Military Review

Why maneuverability is not the main thing for a fighter. WWII

499

From Fokker to Focky


To get closer to understanding the role of maneuverability for a modern fighter aircraft, I’d like to dig deep into stories and extract artifacts from the time of the battle aviation. Moreover, sometimes it feels like some modern fighters are constructing with an eye to experience ... of the First World War.




It was then that the classic “dog fight” or, if you like, dogfighting appeared - when relatively slow and poorly armed aircraft were forced to perform sharp maneuvers all the time in order to bring down someone and at the same time survive.

Evolution in those years did not stand still. If at the beginning of the war the best aircraft was the extremely archaic (in the opinion of the modern man) Fokker EI, then Albatros D.III appeared in 1917, which even now looks like a formidable fighting vehicle. But even such a technically advanced aircraft as the British Sopwith Snipe fighter did not make a real revolution.

It was committed by the next world war: although, in fairness, let's say, the first rudiments of the further evolution of air combat could be seen earlier, say, during the Spanish Civil War, when Soviet pilots on the I-16 began to lose to the Germans in the early Bf.109.

What can be said on the basis of the Second World War, in addition to the fact that equipment and weapons can evolve at an insane speed? The main conclusion on air combat tactics can be formulated as follows: maneuverability faded into the background, and the classic "dog fights" became the lot of desperate daredevils, and more often - inexperienced young pilots. Speed ​​came first.

Speed ​​is growing, maneuverability is falling: this is the main trend of fighter aircraft of the Second World War. Some Soviet and Japanese aircraft during the war possessed outstanding maneuverability, but this did not become an important trump card. The turnaround time for an I-16 type 29 aircraft at an altitude of 1000 meters was more than one and a half times less in the optimal left direction than that of the Bf.109E-3 (though it was a lightweight Donkey configuration, without wing armament). However, this did not become a plus due to the fact that the I-16 lost a lot of Bf.109E and Bf.109F in speed. The latter could develop at high altitude 600 kilometers per hour, while the "maximum speed" of the I-16 barely reached 450-ty.



Someone would consider such an example not too correct due to the technological gap between the machines (and this is not only about speed). However, it is worth recalling that German pilots could achieve superiority over the enemy, even if the difference in speed was not too large and amounted to 10-15 kilometers per hour. In this sense, examples of Bf.109G battles with the early “Yaks” and La-5 (but not La-5FN!), Which very often became victims of the Messers, are typical. Despite the fact that the same Yak-1B or Yak-9 had less time to complete a horizontal turn than Bf.109G, talking about some kind of superiority of these machines was incorrect.

I would also like to recall the well-known and very accurate phrase of the most productive German ace Erich Hartmann, on whose account officially 352 air victories:
“If you see an enemy plane, you do not have to immediately rush at it and attack. Wait and use all your benefits. Evaluate what order and tactics the enemy is using. Evaluate if the adversary has a lost or inexperienced pilot. Such a pilot is always visible in the air. Shoot it down. It’s much more useful to set fire to only one thing than to get involved in an 20 minute carousel without achieving anything. ”


In a word, the German ace, like many others, did not want to get involved in risky protracted fights on bends. And that allowed him to survive.

A similar picture could be seen in the Pacific Ocean, where the Japanese Zero, having better maneuverability than the American Grumman F6F Hellcat and Chance Vought F4U Corsair, completely lost the high-speed war. Leaning against the ceiling of your development back in 1942. And even if we look at such an aircraft, without exaggeration, an outstanding one for its time, like the Japanese Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate, we will see that despite its maneuverable qualities, it was not at all created for a “dogfight”. And the “Hay” variant, armed with two 30-mm cannons, was intended at all for the destruction of American “fortresses”, however, this is a slightly different topic. The interception of heavy bombers requires special qualities: both from the pilot and from his car.



In general, the most powerful piston warplanes, such as the German FW-190D, can be called "straightforward aircraft." They were too clumsy in comparison with earlier cars, even with the FW-190A, which were also not famous for outstanding maneuverability: at least at heights of up to 4000 meters.

“The turn time at a height of 1000 m is 22-23 seconds,” the report says in the Act on the results of testing the FW-190D aircraft, approved on June 4 of June 1945 of the year. “In a horizontal maneuver, when meeting at 0,9 speeds from the maximum, La-7 comes into the tail of the PV-190D-9 behind the 2-2,5 turn,” follows from the document. With all this, the “Dora” experts almost unanimously classify among the most successful medium-height war fighters. Pilots loved the plane for its high speed, good firepower and good rate of climb.



Speed ​​requires sacrifice


To summarize. Maneuverability for a World War II fighter was quite an important indicator, but secondary against the background of speed, climb and firepower. The development of propeller aviation resulted in the birth of such machines as the FW-190D, Hawker Tempest and Ki-84, which, for all their merits, were not among the most maneuverable fighters of the war.

The Soviet La-7 and Yak-3, which had truly outstanding horizontal and vertical maneuverability, can be attributed to this category. However, such indicators were achieved due to strict weight and size restrictions that preclude the deployment of any powerful weapons and prevent aircraft from carrying a large supply of fuel, bombs or missiles. The most successful from a conceptual point of view, the Soviet fighter La-7 had armament consisting of two 20-mm ShVAK guns, while the installation of four 20-mm guns became the conditional "norm" by the end of the war. That is, twice as powerful weapons. The USA became an exception, traditionally relying on heavy machine guns, which was quite enough against poorly protected Japanese fighters. Or "gape" FW-190 and Bf.109 on the Western theater.



In theory, the Soviet Union could get a modern “heavy” fighter in the person of the I-185, but long before the end of the war, the country's leadership preferred Yakovlev's planes. Whether it is right or wrong, another question. It deserves a separate review.

If you try to summarize the main result, it is worth noting that the two most important qualities for a WWII fighter plane in descending order were:

1. Speed.
2. Powerful weapons.
3. Rate of climb.
4. Maneuverable qualities.

With the incomparably higher value of the first two points, not counting, of course, heavy twin-engine propeller aircraft, which rarely could ever fight on equal terms with single-engine counterparts.

Offer follows ...
Author:
499 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. prodi
    prodi 15 August 2019 18: 14
    +9
    then, to accompany the bombers, maneuverability and firepower were decisive. Today, for an intelligible understanding, there is too little combat practice
    1. Civil
      Civil 16 August 2019 12: 47
      +1
      Now theorists of air combat will run over (raid) on sofas. However, everyone should read the statistics of losses, better than ours, it fully reflects the situation.
  2. polpot
    polpot 15 August 2019 18: 14
    +1
    Thank you, we are waiting for the continuation.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 15 August 2019 19: 44
      +12
      Quote: polpot
      Thank you, we are waiting for the continuation.
      -1
      I am interested in the logic of a respected forum member who benefited His colleague by a minus?
      I myself am far "plush cat", but "compost" gestures of respect? And to a quiet place without comment, refutation or expression of their position ......... at least somehow vilely .... By "Pantsansky" act of a "small rat"!
      I didn’t like the article, oppose the Author why “bite” decency and good breeding, or someone is ready to refute the banal “thank you” and we are waiting for the banal to continue!
      Sad gentlemen, comrades!
      Perhaps it makes sense for the authors of the project to make the vote public! So that it’s on the button and you can see who set the plus, and who is the minus! However, I think it's time to return the cons to the articles! Maybe the consumer goods at VO will be less! Well, something like that ......
      Regards, Your Kote!
      1. not main
        not main 16 August 2019 01: 12
        +6
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        So that it’s on the button and you can see who set the plus, and who is the minus!

        And it was! And it’s very interesting! My opinion is that the site is not changing for the better!
      2. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 00
        0
        Probably zamusnili in the hearts, because the article is consumer goods, as you spoke well. It is not good that the uninjured suffered.
    2. Alex013
      Alex013 15 August 2019 20: 46
      +1
      I agree. And you and the article "+".
  3. lucul
    lucul 15 August 2019 18: 14
    +15
    Evaluate if the adversary has a lost or inexperienced pilot. Such a pilot is always visible in the air. Shoot it down.

    Hmm ....
    Roughly speaking, Hartmann is far from a knight. He attacked only the weak .....
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 15 August 2019 18: 45
      0
      And out of silence! lol
      1. Pedrodepackes
        Pedrodepackes 15 August 2019 20: 47
        +14
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        And out of silence!

        in war there is no such thing, is there a military trick, or are you a supporter, having pulled a vest on machine guns to attack?
        1. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 15 August 2019 21: 59
          +17
          Quote: Pedrodepackes
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          And out of silence!

          in war there is no such thing, is there a military trick, or are you a supporter, having pulled a vest on machine guns to attack?

          Hartman’s military trick was to not defend his bombers from Soviet fighters, for that’s why fighters existed, but to bring down a Soviet inexperienced pilot and get another knight’s cross. This is much easier and less risk of getting a shell into the cockpit. The task of Soviet fighters was precisely to protect attack aircraft and bombers from German fighters.
          1. Pedrodepackes
            Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 07: 29
            +4
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            not to defend their bombers from Soviet fighters, because it was for this that fighters existed

            This is our tactic, the Germans had a different tactic, they were engaged in clearing the sky over the upcoming operation. Moreover, this tactic has confirmed its effectiveness. Now even the main purpose of fighter aircraft is to gain dominance in the sky.
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            and bring down a Soviet inexperienced pilot and get another knight's cross.

            Well, he shot down not only inexperienced pilots, his credo was not to go into a deliberately losing battle, the result was he was alive and more than 300 enemy aircraft were lost.
            It’s much more useful to set fire to only one thing than to get involved in a 20-minute carousel without achieving anything
            these are his words and here he is right.
            1. Krasnoyarsk
              Krasnoyarsk 16 August 2019 08: 01
              +9
              Quote: Pedrodepackes

              Well, he shot down not only inexperienced pilots, his credo was not to go into a deliberately losing battle, the result was he was alive and more than 300 enemy aircraft were lost.
              It’s much more useful to set fire to only one thing than to get involved in a 20-minute carousel without achieving anything
              these are his words and here he is right.

              Of course right, it's better to shoot down PO-2 than risk yourself while protecting your bombers. Here are just "clearing the sky over the upcoming operation" consists precisely in the destruction of attack aircraft and bombers, as the most dangerous for ground forces. But Hartman knows that both are protecting Soviet fighters and therefore did not really go into the dump, expecting a "wounded" or "inexperienced"
              Quote: Pedrodepackes

              This is our tactic, the Germans had a different tactic, they were engaged in clearing the sky over the upcoming operation. Moreover, this tactic has confirmed its effectiveness.

              Yes, a very "effective" tactic. Which is proven by the results of the war.
              1. Pedrodepackes
                Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 09: 17
                -3
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                What is proved by the results of the war.

                and what is proven? You compared the ratio of losses in aviation? Especially until 1944, and in the 44th it was not sweet.
                1. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 16 August 2019 13: 46
                  +3
                  Quote: Pedrodepackes
                  You compared the ratio of losses in aviation?

                  Yeah, they filled up with corpses. This song is good, start from the beginning.
                  1. Pedrodepackes
                    Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 13: 48
                    0
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    Yeah, they filled up with corpses.

                    there is nothing to jerk, these are our pilots, whose husbands, fathers and brothers and our grandfathers fool
                2. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 17 August 2019 19: 16
                  +1
                  Yes, I've read the memoirs of bomber pilots. On iremember. And I read that. That already in the 43rd year, losses from aviation were small. And in the 44th, our Germans were not seen in the air at all. How is that? Where are all these Hartmans? All this surprised me very much. Well, it's clear that everything was well organized in that regiment. Somewhere not very much and ours fell. But in general: the memoirs of the land Germans are very reminiscent of ours about the 41st year. Russians fly as much as they want and how they want, and bomb and shoot all day long. In the best case, Goering's aces arrive after the raid and "clear" the sky of stupid Ivanov to the applause of the land Fritzes. It is clear that they are knocking down those already damaged during the raid. Since the rest simply fly away, unloading on the Germans. Something like this.
                  At the same time, large losses from anti-aircraft guns confirm everything.
                  1. Pedrodepackes
                    Pedrodepackes 17 August 2019 21: 07
                    -3
                    Quote: mmaxx
                    And in the 44th, in general, our Germans were not seen in the air. Is that all?

                    But the data on the downed planes and dead pilots.
                    USSR Air Force 47.844 aircraft, 34.500 killed
                    in 1944, the losses of Soviet combat aircraft amounted to 24800 aircraft, of which 9700 - combat losses, and 15100 - not combat losses
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 17 August 2019 21: 20
                      +1
                      Something does not fit ... 50% of the total losses of the Soviet Air Force for the entire war accounted for one "victorious" 1944?
                      1. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 17 August 2019 21: 23
                        -3
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Something does not fit.

                        https://belayaistoriya.ru/blog/43574164471/Nekotoryie-aviatsionnyie-itogi-vtoroy-Mirovoy-voynyi.?nr=1
                      2. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 17 August 2019 21: 31
                        -1
                        Quote: Pedrodepackes
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Something does not fit.

                        https://belayaistoriya.ru/blog/43574164471/Nekotoryie-aviatsionnyie-itogi-vtoroy-Mirovoy-voynyi.?nr=1

                        The author is at odds with either logic or math. Add to the loss of 44 years, this is his statement:
                        In general, having lost the bulk of about 2000 aircraft in just a few days, and by December 31, 41, the combat losses of the Red Army Air Force amounted to about 21 thousand aircraft
                        !
                        And what will remain on 42,43 and 45 years? 4 .000 losses for 2,5 years of war?
                      3. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 17 August 2019 21: 39
                        -3
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Quote: Pedrodepackes
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Something does not fit.

                        https://belayaistoriya.ru/blog/43574164471/Nekotoryie-aviatsionnyie-itogi-vtoroy-Mirovoy-voynyi.?nr=1

                        The author is at odds with either logic or math. Add to the loss of 44 years, this is his statement:
                        In general, having lost the bulk of about 2000 aircraft in just a few days, and by December 31, 41, the combat losses of the Red Army Air Force amounted to about 21 thousand aircraft
                        !
                        And what will remain on 42,43 and 45 years? 4 .000 losses for 2,5 years of war?

                        You see, the author carefully divided the losses of everything. losses for non-combat reasons and downed. You must also carefully read the article.
                      4. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 17 August 2019 21: 42
                        0
                        The author wrote the porridge. 21.000 losses of 41 years in the above quote are indicated as BATTLE. And how many non-combat then in the 41st?
                      5. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 17 August 2019 21: 25
                        -3
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        50% of the total losses of the Soviet Air Force

                        we are talking about the shot down, not about the general
                    2. Ingenegr
                      Ingenegr 18 August 2019 23: 50
                      +2
                      Let's just read the presented results of 1944:
                      1. 9700/365 = 26,6 aircraft of all types per day shot down by the enemy as a result of targeted military operations against Soviet aircraft;
                      2. 15100/365 = 41,4 aircraft of all types per day lost as a result of production defects, untimely and poor-quality service and training of materiel, banal sloppiness of flight, technical and command personnel, etc. etc.
                      Can you seriously believe in this nonsense? Apparently, the source of this information is not even dubious, but absolutely false.
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 19 August 2019 00: 11
                        +2
                        Why is it only necessary marriage and sloppiness. Thousands of aircraft were written off flying off their assigned resource. Which at that time was not impressive ... to put it mildly
                      2. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 19 August 2019 07: 47
                        -1
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Which at that time was not impressive ... to say the least

                        Absolutely right! The aircraft were wooden-cloth, very sensitive to weather conditions. The engines were operated within the limits of the possible, and even prohibitive, plus - not very high-quality fuel and lubricants.
                        Quote: Ingenegr
                        commonplace sloven of flight, technical

                        also had a place to be.
                        Quote: Ingenegr
                        lost as a result of manufacturing defects

                        aviation business in 1946 just about this
              2. Oleg Zorin
                Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 11
                +1
                Dear, you have already been explained that the USSR Air Force and the Luftwaffe had different tactics. This is a historical fact from which you cannot get away. "By the result" one must understand that the USSR got it with a lot of blood and by no means only the advantage of the tactics of the USSR Air Force.
                1. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 17 August 2019 20: 38
                  +1
                  Quote: Oleg Zorin
                  Dear, you have already been explained that the USSR Air Force and the Luftwaffe had different tactics. This is a historical fact from which you cannot get away. "By the result" one must understand that the USSR got it with a lot of blood and by no means only the advantage of the tactics of the USSR Air Force.

                  No less respected, you must have beguiled something. German fighter aircraft, like Soviet ones, defended their bombers, only such "heroes" as Hartman did not risk themselves in this matter, preferring to stay away and finish off the "wounded" by attacking from the sun. Read the memoirs of Soviet fighter pilots. All of them indicate that German bombers did not fly without cover fighters. The Germans, too, were not fools and understood the importance of bomber aviation for the ground forces.
                  1. Pedrodepackes
                    Pedrodepackes 17 August 2019 21: 19
                    -3
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    German fighter aircraft, like Soviet ones, defended their bombers, only such "heroes" as Hartman did not risk themselves in this matter, preferring to stay away and finish off the "wounded" by attacking from the sun.

                    Germans as well as Russians, to put it mildly, were not welcomed to leave their bombers. But the fact is that we are talking about air hunters flying on a free hunt, does Yagdgeshweder 52 or 54 tell you anything? They did not use this tactic instead, but also. It was this tactic that our pilots subsequently adopted.
                    1. Krasnoyarsk
                      Krasnoyarsk 18 August 2019 09: 25
                      +2
                      Quote: Pedrodepackes
                      flying on a free hunt, Yagdgeshweder 52 or 54 tells you anything? They did not use this tactic instead, but in addition to that tactic, which our pilots subsequently adopted.
                      / quote
                      Well, how to say - adopted. Rather, an opportunity arose. Experienced air fighters appeared, airplanes free from escort of bombers appeared. Here, at the request of these pilots, they were released for free hunting. And so that such tactics are purposefully developed, one can hardly say so.
                      1. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 18 August 2019 09: 52
                        -4
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        And so that such tactics are purposefully developed, one can hardly say so.

                        Memoirs of Pokryshkin and his associates in your hands. All the information about this I have only from there, and about mistakes at first, and about good luck in "hunting", and about tactics for hunters. In the last period of the war, they almost did not fly to cover the bombers, maybe this is because the P-39 did not have the capabilities for this because of its performance characteristics
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Rather, an opportunity arose.
                        well, and this too, the sky then cleared a little by the 44th
                      2. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 18 August 2019 10: 36
                        +2
                        Quote: Pedrodepackes
                        Memoirs of Pokryshkin and his associates in your hands.

                        We are talking about different things. I'm talking about the Soviet tactics of using fighter aircraft. The main task of which was - the protection of bomber and assault aircraft. This is the tactic I'm talking about. Oleg Ozorin claims - "Dear, you have already been explained that the USSR Air Force and the Luftwaffe had different tactics." What is the tactic of using ist. aviation was the Germans?
                        You say - "... they were clearing the sky over the upcoming operation." How do you imagine that? But back to tactics.
                        Based on this task, the protection of bombers and attack aircraft, the tactics of this protection are being developed. Which can vary depending on the number of defenders and the number of defenders. When an opportunity arose, I emphasize - an opportunity arose, and the tactics did not change, for "free hunting", then for this "hunt" their own tactics were developed, suitable for "hunting". But the tactics of using fighters have not changed - the protection of bombers and attack aircraft !!!
                        Therefore, experienced fighters were free to hunt only when there was no need to escort bombers and attack aircraft.
                        "Hero" Hartman never took part in escorting his bombers, unlike his not famous fellow soldiers. This is what I'm talking about. If Pokryshkin behaved in the same way, then the number of enemy aircraft shot down by him would be much larger.
                      3. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 18 August 2019 10: 42
                        -2
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        But the tactics of using fighter planes have not changed - the protection of bombers and attack aircraft !!!

                        You confuse tactics and tasks. Tactics
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        protect bombers and attack aircraft!
                        in 41st and 42nd it consisted of hovering directly over the covered aircraft in the visibility zone, the fighters were tied to them, which was what the Germans used, with impunity using the "hit and leave" textile. By the way, they themselves stepped on this rake during the raids on England, when Goering, at the request of his bombers, in the same way "tied" his fighters to them, the losses immediately increased. From 43, and even then not from the beginning, Pokryshkin proposed a whatnot, where the Yaks were hanging over their heads at the bottom of the bombers, and La and Cobras flew much higher and were more free in their choice of targets. This is in addition to "air hunting"
                      4. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 18 August 2019 10: 53
                        -1
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        You say - "... they were clearing the sky over the upcoming operation." How do you imagine that?

                        I can’t imagine anything, there are simply more authoritative sources than
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Oleg Osorin
                        and others, for example:
                        Lectures on TVVS (Air Force Tactics) full course
                        The IAP performs the listed combat tasks using appropriate methods of combat actions appropriate to the development of the air situation. The practice of the combat use of fighter aviation units has shown the expediency of using the following methods of combat operations when defeating an air enemy:
                        - simultaneous or sequential entry into the battle of the regiment’s units from the duty on the ground or in the air;
                        - independent search and defeat of the air enemy in a given area;
                        - semi-autonomous actions of fighters in a given area;
                        - air clearing:
                        - patrol escort;
                        - screeners in the air.

                        air clearing
                        present, but for some reason this type of tactics of aviation leads to the greatest excitement of opponents who, well, just know everything about the combat use of aviation.
                      5. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 18 August 2019 16: 04
                        +2
                        Quote: Pedrodepackes
                        air clearing
                        present, but for some reason this type of tactics of aviation leads to the greatest excitement of opponents who, well, just know everything about the combat use of aviation.

