10 planes that changed the war in the air. Opinion of "Military Review"

101
In the comments to the article We Are The Mighty: 10 Fighters Changing the Air War one of the readers said that if we had a rating, then it would be completely different. I completely agree.

And since colleague Ryabov showed simply the wonders of diplomacy, commenting on this star-striped celebration in the air, then well, let’s approach the issue not so diplomatically.



“However, some features of this rating leave questions, including uncomfortable. Its authors can be suspected of prejudice against a particular technique and, as a consequence, a lack of objectivity ” (K. Ryabov).

Well, as Lavrov took lessons from Cyril. In fact, the rating is very so-so, because it was made up by an American who, perhaps, except for the Su-27, does not know the planes of other countries. But this is not the point. The main thing is that we ourselves are quite capable of compiling our rating of such machines that really made a huge contribution to the development of aviation.

More fair, in my opinion.

In a recent article, I already asked this question: how to properly evaluate aircraft? What are the criteria or parameters?

Here I consider it appropriate to talk not about certain innovations, because then the entire rating will surely consist of sophisticated American “wunder” who are crammed with everything, but there’s no sense in it.

We will talk about epoch-making constructions that really influenced the further development of military aviation. And - not least - on specific examples. And then go really appreciate that there innovation stuffed into F-117 and F-35 ...

Please do not pay attention to the serial numbers in the ranking, we will just go along the time line, starting from our first hero.

1. Wright "Flyer-1". USA, 1903


This device was released in one copy and was not a combat aircraft. He generally was a stretch with a stretch. But: the aircraft with a man took off in the air with engine thrust, flew forward and landed in place with a height equal to the height of the take-off place. That is, did not fall, but still flew by. Thus beginning the era of aviation heavier than air.



2. Sikorsky "Ilya Muromets." Russia, 1914


The first real bomber. The first is really a heavy bomber, and if we compare the tasks that were performed by Ilya Muromets during the First World War and, say, the B-29 in the Second, then this is also the first strategic bomber.


A plane capable of moving 500 kg of bombs to a distance of 500 km at the speed of an average fighter - in those days it was really a miracle. Regardless of the headwind, like zeppelin-bombers, having the ability to fight off several enemy fighters alone, the Ilya Muromets was really an apparatus from the future.

The genius of Igor Sikorsky is the genius of a man who felt the air with his fingertips ... "Ilya Muromets" is a prototype of Pe-8, "Lancaster" and B-29. And globally - and the Tu-95.

3. Fokker E. Eindecker. Germany, 1915


Who was the first to push the machine gun into the fighter’s cockpit, we don’t know. There was a war, and the thoughts of many worked in the same direction. Initially, the pilots fought with each other using personal weapons, that is, pistols. There were a huge number of very exotic ways of dealing with the enemy, but the machine gun definitely became the main one.

10 planes that changed the war in the air. Opinion of "Military Review"

So the second on the list will be exactly the work of Anton Fokker, and not a simple fighter, namely the Fokker E, because for the first time a mechanical synchronizer was installed on it for firing through the plane of the screw. The epoch-making device, which we already spoke about in one of the articles.


In addition, although some Fokker was accused of copying a Moran-Solnez aircraft, unlike the French, Fokker had an all-metal welded frame made of pipes.

Well, the metal corners that the French used to protect the propeller blades from bullets are still a military collective farm, not a synchronizer.

4. SPAD S.XII. France, 1917


The French line came up. Here we will focus not just on the SPAD S.XII fighter, but on its modification of the SPAD S.XII Ca.1. “Sa” means Canon, that is, cannon.


The idea of ​​installing a gun on an airplane belongs to the French ace Georges Gimener (53 victory), and the French engineers were able to translate this into metal.

The main weapon of the aircraft was the Puto gun of the 37 mm caliber, located in the camber of the Ispano-Suiza engine block and firing through the propeller shaft. The gun was loaded manually, the target was guided along the tracks of the Vickers machine gun coaxial with it.


Despite the fact that the world's first serial cannon fighter did not live up to its expectations, it takes its rightful place in the list. Yes, a single-charge gun with manual reloading was, to put it mildly, inconvenient for air combat, but from that moment on, the cannon in the collapse of the engine cylinders became a classic until the end of World War II.

5. Messerschmitt Bf.109Е. Germany, 1938


Speaking of 109, I note that he ended up here because this is actually the first successful fighter with a liquid-cooled engine. The pioneer of the era of such engines was released in crazy quantities and fought the entire Second World War from the first to the last day. In the modifications, of course.


But, most importantly, Bf.109 has become a role model all over the world. It was looking at the results of the application of 109 in Spain, the engineers of all countries worked, who were to become participants in that war.

And have gained. Spitfires, Mustangs, Yaki - all in general were done with an eye on the creation of Messerschmitt.

The liquid-cooled motor itself was a very, very controversial decision, but it served for a very long time in the air forces of many countries of the world.

6. Messerschmitt ME-262. Germany, 1941


With "Swallow" everything is clear, we also disassembled it. The first sensible jet fighter, which not only tried to fight, so he did it.


Yes, 262 is a representative of a slightly different branch, but he fought along with piston aircraft, and it cannot be said that he was so superior to them. Shot down "swallows" and the Americans and ours. Not that easily, but shot down.

7. Ilyushin IL-2. USSR, 1942


You can argue for a long time about which aircraft was the first attack aircraft. But the fact that the IL-2 is the first attack aircraft, which was conceived as a plane for attack, is unlikely to be challenged by anyone.


The armored box, which was included in the power set of the glider, is also an innovation. But mainly, in addition to the fact that the IL-2 was not converted into an attack aircraft from an obsolete fighter (a common practice), but was originally designed.

Much can be said about his role in that war, but the fact that he is still the most massive in stories humanity by plane, says a lot. An ideal aircraft for precision frontal strikes.

8. Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortress". USA, 1937


A plane that has become a symbol of destruction. Record holder for the number of bombs dropped. And I’m sure that not a single plane destroyed as much as the Flying Fortress did.


Yes, the reputation could have been more abrupt, since there is not much honor in crushing the rubble of cities with civilians.

