Military Review

The devil is in the details: almost the same Ju.88 and He.111 bombers

114

Combat aircraft. Comparisons. Indeed, it’s worth considering this question: why did different countries have different approaches to the creation of airplanes? If we take Germany as an example for analyzing a flight, then there really is a certain oddity in that two almost identical planes were in service almost simultaneously.


The code word is “almost,” for the devil is in the details.

Yes, if you take the same Britain, it is, on the one hand, still more interesting. “Whitley”, “Blenheim”, “Wellesley”, “Wellington” - this is just what fought from medium-sized bombers. The Americans had about the same thing, we don’t even talk about Japan, there the fleet and the army were making fun of whoever.

So, perhaps, the USSR and Germany were just the exceptions. In general, we bombed the whole war on Pawn; the Germans still had a variety of assortment.

And yet.

Three main attack aircraft. The diving bomber Ju.87, the horizontal He.111 and something like the mid-universal Ju-88. If everything is absolutely clear with the first, it’s a pure dive, then with two others ...

More precisely, with 88.

He could dive. Therefore, there was even a version of the dive bomber, in spite of the fact that the dive very heavily loaded the frame of the aircraft, which was obviously not originally designed for that. But what to do, in the wake of diving hysteria, and not such projects have met. So the pilots of the Luftwaffe did not really like the 88 as a dive pilot.

Since the 1943 of the year, instructions have generally been issued that prohibited bombing from angles greater than 45 degrees. So the Junkers dive turned out to be so-so.

And if you compare the same total mass of real dive divers Pe-2 (8 700 kg) and Ju.87 (4 300 kg), then 14 000 kg Ju-88 is much more. And to get such a soft plane out of a steep peak, to put it mildly, is not such an easy task. Nobody especially wanted to take risks.

In fact, we are considering two “smooth” bombers. And if so, it’s worth trying to find the differences. Consider He.111h-16 and Ju.88a-4, they are the same age, and were used in the same roles. Ju.88a-4 was still trying to show something there like a dive bomber, but it was on it that bans and recommendations began.

Let's start with the mass. The maximum take-off (namely, it interests us, an empty bomber is stupidity) their mass is about the same and is equal to 14 tons. The empty one is heavier than the Junkers, but this is normal; it was created as a military aircraft, and not as a passenger or mail.

Wings. It is quite natural here that the recognizable Heinkel wing is much larger than that of the Junkers. With almost the same scope, the Heinkel wing area is considerably larger: 87,7 sq.m. against 54,5 at Junkers.

Engines Almost the same. Heinkel has two Junkers Jumo-211f-2 with a capacity of 1350 l. pp., the Junkers expected two Junkers Jumo-211J-1 or J-2 with 1340 horsepower.

10 "horses" ... Not very important, in my opinion. But - look at the speed characteristics.

111: maximum speed 430 km / h, cruising 370 km / h. At an altitude of 6000 m.

88: maximum speed 467 km / h, cruising 400 km / h. At the same height.

Here it is, the passenger fuselage and the large wing. The Junkers are a little faster, not critical, but still, the 30 km / h is not a god knows what figure, but it can prove to be deadly useful. In the sense that it was more difficult to catch up with the Junkers.

Maximum rate of climb. Also approximate equality, 111 / 88 - 240 against 230 m / min. Here yes, just the Heinkel wing plays a role. But - insignificantly.

Range. 111 / 88: 2000 vs 2700. Again, it is explained by both a more successful layout and volume of tanks, and aerodynamics, which at Junkers was clearly more advanced and modern. And - again - not passenger.

The practical ceiling is the same, 8500 meters. Which is not surprising with the same weight and engines.

By and large, two aircraft, different in appearance, but completely identical in essence. We go to the next section.

Armament. Defensive.


Heinkel 111:
- one 20-mm MG-FF cannon in the nose, a coaxial 7,9-mm MG-15 machine gun was sometimes also mounted to it;
- one 13-mm machine gun MG-131 in the upper installation;
- Two 7,9-mm machine gun MG-81 in the rear of the lower gondola;
- one MG-15 or MG-81 or a pair of MG-81Z in the side windows.


Junkers 88:
- one 7,9-mm machine gun MG-81 forward;
- one movable 13-mm MG-131 or two 7,9-mm MG-81 on a moving installation forward;
- two MG-81 back-up;
- one MG-131 or two MG-81 back and down.

Definitely, the Heinkel looks a bit farther, and, according to the memories of our pilots, it was so. And another big plus: Heinkel did not have “dead” zones at all. In any projection of the enemy met machine gun fire, or even several.

Another question is that after the 1943 year the rifle caliber became irrelevant, the fighters armed with cannons and / or heavy machine guns and could work because of the reach of the rifle caliber machine guns.

But this also applies to the Junkers. Where the weapons were even weaker.

What is offensive?

The devil is in the details: almost the same Ju.88 and He.111 bombers

Heinkel: 32 x 50-kg, or 8 x 250-kg, or 16 x 50kg in the bomb bay + 1 x 1000-kg bomb on the external holder, or 1 x 2000-kg + 1 x 1000-kg on the external holder.


Junkers: 10 x 50-kg bombs in the bomb bay and 4 x 250-kg or 2 x 500-kg bombs under the center section, or 4 x 500-kg bombs under the center section.

Equal? Basically. That is, 3 000 kg could carry off and somewhere to dump out each of the aircraft. The only difference is that the Heinkel could carry heavier bombs. That’s the whole difference.


Finally, the last figure that explains a lot. This is the number of aircraft released.

Heinkel - 7 716 of all modifications;
Junkers - 15 100.

Actually, this is where the clue lies. The Heinkel, which had been commissioned at 3 a year earlier than the Junkers, was a dual-use aircraft, and in fact, did not differ much from its counterpart. But - was different. As can be seen from the numbers, he was not as fast as the Junkers, but was appreciated by the pilots for excellent handling.

The Luftwaffe actually received two aircraft, not very different in performance characteristics. The only difference was precisely in the application as bombers. Heinkel could carry larger bombs than the Junkers. But the latter carried a bomb load further and faster.


Even the torpedoes both aircraft dragged and dropped quite properly. There is another difference: the Heinkel did not make a night fighter. And both were not really able to dive. More precisely, one did not even try to do this, the second ...

Here it is better to refer to the released modifications. Yes, they are very similar in many respects, but if you put everything together, this is the situation.

Heinkel: bomber, torpedo bomber, glider tugboat, spotter, night bomber, transport aircraft.


"Junkers": bomber, torpedo bomber, long-range reconnaissance, heavy fighter, night fighter, attack aircraft.


On the whole, there is an imbalance at Junkers in the direction of combat modifications, which required a faster and more maneuverable aircraft, and Heinkel occupied the niche of a military and transport aircraft, which was primarily due to its fuselage.

And at the same time, both regularly dropped bombs and torpedoes.

In general, the Luftwaffe made the right choice, in my opinion.


A more advanced and modern Ju-88 was produced wherever possible, since it was declared a priority machine for the Reich, and Heinkel factories, so as not to stand idle, were loaded with an assembly of familiar and familiar machines, Ne.111.

Could Heinkel's factories be loaded with the release of Junkers? It’s easy. The Germans quite normally did this with the Messerschmitts, and not only with them. And release not 15 thousand 88's, but all 20.

I did not find any differences in tactics of application, it generally did not shine with the Germans in diversity, unlike the modifications of the aircraft. But this is not the point.

The main thing is that the Germans were able to afford to produce two almost identical cars, which were different in design and other components. But if something happened, each of the aircraft could easily and naturally fulfill the role that was currently more necessary.


Alterations of German aircraft in the field using rustsatz kits were quite commonplace. This practice made it possible to quickly respond to emerging needs for aircraft modifications and solve them as they appear.

Not a panacea, but quite sane.