                        You will forgive me, but you already bothered me with your misunderstanding of what I am writing about.
                        I argue that the main task of fighter aircraft, both ours and German, was: 1. Protecting your bombers and attack aircraft from enemy fighters!
                        2. Do not allow targeted bombing of targets at the enemy bombers and attack aircraft.
                        Hartman didn’t give a damn about it in pursuit of rewards. He did not protect his bombers from our fighters and did not try to prevent our bombing of his fellow weapons. He thought only of personal fame and rewards. He deserves contempt, and the Pedrodepacks admire him.
                      6. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 18 August 2019 16: 55
                        -2
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        I affirm that the main objective of fighter aircraft, both ours and German, was:

                        and who is arguing? You can simply protect in different ways. In the memoirs of our veterans, the unpunished bombing by the Germans of our troops was always mentioned, because there was no fighter cover. Remember even our Soviet films, everywhere the canvas is bombing our troops. So the Germans completed the tasks.
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Hartman didn’t give a damn about it in pursuit of rewards. He did not protect his bombers from our fighters

                        but shooting down our fighters, didn’t he? Shooting down fighter cover for American bombers, did he not contribute to the cover of the Ploiesti oil fields.
                        Is not the failure of the destruction of the crossing a task?
                        Over time, the experience bore fruit: during the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, taking off from an airfield near the Ugrim farm, he shot down 7 aircraft in one day (probably, including in the battle on July 5, 1943, when there were three groups of 6 aircraft IL-2 from the 175th ShAP of the 17th VA attacked the German crossing in the area of ​​the village of Solomino and southeast of the village of Tavrovo, in which 9 IL-2 were lost. The locals witnessed as a German fighter, over and over again side of the forest came into the tail of a single IL-2
                        Whoever Hartman was, he would not have been patted on the head for not fulfilling tasks.
                      7. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 18 August 2019 16: 58
                        -1
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        You already bothered me with your misunderstanding

                        so don’t write, I’m not asking. hi
                  2. CommanderDIVA
                    CommanderDIVA 18 August 2019 11: 10
                    0
                    It’s true, in the memoirs of the GSS pilots fighter Skomorokhov Vorozheykin and Zimin all this is described
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. CommanderDIVA
            CommanderDIVA 18 August 2019 11: 04
            0
            This tactic of using fighter aircraft of the Red Army and the Luftwaffe is discussed in great detail in the book by A. Isaev "Anti-Suvorov. Ten Myths of World War II"
        2. Boris I
          Boris I 21 August 2019 02: 49
          -1
          Read the orders of the German military command regarding the battle with the bombers. It is precisely "to tear the vest", namely "on machine guns and cannons to attack." Is there fuel and the plane is in good working order but out of bz? a Luftwaffe pilot has no right to leave their battle, he is obliged to attack a bomber with a corps. Non-execution - execution
        3. Yuri Simple
          Yuri Simple 12 September 2019 19: 50
          -1
          And what matters here in general to "jerk the vest"? If I were the commander of Mr. Hartman, I would make every effort to get rid of him. Let me explain: The task of fighters in a war is not at all to shoot down enemy fighters. It consists in solving two main tasks: covering ground forces and covering its attack aircraft and bombers. Both tasks cannot be solved without participation in the battle. By virtue of such Hartmans, the German Air Force was practically blown away already in 1943. Both on the Eastern and Western fronts. The German Air Force has consistently lost all air battles that it got involved in since 1940 (Battle of England). Only 1939 (France) and 1941-1942 (USSR) can be called successful for them. How many British fighters were there in Malta? 6 "Gladiators"? And they solved all the tasks assigned to them!
    2. lelik613
      lelik613 15 August 2019 18: 50
      +14
      I do not presume to judge the success of the client, whether it was or not. But in military affairs there is no place for pity, especially in aviation. Here he is right, even in words.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 15 August 2019 20: 00
        +18
        And here is a pity! In the sky, a pilot performs a mission that has a specific goal. Contrary to the theory of Marshal Douai, aviation is not able to fight and win alone. So, following the formal logic, Berlin fell at the feet of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and not the great asses of the Lutwaffe and Wehrmacht with their sky-high victories! In this connection, it should be assumed that the Red Army aviation performed its tasks much better than their counterparts and as a result of which the USSR Air Force as a whole turned out to be much more stable and victorious than ....
        Regards, Kote!
        1. Pedrodepackes
          Pedrodepackes 15 August 2019 20: 51
          -5
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          In this connection, it should be assumed that the Red Army aviation performed its tasks much better

          Well, yes, especially in 41-42 years. But in essence, the tasks were different, for the Germans it was clearing the airspace on the upcoming battlefield (which, by the way, they did pretty well), for ours it was covering the bombers and attack aircraft or directly their ground forces, the defense action, which cost us a lot losses, until they adopted the tactics of using aircraft from the Germans, I'm talking about free hunting.
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 15 August 2019 22: 03
            +18
            Free hunting - a way to gain air supremacy? This is a new word in air battle strategy.
            1. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 07: 31
              -7
              Quote: Aviator_
              Free hunting - a way to gain air supremacy?
              Actually, the Germans did it.
              Well then write about the ways of gaining dominance in the air, it will be very interesting to read.
          2. Ros 56
            Ros 56 16 August 2019 07: 41
            +6
            No need to smack nonsense. Free hunting, this is free time, so to speak, from work. And the work is escorting bombers, attack aircraft, reconnaissance, and of course the destruction of enemy bombers, and even sometimes they themselves had to work out on ground targets.
            1. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 07: 45
              0
              Quote: Ros 56
              this is escort of bombers, attack aircraft, reconnaissance, and, of course, the destruction of enemy bombers

              And where is the clearance of airspace? Something our veterans write about the sky 41-42, and the 43rd year is not at all in pink, they also smack nonsense? Pokryshkin and Kozhedub on the creation of free hunting regiments in the Air Force of the Red Army, following the example of the Germans, are they also writing nonsense? Yeah goodbye hi
              1. Ros 56
                Ros 56 16 August 2019 08: 19
                +5
                Are they like air wipers? We did not have enough aircraft or experienced pilots in either 41 or 42 years old. And you need to read correctly. Storyteller. hi
                1. Pedrodepackes
                  Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 08: 47
                  -3
                  Quote: Ros 56
                  We did not have enough aircraft or experienced pilots in either 41 or 42 years old.

                  They were not there because
                  The tactics of “free hunting” of the Luftwaffe fighter aircraft were significantly and conceptually different from the tactics of the Air Force fighter aircraft. In the "free hunt", a couple, unit or squadron of German fighters patrolled in a given area and actively searched for enemy aircraft. One of the main basic contradictions of the tactics of “free hunting” is the existence of multidirectional forces in it. The first is the continuous desire of the German aces to attack the enemy, and therefore, as a result, the continuous search for the enemy in the air. An attack, like any offensive in a war, is always fraught with a significant amount of risk. The second force in the Luftwaffe tactics of “free hunting” is the attacker's desire to minimize risk to the extreme.

                  The main principle of “free hunting” is to attack in most cases the most defenseless enemy planes in the air, who are deprived of cover, who can’t give a powerful rebuff, moving away from the fire with a slide and a combat reversal, and then go on a counterattack. This main paradox of the tactics of “free hunting” of sudden attacking actions, while minimizing the risk of being shot down, brought the German aces impressive numbers of shot down and wrecked enemy aircraft.

                  Only the strongest Luftwaffe fighter pilots became “hunters” in the sky for enemy aircraft. The best aces of the Luftwaffe had a quick reaction, were aggressive in attack and were perfectly able to control their fighters. They were well-aimed arrows - snipers in the air, could perform the most complex aerobatics.
                  Try to read more correctly
                  Quote: Ros 56
                  Storyteller.
                  1. cat Rusich
                    cat Rusich 17 August 2019 21: 52
                    +3
                    The "free hunters" could not stop the organized raid on the STRATEGIC OBJECT - the war in the air was won by "strong" air defense (including air defense fighters), such as the "Battle of Britain" or the defense of the skies over Moscow. When the "wounded" ran out of "hardened animals" ,, devoured ,, ,, Luftwaffe. Hartmann remained "alive", and 25 inhabitants of Dresden are NOT (February 000-13, 15)
                2. Oleg Zorin
                  Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 17
                  +1
                  At the beginning of the war, the USSR possessed an overwhelming advantage in terms of numbers of both aircraft and tanks. This is a medical fact. As to how the Germans managed to level it, one can argue ad infinitum. There are many reasons.
              2. hohol95
                hohol95 16 August 2019 08: 27
                +11
                Pokryshkin and Kozhedub on the creation of free hunting regiments in the Air Force of the Red Army, following the example of the Germans, are they also writing nonsense?

                And what kind of "game" were these "free hunters" going to hunt?
                And where is the clearance of airspace?

                On October 30, 1942, on the approach to the port of Murmansk, only 2 R-40 fighters were shot down by 2 U-88s and the bombing of two nine U-88s was disrupted.
                The clearing group either "did not clear anything at all" and sat at their airfield or flew far ahead. NOBODY interfered with Soviet fighters. There were no German fighters!
                This is the work of fighter aircraft — the preservation of their strike aircraft and the protection of their facilities from enemy strike aircraft.
                1. Pedrodepackes
                  Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 08: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: hohol95
                  And what kind of "game" were these "free hunters" going to hunt?

                  In the morning, Pokryshkin, together with G. Golubev, flew out to "hunt". Finding the "bastards" who were preparing for bombing over the front line, he swiftly attacked them; He shot down one, damaged 2 more and was forced to take a fight with cover fighters.
                  In November 1943, using suspended fuel tanks, Pokryshkin conducts "search and destruction of the enemy on air communications" over the Black Sea. In 4 "hunts" he knocks down 5 Ju-52s. The three-engine transport "Junkers", armed with several large-caliber machine guns, was not the easiest enemy, but low dense clouds, stormy seas and strong gusty winds made the conditions for "hunting" extremely difficult. The detection of single vehicles over the sea, in conditions of limited visibility and bad weather, can only be explained by the genius of the pilot.

                  This is only part of the memories of Pokryshkin, he himself wrote that he took an example in the organization of the "free hunt" from the Germans and that this "hunt" was not at all a spontaneous military action, but a carefully prepared operation, with the study of the enemy, his places of basing and interaction with ground forces.
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost 16 August 2019 09: 39
                    +2
                    You hear a ring, but you don’t know where it is.
                    1. Pedrodepackes
                      Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 09: 53
                      -2
                      Quote: maximghost
                      Do you hear a jingle

                      Well, firstly, I didn’t pass pigs with you, so continue to do this without me, and secondly, if there are no arguments, then it’s better to remain silent, you’ll be a smart guy, so listen further hi
                      1. maximghost
                        maximghost 16 August 2019 14: 04
                        0
                        So what are you saying and saying?
                  2. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 17 August 2019 19: 22
                    +2
                    When ours organized this, the Germans had to look with fire in the afternoon. So the operations were carefully prepared. We did this already from an excess of strength.
                  3. hohol95
                    hohol95 17 August 2019 20: 58
                    0
                    When I asked the question about "game" for "free hunters" I was interested - will it be only enemy fighters or the main emphasis will be on strike or transport vehicles!
                    The Germans focused on transport, messengers, but the main "game" was the Red Army Air Force fighters!
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 17 August 2019 20: 59
                      -1
                      And who then shot down tens of thousands of IL-2?
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 17 August 2019 21: 04
                        +2
                        In the first place anti-aircraft gunners!
                        And at the same time, the Germans did not hunt specifically for IL-2!
                      2. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 17 August 2019 21: 11
                        -1
                        Do you have any statistics on this? I wonder who shot down 30 K Il-2 and 10 K Pe-2
                      3. hohol95
                        hohol95 17 August 2019 21: 12
                        +1
                        Write more specifically! In rebus 30 K Il2 and so on, I do not understand!
                      4. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 17 August 2019 21: 14
                        -1
                        K = 1.000 .... 30 K = 30.000.
                      5. hohol95
                        hohol95 17 August 2019 21: 20
                        0
                        Is the quantity measured in pieces equal to the SI system?
                        And the prefix "kilo" is written with a small letter "k".
                      6. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 17 August 2019 21: 24
                        -1
                        Something you, instead of statistics shot down by IL-2 anti-aircraft gunners, switched to grammar ... This is called knocking the ball out)
                      7. hohol95
                        hohol95 18 August 2019 13: 24
                        +1
                        Statistics are full on the Internet!
                        In your opinion, it turns out that only pilots who made "free hunting" rushed to destroy groups of Soviet attack aircraft and bombers?
                        I thought that they were sent to this business strictly by order of the commanders and at the request of ground units for cover.
                      8. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 18 August 2019 14: 12
                        -1
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Statistics are full on the Internet!

                        On any topic discussed here is full of information on the Internet ... this is not a reason not to discuss them
                        Quote: hohol95
                        In your opinion, it turns out that only pilots who made "free hunting" rushed to destroy groups of Soviet attack aircraft and bombers?

                        I doubt that you will find such a statement somewhere. I have denied another statement prevailing on the branch that free hunting was conducted to the detriment of covering the troops. It was as if the Germans shot down some random tourists during free hunting, and not the same fighters, attack aircraft and bombers that flew to bomb the Germans
                      9. hohol95
                        hohol95 18 August 2019 14: 34
                        +1
                        I denied another statement, prevailing in the branch, that free hunting was conducted to the detriment of covering the troops. It was as if the Germans shot down some random tourists on a free hunt, and not the same fighters, attack aircraft and bombers that flew to bomb the Germans.

                        You do not accidentally have any references to information about the orders given by the commanders of the Luftwaffe fighter units to conduct a "free hunt" or, as they wrote in Soviet documents, "a free search for the enemy." Similar to the following statement of the Soviet pilot -
                        On February 23, 1945 at 3 p.m. an order was received from the division headquarters by flying out several groups of “free hunter” fighters to disrupt the movement of the enemy forces in the section of Cottbus, Guben, Forst.
                        As part of 6 Yak-1 aircraft, the Yak-9 flew out to "free hunt". The battle formation to the target was as follows: a front of three pairs with two pairs exceeding the leading pair by 4050 m. This battle formation provided a good overview of the front and rear hemispheres.

                        You can also remember "The Story of a Real Man" -
                        “Hunters,” said the senior lieutenant calmly, lounging comfortably on the grass. - We'll have to wait, they will be back soon. The roads are shaving. Take away, friend, the car away, out there though under that birch.

                        No one disputes that the "hunters" were a lot of trouble! But this tactic did not lead to the victory of the Luftwaffe in any of the theaters of operations.
                      10. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 18 August 2019 14: 42
                        -1
                        ))) That is, Germany lost the air war because of the tactics of free hunting?
                        Let me remind you that until the summer of 43, the Luftwaffe always had absolute air superiority on any section of the Soviet-German front that it needed. Until then, 2/3 of the fighters in the Reich air defense had to be delayed
                      11. hohol95
                        hohol95 18 August 2019 14: 47
                        +1
                        Until it was necessary to delay 2/3 of the fighters in the air defense of the Reich.

                        The Third Reich lost for many reasons! And the main one is the inability to conduct equivalent combat operations in all theaters of operations and to timely replenish losses!
                        And again, according to your words, it turns out that these same 2/3 were taken precisely from the Eastern Front!
                        And before that, no one has ever defended the sky over the Third Reich!
                      12. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 18 August 2019 14: 50
                        -1
                        Yes, they were mainly taken from the Eastern Front.
                      13. hohol95
                        hohol95 18 August 2019 15: 02
                        -1
                        So we took parts from the Far East, from Central Asia.
                        So they also sent parts to Romania.
                        What does this prove? Where there is an opportunity to take reserves - there they took it. And if there are no reserves - no one will create them (if only by cloning)!
                        The Japanese were in a similar situation!
                      14. illuminat
                        illuminat 17 February 2020 16: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        ))) That is, Germany lost the air war because of the tactics of free hunting?
                        Including. Still, you need to fly and shoot down where necessary, and not where it is easier.
                      15. illuminat
                        illuminat 17 February 2020 16: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        And who then shot down tens of thousands of IL-2?

                        Quote: Town Hall
                        I wonder who shot down 30 K Il-2 and 10 K Pe-2

                        Goebbels shot down. He could have done more, but the war ended quickly.
                        Combat losses of IL-2 EMNIP 11 thousand
                        Battle losses Pe-2
                        1941 - 522
                        1942 - 665
                        1943 - 721
                        1944 - 517
                        1945 too lazy to look (41-44 just now at hand)
                2. Pedrodepackes
                  Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 08: 56
                  -1
                  Quote: hohol95
                  And what kind of "game" were these "free hunters" going to hunt?

                  Here's a free hunt from Kozhedub:
                  The “hunters”, on the other hand, were assigned the “hunting” area, where a free search was made for an air enemy. The “hunter” should have known not only the air situation, but also the actions of the ground forces. Then he more easily and quickly found the enemy, as if defining the enemy’s design depending on the situation on earth. The "hunters" searched not only for the air enemy - they went far behind enemy lines, tens of kilometers from the front line, and "hunted" for enemy vehicles, trains, destroyed enemy manpower and equipment.

                  The art of free air "hunting" is difficult and exciting. Searching for an enemy is not easy. But if you search, you will find. I developed the ability to search for the enemy when I guarded the ground forces. Then, feeling my great responsibility for them, I peered into the distance in order to see enemy planes in advance, buy time, find the enemy before he approached the Soviet ground forces and inflict the greatest defeat on the enemy.

                  “Hunting” is therefore called free because the pilot is free to choose a target and attack time. The air "hunter" must beat for sure. When I covered the ground forces, I was the first to attack the Germans, no matter what the conditions. So it was necessary: ​​in any conditions * to engage in battle, to drive the enemy away from our ground forces at all costs. The air "hunter" should not attack if the position is unfavorable for him - he suddenly strikes and suddenly leaves the battle. Everything is based on will, experience, calculation. When you fly on a “hunt”, you try to cross the front line in the most “quiet” place, look ahead, using the meteorological situation, the background of the earth. Groping all the "floors" in the air, you finally find the target - enemy fighters; they either cover important enemy objects, or return from the mission. Then you go down in search of German bombers and transport aircraft. If there is no air enemy, then you attack ground targets. The "hunter" must build the right maneuver, make an attack all of a sudden and overwhelm the enemy with his suddenness, and most importantly - hit him, destroy him. This is the goal of aerial "hunting."

                  the same principles as the Germans.
                  1. vvvjak
                    vvvjak 16 August 2019 10: 22
                    +5
                    Quote: Pedrodepackes
                    the same principles as the Germans.

                    Not the same
                    "Free hunting" is the most profitable way of warfare for the pilot and the most disadvantageous for his army. Why? Because almost always the interests of an ordinary fighter pilot are fundamentally at odds with the interests of his command, and the command of the troops that aviation provides. To give complete freedom of action to all fighter pilots is the same as to give complete freedom to all ordinary infantrymen on the battlefield — wherever you want to dig in, when you want to shoot. This is nonsense. ”(C) Golodnikov N.G. (212 sorties, 7 shot down).
                    1. Pedrodepackes
                      Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 10: 31
                      -1
                      Quote: vvvjak
                      where you want to dig in, when you want to shoot.

                      Here is the key mistake in this definition, Kozhedub and Pokryshkin wrote about "free" hunting, not everything is as free as it seems at first glance. From the memoirs of Kozhedub:
                      The air "hunter" should not attack if the position is unfavorable for him - he suddenly strikes and suddenly leaves the battle. Everything is based on will, experience, calculation. When you fly on a “hunt”, you try to cross the front line in the most “quiet” place, look ahead, using the meteorological situation, the background of the earth. Groping all the "floors" in the air, you finally find the target - enemy fighters; they either cover important enemy objects, or return from the mission. Then you go down in search of German bombers and transport aircraft. If there is no air enemy, then you attack ground targets.
                      Those. you do not dodge the battle, but take an advantageous position and attack, and "freedom" consists only in choosing a target that is most important for destruction.
                      1. vvvjak
                        vvvjak 16 August 2019 10: 53
                        +4
                        Quote: Pedrodepackes
                        "freedom" consists only in the choice of the goal,

                        What sane pilot chooses to target a dense formation of "bombers" under the cover of fighters (when everything that can shoot at you shoots at you) while "free hunting". It is much easier to "fill up" the wounded or inexperienced onlooker and "dump" with a sense of accomplishment (like Hartmann). And nobody cares about the problems of the "ironed-on" infantry. This is the meaning of the quote by Golodnikov
                      2. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 10: 59
                        0
                        Quote: vvvjak
                        What sane pilot chooses to target a dense formation of "bombers" under the cover of fighters

                        those. Were Soviet pilots not sane when, during the "free hunt", they flew into the formation of bombers or pinned down a pair of 9-12 messengers of cover? this is in Kozhedub's memories.
                        Quote: vvvjak
                        It is much easier to "fill up" a wounded or inexperienced onlooker and "dump" with a sense of accomplishment

                        You have a good opinion about the Stalinist falcons, do you think they shot down only when the commander threatens the tribunal, and the evil commissioner waves the revolver?
                        Quote: vvvjak
                        And nobody cares about the problems of the "ironed-on" infantry. This is the meaning of the quote by Golodnikov

                        but for me, Kozhedub and Pokryshkin are more authoritative in this matter. The famous formula: "Altitude - speed - maneuver - fire" is just about free hunting.
                      3. vvvjak
                        vvvjak 16 August 2019 11: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Pedrodepackes
                        "Altitude - speed - maneuver - fire" is just about free hunting.

                        This is a universal formula for conducting air combat.
                      4. Pedrodepackes
                        Pedrodepackes 16 August 2019 11: 28
                        -2
                        Quote: vvvjak
                        This is a universal formula for air combat

                        yeah especially suitable for
                        Quote: vvvjak
                        air combat
                        to cover fighter bombers, in accordance with the requirements of charters and orders of the time of the outbreak of war.
                        I don’t understand at all, what do you want? To refute the words of our aces, which are written in black and white in their memoirs, so this should not be done here, try to do this at a spiritualistic session with them, unfortunately, they have already died. hi
                3. Oleg Zorin
                  Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 19
                  0
                  Guys, tell me why in the USSR Air Force were created "Asov" or "Marshal" regiments?
          3. Yuri Simple
            Yuri Simple 12 September 2019 20: 02
            0
            Free hunting has nothing to do with clearing the airspace. What you call "clearing" is actually "space isolation", where the airplanes and squadrons allocated for this simply do not allow anyone to move either to the battlefield or from the battlefield. This concept includes the detection of enemy aircraft approaching the battlefield. If these planes are alone or in small groups, the patrol will attack them. If they are walking in a large group, they call for reinforcements. Hence our losses in 41-42 years. ours could not call for reinforcements and were invariably in the minority. Hence the impression of ground forces - the Germans literally walked over their heads. Which is not surprising, since they, moving to the rescue or retreating, ended up in the "cut-off zone"
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 August 2019 21: 59
      +3
      Shot down a plane ..... -1. Got experience.
    4. not main
      not main 16 August 2019 01: 21
      +4
      Quote: lucul
      Evaluate if the adversary has a lost or inexperienced pilot. Such a pilot is always visible in the air. Shoot it down.

      Hmm ....
      Roughly speaking, Hartmann is far from a knight. He attacked only the weak .....