But the fact: it was the “Fortresses” that the discovery of a new war in the air belongs to. The total destruction of everything and everything on earth. Later, the US Air Force will implement this principle in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and many other places, but it was the Fortresses that laid the foundation for everything.

9. Heinkel He.219 "Uhu." Germany, 1942


Night fighter, besides released not the largest series. However, this is actually a bridge between eras.


This plane was forgotten immediately after the war, but the principles that were implemented in it became a classic of the genre.

Radar, “friend or foe” defendant, ejected crew seats, pressurized cockpit, remotely controlled machine gun installations, powerful cannon weapons.

Yes, the Eagle Owl could not play a significant role in the war. But here is precisely the case when a lot of the new applied in the design, forever received a residence permit in modern aircraft.

10. Fairey Swordfish UK, 1934


Someone will say now: Lord, this is a miracle, what has forgotten here? And it will be absolutely wrong!


This flying chumokhod is really one of the most productive strike aircraft! And with the advent of torpedo bombers, life on the sea ceased to be simple and beautiful. The ships began to sink!

The Swordfish played a huge role in the sinking of Bismarck. If it weren’t for the torpedo dropped from the plane, the British would have cried for the "worse" for a long time and bloody tears.

The Swordfish set up the forerunner of Pearl Harbor, the Taranto massacre, sending two battleships (Littorio and Conti di Cavour) to the bottom at the cost of two aircraft and damaging the battleship, two cruisers and two destroyers.

"Swordfish" holds the record of sinking three torpedoes of four ships. In the harbor of Sidi-Barani (territory of Egypt, occupied by Italians in 1940), two submarines and a transport with ammunition were destroyed by three torpedoes. Vehicles exploded and sent a destroyer docked to it to replenish ammunition.

Here is such a rating among the aircraft of the first half of the last century. And I’m sure it’s pretty fair, because there’s nothing to bring together the F-117 of the end of the 20 century and the “Fokker” from the beginning. Different eras, different classes of aircraft.

But this is a matter of taste, and we argue about tastes, there is such a thing.

However, here are 10 aircraft of the first half of the last century that really changed the essence of the war in the air. Maybe someone will disagree, I repeat, all these comparisons are a thankless task.

However, for the second half of the 20 century, it is simply necessary to make a review, since the era of jet aircraft has arrived. Other rules, other principles.

So to be continued.
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    13 November 2019 06: 30
    "Swordfish" holds a record of sinking three torpedoes of four ships. In the harbor in Malta (Sidi Barani), two torpedoes destroyed two submarines and a transport with ammunition. Transport exploded and sent a destroyer docked to it to replenish ammunition.

    like this ? drowned your ships in Malta?
    1. +6
      13 November 2019 07: 39
      Somehow I missed about the "Owl", considered it a small piece of work, but he lacked only jet engines. Thanks to the author for the interesting article.
      1. AUL
        +6
        13 November 2019 14: 51
        Ryabov’s bias in one direction, in Roman - in the other. And everyone, from his bell tower, is right! Well, yes, the taste and color of all the markers are different!
  2. +7
    13 November 2019 06: 39
    Wright "Flyer-1." USA, 1903
    Interesting logic. How can you change what was not? Even before the first bombing, another 8 years (if I’m not mistaken) was.
  3. +8
    13 November 2019 07: 08
    Messer is beautiful in flight ... nothing superfluous in silhouette ... still, Willy did it on the basis of a racing airplane.
    1. +6
      13 November 2019 08: 10
      Willie made it on the basis of "sports", but not racing, Bf-108 /
      1. +2
        13 November 2019 09: 42
        Willie made it on the basis of "sports", but not racing, Bf-108 /

        It was then that he became sporty ... at the beginning there was an M-29 racing airplane ... he even had wings folded during transportation.



        http://thelib.ru/books/leonid_anceliovich/neizvestnyy_messershmitt-read.html
        1. +4
          13 November 2019 09: 55
          The M-29 is related to the Typhoon Bf-108 or the Bf-109 only because Willie designed it. Structurally and technologically completely different machines. There was no Typhoon "at the beginning" of the M-29.
          1. +2
            13 November 2019 09: 58
            But look at the M-29 chassis ... exactly the same layout and subsequent Messerschmitts ... no doubt Willy took some ideas from there.
            1. +5
              13 November 2019 10: 15
              no doubt Willy took from there some ideas.
              - You can’t argue with that.
              In contrast to this:
              still willy him did based racing aircraft.
              - the chassis can hardly be called the basis for the design of a racing aircraft.
        2. 0
          13 November 2019 16: 30
          So it seems like a Bf-108 tourist for 4 people. what
  4. +7
    13 November 2019 07: 11
    As for me, a more objective rating. Each aircraft has changed the principle of combat to one degree or another.
  5. +8
    13 November 2019 07: 17
    What has Suordfish got to do with it? This device was already obsolete at the time of adoption. How many of them were thrashed when the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau broke through the English Channel? For that matter, where is PO-2 in this ranking?
    1. +11
      13 November 2019 09: 50
      Well, the question is not the novelty of the aircraft, but the novelty of the method of using weapons.
      Swordfish really was purposefully adapted to drop torpedoes and it was under him that tactics of torpedo combat were developed.
      Although, in fairness, with the same success it is possible to include in the same rating both dive-bombers U-87 and top-carriers Boston A-20.
      Both that and another was the bright representative of concrete tactics of air strikes and spoiled decently blood of opponents.
      1. +2
        13 November 2019 13: 20
        Quote: Vlad.by
        Although, in fairness, with the same success it is possible to include in the same rating both dive-bombers U-87 and top-carriers Boston A-20.
        Both that and another was the bright representative of concrete tactics of air strikes and spoiled decently blood of opponents.