If we take as an example for comparison the USSR, where there were also certain problems with aircraft, then we generally prefer to postpone and close all issues related to the production of bombers.

In fact, the entire Red Army Air Force war was pulled by two attack machines: the Il-2 as an attack aircraft and the Pe-2 as everything else. Dive, smooth bomber and so on. Well, yes, on the old reserves and Lend-Lease there were some attempts to torpedo Aviation. Long-range aviation was rather a tick in the total mass.

11 500 units of the Pe-2 look quite serious even in comparison with the production figure of medium-sized bombers in Germany. Very significant, especially when you consider that we did not wage a war on three or four fronts.

But to compare the payload and the range is also not worth it, very much not in favor of the Pe-2. But he, however, was not an average bomber.

The Red Army Air Force preferred one aircraft for all occasions. The release of all other aircraft was virtually discontinued, and all the "additional" were set aside. Ar-2, Ep-2, Yak-4, Su-4 and so on.

Plus, with modifications Pe-2 also did not particularly strain. Five at Pe-2 and three at Pe-3. It is worth comparing with more than twenty modifications of Ne.111 that went into the series?

Compare, of course, is not worth it. That was its point. One plane - one set of problems. You must admit that even with the engines from Junkers, the 111 and 88 were different planes that required different knowledge and approaches.


Apparently, the Luftwaffe found it possible to apply such tactics, and to the detriment of uniformity to get an additional 7 of thousands of aircraft. This is not counting the Dornier, which also built medium-sized bombers.

It is difficult to say how successful this practice could be, simply because despite more than 30 of thousands of bombers of all types fired, Germany lost the war. So the tactics of one plane could also play, but the practice of two, which could be redesigned into anything, is also quite justified.

So figuring out who was the coolest of our couple is a rather ambiguous task, because both aircraft were very useful both in their intended purpose and in additional ones.


True, this did not help much in Germany.
Author:
114 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. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 7 December 2019 06: 18
    +13
    A very weak article about the Dountless is much more interesting. "Smooth bomber" delivers separately, "flat" and somehow more logical.
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 7 December 2019 13: 50
      +3
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Very weak article.

      The article is interesting, I personally like it when the author does not load dry numbers for TTX and so on, which can be viewed in any reference book, but conveys his position, opinion, albeit not always unambiguous.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 7 December 2019 16: 13
        +20
        The article is interesting, I personally like it when the author does not load dry numbers for TTX and so on, which can be viewed in any reference book, but conveys his position, opinion, albeit not always unambiguous.
        Let's start with the fact that in order to work out some kind of position that is being reported, you need to familiarize yourself with the "dry figures for performance characteristics" and other characteristics. At the same time, it is also desirable to have an idea of ​​what these very dry numbers are, otherwise the "position" will be completely and unequivocally irrelevant to reality. That is, as in this case, the article may be interesting only for those who do not understand absolutely nothing in aviation and its history.
        For those who have at least some basic knowledge of these issues, the article can only cause a feeling of sincere regret to the readers who read it and are "interested" in it.
        Shaped oxymoron begins with the first paragraphs.
        [i] Three main attack aircraft. Diving bomber Ju.87, horizontal He.111 and something like the mid-universal Ju-88. If everything is absolutely clear with the first, it’s a pure dive, then with the other two ... More precisely, from 88th.
        The 111 and Ju-88 are conceptually different aircraft of different time periods, created according to different programs, on a different basis. Therefore, their comparison is completely incorrect. If the author of the article does not understand this, it is better for him to keep "his position" on aviation issues with himself.
        Well, about the "dry performance characteristics" and numbers in which the author is not at all familiar.
        In general, we bombed the entire pawn war
        During the Great Patriotic War, excluding pre-war aircraft, about 21000 bombers were produced in the USSR (attack aircraft are not included here). Pe-2 and its modifications - about 11. Another 000 were supplied by the Allies. The question arises, who are these "we" who bombed on a "pawn"? But what about the 3700 Il-5256? This is without DB-4F. Even the Tu-3 was produced 2 cars.
        Range. 111 / 88: 2000 vs 2700. Again, it is explained by both a more successful layout and volume of tanks, and aerodynamics, which at Junkers was clearly more advanced and modern. And - again - not passenger.
        Here, in general, everything is turned upside down.
        The author compares He.111h-16 and Ju.88a-4. The author does not bother with the argumentation of such an arbitrary choice of more than 50 variants of Ju.88 and more than 60 variants of He.111. Yes, and understanding tsifiri too.
        Let us dwell on the author’s version. In this case, we will try to bring the comparison to a common denominator, because the author himself did not bother with this either. As such, the denominator will choose the load, that is, the weight of the bombs delivered to the target.
        Ju.88a-4 with 2000 kg of bombs had a range of 2030 km.
        He.111h-16 with the same load had a range of 2000 km. But in the variant He-111N-18 (lightweight He.111h-16) already 2800 km.
        That is why the Germans produced these machines. He.111 could deliver more bombs over a greater distance.
        We will not talk about the author's competence in aerodynamics - this is a vanishingly small value. Considering the above, it is better for the author not to write about aviation on his own at all. He even does not really cope with compiling other people's texts, and when he comes to "his position", there is absolutely trouble.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 7 December 2019 20: 23
          0
          no one said about the development of productive forces and industrial relations - we are primarily from ignorance and lack of industrial culture (and industry itself), and the Germans looked from the top to the USA and the English because of Versailles restrictions
        2. Olezhek
          Olezhek 10 December 2019 13: 16
          0
          In view of the foregoing, it is better for the author not to write about aviation on his own. He doesn’t do much with compilation of other people's texts,


          Wicked you, everyone will leave from you! am
  2. mark1
    mark1 7 December 2019 06: 53
    +14
    Different modernization potential, what is there to guess. In general, the Xe-111 is somehow closer to the IL-4. although in something better.
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 7 December 2019 07: 47
      +21
      IL-4? Don't tell Roman! "According to Skomorokhov" IL-4 was not. The whole war "we bombed on Peshki" (c).
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 7 December 2019 12: 54
        +7
        Do not remind about Boston, plz.
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 7 December 2019 13: 36
        -2
        Quote: Dooplet11
        IL-4? Don't tell Roman! "According to Skomorokhov" IL-4 was not. The whole war "we bombed on Peshki" (c).

        It wasn’t, because the article is about medium bombers And here is the IL-4? request You still remember the Pe-8.
        1. Dooplet11
          Dooplet11 7 December 2019 13: 39
          +19
          IL-4 with its 1000 kg load "heavy"? Well, then the Pawn is "heavy". laughing
          1. Proxima
            Proxima 7 December 2019 14: 04
            -2
            Quote: Dooplet11
            IL-4 with its 1000 kg load "heavy"? Well, then the Pawn is "heavy". laughing

            Very funny, Yer-2, Il-4, Pe-8 - these are distant bombers that Germany did not have. And here is "heavy"?
            1. Dooplet11
              Dooplet11 7 December 2019 14: 49
              +11
              And where is Henka next to Yu-88? Or we compare by load, or by range. Or according to the actual prevailing application. And, by the way, both IL-4 and Er-2 worked along the front line.
            2. BAI
              BAI 8 December 2019 19: 25
              0
              Yer-2, Il-4, Pe-8 are long-range bombers that Germany did not have.

              DO NOT tell me who Gorky factories (present Nizhny Novgorod) wiped off in powder?
        2. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 7 December 2019 13: 57
          +17
          IL-4 is in fact an average bomber with an increased range.
          Two motors. Bomb load 1000 kg. - 2500 kg.
          Range 3800 with 1000 kg.
          Heinkels flew 2000 km with 3 tons in the middle of the war.
          And the IL-4 was used primarily precisely as an average bomber / torpedo bomber in places. Of course, they bombed Berlin, but this is a special case.
          If you take the classic heavy bomber - B17 or Lancaster, or even the Pe-8, then the IL-4 does not pull into the category of heavy.
          1. Proxima
            Proxima 7 December 2019 15: 08
            +1
            Quote: 30hgsa
            And the IL-4 was used primarily precisely as an average bomber / torpedo bomber in places. Of course, they bombed Berlin, but this is a special case.
            .