      Absolutely right! This is all Wehrmacht fighter aircraft! Ours had other tasks, firstly, to prevent the bombers from working on sight, and secondly, to protect our bombers from German fighters. As we see the tasks are different, so the result is different!
      1. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 21
        +1
        This is true. Flying for escort you don’t punch a lot. Most likely, you won’t bring anyone down. And if you lose those accompanied, you can get to the tribunal.
    5. Serg4545
      Serg4545 18 August 2019 11: 43
      0
      Yeah ..
      The author of the article clearly does not understand the main thing! Namely:
      War is work. And as in any work, the result comes only if certain tasks are performed, in a certain sequence.
      That is, the high command draws up a plan of tasks and lowers them to the performers. And performers must do their job. So, if the plan is drawn up correctly, and the performers carry out their tasks as close to the plan as possible. That won battles and wars. And the destruction of an enemy soldier / equipment is the side effect of war. Not the main and not even mandatory! If the task can be completed without causing damage to the enemy, then it will be done. (For example. A military unit, performing the task of capturing a city, has the opportunity to capture this city without a resistance maneuver. Naturally, this unit will do so. And it will not scour the surrounding area in search of the enemy, if only to let anyone bleed.)
      So, the author clearly believes that the ADVERSE and OPTIONAL effect of the war, in the form of the destruction of soldiers / equipment, this is the meaning of the war !!!
      Full sur! So I see:
      The state spends huge amounts of money on training the best shooters, tankmen, etc. Creates and gives fighters the best weapons. And then he says. The enemy is somewhere in that direction. Find him. And kill someone. When you win the war, come back and report)
      As it is not funny, Hartman and other specialists did just that. Excellent pilots (possibly the best in the world), on excellent planes (perhaps the best in the world), flew where they want, do what they want. They choose a victim convenient for themselves, commit a murder. In general, they achieve an ADVERSE and OPTIONAL effect in the war. All their actions are meaningless, because they are not subject to any plan, which should lead to victory.
      This is what the author does not understand!
  4. Amateur
    Amateur 15 August 2019 18: 15
    +18
    "Height - speed - maneuver - fire"
    A.I. Pokryshkin. Three times a hero of the Soviet Union, and much much more

    Mr. Legat was a little late. request
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 15 August 2019 18: 36
      +17
      And a little simplified.
      For there are various tactics for free hunting, for escorting attack aircraft, covering ground forces, etc.
      Looking ahead, we can say that now nothing has changed in this regard. Powerful electronic suppression can disrupt the use of long-range missiles and aircraft guns recall the dumps of the Second World War. Vietnam has shown it well.
      So, the Su-27 is not without reason made both speed and maneuverability.
    2. lelik613
      lelik613 15 August 2019 18: 58
      +1
      The words of the great ace are relevant now. Added: a survey (locator, optics, laser), a long arm (a longer range of missiles and shot-forgot), electronic warfare.
    3. Prisoner
      Prisoner 15 August 2019 19: 25
      0
      Seeing the speed was not enough. laughing
    4. Avior
      Avior 15 August 2019 20: 29
      +7
      In other words, Pokryshkin formulated the same tactics that the Germans in general have used since the start of the war, and Hartman in particular.
      Gained altitude, dived at the target with a set of speed, took aim, fired and again went to the height due to the gained speed, regardless of the result, without getting involved in a landfill
      And get ready for the next attack.
  5. Ros 56
    Ros 56 15 August 2019 18: 16
    +10
    A respected author flew aerobatics?
    1. Prisoner
      Prisoner 15 August 2019 19: 27
      +8
      Inspired. "Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer."
  6. svp67
    svp67 15 August 2019 18: 21
    +27
    Speed ​​is growing, maneuverability is falling:
    What kind of agility? Horizontal, vertical, common? The author, have you heard something about "vertical maneuver"? About the speed of the combat turn and climb at the same time? Maneuverability is different for fighters.
    1. tomket
      tomket 16 August 2019 00: 16
      +8
      Quote: svp67
      What kind of agility? Horizontal, vertical, common? The author, have you heard something about "vertical maneuver"? About the speed of the combat turn and climb at the same time? Maneuverability is different for fighters.

      Well, in general, "vertical maneuver" has come to the fore since the time of Spain. The "maneuverability" which the author "sees" had already been criticized for example by Zimin, flying in the Hurricanes in 42, and tried to shift the battle on these fighters into a vertical plane. Although the Hurricane was a poor fit. Further, the author apparently does not know about such important characteristics as "combat speed" and acceleration characteristics. In the "races" around the Il-2, too, few could compare with the Yaks. Regarding the criticism of weapons, it is determined by reasonable necessity. On the Eastern Front, in principle, there were no "fortresses", for the fight against which they set 6 firing points. Well, about the "choice" between the I-185 and the Yak. It was already boring to repeat that the I-185 in the 42nd could not be produced due to the lack of duralumin. The choice was simple, either we make Yaki en masse at furniture factories or we do nothing at all. The country did not pull in 42nd even a small series of I-185s of 200 machines, as Yakovlev suggested.
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 August 2019 00: 43
        0
        Quote: tomket
        In the "races" around the Il-2, too, few could compare with the Yaks.

        I will say more I-16, in cannon version, for such "races" it was even better
        Quote: tomket
        On the Eastern Front, in principle, there were no "fortresses", for the fight against which they set 6 firing points each.

        But one machine gun and one gun, as on Yak is still not enough ...
        Quote: tomket
        The choice was simple, or we are doing massively Yaks in furniture factories or do nothing at all.

        Wait. To begin with, the bulk of Polikarpov fighters were produced at the Moscow plant No. 1 and No. 39. At the factory No. 1 he was replaced, albeit the former, but also his plane, MiG, and then Ilyushin’s planes.
        Plant # 39, which produced "donkeys", switched to the production of Ilov and Peshek
        Yakovlev's plane was produced only of one model at plant # 1, and that was the "loser" BB-22.
        Yaks and I-18 generally did not overlap much, but complemented each other. One with water, the other with air cooling. So that there would be more harmony than in the constant division of the M-105 between Yakovlev and Lavochkin
        Quote: tomket
        It has already filled my teeth to repeat that I-185 in 42 could not be released due to the lack of duralumin.

        It may be so, although we have already begun to receive it en masse from our allies. But I believe that Polikarpov would have solved this problem. But I am sure that it would have been easier at Plant No. 1 to set up its aircraft in production than to "jump" from designer to designer.
        Quote: tomket
        The country did not even pull in the 42 even a small series of I-185 in 200 machines, as Yakovlev suggested.

        For Yakovlev to move Polikarpov’s planes, I’m sorry I can’t believe it ...
        1. tomket
          tomket 16 August 2019 00: 51
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          For Yakovlev to move Polikarpov’s planes, I’m sorry I can’t believe it ...

          Well, look for Yakovlev’s recommendation on this subject. He actually proposed to create a shock fist from I-185 on a kind of special group.
          1. svp67
            svp67 16 August 2019 00: 54
            0
            Quote: tomket
            He actually proposed to create a shock fist from I-185 on a kind of special group.

            It would be interesting to read. Although here he was not engaged in his own business ... there were other people for this.
            1. tomket
              tomket 16 August 2019 00: 57
              0
              Quote: svp67
              It would be interesting to read. Although here he was not engaged in his own business ... there were other people for this.

              Source "Aviation and Cosmonautics" Series of articles "I-185, Dream Airplane". I don't remember the year, 2016 or 2017.
              1. svp67
                svp67 16 August 2019 01: 29
                0
                Quote: tomket
                Source "Aviation and Cosmonautics" Series of articles "I-185, Dream Airplane". I don't remember the year, 2016 or 2017.

                Thanks, found, read. AiK November-December 2016.
                Well, as I thought, Yakovlev remained Yakovlev. A plant that is not capable of producing something, the task is to make an airplane with an engine that they could not bring, although there were more realistic options ... It seems to have helped, but in such a way that "killed to death"
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 17 August 2019 19: 31
                  0
                  Nobody will let the plant, which serially rhythmically drives planes to the front, master a new plane. This means a decrease in output. So they will give one that for some reason cannot drive the planes. And that’s all. Could not - sorry. Will be loaded differently. At least, for the release at such a dead factory, which was established in the production of aircraft, you can always transfer to the lagging factory specialists, equipment (!, Which is a lot), some components, etc. And it will work. And he may never master a new aircraft.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 17 August 2019 19: 42
                    0
                    Quote: mmaxx
                    Nobody will let the plant, which serially rhythmically drives planes to the front, master a new plane.

                    I agree. It was just possible not to bring to such a situation. It was not necessary to disperse Polikarpov’s design bureau in such a way, and even more so to move it far away from the factories where mass production of its fighters was established, this would allow the transition with the least losses.
                    "And put your paw on your heart" was his I-180 really so bad in comparison with the first Yaks in terms of reliability, no. The car could have been brought.
                    1. mmaxx
                      mmaxx 17 August 2019 19: 46
                      0
                      The German offensive brought to such a situation. Even factories were evacuated from Moscow. There were neither production capacities, nor manpower. Issued that could be done a lot.
      2. su25
        su25 28 August 2019 15: 03
        0
        It’s already frayed to repeat that I-185 in the 42nd could not be released due to the lack of duralumin
        It was also sore on edge to repeat that the duralumin was enough for thousands of Pe-2, the normal bomb load of which is 600 kg. I-185 lifted bombs up to 500 kg - with duralumin only in the wing. So much for the "savings".
  7. paul3390
    paul3390 15 August 2019 18: 27
    +19
    A set of very controversial theses .. And the Japanese began to lose in the air, not because Zero was out of date overnight, but because the trained pilots began to quickly end. And I-16 was not at all so helpless in battles with Messers, at least at the beginning of the war. And the bourgeois fighters were not at all such direct prodigies ... Everything depended on the situation and tactics of application. In general - the best fighter is the one in which the best pilot sits ..
    1. Shahno
      Shahno 15 August 2019 18: 30
      +5
      // Generally, the best fighter is the one in which the best pilot sits .. ////
      So then it is. But not everything is decided by the pilot and his skills. The reason-technique goes beyond human capabilities.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 15 August 2019 18: 34
        +3
        Well - we’re talking about airplanes of about the same generation .. Avon - even on such shit as Hurricane managed to bring down Messers .. And the Italians also shot down someone .. And ours on Seagulls. What only in the beginning did not fly! Therefore - with at least approximately comparable performance characteristics, everything will be decided by the tactics of application and individual pilot skill .. Well - and luck of course ..
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 15 August 2019 23: 57
          0
          Well, Hurricane also killed Boris Safonov. And he was a Pilot.
          Yes, and from a stray bullet, be you three times an ace, you can’t promise.

          It’s good when there is power (speed, acceleration and rate of climb), and maneuver (low wing load), and spacious compartments for fuel and weapons with a larger BA, and armored plates in a circle, and a gasket between the control handle and the seat with the head and skills .
          But ... having all of this in one car is a fantasy. What is surely not enough.
          1. tomket
            tomket 16 August 2019 00: 53
            +4
            Quote: Vlad.by
            Well, Hurricane also killed Boris Safonov.

            Safonov ditched the P-40, and most likely the engine bearings. Which possibly "fell victim" to the "technical culture" of mechanics.
            1. Oleg Zorin
              Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 27
              0
              Rather, oil ...
          2. Fitter65
            Fitter65 16 August 2019 06: 38
            +3
            Quote: Vlad.by
            Well, Hurricane also killed Boris Safonov. And he was a Pilot.
            Yes, and from a stray bullet, be you three times an ace, you can’t promise.

            It’s bad when a person who doesn’t know an elementary about aviation tries to write comments. Safonov in his last battle went to the P-40 ...
    2. tomket
      tomket 16 August 2019 00: 18
      +2
      Quote: paul3390
      And the Japanese began to lose in the air, not because Zero was out of date overnight, but because trained pilots began to rapidly end


      And why did the pilots begin to end? Because there was no armor protection, they did not take parachutes and there was no rescue service for downed pilots, organized in a big way, like the Americans did. And most importantly, the training of pilots was not a streamlined assembly line.
      1. Mephody
        Mephody 16 August 2019 00: 46
        +1
        What about the lack of parachutes can be more? Photos of kamikaze with parachutes are available, are ordinary pilots less concerned about survival in case of any emergency situations?
        1. tomket
          tomket 16 August 2019 00: 54
          +3
          Quote: Mephody
          What about the lack of parachutes can be more? Photos of kamikaze with parachutes are available, are ordinary pilots less concerned about survival in case of any emergency situations?

          Saburo Sakkai’s memoirs, motivation - parachute is overweight, due to the fact that no one will search in the ocean anyway.
        2. Oleg Zorin
          Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 30
          +1
          Really did not take. As unnecessary. There were no chances to survive in the ocean. Sakai writes in his memoirs that he saw sharks gobble up parachuting American pilots.
        3. mmaxx
          mmaxx 17 August 2019 19: 35
          0
          If you read the Japanese, they believed that saving them (as pilots) distracted other people from combat missions to destroy the enemy. So you just need to die as a hero if they shot down or the plane refused. All the same, getting to the front of the Yasukuni temple is much more honorable. And the main goal of any warrior is death for the emperor.
      2. paul3390
        paul3390 16 August 2019 00: 53
        0
        In! They just cooked in the wrong quantities. The Japanese generally do not understand what kind of war they were preparing for.
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 16 August 2019 05: 49
          +2
          Japanese pilots at the beginning of the war were piece goods with lengthy training. When amers with kangaroos and kiwi were beaten, new samurai were trained according to the accelerated program.
          1. paul3390
            paul3390 16 August 2019 12: 27
            +2
            The fact of the matter is that they were preparing the elite. And she in the big war sooooo quickly ends. The recipe for victory is the mass preparation of strong middle peasants.
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 16 August 2019 16: 28
              0
              Exactly
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 August 2019 12: 18
          +3
          Quote: paul3390
          In! They just cooked in the wrong quantities. The Japanese generally do not understand what kind of war they were preparing for.

          The Japanese were preparing for small victorious war, the duration of which should not exceed six months. During this time, they hoped to inflict a number of sensitive defeats on the Americans, after which lazy, pampered and not having a fighting spirit Yankees should have requested peace.
          And for such a war, the "mass middle peasant" was not needed - and even harmful. We needed pilots who were utterly superior to the enemy and capable of hitting him anytime, anywhere. Even at the cost of quantity, the war had to end before the losses became sensitive.

          In fairness, I must say that a similar strategy was the only possible for the war between Japan and the United States. Because a long war inevitably led to the defeat of Japan - because after a year of war, the US industry had time to mobilize, and the personnel training conveyor began to produce "products."
          And no programs of mass training of pilots and production of cars in Japan could block similar programs of the United States. It is difficult to surpass a country that can only train 20 crew members a year for the fleet using two training aircraft carriers for training, quickly converted from wheeled "lake" ships. And it also extracts more oil than all other countries combined, and Japan cannot reach the oil fields and oil delivery routes.
        3. Oleg Zorin
          Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 31
          0
          Yamamoto openly told management: I promise success for the first six months to a year. Then it will become sad.
      3. paul3390
        paul3390 17 August 2019 10: 25
        0
        No, it’s just that when the Etajima Academy graduates only a hundred elite pilots a year, they will end sooner or later. Not immortal, after all. Especially - the main battles over the ocean.
      4. su25
        su25 28 August 2019 15: 05
        0
        The Japanese reserve of ship pilots did not exceed 300 people. Because of their lower human and economic potential, they, like Germany, could count on success only in a lightning war.
  8. Operator
    Operator 15 August 2019 18: 28
    +11
    Currently, aircraft maneuverability is needed primarily not for dogfights, but for evading surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles in the non-motorized missile flight segment (75% of the entire flight distance).

    Dogfights themselves pass at subsonic speed, which all fighter jets reach without exception. Therefore, we can talk not about speed qualities, but about the thrust-weight ratio (which provides rate of climb) and the thrust vector control (which provides a large angular speed of the turn).

    Therefore, a comparison of Su-35 / 57 and Ф-22 / 35 with Me-109 and ФВ-190 does not channel laughing
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 15 August 2019 23: 59
      +1
      Truth, boyar, verb!
    2. tomket
      tomket 16 August 2019 00: 21
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      Therefore, a comparison of Su-35 / 57 and Ф-22 / 35 with Me-109 and ФВ-190 does not channel

      And I did not understand, is this Su-27 type compared with Me-109, and F-22 with FV-190? And the one who compares, aware that at the end of his career Me-109 flew almost in a straight line?
  9. Fayter2017
    Fayter2017 15 August 2019 18: 29
    +17
    The storyteller Hartman or the authors of a book about him should be treated very carefully and divided into 3.
    The 190 foker entered the western front acting at medium and high altitudes; on the eastern front, as a rule, he was in the role of a drummer, under the guise of Messers.
    The tactics of the German Luftwaffe led to the collapse, despite the high performance characteristics of their aircraft.
    Yaks below, Cobras above, LA everywhere)) and a map of Fritz bits).
    Every 5 American pilot did not meet a single German aircraft during the war.
    Hartman himself admits that only after taking off you can see the hordes of Soviet aircraft and choose an inexperienced one, only how did this contribute to the task of counteracting Soviet attack aircraft?
    While the aces the Germans "boomed" ours methodically knocked them out.
    Artyom Drabkin, one veteran when asked why he shot down only 5 German planes, he answered to bring down the Fritz this is how to sleep in a cage with a tigress, he could do it 5 times ...
    1. Mephody
      Mephody 16 August 2019 01: 01
      +2
      While the aces the Germans "boomed" ours methodically knocked them out.

      Oh, if only. Even at the end of the war, the Germans were extremely dangerous opponents for the average Soviet pilots. There simply wasn’t a picture of German air dominance of the first two years of the war.
      It would be more appropriate for a veteran to ask the question how he managed to bring down 5 Germans.
      And Hartman did not even try to portray himself as a hero of dog dumps: "If the first attack failed, I preferred not to get involved in the fight. So today is not my day."
      But the Germans didn’t fly to intercept you, they only shot down the young and the malfunctioning. Unfortunately, it is not.
      1. kanskebron
        kanskebron 16 August 2019 07: 40
        +4
        "If the first attack failed, I preferred not to get involved in the fight. So today is not my day."

        Zashib, and the battalion of the Wehrmacht, which the Il-2 squadron, mixed with the ground, due to the fact that the "great" Hartman, tired of fighting today, was the day obviously a success? This phrase gives a full understanding of why the Red Army Air Force won, and not the Luftwaffe.
        1. Fayter2017
          Fayter2017 16 August 2019 08: 34
          +5
          Reading the book of 100 Stalinist falcons, it is clear that for our mission was the main goal. The Germans were very dangerous opponents, but they had the choice to die on the job or not take risks, not today, and then there is always someone to justify, inexperienced, so when the battle took an unpleasant turn for them they didn’t really bother A personal account on beginners is better than dying by disrupting the attack of Soviet attack aircraft. Reading Kozhedub, Pokryshkin and others for our aces was a disaster if someone died in the squadron, this indicates the highest level of our aces.
          Thus, I want to say that the Germans were not fools, they saw perfectly who and how they were flying, therefore the main conclusion: If there was an opportunity not to take risks, to evade the battle with a strong opponent, then yes, evade bombs in a pure field and home, but aces themselves easier victim will find or not my day today.
          Ours didn’t have this, die but complete the task, and if you lose at least one Il, it’s possible to thunder at the penal battalion ...
  10. Ingenegr
    Ingenegr 15 August 2019 18: 32
    +7
    In two ways. On the one hand, the high speed and heavy weight of a second volley is really more important than the ability to maneuver if you attack first. The speed reserve will allow you to start a battle, defeat the enemy in the approach, and also quickly and fairly painlessly leave the battle in case of failure in the first call. This tactic is good for a hunter shooting a personal score, and in this case, the speed characteristics of the machine will indeed be dominant.
    In the case of the work of the IA "on the sidelines" to ensure the actions of ground forces or a BA, it will hardly be possible to realize the advantages in speed.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 16 August 2019 00: 07
      +2
      On any tricky screw there is no less tricky nut.
      Pokryshkin's "whatnot" saved from boomers. It was important to always have our own cover group above the Hartman.
      As soon as such tactics were instilled in our Air Force - our losses went down, the German vice versa up.
      Even if the first approach was successful, then at the exit from it there was always a group of people wishing to get even, who had excess and the ability to catch up on a dive.
      1. Mephody
        Mephody 16 August 2019 01: 08
        +1
        The bookcase is not from the Hartmans. The Hartmans are free hunting. It does not mean fighting cover fighters. But with "catching up on a dive" everything was not so rosy. In the next topic, it was discussed that more often opponents had the opportunity to dive away from each other. Even ours left if they wanted to. And it was difficult to catch up even with the best dive characteristics. A manual on aerial combat was given from the age of 45: Yak-3 dives better than the FV 190 A8 (emnip), but it catches up with the foker only at the beginning of the dive until reaching maximum speeds.
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 16 August 2019 09: 26
          0
          When one leaves the dive, and the second from above starts an attack on him - the outgoing chances are very small. Hartman's name is capitalized. I had in mind boomsumers like him. And whether they are free hunting or clearing - it does not matter.
          A cover group at height is a universal method to discourage boomsum.
      2. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 09: 37
        0
        Everything is correct, but this number will pass only when you have a numerical superiority.
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 17 August 2019 11: 02
          0
          Usually the Germans had numerical superiority. They created shock fists in separate sections, and ours smeared forces to cover forces on the entire front. But even when the squadron took off, a pair of cover stood out up. And it worked.
          1. Oleg Zorin
            Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 11: 21
            +2
            It worked. The Germans could create a numerical advantage in the second half of the war only locally and only for a short period of time.
  11. Mooh
    Mooh 15 August 2019 18: 34
    +12
    The plane, exactly like the ship and the tank, etc., the machine is balanced. A shift in balance in one direction inevitably leads to failure in others. That is why the statement of the respected author is slightly illiterate. In the light of the recent heated discussion of Schwalbe already in 4 articles, the respected author should have realized that the swallow’s enormous superiority in speed and weapons did not help the Luftwaffe at the final stage of WW2. Therefore, an attempt to single out some qualities of an airplane to the detriment of others will not lead to anything good. It is necessary to consider it in a complex, it is advisable not to confine oneself to clean equipment since the airplane is a complex system depending on both the pilot’s qualifications and maintenance personnel and the tactics adopted by the operator in the country. And the tactics of using very close technical characteristics of aircraft in those years could differ dramatically.
  12. Igor V
    Igor V 15 August 2019 18: 37
    +1
    Damn, ours lost again! recourse
  13. paul3390
    paul3390 15 August 2019 18: 39
    +4
    In theory, the Soviet Union could get a modern “heavy” fighter in the person of I-185
    Exactly what is in theory. But a reliable dviglo for him - unfortunately appeared significantly later .. When the mass production of La and Yak was more important than even a super-plane ..
  14. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 15 August 2019 18: 40
    +15
    I read it with difficulty. Apparently, the author simply took several Anglo-American articles from a yellow press like the notorious NI and combined them as best he could. True, he himself is not even close to the topic. Even in theory. So a set of mattress stamps came out, which were refuted decades ago by such "masterpieces as the F-104 (" widowmaker "), F-4" Phantom ", the MiGami-21 many times beaten ... By the way, the F-15 is a very, very not bad, it was created with the aim of surpassing the MiG-21 ON MANEUVERABILITY. This is the mattress toppers themselves. So yes, maneuverability is "unnecessary and even harmful." laughing laughing laughing
    1. Bad thing
      Bad thing 15 August 2019 22: 49
      +4
      Quote: Stroibat stock
      By the way, the F-15, the aircraft is very, very good, was created with the aim of surpassing the MiG-21 by maneuverability.