        A-20 "Haywok" does not fit a little - it was not purposefully adapted for topmast bombing, and was designed as an attack aircraft for the US Army Air Force. And he became a topmaster by necessity, along with B-25, PV-1, and even B-17.
        Yes, off the coast of New Guinea, B-17s went into masthead attacks and even drowned Japanese EMs: on November 24.11.1942, 5, Kenneth McCullar's crew bombed the Hayashio EM (type Kagero) 60 times from a height of XNUMX feet, sank it (the EM burned out) and after that he barely crawled to the house, crossing the mountains on two working engines.
        1. +2
          13 November 2019 14: 00
          The A-20 "Haywok" does not fit a little - it was not purposefully adapted for topmast bombing, but designed as a ground attack aircraft for the US Army Air Force.
          By the way, colleague, you unwittingly refute Skomorokhov (and VO?) With their rating. After all, the A-20, like the Soviet BSh-1 Kochergin, began to be designed in 1937, which means that the Il-2 is not "the first attack aircraft, which was conceived as a plane for attack(from)". wink
          1. +1
            13 November 2019 17: 19
            Quote: Dooplet11
            By the way, colleague, you unwittingly refute Skomorokhov (and VO?) With their rating. After all, the A-20, like the Soviet BSh-1 Kochergin, began to be designed in 1937, which means that the Il-2 is not "the first attack aircraft, which was conceived precisely as an aircraft for an attack (s)".

            This is me about Hugo Junkers and his armored vehicle with propeller - The specialized armored attack aircraft Junkers JI of the 1917 model did not write. smile
            1. +2
              13 November 2019 23: 11
              By the way, our P5 was also designed as an attack aircraft, but this did not make it an attack aircraft. Actually the same as the A20. I won't say about the "flying bath", they did not intersect), but judging by the lack of information, that bath did not bother the allies much, unlike the IL-2.
              As for the "strategist" Ilya Muromets - The most effective use of these vehicles at the front is connected with the name of M.V.Shidlovsky - chairman of the RBVZ board, as well as the first chief of the Airborne Squadron organized on his own initiative. On December 23, all Ilya Muromets bombers operating at the front were brought down to a squadron, and this day is today celebrated in the Russian Federation as Long-Range Aviation Day. These aircraft were a special force in the armed forces of Russia and obeyed
              directly to the High Command

              What is this if not a strategic purpose?
              At the end of February 1915, “Ilya Muromets” carried out the first massive bombing strike. It was inflicted on the Austrian railway station Wallenberg. As a result of the airstrike at the station, the railway tracks and the structure of the station were destroyed, the rolling stock and enemy manpower were destroyed

              For 15 years, it’s quite a strategic task)
              And yes, although it was redesigned from a passenger plane, it’s already according to the ToR of the Ministry of War.
              So it can rightfully be called the forerunner of strategic bomber aviation.
  6. +1
    13 November 2019 07: 34
    All that remains is for anyone to read this article across the ocean. And then we are even!
    1. 0
      13 November 2019 08: 11
      Quits by two nonsense?
    2. +1
      13 November 2019 17: 21
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      All that remains is for anyone to read this article across the ocean. And then we are even!

      Our answer The National Interest! smile
  7. +5
    13 November 2019 07: 41
    In the photo, Bf 109F, but write about Bf109E.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  8. +1
    13 November 2019 08: 00
    10 planes that changed the war in the air. Opinion of "Military Review"

    As a rule, the rating is built, who is the best and even better!
    And then some "whatnot" that changed something or were the founders !!!
    Foreign "colleges" will not understand or approve! stop
    1. +5
      13 November 2019 08: 53
      Well, you have a slightly biased opinion. That's it
      And then there are some "whatnot"
      created a war in the air and for the first time changed its character. From grenades from the cockpit and pistol duels to bombers and fighters.
      1. +5
        13 November 2019 09: 14
        Quote: Monar
        Well, you have a slightly biased opinion.

        This is sarcasm .... without the same "bookcase" of the Wright brothers, the history of aviation cannot be considered! It turned out to be a great "whatnot" ...
  9. +2
    13 November 2019 08: 07
    Opinion of "Military Review"
    -If this is the opinion of Voennoye Obozreniye, and not of Roman Skomorokhov, then it is sad for Voennoye Obozreniye.
    “However, some features of this rating leave questions, including uncomfortable. Its authors can be suspected of being biased towards a particular technique and, as a result, of a lack of objectivity ”(K. Ryabov).
    - This can be said about almost any "rating", including about this
    and if we compare the tasks that were performed by Ilya Muromets during the First World War and, say, B-29 in the Second, then this is also the first strategic bomber.
    - and what strategic problems were solved and solved by "Ilya Muromets"? Besides operational and tactical?
    Who was the first to push the machine gun into the cab fighter, we will not know.
    - And hto did it? (c) A machine gun? Into the cockpit? laughing
    Speaking of 109, I note that he ended up here because it is actually first successful liquid-cooled fighter.
    -SPAD S.XII may not have been the first with a liquid-cooled engine, but it’s definitely quite a successful fighter. Therefore, Bf-109 tono was not the first successful. hi
    that IL-2 is the first attack aircraft, which was conceived as a plane for attack, hardly anyone will dispute.
    - and this is not true. It is worth recalling the German armored attack aircraft in World War I, or at least the B-1 in the USSR.
    So to be continued.
    - if it is similar to this "rating", then better not! Do not dishonor "Military Review"!
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. -1
        13 November 2019 09: 06
        They may not be deleted, but they began to minus. laughing Although, minus the obvious things - sign in incompetence.
        1. +6
          13 November 2019 11: 57
          Quote: Dooplet11
          They may not be deleted, but they began to minus. laughing Although, minus the obvious things - sign in incompetence.

          Why incompetence? Maybe people do not agree with your opinion? Sometimes you should look, but I didn’t blur out something indigestible.
          1. -4
            13 November 2019 12: 25
            Yes, sometimes the truth is indigestible ...
        2. +4
          13 November 2019 12: 22
          Quote: Dooplet11
          They may not be deleted, but they began to minus. Although, minus the obvious things - sign in incompetence.

          Offended or what?
          1. -1
            13 November 2019 12: 36
            Not even amused. I wonder what they messed up? That rating is based on false messages? Or information that the messages are false? wink
    2. +3
      13 November 2019 10: 04
      If this is the opinion of Voennoye Obozreniye and not of Roman Skomorokhov, then it is sad for Voennoye Obozreniye.