            The whole charm of strategic aviation is not that it can reach Berlin, but that you are in a matter of days times you can increase aviation presence in any sector of the long Soviet-German front. According to the memoirs of long-range aviation veterans: today you are bombing the Crimean (Kuban), tomorrow Orsha, and the day after tomorrow it’s Kirkines (and all as front-line aviation). So, let's not, which planes were used as someone ..
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 7 December 2019 15: 13
              +12
              No, let's be.

              To determine the niche occupied by military equipment, it is necessary to determine what tasks it solves. Strategic aviation is also strategic that solves strategic problems. B-25 bombed factories, cities, and other objects in the rear. In this case, high-altitude bombing was used. IL-4 was used to solve tasks inherent in a front-line bomber. And the point. Flying fortresses, liberators, and Lancasteres did not bomb from a low height of the column of equipment, the leading edge, did not carry torpedoes and did not try to topmast. And the IL-4 did not try to engage in massive raids on the rear, with the exception of prestige raids in Berlin. So oIL-4 is a medium bomber in terms of functionality.
              1. Proxima
                Proxima 7 December 2019 15: 44
                -6
                Quote: 30hgsa
                And the IL-4 did not try to engage in massive raids on the rear, with the exception of prestige raids in Berlin.

                Lies! Study the topic of the question and you will be surprised that in addition to Berlin, the IL-4 worked perfectly on the rear facilities of Germany and its satellites. May return to the original topic of discussion, which the author was reproached that he did not make a salad of his article and did not compare front-line aviation and strategic. And so you can rant endlessly. You can recall how the IL-2 was used as a fighter (it worked on transport aircraft in the encircled Stalingrad) and vice versa, the MiG-3 was used as an attack aircraft. Go ahead, talk further ...
                1. 30hgsa
                  30hgsa 7 December 2019 15: 47
                  +9
                  So He-111 bombed Moscow. Did they become strategists from this?
                  The IL-4 could not, in principle, provide strategic bombing - 1000 kg of load is nothing.

                  By the way. The author piled rare garbage. He forgot about everything. Not only with IL-4. the author forgot about 2000 Tu-2., 1000 Su-2, 6500 SB, 3000 A-20. He forgot about the Germans at least about the Do217 and FV190F (there were no more fockewulfs in the version of the attack aircraft than 111 heinkels)
                  1. Proxima
                    Proxima 7 December 2019 15: 56
                    -3
                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    So He-111 bombed Moscow. Did they become strategists from this?

                    Chic logic !! belay Do you discuss with yourself? And IL-2 bombed Berlin (Talgat Begeldinov was the first to break into the capital of the Reich) and .....?
                    1. 30hgsa
                      30hgsa 7 December 2019 16: 08
                      +5
                      Normal logic. The fact that the Xe-111 range made it possible to solve the tasks of strategic bombardment sometimes does not make him a strategist. Also, the fact that sometimes IL-4 bombed the far rear does not make IL-4 a strategist. And if the author mentions Xe-111, then he should also mention IL-4 because the machines are not of exactly the same class, but in principle they are similar in capabilities (if you take the Xe-111 of the middle of the war, he did not extend the range at the beginning of the war).
                  2. Proxima
                    Proxima 7 December 2019 17: 16
                    -4
                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    By the way. The author piled rare garbage. He forgot about everything. Not only with IL-4. the author forgot about 2000 Tu-2., 1000 Su-2, 6500 SB, 3000 A-20. He forgot about the Germans at least about the Do217 and FV190F (there were no more fockewulfs in the version of the attack aircraft than 111 heinkels)

                    What are we discussing now? You read the article at least diagonally. The author did not set out to list all the bombers in Germany and the Soviet Union and (what seditious! crying ) not to mention the FV-190 fighter in the assault version! The author asked a question in an article why the Germans produced two different aircraft (He-111 and Yu-88) with almost the same performance characteristics (which is an extremely expensive pleasure) and these two aircraft occupied a rather large segment in the German bomber fleet.
                    1. Doctor
                      Doctor 7 December 2019 17: 47
                      +1
                      The author asked a question in an article why the Germans produced two different aircraft (He-111 and Yu-88) with almost the same performance characteristics (which is an extremely expensive pleasure) and these two aircraft occupied a rather large segment in the German bomber fleet.


                      It’s just that our Air Force also had such a pair, Pe-2 and IL-4.

                      Pe-2:
                      Length - 12,6 m
                      Wingspan - 17,1 m
                      Speed ​​- 540 km / h
                      Empty weight - 5 840 kg
                      Engines - 2x1100
                      Bomb load up to 1000 kg

                      IL-4
                      Length - 14,8 m
                      Wingspan - 21,8 m
                      Speed ​​- 430 km / h
                      Empty weight - 6 400 kg
                      Engines - 2x1100
                      Bomb load 1000 kg

                      The difference is only in flight range, for Pe - 1200 km, for Il - 3800 km,
                      thereby:
                      The capacity of the fuel tanks for Pe is 1484 km, for Il - 3855 km

                      So what is said correctly:
                      IL-4 is in fact an average bomber with an increased range.
                      1. Alf
                        Alf 7 December 2019 21: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: Arzt
                        Bomb load 1000 kg

                        At a short range, the IL-4 dragged 2,5 tons.
                      2. Dooplet11
                        Dooplet11 8 December 2019 14: 19
                        -1
                        And didn’t he become a strategist? And he did not become a "heavy" bomber.
                    2. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 8 December 2019 08: 34
                      +3
                      Well, the author said that "we bombed the whole war on the Pawn," which is why he was reminded of a number of Soviet bombers. Including about the IL-4.
                      In addition, if we assert about "identical performance characteristics of the Xe-111 and Yu-88", then specific modifications should be compared in support of this thesis, because from modification to modification the performance characteristics of both the Xe-111 and Yu-88 changed greatly. But then the whole leitmotif of Roman's article about the parallel production of two identical aircraft will not be linked, will it?
                      Two aircraft that have "almost the same performance characteristics" (speed, range, altitude, combat load and caliber of defensive weapons) may turn out to be completely different in their application possibilities and occupy different niches in combat work. But even this is unknown to the author of the article.
                      In general, wherever you throw, Roman always has a wedge.
                      1. technarj
                        technarj 6 January 2020 10: 53
                        0
                        I support, a very weak article.

                        By the way, little is said about the fact that the 111th was often used as a military transport, therefore, for example, near Stalingrad Heinkels had very large losses, along with the U-52s.
                  3. Alf
                    Alf 7 December 2019 21: 56
                    +4
                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    about 2000 Tu-2.

                    Until 09.05.45/800/2, 750 TU-XNUMXs were produced, and XNUMX aircraft got to the front.
                  4. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 8 December 2019 00: 13
                    +1
                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    By the way. The author piled rare garbage. He forgot about everything.

                    The author compared only two of the same type of aircraft. He talked about the topic, for which they released two different ones, and not one of them.
                    What are you talking about?
                    1. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 8 December 2019 08: 37
                      0
                      The fact that the aircraft are not the same type, and the author’s comparison is crooked.
                2. svp67
                  svp67 7 December 2019 17: 46
                  +4
                  Quote: Proxima
                  Study the topic of the question and you will be surprised that in addition to Berlin, the IL-4 worked perfectly on the rear facilities of Germany and its satellites.

                  So we and Li-2 were redone in a bomber, so who should be compared with the Xe-111 ...
                  By the way
                  As of May 10, 1945, there were already 19 regiments on the Li-2 in the ADD — a total of 593 aircraft. Li-2 at that moment was the largest Soviet bomber in Long-Range Aviation (ADD).
                3. BAI
                  BAI 8 December 2019 19: 29
                  0
                  IL-4 worked perfectly on the rear facilities of Germany and its satellites.

