Germans immediately into battle.
                1. +1
                  20 December 2018 17: 03
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Quote: NF68
                  all German jet engines of that time had a carriage and a couple of small trolley of flaws, which significantly reduced the efficiency of German jet aircraft.

                  Not only German.
                  Another thing is that someone, like the Americans, could calmly sit with their shootingstar in their America, teach pilots and technicians, deal with accidents, and the Germans immediately into battle.


                  So the Germans had no choice. The only way to compensate for the insufficient amount of military and other equipment produced by the Germans, the Germans could only use news with higher TTX than the enemy aircraft. Even the most sophisticated German aviation ICE would not give the Germans decisive advantages, and these engines appeared too late and in too small a quantity.
        2. +1
          19 December 2018 15: 32
          Quote: SASHA OLD
          But in general, the modest Yak-7 took out many battles and left behind a memory, and few heard about the tricked-out Tashka-152 (essentially the crown of the Fokke-Wulf company)

          Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the Ta-152 released 70 pieces in all three versions, and the Yak-7 - about 7 thousand.
          1. -1
            19 December 2018 16: 14
            Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the Ta-152 released 70 pieces in all three versions, and the Yak-7 - about 7 thousand.

            exactly what is connected: the mass production and the timeliness of appearance in the troops at the front - this must also be taken into account when determining the "best"
            in general, there is a lot of things in the article and a lot about what is not mentioned (below I wrote about the laminar wing profile of the Mustangs - and this was still another step in aerodynamics - one of the main features of the Mustangs: maximum energy conservation with gentle maneuvers), in fact it is simple a set of "most beautiful" or those that "liked the author of the article" aircraft
            1. +1
              19 December 2018 16: 33
              Quote: SASHA OLD
              exactly what is connected:

              The "sarcasm" tag is missing.

              Quote: SASHA OLD
              one of the main Mustang chips

              Nothing much to discuss here. Because the topic begins "the possibilities of the industry of the warring countries." A huge, serious topic that almost no one here is ready to discuss. I saw a hundred page discussions on Soviet engines alone.

              In particular, no one except the Americans could put a laminar wing on a production car. The tolerances of American mass production allowed such accuracy, and even German - no.

              It’s much easier to poke any kind of aircraft, like, one at a time, so that no one goes offended.
              By the way, Italians had excellent fighters.

              Quote: SASHA OLD
              just a set of "most beautiful" or those that "liked the author of the article" aircraft

              Discovery Channel, wrote above.
              1. 0
                19 December 2018 17: 39
                By the way, Italians had excellent fighters.

                by the way, for sure, the school there was excellent, from memory it seems like the first piston gun who reached the speed of sound (at the peak) was Italian, Folgore seems to be called (I can be wrong)
                Discovery Channel, wrote above.
                - definitely
                Regarding the Mustang (or rather the fact that no one could make a laminar profile - I did not know, I thought that they just "did not bother") and the American industry in general - I completely agree, it is dry and comfortable to sit behind a puddle in safety, you can afford to develop technologies, improve the industry , experiment finally, practice ...
                1. +4
                  19 December 2018 18: 27
                  Quote: SASHA OLD
                  and in general American industry - I fully agree to sit behind a puddle in safety

                  It's not about security. And in compliance with submillimeter tolerances in mass production. Discussed in this thread in relation to engines. No one except the Americans at the beginning of the war could make a laminar wing in the series; it required severe discipline.
                  Quote: SASHA OLD
                  you can allow yourself to develop technology, improve industry, finally experiment, work out ...

                  You seem categorically not in the subject. The peculiarity of the American military-industrial complex was that America did not really have a military-industrial complex. If the fleet is still somehow something, then the army in general and its air corps in particular were interrupted than God would send. The story of the same Mustang is characteristic. Made by the manufacturer of training aircraft for the English order, without any attention from government agencies.

                  Nice fucking being the US government. You’re lying on the stove, and you’ve got a mustang here, the production of merlins is getting better and you don’t even want to know about it.

                  As a result, most American models of weapons were secondary in technical terms, but at the same time made in good faith and in insane quantities. The British, for example, had incredible motors, but producing them was much worse.

                  A gradual revision of this approach began only during the war on the example of jet engines.
                  1. +3
                    19 December 2018 20: 50
                    You seem categorically not in the subject.

                    yes, about the industry, production and features of the American military-industrial complex, I really am not in the subject, I still have a lot of "gaps" - that's why I'm trying to fill them
                    1. Alf
                      +3
                      19 December 2018 21: 11
                      Quote: SASHA OLD
                      therefore I try to make up for them

                      +. We all study here.
              2. 0
                22 December 2018 22: 19
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                By the way, Italians had excellent fighters.


                Only the engines for these excellent fighters, the Italians produced either too little or did not produce at all and tested their new fighters with the engines that they got from the Germans, and the Germans themselves had problems not only with the 7 aircraft engines
                1. 0
                  22 December 2018 22: 27
                  Quote: NF68
                  Only engines for these great fighters

                  Here you are right, interrupted by German.
    2. 0
      19 December 2018 20: 50
      almost any airplane can be a crusher, and judging by the combination of characteristics ...
      here Tashka is an excellent crusher, but he did not show himself in WWII

      I wanted to agree, but I understood the wrong P "Tashka" ... Ta. 183 Huckebein. smile

      In addition to four 30-mm Mk108 cannons in the front of the fuselage, the Huckebein was planned to carry the world's first Ruhrstal-Kramer X-4 guided air-to-air missiles with a launch range of up to 3-5 km. Missile guidance was carried out by the pilot by wire - such a scheme was not only simple, but also did not depend on the active radio interference that allied bombers used during their raids. The missiles, designed to combat bombers moving in dense combat formations, have already been tested and are ready for use. A bomb load of 500 kg was also envisaged in the inner hatch at the bottom of the fuselage. http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/ta183.html
      1. 0
        19 December 2018 21: 01
        Ta. 183 Huckebein.

        this is an WMD!)
      2. 0
        19 December 2018 21: 17
        Quote: VictorZhivilov
        Ta. 183 Huckebein.

        Take the MiG-15 immediately, which is already there.
        1. 0
          19 December 2018 22: 07
          Take the MiG-15 immediately, which is already there.

          Take it higher ... MiG-35. smile
  27. +1
    19 December 2018 11: 38
    Strange somehow.
    I read several times that Messer was recognized as the best fighter of 2 MV. And according to the results of both military and post-war exhibitions, comparisons, training battles.

    And where is he here?
    or is it what was produced at the end of the war?
    1. Alf
      0
      19 December 2018 18: 22
      Quote: Larum
      I read several times that Messer was recognized as the best fighter of 2 MV.

      By the Germans?
      1. 0
        20 December 2018 08: 44
        Old Soviet books about pilots. Art Memoirs
      2. 0
        20 December 2018 13: 06
        And what are the doubts? Almost all German aces flew 109. The same Hartmann flew 109. And indeed, the most massive fighter in history.
        1. Alf
          0
          20 December 2018 18: 42
          Quote: Alex_You
          The same hartmann

          He is a storyteller.
          Quote: Alex_You
          And what are the doubts?

          In that all German is the best in the world, just look at Discovery. And for a long time in the West there has been some kind of irrational cult of all German as the best in the world.
          1. 0
            20 December 2018 19: 03
            Build a time machine, see a storyteller or not

            I did not say that all German is the best.
            1. Alf
              0
              20 December 2018 19: 49
              Quote: Alex_You
              Build a time machine, see a storyteller or not

              He was caught so many times on nonsense that it is impossible to say in a fairy tale, nor to describe with a pen. And believes this only or "children of the TV with a remote control instead of brains", or especially stubborn.
              1. 0
                21 December 2018 00: 02
                Quote: Alf
                He was caught so many times on bullshit

                And how many of his 352 times he was caught on bullshit? 10? fifty?

                In Hartmann statistics, the number of applications is quite moderate. If we take into account the number of sorties and the number of battles.

                And so as not to get up twice. The way he was treated is a shame. For the USSR. For the USA.
                1. Alf
                  0
                  21 December 2018 18: 45
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  The way he was treated is a shame.

                  What exactly is a shame? What was planted because he fought against the USSR?
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  And how many of his 352 times he was caught on bullshit? 10? fifty?

                  Hartmann on April 9, the 44th, declared 4 shot down, in the journal of the unit behind him 1 was recorded.
                  1. +2
                    21 December 2018 21: 10
                    Quote: Alf
                    What was planted because he fought against the USSR?

                    The United States extradited prisoners of war to a third state that did not sign the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which is a direct violation of this convention (Articles 2, 4, 75). Let me remind you that a violation of the convention was incriminated in Nuremberg as a war crime.
                    Quote: Alf
                    for the fact that he fought against the USSR?

                    In 1949, Hartmann was tried. He was charged with three charges:
                    1. Shooting at civilians of the Bryansk village
                    2. Attack of the bakery in 1943
                    3. Crippling the Soviet economy, which resulted in the destruction of 347 expensive Soviet aircraft (thus, the Soviet court officially recognized all the victories of Hartmann)

                    The first two "crimes" were pure delirium. All three - the shame of the so-called. "Soviet court". However, there are no questions to this organization.
                    By the way, on what grounds was he in the USSR from the 45th to the 49th year? What kind of "prisoners of war" in the 49th year?
                    Quote: Alf
                    Hartmann on April 9, the 44th, declared 4 shot down, in the journal of the unit behind him 1 was recorded.

                    That is, he shot down at 352, and 349?

                    ***

                    Was he a late moral man?

                    No wasn `t. He drank heavily, troubled with different Freudians, and behaved like Conor McGregor with the journalists.