      Read Kandaurov V.N. "A lifelong runway", there is an episode when an F-5E was delivered from Vietnam to LII, and how surprised our testers and chiefs were with the results of air battles, although according to the calculations it was the opposite.
      1. Reserve buildbat
        Reserve buildbat 16 August 2019 06: 01
        +1
        I read, I know. But the F-5E as a combat fighter had no prospect.
  15. PilotS37
    PilotS37 15 August 2019 18: 44
    +14
    It is strange that climb was out of maneuverability!
    In general, the author interprets "maneuverability" exclusively as horizontal maneuverability.
    However, it is full of materials saying that in WWII he was in the first place vertical maneuver, if he was missing, tried to "cure" horizontal. As, for example, "Hurricanes" fought with "Messers".
    A "Foker" or the same "Tempest" turned out to be heavy not because of the neglect of maneuverability in favor of speed, but in favor of more powerful weapons. But did the Foker become a successful fighter jet? - No! Fighting heavy bombers and ground attack - that was his destiny by the end of the war.
    Approximately the same can be said about the Typhoon with Tempest, and about the Bolt ...
    In general, without a table with characteristics, this is not analytics, but a conversation "about the weather".
    Need to compare:
    - wing specific load
    - thrust-to-weight ratio
    - maximum rate of climb
    - time of the established turn
    - maximum speed
    - armament.
    Then we will see The pictureand here some blah blah blah.
  16. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 15 August 2019 18: 51
    +3
    Thanks for the article, if you read the memories of most pilots, they noted the advantage of vertical maneuver over horizontal. So nothing new, but thanks anyway.
  17. Alf
    Alf 15 August 2019 18: 52
    +7
    The Soviet La-7 and Yak-3, which had truly outstanding horizontal and vertical maneuverability, can be attributed to this category. However, such indicators were achieved due to stringent weight and size restrictions, excluding the placement of any powerful weapons

    The armament of the LA-5 and LA-7 was two guns. Their opponents on the Eastern Front were fighters, single and twin-engine bombers. For their destruction a pair of ShVAKs was enough.
    while the conventional “norm” towards the end of the war was the installation of four 20-mm guns.

    Not true. Six Colts were enough for the Americans, the British managed with a set of a pair of Ispano and two or four machine guns. The four-gun variants of the Spits did not go particularly well due to overweight, and the Typhoons and Tempest were originally created for striking the ground. The Messers spent the whole war with one motor cannon and a couple of machine guns, except for the hanging containers, which are usually necessary for interception on the Western Front.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 August 2019 13: 43
      0
      Quote: Alf
      Six Colts were enough for the Americans, the British managed with a set of a pair of Ispano and two or four machine guns.

      Judging by the Pacific Ocean, the Yankees put 20-mm cannons mainly on night fighters - because they worked "in one run" with weak enemy opposition, and they needed to inflict maximum damage in a short time.
      1. Alf
        Alf 16 August 2019 16: 16
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Judging by the Pacific Ocean, the Yankees put 20-mm air guns mainly on night fighters

        Corsair F4U-4 is also a night light?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 August 2019 16: 47
          +3
          Quote: Alf
          Corsair F4U-4 is also a night light?

          Do you mean the "cannon" F4U-4Bs, of which less than 300 were made - versus 2050 conventional machine-gun F4U-4s? wink
          1. Alf
            Alf 16 August 2019 21: 38
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Quote: Alf
            Corsair F4U-4 is also a night light?

            Do you mean the "cannon" F4U-4Bs, of which less than 300 were made - versus 2050 conventional machine-gun F4U-4s? wink

            Right The Americans simply planned to use the cannon modification as a fighter-bomber.
  18. paul3390
    paul3390 15 August 2019 18: 55
    +2
    Quote: PilotS37
    Need to compare:

    Overclocking characteristics are still important .. And then if he picks up the maximum speed in half an hour - there is hardly anything that will help .. Here I-16 of the last series - they say it was unique in this respect .. "I went for gas", accelerated very quickly. True, I lost speed just as quickly in a dive .. Of course - with such a forehead.
    1. lucul
      lucul 15 August 2019 19: 12
      -2
      True - just as quickly losing speed in a dive .. Still, with such a robe.

      The main resistance for an airplane is created by wings, not forehead.
      And it was because of the wings that he dived so poorly (wing profile).
      1. mark1
        mark1 15 August 2019 20: 48
        +2
        The I-16 had a forehead like Thunderbolt, and the weight did not reach 2 tons, that’s the whole secret of a poor dive, and the wing had the usual thickness of -16% profile, like a Messer.
        1. lucul
          lucul 15 August 2019 21: 05
          +1
          that's the whole secret of a bad dive

          The linen wings forgot))
          1. mark1
            mark1 15 August 2019 21: 12
            0
            It’s a known misfortune, but it’s not necessary to absolutize it so much, there was also enough duralumin in the wing, and for type 29 plywood as well.
      2. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 15 August 2019 21: 23
        +3
        The main resistance for an airplane is created by wings, not forehead.
        And it was because of the wings that he dived so poorly (wing profile).

        Why so categorically?
        Although "in the middle of the hospital" you are right:

        But in special cases, you can make mistakes:
      3. PilotS37
        PilotS37 15 August 2019 23: 21
        0
        lucul (Vitaliy)
        The main resistance for an airplane is created by wings, not forehead.
        And it was because of the wings that he dived so poorly (wing profile).

        Duchess of Marlborough
        This is something new in our love vocabulary!
    2. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 15 August 2019 19: 25
      +1
      Acceleration characteristics are still important ..
      - this is also "maneuverability". hi
    3. Alf
      Alf 15 August 2019 19: 43
      +2
      Quote: paul3390
      Here I-16 of the last series - they say it was unique in this respect .. "I went for gas", accelerated very quickly.

      If my memory serves me right, then Ishak with an M-62 and M-63 engine horizontally accelerated faster than the Me-109E.
  19. Karampax
    Karampax 15 August 2019 18: 55
    +8
    Invalid comparison! Each side designed the equipment based on the tactics and tasks facing the troops !!!!! The same Dora, in any modification, to put it mildly, would have managed during an attack, for example, Yak-1b with an excess when covering il-2 first. The same yak-1b to bring down the b-17 at the height of 10000 is an impossible task. In general, the topic is very extensive and in a nutshell you won’t reveal it ... Germany and the USSR lost about the same number of pilots .... Nobody had a clear advantage ...
    1. lucul
      lucul 15 August 2019 19: 14
      -2
      The same yak-1b to bring down the b-17 at the height of 10000 is an impossible task.

      That was the MiG-3. He flew and dived at a height better than a Messer, and his wing was thinner than that of Me.109 ....
      1. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 15 August 2019 19: 30
        +6
        When the USSR had a chance to fight with the B-17 and B-29, then the La-9 first appeared, and a little later the MiG-15.
      2. Karampax
        Karampax 15 August 2019 19: 49
        +4
        With its armament and survivability there is no chance at all. Only after strengthening the armament, which would entail an increase in weight with the inevitable loss of flying qualities ..... the Germans put 2 30 plus 2 20 (on separate modifications) machine guns in general, you can ignore the machine guns and the guarantee of shooting down the B-17 was rather low ... ..what to do with two capricious rifle-caliber cabinets and one ubs against such a monster when Soviet pilots pointed out the weakness of arming the Harikeyn with its 8 machine guns with targets having much less buoyancy? !!!!!!
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 16 August 2019 09: 54
          0
          There was a variant of a twink with two shvak, ns which, in the Teria, could hang 2 more ub under the wings.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 16 August 2019 13: 52
        0
        Quote: lucul
        That was the MiG-3.

        MiG-3 with one UB and a pair of ShKAS shot down the B-17. This is cleaner than the Ki-27 attack on the TB-3 formation. smile
        I remember about the cannon MiG-3 and the "five-point" MiG-3 - but the underwing UB reduced flight characteristics.
        1. lucul
          lucul 16 August 2019 14: 02
          -1
          I remember about the cannon MiG-3 and the "five-point" MiG-3 - but the underwing UB reduced flight characteristics.

          Basic MiG-3 - these are three magnificent UBS. If desired, it was possible to put two 23 mm VY. And its flight characteristics more than covered the B-17, both in height and in speed.
          1. Oleg Zorin
            Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 09
            0
            As practice has shown, Boeings did not fly individually. And they walked in large formations, and even under the guise of escort fighters. So counteracting them with Migaras-3 is another task.
    2. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 15 August 2019 19: 28
      +3
      The same yak-1b to bring down the b-17 at the height of 10000 is an impossible task.

      Although the B-17 has a practical ceiling and 10850 meters, they flew to bomb at an altitude of 6-7 thousand meters. So really, it would hardly have been possible to shoot down the B-17 at 10000m.
  20. Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 15 August 2019 19: 06
    +1
    The execution time of the established turn by the I-16 type 29 aircraft at an altitude of 1000 meters was in the optimal left direction


    how the roll is taken into account when determining the time
    what is the speed of entry, what is the speed of exit
    what is the height of the entrance, what is the height of the exit

    the figures given in the article do not mean very much if there are no explanations and conditions for their receipt
  21. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 15 August 2019 19: 13
    +4
    1. Speed.
    2. Powerful weapons.
    3. Rate of climb.
    4. Maneuverable qualities.

    One gets the impression that the author separates climb from maneuvering qualities and reduces the concept of maneuverability to the time of a turn.
    Chief Engineer Colonel V.N. Mednikov in the Gagarin Air Force Academy textbook "Flight dynamics and aircraft piloting" gives on page 155 the following definition of maneuverability:
    Maneuverability called the ability of the aircraft to change the vectro speed in magnitude and direction .... In the most general case maneuverability aircraft can fully characterize second vector increment of speed

    But I will not argue with I. Legat. Let F. Lloyd argue with him, having published his article "Pouwers of maneuvre" in Aeronautics magazine in October 1943.
    I. Legat:
    Moreover, sometimes it feels like some modern fighters are constructing with an eye to experience ... of the First World War.

    F. Lloyd:
    In aerial combat, the art of piloting and marksmanship are factors that can largely decide victory. Throughout the history of the air war, both of these factors have remained decisive in fighter tactics.

    I. Legat:
    Speed ​​is growing, maneuverability is falling: this is the main trend of fighter aircraft of the Second World War.

    F. Lloyd:
    Speed ​​is, of course, the main attribute of a fighter; it is necessary, however, contrary to widespread belief, it is far from the only condition for ensuring the maneuverability of a fighter to be considered. Their number includes: requirements for high speeds of rise and turn, a small radius of a turn, the ability to quickly increase and decrease speed, a large radius of action, good overall controllability and stability, good visibility for the pilot, necessary for effective combat.

    I. Legat:
    FW-190A, which were also not famous for outstanding maneuverability: at least at heights of up to 4000 meters.

    F. Lloyd:
    The first basic requirement is therefore that the aircraft can quickly reach the position that is required to perform a turn, so the fighter must be able to roll at high angular velocity. A modern single-seat fighter must reach a roll of 90 degrees in less than two seconds.
    ...
    These issues are particularly important in connection with the fact that the German FW-190 aircraft has a very high rotation speed.
    If the British aircraft do not compare with the FW-190 aircraft in this regard, then he will always be able to slip away from the attack of the British aircraft.

    I. Legat:
    If you try to summarize the main result, it is worth noting that the two most important qualities for a WWII fighter plane in descending order were:

    1. Speed.
    2. Powerful weapons.
    3. Rate of climb.
    4. Maneuverable qualities.

    F. Lloyd:
    Although this article considered some possible further improvements related to weight gain and design complexity, it should be borne in mind that such progress is going the wrong way. The simpler and lighter the design of the fighter and, consequently, the smaller its size, the greater its maneuverability. It is known that a fighter must have sufficient protective armor. However, one should not go to the other extreme and turn a fighter into a real flying tank. It is rarely possible to achieve the perfection of all flight characteristics.It is impossible to build an ultra-fast fighter with a very high rate of climb, which could describe a circle with a radius equal to zero, had impenetrable armor and an unlimited supply of ammunition, as well as a large ceiling and radius of action. Only as a result of a compromise of all these properties can a good combat aircraft be obtained.
    When using motors with power of the order of 1500 l. S., which is common, at present, there is still reason to object to the further complication of the fighter; should
    to simplify and simplify the design as much as possible and reduce the size of all new fighter projected, which are designed for the use of such engines. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind the possibility of further increasing the power of motors to 3000 hp. and more, which will lead to an increase in speed and climb due to some deterioration in maneuverability. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new devices that would help maintain good maneuverability due to some deterioration in climb.

    I. Legat:
    In this sense, examples of Bf.109G battles with the early “Yaks” and La-5 (but not La-5FN!), Which very often became victims of the Messers, are typical. Despite the fact that the same Yak-1B or Yak-9 had less time to complete a horizontal turn than Bf.109G

    Back to Mednikov:

    Ilya, the Bf-109G2 was more maneuverable than the early Yak-1 and La-5. Paradoxical as it may seem to you. Therefore, they often became victims.
    1. tomket
      tomket 16 August 2019 00: 25
      0
      Quote: Dooplet11
      Ilya, Bf-109G2 was more maneuverable than the early Yak-1 and La-5.

      Messer made a turn a little faster, but Yak had a smaller radius than the pilots used.
      1. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 16 August 2019 05: 23
        0
        Messer made a turn a little faster, but Yak had a smaller radius than the pilots used.

        And now in more detail, pliz: what turn messer (which?) Did faster? Which Yak had a smaller bend radius (which?) And to what height does all this relate?
        And I’m Ilya about maneuverability in general, and not about the bend and areas of local superiority. And they, of course, have almost any aircraft.
  22. Undecim
    Undecim 15 August 2019 19: 15
    +21
    It’s already a straightforward tradition of some kind on the site - to write about what you have no idea at all.
    The author hit into a discussion of the maneuverability of the aircraft, without even bothering to find out what it was, the result was a complete nonsense in the form of conclusions at the end of the article.
    Information for the author. Aircraft maneuverability is not the ability to bend turns.
    Aircraft maneuverability is its ability to change its position in space (direction, speed and flight altitude) over a certain period of time, i.e., to make evolution, to maneuver in the air. To find out, just open any textbook on the dynamics of flight of aircraft.
    You can learn even more from such a book.

    The book is just written from the experience of World War II and the Korean War.
    And then the author would have known that the flight of a fighter plane from takeoff to landing consists of a series of certain maneuvers aimed at finding a target, approaching it, attacking a target, re-entering in case of a miss, and so on.
    Therefore, to write that maneuverability is not the main thing for a fighter, it is the same as writing that for a ship it is not important buoyancy or for the brain is the ability to think.
    It is even difficult to imagine what the author will "create" in the sequel.
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 15 August 2019 19: 34
      +8
      A colleague, half of the authors of VO, writing on the topic of aviation, as they say, is "out of topic." Or the topic is not very deep. At the level of copy-paste from well-known resources.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 15 August 2019 19: 44
        +13
        Even if the article is copy-paste, then before copy-paste it, is it really difficult to at least a little understand the issue and not bring utter nonsense to the masses?
        And then in fact some here in the comments thank you for the article. Interesting. if an article appears in which another author "debunks the myth" that the Earth is a geoid, will there be thanks or not?
        1. Alf
          Alf 15 August 2019 19: 52
          -1
          Quote: Undecim
          will be grateful or not?

          Will be. Especially if the article will contain XNUMX% iron proof, British scientists have figured out ...
          1. Alf
            Alf 15 August 2019 22: 11
            0
            Quote: Alf
            Quote: Undecim
            will be grateful or not?

            Will be. Especially if the article will contain XNUMX% iron proof, British scientists have figured out ...

            Judging by the minus, a British scientist ran in.
            1. PilotS37
              PilotS37 15 August 2019 23: 31
              +1
              Another one: "red" diploma from MAI + 6 years at the Sukhoi Design Bureau - a typical "British scientist" ...
        2. Vladimir_R
          Vladimir_R 16 August 2019 00: 05
          +1
          Quote: Undecim
          if an article appears in which another author "debunks the myth" that the Earth is a geoid, will there be thanks or not?


          But, in fairness, if we consider the Earth as a celestial body, then, among other things, it is necessary to consider the atmosphere as an inapplicable part of the planet, and from the point of view of physics, a gas (gas mixture) is no different from a liquid. So whether a geoid or not is a debatable issue, it all depends on the starting point. what
      2. lucul
        lucul 15 August 2019 19: 57
        0
        A colleague, half of the authors of VO, writing on the topic of aviation, as they say, is "out of topic." Or the topic is not very deep. At the level of copy-paste from well-known resources

        The author simply did not fully develop the idea, or rather did not quite reveal what he wanted to say.
        For example, Polikarpov did the I-16 precisely for maneuverable combat. By this was meant high horizontal and vertical maneuverability. A speed of over 300 km / h is only harmful. I remind you that at a speed of 300 km / h in an established turn, overloads reach as much as 3G, this is practically the limit of overload that the pilot withstood for those years.
        Take, for example, the modern sports and aerobatic aircraft SU-26 (one of the best). Its characteristics repeat the capabilities of the I-16. But, with all the excellent maneuverability indicators - the maximum speed of the Su-26 is only 310 km / h, more and to nothing.
        Polikarpov saw everything perfectly and clearly imagined all the aircraft manufacturing trends of those years. And if I-16 was a breakthrough for 1934, then I-185 was a similar breakthrough for 1940. And if we were able to create a normal engine (M-71, M-88), for 1941 we would have had a fighter of the level of the end of the war.
        1. Dooplet11
          Dooplet11 15 August 2019 20: 09
          +5
          For example, Polikarpov did the I-16 precisely for maneuverable combat. By this was meant high horizontal and vertical maneuverability. Speed ​​over 300 km / h is already only harmful. I remind you that at a speed of 300km / h in the established bend, overloads reach as much as 3G, which is practically the limit of the overload that the pilot withstood for those years.

          I have to disagree with you. Both then and now, without an anti-overload suit, the pilot withstood and can withstand the same overloads. temporary blindness (the so-called "curtain" occurs at about 6Zhe:

          And at 300 speed it was possible to achieve an overload much more than 3.
        2. PilotS37
          PilotS37 15 August 2019 23: 36
          0
          All this is partly correct: for example, the "Cobra" on the Su-27 can be done only at sufficiently low speeds - otherwise the wing consoles fly off.
          However, the main thing here is that [b] Su-27 can do Cobra[/ b] ...
          As the experience of the Second World War showed, 300 km / h was already categorically insufficient for victory in a real aerial battle.
          And as the experience of the Cold War showed, 900 km / h was not always enough ...
        3. DAOs
          DAOs 22 August 2019 20: 55
          0
          I want to ask - at what angle of heel in the established turn will 3G overload be?
  23. Karampax
    Karampax 15 August 2019 20: 05
    +5
    Quote: Dooplet11
    The same yak-1b to bring down the b-17 at the height of 10000 is an impossible task.

    Although the B-17 has a practical ceiling and 10850 meters, they flew to bomb at an altitude of 6-7 thousand meters. So really, it would hardly have been possible to shoot down the B-17 at 10000m.

    Yes, it’s not even about the height ..... one gun of shvak and one ubs is simply not enough for a guaranteed destruction of the object. Ours concluded and then there were already 3 b-20s on la 7-9 and I don’t say anything about moment 15 ..... We humbly ignore the American irons of Vietnam f-4. Ours immediately mounted 21 missiles for an instant, and the Americans introduced the guns into f-4 armament .... each closed its weak points. And so on to infinity. First, tasks appear for them, tactics are developed, and for all this, technology appears. This is true to this day. Tasks are set based on the military doctrine of the state.
    1. Alf
      Alf 15 August 2019 20: 26
      +1
      Quote: Karampax
      already 3 b-20 on la 7-9

      Three-gun LA-7s were produced mainly only after the war, and LA-9 had 4 23-mm guns. Three guns carried LA-11, but, again, VYA in 23 mm.
      1. Alf
        Alf 16 August 2019 08: 39
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: Karampax
        already 3 b-20 on la 7-9

        Three-gun LA-7s were produced mainly only after the war, and LA-9 had 4 23-mm guns. Three guns carried LA-11, but, again, VYA in 23 mm.

        I wonder who does not agree?
    2. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 15 August 2019 20: 31
      +1
      then there were already 3 b-20 on la 7-9 and even about the moment 15 I am generally silent ...

      La 9 had 4xNS-23. From TO La 9:
  24. pro100y.belarus
    pro100y.belarus 15 August 2019 20: 48
    +9
    Realizing the difficulty of my situation, I put the car on the wing to go to mine. But it was not so easy to break away from the enemies hovering above me. They quickly caught up with me.

    There was no need to think about help. I had to rely only on myself. Turning around to meet the "Messers", I decided to show them that I was not going to run and was ready to fight. But they did not accept a frontal attack, went to the height and again hung over me like a raised sword.

    What to do? They have an advantage in height and speed. Below me is the land occupied by the enemy. I have barely enough fuel - just get to the airfield. If it ends or if I make a mistake in anything, the Nazis will shoot me like a target. There is only one way out - to apply the trick.

    Having not thought of anything yet, I turn to the east and give full speed, squeezing out of my YAK everything that it can give. The Messerschmitts rush after me like two arrows fired by a taut bowstring. Here they are already at an effective range of fire. I sharply put the plane into a dive. From a rapid fall, the car trembles, a boring pain appears in the ears.

    The Messerschmitts, who had lagged behind, were catching up with me again. I already feel them behind my back, I know that the leader of the pair is about to open fire on me. And in those seconds I remembered the maneuver that I had worked out during the flights on the Messerschmitt. If this "hook" fails me, I will have to pay with my life.

    I abruptly throw the plane up the hill and turn the spiral. The eyes are dark from overload. At the top point, I move the car over the wing to the horizon. And here is exactly what I expected. "Messerschmitt", overtaking me, is in front, some fifty meters, and itself falls into the crosshair of my sight. I give at close range a long burst of cannons and machine guns. "Messer" for a moment, as it were, hangs in the sight, and then, turning over, goes to the ground. Nearby, almost hitting me, his wingman slips by.

    I rush after him, but he, apparently, is not inclined to fight. Well, that suits me quite well. Following the explosion of the downed ME-109f, I am leaving for the clouds and heading east, home!

    This is an excerpt from AIPokryshkin's book "The Sky of War". Maneuver against speed. The author of the article can be set "failed."
    1. Lad
      Lad 15 August 2019 22: 14
      -3
      Why so sharply. A special case. Moreover, taken from a fiction book. And it's not about the "average" pilot. It doesn't prove anything.
      1. pro100y.belarus
        pro100y.belarus 16 August 2019 19: 25
        +1
        Quote: Lad
        Why so sharply. A special case. Moreover, taken from a fiction book. And it's not about the "average" pilot. It doesn't prove anything.

        The fiction book is The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Pokryshkin wrote military memoirs, as they would say now, based on real events.
        And with such "special cases" in my room the entire rack is filled. Pokryshkin, Kozhedub, Vorozheikin, Vasily Golubev, Evstigneev and many, many other "special cases", there is even a French baron from the Normandie-Niemen regiment.
        If all the "special cases" are described here, there will not be enough time and space.
        Take an interest in the topic and you won’t look silly.
    2. Oleg Zorin
      Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 25
      0
      No, the example you cited only says that the pilot in Yak was better, and the pilots of the Messers made a mistake. And by the way, were the Germans on the F-2 or F-4?
      1. pro100y.belarus
        pro100y.belarus 17 August 2019 22: 08
        0
        Quote: Oleg Zorin
        No, the example you cited only says that the pilot in Yak was better, and the pilots of the Messers made a mistake. And by the way, were the Germans on the F-2 or F-4?