                  One flight in 2 weeks (such statistics for IL-4 and Pe-8) - with all due respect, I can’t call it a great job. German reports - at a depth of more than 80 km from the front, Soviet aviation did not cause problems. (Reports of the ground forces). The German fleet, in general, did not consider Soviet aviation as a threat and did not report on its actions.
            2. Saxahorse
              Saxahorse 7 December 2019 20: 22
              +2
              Quote: Proxima
              The whole charm of strategic aviation is not that it can reach Berlin, but the fact that in a matter of days you can significantly increase your aviation presence in any area

              And let's remember the classics, the battle of Iwo Jima! Preparing for the invasion:
              72 days, American aircraft bombed the island.


              Veterans immediately noted an unusual circumstance: a gigantic cloud of smoke and dust hung over the island, lifted by explosions of shells and bombs - in the landing area 6800 tons of bombs were dropped and 22 large-caliber shells were fired, but no fires were visible.


              According to the recollections of the Japanese, most of the bombs did not even hit the island. The storm of Iwo Jima became one of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific Ocean and it also showed the complete futility of attempts to use strategic aviation for operational purposes.




              By the way, George W. Bush was also shot down in the Iwo Jima area.
  3. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 7 December 2019 07: 17
    +15
    With all due respect to the author, the thesis of the article (c):
    "Is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars ... Science knows nothing about it"!
  4. andrewkor
    andrewkor 7 December 2019 07: 20
    +5
    And we do not consider competition, lobbying interests?
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 7 December 2019 07: 54
      +2
      We can consider Roman, apparently not.
  5. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 7 December 2019 07: 42
    +23
    A very weak article about the Dountless is much more interesting. "Smooth bomber" delivers separately, "flat" and somehow more logical.
    - I think, because about the Dountlesses, this is a compilation of other people's texts, and this article is an attempt to analyze it personally.
    Let's do a quick analysis of the "analysis"?
    So, perhaps, the USSR and Germany were just the exceptions. In general, we bombed the entire pawn war, the Germans still had a variety of assortment.

    - "We" in different periods, simultaneously with Peshka, produced or used "medium" bombers: SB, Ar-2, Il-4, Er-2, Tu-2, Li-2, Lend-Lease A-20, V-25 ... The novel either does not know, or does not fit into the analysis scheme, so "forgot"?
    Three main percussion aircraft. Diving bomber Ju.87, horizontal He.111 and something like the mid-universal Ju-88.

    - If you correctly understand the term "strike aircraft", then the list of three main ones will turn into a list of ten aircraft, in which there will be no "main" ones at all. Roman completely forgot the FW-190 series F, Me-410, Dornier bombers, Hs-129 and others. Did Roman study the Luftwaffe fleet so poorly?
    More precisely, with 88.
    He could dive. Therefore, there was even a version of the dive bomber, despite the fact that the dive is very heavily loaded aircraft frameobviously not originally calculated.

    - To begin with, the Yu-88 did not have a frame. He had a power set in separate parts and a working skin. And the Yu-88 was originally designed to work with a dive.
    Let's start with the mass. Maximum take-off (namely, it interests us, an empty bomber is stupid) their mass is approximately the same and equals 14 tons. The empty one is heavier than the Junkers, but this is normal, it was already being created as a military aircraft, and not as a passenger or mail.

    - the weight of an empty aircraft in relation to take-off weight is a characteristic of weight perfection and one of the parameters of efficiency, but Roman is not interested in this in his analysis. For him, this is "stupidity". Junkers was created as a dive bomber, with high safety factors, therefore it is heavier.
    Range. 111 / 88: 2000 vs 2700. Again, it is explained by both a more successful layout and volume of tanks, and aerodynamics, which at Junkers was clearly more advanced and modern. And - again - not passenger.

    - If we are to compare the range, then it is wise to compare it with the same combat load. And then give an explanation. Including about the "more advanced" aerodynamics of Junkers. I wonder why she is more advanced with him? What such innovative aerodynamic solutions did Junkers engineers use in it?
    For a quick analysis of the analysis, I think it is enough. The analysis failed. Controversial arguments, unreliable "facts", crooked logic.
    Very weak article
    - 100500 +
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 7 December 2019 07: 58
      +6
      You can’t argue with one in Roman’s article - the devil is in the details. And with the details the author of the article is far from all Feng Shui.
    2. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 7 December 2019 09: 07
      -1
      Quote: Dooplet11
      IL-4, Ep-2, ... Li-2

      Well, here you have gone too far. Another TB-3 was remembered as an "average" bomber.
      IL4 and EP2 are dalnyaki, Li2 generally transport.
      1. gurzuf
        gurzuf 7 December 2019 11: 05
        +1
        When needed, it was used as a bomber, bombs were suspended on an external sling.
      2. dgonni
        dgonni 7 December 2019 12: 49
        +2
        Li-2 was used as a night lamp. By the way it turned out to be non-acidic such a bomber. On IL-4 more crashed because of the fatigue of pilots than from air defense. Well, you need to read the warriors.
        And what is the most paradoxical, but the m-88 was ideally friends with the fourth silt. Any attempt to replace the engine failed in critical parameters. The same al-82 added Maltz speed and rate of climb. But sharply reduced range.
        In general, the IL-4 was, as it were, on its own and it is not clear why the entire war was produced. The same B-20 was appreciated by pilots as a torpedo bomber an order of magnitude higher. See all because of the reluctance to break production.
        P.S. Tu-2? According to the recollections of those flying on it and a pawn. He had problems in terms of visibility due to the engines, and those flying on pawns did not greatly favor him. Yes, he could take out a bomb load much more. But it was precisely in the realities of the war against drochs that pilots preferred a pawn. Unbelievers on the site, I remember the pilots bombers. Well, there are women bombers.
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 7 December 2019 12: 58
          +15
          The case when comments on the article as a whole are more informative than the article itself.
        2. Dooplet11
          Dooplet11 7 December 2019 13: 37
          +2
          Each of the above has its own characteristics. But this does not change the illegality of the statement "we bombed the entire war on a pawn."
        3. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 8 December 2019 10: 05
          +1
          The Tu-2 was a very good aircraft, but was late for the war. Again, I could not dive. And IL-4 was produced because there was nothing more to produce.
          1. Dooplet11
            Dooplet11 8 December 2019 14: 31
            0
            By the time the Tu-2 entered the scene, the relevance of the dive bombing was already fading into the background. Appropriate bombing accuracy was achieved by other methods. Radio altimeters, airborne computers, gyroscopes and radar depreciated the dive. Yes, and the development of small-caliber FOR DIVERS greatly clipped their wings.
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 8 December 2019 15: 15
              0
              It was initially declared as a dive, however, as VB wrote. Shavrov, for some reason he did not. The same Pe-2s dived until Victory.
              1. Dooplet11
                Dooplet11 8 December 2019 15: 36
                +1
                Yes, we began work in the "sharazhka" on the long-range PB, as a result we received a front-line bomber and a Tu-2 torpedo bomber. By the way, for the first time the Tu-2 did not have brake grilles. But they could have been installed:
                "The standard Tu-2 was characterized by the following changes:

                They were removed from the aircraft, but can be supplied by special order a) brake grilles with a control system and electric communication of the grilles with a dive automatic, b) AK-1 automatic course, c) gas tanks No. an increase in the volume of tanks No. 8,9, 10 and 1,6), d) the front machine guns ShKAS. "
                from here:
                http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/tu2-716.html
                Nevertheless, even in the early 50s, an automatic sight for bombing from a dive PBP-2 was tested on the Tu-6:



                And the accuracy with it was increased, and Tu-2 diving angles are indicated in the range from 40 to 70 degrees.
                1. Dooplet11
                  Dooplet11 8 December 2019 15: 37
                  0
                  Here, by the way, in terms of accuracy and diving angles:

      3. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 7 December 2019 13: 24
        +1
        The Germans have the Xe-111 both a "long-range" and a night light. And the Li-2 was widely used as a long-range night bomber. Il-4 and Er-2 worked in the front-line zone
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 7 December 2019 16: 40
          0
          The same Gastello bombed a convoy on IL 4. And not in a remote, distant rear ...
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 8 December 2019 10: 06
            0
            This is from hopelessness. In the summer of 1941, even TB-3 was bombed during the day.
            1. The leader of the Redskins
              The leader of the Redskins 8 December 2019 10: 22
              0
              I know. As a fifteen-year-old boy of mine, he himself saw how a couple of "messengers" got rid of the troika of bombers on the railway station TB3 in three runs ...
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 8 December 2019 10: 27
                +3
                A similar episode even entered Simonovskie "The Living and the Dead".
            2. Dooplet11
              Dooplet11 8 December 2019 14: 35
              0
              Both the Stalingrad boiler and the Kursk Bulge Il-4 worked in the front zone. 43rd - not the 41st.
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 8 December 2019 15: 13
                0
                They worked mainly at night, and if during the day - then with mandatory fighter cover
                1. Dooplet11
                  Dooplet11 8 December 2019 15: 40
                  0
                  then with mandatory fighter cover
                  - but they worked. laughing
                  And their fighter cover is already a sign of a different approach to application.
      4. technarj
        technarj 6 January 2020 10: 58
        0
        These are NOT Dalnyaks. Compare the performance characteristics of the DB-3 with the He-111.
    3. Wildcat
      Wildcat 7 December 2019 16: 51
      +2
      hi
      "Dooplet11 (Alexander) November 29, 2019 21:33
      +5
      This is the artist's vision. Leave the "author" on the conscience. "
  6. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 7 December 2019 08: 44
    +1
    Junkers' modernization potential is incomparably larger than henkel
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 7 December 2019 09: 03
      +1
      It all depends on the direction in which to upgrade. By the way, Henkel was exploited longer. And he has more options for combat use.
  7. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 7 December 2019 09: 05
    0
    "Five for the Pe-3 and three for the Pe-3", correct them.
  8. bionik
    bionik 7 December 2019 09: 08
    +1
    identical bombers Ju.88 and He.111 Roman had to arrange a vote of some for 111, some for 88th. I am personally for He -111.
    Heinkel: bomber, torpedo bomber, glider tugboat, spotter, night bomber, transport plane ..... Junkers: bomber, torpedo bomber, long-range reconnaissance aircraft, heavy fighter, night fighter, attack aircraft.
    By the way, in addition to these above listed advantages, both could carry such a device "Kuto Nase" (paravan for cutting the cables of balloons, was originally used on sea and river vessels and submarines.)

  9. AK1972
    AK1972 7 December 2019 11: 03
    +4
    I am not special in aviation, but I think that it’s stupid to adopt two similar aircraft. If the performance characteristics of the two machines are close, then one should be selected, guided by the following criteria: manufacturability, level of mechanization of production, number of parts, labor intensity of manufacture, cost, maintainability. This would make it possible to increase the number of manufactured vehicles by several times, placing production at two plants, reduce repair and maintenance costs, reduce the time for maintenance and repair, and reduce personnel qualification requirements, to unify weapons and ammunition.
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 7 December 2019 13: 20
      +6
      The thing is that the Xe-111 and Yu-88 are different planes, designed according to different technical tasks, and solved different, only slightly overlapping, tasks.
      As for cars with the same performance characteristics, then everything is not so clear. You cannot put all your eggs in one basket.
    2. Alf
      Alf 7 December 2019 22: 02
      +1
      Quote: AK1972
      I am not special in aviation, but I think that it’s stupid to adopt two similar aircraft.

      The Americans secured themselves and adopted two strategists. And they turned out to be right — the more distant went to Japan, the more armed — to Europe.
  10. Doctor
    Doctor 7 December 2019 12: 23
    +1
    Relevant. Generally applies to any military equipment. The point is competition between manufacturers in peacetime. The market now has several dozen sedan-class cars with similar characteristics, but in wartime this only hinders.

    There is a downside. Recently, there has been a trend towards unification and the desire in one model to implement several functions with loss of quality for specialized tasks, for example, F-35. However, the experience of wars suggests the disadvantage of such an approach. With the outbreak of war, design bureaus are activated, as the number of models grows mushrooms, the performance characteristics of previous ones are improved, and this is natural.

    We are now armed with a fleet of SU aircraft, similar in performance characteristics. Perhaps it makes sense to create several types of specialized fighters for different missions. For example, an interceptor for high-altitude targets, a KR interceptor, a fighter for air combat, a "roof" for bombers. This will activate the design thought, load production, and possibly increase export sales.
    1. AK1972
      AK1972 7 December 2019 12: 45
      0
      Quote: Arzt
      load production, possibly increase export sales.

      Maybe I’m not right, but I read that the production of aircraft is overloaded and barely copes with export orders, i.e. it needs to be unloaded on the contrary, freeing up production facilities and increasing the pace of assembly, and nothing accelerates production and improves rhythm like the unification of parts and assemblies.
      Your example with sedans is successful. You will not buy yourself two almost identical sedans, but from different manufacturers.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 7 December 2019 13: 15
        +1
        You will not buy yourself two almost identical sedans, but from different manufacturers.


        Of course. But to have a small sedan, a large SUV and a minivan would be nice. At the same time, it is also necessary to operate it correctly.
        For example, at the beginning of the Second World War, we had several types of fighters: I-15,16, I-153, Yak-1, MiG-1,3. Moreover, the main types in the air defense forces (up to 90%) were I-16 and I-153. And the high-altitude Migi left for front-line aviation.
        1. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 7 December 2019 14: 21
          +2
          Now imagine that you can buy 1000 station wagons in different versions, spending $ 90 million (f-35 :) for each and spending $ 1,5 trillion on R&D. dollars.

          Or....

          Make 250 small sedans of 50 million each. Having spent 500 billion on R&D.
          To make 250 large sedans of 75 million each. Having spent on R&D 750 billion.
          Make 250 SUVs of 100 million each. Having spent on R&D 1000 billion.
          Make 250 minivans of 125 million each. Having spent on research and development 1,25 trillion.
          And then teach drivers how to do it and serve it all.

          What do you choose :))))
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 7 December 2019 15: 20
            0
            Now imagine that you can buy 1000 station wagons in different versions,


            That is the point. Find a compromise between unification and specialization. In the case of Henk and Yu-88, the Germans did not succeed, they bought two sedans in one family. But there were other reasons.

            And in your example, being, for example, the mayor of a city, I will still buy 250 small sedans for pizza delivery men, 250 medium ones for the administration, 250 SUVs for the police and ambulance, 250 minivans for taxis. Although R&D is expensive, but I will not be dismissed from my post for the fact that the ambulance did not reach the patient through the gullies. And the war will be flooded with cruise missiles, which this "station wagon" will not even notice.
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 7 December 2019 15: 32
              +2
              A compromise has long been found.

              Engine power increased, fighters as weapons received quite heavy explosive rockets, due to which they were quite able (as they did during WWII) to work on the ground. The functions of a front-line fighter and a front-line bomber are performed by a single machine - a fighter-bomber. As a result, front-line bombers became extinct, even the Su-34 is a T-10-based fighter-bomber. And his capabilities are better than those of the Su-24.

              Clean attack aircraft such as A-10 and Su-25 were made for a great war and mass losses and are now dying out - they were partially replaced by attack helicopters, and partly by fighter-bombers.

              The idea of ​​separating a light fighter and a fighter of gaining superiority is also gradually disappearing, due to the convergence of the classes.