                    Was the deceased a fine and damn lucky fighter pilot in ideal conditions for a fragmentrocer?

                    Yes, how else.

                    Was the deceased a man to respect for?

                    Of course. And for his denial and thieves move in the Soviet camps - including.
                    1. 0
                      21 December 2018 23: 19
                      Of course. And for his denial and thieves move in the Soviet camps - including.

                      Are you a follower of AUE?
                    2. Alf
                      0
                      22 December 2018 18: 49
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      That is, he shot down at 352, and 349?

                      It is only in one day.
                      1. +1
                        22 December 2018 19: 26
                        Quote: Alf
                        It is only in one day.

                        So what? You lead to the fact that he shot down (14) 88 aircraft?

                        As far as I know, some undertook to verify the Hartmann account according to Soviet data. 300+ more or less confirmed. Naturally, there are no guarantees, why didn’t the plane return. But it is very likely that yes.
                      2. Alf
                        0
                        22 December 2018 19: 39
                        You think that he built 352 aircraft, I think not. Neither you nor I have any special evidence. Let everyone remain in their own opinion.
                      3. +2
                        22 December 2018 20: 36
                        Quote: Alf
                        Neither you nor I have any special evidence.

                        Sorry?

                        I have an opinion of the award department of the Luftwaffe and the most humane Soviet court in the world. These opinions coincide. You have regular waterbautism.

                        It doesn't matter how much exactly Hartmann shot down planes - and even more or less than Barghorn or Rarl. However human capabilities born fighter pilot, who had 52 years of flight practice at the time of joining the JG6, such leaders as Rosmann and Kupinsky, which usually outnumber the enemy, as a rule, should not cause particular doubts.

                        Which does not make him the most useful ace of war, of course. The most useful, the NIV, is certainly the mentioned D.Tach with 6 victories.
  28. +1
    19 December 2018 12: 20
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The fact that the sky of Korea for the Americans is indisputable.
    - thanks, neighing. You made my day. From the same pedovikii so as not to go far. I highlighted the main thing to make it easier for you.
    In the fall of 1950, the Soviet 64th fighter air corps armed with new MiG-15 aircraft entered the war. MiG-15 was the most modern Soviet aircraft and surpassed the American F-80 and F-84, not to mention the old piston engines. Even after the Americans sent the latest F-86 Saber planes to Korea, Soviet aircraft continued to offer fierce resistance over the Yalu River. The MiG-15 had a larger practical ceiling, good acceleration characteristics, rate of climb and weapons (3 guns versus 6 machine guns), although the speed was almost the same. UN troops took a numerical advantage and soon this allowed them to equalize their position in the air until the end of the war - a determining factor in a successful initial offensive to the north and the confrontation of Chinese troops ... ... Modern researchers estimate the loss of the Soviet Union and its allies in air battles at 480 aircraft, the loss of the United States and allies to 750 aircraft, that is, slightly more than half of the declared .
    1. +1
      19 December 2018 12: 45
      Happy for you.
      You may be smart enough to answer the question.

      What planes besides fighters did the USSR / PRC lose? What can this be said in terms of air supremacy?
  29. +1
    19 December 2018 12: 50
    This circumstance allows us to state that, conceptually, the “bench” has become a more successful aircraft than another Soviet fighter, the Yak-3, which has a lower mass of a second volley. However, the Yak, so beloved by many, could boast of the best build quality, so the choice of the most advanced Soviet fighter during the war was traditionally subjective.


    Is it okay that the ASh-82FN engine in the "best fighter" La-7 was overheating, which led to staggered output in the second row cylinders?
    The same engine on the La-5FN had much less wear.
    This was due to a denser squeezing of the La-7 hood and more heat-stressed working conditions of the second row of cylinders.
    Perm Plant 21 solved this problem only after the end of the war.
    1. +2
      20 December 2018 09: 07
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      and that the ASh-82FN engine in the "best fighter" La-7 was overheating, which led to a stepped output in the second row cylinders

      Are you not aware of the fight against production? This is just one of 37 versions tested. There is a great article. The fight continued until 1944, and production took place on the La-5FN. The most interesting thing is that the problem did not come out during the installation of the first series of fuel equipment, which was "famous" for its low quality and unstable operation. She got out in 1942, and in 1941 no one heard about her. As a result of the comprehensive measures taken, 4 versions of the reasons for the production were confirmed. Basically, these were technological measures in the production of engines, crankshafts, fuel equipment, spark plugs, and yes, cooling measures that Polikarpov and Sukhoi recommended when developing the Su-2 and I-185. Worst of all, the technologically similar M-71 (F) engines have never had such a problem.
      I will never understand why the more reliable and powerful M-71 did not go into production, and the M-82 went. He could cover all the needs for single-engine aircraft.
      But as a result of the dance with a tambourine, a very reliable ASh-63 engine for the An-2 came out, which was produced for many years.
      1. +2
        20 December 2018 11: 40
        Quote: goose
        Worst of all, the technologically close M-71 (F) engines have never had such a problem.
        I will never understand why the more reliable and powerful M-71 did not go into production

        He had no operational problems because he did not go into production. It is known how the ASh-73 motor, released much later, behaved the same way.
        Quote: goose
        A very reliable ASh-63 engine for An-2

        Do you understand that on the An-2 engine there is one row of cylinders, and on 71 and 73 there are two of them? What causes some difficulties?
      2. 0
        20 December 2018 12: 09
        Quote: goose
        Worst of all, the technologically close M-71 (F) engines have never had such a problem.


        All the same, pilot and serial production are very different technologically.
        Step production due to the thermal cone in the cylinder was manifested precisely in mass production.
        The M-71 would have the exact same problems if it weren’t to competently organize blowing of the second row of cylinders.
        Quote: goose
        You do not know about the fight against development?

        So this is the article's findings.
        Of course, both La-5FN and, to a greater extent, La-7 had problems with ASh-82 FN
        which is well shown by the failure table for 1945.
  30. +1
    19 December 2018 13: 19
    The first flight on Tempest through the eyes of Pierre Klosterman (the translation is terribly crooked - what is on the milter, and the book is no better - the case when the translator has no stock of aviation terms)

    I quickly remembered all the information that my instructor told me. Since the exhaust gases had a high content of carbon dioxide and seeped into the cab, we had to breathe oxygen all the time. So I hurriedly put on my mask and opened the intake valve. When taking off, the "typhoons" turned to the right heavily, and therefore I very carefully adjusted the rudder. He opened the radiator wide. I checked the chassis lock - the lever looked uncomfortable and looked like a lever for flaps. To open the pneumatic circuit, I lowered the control shields, in order to avoid ramming effect. [187]
    ...
    I was convinced that my tanks are full of fuel and chose the central fuselage tanks for take-off with gravity feed if the pump fails. Unscrewed the alveyers; one released a mixture of alcohol and ether into the carburetor, the other a mixture of gasoline and oil into the cylinders.

    I put the cartridge in the starter. (The Coffman system, which uses strong expansion of detonating gases to make the engine run. If the engine starts working immediately, it will definitely light up when it is full of fuel.) Holding one finger on the starter coil and the other on the starter button, I started the cartridge. The mechanic, hanging on the wing, helped to “grab” the engine, and he started up with a deafening roar. The power of the rumble produced was almost five times that of the Spitfire rumble. After several unsuccessful attempts, the engine started up in a fairly stable rhythm, although not without oil leaking through all the pores. The way the engine vibrated inspired me with suspicion. The nerves were very tense, and I did not feel confident at all. What the hell made me get back to operational work?

    ...
    I started to steer - too fast. I should be careful not to overdo it with [188] the brakes. They overheat very quickly, and the hot brakes do not work.

    What an engine! You move forward quite blindly, choosing a path like a crab, turning the steering wheel first a little to the left, then to the right to be able to see ahead. Once on the edge of the runway, before venturing on, I cleaned the spark plugs, according to the instructions, turned on up to 3000 revolutions, and the oil film immediately spilled onto the windshield.

    ... I tightened my belts, released the brakes, carefully taxied to the white line in the middle of the concrete and opened the throttle, pressing my left foot hard on the rudder panel.

    I was warned that the "typhoons" pump, but definitely not as much as this one! And the "cattle" gained speed, like a rocket! I adjusted the brakes as best I could, but even now I was dangerously carried to the right.

    Halfway to the runway, my right wheel was practically on the ground. If [189] I weren’t on concrete, I would gracefully complete a half barrel and be on my back.

    This plane simply did not have lateral stability at all. I still continued to drift to board the starboard side, and with those miserable ailerons that could only increase speed “slightly” above 100 mph, I couldn’t lower my left wing too much.

    Fortunately, after a series of accidents, all for the same reason, they moved the hangar F lower, but even then I went very close to the hangar E. I removed the chassis, but forgot to brake. The terrible vibration that shook the entire plane reminded me that the wheels that had gone into the wing cavities were still spinning at full speed. I just hoped that the wheel bandage would survive.
    ...
    Finally, I got used to the plane and felt better. When cornering, the plane slowed down more on the wing, but it was not very bad.

    A little dive to understand what happened. Wow! With seven tons, accelerating down was fantastic. I realized with satisfaction that his speed is much higher than the speed of the Spitfire. What would it look like at the tempest!

    Half an hour passed quickly, and I began to pack up my courage to land. Initially go around with an open throttle at a speed of 420 mph to completely get rid of those damn air congestion. But after that I, as it turned out, could not slow down enough to safely release the chassis, even if I closed the throttle valve, desperately sliced ​​through the air with my tail and lowered my radiator. One lap passed - the engine idled at a speed of 300 miles per hour. Another [190] one circle - at a speed of 250. In desperation, I carried out a vertical ascent without an engine. Climbed up about 3000 feet, but it reduced speed to 200 miles per hour. At such a low speed, the car was terribly unstable and the release of the chassis could have unforeseen consequences. Once again, although they warned me, I was taken by surprise, this time with a swing, reminiscent of entering a tailspin.