      But VO has not yet asked you ....
      1. -1
        13 November 2019 10: 11
        What was asked about? That I am sad for the opinion of VO? Ask, do not ask, but for such an opinion is sad. Illiterate rating built on illiterate approval.
        1. +6
          13 November 2019 10: 59
          Quote: Dooplet11
          What was asked about? That I am sad for the opinion of VO? Ask, do not ask, but for such an opinion is sad. Illiterate rating built on illiterate approval.

          Well, what's up? Show the world your rating, and we will honor .., and draw conclusions.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. +4
              13 November 2019 11: 34
              Quote: Dooplet11
              I won’t show such ratings,

              Well then, it’s already, dear, not criticism, but criticism. I don’t like someone else’s, and I don’t know how to write (I can’t, because I don’t know). In this case, it is better to be silent in a rag.
              [quote = Dooplet11 ... because they won’t give anything useful to the world but harm. [/ quote]
              The flight of your thoughts is beyond the reach of mere mortals. What harm are we talking about?
              1. -6
                13 November 2019 12: 24
                Well then, it’s already, dear, not criticism, but criticism. I don’t like someone else’s, and I don’t know how to write (I can’t, because I don’t know). In this case, it is better to be silent in a rag.
                dear, I said somewhere that I can’t because I don’t know? I said that I will not produce such ratings. But such materials:
                https://topwar.ru/159884-spasatelnye-parashjuty-vtoroj-mirovoj.html
                -can.
                The flight of your thoughts is beyond the reach of mere mortals. What harm are we talking about?
                - harm in the dissemination of incorrect data. hi
                1. +3
                  13 November 2019 15: 41
                  Quote: Dooplet11
                  - harm in the dissemination of incorrect data.

                  I agree with you that the dissemination of incorrect data harms consumers of this incorrect information. But what practical harm will, say to me, bring the author's personal view of "10 planes that changed the course of the air war"? Believe me - none.
                  Quote: Dooplet11
                  I said that I will not produce such ratings.

                  Well, do not produce SUCH, give birth NOT. What is the problem?
                  In my opinion you are just acting up.
                  1. -2
                    13 November 2019 16: 09
                    But what practical harm, let me say personal view of the author
                    - it is positioned as a VO look. Not at all a "personal" view of Mr. Skomorokhov, see the title of the article). This VO convinces its readers that the machine gun was shoved into the cockpit of the Fokker E and that Messer was the first successful fighter with a water-cooled engine. If there is no harm that such rubbish settles in the minds of an inexperienced reader, then, yes, there is no harm to you either.
                    Well, do not produce SUCH, give birth NOT. What is the problem?
                    - SUCH I will not. NOT born such: https://topwar.ru/159884-spasatelnye-parashjuty-vtoroj-mirovoj.html
                    No problem. hi
                    1. 0
                      13 November 2019 16: 29
                      Quote: Dooplet11
                      If there is no harm that such garbage settles in the minds of an inexperienced reader, then yes, and there is no harm to you.

                      Absolutely. Because, I do not intend, like most readers of VO, to broadcast this information.
                      I read your article on rescue parachutes. Not bad, but, as you yourself noticed - incomplete. No data on Japanese, Italian parachutes. Why publish an article with incomplete data?
                      You see, if you wish, you can criticize any article, any actions.
                      I wish you success. hi
                      1. -3
                        13 November 2019 16: 38
                        I read your article on rescue parachutes. Not bad, but, as you yourself noticed - incomplete. No data on Japanese, Italian parachutes. Why publish an article with incomplete data?
                        You see, if you wish, you can criticize any article, any actions.
                        - hi Here offtopic, of course, about that article. Thanks for the criticism. But. What are you criticizing? What is incompletely covered in it? So I myself note this in the article and honestly admit. laughing Why give "incomplete" material? So that someone later on the basis of it collected more fully. After all, incomplete is not false, you must agree!
                      2. +1
                        13 November 2019 17: 36
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Thanks for the criticism.

                        The Lord is with you, I do not criticize, on the contrary, I liked her. I said that you can criticize your article.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        After all, incomplete - this is not false, agree!

                        I do not agree. Semi-truth, not complete truth, because it is worse than a lie, as they say. This is not about your article. This is generally. Indeed, behind the incomplete truth they usually hide the very important, which completely or partially disavows the truth.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Garbage in the head gives rise to incorrect conclusions.

                        Neither the article under discussion, nor your article makes it necessary to draw any conclusions. Because there is no practical application of the information gathered from these articles. As for me, of course. hi
                      3. 0
                        14 November 2019 07: 45
                        I do not agree. Semi-truth, not complete truth, because it is worse than a lie, as they say. This is not about your article. This is generally. After all, for the incomplete truth usually hide very important, which completely or partially disavows the truth.
                        - I think it is necessary to distinguish between hiding part of the truth (half-truth, which, indeed, is often worse than lying), and all the truth, known at the moment, but not complete in fact. In the second case, incomplete truth is not a lie; it is only a step towards full knowledge.
                        Neither the article under discussion, nor your article makes it necessary to draw any conclusions. Because there is no practical use information gathered from these articles. As for me of course.
                        - Yes, this is a matter of personal perception and personal needs. But the mass of personal perceptions gives rise to a lot of personal conclusions that go into the quality of interpersonal relationships. wink
                      4. 0
                        14 November 2019 21: 09
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - Yes, this is a matter of personal perception and personal needs. But the mass of personal perceptions gives rise to a lot of personal conclusions that go into the quality of interpersonal relationships.

                        Talk about philosophy? laughing
                      5. 0
                        15 November 2019 06: 35
                        This is sociology. ))))
                      6. 0
                        13 November 2019 16: 42
                        Absolutely. Because, I do not intend, like most readers of VO, to broadcast this information.
                        - I'm afraid that with such articles, VO will lose those readers who understand what is and is not worth broadcasting. And I feel sorry for the rest of the readers. Garbage in the head gives rise to incorrect conclusions.
    3. +8
      13 November 2019 10: 10
      And what do you consider “obvious things?”
      The fact that Ilya did not fly a couple of thousand kilometers behind enemy lines? So in the era of cavalry bombing of cavalry. The divisions at the station 100 km from the front line could lead to the collapse of the entire front. And the fact of creating the first specialized 4-engine bomber, and even with several defensive points - what is not a milestone? It was from him that the herd of multi-engine destroyers went.