              The interceptors, as a separate class, also became extinct, because the fighters received radars, the speeds needed to intercept.

              As a result, fighter-bombers, which solve all problems at the level of front-line aviation and long-range bombers, solve strategic tasks, are now left in service with the aircraft. A-10, Su-24, Tornado, etc. massively removed from service. Actual information security (f-16, f-15, f-18, rafals, typhoons, Su-30/34/35) and some of them have strategists like Tu-22/95/160 and B-52 / B2 / B21. And UAVs with attack helicopters - but that's another song.

              And most importantly, for the future there is no design of attack aircraft and front-line bombers. There are no promising samples. Old men will work out - they will be replaced by IS, UAV, helicopters.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 8 December 2019 02: 10
                +1
                You have a little confusion: fighter-bomber aircraft became extinct by the mid-90s. All. What you are describing is a multi-functional fighter. And its appearance is due not only to the capabilities of the engines, but also to the fact that the fighter’s aiming and navigation system has become very expensive, complex (like with bombers) and has been given the opportunity to work on the ground.
    2. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 7 December 2019 14: 12
      +1
      Are you comparing a 1940s plane and a 2010s plane? :))))

      The F-35 has a maximum take-off weight of 30 tons. F-35 costs about 100 million dollars and it is planned to produce them only about 3000, but for now about 500 pieces.

      During that war, the B-25 had a maximum mass of 29 tons and was produced in a batch of 19000 units.
      The famous P-51 Mustangs produced 18000 with a maximum mass of about 6 tons.

      Then the mass production of various types was partially justified by the huge series of basic machines and their comparative cheapness. Plus, it was constantly required to improve aviation in the conditions of fierce military competition (therefore, new machines were adopted for short periods of time) and whether it was right - the question is, it is believed that if one type were produced and improved, then much more aircraft could be produced . The multiplicity of design bureaus is more a problem than the dignity of that time - then aviation was just in its infancy, it did not take a lot of money to conduct R&D, a lot of manufacturers entered the business in the United States right away, like the author’s :) As a result, 90% of them went bankrupt, merged, joined .d. now remained Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop-Grumman.

      Now the fighter weighs like a heavy bomber, stands like an air regiment of those times, is difficult to manufacture and, accordingly, is produced in a small series. There is no point in building different types of machines in parallel in approximately the same niche - no. Moreover, R&D then cost a thousand times less than now. It’s one thing to construct a half-wooden piston, the other is a modern fighter.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 7 December 2019 15: 07
        +1
        Are you comparing a 1940s plane and a 2010s plane?


        Why not? And not only airplanes, but also any other equipment and weapons. And not necessarily from the year 1940. You can compare 2 types (or more) of similar armadillos, regimental guns, rifles, etc. The principle is important: it is unreasonable and costly to have 2 or more types of weapons in one niche of tasks.

        From this point of view, having a Su-30SM, Su-35, and even Su-34 is irrational. The same theme with helicopters. These are hammers of the same weight with different handles.
        Understood here.

        https://topwar.ru/160123-pochemu-mig-35-35d-horoshaja-ideja-dlja-vks-rf.html

        But in striving for unification, an optimal compromise must be found.
        It is clear that current aircraft are heavier, more powerful, more expensive, faster, but this does not mean that you need only Su-57. If he catches 1 KR out of 60, it means either making another plane or improving this one. If, as a result of improvement, he critically loses the ability for aerial combat, then there is no need to improve, you need another plane.

        In general: define a circle of tasks and create a tool for each. If you manage to solve two problems with one tool - fine, but having two types of hammers of the same weight is silly.
        1. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 7 December 2019 15: 21
          0
          Почему нет?

          Because the aircraft of the 40s has a semi-wooden structure, the model of which is often not even blown through the pipe, with a cheap engine, cheap weapons and cheap avionics, is undemanding to service and is produced in large quantities. As a result, a small design bureau was required to design such an aircraft, and the R&D costs were negligible.
          Therefore, it was possible to design and produce aircraft at a furniture factory.

          And the plane now is a product of ten-year research and development using huge institutes, creation of the most complicated engines and devices. Design costs are colossal, tolerances and accuracy ... generally difficult to say. Therefore, the design of a modern aircraft even one is a lot of money and R&D actually cost more than the series itself. At the same F-35, the cost of R&D exceeded one trillion, and a piece is worth 87 million now, sort of.

          Sorry, in the Middle Ages a village blacksmith could forge a sword, and now only everyone can produce a modern sniper rifle. So with the aircraft of the 40s and modern.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 7 December 2019 15: 54
            0
            As a result, a small design bureau was required to design such an aircraft, and the R&D costs were negligible. And the plane now is a product of ten-year research and development using huge institutes, creation of the most complicated engines and devices.


            You are talking about absolute figures of costs, but you need to use relative figures for different eras. The remuneration of the designer in Germany in the 1940s allowed him to maintain approximately the same standard of living as modern. Work equipment was simpler, but tolerances were wider. In addition, no computers were even discussed. The village blacksmith did not even have an exact watch, so he monotonously cast spells to determine the time for hardening the sword.
            But this does not mean that he sweated less at the same time.

            If we talk about R&D in the USSR, then the costs there are very small. Normal soldering, clean padded jacket, warm work and 8 hours of sleep - what else does a good designer need?

            But I agree with you, even taking into account the relativity, the cost of development has grown very strongly. The more important it is to avoid design errors.

            Consider two options:

            To instruct the MIG to make a high-altitude interceptor, capable of filling up the V-2, or even a ballistic missile, and at its height remove 60% of victories over F-35.
            In parallel, instruct Sukhoi to develop a fighter-bomber for medium and low altitudes, capable of working off the ground close to the Su-34, gain 60% of victories over the F-35, and, if necessary, break the rocket with a special warhead on the aircraft carrier.

            Or swell double money in two KB, which will develop two universal fighter with the same characteristics, which will mediocre fulfill the whole complex of tasks?
            And then another run both in a series, as we like.
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 7 December 2019 16: 07
              0
              Well let's get in relative numbers.

              The JSF program launched in 1996, the first flight of the F-35 in 2006. A normal production model was received only by 2018. R&D cost about 1/15 of the annual US GDP.

              So answer me two questions:
              1. You can recall at least one program for creating an aircraft in the 30s-40s of the 50s, which would cost 1/15 of the annual US GDP and take 22 years.
              2. Could the US pull at the same time 2-3 programs like JSF?

              When you answer these questions, you will understand how the 40s plane differs from the modern one and why now they cannot make several separate planes in adjacent niches (separately fighter, separately FB, separately attack aircraft)
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 7 December 2019 16: 24
                0
                R&D cost about 1/15 of US annual GDP.


                You are not mistaken? US GDP for 2006 (first flight) is about $ 14 trillion. 1/15 is about 930 billion dollars. Did they destroy 3 annual budgets of Russia for the development of the F-35?
                1. 30hgsa
                  30hgsa 7 December 2019 16: 41
                  0
                  They expect to buy 2400 cars. And spend $ 1,2 trillion on research, production and maintenance.
                  https://time.com/5575608/lockheed-martin-f-35-jet-cost/

                  Now the budget has already been increased to 1,5 trillion.
                  https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/04/f-35-program-update/

                  If we take the average cost of 1 F-35 for the United States at 90 million, then 2400 cars will cost 216 billion. Assuming that the same amount is spent on maintenance, this is another 216 billion. There will be 1 trillion about $ 1. Approximately 15/1996 of the US budget, if you take the average between 2018 and XNUMX. + \ - I thought in my mind there might be differences in one direction or another, but the order is this.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 7 December 2019 17: 00
                    +1
                    And spend $ 1,2 trillion on research, production and maintenance.


                    Yes, this is the cost of the aircraft themselves, and maintenance.

                    "MOSCOW, April 21. (ARMS-TASS). The total cost of the program to create a new generation of stealth fighter F-35" Lightning-2 "(Lightning II) has reached $ 1,3 trillion, said the head of the program, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan.