    I asked for permission to land. Cautiously and maintaining good speed, I reached the goal, lowered the flaps, and everything went fine until I tried to level out - these thick wings seemed to be unreliable. I just started pulling the control knob toward me, as this thing died out and began to fall like a stone. Then she leveled off, her nose in the air, and a terrible roar came.

    Like crazy, I fought the ailerons so as not to land on my back.

    In the end, after bucking two or three times, like a mustang, my “typhoon” finally calmed down and drunkenly rolled down the runway, which now seemed definitely short. Nevertheless, I managed to stop before the breakthrough of the environment, in a cloud of smoke and burning. My unfortunate tires emitted a strong smell of burning rubber, but they heroically withstood the weight of the seven tons that landed on them at a speed of 120 miles per hour.

    Fortunately, my unfortunate landing did not seem to attract much attention - there were such terrible landings that day, including two with severe damage, that, since the plane was still intact, it was regarded as a good “arrival”

    Memoirs
    Klosterman Pierre Henry Clostermann
    Great show.
    WWII through the eyes of a French pilot

    http://militera.lib.ru/memo/french/clostermann/03.html
    1. +1
      19 December 2018 17: 41
      Memoirs
      Klosterman Pierre Henry Clostermann
      Great show.
      WWII through the eyes of a French pilot

      http://militera.lib.ru/memo/french/clostermann/03.html

      thanks for the reference
  31. 0
    19 December 2018 13: 25
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Happy for you.
    You may be smart enough to answer the question.

    What planes besides fighters did the USSR / PRC lose? What can this be said in terms of air supremacy?

    Judging by your comment, allocated you have not mastered ... perhaps you did not have the quick wits ... alas, but I can’t be happy for you.
    1. +1
      19 December 2018 13: 44
      Quote from Gnus
      Judging by your comment, you have not mastered the highlighted

      Highlighted - empty words. People who were properly taught to read know how to distinguish facts from someone’s opinion. This is an extremely useful skill now.

      Last try.

      Facts: in Korea, UN troops lost from all causes more than 1,5 thousand IS (Corsair, Mustang, Shutingstar, Panther, Thunderjet), about 300 attack aircraft / front-line bombers - skyriders and invaders, more than 100 B-29s.

      Who was the air behind?
      1. 0
        19 December 2018 17: 33
        However, in Vietnam, the number did not fail ...
        In total, the USSR did not deliver an equivalent number of aircraft to either the PRC or the DPRK!
        And he sent his pilots and planes at times less! Comparison in pieces, the quality of the bulk of the aircraft and the heads of the pilots was not on the side of the communist camp.
        But the losses of the "democrats" are higher than the losses of the "communists"!
        Air defense, though that time, but brought to the altar of ARESA its blood sacrifice!
        UN aviation drove North Korea into the "stone age", but the INFANTRY stood at 38 PARALLELS!
        1. +2
          19 December 2018 17: 47
          Quote: hohol95
          But the losses of the "democrats" are higher than the losses of the "communists"!

          Again.
          One side loses 400 fighters. The second is losing 2000 attack aircraft. Who dominates the air?
          Quote: hohol95
          but the INFANTRY stood at 38 PARALLELS!

          Chinese infantry.

          ILC won that war. The State Department lost it.
          1. 0
            19 December 2018 17: 58
            Losses are losses! 1 or 5 thousand ...
            There was complete domination of the "UN" in the strike machines - I voiced this -
            UN aviation pushes North Korea into the Stone Age
            .
            In Vietnam, there was exactly the same picture in the air!
            But the situation on earth was different!
            It does not matter whose infantry stood at 38 parallels (Chinese, Korean or Australian).
            The ILC showed its "muscles" only due to the EXCELLENCE of the "UN" troops on the SEA and in the AIR!
            Neither in the USSR nor even more so in China at that time there were so many ships and planes!
            And in terms of the types of aircraft used, the UN were far ahead - against the Soviet Yak-9, La-11, Il-10 and MiG-15, the entire potential of the remaining after WWII (piston engines) and a large number of new (jet vehicles) were thrown.
          2. 0
            19 December 2018 18: 04
            And the mountains of Korea are not the jungle of Vietnam. But the USSR of 1950 is not the USSR of 1965!
            The war of 1950 was, according to many documents, unprofitable and unexpected for the USSR!
            But because of her beginning, the Union had to "harness" it ...
            1. -2
              19 December 2018 18: 41
              Quote: hohol95
              In Vietnam, there was exactly the same picture in the air!

              Yeah. The Americans always ensured dominance. They just could not use it.
              Quote: hohol95
              The ILC showed its "muscles" only due to the EXCELLENCE of the "UN" troops on the SEA and in the AIR!

              The ILC was much better at fighting, you know. But the military and political leadership of the United States was not ready for war. We fought on improvisations.
              MacArthur offered to improvise something with an atomic bomb, for example.
              Quote: hohol95
              Neither in the USSR nor even more so in China at that time there were so many ships and planes!

              Who cares how many there were? Only MiG-15s were sent to battle.
              Quote: hohol95
              Rotiv Soviet Yak-9, La-11, IL-10

              Piston cars are mostly Korean brothers.
              Quote: hohol95
              But because of her beginning, the Union had to "harness" it ...

              Poor him. He had to.
              1. 0
                19 December 2018 23: 49
                MacArthur offered to improvise something with an atomic bomb, for example.

                It's a pity he didn't have a "vigorous" bomb when he "defended" the Philippines ...
                Poor him. He had to.

                I had to!
                At one time, the Americans had to unleash a war with the Spaniards because of the "explosion by the Spaniards" of the battleship "MEN" ...
                Later "it was necessary" to save Grenada from the "communists", and at the same time to protect its citizens from "capture by the Cubans".
                And nothing. They still save.
                The airport was built by the Cubans so no one has completed ...
                Piston cars are mostly Korean brothers.

                La-11 was also used by Soviet pilots!
                Since July 1950, the 351st IAP was removed from combat duty and began to be used as a training unit for training Chinese pilots on La-11. For two months, our pilots prepared a shift for themselves. Having handed over the planes to the 7th (according to other sources, the 10th) fighter regiment of the PLA Air Force, our personnel went by train to Dairen. On October 20, the 351st IAP returned to the Soviet base in Dalniy, where he received a new set of fighters, almost exactly the same in appearance. The respite continued until the end of spring 1951.
                There was a war in Korea. La-11 was going to use as night interceptors. The plane could take off and land in the dark, had a significant flight duration, powerful weapons and decent, by Soviet standards, navigation equipment. On board there was only no means to search for an air enemy in the absence of visibility. One could only rely on the experience of a guidance officer who had information from ground-based radars.
                June 13, 1951, the 351st IAP, whose commander was Lieutenant Colonel I.A. Efimov flew to Anshan in northern China. Two weeks later, the regiment entered into combat work to repel raids by American bombers on cities and industrial facilities in North Korea. The base airfield was located about 200 km from the Yalu River, along which patrol zones were marked. The total flight duration was four to five hours, including about two hours of patrolling.
                The first victory in Korea on October 12, 1951 was gained by the regiment’s chief of air rifle training, Captain M. Simko, who shot down the twin-engined In-der b-26 bomber. Nine days later, he knocked out another B-26, but he managed to get out of the battle. On November 16, the commander of the 2nd squadron, Captain P.F. Dushin shot down the second Invader. There were no difficulties in the battle with this veteran of World War II. It turned out to be much more difficult to intercept the four-engined B-29 Superfortress (Super-Fortress), which appeared in the skies of Korea in November 1951. These vehicles had turbocharged engines and very sophisticated defensive weapons; the B-29 crew was located in pressurized cabins.
                Usually, the “Super Fortresses” flew for a bombardment at altitudes of about 10 m. To climb this altitude, La-000 took 11 minutes. The speed advantage at this altitude near the practical ceiling at La-26 turned out to be small and did not exceed 11 km / h. You must admit that the interceptor had few chances. In addition, having received information about the pursuit, the American pilots, dispersing with a gentle dive, easily went towards the sea. The La-20 pilots did not manage to win a single victory over the B-11, but they still damaged two "super-strengths".
                At the beginning of 1952, in the 351st IAP, there was one squadron per MiG-15 and La-11. The remaining 12 piston fighters fought in the regiment until the summer of next year. As before, their “main opponents” were “invaders”. So, on May 15, 1952, pilot Kurganov intercepted and destroyed the B-26. This fact is recognized by the Americans. According to them, it was an RB-26 night scout from the 67th tactical reconnaissance wing; his crew died. In total, from November 1951 to January 1953, pilots of the 351st IAP made 688 sorties, conducted 19 air battles and shot down four B-26 bombers.
                1. +2
                  20 December 2018 00: 29
                  Quote: hohol95
                  It's a pity he didn't have a "vigorous" bomb when he "defended" the Philippines ...

                  It’s a pity that they didn’t put him against the wall back then.
                  Quote: hohol95
                  I had to!

                  Great examples. Is that sarcasm like that?
                  Quote: hohol95
                  La-11 was also used by Soviet pilots!

                  I said mostly.
                  And the stories about night hunting of aircraft without radar are very interesting, here you are right.
              2. 0
                20 December 2018 12: 02
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Poor him. He had to.

