Ar-2: a failed alternative?

Ar-2: a failed alternative?

There is a fairly widespread opinion in the literature and on the network about the obviousness of the withdrawal from service of the SB aircraft and its further modifications, in particular, the Ar-2. The explanation for this was just as radical (as a sentence to VMN), just as vague: "obsolete."


However, upon closer examination, among the shortcomings of the Security Council, which supposedly determined its obsolescence, are called qualities that did not at all prevent its contemporaries from conquering the entire WWII.

1. Speed most of the other bombers did not exceed the SB speed of the last modifications (and many deservedly consider the Ar-2 to be the last modification), which amounted to 512 km / h (the lead for the Ar-2 series, plant number 1/511 of February 1941, 2), which fully corresponds to the Pe major series.

2. All shock machines of all countries (Italy, perhaps the exception) started the war, having defensive weapons "rifle" caliber, and by no means all the firing points of the bombers of the participating countries were even able to re-equip large-caliber ones by the end of the war weapons.

3. Bomb load in one, and even more so in one and a half tons, was normal for the so-called medium bombers. And, in any case, it exceeded that of our main attack aircraft Pe-2 and Il-2.

4. Bombing accuracy from the horizon, the SB had the usual for horizontal bombers. And from a dive, it bombed with accuracy comparable to the "pawn" and the "Rapporteur".

5. SPU has already been installed on Ar-2 and improved communication conditions pilot and navigator, so that the crew communicate inside the aircraft using airmail and light bulbs was the destiny of the Finns.

All of the above gave grounds to Perov and Rastrenin, widely known in narrow circles, on the basis of studying a large amount of data (and these two researchers usually take the issue very seriously) to do in the article “Unknown Ar-2,” published in “Aviation and astronautics ”(numbers from 2 to 7) back in 2003 an interesting conclusion:

“A serious mistake is the termination of serial production of the Ar-2 bomber in favor of launching the Pe-2 bomber into the mass production.”

And also:

“In any case, Ar-2 throughout the war could show better combat effectiveness in solving any combat mission of front-line bomber aircraft than the main dive bomber of the KA Air Force Pe-2 aircraft.”

It would seem that 2003 is a matter of bygone days. However ... Water circles diverge wider and wider. And the conclusions made by the authors of this publication are replicated on the network not only by “specialists”, but often by specialists without quotes as well.

However, it was in this case that the respected Perov and Rastrenin gave a blunder. SB and Ar-2 had one very significant and, besides, irreparable flaw, for which the authors of the materials for some reason write extremely little or not at all.

This drawback is obvious to any pilot (and it is quite possible that to the simmer), who at least once made an attack on an air target.

The fact is that:

At first, only one crew member, namely the radio operator gunner, could monitor the rear hemisphere (ZPS) on the SB. The pilot had very limited for this (almost none, 2-3 rear-view mirrors; by the way, the SB exterior mirror was shot on the Ar-2 in order to increase 4-6 km / h of speed) capabilities, and the navigator had none at all. Let me remind you that in Pe-2, the radio operator and navigator observed the ZPS, and the crew commander had a view comparable to a pilot piloting a fighter of those years with a teardrop-shaped flashlight. That is, all three crew members could notice the enemy fighter coming into the attack, and not one.


SecondlyIt would seem that both Pe-2 and Ar-2 (SB) have three firing points each. However, at the “pawn” in the ZPS, the navigator was responsible for protecting the upper hemisphere (or, rather, the quarter-sphere), and the radio operator-shooter at the bottom. But on the notorious Ar-2 (SB), both firing points, both upper and lower, were served by one radio operator gunner. There were no way to squeeze two people into the “pencil” of the SB tail boom. At the same time, climbing from the turret to the lower, hatch, machine gun, the shooter took tens of seconds (in any case, at least 10-20 s, and in the opposite direction, from the bottom up, even more time), but the attacking fighter SB to jump from top to bottom or back, it took 1-2 seconds.