        I gave only one, the most characteristic example of the advantage of maneuver over speed.
        I don’t know if the statement of the three-time Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Ivanovich Pokryshkin, a fighter pilot, three times Hero of the Soviet Union, will explain something to you: "Air combat is not something frozen, its techniques are modified, improved at each stage of combat operations."
        It’s not a fact that German pilots were worse prepared in that battle. They were confident in their technical and tactical superiority (like many Germanophiles on this forum), for which they paid.
        By the way, Bf-109F-2 and Bf-109F-4 are no different in appearance. I'm not sure that when a cannon and two machine guns are aimed at the back of your head, you will carefully determine the modification of the enemy fighter.
        Do not ask more such questions, but simply google it in a search engine, because you have the Internet.
        1. Oleg Zorin
          Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 22: 15
          0
          Dear, I’m not going to constantly google something, especially on such a minor occasion. F-2 and F-4 are different, and not only externally. And their performance characteristics differ.
          1. pro100y.belarus
            pro100y.belarus 17 August 2019 22: 27
            0
            Quote: Oleg Zorin
            Dear, I’m not going to constantly google something, especially on such a minor occasion. F-2 and F-4 are different, and not only externally. And their performance characteristics differ.

            Brad.
            1. Oleg Zorin
              Oleg Zorin 18 August 2019 16: 53
              0
              You are funny. Well, come on, believe on. In Russia, the law requires us to respect other religions :)
  25. Operator
    Operator 15 August 2019 21: 27
    +1
    Quote: Undecim
    Maneuverability

    In English, the word maneuver means "intrigue".

    Therefore, the semantic analogue of the phrase "aircraft maneuverability" is "the aircraft's agility / versatility in the horizontal and vertical planes." This is fully supported by the English equivalent of turn / U-turn.

    Plus acceleration (in horizontal flight), rate of climb (in vertical flight) and deceleration (by reversing the screw / nozzle, releasing brake / landing flaps and multidirectional rotation of a pair of rudders).
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 15 August 2019 21: 46
      +1
      wiki:

      Maneuver (American English), manoeuvre (British English), manoeuver, manœuver (also spelled, directly from the French, as manœuvre) denotes one's tactical move, or series of moves, that improves or maintains one's strategic situation in a competitive environment or avoids a worse situation.

      If anyone is not clear, I will translate;)

      Dictionary
      maneuver [məˈnuːvə] noun
      maneuver, maneuver
      (manoeuvre, maneuvering)
      maneuverability
      (maneuverability)
      manipulation
      (manipulation)
      aerobatics
      (acrobatics)
      maneuver [məˈnuːvə] ch
      maneuver, maneuver, maneuver
      (manoeuvre)
      maneuver [məˈnuːvə] adj
      maneuverable
      (maneuvering)

      intrigue
      intrigue
      n.
      intrigue
      machination
      (machinations
      fraud)
      plot
      (plot)
  26. Alexey G
    Alexey G 15 August 2019 21: 32
    +3
    It is surprising how some commentators find the main reason for the victory in the air war with the Germans only the best tactics of our aces or the best characteristics of our aircraft.
    After all, war is a struggle on land, in the air, at sea, and in the rear.
    The victory of Soviet aviation during the years of the Second World War was ensured primarily by the fact that several times more aircraft were created in the rear than the enemy.
    At the beginning of the war, our pilots practiced rams. And they learned to fight in the sky only in 1943.
    1. Fayter2017
      Fayter2017 16 August 2019 17: 38
      0
      You will be surprised, but the German aircraft industry produced surplus aircraft, there weren’t enough pilots, the bet on aces didn’t pay off, and the youth quickly got out of ours.
    2. Oleg Zorin
      Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 29
      0
      One veteran memoirist suggested that the numerous battering rams at the beginning of the war were due to the inability to maintain a distance.
  27. Alexey G
    Alexey G 15 August 2019 21: 36
    +1
    By that time, the number of planes with the Germans had decreased over the three years of the war, the flight crew had worn out and in training had become equal to the domestic one. The Germans' problem is the lack of people and aircraft, as well as in tanks and ships. Their military industry simply could not keep up with ours. Including because the factories did not work women and small children like ours. After all, they did not carry out genuine mobilization, as Ludendorff taught, in practice, Stalin did it.
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 15 August 2019 21: 39
      +2
      The first three years of the war with us, the Germans dominated the air. And so it would be if we did not surpass quantitatively and then qualitatively
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 15 August 2019 21: 41
        -1
        And if God forbid Fritz defeated us in 1941, then none of our aircraft would have saved us and tactics would not have helped
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 21: 44
          -1
          And so at the beginning of the war it was necessary to stupidly ram the enemy, which would reduce its number.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 15 August 2019 21: 46
            +1
            It’s only Kaptsov who thinks that he won all the best, but in 1941 we really lagged behind the Fritz on the ground and in the air and on the water.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 15 August 2019 21: 50
              +2
              Kaptsov thinks


              oxymoron, however;)

              like "Old New Year" or "Investing in the Forex Market"

              just kidding)
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 04
                +2
                Kaptsov is generally difficult to understand at times. He has everything German bad and even wonder how they set up Mercedes and BMW and even folks and audi
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 05
                  0
                  Probably learned from the Anglo-Saxons
            2. Fayter2017
              Fayter2017 16 August 2019 17: 40
              -1
              Examples of lag, criticality and the amount of lag?
          2. u4iy
            u4iy 15 August 2019 23: 34
            0
            The theme of battering rams seemed to be on. It’s not stupid to ram but according to intelligence and tactics ....
            Which plane to chop off and remain as whole as possible .....
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 35
              +2
              Well, I meant that of course guns and machine guns on an airplane need current for beauty, we’ll just chop the enemy with a screw and teeth. laughing
    2. pro100y.belarus
      pro100y.belarus 15 August 2019 21: 55
      +4
      Quote: Alexey G
      Including because the factories did not work women and small children like ours.

      In Germany, prisoners of war were employed as workers, as well as forced migrant workers from the occupied territories, and in sufficient quantities, and there was no need to use the labor of German women and children.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 15 August 2019 21: 58
        0
        And they gladly poured sand into the engines of panthers
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 00
          -2
          And our women in three shifts and quality control will be punished differently
          1. Alf
            Alf 15 August 2019 22: 14
            +6
            Quote: Alexey G
            And our women in three shifts and quality control will be punished differently

            Our women did not work in the war because of fear of punishment, they simply realized that they were working to win.
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 20
              -5
              Yes, this is understandable, but it does not interfere with one another, but supports it. forgot about detachments ???
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 28
                -4
                I had a grandfather in penal battalion for some time. He refused to go to a height from where no one was returning alive. Then he returned back to the normal unit and returned alive with awards.
                1. Squelcher
                  Squelcher 16 August 2019 03: 25
                  +1
                  But in the Wehrmacht in the penal battalion it was necessary to sit for a period of time in cases of injury, they returned to the fine baht, atone for blood with no blood supply in the Red Army. By the way, they have appeared since they were 39 years old.
                2. Alf
                  Alf 16 August 2019 16: 17
                  +2
                  Quote: Alexey G
                  He refused to go to heights

                  Let others fight ...
                  1. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 17 August 2019 01: 36
                    -2
                    They don’t fight, but they die stupidly. Grandfather, by the way, had a medal for courage and the Order of Glory. Not at the computer deserved it. The soldier in the war should not die, but complete the task and return alive.
                3. Oleg Zorin
                  Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 35
                  0
                  Could and shoot. And they would be right. No, I do not want to say anything specifically about that case. There was always enough dope in the troops. But in war, orders are executed unconditionally. Such a thing ...
                  1. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 32
                    0
                    They could, but apparently realized that they themselves were wrong. Remember Rzhev
              2. Alf
                Alf 16 August 2019 08: 38
                +1
                Quote: Alexey G
                Yes, this is understandable, but it does not interfere with one another, but supports it. forgot about detachments ???

                The standard horror story of a liberalist.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 01: 38
                  0
                  I hear from the rasta. Our people always demanded rigidity, otherwise everything fell out of hand. And punishments and detachments were necessary, and then from the Soviet cheers of patriotism by the end of 41st there was a current zilch and a bunch.
          2. pro100y.belarus
            pro100y.belarus 15 August 2019 22: 18
            +3
            Quote: Alexey G
            And our women in three shifts and quality control will be punished differently


            I don't know whose "women" are yours, but it seems to me that "your women" brought shells to the Germans.
            "Everything for the front, everything for Victory!" You can't understand those people from the current bell tower.
            Generation of consumers.
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 23
              -2
              Well, why are consumers and creators, too. But only among the Soviet people were traitors and those that the Germans carried shells. Vlasov for example
        2. Alf
          Alf 15 August 2019 22: 13
          +3
          Quote: Alexey G
          And they gladly poured sand into the engines of panthers

          Tell the Czechs about it.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 25
            -2
            By the way, among the Chekhov there were also partisans, not without their help Heydrich died.
            1. Mephody
              Mephody 16 August 2019 01: 34
              +4
              In the liquidation of Heydrich, the British played a decisive role.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 02: 37
                -3
                But then they relied on the Czechoslovak underground, and blew it up in Prague
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 16 August 2019 13: 58
                  +2
                  Quote: Alexey G
                  But then they relied on the Czechoslovak underground

                  All participation of the Czech underground in that operation was reduced to the provision of housing. Moreover, local leaders of the underground advocated the cancellation of the operation.
                  But Czech firefighters distinguished themselves during the Germans' assault on the church with saboteurs seated inside - firefighters actively helped the Germans by pouring water on the basement of the church with saboteurs hiding there.
              2. Alexey G
                Alexey G 17 August 2019 01: 43
                0
                Operation Anthropoid (Czech operace Anthropoid) is the code name for the operation to eliminate Reinhard Heydrich, head of the Imperial Security Directorate, deputy (acting) imperial protector of Bohemia and Moravia. The operation was prepared and carried out jointly by the British special services "Office of Special Operations" and the National Committee for the Liberation of Czechoslovakia (the Czechoslovak government in exile). The attempt was carried out in Prague on May 27, 1942 by two members of the Czechoslovak Resistance, Slovak Josef Gabczyk and Czech Jan Kubis. On June 4, Heydrich died of his wounds. These English guys are Kubish and Gabchik. Learn the story of Dmitry.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 01: 51
                  0
                  Londoners probably laughing
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 19 August 2019 12: 17
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey G
                    Londoners probably laughing

                    Then cheaters - they prepared them there. smile
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 19 August 2019 12: 16
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey G
                  The attempt was carried out in Prague on May 27, 1942 by two members of the Czechoslovak Resistance, Slovak Josef Gabczyk and Czech Jan Kubis. On June 4, Heydrich died of his wounds. These English guys are Kubish and Gabchik. Learn the story of Dmitry.

                  But do not judge by last name. Kubis and Gabcek were not members of the Resistance - they were members of the ODR.
                  After the surrender of Czechoslovakia in Munich, this couple first fled to Poland, then served in the Foreign Legion, and in July 1940 was evacuated to the Islands.
                  After the defeat of the French troops on July 12, 1940, he was evacuated to Great Britain, where he joined the Czechoslovak military forces abroad, organized by the president of Czechoslovakia in exile, Edward Benes. He filed a report on the transfer to the Air Force, but he was not satisfied. From February 2 to February 22, 1941 he passed courses of tank captains and received the rank of captain (in the Czechoslovak army, he corresponded to the rank of foreman). In the castle of Colmondell in the county of Cheshire he underwent landing training.
                  Together with J. Kubis, he applied to the British Office of Special Operations.

                  Kubisz and Gabcek were trained in the USO camp near Chester and were chosen to be thrown behind enemy lines and to eliminate Heydrich - moreover, for purely political reasons:
                  It was assumed that in order to maintain the status of a resurgent Czechoslovakia, the performers had to be ethnic representatives of both the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
                  The delivery of saboteurs took place on a moonless night from December 28 to December 29, 1941. The British Air Force’s Handley Page Halifax plane flew off from the Sussex airfield at 22:00 p.m. and at 2:12 a.m., drove Gabchik and Kubish.

                  So Kubish and Gabcek were not members of the Resistance - "partisans". They were the "Varangians" - a sabotage and terrorist group, abandoned from abroad to carry out an operation to eliminate Heydrich.
                  My main task is to return to my homeland together with another member of the Czechoslovak Army with the aim of committing a sabotage or terrorist act in a given place, taking into account the specific situation and circumstances, and I will fulfill it as efficiently as possible to get the required resonance not only in my country, but also for abroad. I will consciously make every effort to successfully complete this task, which I volunteered to participate in.
                  1. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 26 August 2019 20: 59
                    0
                    But they did not cease to be Czechs by nationality, and this was the calculation of the British. quarrel Germans and Czechs. and they could cook them anywhere.
          2. Oleg Zorin
            Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 41
            +2
            Here, after all, this is the thing, with the Czechs ... From the loss of statehood, the life of a simple Czech hard worker has not changed in any way. They didn’t genocide, they didn’t steal to Germany, plus they didn’t call up the army. And around the world massacre ...
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 17 August 2019 19: 55
              0
              Worked and how. Ratsuhi wrote. Improved the release of the same self-propelled guns. Nevertheless, it is much more pleasant to work in the rear than to fight.
              You can’t remember the French like that at all. Enough to read the memoirs of German submariners. And the other Europeans did not suffer much.
      2. Alexey G
        Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 02
        +2
        In his treatise on the Art of War, Sun Tzu also wrote about the number factor in victory. The ancients were no dumber than us
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 08
          -2
          In addition, prisoners were not often allowed to work with complex equipment, because they also need to be trained, but the French poured sand into the tank engines and spoiled a lot more.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 09
            +1
            And on slave labor you will not go far; this is another story of Rome proved.
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 02
              +1
              This is another mistake of the Germans. They felt sorry for themselves and did not spare others. Fascists in one word. But a world at enmity with other peoples cannot be built. We must share and help, then there will be more allies. their policies were not reasonable.
    3. mmaxx
      mmaxx 17 August 2019 19: 52
      0
      For a long time I want to find an article. I copied it somewhere, but I don’t remember. It says that the number of people employed in industry in the Reich for almost the entire war was greater than ours. These figures indicate that the Communists did not lie about the superiority of the Germans. And in general, the industry of Germany and France in total with other European countries was much more powerful than ours.
  28. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 15 August 2019 22: 39
    +7
    The article is categorical and completely unsubstantiated. Written in the style - "Lenino's teaching is true because it is true."
    Bold minus!

    ...
    For the fighter, both speed and maneuver are important. Depending on the tasks, emphasis is placed on one or the other. Moreover, specialized fighter types are being created. If everything is reduced only to speed, it turns out that only interceptors are needed. However, there are always fewer (interceptors) in any air force than multipurpose or light front-line vehicles.
    In short, the article is worthy of a resource like OK. But not in any way.
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 48
      0
      Ser, you do not understand. There is horizontal maneuverability, and there is vertical. The speed of the author of the article is essentially what we call vertical maneuverability. The Germans in the development of the ME-109 relied on vertical maneuverability. Climbing allowed the Germans to rise quickly higher to where ours couldn’t get him, and then to find a victim and rush at him from heaven suddenly it’s better even from behind, as Hartman advised and point blank of all calibers.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 51
        0
        This is a guaranteed kill and not a fight in the usual sense
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 22: 56
          0
          I mean, this is not a knightly duel, visor to visor, but something like a hunt. Tracked down hit and left.
        2. Zufei
          Zufei 16 August 2019 08: 37
          +1
          Snipers Medvedev and Zaitsev - vile killers?
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 17 August 2019 02: 03
            0
            Not mean, of course, but in a certain sense, killing from an ambush is not a knightly duel, Thomas Aquinas wrote about this.
  29. Potter
    Potter 15 August 2019 22: 57
    +5
    The article is controversial. Controversial allegations. If we compare the I-16 and Me-109, then we must compare the similar years of manufacture, but this is not correct, because I-16 aircraft of the previous generation.
    And so:
    1936 I-16 type 5 - 445 km / h, Bf.109 B-2, Bruno - 465 km / h.
    1940 I-16 type 29 - 470 km / h, Bf.109 E-1, emil - 530 km / h.
    And finally, 1941 Bf. 109 F-2. Friedrich - finally 600 km / h, and the I-16 is no longer available.
    Then compare Bf.109 E-1 with MIG-3, which has a speed of 640 against 530! And what - but the fact that MIG lacks maneuverability.
    According to the Legat classification, the MIG should be a cut above Me-109 - because speed and speed, and again speed!
    In general, the plus will not work .......
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 07
      0
      As I understand it, the author simply wanted to show a certain evolution from horizontal combat to vertical combat, in which vertical combat was more progressive. If you fly faster up, then you have an advantage in altitude, which means in the review, in speed, because during the decline you fly even faster and at the time of the attack, since you yourself choose the time and place. So in the initiative.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 10
        +1
        And even if you are good on the horizontal it will not save you, since you wait passively to look and hope that you will dodge and have time to give the enemy an ass, but he plays white and this is the advantage of the first blow behind him.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 13
          0
          Therefore, then Hartman’s tales are not entirely fabulous
          1. tomket
            tomket 16 August 2019 00: 30
            +1
            Quote: Alexey G
            Therefore, then Hartman’s tales are not entirely fabulous

            Hartman most likely 352 times, or so, met in battle with enemy aircraft, and perhaps even fired in their direction.
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 31
              +1
              I don’t think so. Even our official loss data suggests that they were not shot down by aliens, but by very real Fritz.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 33
                0
                And there were many downed planes. in vain our infantry did not see our planes in the sky for a long time
              2. tomket
                tomket 16 August 2019 00: 35
                +3
                Quote: Alexey G
                I don’t think so. Even our official loss data suggests that they were not shot down by aliens, but by very real Fritz.

                Our official data does not give the amount of losses that the hartmans have drawn for themselves.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 05
                  0
                  Of course. But the losses of our aircraft were much higher than the losses of the German at the beginning of the war, according to our own data.
                  1. tomket
                    tomket 16 August 2019 10: 03
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey G
                    But the losses of our aircraft were much higher than the losses of the German at the beginning of the war, according to our own data.

                    The problem is that Hartman began to fight not from the beginning of the war.
                2. Oleg Zorin
                  Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 48
                  0
                  In the same way, German data do not give the amount of losses that the allies attributed to themselves. That's the war, everyone lies. As my grandfather said, most of all lie scouts and newspaper men. You can’t prove to the newspaper men, and you won’t check the scouts. By the way, he himself was the commander of the foot reconnaissance platoon squad.
                  1. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 27
                    0
                    Dear Oleg, there is evidence of the complete destruction of my beloved Stalingrad from the air, where the Germans had total superiority in and domination in the summer of 1942
      2. PilotS37
        PilotS37 15 August 2019 23: 51
        +3
        As I understand it, the author simply wanted to show a certain evolution from horizontal combat to vertical combat, in which vertical combat was more progressive.

        The idea is correct, if we remove from it the words "the author just wanted to show some kind of evolution from fighting on horizontal lines to fighting on verticals". I.e in reality, it wasBut author deliberately presses on maximum speed (And vertical maneuverability - as a quality of a fighter - is not considered at all!).
        1. Oleg Zorin
          Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 50
          0
          Dear Pilot! As they say, when you think clearly, you state clearly. But the author has a problem with understanding. Moreover, permanent.
    2. PilotS37
      PilotS37 15 August 2019 23: 47
      +5
      The article is controversial.

      Oh, flatter you, my friend, afftor! ..
      This is not an article at all, but verbal diarrhea ...
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 16
        -2
        I myself do not write very well sometimes, so I try to protect. let him think it over and grow up, and so you will bring him down in infancy, as a co-pilot and we won’t have an ace on VO
  30. paul3390
    paul3390 15 August 2019 23: 22
    0
    Quote: Dooplet11
    Bf-109G2 was more maneuverable than the early Yak-1 and La-5.

    The question is at what speed. Somewhere I saw the numbers that Messer after 340 km was controlled worse and worse. Above 500 there was actually only a way to fly in a straight line. Hence the favorite trick - an attack from a dive, and then exit the battle. Ours were capable of active maneuvering at high speeds. So it turns out that in the dog dump - Soviet planes were faster .. How paradoxical. But - Messer dived well, and in the presence of height could go diving at any time ..
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 27
      0
      Well, it turns out that the Messer was more maneuverable on the verticals until ours made the dviguns such that they managed to get to the top after the Messer and there they gave him a thrush, but this did not happen right away.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 15 August 2019 23: 31
        0
        No. Because if they managed to notice him and begin to maneuver, he could no longer turn on the target. Just because of the shitty handling at high speeds. You can not reduce the war to one technique. For sometimes it’s useful to say and accompany your bombers. With us, this was generally the main task. And here the trick with a dive from a height no longer channels.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 36
          -3
          Messer's dive handling was excellent. And the escort of the bombers will channel.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 37
            -2
            Imagine you are flying over the bombers in several echelons from above and you see everything. Fighters are flying and you can attack them with this maneuver and not a trick to infinity, but they do not exist.
          2. paul3390
            paul3390 15 August 2019 23: 45
            0
            Can you confirm with something? I met only the opposite statements - the Messer at high speeds was practically not capable of maneuvering. But, of course, he dived perfectly.
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 18
              -2
              Only the number of victories won in this way on the ME-109. I think the argument is devastating.
              1. Alf
                Alf 16 August 2019 08: 45
                +1
                Quote: Alexey G
                Only the number of victories won in this way on the ME-109.

                The number of postscripts. And the result of the war.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 02: 09
                  0
                  Well, of course, because in your opinion the Germans are all liars, and their technique was utopian. Kaptsov also thinks so, but our pilots did not think so. Read their memories. They write quite respectfully about the quality of German pilots and German technology. I have never met a single memory that the Germans trepachki and supposedly we beat them all the time and they just lied.
                  1. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 17 August 2019 02: 10
                    0
                    But I read another, that the enemy is very strong, about heavy battles, about losses, etc.
                    1. Alexey G
                      Alexey G 17 August 2019 03: 03
                      +1
                      Former pilot of the 41st GIAP, Colonel Reserve A. A. Alekseev, who fought on the La-5 and La-7 fighters, recalls: “German fighter planes were strong. High-speed, maneuverable, durable, with very strong weapons (especially the "fokker").
                      At the dive, they were catching up with La-5, and they were breaking away from us by diving. Coup and dive, only we saw them. By and large, in diving, neither La Messer nor Fokker even caught up with La-7. ”
        2. Oleg Zorin
          Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 52
          0
          Channel))) only a risky venture. And Luftwaffe experts avoided the risk.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 24
            0
            Not always shunned
      2. Alexey G
        Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 31
        0
        But as soon as they did this, the messer began to become obsolete, a breakthrough was needed, something new. But time is lost. it was impossible to let ours evolve and catch up, but our infantry rested in the trenches and without aviation kept the Germans for two years, and not a military weapon.
      3. tomket
        tomket 16 August 2019 00: 31
        +2
        Quote: Alexey G
        that they had time for Messer to the top and there they gave him a thrush, but this did not happen right away

        They began to give a thrush, as they thought of separating the system in height, then there was no need to keep up with it, the upper pair took it there.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 11
          0
          But this is if you have one messer and the numerical advantage of ours. And if the battle is equal, then the whole train echelons
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 12
            0
            This is not an option, especially if your dvigun is not high-altitude, it is there at no height with any catch, flying anti-aircraft gun
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 14
              0
              Well, of course, better than nothing agree
    2. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 16 August 2019 05: 38
      0
      Bf-109G2 was more maneuverable than the early Yak-1 and La-5. The question is at what speed.