                The poor ones are your Yankees: they fight better than anyone, dominate everywhere, but the government is stopping them! As the best warriors in the world, Hitler prevented their super Nazis.
                1. +1
                  20 December 2018 12: 10
                  Quote: victor50
                  fight better than anyone

                  At that moment - better than the Chinese and Koreans. Not so it was difficult.
                  Quote: victor50
                  super nazi prevented them from Hitler.

                  Roosevelt Although to bring down all the problems for 7 years as a dead person and ugly.
                  1. 0
                    20 December 2018 12: 24
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Roosevelt Although to bring down all the problems for 7 years as a dead person and ugly.

                    Actually, I meant the memoirs of soldiers and generals of the Wehrmacht. Your arguments about the ILC are very similar to them.
      2. 0
        20 December 2018 10: 31
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Facts: in Korea, UN troops lost from all causes more than 1,5 thousand IS (Corsair, Mustang, Shutingstar, Panther, Thunderjet), about 300 attack aircraft / front-line bombers - skyriders and invaders, more than 100 B-29s.


        some strange facts you have:
        According to Soviet MiG data, 69 B-29 aircraft were shot down over the sky of Korea, Americans believe that it was destroyed total 16 Boeings. As for the MiGs, according to the information of the Soviet side 335 such vehicles were shot down, the Americans say from 792 fighters.


        The Soviet side announced 1106 air victories and 335 downed MiGs. The official statistics of China speaks of 231 aircraft shot down in air battles (mainly MiG-15) and 168 other losses. The number of North Korean air power losses remains unknown. According to some estimates, she lost about 200 aircraft at the first stage of the war and about 70 after entering the hostilities of China.


        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Who was the air behind?

        For the UN forces, of course.
        Throughout the conflict, the US Army carried out massive carpet bombing, mainly incendiary bombs, throughout North Korea, including peaceful settlements. Despite the fact that the conflict did not last long, the DPRK dropped significantly more napalm than, for example, Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Tens of thousands of gallons of napalm were dumped every day on North Korean cities.

        In May and June 1953, the U.S. Air Force aimed to destroy several key irrigation structures and dams of the hydroelectric station, in order to cause significant damage to agriculture and industry in the north of the peninsula. Dams on the rivers Kusongan, Toksangan and Pudzhongan were destroyed, and vast expanses of land were flooded, causing severe hunger among civilians.

        That is, the economic and civilian infrastructure in North Korea was almost completely destroyed and destroyed mainly by aviation.
        South Korean airfields bombed regularly throughout the war.
        If the Soviet fighter regiments were not based in China, they would have been destroyed on the ground.
        Attacks on Chinese airfields were inflicted only by chance at the initiative of individual American pilots.
        The airborne initiative was wholly owned by the US Air Force, the reason being overwhelming numerical superiority.
        1. +1
          20 December 2018 11: 47
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          some strange facts you have:

          I write about the lost (up to the accidents in Japan), you - about the downed.
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          For the UN forces, of course.

          Surprisingly many people for whom this is not obvious. Which are measured by the accounts of fighters, what Hartmann what.
  32. 0
    19 December 2018 13: 31
    According to Klosterman - the best German planes were Ta152 and Me-262 - he had to meet them in battle.

    The Fokke-Wulf-Ta-152C (a variant of the standard Fokke-Wulf-190) was equipped with a 12-cylinder [198] DB-603 engine of 1675 horsepower with 50 boosts instead of a conventional radial engine.

    This amazing machine provided equipment for about half of the Yagdgeshwaders in January 1945. She was very fast (440 - 480 miles per hour), very maneuverable, armed with a 30 mm small-caliber automatic gun mounted on the engine, two 20 mm small-caliber automatic Mauser guns in the wing root. This "Ta-152" was an impressive opponent. General characteristics put him on a par with the “tempest” and gave him a great advantage over the American “Mustang”, “Lightning” and “Thunderbolt”, as well as “Spitfire-XIV”. The Messerschmitt-109K, equipped with a 605 horsepower Daimler-Benz-1700 engine, was the light equivalent of a Mustang and in capable hands could not be inferior to the tempest.

    The Messerschmitt-262 with two Yumo-004-B1 and four automatic small-caliber 30-mm guns, the MK-108 was the best fighter aircraft produced until then. It was the first jet to be used effectively in combat. He may have generally been the best fighter ever.

    http://militera.lib.ru/memo/french/clostermann/03.html
  33. +1
    19 December 2018 14: 23
    1. La xnumx
    2. Yak-xnumx
    3. R-39
    4.FW-190
    5. Me-109



    Our best!
  34. +1
    19 December 2018 14: 49
    And why didn’t they include the legendary I-16 on this list? After all, after all, the USSR met the war with him. Yes, and various modifications of it were made until almost 44 years old ..
  35. +1
    19 December 2018 15: 15
    Mustangs had a key bonus over all previously produced aircraft: the laminar wing profile (for some reason, not a word about it), which allowed using a similar engine power to develop higher speed, in fact it was another step in aerodynamics
    1. Alf
      +1
      19 December 2018 18: 38
      Quote: SASHA OLD
      laminar wing profile (for some reason, not a word about it), which allowed using a similar engine power to develop higher speed,

      At an altitude of 7620 meters. I would have looked at him accompanied by the Mitchells or the Bostons at 2-3 thousand. Yes, and the laminar wing has the worst maneuverability.
      1. +1
        19 December 2018 18: 50
        Quote: Alf
        I would have looked at him accompanied by the Mitchells or the Bostons at 2-3 thousand.

        For 2-3 thousand, the Americans had other fighters. Also very good. Also a lot.
        1. Alf
          0
          19 December 2018 19: 13
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          For 2-3 thousand, the Americans had other fighters. Also very good.

          What kind ?
          1. 0
            19 December 2018 19: 51
            Quote: Alf
            For 2-3 thousand, the Americans had other fighters.

            The Air Corps of the Army completely went into strategic aviation, but in the Navy and in the CPM they developed primarily tactical, for obvious reasons. So the main fighter below was the Corsair. In August of the 44th, Birkat took off, but he only got into operation in the summer of the 45th.
            1. Alf
              +1
              19 December 2018 21: 08
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The Air Corps of the Army completely went into strategic aviation, but in the Navy and in the CPM they developed primarily tactical, for obvious reasons.

              And in Europe and Africa with Italy, the Mitchells, the Bostons with the Marauders, who accompanied? Corsairs and Hellkets?
            2. Alf
              0
              19 December 2018 21: 18
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              So the main fighter below was the Corsair.

              Does not look like it. Hellket until the 45th year were released 12275 pieces. Corsairs are also 12571, but Corsairs were released until the 53rd, so the majority were still Witches.
              1. 0
                19 December 2018 21: 26
                Quote: Alf
                And in Europe and Africa with Italy, the Mitchells, the Bostons with the Marauders, who accompanied?

                Thunder and Mustangs, who else. But with the Air Corps it was not very thought out, frankly. I say, they completely surrendered to strategists.
                Quote: Alf
                Corsairs and Hellkets?

                No, the fleet was not particularly involved in operations in Europe. Although limes had Corsairs. But this is not the 43rd, especially not the 42nd.
                Quote: Alf
                Corsairs are also 12571, but Corsairs were released until the 53rd, so the majority were still Witches.

                On decks yes, on the shore no. Corsair had unimportant take-off and landing characteristics; for a long time he could not be put on an aircraft carrier.
                1. Alf
                  +2
                  19 December 2018 21: 35
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  the fleet was not particularly involved in operations in Europe.

                  Generally not involved, only when the landing was provided.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Thunder and Mustangs, who else.

                  Thunder at 2-3 thousand against Messer is the same as chasing a motorcycle on Kamaz.
                  1. -1
                    19 December 2018 23: 35
                    Quote: Alf
                    Thunder at 2-3 thousand against Messer is the same as chasing a motorcycle on Kamaz.

                    There is such a point of view, I do not argue. Nevertheless, both the drummers and the pitchers themselves flew to the attack with very moderate losses.
                    1. Alf
                      0
                      20 December 2018 18: 56
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Quote: Alf
                      Thunder at 2-3 thousand against Messer is the same as chasing a motorcycle on Kamaz.

                      There is such a point of view, I do not argue. Nevertheless, both the drummers and the pitchers themselves flew to the attack with very moderate losses.

                      Of course with small losses. The air defense of the Japanese troops generally did not reach much to the German air defense.
                      1. +1
                        20 December 2018 19: 10
                        I spoke about sorties in Europe. On maintenance in the summer of the 45th, the same Corsairs and Hellkets, basically, were engaged in attacks. They did not need Bostons, Corsair himself raised to 2 tons (usually about a ton, two Il-2).
                      2. Alf
                        0
                        20 December 2018 19: 45
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I spoke about sorties in Europe.

                        Did the Mustangs and Thunders work like the IL-2 along the front line? And most of the machine guns, the most dangerous for low-flying aircraft, were on the Eastern Front.
      2. 0
        19 December 2018 20: 36
        Yes, and the laminar wing has the worst maneuverability.

        rate bet was not maneuver
  36. +1
    19 December 2018 17: 12
    Quote: SASHA OLD
    Mustangs had a key bonus over all previously produced aircraft: the laminar wing profile (for some reason, not a word about it), which allowed using a similar engine power to develop higher speed, in fact it was another step in aerodynamics

    The problem is that according to Lend-Lease, both the Mustangs and Spitfair were delivered to the USSR, and they did not make any impression on our pilots. Mustang at low altitudes was generally a dull log.
    It was revealed only at heights of 7000 + m.))
    1. Alf
      0
      19 December 2018 18: 42
      Quote: lucul
      that according to Lend-Lease and Mustangs ... were delivered to the USSR,

      Amendment. Mustangs were supplied, it was said loudly. 10 (TEN) Mustangs were delivered to the USSR to familiarize themselves, and even with the Allisones, who also proved to be so hot in the Western theater.
      Spits were delivered to the USSR, but MK-5s were supplied, which by the 43rd year were already so-so, MK-8s were also in the USSR, but were not used at the front, they went only to air defense, which was caused by good flight data at high altitudes .
    2. 0
      19 December 2018 20: 46
      Mustang at low altitudes was generally a dull log.
      It was revealed only at heights of 7000 + m.))