      “Machine gun in the cabin” - this is not about a machine gun, but about a synchronizer

      The 12 recession may have been a successful fighter with a liquid-cooled engine, but it didn’t do the weather at all. Unlike the legend of Me-109

      Only the lazy did not write about Il-2 armored windows, I can’t understand the essence of your objections.

      Try to “not dishonor” VO yourself, write justified material, shame the “ignoramus” of Skomorokhov.
      Or is the gut thin?
      1. -6
        13 November 2019 10: 26
        So in the era of cavalry bombing of cavalry. The divisions at the station 100 km from the front line could lead to the collapse of the entire front
        - was such a "strategic" task set and carried out? Which German front collapsed?
        And the fact of creating the first specialized 4's engine bomber, and even with several defensive points - what is not a milestone?
        -Milestone. In the formation of bomber aviation. But this does not mean that "Ilya" is the first "strategist". In the understanding of the term "strategic bomber".
        “Machine gun in the cabin” - this is not about a machine gun, but about a synchronizer
        - So it's not me who wrote about the machine gun in the cockpit. Is the synchronizer also in the cockpit? belay
        The 12 recession may have been a successful fighter with a liquid-cooled engine, but it didn’t do the weather at all. Unlike the legend of Me-109
        - But he, like Messer was not the first successful fighter with a liquid-cooled engine .
        Only the lazy did not write about Il-2 armored windows, I can’t understand the essence of your objections.
        - Ilyushin was the first to make armor the bearing element of construction. But IL-2 was not the first specially designed aircraft for assault operations.
        Try to “not dishonor” VO yourself, write justified material, shame the “ignoramus” of Skomorokhov.
        Or is the gut thin?
        - Tried:
        https://topwar.ru/161348-me-262-i-perspektiva-reaktivnyh-istrebitelej-tretego-rejha.html
        https://topwar.ru/159884-spasatelnye-parashjuty-vtoroj-mirovoj.html
        Didn't seem to disgrace. At least, I didn't write about the "first machine gun in the cockpit". wink
        1. +1
          13 November 2019 13: 19
          For everyone! Positions You acted like a criminal lawyer. Crochet lawyer! This is not your main profession, by chance?
          Okay with Ilya Muromets,
          but, the synchronizer in the cockpit ???
          Or is the Me-109 not the first fighter with a ZhO engine ?? What is it like?
          Who remembers SPAD XII now? Who remembers Farman or Albatross?
          Only historians and experts.
          And "Messer" - a common name with us and the surname Messerschmidt in the world are associated with ONE, a very specific product. Not with a night fighter, or even with the first jet, but specifically with the 109.
          Refute ...
          I don’t even want to discuss about IL-2.
          Yes, Henschel 129 was also designed as an attack aircraft. Like the others. And it was still not bad. And possessed firepower, and was armored, and, even, did not fly a pancake. But you go, it did not happen to become a legend. Yes, and the volume of release, miserable, on the scale of the war.
          And they are not trying to belittle his merits, as is the case with IL-2 and, in general, with our Victory. And all because he was not a bone in the throat, he did not become the “Black Death” for tankmen and the “Cement Bomber” for the infantry and anti-aircraft gunners, “The Hedgehog You Can’t Bite by the Tail” for fighters.
          And they did not tell horrors about him, those who survived the raid.
          And tactics were not built for him.
          And the first one or the last on the calendar - the importance is not great.
          1. +1
            13 November 2019 13: 27
            By the way, I didn’t put you cons ...
            1. -1
              13 November 2019 13: 46
              By the way, I didn’t put you cons ...
              Plus you for that! )))
          2. -1
            13 November 2019 13: 44
            For everyone! Positions You acted like a criminal lawyer. Crochet lawyer! This is not your main profession, by chance?
            - No. Not a lawyer. "On all positions" I provided justification. This is bad?
            but, the synchronizer in the cockpit ???
            Or is the Me-109 not the first fighter with a ZhO engine ?? What is it like?
            - that's bullshit. The synchronizer was placed between the engine and the weapon (which is not at all in the cockpit, but in (or "on") the fuselage)
            Who remembers SPAD XII now? Who remembers Farman or Albatross?
            Only historians and experts.
            - Those who do not remember (or do not know) write nonsense about the fact that the 109 was the first successful fighter with a water-cooled engine. And wrong. and misleading others.
            And "Messer" - a common name with us and the surname Messerschmidt in the world are associated with ONE, a very specific product. Not with a night fighter, or even with the first jet, but specifically with the 109.
            Refute ...
            - Well, about "the whole world" you turned it down. Such associations can only be among those who are very superficially aware of the work of Messershmi.тthat one.
            I don’t even want to discuss about IL-2.
            ...
            And the first one or the last on the calendar - the importance is not great.
            - and no need to discuss. Let's just fix the fact that Il-2 got into the rating of Skomorokhov (and VO?) as the first aircraft conceived as an attack aircraft. Which is absolutely wrong. He is definitely not the first.
            1. +2
              13 November 2019 15: 54
              Quote: Dooplet11
              - and no need to discuss. Let's just fix the fact that Il-2 got into the Skomorokhov rating (and BO?) As the first aircraft, conceived as an attack aircraft. Which is absolutely wrong. He is definitely not the first.

              In general, the Il-2 was the first attack aircraft in which the armored corps was used as a power element, and not as a mounted, additional armor, hung with a dead load. One must understand these differences. In addition, IL-2 for the first time allowed to fully realize the idea of ​​ShAP. So your criticism of IL-2 is completely contrived.
              1. -1
                13 November 2019 16: 15
                In general, the Il-2 was the first attack aircraft in which the armored corps was used as a power element, and not as a mounted, additional armor, hung with a dead load. One must understand these differences.
                - and I mean it. Except for the word "dead". laughing
                So your criticism of IL-2 is completely contrived.
                - and here you are wrong. I am not "criticizing the Il-2" I am criticizing the thesis that "the Il-2 is the first aircraft conceived as an attack aircraft." You need to understand these differences (c) wink
        2. 0
          13 November 2019 15: 57
          Quote: Dooplet11
          - was such a "strategic" task set and carried out? Which German front collapsed?