Thus, the attacking enemy only had to wait for the defensive fire to be opened from the Ar-2 (SB), after which he would move to the opposite hemisphere and calmly, going to point blank range, shoot an unarmed bomber. During the transition from MV-2 to MV-3 ​​or vice versa, the gunner-gunner could not lead aimed fire. Going down to the lower firing point, the shooter, if he was not already wounded or not killed, found that his plane was already burning, and the enemy fighter was leaving the attack. And, which is characteristic, in this case the caliber of defensive weapons did not matter.

Finally, the third. In the event of a wound or death of a radio operator gunner, even a fully operational Ar-2 (SB) became blind and completely defenseless. The pilot, having no view back, could not protect his car even with a maneuver. And the navigator was simply a sedentary duck, helpless and, despite the available ShKAS, practically unarmed. On the contrary, the Pe-2, even having shot all the ammunition, could, actively maneuvering, conduct a defensive air battle. The review, and the navigator’s commands, allowed the pilot to do this.

While in the mid-1930s the SB had an advantage in speed, these shortcomings were not so obviously fatal. The probability of his interception and any prolonged shelling by enemy fighters was small. Once the speed advantage has disappeared - that's it. Ar-2 (SB) was destroyed by enemy fighter aircraft with 100% probability. His crew simply did not have a chance, he could only count on fighter cover, and not on his own strength.

It is for this reason that this machine, despite the advanced concept and good performance characteristics, almost instantly left the battlefield. And the decision to opt for the Pe-2 looks absolutely logical and reasonable.

Materials used: Perov V.I., Rastrenin O.V. Unknown AR-2.
Author:
Photos used:
pro-samolet.ru
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dmitry V. 13 February 2020 15: 27 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    I agree with the author - Ar-2 was inferior to the Pe-2 in terms of defensive weapons.

    Regiments armed with Ar-2 with retirement of equipment retrained for Pe-2

    Interesting memoirs Tsupko Pavel Ivanovich “Dive” - started the war on Ar-2 (13th SBAP), then retrained on Pe-2, which fought until the end of the war.
    http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/tsupko/index.html
    These are perhaps the most detailed memoirs of pilots who have flown on the Ar-2 since the beginning of the war.
    Pilots affectionately called Ar-2 - "arch".
    1. Constanty 13 February 2020 16: 34 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      The technique wears out. When this type of aircraft was discontinued, crews were trained for another type.

      The Ar-2 was inferior to the Pe-2 in terms of defensive weapons yes - but it was the best as a bomber. A large stockpile of bombs. It was much easier to pilot. Ar-2 also had the ability to bomb from a dive flight.

      In my opinion, stopping the production of Ar-2 was a mistake, as was the production of the Pe-2, which was a dive bomber only in name.
      Production of the Ar-2 was to continue, and production of the 103 - a successful Tu-2 - should be started immediately.
      1. Alexey RA 13 February 2020 18: 40 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Constanty
        In my opinion, stopping the production of Ar-2 was a mistake, as was the production of the Pe-2, which was a dive bomber only in name.

        The non-use of the dive on the Pe-2 was primarily due to insufficient training of crews. If they are given Ar-2, they will not dive on it.
        In fact, the Pe-2 most of the war was used as a high-speed bomber.
        Quote: Constanty
        Production of the Ar-2 was to continue, and production of the 103 - a successful Tu-2 - should be started immediately.

        Too shy to ask - Tu-2 with an AM-37 engine? Or with the M-82? wink
        1. Constanty 13 February 2020 19: 34 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Due to the requirements for piloting, crews on the Ar-2 would be easier and faster to train. Moreover, in order to accomplish the same task (let's drop, for example, 20 tons of bombs on object X), you need to use half as many "ars" as "pawns", and therefore less trained crews

          Tu-2 with M-82 of course

          In 1940, the M-82 passed state tests and could be put into mass production. But instead, a decision was made to transfer the plant to the production of water cooling motors by A.A. Mikulin. This decision was canceled only on May 22, 1941.

          The M-82 motor had to undergo repeated state tests, after which it was launched into a series. All these ups and downs did not contribute to obtaining the calculated characteristics and high quality of execution on the first serial M-82. However, soon, by the time the 103B aircraft was tested, its main drawbacks were eliminated. In the future, it turned out to be a reliable, easy-to-operate and battle-enduring engine.