      Answer: By the value of the available second velocity increment vector.
      But, of course, there were flight modes in which the first Jacob had this vector. So after all it is necessary to entice the mass to this mode. And will the pilot mass be lured there?
      1. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 55
        0
        Depends on the pilot. Pokryshkin's book has already been quoted here. Messer pilots lost because they were "lured"
  31. paul3390
    paul3390 15 August 2019 23: 26
    0
    Quote: Alexey G
    The rate of climb allowed the German to rise quickly higher to where ours couldn’t get him,

    It is certainly so, but with just one trick the ball-on-rubber band cannot win a war in the air. For the task of a fighter is by no means an increase in his personal account. And providing the opportunity to work on the ground strike aircraft. And interfere with strangers. And here - like it or not, but you’ll have to get involved in dog dumps .. On what nemchura including burned ..
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 42
      0
      After the war, fighters considered this maneuver to be the best and sought to achieve this.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 42
        0
        About this is the article of the author. Vertical combat and horizontal.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 44
          -2
          Look at the moment 21, it’s not made for maneuver on the horizontal, it’s like an arrow
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 47
            -3
            Yes, the Germans simply stupidly did not want to accompany the bombers in this way, they were fond of individual hunting, not because the plane was bad, but because they did not want to be passive at the first strike
            1. Alf
              Alf 16 August 2019 08: 47
              +1
              Quote: Alexey G
              Yes, just the Germans stupidly did not want to accompany the bombers in this way, they were fond of individual hunting

              And they got the corresponding result of the war.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 17 August 2019 02: 13
                0
                Their tactics were optimal, read below. I outlined a lot about it.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 17 August 2019 10: 09
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey G
                  Their tactics were optimal,

                  And they got the corresponding result of the war.
            2. Oleg Zorin
              Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 10: 57
              0
              Because Messer is not able to accompany the bomber this way. Please note that the Iles were followed by the Yaks, and the Pawns by the Benches. And think about why.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 20
                -1
                Because the task of fighters is to gain dominance in the air, and not fly bodyguards from attack aircraft
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 20
                  -1
                  If domination is won, then no one threatens the bombers
      2. paul3390
        paul3390 15 August 2019 23: 49
        0
        Again. War in the air does not come down solely to an attack from a dive at the enemy. The fighters - in addition to this, a lot of tasks that require just maneuverability. And after the war - both our MiG-21, and almost all of the French Mirages, and many other aircraft - possessed quite decent maneuverability, including horizontally. Unlike the American concept. What are they over Vietnam and burned.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 52
          -2
          I do not agree. The higher the speed of the aircraft, the worse the maneuverability on the horizontal, if only you do not have a controlled nozzle as on drying. you yourself notice a lack of stability in a dive. This is a contradiction between you.
          1. paul3390
            paul3390 16 August 2019 00: 01
            0
            Yeah. Tell that to Spitfire's designers ...
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 08
              +1
              Compared to its main opponent during the Battle of Britain - the German Me 109 fighter - the Spitfire MK.I was slightly faster in horizontal flight at altitudes of up to 15 thousand feet (5000 m) and somewhat slower at altitudes above 20 thousand feet (6600 m). Spitfire was more maneuverable at all altitudes and flight speeds, however, the Me 109 climbed faster and had a higher dive speed. During air battles, the relatively close technical characteristics of the aircraft gave almost equal chances of victory for the British and German pilots. The results of the duels mainly depended on the skills of the pilots, the tactics used by the fighter squadrons, and also on factors such as: who was the first to notice the enemy, who had at that moment an advantage in altitude and speed, on whose side there was a numerical superiority.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 09
                0
                And the first one is the one above and sets in the sun laughing
              2. paul3390
                paul3390 16 August 2019 01: 02
                +3
                This is with what specific messer do you compare? But in general - this only proves that maneuverability is not always the opposite of speed. Spitfire managed to have both this and that. The secret is simple - the profile and wing area of ​​a powerful motor. For Merlin - whatever you say, was a unique mover at that time. Everyone increased power, but Spitfire - from the very beginning was made with an eye on maneuverability, but for Messer - indeed, with increasing speed on each model, maneuverability became worse and worse.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 16
                  0
                  Me 109 - Spitfire MK.I
                  1. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 18
                    0
                    My acquaintance says so you can’t immediately grab both sissy and pussy. An advantage in one is a disadvantage in another. In fact, this is a universal law. if you are 2 meters tall, then it’s not easy for you to fit in the T-34 cabin, but in melee you are stronger
                    1. Alexey G
                      Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 21
                      0
                      The ABC of military affairs says that you need to achieve an advantage in one thing, and try to hide your weaknesses in another, then you win, you cannot be strong everywhere and always.
                    2. Alexey G
                      Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 30
                      0
                      Look at the American Mustang, he is also not very good at horizontal battles, but he rose above the Messer and could beat it in speed and combat power. Dvigun their Mustangs was even better
                  2. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 17 August 2019 02: 14
                    0
                    Me 109 E - Spitfire MK.I
          2. Mephody
            Mephody 16 August 2019 01: 42
            +5
            Alexei, you have trouble with literacy. The eyes hurt. From this, I conclude that you do not have a specialized education, but get involved in technical disputes about very complex issues, while from knowledge one multiplication table. Sorry for being blunt.
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 02: 09
              -4
              Yes, I do not have a military education. But I can understand the essence of the issue. In technical matters, I do not get involved even once. And what I am talking about has already been written very, very much and proved without me by technical specialists.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 02: 20
                -1
                military science is very ancient and for its understanding it is not necessary to be a narrow technical specialist. It has clear logic. And if I make mistakes somewhere in the description, I apologize.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 16 August 2019 02: 22
                  -1
                  In addition, there are many recollections of eyewitnesses, participants, the mass experience of which can be generalized and serve as empirical material for conclusions
              2. Dooplet11
                Dooplet11 16 August 2019 10: 15
                +1
                Yes, I do not have a military education. But I can understand the essence of the issue. In technical matters, I do not get involved even once.
                - Evaluation of the parameters of maneuverability and combat effectiveness is a military-technical issue. And to understand the essence of the issue, you must have at least basic knowledge on the subject matter.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 02: 16
                  0
                  But after all, many books have already been written about this and the data in them converge. Here is the basic knowledge.
                  1. Dooplet11
                    Dooplet11 17 August 2019 05: 31
                    +1
                    In folk tales, too, the data converge. The mountain snake flies in and burns with napalm.
                    1. Oleg Zorin
                      Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 11: 01
                      0
                      And steals the girls :)
                      1. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 18
                        0
                        Yes, but I mean about the tales of our commanders, as well as about the research of our military historians, but if they tell tales, then you have myths based on?
    2. Alexey G
      Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 49
      -1
      If the Germans had the command ordered the pilots to strictly escort the bombers, they would do so. Dumb willfulness. No desire to take risks
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 55
        -1
        Until guided missiles were invented and the battle was fought with guns, a vertical maneuver gives an advantage in battle. This logic is ironic and hardly refutable
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 15 August 2019 23: 57
          -1
          It was confirmed by war, that is, practice. We threw the Germans from the sky when we climbed up to them in the heights in their vale.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 00
            -1
            Try to accelerate and simultaneously turn around and run in the other direction or drive, the maneuver will be long.
        2. paul3390
          paul3390 16 August 2019 00: 04
          +3
          You confuse vertical dynamic maneuver and rate of climb. Yes - having dispersed in a dive, the Messer could practically go up with a candle, but in other cases - the I-16 was more maneuverable on verticals! And this is not surprising - with his rigidity ratio .. When attacking from behind from above, both with a tail exit and subsequent tail tailing, the I-16 quickly approaches the Messerschmidt 109 aircraft and does not lag behind it when exiting a peak or even on a convertible. There is a prerequisite for 109 aircraft in an aerial bend on a bend with Messerschmidt I-16 is more profitable to switch to turns in a vertical plane ("Vertical carousel"), since in this case the I-16, having a significantly better rate of climb, will have an absolute advantage over its opponent.

          Out of the battle of I-16 is more profitable to make a slide up ... "
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 23
            -3
            The rate of climb was provided by a liquid cooling engine, powerful enough for that time. The donkey was air-cooled, but at a height the air was discharged and the donkey was suffocating there
            1. paul3390
              paul3390 16 August 2019 00: 51
              0
              And what was he to do at height? The Germans didn’t have B-17s. A high-altitude interceptor, the MiG-3 was conceived.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 23
                -2
                And at the height he needs to get a Messer, who is there like a king on a throne
            2. Alexey G
              Alexey G 17 August 2019 02: 18
              0
              More precisely, the Germans had an engine that was faster and at altitudes above 6000 especially
          2. Oleg Zorin
            Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 11: 02
            0
            And Messer is better to leave just a slide.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 17 August 2019 02: 34
            0
            Shoot a pilot from the Germans ??? Yes, they could simply, at their discretion, stop fulfilling their mission and fly home. Read the memories of Hartman and his friends. Shooting before the formation is our practice. Do not confuse us and the Germans. the pilot is an elite.
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 17 August 2019 03: 15
              0
              The Germans were guided by the expediency and initiative of the one who leads the battle, and not by an order from above. E. Manstein at one time disobeyed Hitler's order and led the encircled Germans out of the Demyansk cauldron, if I am not mistaken and did not shoot anyone. Even the Führer understood that expediency was higher than orders obsolete in time. The Germans, if the pilot believed that the attack would not succeed, he could safely fly to his airfield or make a different decision.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 17 August 2019 03: 16
                0
                The principle he is a pilot in his place better rarely seen in our aviation, for which we suffered.
        2. Oleg Zorin
          Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 11: 04
          0
          The German command of fools was not and understood that Messer could not accompany his bombers as Yak does. Therefore, it used a different tactic - to send planes to the area of ​​operation of the bombers and clear the space.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 04
            0
            And I think that escorting bombers is an erroneous tactic that we used, lost time and planes, and now we justify
            1. Oleg Zorin
              Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 13: 07
              0
              This is not true. The comment format is too small to respond fully. But you are mistaken.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 10
                0
                Below I wrote a lot about this
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 11
                  0
                  I do not want to repeat simply. Mass arguments
              2. Alexey G
                Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 13
                0
                But the main thing is that this led to the dispersal of fighters along the front and increased the risk of their losses, as practice has shown. Read the memories of our pilots
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 15
                  0
                  Read my comments below there about 10 comments about this, I do not want to repeat myself
                  1. Oleg Zorin
                    Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 17: 45
                    +2
                    Of course, I apologize, but you have everything behind your comments.
      3. mmaxx
        mmaxx 17 August 2019 20: 03
        0
        At the end of the war, the Western Front was ordered. They shouted, called cowards, threatened with execution. But the German pilots ignored it all. They considered the authorities crazy. There are also memories. Nobody wanted to die on the protection of the bombers.
    3. Alexey G
      Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 21
      -1
      All who got involved sooner or later died, because you need to know what the strength of the bayonet is, so that they chop, and not pick mushrooms.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 28
        -1
        Just the messer went to such a height where the donkey could not climb and flew very slowly, and the Fritz went beyond the clouds and attacked again and again, while there was fuel and shells
  32. Givi_49
    Givi_49 16 August 2019 00: 37
    +1
    Attack fighter escorts need maneuverability.
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 48
      0
      Then why did we create in the middle of the war a more speed-moving dvigun ??? For fun ???
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 50
        -1
        If I’m ME-109, I’ll go above my Junkers a few tiers above them like a whatnot shifted a little back. Try to attack my junkers if you’re not flying in the upper tier? I will beat you much more efficiently with a vertical maneuver.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 16 August 2019 00: 51
          -1
          If you attack the Junkers, then I will see you earlier and attack from above, if the Messers, I am higher and have the opportunity to cover mine again from above
        2. Alexey G
          Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 01
          -1
          It’s another matter if you have more planes and you force me to accept the battle on conditions favorable to you or you can kill bombers due to the number of trunks
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 26
            -1
            The Germans irresponsibly threw their bombers out of habit too, because in 1941 no one threatened them, almost all aircraft died on the ground or in the sky in June-July
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 17 August 2019 20: 06
        0
        Dvigun is not climbing, but powerful. A powerful engine accelerates faster and allows you to solve many interrelated problems on the load on the wing and also the speed and time of maneuvers. And now nothing has changed.
  33. rubin6286
    rubin6286 16 August 2019 00: 50
    +3
    Dear author! The message of your article is incorrect, as well as the main result set out in the first part of the article. As often happens on the VO website, it gives rise to an unreasonable chatter and does not bring the authors of comments closer to understanding the material.

    First of all, you need to understand why a fighter needs maneuverability at all, and it is needed primarily in order to take an advantageous position over the enemy in air combat, defeat the enemy and survive himself, thus completing the combat mission. A position will be considered advantageous in which the most vulnerable nodes and structural elements of the enemy aircraft can be effectively hit. In the early 30s of the last century, these were the engine, the cockpit, in which there was no armored back, armored headboard, lining, etc., fuel tanks located behind the cockpit or in the center section, which did not have protection or pressurization with inert gas, and most of the aircraft were wooden-linen construction, which does not have sufficient strength and fire resistance. It was necessary to approach the enemy aircraft as close as possible to the rear on the right or left, or from below. The maneuverability of the machine directly depended on the efforts on the control stick and the physical strength of the pilot, because. then there were no hydraulic boosters and EDSU, the control system was rigid, i.e. cable and we should remember physics and the “golden rule of mechanics” - how many times we win in strength, how many times we lose in distance. Comparing the mass-geometric characteristics of the machines, determining the point of application of force and the shoulder, we can assume which of the machines, other things being equal, will be easier to control.

    Nuka never stood still, the planes became more perfect. The degree of mechanization of the wing began to affect maneuverability. The presence of slats, flaps, flaps, trim tabs, air brakes, etc. on various machines increased their maneuverability. The fighter needs speed, roughly speaking, in order to quickly “catch up” with the enemy or “run away” from him. It is appropriate to talk about maneuverability on the verticals. In aerial combat on the verticals one has to perform such aerobatics as a combat U-turn, oblique loop, immelman, coup, and for this you have to work with a pen and pedals, which means you also make physical efforts. They can be different, since there are no identical people, as you know.

    In order to quickly occupy the enemy the height necessary for his effective defeat in the battle on the verticals, the fighter must have sufficient rate of climb. The rate of climb is higher, the higher the engine power and the lighter the mass of the structure, but here much depends on the physical effort exerted by the pilot and the correct installation of the propeller pitch manually or using engine automation. Aircraft weapons used in air battles consisted of rifle-caliber machine guns and large-caliber, aviation guns from 20 di 45 mm and the more they were installed, the higher the mass of a second volley and its destructive effect. The better and more perfect sighting equipment, pilot’s vision, piloting technique, the higher the chances of winning a battle.

    The suitability of the machine for conducting air combat must be considered in conjunction, without highlighting the survivors, because an airplane cannot be good in everything because of the differences and inconsistencies of the requirements imposed on it, but not so much the cars as the people fighting in them. They need to be trained more and better taught.
  34. ffaff
    ffaff 16 August 2019 01: 07
    +2
    Not only technology is important - but also TACTICS!
    1. The Germans often acted as the ASSEMBLY OF THE DIGITAL, for example, in 1941, they discovered that NONE of their anti-tank guns could penetrate the armor of the T-34 and KV! What happens in Russia VERY COLD: The summer form for some reason does not warm! The grease in the rifles and machine guns freezes and they do not shoot! Ordinary German fuel in the cold decomposes into fireproof fractions! Tanks at night FREEZE to the ground and the power of tank engines DOES NOT ENOUGH to budge! Etc.

    2. In aviation it is even worse: the MAIN criterion for the success of fighters was considered "the number of victories" ... The stupid Hitlerites DID NOT UNDERSTAND that in war one should Fight - and not chase after awards.
    In Soviet aviation, the main criterion is the performance of a combat mission! Die - and complete the task! And the MAIN business of the Soviet fighters was to escort, guard and defend the attack aircraft and bombers!
    And very cool - for the loss of attack aircraft and bombers, and even for inaccurate bombing - fighters were given to the tribunal and shot.

    3. That's how it turned out - that the Germans "shot down" a lot - and WE took Berlin!

    4. Therefore, the "praise" of the fascist aces - fighters, headed by Hartmann - is STUPIDITY!
    After all, NOBODY says that the sniper of the 4th rifle division Mikhail Ilyich Surkov, on his account (in just TWO YEARS!) 702 killed enemy soldiers and officers, is an "outstanding infantryman". This is the famous SNIPER. And an outstanding infantryman is the one who threw himself under the tanks and went under the bullets to attack.

    5. Hartmann fought like a LITTLE BAD - suddenly jumps out, shoots and runs away. And what was happening on the ground and the bombers, and in general with his homeland - Hartmann did not care.
    Hartmann did not even hesitate to speak and write that he does NOT enter the air battle .... Just imagine, for example, a boxer - who runs away from the ring - but prefers to attack unexpectedly from behind ....

    6. There is a book by Toliver Raymond, Constable Trevor "Erich Hartmann - Blond Knight of the Reich" - it is very detailed there that the ABSOLUTE majority of "victories" were attributed to Hartmann WITH HIS WORDS ....
    Therefore, he shot down much LESS than he was credited with.
    And to our Kozhedubov and Pokryshkin, victories were recorded only after multilateral CHECKS: shots of a machine gun, testimony of pilots, evidence of infantry, photos of a downed plane on the ground, and so on.
    Read - a lot of literature.
    Therefore, Soviet pilots always shot down more than they counted.

    Hartmann is a successful SNIPER and a "successful" LIE!
    And the pilot he - WEAK - he was shot down as many as FOURTEEN TIMES - that is, there were at least FOURTEEN Soviet pilots BETTER than Hartmann!
    And here is how the NADYSH - he is outstanding.

    GLORY TO THE SOVIET PILOTS - WINNERS!
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 34
      -3
      Yes, it's true. I agree with you. But after all, the Germans could take Moscow and were 40 miles from it, so glory is glory, but lessons must be learned, otherwise 20 million losses.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 42
        0
        After all, we did not particularly teach air combat pilots before the war, takeoff landing and hurt yourself. The pilots raid was small, so when they flew back they did not look, and there the enemy bang and no.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 45
          -1
          it’s good that the country is big and the winters are cold, and rainy autumn has been rescued more than once without tanks, planes and artillery
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 48
            -2
            With the Mosin’s king’s rifle, and with sharp axes, and with a sapper blade, we’ll be able to
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 01: 59
              -1
              Otherwise, this will be instead of glory
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 02: 00
                0
                https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2019-08/1565910056_31-0.jpg
            2. Alf
              Alf 16 August 2019 08: 53
              +3
              Quote: Alexey G
              With the Mosin’s king’s rifle, and with sharp axes, and with a sapper blade, we’ll be able to

              Remind me, what was the bulk of the German infantry armed with before the 44th year? Have you heard about a product like the Mauser 98K?
              1. Oleg Zorin
                Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 11: 08
                +1
                Well, where from? After all, they show in the movies that the Germans are completely armed with the MP, and advance in the 41st, hiding behind the Tigers.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 13: 52
                  -1
                  It’s in the movies, yes, but in 28 Panfilov’s there the Germans T3, T2, T4 are there as expected. Watch a movie, not a movie
      2. Alf
        Alf 16 August 2019 08: 52
        +1
        Quote: Alexey G
        otherwise 20 million losses

        Another nonsense.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 16 August 2019 15: 31
          -2
          Nonsense is your darling. and I have historical facts, confirmed in the official Russian literature on history. And I heard about the Mauser, a good old rifle. Not a prodigy, but with the skill applied can achieve considerable success.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 16 August 2019 15: 35
            0
            According to the official version of the RF Armed Forces [approx. 1], the irretrievable military losses of the USSR amount to 11 people, of which military personnel died - 444 people (100 soldiers died in battles, hospitals and other incidents, and 8 people did not return from captivity) [⇨] , civilian casualties in the occupation zone - 668 people (of which: 400 were deliberately exterminated, 6 died in forced labor in Germany, 818 died from starvation, disease and lack of medical care ) [approx. 300] [1] [⇨]. In 850, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced the following data: irretrievable military losses - about 100 million people, total human losses of the country (USSR) - military personnel and civilians - 13 million people [684]. Material losses of the USSR amounted to about 700% of all national wealth [⇨].
            1. Alf
              Alf 16 August 2019 16: 13
              0
              Quote: Alexey G
              According to the official version of the RF Armed Forces [approx. 1], the irretrievable military losses of the USSR amount to 11 people, of which military personnel died - 444 people (100 soldiers died in battles, hospitals and other incidents, and 8 people did not return from captivity)

              And you do not want to bring Germany’s losses?
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 16: 25
                0
                Until December 31, 1944, 2,743 million troops were killed on the Eastern Front. Overmans failed to give a distribution of losses along the fronts for 1945. In total, on all fronts in 1945, 1,230 million troops were killed; of these, according to Overmans, 65–70% of military personnel died on the Soviet-German front [78].
                od and quarter Wehrmacht losses Loss ratio

                Red Army [80]
                By 1941 III quarter 185 198 11,5
                1941 IV quarter 117 297 8,6
                1942 I quarter 136 396 5,0
                1942 II quarter 90 198 9,4
                1942 Quarter III 145 264 8,5
                1942 IV quarter 134 957 3,9
                1943 I quarter 294 706 2,5
                1943 II quarter 48 132 4,0
                1943 Quarter III 187 858 4,3
                1943 IV quarter 169 957 3,5
                1944 I quarter 228 419 2,5
                1944 II quarter 263 706 1,4
                1944 Quarter III 517 907 1,0
                1944 IV quarter 222 914 1,6
                Total 2743000 4,2
                Total irretrievable losses of the Third Reich together with the Allies - 8 people. After the mutual return of prisoners of war, the number of dead servicemen of the Third Reich and its allies (on the Eastern Front) was determined as 649 people.
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 17 August 2019 20: 14
                  +1
                  True, there are no statistics back in the 45th. But there were 2 million Germans only near Berlin, and then it drove up as events unfolded. Only everything disappeared somewhere and nobody took anything into account.
          2. Alf
            Alf 16 August 2019 16: 15
            -1
            Quote: Alexey G
            And I heard about the Mauser, a good old rifle.