      I know that the Mustang, that the 47th Bolt were high-altitude, Bolt, for example, had a super-frozen pressurization system, at the height his engine breathed "deeply" when it was given to our pilots - I did not like it: because of the weight, he reacted with a delay to RUD, it was heavier than the IL-2.
      But its survivability ..: somewhere it was written in one of the instructions (or in the memo for young pilots) for the pilots of the 47th ...
      "If you got on" six "and you cannot throw off the pursuer, squeeze into the armored seat and direct the plane in the direction of your airfield" - about the following text
      1. Alf
        +2
        19 December 2018 21: 09
        Quote: SASHA OLD
        "If you got on" six "and you cannot throw off the pursuer, squeeze into the armored seat and direct the plane in the direction of your airfield" - about the following text

        There was another joke-When you are fired from behind, run around the cab. laughing
  37. +2
    19 December 2018 18: 45
    The best fighter would be possible if our designers were given engines and technological equipment of Amers or the British .. For the talent to get the maximum performance characteristics with strictly limited engine power and much lower (frankly) levels of available technology and a general production culture turned out to be inherent in our designers.
    Which makes the results of their work much more valuable than the results of the work of opponents.
    1. +3
      19 December 2018 20: 02
      Quote: Wasiliy1985
      Because the talent to get maximum performance characteristics with strictly limited engine power and much lower (frankly) levels of available technology and a general production culture turned out to be inherent in our designers.

      Jiro Horikoshi looks at your statement with ... some perplexity. smile
      1. +1
        19 December 2018 20: 09
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Jiro Horikoshi looks at your statement

        All the same, his plane cannot be called "low-tech".
        1. +2
          19 December 2018 20: 22
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          All the same, his plane cannot be called "low-tech".

          But also call Japanese level of technology available the tongue does not turn high either. Not because of a good life, they had to make "Zero" the way it was.
          And yes - this episode of the delivery of the aircraft to the airfield at Miyazaki was drawn historically reliably: wink
          1. +2
            19 December 2018 20: 29
            Quote: Alexey RA
            But also to call the Japanese level of affordable technology high, too, the language does not turn

            Yes, but aluminum and magnesium alloys were not brought to the city of Saratov either. And especially people who know what to do with them. Only steel pipes, only veneer, only hardcore!
            1. +1
              19 December 2018 22: 46
              It’s not a topic, but still I can’t help but recall that now we, in Saratov, have no aviation industry at all: SAZs were completely destroyed. But this, I repeat, is not the topic. Nostalgia, perhaps, according to the former greatness of domestic industry.
    2. 0
      19 December 2018 20: 06
      Quote: Wasiliy1985
      get the maximum performance characteristics with strictly limited engine power and much lower (frankly) levels of available technology

      Arsenal VG-33, Caudron CR.770, Ambrosini SAI 403 Dardo, Bell P-77, Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Demon.
      Is it enough?
  38. +1
    19 December 2018 21: 15
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: lucul
    that according to Lend-Lease and Mustangs ... were delivered to the USSR,

    Amendment. Mustangs were supplied, it was said loudly. 10 (TEN) Mustangs were delivered to the USSR to familiarize themselves, and even with the Allisones, who also proved to be so hot in the Western theater.
    Spits were delivered to the USSR, but MK-5s were supplied, which by the 43rd year were already so-so, MK-8s were also in the USSR, but were not used at the front, they went only to air defense, which was caused by good flight data at high altitudes .

    Are you from God's chosen ones too?
    I repeat - according to the Lend - Lease planes were delivered, not anyhow, but what the USSR requested.
    Both Mustang and Spitfire were delivered including, but neither Mustang nor Spit were impressed by our pilots. But the Cobra was impressed - they ordered it, like the R-40 at the beginning of the war.
    In 1943, the strong need for airplanes for land-lease disappeared - La-5 appeared.
    For those who are far from aviation - I explain - in 1943 the Germans got not damaged La-5, and not just La-5, but the latest La-5 FN. And they studied and tested it. And since then, the Germans avoided close battles with La-5.
    The German verdict on La-5 FN is available online and is easy to Google. The general conclusion is that La-5 FN is not inferior to Gustav in speed, but one indicator of the aircraft's controllability plunged the test pilot into a complete shock. I quote literally - "the efficiency of the ailerons is outstanding - at a speed of 450 km / h, the plane makes a full revolution (barrel) in 4 seconds !!!" The Germans could only dream of such indicators of aircraft controllability))
    1. 0
      20 December 2018 15: 55
      Quote: lucul
      The German verdict on La-5 FN is available online and is easy to Google. The general conclusion is that La-5 FN is not inferior to Gustav in speed, but one indicator of the aircraft's controllability plunged the test pilot into a complete shock. I quote literally - "the efficiency of the ailerons is outstanding - at a speed of 450 km / h, the plane makes a full revolution (barrel) in 4 seconds !!!" The Germans could only dream of such indicators of aircraft controllability))


      Well, not that in shock - the pilot (Hans-Werner Lerche) did not drink after test flights
      . But the maximum speed at all altitudes is lower than that of German fighters. The best rate of climb near the ground is comparable to FW 190A-8 and Bf 109. In climbing and turning up to a height of 3000 m, the La 5FH is close to FW 190.


      What a shock ...
      The bend radius is close to FW190 and slightly larger than that of the Bf-109G
      1. 0
        21 December 2018 22: 32
        Well, not that in shock - the pilot (Hans-Werner Lerche) did not drink after test flights

        Have you ever flown virtually on simulators? Learned the basics of flight physics? How does the plane turn left / right? Or knowledge from the field - does everyone know that?
        The aircraft is designed for a specific speed range (for Me.109 it is 400-450km / h) and all controls are designed for these speeds. And on Me.109, as a result of modifications, an engine was installed that allowed reaching speeds of 650 km / h. And at speeds above 450 km / h Me.109 became uncontrollable. He could only dive - and during the dive, to tighten the effectiveness of the controls on the plane was not enough. All Me.109 pilots noted a sharp drop in controllability during the transition from modification F -
        Friedrich, before modification G - Gustav. That's why the test pilot noted the excellent La5 controllability at speeds from 450 km / h and up to a speed of 600 km / h.
        Yes Me.109 is faster at maximum speed - but at speeds at which control is still possible, La5 greatly lost. This is the main reason why Messers began to avoid La5 FN.
        What a shock ...
        The bend radius is close to FW190 and slightly larger than that of the Bf-109G

        Spitfire has much less turn time than FW190, but for Spitfire, FW190 was a much more complex opponent than Me.109. The fact is that on the FW190, the angular roll speed was 160g / sec, against 90g / sec on Spitfire. If the FW190 got on Spitfire’s tail, then he threw it off the tail, as they say once or twice.
        Corrupts the half-turn to the left, two - and immediately the half-turn to the right (that is, in fact - scissors) and that’s it. Sleep is no longer on the tail)). Asleep because of its low roll speed, he simply physically could not keep up with the FW190. But for Me.109 (roll speed 120gr / sec) I was quite in time)).
        La5 has an angular roll speed of 150g / s. On the I-16, generally 180g / s. )))
    2. Alf
      0
      20 December 2018 19: 15
      Quote: lucul
      I repeat - according to the Lend - Lease planes were delivered, not anyhow, but what the USSR requested.
      Both Mustang and Spitfire were delivered including,

      I repeat for the most advanced. Mustangs in the USSR were delivered TEN aircraft, it was taken for review. The P-51A never showed itself as an excellent fighter, so the average, B and D in the USSR were unnecessary due to the lack of strategic bombers.
  39. +1
    19 December 2018 22: 41
    All experts, all in the subject aha ... For some reason, no one came up with a simple idea that comparing war in the air in the West and the East is not entirely correct no? In the West, there are armada of bombers at altitudes of 8 km and all Yankee and Limes fighters with turbochargers are adapted specifically for battles at these altitudes (and there is even an iron P-47, nothing so-so), and in the East, 3-5 km is a ceiling (only Deutsches liked to enter from a height of 5-6 km on the gape of zheltorotikov) And that there was no example of a MiG-3 high-altitude climber at low altitudes (okay, let's say so-so O'K) and our Yak and La at an altitude of over 5 km did not climb at all (yes many aero Air Force of the Red Army and oxygen, yeah) .I am leading this to what and how to compare, what to take as a criterion of success (for example, the R-38 stood abruptly at the theater of operations with his best US Air Force ace I. Bong and the murder of Yamamoto but .. only due to the tactics of 'Boom-Zum' and the agromatic flight range, but in Dog Fight it did not climb from the word in general, and the mentioned Zero which was aerobatic specifically for Dog Fight but .. only until the Yankees, unknowingly, did not climb into a maneuverable battle with him and as soon as Zero became obsolete and the Yankees began to shoot him down, remember the `` Great Marian Hunt for Turkeys '' for example). To summarize, the assessment of a fighter is best done in theaters of military operations, and so .. everything is in the spirit of a children's riddle; who is stronger than an elephant or a whale yeah?
    PS By the way, in my opinion, in the first place (if you take the whole WW II) is just Me-262A Swallow because it is the best for the sky of the West; high-altitude, high-speed and fast-lifting with a terrible airborne volley of 4x30 mm that kills any Allied bomber (that V-17 that V-29 or even V-36). And the fact that he is not maneuverable and he has tasks to shoot down fortresses and liberators and not twist the Dog Fight with the Mustangs (by the way, the Deutsch didn’t knowingly squeeze more points for each downed motor victory in the destruction of bombers rather than riders). And yet its engines (that Yumo is BMW) had a resource of 10 hours but ... what was the use of 100 hours if they beat down the yager in the first departure ???
    1. 0
      20 December 2018 00: 07
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      For some reason, no one thought of a simple thought.