          And which fronts collapsed after the raids of the b-17? The fact that they are strategists will not be disputed by anyone.
          1. 0
            13 November 2019 19: 43
            It was not I who brought this argument of "frontier crusher" into the definition of "strategist" Ilya Muromets. I asked to confirm the argument with a real-life example. No example followed. The argument fails. B-17 strategists. Douay's concept of the strategic impact of aviation appeared after IM left the scene.
      2. +3
        13 November 2019 13: 23
        Quote: Vlad.by
        And the fact of creating the first specialized 4's engine bomber, and even with several defensive points - what is not a milestone?

        Um ... was the IM a specialized four-engined bomber? And not a conversion into a bomber of the world's first passenger aircraft?
  10. 0
    13 November 2019 08: 34
    In fact, the rating is very so-so, because it was ?????, which, perhaps, ..., and aircraft of other countries and (times) do not know. But that is not the point. The main thing is that we ourselves are quite capable of compiling our rating of such machines, which really made a huge contribution to the development of military aviation.
    - good
  11. -1
    13 November 2019 09: 05
    Stupid article. Instead of understanding the planes that really changed something, just listing the planes that were somewhere first. Apparently the task is to shove more domestic cars into the ratings. For example, nobody remembers the first cell phone, and Nokia 3310 or IPhone 5 have changed a lot.
    1. -1
      13 November 2019 09: 11
      just a listing of the aircraft that were somewhere first
      - the funny thing is that most of the listed aircraft were not "somewhere first" yet.
    2. +5
      13 November 2019 10: 37
      "... Apparently the task is to push more domestic cars into the ratings." ...

      This is unlikely .. There are only two domestic cars in this rating.
      1. -4
        13 November 2019 10: 55
        And those "in vain". laughing
        1. 0
          13 November 2019 11: 02
          Anyway, such an article is in vain!
          So just look at the pictures of the planes, recall the characteristic outlines ...
          But even then you need to carefully look - "Emil" in the photo "beguiled".
          As O. Bender said: "Out. The class of the game is not high."
    3. +1
      13 November 2019 12: 11
      Quote: arkadiyssk
      Here, for example, no one remembers the first cell, and Nokia 3310

      Nokia 3310 is a masterpiece two pieces I had, worked flawlessly. Lost in a stupid way, one broke, the second drowned, and then they were not on sale. I do not want to take the Chinese version. For fans of this brand, the code of checking for originality: * # 0000 # call.
      1. +1
        14 November 2019 22: 19
        Nokia 3310 is impossible to break
        Drowning, in principle, is possible, but very difficult
  12. +2
    13 November 2019 12: 13
    About me-109 I do not agree. Firstly, it cannot be said that airplanes with a liquid-cooled engine totally dominated the battlefield, because Messer was singled out as a separate category ... The same thing with b-17, there was b-17 and there were still a bunch of year-olds doing the same .
    1. 0
      13 November 2019 12: 41
      Our "free artist", in the sense - the author of the article, saw like this ...
      Do not shoot the pianist - he plays as he can ...
      1. 0
        13 November 2019 12: 48
        Do not shoot the pianist - he plays as he can ...

        https://stabrk.livejournal.com/71601.html
  13. 0
    13 November 2019 13: 12
    One of my grandfathers (grandmothers brothers) was a pilot. He died in 1915 in a battle with the German Fokker. Grandfather and the shooter were on the French Voisin. George 4c posthumously fell from 1500m in a burning plane. Why not in the review Voisin-quite a popular brand.
  14. BAI
    +1
    13 November 2019 13: 49
    The review includes fighters, classic bombers, an attack aircraft and a torpedo bomber.
    But dive bombers and flying boats brought nothing new to aviation? U-87 - a universally recognized symbol of the Second World War. Yes, even Po-2 is of some interest. Moreover, if the framework of the article is outlined - combat aircraft, then position No. 1 is not the place here. We must consider the first aircraft used for military purposes.
    1. BAI
      +1
      13 November 2019 14: 03
      But what is this passage for?
      Who was the first to push the machine gun into the cockpit of the fighter, we will not know.

      1. The first machine guns appeared on planes with a propeller and there were no problems. From the word at all.
      2. Then came the reflecting corners of the English and French planes.
      3. And only then did the Fokker synchronizer appear.
      The author needs to decide what he puts at the forefront - a machine gun in the cockpit or a synchronizer.
      1. 0
        13 November 2019 14: 43
        The author puts at the forefront a machine gun in the cockpit and a synchronizer. Although the photo cited by the author, the machine gun on the fuselage. Outside the cab.
        1. 0
          13 November 2019 22: 17
          Not even on the fuselage, but above the upper wing winked
          1. 0
            14 November 2019 05: 43
            There are two machine guns. One above the wing on the kingpin, one on the fuselage synchronous.
    2. +1
      13 November 2019 15: 44
      Quote: BAI
      But dive bombers and flying boats brought nothing new to aviation? Yu-87 - a universally recognized symbol of the Second World War. Yes, even Po-2 is of some interest.

      And Yu-87, as a dive pilot, spent a couple of years, and then transferred to attack aircraft. Yes, and classic picos were not designed by the end of the war. As a class of aircraft, they quickly faded away. Unlike the same attack aircraft or torpedo bomber.
  15. 0
    13 November 2019 14: 03
    I would also add the Yak-3, La-5, La-7, Tu-95, Tu-16
    1. 0
      13 November 2019 15: 09
      Tu-16, I would have understood ... an interesting plane.
      The first three fighters fought heroically, but there was nothing new in their designs.
      The MiG-21 was strong and unusual: an engine with wings.
      1. 0
        13 November 2019 15: 44
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The MiG-21 was strong and unusual: an engine with wings.