            The same as the mosquito. But you have
            Quote: Alexey G
            With a royal Mosin rifle,

            That is, we’ll fight somehow with the mosquito, but normal with the Mauser. Have you heard about the cross and the cowards?
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 16: 26
              -1
              We have this for the reason that the planes were beaten, the tanks burned, the guns did not ripen
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 16: 27
                -1
                And with a rifle, then, because gently. Rifle
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 16 August 2019 16: 29
                  0
                  The total demographic losses of Germany and its allies during the entire Second World War amounted to 11,9 million people [3].
                  1. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 16 August 2019 16: 30
                    -1
                    We have lost much more and this is an absolute fact, not refuted either from the Soviet era or now
                    1. Alexey G
                      Alexey G 16 August 2019 16: 32
                      -1
                      And I wrote about the rifle to show that she was a faithful ally of the soldier in the absence of aviation, tanks and artillery, respected Alf
                      1. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 16 August 2019 16: 34
                        -1
                        like our soldier with a rifle, hatchet, sapper shovel, stop the tanks, planes and infantry of the enemy
      3. mmaxx
        mmaxx 17 August 2019 20: 11
        -1
        If the Germans could take Moscow, then why not? Planned plans, but plans did not come true? What do you offer? Lose a little and surrender a country or lose 20 and win? What is more profitable? Especially in today's times? Almost everyone preferred the benefit.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 26 August 2019 02: 14
          0
          They didn’t take it because they got stuck in the mud in the fall, and also because they got involved in helping Mussolini and didn’t start the war in the spring as planned, and because they didn’t take it, they took Kiev, and if they dared not take it, they took Moscow, because they didn’t take it that were exhausted from such a race without reserves and replenishment, and because the Japs did not help. And so they would have taken it for sure, but whether it would have won the war from this is not known. Napoleon already took it.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 26 August 2019 02: 17
            0
            In general, I suggest that the Tsar’s marshals not be planted but not shot at all, but to prepare mentally and financially. And if such sacrifices were allowed, then conclusions can be drawn and not only yelling laudatory songs like all of us always and having no analogues ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 August 2019 14: 03
      +2
      Quote: ffaff
      1. The Germans often acted as the ASSEMBLY OF THE DIGITAL, for example, in 1941, they discovered that NONE of their anti-tank guns could penetrate the armor of the T-34 and KV!

      Seriously? But our experts, after shooting the captured anti-tank guns with captured shells, found that even ordinary chamber BBS (not sub-caliber) 37-mm and 50-mm anti-tank guns can penetrate the armor of our tanks.
      On June 25, 1942, the Chairman of the GAU Art Committee, Major General Khokhlov, approved the test program for tank armor of domestic production with captured shells armed with German artillery and shells armed with spacecraft. In accordance with the specified program of work, the Gorokhovets training range from October 9 to November 4, 1942, shot with captured trophy 37 mm ordinary and sub-caliber shells, 50 mm ordinary and sub-caliber shells 75 mm homogeneous medium hard armor plates, 45 mm homogeneous armor plates high hardness and 30 mm homogeneous armor plates of medium hardness.

      Test results:
      50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
      The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
      The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
      That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.

      37-mm anti-tank gun PaK.36, ordinary armor-piercing:
      The 45-mm sheet normal showed a rear strength limit of 700 meters - that is, starting from 700 meters the “mallet” can dig through the side and the T-34 turret.
      © D. Shein.
    3. rubin6286
      rubin6286 17 August 2019 01: 15
      +1
      My dear! You and Alexey do not understand anything at all in military aviation; you read little. but that. read, you do not understand. and therefore your comment is utter nonsense. In the past war, the Soviet pilots had the greatest postscripts. This was due to the fact that the war on the Eastern Front was extremely brutal from the very first days and under these conditions all headquarters and political agencies took all measures to maintain fighting spirit of the troops, confidence in victory. If the battle was over the front line or over enemy territory, it was often impossible to confirm the victory of the pilot. One may not agree with this, but unfortunately it was. Where did we get the machine guns from, who gave them to us and when, there were sometimes infantry certificates, but there was no one to check them.
      The war with a numerically superior enemy forces us to apply the most effective methods of armed struggle. If the tactics of Hartmann are the tactics of a petty scoundrel, then the Unas similarly acted twice. I think that it was difficult to survive in such a massacre and if the pilot survived, although he was shot down several times, despite luck, he was a good pilot. During the years of the war, Rechkalov, Pokryshkin, Golubev, Gulaev, Mariinsky and many others were shot down. Their skills did not get worse. On the contrary, they became more circumspect, attentive, skilled in piloting and shooting, and quite possibly, therefore, they remained alive.
  35. Grigory_78
    Grigory_78 16 August 2019 03: 50
    +4
    I wonder why the author excluded vertical maneuver from the concept of "maneuverability"? Which includes the concept of the rate of climb ... Based on the wrong premises, you can usually get the correct result only by ignoring the logic. Garbage article.
  36. Alexey G
    Alexey G 16 August 2019 04: 12
    0
    It will be useful to know that the constant and inextricable cover by our fighters of bombers and areas of infantry had their considerable disadvantages. Isaev, whose work on the war I respect very much, writes about the free hunting of the Germans as a shortcoming, but not everything is thought so smoothly and there is something to doubt. If interested, I can give a reference or explain.
  37. Fitter65
    Fitter65 16 August 2019 06: 26
    +1
    In a word, the German ace, like many others, did not want to get involved in risky protracted fights on bends. And that allowed him to survive.
    It was possible to survive, but only his state lost the war which it unleashed ...
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 26 August 2019 02: 08
      0
      Do not just survive, but bring down more than a dozen aircraft
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 26 August 2019 06: 22
        0
        [quote = AleA only osto survive, and bring down more than a dozen aircraft [/ quote]
        What good is it because he was able to bring down so much? What is the use of a fighter if he allowed him to work out a bomber or attack aircraft for a target, or to catch a plane with a newcomer? Yes, even if all the planes are knocked down, but the target is destroyed, I shot down a plane with an experienced olod, and another time, the remaining experienced pilot will catch you, and it has happened more than once. Where, by the end of the war, were their experienced pilots, and what was the use of having Hartman and his ilk counted several hundred and dozen shot down when in the spring of 45th our aircraft worked without interruption on troops in Berlin. It is not quantity that matters, the result is important, but it is not in favor of the Hartman and others like him ...
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 26 August 2019 10: 08
          0
          There is a lot of sense. First, you have a misconception about Hartman’s actions. Read books about him and German aces. He worked not only for weak fighters, but also for weak bombers and ground targets, if he saw such an opportunity. Secondly, who said that our aircraft acted unhindered. Look at the number of losses of our aircraft in each year of the war. Every year we lost more than the Germans, even in 1943. Thirdly, in addition to the fighters, the Germans had excellent anti-aircraft guns covering them from tactical aircraft. Read how many planes we lost from anti-aircraft fire ??? You will be horrified. Apparently you are in captivity of a myth that was released once by the respected historian A. Isaev. In one of his books, he tried to debunk the tales of the success of German aviation, but he did it as I think clumsy, because he incorrectly identified the reasons for our success, and they are in a gradual increase in the number, quality and training of our aviation forces, and not that our tactics were initially better than German. We ourselves tried to copy German tactics, but the upper authorities did not always allow it.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 26 August 2019 10: 20
            0
            German tactics consisted in the massive use of aviation on the most important sector of the front to support advancing tank and motorized units, as well as in defense of the enemy breaking through parts. The German air corps operated together with the German tank groups within the limits of their offensive bands, thereby creating total superiority in the sky at the point of breakthrough of the tank units and their support throughout the entire offensive.
            As a result, there were no Soviet aircraft over the defending Soviet units, or they were quickly destroyed by a numerically superior enemy. Read what a total advantage the Germans had in the sky over Stalingrad in the summer of 1942. or over Minsk and Smolensk in the summer of 1941.
            Our aircraft were distributed to protect areas on the ground where our infantry was and to patrol them, as well as for the convoy of bombers, which led to the dispersal of aircraft on the front and their shortage in the decisive section. As a result, the Germans were able to open and destroy our defense and break through it to the full depth with well-known sad consequences.
          2. Fitter65
            Fitter65 26 August 2019 12: 58
            0
            Quote: Alexey G
            There is a lot of sense. First, you have a misconception about Hartman’s actions. Read books about him and German aces.

            Well, let's start by reading about German aces and memoirs from these aces, so what? The sense of their huge accounts at the output is ZERO, if not -1.
            Quote: Alexey G
            . Read what a total advantage the Germans had in the sky over Stalingrad in the summer of 1942. or over Minsk and Smolensk in the summer of 1941.

            Well it was, but in 1943 it swam away. Where did their great advantage in tactics and flight skills go? when the enemy was weak and made mistakes they were on horseback, but as soon as the chances were leveled, the German was blown away. In addition to the Germans, you would also read the memoirs of our pilots. By the way, if you do not know, then in spite of the defeats of 1941-42, it was May 1945, when the Hitlerite Luftwaffe died, from the word at all. The Germans lost this war, LOSED despite the fact that
            Quote: Alexey G
            German tactics consisted in the massive use of aviation on the most important sector of the front ...
            It turned out that Soviet tactics and strategy turned out to be better than German. And this was confirmed by the Red flag above the Reichstag, and the red flag in the sky of Berlin.
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 26 August 2019 13: 08
              0
              I read our aces and Pokryshkin and Kozhedub and they all speak together about the superiority of the Germans in 1941-42 and that it was our aces who recommended the use of German tactics !!! Do not believe ?? I can find the link !!
              [quote] Well it was, but in 1943 it sailed away.
              [/ Quote]
              So the war could end before 1943 !!
              [quote] when the enemy was weak and made mistakes they were on the horse, [quote = Fitter65] [/ quote]
              And why were we weak in 1941, the year seemed 17 thousand aircraft by the summer of 1941 !!!
              And why did you make mistakes ??? Since our tactics have always been true and German is not ???
              And our trenches did not equalize. The Germans simply could not make up for the loss of their units for economic reasons !!
              In my explanation, there is a clear line explaining why we were winning and why we started to win, but your explanation doesn’t.
              If the number of our and German troops were equal, then the Germans would have won the war !!! It is a fact.
              1. Fitter65
                Fitter65 26 August 2019 14: 19
                0
                Quote: Alexey G
                And why were we weak in 1941, the year seemed 17 thousand aircraft by the summer of 1941 !!!
                And why did you make mistakes ??? Since our tactics have always been true and German is not ???
                And our trenches did not equalize. The Germans simply could not make up for the loss of their units for economic reasons !!

                Well, all aircraft that were sold to the USSR during the 30s and early 40s were included in this amount, well, that’s okay, and not all of them were on the western border, and that’s nothing. And why did you make mistakes? Well, first, let's go through a brief excursion into the history of the development of Russia and Europe. In what year was compulsory secondary education introduced in Gnrmania and RI? what was the percentage of literate, literate, and not just able to read and write was in Europe and the USSR. Compare the general educational level of the German officer and the red commander before the war. But here the war leveled the chances of one and the other, some raised the bar (USSR), others slightly reduced it (Germany).
                The Germans could not make up for the losses of their units for economic reasons, despite the fact that the entire economy of Western Europe worked for them? In personnel? So only the French who served in the Wehrmacht and SS units were taken prisoner by our units more than the entire number of French resistance, moreover, which consisted of 70% not from the French ... Yes, our chances did not equal, our grandfathers simply equalized them, or rather the chances the Germans were reduced to zero. And how can you not try to prove to us with foam on your lips what great strategists and great tacticians were, how they fought magnificently, both on earth and in the sky, as a result, they turned out to be the most creepy LOCKS, real hitmen. By the way, if anything, then the French army in 1939 was considered one of the best and strongest in Europe and what is the result? For how many years this "strongest army" merged, and the British allies helped them, and so I repeat with the question. How many years, months, or still weeks, this strongest army fell under the Germans.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 26 August 2019 19: 48
                  0
                  Dear Alexander !! Thanks for the education information. Yes, with a letter it was not enough for us to not take into account. But this only proves that Blitzkig was the best military theory of the time in tactics.
                  Not all of Europe’s economy worked for the Reich, but only a part. With the same success, we can say that the entire US economy worked for the USSR.
                  The Germans had 2-3 French divisions no more. There were few Swedes and Danes. The Spaniards seem to be one division. The truth was Romania, their Germans considered almost the only real allies. Finns did not want to go further than Finland, etc. As a result, the Wehrmacht could seriously rely only on the Volksdeutsche.
                  I'm not trying to prove to you with foam at the mouth. I am absolutely calm because there are mountains of arguments behind me.
                  And as for the fellow soldiers, I don’t even know what it is, but I think you’ve got emotions and some kind of foam from the computer.
                  I do not consider the French as a great army, so I believe the Germans, when they developed a plan to attack France, expected their success. At least Rundstedt and Manstein expected this.
                  I am not trying to exalt the Germans, but I affirm dryly, based on the facts that Blitzkig is a holistic teaching that allows a successful attack on the territory of the enemy, thanks to important principles. Among them: one of the important places is the combination of tanks, infantry, artillery and aviation into a flexible, interconnected force. The theory of the Germans has been tested many times and its conclusions are taken into account in practice. German aviation was a kind of aerial artillery, as Heinz Guderian spoke of it. She made her way to the tanks and destroyed enemy reserves, and fighters cleared the sky in front of the advancing army.
                  Unfortunately, in the first 2 years of the war, the armed forces did not have such a well-developed orchestra, so our army fell into a series of encirclements, was confused and did not know what to do.
                  And it's not about the level of education of officers. The military does not always shine with encyclopedic knowledge. The fact is that the Germans had a recipe for victory and they shared with us over three years. Their army was too small and attacked a piece too fat that it could not digest. Even if we lost Moscow, we could retreat further, but the Germans had nothing to attack. The troops are over. We did not invent anything new in 1945. The same tank wedges and motorized infantry, aviation. Just learned to use in a strong school.
                  and most importantly, if you are such a miracle a patriot, then respect the enemy or our victory will look cheap, if you are able to even understand it.
                  By the way dumb suckers are not sickly now live, and even then lived. Can start to think and not just procrastinate, we won, we are the most ...
                  1. Fitter65
                    Fitter65 27 August 2019 00: 30
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey G
                    The Germans had 2-3 French divisions no more. There were few Swedes and Danes. The Spaniards seem to be one division. The truth was Romanians, their Germans considered almost the only real allies

                    The Hungarians and Slovaks were forgotten, plus the Italians, although they were still warriors, but they were at war, and our forces were distracted.
                    Quote: Alexey G
                    By the way dumb suckers are not sickly now live, and even then lived. Can start to think and not just procrastinate, we won, we are the most ...

                    Well, then there were already some who were thinking, who with foam at the mouth claimed that if the Germans had won, we would have lived like in Germany.
                    Quote: Alexey G
                    I don’t think the French are a great army,
                    You can not count, but it was believed in pre-war Europe, rather not stupid people.
                    1. Alexey G
                      Alexey G 27 August 2019 00: 39
                      0
                      Yes, one Italian division on the Volga, where it was almost immediately defeated and one Hungarian. do not tell the chickens. Read to Manstein what kind of great power it was. They stood on the defensive on the banks of the Volga, and they were shot down by the first blow. They were badly armed, unwilling to fight and thinking only of how to pretend that they were fighting.
                      As in Germany we would not live, we would hardly be born at all. They despised and hated us then and now. But they fought well. The best soldiers are after us. And then and now with them we need peace and friendship.
                      And if these not stupid people thought so, then they turned out to be very stupid.
                      1. Fitter65
                        Fitter65 27 August 2019 00: 53
                        0
                        Okay, there’s one nickname than a division, they sent 2-3 divisions to help, the others were on the defensive altogether, answer one question, why did they go back to us in this situation, who called them? Moreover, they lived better than we had.
                        Quote: Alexey G
                        and most importantly, if you are such a miracle a patriot, then respect the enemy or our victory will look cheap, if you are able to even understand it.

                        It is one thing to respect the enemy, and another will bow before him. By the way, when you bow down you will not win.
                      2. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 27 August 2019 09: 31
                        0
                        So no one speaks of worship. It's about respect for military professionals.
                        dumb suckers, real fools

                        But in these words, it’s not only disrespect and underestimation. In these words, humiliation and insult. turns out we won a huge price suckers !!! Then who are we ourselves ??? Guessed ??? That one.
                        who called them?

                        And who is calling the French and British to Iraq, to ​​Afghanistan, to Syria ???
                        This is how the world works, or rather the world order. It is a constant, irreconcilable struggle of forces. Now the Americans are dragging satellites to the war, then the Germans were dragging.
                        If you are about justice, then each side of the war has its own. I can also ask you what the USSR did in Finland on the Mannerheim line, what did it do in Poland in 1939 ??? Do not know? I can continue. What did he do in Bessarabia before the war with the Germans, what frightened the Fuhrer ??
                        I know what the USSR did. He defended his national security, his state interests. The rest do the same at all times.
                      3. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 27 August 2019 01: 17
                        0
                        The Germans are closer to the Russians than the British or Americans. They are capable of idealism like us, they can be faithful like us. They are honest and not as hypocrites as arrogant Saxons. unfortunately two wars we fought with each other, but perhaps we learned mutual respect. We were always pitted because we knew that a peace was possible between us, where both sides would be happy.
                      4. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 27 August 2019 01: 19
                        0
                        Our union with the Germans was always feared, because then in Eurasia a great force could emerge capable of overthrowing the power of marine civilization. Susha would get a chance.
              2. Fitter65
                Fitter65 26 August 2019 14: 51
                0
                Quote: Alexey G
                I read our aces and Pokryshkin and Kozhedub and they all speak together about the superiority of the Germans in 1941-42 and that it was our aces who recommended the use of German tactics !!! Do not believe ?? I can find the link !!

                I mean, can you find a link to what our aces have read? Honestly, I have no doubt that you can read, I just see that you are poorly absorbing what you read. I wrote to you in plain text that the Germans had an advantage until 1943, with 1941–42 years entering the period I indicated. By the way, even after the Order for No. 0305 of 20.08.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX. many regiment commanders tried to fly in triples, though life made them fly in pairs.
                Quote: Alexey G
                If the number of our and German troops were equal, then the Germans would have won the war !!! It is a fact.

                Well, in the summer of 1942, the USSR no longer had an advantage in human resources! Do not believe it, read order No. 227, which directly says that
                We have lost more than 70 million people, more than 800 million pounds of bread per year and more than 10 million tons of metal per year. We now no longer have predominance over the Germans either in human reserves or in stocks of bread.
                AND...? By the way, so as not to write nonsense type
                Quote: Alexey G
                If the number of our and German troops were equal, then the Germans would have won the war !!!
                look, for the sake of general development, the quantitative composition of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in 1942. I give a hint here in VO, about this (composition of the Armed Forces), articles with full calculations on the layout
                L / C troops, over the years and months were published repeatedly. Well, and more about if, history does not know the subjunctive moods.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 26 August 2019 20: 08
                  0
                  Our casualties according to official figures for the entire war amounted to over 20 million, how could we lose 70 million ??? If you mean temporarily captured territory? So this is not correct. After all, she freed herself and the men went to their rear.
                  The population of the USSR in mid-1941 was determined at 196,7 million people.
                  The population of Germany in the same year was only about 90 million people.
                  This is the question of nonsense. My friend, you are not a frail storyteller.
                  The Germans in the most ridiculous dreams could not catch us in the number of people in either 41 or 42m, even taking into account the children of the Fuhrer.
                  History does not know, but life shows that history must be studied soberly. Correctly determining what was done badly, which is good, and in what it drove.
                  Learn better about the number of our and German divisions near Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk. It's not just about people, but also about technology
                  1. Fitter65
                    Fitter65 27 August 2019 00: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey G
                    Our casualties according to official figures for the entire war amounted to over 20 million, how could we lose 70 million ???

                    The losses for that period included those people who ended up in the temporarily occupied territories.
                    Quote: Alexey G
                    The Germans in the most ridiculous dreams could not catch us in the number of people in either 41 or 42m, even taking into account the children of the Fuhrer.

                    Well, about the population in Germany, this is not for me. Who forced them with such a small number of population to get involved in a war with such "small" resources. It was necessary to think before they climbed, and not after a fight to wave their fists, that there were few of them, and there were no roads in Russia, and frosts happen in winter. the broken one always has 1000 reasons to justify himself.
                2. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 26 August 2019 20: 28
                  0
                  Well, in the summer of 1942, the USSR no longer had an advantage in human resources! Do not believe it, read order No. 227, which directly says that

                  Yes you? We had twice as many populations before the war. And we lost 20 million. The Germans have 90 million, we have 190 ml
                  And in tanks and aircraft, we generally have a preponderance. The balance of forces and means by November 19, 1942
                  Tanks and self-propelled guns 1463, we have 675 Germans 2,2: 1
        2. Alexey G
          Alexey G 26 August 2019 10: 34
          0
          "Yes, even though all the planes were shot down, the target is destroyed."

          If you shoot down all the planes, then there will be no one to fight and no one to hit the target !!!!
          I shot down a plane with an experienced olod, and another time, the remaining experienced pilot will catch you,

          Young pilots covered their backside with experienced ones and if there are no young ones, then there will be no experienced ones.
          Then you have misconceptions about the actions of the Germans. How does the ace know which pilot is sitting in the enemy car? Experienced or not. In the cockpit you see a plane and not a private matter !!
          Yes, of course, an experienced pilot will not let himself be easily shot down, but even experienced pilots can miss the surprise attack. Therefore, Hartman, Barhorn, Rall, Kittel, Novotny, Batz, Rudorffer, Baer, ​​Graff, Erler and others shot down not only newcomers, but also experienced pilots, just newcomers to the war are always killed more and not only in aviation.
          Watch an old Soviet film in "Only Old Men Go to Battle". at the end of the film it is shown that almost all experienced pilots were killed, who do you think shot them down ???
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 26 August 2019 10: 46
            0
            Cause???
  38. hohol95
    hohol95 16 August 2019 08: 34
    +2
    Dear author!
    Speed ​​is just great, but the plane must have maneuverability! And naturally smart and knowledgeable pilot in the cockpit.
    Hero of the Soviet Union Guard Major Motuz I.F.
    On August 13, 1942, he shot down TWO German fighters on a Yak-7B alone against 4 Me-109s. And despite the wounds received, he landed his plane on the airfield of his unit!
    And helped him defeat factors in the composition of which - the maneuverability of his car.
    At about the 25th minute of the battle, the Germans, becoming a chain at high speeds, began to alternately launch attacks on my plane, trying to tighten me to the vertical. With such a maneuver, it is possible that one of the Me-109 would be able to catch me in the vertical. Having guessed the plan of the Germans, I did not go on the vertical maneuver that the Germans imposed on me, I continued the battle in turns. The German attacks took on a fierce character. Taking advantage of the random formation of the enemy at one point, I caught the Me-109 in sight. Cannon fire, and the second German burned into the ground burning.
  39. 2112vda
    2112vda 16 August 2019 08: 44
    0
    reliable dviglo under it - unfortunately appeared significantly later.