      A long thread, too lazy to read?
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      all Yankees and Limes fighters with turbochargers

      Limes with turbochargers, seriously?
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      even iron r-47 wow so-so

      The P-47 is the best fighter in the world for those heights.
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      I. Bong

      Richard Ira Bong, usually "Ira".
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      US Air Force

      United States Army Air Forces
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      but in Dog Fight not crawling from the word

      P-38 due to the mechanization of the wing was a very maneuverable aircraft. Although spinning with Zero is undesirable, of course.
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      but .. only until the Yankees, unknowingly, did not climb into a maneuvering battle with him

      Zero was superior to Wildcat and Hawk both horizontally and vertically, especially in climate. It was the attack from above and the Climb was the main trick.
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      Zero immediately became obsolete and the Yankees began to shoot him down

      In general, it is surprising that at least one of our pilots was able to return alive. All the successes that the pilots of our fighters were able to achieve in the battle with the Japanese Zero fighters were achieved not due to the characteristics of the machines on which we fly, but as a result of the relatively low accuracy of shooting of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by several of their pilots, and also due to the superior accuracy of shooting and teamwork of our pilots. ... F4F aircraft are deplorably inferior in climb rate, maneuverability and speed. The author had to fly on the F4F model, which did not yet have armored protection and protected gas tanks. Removing these vital defenses would not improve the performance of the F4F enough to come close to that of the Zero fighter. These serious shortcomings not only prevent our fighters from performing combat missions properly, but also have a clear and worrying effect on the morale of our carrier-based fighter pilots. If we intend to keep our aircraft carriers afloat, then we must provide a fighter superior to the Japanese Zero, if not in maneuverability, then at least in the rate of climb and speed.

      (c) John Touch after the Battle of Midway.
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      remember the Great Mariana Turkey Hunt

      By the summer of the 44th, the naval forces had completely rearmament in Hellcat. A fighter superior to the Japanese Zero, if not in maneuverability, then at least in climb and speedas requested.
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      Me-262A Swallow

      Any The 45th year fighter jet was more dangerous for its own pilots than for the enemy.
    2. 0
      20 December 2018 14: 36
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      And what an example of a MiG-3 high-altitude boat which at low altitudes was no

      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      (so for example, at the theater of operations, the R-38 stood abruptly with his best ace of the US Air Force I. Bong and the murder of Yamamoto but ... only due to the Boom-Zoom tactics and the agromous flight range but Dog Fight did not climb from the word voosche

      You will be surprised how transformed the aircraft in the hands of experienced pilots. And the MiG-3, and P-38, and even LaGG-3 could be forced to more or less fight in dogfight at low and medium altitudes, but this required a certain pilot skill. This is not the Yak-1, where, after a half-turn, the handle is on itself and here you have the maximum turn. On some aircraft, in order to squeeze 100%, it was necessary to control the mechanization of the wing, shields, and propeller group, which not everyone could afford.
      The exception is aircraft with laminar flow around the wing. In part, Zero was a kind of hybrid of a glider type wing with a hint of laminar flow, due to which it achieved its profitability.
  40. +1
    19 December 2018 22: 52
    By September 1944, Hawker Tempest had 600-800 V-1 missiles shot down. Fortunately, powerful weapons, consisting of four 20 mm Hispano cannons, made it possible to “send to the forefathers" any enemy from one salvo.

    Once I met in the literature references to entertaining cases when fighters, mainly Tempest and Spitfire, destroyed the V-1 by tipping them: they fudged the Fau's wing tip, after which the latter lost control and crashed.
    1. 0
      20 December 2018 00: 02
      Quote: Sztorm
      By September 1944, Hawker Tempest had 600-800 V-1 missiles shot down. Fortunately, powerful weapons, consisting of four 20 mm Hispano cannons, made it possible to “send to the forefathers" any enemy from one salvo.

      Once I met in the literature references to entertaining cases when fighters, mainly Tempest and Spitfire, destroyed the V-1 by tipping them: they fudged the Fau's wing tip, after which the latter lost control and crashed.

      Yeah. It's like to beat off a flying grenade with a tennis racket ... Blessed is he who believes.
  41. 0
    19 December 2018 23: 17
    An article on the topic "but I like it", there are no criteria for determining the best aircraft. The speed and maneuverability of one type can be inferior to the cost and mass production of another, and so on.
    And the discussion confirms this.
  42. 0
    20 December 2018 10: 35
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote from Gnus
    Judging by your comment, you have not mastered the highlighted

    Highlighted - empty words. People who were properly taught to read know how to distinguish facts from someone’s opinion. This is an extremely useful skill now.
    “Well, of course, because the truth in this forum can come only from your star-striped shout.” People who know how to distinguish facts from someone else's opinion, first of all know how to think and analyze. BUT this has nothing to do with the ability to read.
    Now we take the facts, you gave them a little below, and on their basis - "distinguish" from your opinion - the air was behind "America".

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Last try.
    - No, I don’t believe you, and this time you aren’t violent.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Facts: in Korea, UN troops lost from all causes more than 1,5 thousand IS (Corsair, Mustang, Shutingstar, Panther, Thunderjet), about 300 attack aircraft / front-line bombers - skyriders and invaders, more than 100 B-29s.

    Who was the air behind?
    - Shortly speaking "Currently, Russian researcher Igor Seydov cites Soviet statistics of air battles [54], according to which the loss ratio was 1: 3,4 in favor of Soviet aviation, that is, 3-4 downed planes of all types (fighters, attack aircraft) per one downed Soviet fighter , bombers, reconnaissance) UN aviation"That is, the MiGi-15s, which, according to some Sabers, were winging like a bull a sheep, were thrashed by the UN coalition aircraft 3-4 more than they lost themselves, and this despite the fact that the numerical advantage was on the side of the UN aviation.
    Come on, one more time, the air was out of state.
    1. -1
      20 December 2018 12: 07
      Quote from Gnus
      able to think and analyze. BUT this has nothing to do with the ability to read.

      As you say.
      Quote from Gnus
      Igor Seydov cites Soviet statistics of air battles [54], according to which the loss ratio was 1: 3,4

      Mr. Seydov writes for those who are not trying to think. This is reasonable, since there is a stable majority among readers.
      Quote from Gnus
      thrashed LA of the United Nations coalition in 3-4 more than they lost

      People who have some experience with reading will see that in the phrase you quoted
      Soviet statistics of air battles [54], according to which the loss ratio was 1: 3,4 in favor of Soviet aviation, that is, 3-4 downed planes of all types per one downed Soviet fighter

      written fact
      Soviet statistics of air battles [54], according to which the loss ratio was 1: 3,4 in favor of Soviet aviation
      assumption
      for one downed Soviet fighter there were 3-4 downed planes of all types
      and a lie
      i.e
      Quote from Gnus
      Come on one more time

      We are not rude here. We ourselves are rude.
  43. 0
    20 December 2018 11: 59
    What does the most dangerous mean? If it takes into account the effectiveness itself (the ratio of benefit to price), then this is beyond any doubt the Yak-9. The best fighter to escort his strike aircraft and destroy enemy low-altitude strike aircraft is the main function of a fighter in a war.
    Modifications of the Yak-9 fought very effectively in Korea as well - they shot down the "Shooting Star" rocket launchers. Mustangs and Superfortress B-29 with minimal losses and with a huge numerical superiority of the enemy. When they arrived, they were hastily flown by training Korean pilots. The best proof of the effectiveness of this fighter is hard to imagine.
    1. 0
      20 December 2018 12: 13
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Modifications of the Yak-9 fought very effectively in Korea as well - they shot down the Shooting Star rocket launchers. Mustangs and Superfortress B-29 with minimal losses and with a huge numerical superiority of the enemy. When they arrived, they were hastily flown by training Korean pilots.

      Korean pilots shooting down super-strengths on the Yak-9 is a very good story, thank you. Perhaps she will even lead Gnus_ to some thoughts regarding applications for victory, although there is little hope.
    2. 0
      20 December 2018 14: 26
      Quote: Kostadinov
      If it takes into account the effectiveness itself (the ratio of benefit to price), then this is beyond any doubt the Yak-9.

      The life expectancy at the front of the Yak-9 aircraft was approximately 18 months, due to the manufacturing features. Engine life is approximately 70-100 flying hours. I have a very big doubt that the Yak-9 survived until 1953 in a sane state.
      According to my information, they were used as training, reconnaissance, and sometimes - as light attack aircraft. They were not able to bring down anything due to the material condition and training of the pilots.
      Even the all-metal La-11 was no longer in the subject, and could only fight piston aircraft, which were all smaller by the end of the conflict.
      1. Alf
        0
        20 December 2018 19: 24
        Quote: goose
        The life expectancy at the front of the Yak-9 aircraft was approximately 18 months, due to the manufacturing features. Engine life is approximately 70-100 flying hours. I have a very big doubt that the Yak-9 survived until 1953 in a sane state.

        In Korea, the Yak-9P was used, the release of which was completed in 1948.
        1. 0
          21 December 2018 10: 56
          Quote: Alf
          In Korea, the Yak-9P was used, the release of which was completed in 1948.