          : http://airwar.ru/enc/bww2/tu2.html
          1. Per se. 14 February 2020 08: 14 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Constanty
            Due to the requirements for piloting, crews on the Ar-2 would be easier and faster to train.
            Most importantly, our Air Force could get much more aircraft than when launching a series of crude Pe-2 converted from a heavy fighter. Here, many talk about the best defense of the Pe-2 ... Firstly, in any case, without covering the fighters, the Pe-2 went astray and suffered heavy losses. Secondly, the possibility of upgrading the Arkhangelsk aircraft fully allowed the installation of the same large-caliber "Berezin" for the shooter or navigator. Finally, for comparison, the Ju-88 in the main modifications had a “rifle” caliber to protect the rear hemisphere, nothing, this did not detract from their main bomber purpose.
            Is Pe-2 really so superior to Ar-2? It is unlikely, especially if you do not pull out individual characteristics, but compare aircraft comprehensively. The best option is the continuation of the production of the Ar-2, with its subsequent replacement with the Tu-2. Here, the Tupolev plane undoubtedly exceeded both the Ar-2 and Pe-2 in all positions. It’s also a pity that when creating another aircraft, if we talk about a dive pilot, the Su-2 was not created from the start by a dive. A diving Su-2 could become a worthy dive for the entire period of the war in the class of single-engine bombers. Together with the attack aircraft Il-2 (or Su-6, take it into service), it would be a good combination of combat capabilities.
            1. Constanty 14 February 2020 10: 31 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              "The pawn from the picture is probably not typical wink
              1. Per se. 14 February 2020 10: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Constanty
                rather not typical
                Of course, the figure shows air-cooled motors.
          2. Alexey RA 14 February 2020 13: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Constanty
            Tu-2 with M-82 of course
            The M-82 motor had to undergo repeated state tests, after which it was launched into a series. All these ups and downs did not contribute to obtaining the calculated characteristics and high quality of execution on the first serial M-82. However, soon, by the time the 103B aircraft was tested, its main drawbacks were eliminated. In the future, it turned out to be a reliable, easy-to-operate and battle-enduring engine.

            And now on the same airwar we will read the conclusion on the results of testing the aircraft "103V"
            1. The 103V 2M-82 aircraft passed joint (factory and state) tests from December 15, 1941 to August 1, 1942. Despite the long period, the test program was not fully completed: the maximum speeds at the second speed of the supercharger were not taken, the characteristics were not taken dive and not made range flights.

            The main reasons for the protracted tests: unsatisfactory operation of the M-82 engines and long-term refinement of the propeller group. During tests on an airplane eight motors were replaced. Due to the unsatisfactory operation of the engines, the aircraft lasted 132 days, which is 57,7% of the total time spent on testing

            The main disadvantages are eliminated, say .... smile
            With the M-82 / ASH-82 series, there were problems even in 1943 - first with a limited take-off time, and then with candles (14 hours of a resource).
            1. Constanty 14 February 2020 13: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              From the story of S.M. Alekseev Deputy Lavochkin:
              [in December 1941] In the waiting room, meanwhile, with his "sores", the chief designer A.D. Shvetsov. Lavochkin told him about the conversation with Dementiev, who complained about his problems:

              - Nobody needs the M-82 motor. Now the factory has accumulated more than a hundred ready, with the acceptance of the military representative, motors, but no one takes them. I have a set of drawings with me, but look, maybe it’s possible to put it on your fighter. (In 1941, plant No. 19 produced 412 M-82 engines).