                    It is assumed that a total of 2443 aircraft will be purchased. The development and acquisition of aircraft is expected to cost $ 398,6 billion. The cost of maintenance, according to Bogdan's data, will amount to about $ 917 billion. "


                    https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1136666

                    The development cost for 2012 is about 55 billion, as I understand it.
                    This is from their report to Congress.



                    https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652948.pdf

                    And it already seems clear that the attempt to create one front-line aircraft for all occasions failed.
  11. Cyril R
    Cyril R 7 December 2019 12: 36
    +1
    According to a photograph where three are standing at a two-ton bomb. One historian showed me this photo, claiming that it was the very bomb that was dropped on the East Fort of the Brest Fortress on 29.6.41. That’s the same crew.
  12. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 7 December 2019 13: 20
    +1
    > Long-range aviation was rather a tick in the general mass.
    Uhhhh ...
    Almost 6 thousand produced during the war IL-4? Not?
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 7 December 2019 13: 44
      +5
      1000 Su-2, 2000 Tu-2, 3000 A-20, 6500 IL-4 (DB-3), 6500 SB ...
      There was nothing of this, they said - they fought only on Pe-2 and Il-2.
      Bullshit will not tell buffoons!
  13. 30hgsa
    30hgsa 7 December 2019 13: 35
    +3
    Thanks neighing

    1. According to the Germans, about u87 + Xe 11 and u88 as the main drummers ...
    And the FW190F of which I don’t know exactly how many were released, but there is an opinion that it’s very dohren and is comparable to the actual other fokewulfs already like a drummer?
    2000+ Dor217, 1000+ D188, etc. it's certainly garbage ...

    2. Across the USSR.
    As for the Pe-2 and IL-2 ....
    Is 5000+ IL-4 + 1500 DB-3 (6500+) not a bomber?
    Are 6500+ SBs also not bombers?
    Well, 1000 Su-2 there, 3000 A-20 Boston here, we also do not count for the series.
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 7 December 2019 13: 47
      +1
      I forgot about 2000 + Tu-2 yet. But this is also so ... not a figure.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 16 December 2019 11: 59
      0
      But do you know how WWII bombed from the mountains? flight? There is a group of bombers, in front of the goal the navigator leading with a log. the ruler calculates based on speed, altitude, possibly wind, if there is at least some idea of ​​it in the target area, where to drop bombs. And the whole group before bombing lays on a combat course, that is, it goes at the same height at the same speed, according to navigational calculations, well, and anti-aircraft gunners joyfully set this altitude. They reach the point, the leader resets, the others reset. Actually, the task of the bombers could often be disrupted simply by tearing the lead group.

      Of course, there was nothing of the kind on single-seat Ju-87 or Fw-190, in principle, the "laptezhnik" threw a bomb strictly at himself from a dive, the "Fokker" was engaged in garbage, throwing bombs into the white light, like a pretty penny. because aiming for mountains. bombing in real time before the advent of computers was practically impossible. IL-2 and its analogues were much more useful with cannon fire and RSs. To drop bombs on the extreme along the road or trench, so it's impossible to miss. Well, PTABs from the 43rd just poured from the heart over the area, they are small, they will get into a tank.
  14. Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 7 December 2019 13: 52
    +3
    How annoying this tracing paper from English. In the little things, not in the details. The devil is in the little things.
  15. Saboteur Holuy
    Saboteur Holuy 7 December 2019 16: 38
    0
    I don’t remember which of them flew to the Kuybyshev Syzran bridge to bomb, but flew
  16. jonny64
    jonny64 7 December 2019 19: 50
    +1
    Where's Dornie D17, D215, D217, etc ...?
  17. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 7 December 2019 20: 35
    -1
    But I liked the article anyway. :) Thanks to the author!

    Good photos, good atmospheric description. Externally, He-111 is more like. And the aerodynamics of such a scheme is better. But alas, rough practice has shown that in difficult weather conditions, the view from such a cabin is very poor. In general, the junkers won.
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 8 December 2019 09: 30
      +2
      Junkers-88 did not win, because "de facto" did not "play" with He-111. But you bought into the false message of this article.
      PS. The aerodynamic design is the same. Freestanding twin-engine monoplane with classic plumage. This is if we talk about the aerodynamics of the circuit.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 8 December 2019 20: 11
        0
        Quote: Dooplet11
        Junkers-88 did not win, because "de facto" did not "play" with He-111. But you bought into the false message of this article.

        Produced and used in parallel, against the same targets. It is strange to write "did not play" after that. What? Didn't fly ?? wink

        Under the scheme, I had a streamlined fuselage He-111, without protruding cockpit, no more.
        1. Dooplet11
          Dooplet11 8 December 2019 20: 20
          0
          Against the same purposes were used and FV-190, and Me-410, and Grif, and Yu-87. At some point, they all happened to cross goals. Did everyone play against each other? wink Hitler thought as an author: why produce so many different types of aircraft? And he ordered to leave only Me-262. But was he right?
          As for the "scheme", the shape of the cockpit is not a scheme. This is a constructive solution to its element.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 8 December 2019 20: 24
            0
            Quote: Dooplet11
            Against the same purposes were used and FV-190, and Me-410, and Grif, and Yu-87.

            Of course not. Neither FV-190 nor Yu-87 were usually bombed from horizontal flight. So excuse this He-111 and Ju-88. Their author compares.

            Quote: Dooplet11
            As for the "scheme", the shape of the cockpit is not a scheme. This is a constructive solution to its element.

            I agree. This item is also like. But as it turned out - impractical. :)
            1. Dooplet11
              Dooplet11 8 December 2019 20: 50
              0
              Of course not. Neither FV-190 nor Yu-87 were usually bombed from horizontal flight. So excuse this He-111 and Ju-88. Their author compares.
              - FV-190 never bombed with a steep dive. But he, and Shtuka, and Yu-88 and Henkel worked along the front line, along ferry crossings, along railway junctions, along airfields, industrial facilities, ports, and ships. Someone got some goals more, someone occasionally, from great need. Let's compare everyone, chegozh only just thinking of limiting ourselves? TTX are not similar? So are the goals common? wink
              But as it turned out - impractical. :)
              - Who said? Absolutely always impractical?
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 8 December 2019 20: 59
                0
                Quote: Dooplet11
                But he, and Shtuka, and Yu-88 and Henkel worked along the front line, along ferry crossings, along railway junctions, along airfields, industrial facilities, ports, and ships.

                You are distorting. If initially the Yu-87 was focused on point targets, then the Xe-111 was initially aimed at areal targets. But they tried to fit Yu-88 both there and there. But the dive player from him is so-so, had to compete with Henschel for horizontal bombing.
                1. Dooplet11
                  Dooplet11 8 December 2019 21: 36
                  0
                  But the dive player from him is so-so, had to compete with Henschel for horizontal bombing.
                  And the Yu-88 dive is normal, no worse than the same Pawn.
                  And there was no "competition" with Heinkel. Junkers from the horizon worked MOST in the daytime and in the near rear, and Heinkel at night and in the far. And Junkers certainly did not compete with Heinkel in torpedo throwing or transport tasks. And Heinkel Junkers at work on dive crossings. Although the niches of their application overlapped, they were not common. None of these aircraft could completely and fully replace the functionality of the other. So no jerking. The aircraft fleet is arranged in such a way as to partially duplicate functions between the types. This is required by the variety of combat conditions and target characteristics.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 8 December 2019 22: 03
                    0
                    Quote: Dooplet11
                    And the Yu-88 dive is normal, no worse than the same Pawn.

                    The pawn is definitely better :)
                    1. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 9 December 2019 05: 05
                      0
                      Not worth it so categorically. In something better, in something worse. In general, they are comparable.
                    2. technarj
                      technarj 6 January 2020 11: 09
                      0
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      Quote: Dooplet11
                      And the Yu-88 dive is normal, no worse than the same Pawn.