    A reliable dviglo appears if it is put at least on a small batch. DB-605 also did not "suffer" from high resource and reliability at the beginning of its journey. Yakovlev eliminated competitors, and Shpitalny did the same. Nothing new, ordinary competition, the essence of a person does not change regardless of the socio-political system. Denunciations of their competitors were written by those who later "denounced and branded" Stalin. Unfortunately, our family is familiar with this. By the beginning of the Second World War, the USSR had a serious lag behind its opponents in industry; design schools were in their infancy. We paid dearly for the Victory. Unfortunately, history repeats itself, but now it is not entirely clear whether we will be able to mobilize.
  40. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 16 August 2019 09: 13
    +2
    Well, this is obvious - a faster plane can impose a battle at a convenient time for itself and can exit a battle at a convenient time.
    A less fast but more maneuverable plane in the horizon is forced to fight in a defensive style.

    There is little to discuss here.
    Much more interesting is the tactic of application, which allows you to fend off the advantages of the enemy: whatnot, scissors, etc.
  41. Alexey G
    Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 15
    -1
    The escort of the bombers by our fighters essentially resembled the distribution of our tanks among the infantry units, which led to the fact that even in the tanks we didn’t have enough fighters to defend against the German bombers, which were concentrated, even without covering, to defend our bombers, because the Fritz could concentrate the forces of their fighters in any direction and destroy any of our ceilings anywhere.
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 17
      -2
      escorting bombers and entire areas led to the dispersal of fighter forces and the waste of fuel, which our infantry complained about throughout the war. Fighters ironed clear skies, and where they were needed they were missing
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 19
        -1
        The escort principle began to justify itself only when we created so many fighters that were enough to cover everything, and the Germans had fewer and fewer fighter planes due to the problems of the military industry, as described above.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 21
          -2
          As a result, our flight units themselves sought and used the German principle of free hunting
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 23
            -1
            You cannot be strong everywhere and in everything. Old military wisdom. You try and end up finding yourself weak everywhere. laughing
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 30
              -1
              The Germans knew the laws of war and used tanks, artillery and the air fleet in a concentrated manner. At the right site and at the right time, which gave their aces such bills. In addition, the escort is accompanied by a flying target, deprived of the opportunity to be active, which our pilots confirm, it is worth reading their memories. Hence the loss of fighters with us.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 39
                -1
                The most common task for German fighter pilots was to purposefully search for enemy aircraft in the areas of their most likely appearance. And the Soviet - passively expect the appearance of the enemy, remaining tied to a specific area or point (a group of attack aircraft accompanied). This further reduced the chances of Soviet pilots to meet with an air adversary: ​​after all, German aircraft never appeared in most of these areas and points — they concentrated their efforts on a limited number of directions! And a significant part of the Soviet "hawks" "ironed the air" in vain - especially in 1941
                According to the testimony of the then-fighting in Ukraine, in the III group of the 52nd fighter squadron, German ace G. Rall, “the actions of the Russians in the air turned into endless and useless sorties with a very large numerical superiority, which lasted from early dawn until late dusk. No signs of any system or concentration of effort were observed. In short, there was a desire at any time to keep airplanes in the air, "in constant patrol missions over the battlefield" 17. Roughly the same thing, as shown by Yu.V. Rybin, happened in the summer of 41 and at the opposite end of the front, in the Arctic. Here, for each of the 158 fighters of the 14th Army Air Force and the Northern Fleet Air Force, there were not so few potential targets: the Luftwaffe group operating in the Murmansk direction, by the end of June, totaled 83 aircraft. Nevertheless, out of 1480 sorties carried out by I-15 bis, I-153, I-16 and MiG-3 of the 72nd mixed Northern Air Force air regiment in the first month of the war, 1360 (i.e. 92%) ended without encountering an air adversary ... 18
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 44
                  -1
                  And escort fighters - at least those that were part of the direct cover group - were essentially deprived of the opportunity to conduct an air battle with the enemy and could only make fire contact with him. After all, they were strictly forbidden to break away from their wards, they only had to stop the enemy’s attempts to break through to escorted aircraft using obstructive fire and a minimum of maneuver (a turn to meet the attacker, a short attack, launch of a defensive line and return to the previous place in battle order). “And it can be very annoying,” G.A.Baevsky, a veteran of the 5th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment, emphasizes, “when a downed enemy fighter leaves, and our fighter cannot move away from covered aircraft.” 21 Engaged in August - November 1943, mainly accompanied by attack aircraft, the pilot of the 267th fighter regiment of the 236th fighter air division of the 8th Air Army of the Southern Front, Junior Lieutenant D. D. Tormakhov, recorded 128 combat missions on only three German the plane.
                  The limitation in maneuver naturally complicated the fighter pilot and self-defense. “Why do we have so many people killed undercover? - Outraged A.I. Ryazanov, who fought in the 71st (then the 10th Guards) fighter aviation regiment of the Navy. “It turns out that someone was shot down, and you go further in a straight line”, you can only “turn your back on the enemy’s blow and fall into place [ie put yourself under attack again. - A.S.] ”23.
                  1. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 49
                    -1
                    It was easier for German "hunters" to keep the initiative in battle after the first strike. Indeed, before the start of the battle, Soviet air patrols and escort fighters were forced to keep speed far from maximum. Otherwise, it would be difficult for the first to stay within the boundaries of a given area and to withstand (due to increased fuel consumption) a given patrol time, and the second to keep close to low-speed attack aircraft and bombers. True, patrols sometimes used a “swing”, i.e. Periodic climb, followed by diving and flying at high speed, gained without increasing engine speed, due to the acceleration of gravity “switched on” during diving. But even with the German "hunters" - flying at speeds close to maximum - it still did not allow. Thus, by the beginning of the battle the Germans had guaranteed superiority in speed. And this increased their chances to leave with impunity after the first strike and take a favorable position for a new attack ...
                    1. Alexey G
                      Alexey G 16 August 2019 11: 50
                      -1
                      And so on and so forth. There are a lot of examples.
                      1. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 16 August 2019 12: 15
                        -1
                        And if it were not for the patience of our infantry and the release of a huge number of aircraft, then with such tactics of escort and patrolling we would have achieved what all the fighters and all the bombers lost. That's free hunting
                      2. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 16 August 2019 12: 21
                        -1
                        The desire to cover absolutely everything, to be strong everywhere led to a dispersal of forces, to the fact that Soviet fighters were often not strong anywhere - or even were absent where and when German bombers or attack aircraft attacked. For example, E.I. Malashenko in 1942-1943, fighting on the North-Western Front as a reconnaissance commander in the 33rd and 117th Rifle Divisions and the 15th Guards Naval Rifle Brigade, observed only this picture: “Our planes sometimes they arrived in small groups (2–4 planes) and barraged when German planes flew away. ”32 Khazanov D.B. The battle for the sky. 1941. From the Dnieper to the Gulf of Finland. P. 58-59. Calculated by: Mirenkov A.I. The sword that destroyed Hitler's "Citadel" // Military History Journal. 2000. No. 6. P. 24,
                      3. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 16 August 2019 12: 34
                        -1
                        The eight of La-5 of the 482nd fighter regiment of the 322nd fighter air division of the 15th air army of the Bryansk Front, patrolling on one of the August days of the 43rd in the area of ​​Moschenoye - Rogachevo - Klemenovo (Orel Region), did not save and the separation of their forces in height - when the strike link was hiding from the attacks of the "hunters" by others flying higher. Two pairs of FW190 suddenly collapsed both on the shock and on the covering links - and again, one plane was immediately shot down ... 27
                      4. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 16 August 2019 13: 39
                        -1
                        In essence, our principle was to cover the earth, the sky, wherever our parts are, but for its implementation many aircraft were required, much more than even necessary in practice. With a lack of materials and people, this principle could lead us to defeat, but with great human and material resources we could bend our line and even win in the end. But this did not mean that the Germans were stupid, their planes were weak, and the generals were all. This attitude smells of hatred and lack of understanding of the essence of the issue, which leads to bitter defeats and losses.
                      5. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 17 August 2019 20: 19
                        +1
                        It’s not clear at all. Who lost the war? In general and in the air in particular?
                        The facts are correct, and the conclusions are strange.
                      6. Fitter65
                        Fitter65 26 August 2019 13: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey G
                        our principle was to cover the earth, the sky, wherever our parts are, but its implementation required many aircraft, much more than even necessary in practice. With a lack of materials and people, such a principle could lead us to defeat, but having large human and material resources

                        And you read what resources in materials and people we have left by the end of 1942. What economic and human losses we suffered, how many people remained in the German occupation, how many factories remained in the occupied territory, and count what capacities worked for the Third Reich. In short, the whole of Europe. The fact that the French and Czechs regularly worked for the Germans is somehow silent, and it’s not the 14-year-old guys who just graduated from FZU, but such experienced workers, but we also didn’t take all the skilled workers to the front line, but to compare the industry of all of Europe working conscience on Hitler and what became of us by the end of 1942 is simply not correct. On the other hand, and who forced the Nazis to climb on us came snatched off.
                    2. Fayter2017
                      Fayter2017 16 August 2019 18: 15
                      +1
                      For the time being, since the age of 43 appeared, the Kuban bookcase and the Germans were blown away.
                      1. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 17 August 2019 01: 06
                        -1
                        https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2019-08/1565992924_1394146720_sravnenie-samoletov-v-nii-v.jpg
                        Check out this table. No Kuban whatnot will help. La 5fn and yak 9 approached, but could not surpass the German me109G / But there were more and more of our fighters, which ensured their success
                      2. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 17 August 2019 01: 10
                        -1
                        After the “battle” with the “three-point” “Messer” (it was piloted by Captain Kuvshinov), test pilot Senior Lieutenant Maslyakov wrote: “La-5FN aircraft up to a height of 5000 m had an advantage over the Bf 109G-2 and could conduct an offensive battle as in horizontal, so in vertical planes. On bends, our fighter went into the tail of the enemy through 4-8 bends. On a vertical maneuver up to 3000 m, the Lavochkin had a clear advantage: it gained “extra” 50-100 m for a combat turn and a hill. From 3000 m this superiority decreased and at an altitude of 5000 m the planes became the same. When climbing 6000 m, the La-5FN was slightly behind.
                      3. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 17 August 2019 01: 12
                        0
                        At the dive, the Lavochkin also lagged behind the Messerschmitt, but caught up with the planes again, due to the smaller radius of curvature. This moment must be used in aerial combat. "We must strive to fight the German fighter at altitudes up to 5000 m, using a combined maneuver in horizontal and vertical planes."
                      4. Alexey G
                        Alexey G 17 August 2019 01: 18
                        0
                        Former pilot of the 41st GIAP, Colonel Reserve A. A. Alekseev, who fought on the La-5 and La-7 fighters, recalls: “German fighter planes were strong. High-speed, maneuverable, durable, with very strong weapons (especially the "fokker").
                        At the dive, they were catching up with La-5, and they were breaking away from us by diving. Coup and dive, only we saw them. By and large, in diving, neither La Messer nor Fokker even caught up with La-7. ”
                      5. Oleg Zorin
                        Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 11: 15
                        0
                        The whatnot is a tactical technique against the technical superiority of the enemy with its numerical superiority (local).
      2. Fitter65
        Fitter65 26 August 2019 13: 29
        0
        Quote: Alexey G
        led to the dispersal of fighter forces and waste of fuel, which our infantry complained about throughout the war. Fighters ironed clear skies, and where they were needed they were missing

        Above all the fighter infantry is not enough. It was precisely covering everyone and at any cost that led to the dispersal of forces, and when they began to concentrate aviation in the right place and at the right time, the Germans no longer succeeded, what they did well before 1943. Yes, they also had local successes later but alas. Read the memoirs of German infantrymen and tankers, where they also "happily" talk about the actions of their Air Force when our ILs ironed them.
  42. Vasya Pupenko
    Vasya Pupenko 16 August 2019 12: 49
    0
    A combat vehicle (a fighter, including) is a symbiosis of all these qualities and some others. Passion for one of them leads to the deterioration of others - and this is very bad.
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 16 August 2019 13: 43
      -3
      The Americans created an inconspicuous F22 aircraft, but to reduce their visibility, they sacrificed aerobatic characteristics, the same maneuverability on the horizontal. However, they are not fools at all. The principle is the same. I saw before and was the first to hit. Nothing has essentially changed. Only other characteristics of machines and machines are completely different, but the goal is one.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 16 August 2019 13: 46
        -2
        Not all characteristics need to be developed, but only those that can bring victory and avoid defeat. The principle is to develop everything in a row unsystematic and not rational. hi
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 16 August 2019 14: 14
          -1
          The same thing happened in the tank units. For a very long time we liked to distribute evenly all our tanks along the front line, over the entire area for many, many kilometers. Sometimes they even dug them up as motionless pillboxes, and as a result, using concentration, the German successfully tore our defenses everywhere, because there were always fewer ours on one important place and there were more Fritz and therefore they were perls and perls, and we all threw and retreated. Although our tanks were technically not inferior to the German, and sometimes even superior, but to the point ?? The designers are trying, but you can use it like the Arabs in the war with Israel. I don’t know what the cons got. Probably for the truth and a true understanding of the essence of the matter.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 16 August 2019 14: 24
            -1
            The same principle works at sea. Remember Tsushima, where the Japanese concentrated all the fire on one of our ships, then on another and remember our ships stretched out in a line ??? This is the ABC of military art
      2. Vasya Pupenko
        Vasya Pupenko 16 August 2019 14: 26
        0
        This is only advertising so far.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 16 August 2019 14: 30
          -2
          Only war can verify this. God forbid it happen. If you're talking about F22. But in the minds of Americans, there is continuity with respect to past experience, which is important. And we again strive to increase maneuverability in all directions with little concern for camouflage. I'm afraid that dancing in the air may not help us in the fight against missiles.
      3. Fitter65
        Fitter65 26 August 2019 15: 33
        0
        Quote: Alexey G
        However, they are not fools at all. The principle is the same. I saw before and was the first to hit.

        Question; how can he see earlier? AND? Will fly and look through binoculars. And he flies without the radar turned on, and that, the Su-35 is also flying in the radar off mode, but over its territory in the area covered by its own radar field, and ... Who has more chances to be detected, Ops-s, ground means found the target, instructed what the pilot of the Su-35 is doing? Turns on radar and forward to rusty mines ?! Or uses this ball to search for KOLS, I "highlighted" it with an arrow
        Moreover, it does not emit radio waves, and although the plane is already in an active search, it remains invisible. And yes, is AWACS working there in the distance, outside the zone of destruction of various S-300/400? True, he is not invisible for us, he is a tasty target for us, but given that he works outside the coverage area of ​​the air defense systems, it means that he does not give complete information, something remains outside the aisles of his visibility, and this is something thanks to guidance from the ground and KOLS has already found a blind man (the radar turned on, found himself), an unmaneuverable "invisible" and hello, an uninvited guest on prashut on our "hospitable land". Another option is flying under the cover of electronic warfare means? So the inclusion of these means by the enemy already suggests that someone is sneaking up to us. Or do you think that we will not be able to turn on our electronic warfare means? .. What makes you think that the invisible F-22 just took and flew into the area, Where does the Su-27/30/35 fly from nothing to do and is looking for the enemy with the help of its radar? By the way, in Yugoslavia, the "invisible" F-117 was shot down despite outdated detection equipment, an outdated complex, while suppressing everything and everything with electronic warfare ...
  43. yehat
    yehat 16 August 2019 14: 26
    0
    La-7 - had weapons, consisting of two 20-mm ShVAK guns, while the installation of four 20-mm guns became the conditional "norm" by the end of the war.

    La-7 in the 45th year was produced in 3 cannon variant and surpassed the Mustang with its Browning machine guns in terms of ease of armament. Qualitatively, I didn’t think it was superior because I discounted the excellent browning ballistics. Nevertheless, la-7 did not have any concessions in the power of weapons.
    This is true only for the Yak-3.
  44. NF68
    NF68 16 August 2019 17: 15
    0
    In general, the most powerful piston warplanes, such as the German FW-190D, can be called "straightforward aircraft." They were too clumsy in comparison with earlier cars, even with the FW-190A, which were also not famous for outstanding maneuverability: at least at heights of up to 4000 meters.


    High angular roll speed in practice turned out to be important at the end of WWII. In this regard, the FW-190 A of all series without guns mounted in the wings was out of competition at almost all speeds. At FW-190 D-9, the angular roll speed was not much lower than the FW-190 A series fighters. On the decline, all FW-190 on the Eastern Front were better than any Soviet fighters. As for the climb, the FW-190 D-9 was inferior to the best Soviet fighters only at low altitudes:



    At an altitude of about 6 km. climb rates FW-190 D-9 and Yak-3 / La-7 were close. In the same place, the FW-190 D-9 had a slightly higher horizontal speed. Flying at maximum speed, the FW-190 D-9, when climbing as a result of high weight, had some advantage due to inertia. At least at the beginning of the climb.
    1. eagle owl
      eagle owl 16 August 2019 20: 10
      -1
      The Americans at the beginning of the war shot down Zero using a higher roll speed

      It was the tripod that the maneuver came up with, as a result, you exit the tail
      1. NF68
        NF68 17 August 2019 16: 49
        0
        Quote: Uhu
        The Americans at the beginning of the war shot down Zero using a higher roll speed

        It was the tripod that the maneuver came up with, as a result, you exit the tail


        American fighters were better at diving.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 17 August 2019 16: 54
          -1
          Quote: NF68
          Quote: Uhu
          The Americans at the beginning of the war shot down Zero using a higher roll speed

          It was the tripod that the maneuver came up with, as a result, you exit the tail


          American fighters were better at diving.

          The silhouettes of the planes in the figure do not particularly pull on the 41 aircraft of the year
          1. NF68
            NF68 17 August 2019 16: 56
            0
            Quote: Town Hall
            Quote: NF68
            Quote: Uhu
            The Americans at the beginning of the war shot down Zero using a higher roll speed

            It was the tripod that the maneuver came up with, as a result, you exit the tail


            American fighters were better at diving.

            The silhouettes of the planes in the figure do not particularly pull on the 41 aircraft of the year


            The point is not in the silhouettes, but in the real capabilities of various fighters of the first half of WWII.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 17 August 2019 17: 15
              -2
              And what is the point of confirming the thesis about the aircraft of the beginning of 40's with a drawing-scheme related to jet aircraft with a completely different tactics of application and performance characteristics?
              1. eagle owl
                eagle owl 18 August 2019 00: 32
                0
                Because in this figure you will not understand nicherta:

                Kohl in the past did not understand. And yes, I remembered the invention of Tach, the captain of fighter aircraft
              2. NF68
                NF68 18 August 2019 15: 27
                +1
                Quote: Town Hall
                And what is the point of confirming the thesis about the aircraft of the beginning of 40's with a drawing-scheme related to jet aircraft with a completely different tactics of application and performance characteristics?


                This is a schematic drawing. "Arbitrariness" of the author.
    2. Oleg Zorin
      Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 11: 17
      +1
      The main plus Foki - this is just the ability to tighten at high speed.
  45. eagle owl
    eagle owl 16 August 2019 19: 12
    -3
    In Spain, the I-16 beat the early Messers in everything. The vertical maneuver was invented precisely by Soviet pilots on the I-16, moreover, the vertical maneuverability, like the horizontal, is better for the I-16 ... The author confused it with rate of climb. Moreover. when discussing Messer, they already laid out a quote from the lieutenant general who fought on the I-16, who in plain text spoke not only about the best maneuverability in both planes, but that the I-16 was not inferior in speed in battle, but about the acceleration many times exceeded Messer even in WWII, about Spain, where crooked and clumsy prototypes flew - and there is nothing to say, so the I-16 pilots did not lose to the Messers in Spain ...
    And even tactical developments (four-member link) - not an invention, but an ersatz, from the shortage of aircraft
  46. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 16 August 2019 22: 16
    +1
    In theory, the Soviet Union could get a modern “heavy” fighter in the person of I-185, but long before the end of the war, the country's leadership preferred Yakovlev's planes. Whether it is right or wrong, another question.

    We won and that’s it.
  47. Oleg Zorin
    Oleg Zorin 17 August 2019 08: 56
    -1
    The whole article can be accommodated in two sentences: maneuverability is not enough, because an aircraft with greater speed and rate of climb can impose an attacking battle on the vertical and leave it whenever it wants. A plane with less speed and rate of climb will only be able to conduct a defensive battle, which, if the pilots are equal, will lose sooner or later.
  48. colotun
    colotun 17 August 2019 10: 48
    +1
    Something the author of this article is obscure and foggy = and his concept of modern straight-line speed combat without bends is very surprising and calls into question the professional competence of this author.
  49. paul3390
    paul3390 17 August 2019 11: 50
    0
    Quote: Alexey G
    Only the number of victories won in this way on the ME-109. I think the argument is devastating.

    A crushing argument is that we won, not them ...
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 17 August 2019 12: 32
      0
      Victory is a very good argument, but not always sufficient. France won the Second World War, but her weapon was no better than German or Japanese, and there was no tactic at all, because France lost to the Germans in 6 weeks. The Russian tsarist army lost the First World War to the Germans, but this is far from enough to seriously consider the Russian army of that time to be inferior to the Germans in weapons and tactics. The Wehrmacht lost the war for economic and political reasons, but their army was very worthy in terms of the quality of weapons and training of personnel. Disrespect for the enemy as a professional who had a high class of military skill is short-sighted.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 17 August 2019 12: 39
        0
        By your logic, it should be recognized that French weapons are better than German in World War II. British tanks are better than German in particular, because Britain defeated the Germans in World War II, etc. And where is the logic here? I affirm that until 1943, on the Eastern Front, the ME109 G fighter was the best fighter in its combat qualities, which our pilots of that time admit. Read their memories. There are many of them.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 17 August 2019 12: 41
          0
          Do not believe the memories of our pilots, look at the figures of losses in aircraft in our official sources, these are just facts and there is nothing to argue about here, you argue simply because you do not want to admit defeat in the dispute.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 17 August 2019 12: 45
            0
            Tsar Peter III, having come to power, actually stole our victory in the Seven Years' War, since he himself sympathized with the Prussians and so what? The Germans did not lose and their weapons are better than ours ???
            1. Alexey G
              Alexey G 17 August 2019 12: 46
              0
              Understand defeats that are not always purely military or your favorite technical reasons.
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 17 August 2019 12: 51
                0
                Read how many tanks and planes we and the Germans produced from the beginning of the war until its completion, and you will understand what served as the main reason for the victory. Read Manstein’s memoirs Lost victories, where he writes about the number of Russian tanks and divisions by 1943.
                1. Alexey G
                  Alexey G 17 August 2019 12: 54
                  0
                  I affirm that the quality of our fighters was improving and by the end of the war was not inferior to the German ones and superior to them, but until 1943 the quality of the fighters among the Germans was still higher.
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 17 August 2019 20: 22
              0
              Do not drag everything together. Even with Peter III, everything is not as straightforward as they are.
  50. paul3390
    paul3390 17 August 2019 15