        So you can say about any plane.
  16. 0
    13 November 2019 14: 58
    I would question the presence in the ranking of IL-2. For all its success, the task of direct targeted support of the troops was carried out on a revolutionary scale by the Germans with their Ju-87, which were essentially an organic part of the blitzkrieg.
    And vice versa, I would consider more closely the possibility of inclusion in the rating of other aircraft, for example B-29. The latter made incredible changes to the war in the air - the war became vigorous. Then, if we are talking about the first half of the 20 century, it is probably permissible to include a couple of F-86 / MiG-15 in the rating - I would put them together in one place in order to avoid another iteration of eternal srach which one is better. But the fact that this couple brought the war in the air to a new qualitative level is an indisputable fact.
    1. +2
      13 November 2019 15: 47
      Quote: Alex_59
      I would question the presence in the ranking of IL-2. For all its success, the task of direct targeted support of the troops was carried out on a revolutionary scale by the Germans with their Ju-87, which were essentially an organic part of the blitzkrieg.

      Do you see now direct descendants of Yu-87? At least in the 45 year, have these remained? And IL-2 still has wide offspring.
      1. 0
        13 November 2019 15: 57
        Quote: tomket
        Do you see now direct descendants of Yu-87?

        Generally in bulk. Front-line bomber aviation has not disappeared. Although in its development there were serious crises and complex, not direct paths. Of the living - Su-24 and Su-34. These are not attack aircraft, these are tactical bombers, just like the Ju-87. It’s just that the main method of bombing is not diving now, but that’s why it’s progress.
        And besides, the IBA became a private branch of the FBA, having absorbed part of the ideology of using the Ju-87 and all sorts of "thunderbolts" and Fw-190A-4 -5 -6 -7. The most modern representatives of the IBA have retained in their classification the concept of "fighter" purely traditionally, since the combat capabilities of the MiG-27 or Su-17M are clearly closer to the Ju-87 than to any of the fighters.
        1. +2
          13 November 2019 16: 07
          Quote: Alex_59
          Of the living - Su-24 and Su-34. These are not attack aircraft, these are tactical bombers, just like the Ju-87.

          Front-line bomber, this is actually the Yu-88 and Pe-2 which was used mainly as a FRONT. As a DIVER it was used sporadically and as such it did not become fully. U-87, this is at the beginning of WWII - DIVERS. Which had its SPECIAL DESIGN FEATURES, its own TACTICS. Of the living, no one in sheer dive, which was famous for Yu-87, does not throw bombs. By the way, there were many dive divers among Americans in the Pacific Ocean. But even after 45, they came to naught.
          1. 0
            13 November 2019 17: 29
            Quote: tomket
            By the way, there were many dive divers among Americans in the Pacific Ocean. But even after 45, they came to naught.

            They simply had no targets left - after the surrender of Japan, none of the fleets of the US opponents had aircraft carriers, and there were only three large armored targets in these fleets. On the other hand, the AV was assigned the task of supporting ground forces in any local wars. So the place of dive bombers on the decks was taken by universal attack aircraft - "Skyraders", "Skyhawks", "Corsairs" and other "Intruders".
            And when big pots appeared, then USN already had RCC.
          2. 0
            14 November 2019 08: 03
            Quote: tomket
            Front-line bomber, this is actually the Yu-88 and Pe-2 which was used mainly as a FRONT. As a DIVER it was used sporadically and as such it did not become fully.

            A front-line bomber is a bomber designed to strike at advanced positions of enemy troops or in the operational depth of defense. The way in which these attacks are carried out is already particular. It is possible from a dive, it is possible from a horizontal flight. Later - generally guided missiles. The methods of combat use are different, but the essence is the same.
            IL-2, by the way, is also a special case of a front-line bomber, a highly specialized strike aircraft for direct support of troops. Just by tradition, they began to be assigned to a separate class - stormtroopers. This is as you like. The sailors, for example, the Su-17M, were also called "attack aircraft", although in the Air Force it was a "fighter-bomber", but in fact there is a bomber, since its "fighter" capabilities are slightly less than zero. One must see the essence behind this props of names and classifications. And the bottom line is that the Germans were the first to implement the idea of ​​a massive front-line strike aircraft, as one of the main means of opening the enemy's defense. Prior to this, front-line strike aircraft were either deeply auxiliary, or were used sporadically and not so massively, they had little effect on the outcome of military campaigns. And it was the Germans in 39-41 who won several military campaigns at once thanks to a set of several innovations, such as new tactics of ground troops, mobile tank formations, and front-line strike aviation. Until then, the last component had never been among the main tools for achieving success.
            Ours saw this in a slightly different way - not in the form of a bomber, but in the form of an attack aircraft, operating in closer conjunction with the infantry, and to a lesser extent sharpened by strikes behind the front line. But ours reached perfection a bit later than the Germans. This is the 42 year and later. And the Germans had a peak in 40-42 years.
    2. 0
      13 November 2019 22: 22
      Quote: Alex_59
      But the fact that this couple brought the war in the air to a new qualitative level is an indisputable fact.

      Debatable. The tactics of their use did not differ much from the tactics of the later piston fighters - to come closer and shoot from cannons.
      Here guided missiles - this is a new level of quality.
  17. 0
    13 November 2019 15: 02
    Well ... interesting rating! good
    You can agree with the list.
  18. +7
    13 November 2019 15: 07
    Drawing up such ratings - a lesson can be exciting, but completely useless. Even if you declare that "We will talk about epoch-making constructions that really influenced the further development of combat aviation."
    And on what basis will we determine the "degree of epoch-making"? Yes, Guynemer's idea of ​​installing a cannon on an airplane and its embodiment of Bechero's about placing it in the camber of the cylinders were really ahead of their time.
    However, do not design Esno-Peltry a classical aircraft control system, that is, a set of control surfaces and corresponding devices and mechanisms that ensure the selection and maintenance of the flight direction of the aircraft, which is still used and which was first tested on Blerio-VIII - and there would be no combat aviation in general, because the flight control methods used to be extremely primitive and there was no question of any maneuver in the modern sense.