          What I’m talking about is that the equipment was physically old by the standards of those times, and even in principle it couldn’t give out its faded TTX.
          1. Alf
            0
            21 December 2018 18: 40
            Quote: goose
            Quote: Alf
            In Korea, the Yak-9P was used, the release of which was completed in 1948.

            What I’m talking about is that the equipment was physically old by the standards of those times, and even in principle it couldn’t give out its faded TTX.

            Why? The equipment could be put on conservation after release, and what would happen to it after that?
            1. 0
              24 December 2018 09: 08
              Quote: Alf
              Why? The equipment could be put on conservation after release, and what would happen to it after that?

              In Korea, it was not put on conservation. The batch size that was delivered is fixed.
              1. Alf
                0
                24 December 2018 19: 34
                Quote: goose
                Quote: Alf
                Why? The equipment could be put on conservation after release, and what would happen to it after that?

                In Korea, it was not put on conservation. The batch size that was delivered is fixed.

                No brainer. She was put on canned food here, and as needed was removed and sent to Korea.
    3. Alf
      0
      20 December 2018 19: 20
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Modifications of the Yak-9 fought very effectively in Korea as well - they shot down the Shooting Star rocket launchers.

      Yes, if you could catch them. I don’t even want to comment on the B-29.
  44. 0
    20 December 2018 12: 29
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    As you say.
    Pichalka is just that you did not say this ...

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Mr. Seydov writes for those who are not trying to think. This is reasonable, since there is a stable majority among readers.
    -Yes Yes. It’s only cherry nine, he writes for those who have thought, and only he knows best how many who pushed.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote from Gnus
    thrashed LA of the United Nations coalition in 3-4 more than they lost

    People who have some experience with reading will see that in the phrase you quoted
    Soviet statistics of air battles [54], according to which the loss ratio was 1: 3,4 in favor of Soviet aviation, that is, 3-4 downed planes of all types per one downed Soviet fighter

    written fact
    for one downed Soviet fighter there were 3-4 downed planes of all types
    and a lie
    i.e
    - yes, we take your numbers without any problems - More than 1,5 thousand IS (Korsar, Mustang, Shutingstar, Panther, Thunderjet), about 300 attack aircraft / front-line bombers - skyriders and insiders, more than 100 B-29s were lost by UN forces from all causes to Korea... - here the truth is not knocked down and, "everything is lost", but I did not pull you by the tongue. So for 335 lost moments, 1,9 lost aircraft. Russian liberals in such cases shout - they filled up with corpses. And you had it - the air was behind the United States.
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    We are not rude here. We ourselves are rude.
    - what us here it is not up to you to decide. Alas and oh you are not in your God-chosen p.i.nd.so.si.i. And yet, yes, you are not rude, you ... unfortunately I can’t tell you that directly here for such a banyat, but I don’t have much hope that you yourself will guess.
  45. +1
    20 December 2018 12: 33
    Quote: Kostadinov
    Yak-9. The best fighter escorting their strike aircraft and the destruction of enemy strike aircraft at low altitude
    Modifications of the Yak-9 fought very effectively in Korea as well - they shot down the "Shooting Star" rocket launchers. Mustangs and Superfortress B-29 with minimal losses and with a huge numerical superiority of the enemy. When they arrived, they were hastily flown by training Korean pilots. The best proof of the effectiveness of this fighter is hard to imagine.

    1) Yak-9 for the tasks you named is far from the best.
    2) The statistics of the B-29 shot down on the Yak-9 do not get over it?
  46. 0
    20 December 2018 12: 34
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Korean pilots shooting down super-strengths on the Yak-9 is a very good story, thank you. Perhaps she will even lead Gnus_ to some thoughts regarding applications for victory, although there is little hope.
    - Well, why not? In any case, it will be very far from the tales told by the red Thai.
    1. 0
      20 December 2018 13: 15
      Quote from Gnus
      1,5 thousand IS (Corsair, Mustang, Shootingstar, Panther, Thunderjet), about 300 attack aircraft / front-line bombers - skyriders and invaders, more than 100 B-29. - here the truth is not knocked down and, "everything is lost", but I did not pull you by the tongue. So for 335 lost moments, 1,9 lost aircraft.

      1900 / 335 = 1,9
      You think the same as you read.
      Apparently, this is a waste of time. Good luck.
      1. 0
        20 December 2018 14: 49
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        1900 / 335 = 1,9

        For vain presented. I apologize in this part.
  47. 0
    20 December 2018 14: 54
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Korean pilots shooting down super-strengths on the Yak-9 is a very good story, thank you. Perhaps she will even lead Gnus_ to some thoughts regarding applications for victory, although there is little hope.

    The Americans have the so-called KORWALD (Korea war losses database). Applications for the downing of the B-29 and P-80 Korean Yak-9 from there from the Americans themselves.
  48. 0
    20 December 2018 15: 04
    Quote from Gnus
    2) The statistics of the B-29 shot down on the Yak-9 do not get over it?


    Date of Loss: 500712
    Tail Number: 44-69866
    Aircraft Type: B-29A
    Wing or Group: 19th Bmb Wg
    Squadron: 28th Bmb Sq
    Circumstances of Loss: Damaged by three Yak-9s near Seoul, engine fire, crew bailed out at 1520L

    Crewmembers Associated With This Loss
    Name
    (Last, First Middle) Rank Service Status Comments
    APODACA, Jose A. SGT USAF RSC Rescued by HMS Alacrity
    BARONE, Anthony J. SSGT USAF RSC Rescued
    BROUS, Donald NMI 1LT USAF RSC Rescued
    BRYANT, William L. MSGT USAF RSC Rescued
    CAIN, Richard B. CPL USAF RSC Rescued
    CODLING, Horace G. 1LT USAF RSC Rescued
    HARDWAY, Everett G. PVT USAF RSC Rescued
    LAYTON, Robert H. 1LT USAF POW
    LIGGETT, David L. CPL USAF RSC Rescued
    LUTZ, JR., Howard NMI PFC USAF RSC Rescued
    MILLER, Paul L. A2C USAF POW
    OWENS, Eugene E. SSGT USAF RSC Rescued
    RIDENOUR, Paul R. CAPT USAF RSC Rescued

    Source: KORWALD Reports
    (Korean War Aircraft Loss Database)
  49. 0
    20 December 2018 15: 10
    That's about shooting old.
    Date of Loss: 500719
    Tail Number: 49-698
    Aircraft Type: F-80C
    Wing or Group: 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
    Squadron: 36th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
    Circumstances of Loss: Damaged by YaK-9 fighters, crashed 1 mi W of Taejon airfield (South Korea)

    Crewmembers Associated With This Loss
    Name
    (Last, First Middle) Rank Service Status Comments
    ODELL, Howard E. CAPT USAF MIA
  50. 0
    20 December 2018 15: 32
    Quote: goose
    The life expectancy at the front of the Yak-9 aircraft was approximately 18 months, due to the manufacturing features. Engine life is approximately 70-100 flying hours. I have a very big doubt that the Yak-9 survived until 1953 in a sane state.

    North Korea received the Yak-9 product for the most part, after the war.
    By the end of the Korean War (summer 1953), at least 40 Yak-9s were still in service with North Korean aircraft, in a very good condition.
  51. The comment was deleted.
  52. 0
    20 December 2018 15: 51
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    1900 / 335 = 1,9

    For vain presented. I apologize in this part.

    I'm sorry I didn't see your second post. I deleted my previous post.
  53. +1
    20 December 2018 20: 29
    Yes, English engines allowed everything. It's even enviable. But I won’t cry, and we, the bastards, were also able to create something, starting almost from scratch. The Germans didn't like it.
  54. +1
    20 December 2018 23: 13
    A fighter is an aircraft whose main purpose is to destroy the enemy in air combat. It can be considered dangerous for the enemy if its design, performance characteristics and weapons allow an average pilot to impose his will and achieve victory.

    In World War II, in different theaters of military operations, the parties had this type of aircraft, but their effectiveness in air battles was determined by the individual training of pilots, group flight, the qualifications of flight personnel, the coordination and interaction of all ground services supporting combat operations (communications, reconnaissance, target designation). , meteorological, engineering, weapons, fuels and lubricants, logistics, medical and sanitary, etc.). Where these issues were given due attention, there were more victories and fewer losses. Suffice it to say that three hundred German pilots shot down 30 thousand aircraft of the anti-Hitler coalition in the last war. This result cannot be surpassed by anyone.

    Of course, a fighter pilot, due to his physical characteristics (health, endurance), piloting technique, combat training, moral and business qualities, and determination, must be, as they say, “sharpened” to achieve victory over the enemy, but one cannot discount the share luck.

    The Soviet fighter was designed for three combat missions, the attack aircraft for five. In the first two years of the war, due to the losses suffered, the shortage of combat aircraft forced the training of pilots on an accelerated basis, which affected the quality of training and led to an increase in combat losses. The Germans, until 1944, made no more than 3-4 sorties a day, and before that, on average, 2-3, but no one spared our pilots, and until 1944, 5-6 sorties, and sometimes (Kursk Bulge) and 7-8. Tired, physically and mentally exhausted, even well-trained pilots died quite often.

    With the increase in the number of combat aircraft, the improvement in the quality of training of pilots and their number, combat losses and losses as a result of accidents and catastrophes have decreased. As regiment commander Eremin wrote: “By 1944, air combat ceased to be something special and turned into ordinary, routine work.”
  55. 0
    21 December 2018 13: 42
    Quote: rubin6286
    Suffice it to say that in the last war three hundred German pilots shot down 30 thousand aircraft of the anti-Hitler coalition. This result cannot be surpassed by anyone.