                      The pawn is definitely better :)

                      Pawn Dive Bomb start, if I am not mistaken, about a year and a half after appearing at the front. Yes, it was faster than the 88th (but not the 288th!), But in terms of radius and combat load it lost very much. How was she better?
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 6 January 2020 22: 17
                        0
                        Quote: technarj
                        Yes, she was faster than the 88th (but not the 288th!), But in terms of radius and combat load she lost very much. How was she better?

                        First, in terms of safety margin, the Pawn was initially much stronger than the Yu-88 and really could bomb from a dive, unlike a German who could only dive with great care, like our DB-3 or SB, in theory, they could bomb in a decrease.

                        But secondly, the Pawn is faster and this is a very important moment, especially at the beginning of the war. Junkers unaccompanied was available even for the later I-16s, more and more modern fighters were caught up without difficulty. Pe-2, the only one of our bombers had a chance to escape. In the mess of the initial stage of the war, in the absence of practical experience in organizing cover and escort, this saved.
                      2. technarj
                        technarj 14 January 2020 13: 30
                        0
                        I won’t comment on the prospects for escaping from the Pawns.

                        As for the fact that the Pawn was stronger, I will give two quotes from an article about the Pe-2 from Wikipedia: "In defensive battles on the outskirts of Stalingrad since the summer of 1942 the 270th dietary supplement operated from the year, of which five out of five regiments two (the 94th and 99th) flew on the Pe-2. Despite the fact that the Pe-2 was already a well-mastered vehicle by that time, and the crews of many regiments had gained considerable experience in its combat use he has not yet become a real dive-pilot - dive bombing has been used extremely rarely"

                        "...Pe-2 at the initial stage of the war (and in the future too) were used for bombing from horizontal flight or from a gentle dive. Full-scale deep-dive bombing studies began on the Pe-2 after the war ended."

                        I don't think it is necessary to explain that the post-war "Pawns" were completely different aircraft.

                        And here:
                        https://ok.ru/video/97112165104
                        at 24:40 approximately, there are shots of a bombardment from diving degrees in 40 88go. Moreover - large-caliber bombs. Let me remind you that he could normal (not in overload) carry under three tons of bombs, as opposed to 600kg "Pawns".

                        I wrote earlier in another comment - but I will repeat that our pilots considered the Junkers to be a _very_ sturdy machine.
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 14 January 2020 23: 47
                        +1
                        However, the Pe-2 had a maximum calculated wing overload of 13 units, and the Yu-88 had about 6-7 units. Because the Pe-2 was a fighter converted into a dive, and the Yu-88 was a fast passenger. An analogue of the Yu-88 is our Tu-2, which, however, was late for the start of the war.

                        The fact that at the beginning of the war Pe-2 was little used as a dive pilot is a problem of very poor pilot training. They just didn’t know how. However, the cockpit floor glazing and automatic diving machines were there initially.
                2. Dooplet11
                  Dooplet11 9 December 2019 09: 42
                  0
                  But the dive player from him is so-so, had to compete with Henschel for horizontal bombing.

                  S. Ivanov in his monograph "Junkers Ju-88" claims that the Ju-88 was often and successfully used precisely as a dive bomber. And here are its characteristic goals for the Eastern Front:
    2. technarj
      technarj 6 January 2020 11: 06
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      But I liked the article anyway. :) Thanks to the author!

      Good photos, good atmospheric description. Externally, He-111 is more like. And the aerodynamics of such a scheme is better. But alas, rough practice has shown that in difficult weather conditions, the view from such a cabin is very poor. In general, the junkers won.


      The aerodynamics of the circuit may be better, but specifically it was worse for the 111th than for the 88th, mainly because of the much larger diameter of the fuselage cross section + profile and wing plane.

      Further, 111 was much more "flimsy" (again, the legacy of the civilian past).

      Our pilots considered the 88th - one of the most difficult targets in the air, if it was not possible to shoot it off at counter-intersecting courses (it doesn’t matter, from horizontal or vertical). Very strong and there was a fast car, and at small angles towards the tail ("in pursuit" if you try to attack it), then several machine guns worked at the attacking fighter at once. In contrast, the 111th had exactly the tail and slightly below - in general, there was a dead zone for defensive weapons.
  18. Pavel57
    Pavel57 8 December 2019 09: 47
    +2
    The view of the author has the right to life. But if you take the analogy, then the Henkel in the Red Army is IL-4.
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 8 December 2019 12: 16
      +1
      This is yes. Has the right. There are people who think the earth is flat. And good. Polokho, when they are from the podium about it. I also agree with you about the analogy between Heinkel and Il-4. Unconditionally.
  19. BAI
    BAI 8 December 2019 19: 17
    0
    In general, we bombed the entire pawn war

    Did the author hear anything about the Tu-2? I only mention him because - almost copy of the Pawn.
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 8 December 2019 21: 31
      +1
      Tu-2 and Pe-2- not 10 differences?
  20. rubin6286
    rubin6286 8 December 2019 23: 05
    0
    The article by the author, in fact, is "sucked from the finger." In general, it's time to forget about these Heinkels, Junkers, argue about the merits of LaGG-3, Pawn, etc. etc. This is the last century. It is necessary to focus on the present day of aviation and its future, the design features of aircraft, engines, units and fuel supply systems, landing gear landing and cleaning, navigation, airborne weapons, communications, combat use features, etc. As those who did not serve in the army can judge about aviation, they don’t know what target No. 1 and No. 2, BSL-110, and even how much will be 1/2 +1/3, although school mathematics is gymnastics of the mind.

    In the past war, in addition to the Xe-111 and U-88, Germany had medium-sized bombers Do-17, Do-215, Do-217.The combat use of machines was carried out on the basis of their design features and performance characteristics, hence the difference in terms of production and destination. The Yu-88 was more versatile in combat use than the Xe-111. More Junkers were released, as well as lost in battle. Why was Heinkel not taken out of production at all? Yes, because pilots have already been trained, production has been established, the machine has been mastered in the army, it was needed, it was used for its intended purpose and the level of losses lay within the available limits. The "Junkers" were also enough until they began to be used as night fighters. Machine production gradually decreased and these capacities were given for the production of Xe-219 and Yu-188. Aircraft Do-215, Do-217 were used by the Germans until the end of the war. Their performance characteristics were slightly better, but the degree of universalization, production capabilities and the cost of machines were significantly higher. Basically, the Do-217 served as a platform for the use of guided weapons and was also used as a high-speed bomber with umbrella-type air brakes and the ability to dive steeply.
  21. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 16 December 2019 00: 02
    0
    About Do-217 nothing so light and informative caught my eye, but I do not despair to wait)
  22. EvilLion
    EvilLion 16 December 2019 11: 48
    0
    Author, where are you doing more than 5200 IL-4? Which just pull on the analogues of non-dive bombers. I am silent about American cars, somehow it does not pull on one plane for everything.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. jonny64
    jonny64 16 January 2020 22: 10
    0
    And why did not the author mention a word about Dornie Do 17 (215) ???
  25. vitlas
    vitlas 17 January 2020 19: 42
    0
    It turns out interestingly. Ours turned out to be at war only on Pe-2! Apparently, the author has amnesia. But what about IL-2, IL-4 (modification of DB-3)? And what about the Tu-2? Not to mention at the initial stage of the war there were still Sat, Su-2? Even a little used Tb-3. A small but painfully biting Po-2 at night? They were even Li-2 bombers, though this aircraft was produced under license. Perhaps you don’t remember everything at once ...
  26. Pavel57
    Pavel57 25 January 2020 08: 38
    0
    To IL-4 must be added DB-3.

    And yet, the Germans in the middle of the war powerfully bombarded Saratov and Gorky. Apparently they had strategic aviation.)))