              LaGG-5 was released from June 3, 1942, but still this aircraft worked on the same M-82 engine.
              1. Alexey RA 14 February 2020 15: 21 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And I can even say - why the M-82 at the beginning of 1942 were not needed.
                For the period from June 1941 to March 1942, Plant No. 19 organized mass production and produced 829 M-82 engines. Of the released number, only 51 engines are installed on Su-2 aircraft and sent to military operation.
                As of 1 / IV, there are 370 M-82 engines in the warehouses of the plant.
                Despite the obvious clarity that the released M-82 engines should be used on combat aircraft, especially in wartime, the Red Army Air Force Research Institute did not draw any conclusions from the said provision on the practical use of the M-82 engines in connection with its adoption by the Red Army .
                The M-82 engine passed flight tests on all modern types of military aircraft: on the LAGG-3 fighters (Gudkov's version), I-185, MIG-3, SU-2, 103, DB-ZF bombers and the IL-2 attack aircraft.
                Defects of the engine and propeller-engine group of cocoa revealed during the trial operation: oil discharge through the breather, instability of fuel consumption by altitude, insufficient reliability of the oil line connecting motor and aircraft units, by the factory partially eliminated and held further refinement in order to further increase the reliability of the motor and propeller group.
                © Letter from the Director of Plant No. 19 Kozhevnikov to the People's Commissar Shakhurin and Air Force Commander K.A. Zhigarev on April 4, 1942.
                That is, in April 1942, the shortcomings of the M-82 were only partially eliminated, the engine refinement was not completed.
                And only a year after the adoption of the M-82 engine was generally brought. However, there were problems with the life of the candles and take-off mode (plus cooling).
        2. Ryaruav 13 February 2020 21: 33 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          where did you see a high-speed bomber, basically a speed of no more than 500 on departure, the norm is 600, but it was clear that ours had to fight by all means but the radius fell wildly and here the airfields of our bombers were hit by enemy fighter-bombers that’s not normal people comrades understand I already wrote in comments, simply our country could not afford to produce pilot lots of new models; you just look at how many Lend-Lease we received for high-speed steel cutting machines and even egg powder e at roosevelt america was an ally for the ussr
        3. illuminat 14 February 2020 11: 58 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The non-use of the dive on the Pe-2 was primarily due to insufficient training of crews.

          Memoirs of participants state the opposite. From 1941-42 to 1945, ALL pilots who underwent retraining on the Pe-2 mastered this type of combat use, such as dive bombing.
          And "the non-use of the dive on the Pe-2 was primarily connected ..." with a number of completely different reasons. The choice of the method of striking (from a dive or from a GP) is determined by the following:
          - the nature of the target (point, area, linear, group / single, mobile / motionless, easy / difficult to be vulnerable, covered / not covered)
          -weather in the target area (altitude, density, number of clouds, visibility by altitude, wind, rainfall)
          - anti-aircraft target cover (Density of fire FOR, ZPU, reach by heights)
          - available outfit of forces
          -the presence of (with us) fighter cover.
          Under any of these conditions, a decision could be made to strike from the horizon.

          Quote: Alexey RA
          If they are given Ar-2, they will not dive on it.

          That's right. Not only because the pilots are poorly trained, but precisely for the above reasons.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          In fact, the Pe-2 most of the war was used as a high-speed bomber.

          Well, any station wagon (capable of bombing both from a dive and from a GP) would be used in exactly the same way. Just because it is NECESSARY to always bomb, he doesn’t want to, and diving is not always possible, and not always rational. hi
      2. Mikhail3 14 February 2020 09: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Constanty
        A large stockpile of bombs. It was much easier to pilot. Ar-2 also had the ability to bomb from a dive flight.

        Is this your answer to the article? Don't you think that your argument is weak against the argument in the article?
        1. Constanty 14 February 2020 10: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The argumentation in the article, in my opinion, is focused on secondary issues.
          Although you're right, my record was not good. It would definitely be better to include the arguments with “Aviation and Cosmonautics” 7/2003 s.21-22:

          1. illuminat 14 February 2020 12: 30 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Constanty
            It would definitely be better to include the arguments with “Aviation and Cosmonautics” 7/2003 s.21-22
            The fact is that the given fragment, in spite of the seemingly scientific nature, is absolutely unreliable. Why such respected authors made such a mistake is unknown to me.
            These conclusions in their article are preceded by the following conditions:
            When assessing the probability of a bomber being shot down by anti-aircraft artillery fire, it was believed that .....