    In World War II, at least 50% of aircraft were lost without enemy influence. Of the remaining 50%, at least half is from anti-aircraft artillery, on the ground (during retreat and from bombing), from bomber riflemen, from attack aircraft. There remained no more than 25% losses from fighters and of these no more than 25 - 30% from aces. In other words, no more than 6-8% of the total aircraft losses from the so-called “aces”. The total losses of the anti-Hitler coalition are no more than 200 thousand aircraft, and of these no more than 12-16 thousand from German and Japanese “aces” combined. It turns out that these 300 German pilots only scored about 3 times their victories, which is a very good achievement and on average less than the percentage of victories of pilots from other countries. But ultimately, the successes of these 300 pilots are a drop in the bucket. The anti-Hitler coalition has a total aircraft resource of at least 350 thousand, and of these, no more than 3% is accounted for by these 300 aces. It should also be noted that the aces account for much less enemy attack aircraft and more damage to anti-aircraft artillery than the average for all fighters, which further reduces their contribution to the air war.
    In addition, the Asyas also lost their planes, they were shot down on average many times more than the average of other pilots (they became aces). So the real ratio of aircraft losses is several times worse than their victories.
    1. -1
      22 December 2018 00: 33
      Mr. Kostadinov!

      I didn’t understand your message because I clearly wrote that “three hundred German pilots in the last war shot down 30 thousand aircraft of the anti-Hitler coalition. This result has not been surpassed by anyone.” These are not just fighter pilots, but aces, each of whom won 100 or more victories, but there were also those, living and fallen, whose performance was lower. These are exactly those about whom I said “averagely qualified pilots.” In general, German pilots in World War II shot down more pilots in air battles than any country in the anti-Hitler coalition. Hence my second message - the most dangerous fighter planes of the Second World War were German planes, because their “design, performance characteristics and weapons allow a moderately qualified pilot to impose his will on the enemy and achieve victory in battle,” and it doesn’t matter at all, it’s the Me-109 G6, or FV-190A4, Ta-152 or Me-262.

      Naturally, the level of training of fighter pilots in each country is different and no war is complete without losses. My third message is this: “If we compare how many fighter pilots were trained in each country during the last war and how many of them remained alive as of May 9, 1945, as part of aviation units and formations, we can conditionally and very approximately say whose pilots We were better prepared."

      Any of the warring parties allows “postscripts” regarding victories in air battles, based on the real conditions of the possibility of confirming their authenticity, or for political reasons due to the need to maintain high morale among the troops at the front and the population in the rear.

      I will not go into the wilds of the methodology for calculating losses in a particular country and will refer to the memories of German front-line pilots. with whom I had the opportunity to communicate in Germany in the 90s. In their words: “From the very first days of the war, the tactics of Russian pilots were offensive in nature. They had many planes and we did not need to look for them in the air. To strike ground forces, attack aircraft and bombers were used under the cover of fighters. It could be weak or significant. Air battles mostly took place over the front line or over German territory. There, downed aircraft were discovered and victories were confirmed."

      Today, historians from different countries have access to combat records of aviation units, where their results are recorded with maximum reliability. The fate of the pilot depended on these results: awards, monetary incentives, transfer or promotion, etc. The accuracy of entering information into the combat log was monitored not only by the OKL, but also by the Gestapo. None of the “staff rats” was eager to be demoted because of this and end up on the front line. So my fourth message is this:

      Everyone had “posts” of victories, but the Soviet pilots had the most of them, and not at all because they lied more than others. This was done at headquarters most often for ideological reasons because On the Soviet-German front, the war from the first to the last day was extremely fierce.

      Which of our fighter aircraft from the last war can be considered the most dangerous for the enemy. From the memories of our and foreign veterans, it seems to me that these are Yaks (Yak-1,3,9), La-5 FN. I will cite just a few books and articles:

      1. Mark Gallay "Tested in the sky."
      2. Francois Joffre "Squadron "Normandie-Niemen".
      3. M. Zefirov "Luftwaffe Aces. Day Fighters. Volume 1 and 2".
      4.T. Polak and K. Showra "Stalin's Aces. War in the air. Statistics of victories and defeats. 1918-1953."
      5.V.A. Obukhovich, S.P. Kulbaka “The Devil’s Dozen Luftwaffe Aces.”
      6. Mike Speake "Aces of the Luftwaffe."
      7. Mike Speke "Aces of the Allies."
      8. V. Kozhevnikov “Notes of a Fighter”.
      9. V. Kozhevnikov “Courage Starts.”
      10. N. Kozhedub “Loyalty to the Fatherland.”
      11. Anton Yakimenko “Cover-attack! In attack - “Sword”.
      12. G. Baevsky "Stalin's falcons against Luftwaffe aces"
      13.I.Seydov "Red Devils" in the sky of Korea. Soviet aviation in the war of 1950-1953. Chronicle of air battles."
      14. N. Yakubovich "Hitler's Falcons. Luftwaffe Aces in Battle."
      15. M. Zhirokhov "Aces over the tundra. Air war in the Arctic."
      16. E. Lukkanen “I shot down an entire air regiment.”
      17. I. Juutilainen “I beat Stalin’s falcons”
      18. Solonin Losses of Soviet aviation in the Great Patriotic War."
      19. T. Elmhurst "Combat operations of the Luftwaffe. Data from British intelligence."
      20. Report of the German test pilot Lerche on the tests of Soviet fighters Yak-3 and La-5.
  56. 0
    21 December 2018 22: 54
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: lucul
    I repeat - according to the Lend - Lease planes were delivered, not anyhow, but what the USSR requested.
    Both Mustang and Spitfire were delivered including,

    I repeat for the most advanced. Mustangs in the USSR were delivered TEN aircraft, it was taken for review. The P-51A never showed itself as an excellent fighter, so the average, B and D in the USSR were unnecessary due to the lack of strategic bombers.

    But where do they get you, such slow-witted people?
    I repeat for the third time.
    The USSR got acquainted with all the Allied fighters that were at least something.
    What did it all look like? They order a trial batch of 10 aircraft and let experienced pilots fly them. Then they wonder if the plane is effective, will it shoot down German planes, is it worth purchasing it and spending money on it?
    If the pilots liked the plane - like the P-39 - then they bought it in many thousands. If the pilots didn’t like the plane, then they didn’t buy it - like the Mustang and Spitfire.
    But according to your logic, only 10 Mustangs were delivered - probably because it was so incredibly cool, just like the Spitfire.
    I repeat for the last time - our pilots got acquainted with both the Mustang and the Spitfire, and according to their conclusions, they were inferior to the La5, in the conditions in which our fighter aircraft were used. Otherwise, both Mustang and Spitfire would have been supplied to the USSR in thousands.
  57. 0
    23 December 2018 23: 04
    There was also a place in our rating for a Japanese car. Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate is the pinnacle of aircraft production in the Land of the Rising Sun during the Second World War.

    The nature of such a high calm remains a mystery to me. And now the facts...
    "In March-April 1945, experienced instructors from the Akeno army flight school conducted comparative tests of the Ki-100 and Ki-84, which was considered the best fighter in the Japanese army at that time. They came to the conclusion that the Ki-100 with an experienced pilot always wins in aerial combat. Since mid-April, a special unit with captured aircraft, including a Mustang captured in China, flew over many Japanese Air Force bases in order to train pilots for air combat with American aircraft. This unit, called the “Flying Circus”, included an outstanding combat pilot Major Yasuhiko Kuroe." Source: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/ki100.html

  58. 0
    27 December 2018 10: 35
    Mr. Kostadinov!

    I didn’t understand your message because I clearly wrote that “three hundred German pilots in the last war shot down 30 thousand aircraft of the anti-Hitler coalition. This result has not been surpassed by anyone.” These are not just fighter pilots, but aces, each of whom won 100 or more victories, but there were also those, living and fallen, whose performance was lower. These are exactly those about whom I said “averagely qualified pilots.” In general, German pilots in World War II shot down more pilots in air battles than any country in the anti-Hitler coalition. Hence my second message - the most dangerous fighter planes of the Second World War were German planes, because their “design, performance characteristics and weapons allow a moderately qualified pilot to impose his will on the enemy and achieve victory in battle,” and it doesn’t matter at all, it’s the Me-109 G6, or FV-190A4, Ta-152 or Me-262.


    Dear Mr. Kartashev!
    Sorry for noticing it late and being late with my response.
    1. There is no doubt that German fighters shot down more aircraft in air battles in World War II than fighters from any other country. You have reason to think that this makes these fighters “the most dangerous.”
    2. My point is that this result does not mean that German pilots and their fighters fought with the “most dangerous” fighter planes in World War II. I think that:
    a) German fighters were unable to adequately protect either their troops at the front, or their strike aircraft, or the air defense of their Reich. They were not afraid and they were not very
  59. 0
    27 December 2018 11: 44
    Something didn’t work out and I continue:
    b) German fighters in the East were not effective. They shot down mostly inexpensive fighters made of wood with hastily trained pilots and lost expensive planes made of metal, with full equipment and well-trained pilots. Not to mention the wasted synthetic fuel that was precious for their Reich. The defense of German troops from the Il-2 fell solely on anti-aircraft artillery.
    c) Me-109G and Me-262 were not suitable for average pilots. They turned highly qualified pilots into average ones. The Me-109G performed poorly in the air defense of the Reich, not to mention the air defense of its troops. The Me-262 also demonstrated its complete ineffectiveness, first in the Reich air defense and finally when they were all concentrated to attack Soviet silts and trucks. Their loss/success ratio in the East turned out to be worse than that of the FV-190 and Yu-87. Ezik wouldn’t hesitate to call these cars “the most dangerous.”