    And why is not the world's first all-metal monoplane Reissner-Ente, built by Hans Reissner in 1912, "epoch-making"?
    Or the world's first aircraft with a running skin or Zeppelin DI (Do) half-monocoque?
    Therefore, as for me, simple is better. without "epoch-making", to tell about the history of aviation.
    1. +2
      13 November 2019 15: 15
      About Blerio - I agree. He created the classic form of airplanes.
      Blerio flew the English Channel in 1909!
  19. exo
    0
    13 November 2019 17: 15
    I would add I-16. Stage fighter, the world's first serial fighter-monoplane with retractable landing gear.
  20. 0
    13 November 2019 17: 36
    Il - 2.
    Legend. Myth...
    An objective assessment of this aircraft is somehow inconvenient. The chorus "How can you ..." and so on and so forth begins immediately.
    1. 0
      14 November 2019 14: 04
      Just IL-2, like any perfect weapon, was late for its war. smile It was designed based on the assault of infantry, tanks and cavalry of the 30s (and army air defense of the same time). Over the battlefield of the 30s he would be a king, for he would not be afraid of military air defense, the basis of which were machine guns - heavy or rifle caliber in general.
      But the Il-2 had to fight in the next era - in the war of the 40s, in conditions when the enemy’s military air defense was rearmament at first with 20-mm machine guns, and then 37-mm guns were added to them. And against these systems the attacker's armor protection was insufficient - it made its way through the 20-mm OFS from 600 m already.
      The IL-2 armored box, as shown by the experience of military operations, and later by field tests, did not save him from the destructive action of both 20-mm high-explosive shells of German aviation guns and large-caliber German machine guns.

      To take the attack aircraft out of action it was enough: one hit of a 20-mm high-explosive shell of a German air gun in any part of the engine from a range of not more than 600 m (the size of the holes in the armored hood in some cases reached 160 mm in diameter); one hit of a projectile in the front or rear gas tank (the size of the holes ranged from 20-25 mm to 70-90 mm); one hit in the upper part of the armored car (the lower part, as a rule, was not affected), the size of the holes in this case reached 80-170 mm in diameter.

      To disable the IL-2, it was necessary to provide more than 7 hits of 20 mm high-explosive shells in the fuselage (the size of the holes in the fuselage skin ranged from 120-130 mm). However, in this case, the probability of the shrapnel shells breaking the steering wheel cables of the attack aircraft in this case was very high.

      Hitting 2-3 high-explosive shells of German air guns of 20 mm caliber in the keel, stabilizer, steering wheel or elevation was quite enough to disable the IL-2 ...

      © Perov / Rastrenin
      1. 0
        14 November 2019 16: 27
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Just IL-2, like any perfect weapon, was late for its war.

        Exactly. Slow, non-maneuverable, poorly armed, with wretched sights, with protection only against a rifle caliber bullet. Perov and Rastrenin wrote something like this in a monograph - For the 44th year, Il -2 did not have the ability to defeat a typical target on the battlefield. Sorry I did not find where I read it. And the fact that massive ... is likely to talk about something completely different.
        The concept was wrong.
  21. 0
    13 November 2019 17: 50
    Civilian bombing is not great merit. Shame on the "partners". Moreover, the "partners" know this from the start. And, when it touches them, the screams will be up to Alpha Centauri.
  22. 0
    14 November 2019 01: 15
    An interesting article, did not know that 3 torpedoes sank four ships. But I think the Yu-87 should be here, because by efficiency it is clearly the first
  23. 0
    14 November 2019 13: 50
    IL 2 is the most massive aircraft in the history of mankind, says a lot
    The author is disingenuous a bit, IS2 is the most massive combat plane in history.
    The most massive airplane in human history is Cessna
    1. 0
      14 November 2019 14: 36
      IL2 of course, litter tanks have not yet flown)
  24. 0
    14 November 2019 21: 40
    Some kind of incomplete rating. And, judging by the photo, not entirely believable.
    I read: "Bf-109E". I look at the photo - there are no struts under the elevators, a smooth hood and rounded wingtips. Lies. This is Bf-109F or early Bf-109G.
    Couldn't the P-39 Bell "Aircobra" be added to this list? Placement of the engine in the fuselage behind the cockpit, landing gear nose wheel. A very revolutionary solution for that time, and in fact in the twenty-first century fighters are made according to this scheme.
    And finally, the German dive Ju-87. Sign car. Blitz krieg plane. Guderian’s tank wedges and Ju-87 dive-bombers took over Europe and a huge part of the USSR. Perhaps every veteran remembered howling when diving the sirens of this aircraft.
    And the last thing. Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortress". Judging by the shape and coloring of the keel, the absence of a stern firing point, the shape of the nose and blisters, this is the B-17S, which did not take part in the hostilities, as it was successfully destroyed by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor. Modifications F and G fought, outwardly quite different from the one shown in the photo.
    It seems to be minor flaws, but the credibility of the material in the article for some reason disappears.
    1. 0
      14 November 2019 21: 45
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      P-39 Bell "Aircobra"?

      Sorry for the mistake - "Airacobra".
  25. 0
    15 November 2019 15: 28
    But what about SBD Dontless and Midway? Ju-87, at worst. Stuka inflicted cumulative damage exactly more than Swordfish. And the roar of sirens on a dive is generally one of the symbols of WWII. Swordwish's results speak of the professionalism and dedication of their pilots, not the qualities of an airplane.
  26. 0
    24 November 2019 19: 15
    "Ilya Muromets" is here, perhaps only for dilution with domestic cars.
  27. 0
    3 December 2019 19: 11
    And I would still mention Avro Lancaster instead of B-17. Destroyed Germany is mostly their work, they started earlier and the destruction from 6-10 tons of bombs is much more serious than from 2-4 tons, which were usually taken by the B-17. Well, they had a division, in the daytime the Americans bombarded the Fortresses, and at night (which in itself is much more complicated) Lancaster works in the cities.
  28. 0
    25 January 2020 16: 42
    According to the candidates, no objections! I liked the article.