            When calculating the probability of a bomber being shot down by a fighter, the following assumptions were made, simplifying the calculations, but not affecting the overall conclusion when comparing the combat effectiveness of various types of bombers ...
            The fact is that the probabilities of defeating ANY TARGETS are considered taking into account the initial parameters, such as
            target speed
            - the ability of the target to maneuver (maneuverability)
            - target area
            - The effectiveness of defensive fire targets.
            For all, I emphasize, for all these parameters, the Pe-2 has an advantage over the Ar-2, and in the latter this advantage is absolute.
            Therefore, the output probability of the downing of Ar-2 is several times higher, which is a fighter, that anti-aircraft guns.

            In principle, I can explain how the authors obtained a higher efficiency of Ar-2. But it is long and not very interesting.
          2. Mikhail3 14 February 2020 13: 02 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Another thing. These combat effectiveness indicators are impressive. Definitely, it was not necessary to ban the aircraft, but to improve the protection of the rear hemisphere. However...
        2. Constanty 14 February 2020 11: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1

          That's better? I’m surprised that the author of the article, despite leaving work "
          unknown Ar-2 "by V. I. Perov and O. V. Rastrenin completely ignored the reasoned conclusions.
      3. Dmitry V. 14 February 2020 10: 17 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Constanty
        In my opinion, stopping the production of Ar-2 was a mistake, as was the production of the Pe-2, which was a dive bomber only in name.


        The SB was designed in 1933 (the first flight of 1934), the Pe-2 began to be developed in 1938 - 5 years of rapid development of aviation - there is a technological gap between them, in terms of the design of the airframe and its design - the Pe-2 was a modern aircraft, the Ar-2 attempt on an old glider to improve performance.

        Due to the fact that the keel washers were made in the frontal projection of the nacelles - they fell into the air stream - accordingly, this significantly improved handling in the horizontal plane and eliminated the dead zone in the rear upper hemisphere.
        In the Pe-2 tail washer, they also gave 2 minor dead zones in the upper hemisphere - but the attacking fighter could not use the weapons of these zones either.
        (For example, Pe-2I with the installation of DEU-1) there were no dead zones at all if he went into the series in 1944)


        Ar-2 - the same SB fuselage, had a wide sector dead zone behind the keel - in this zone the shooter could not shoot, while the attacking fighter could well use weapons and not be hit.



        Structurally and technologically - Pe-2 was a cut above the archaic Ar-2.
        But I'm not going to throw a fan at Pe-2, it’s not at all an ideal bomber, but it was better than Ar-2.

        Tu-2 was much better than Pe-2, but Pe-2 was already mass-produced and the conveyor could not be stopped during the war.
        1. Constanty 14 February 2020 10: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Structurally and technologically - Pe-2 was a cut above the archaic Ar-2.
          But I'm not going to throw a fan on Pe-2, not a perfect bomber at all, but he was better than Ar-2.


          A comparative analysis somehow did not show this. It was just the opposite. Ar-2 despite the older "pedigree" had greater combat effectiveness than the "Pawn"
  2. Vladimir_2U 13 February 2020 15: 28 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    The author writes as if the bombers were flying strictly alone. Yes, and "Stuck" forgot to mention ...
    1. Dmitry V. 13 February 2020 15: 50 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The author writes as if the bombers were flying strictly alone. Yes, and "Stuck" forgot to mention ...


      Just in the above memoirs, the development of the tactics of diving bombers is described very well - in 1941, they went towards the target by a column, after the bombing they pulled out a column one at a time - then the fighters finished off the laggards one by one.
      Later they began to go into the dive immediately link. Even later, the leader did a maneuver so that the lagging links could quickly form a system and not be knocked down - it all depended on the particular leader and, accordingly, the losses from different leaders were not the same - experience!
      1. Vladimir_2U 13 February 2020 15: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        I started reading memoirs at your link, thanks for it, but after the Drabkinsky “I fought ...” artistically combed memoirs don’t enter ...
        1. Aviator_ 13 February 2020 21: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Drabkin’s artistically combed interviews are a different literary genre than memoirs. One thing that annoys Drabkin is that all the titles of his series “I Fought ...” must always contain quotation marks, otherwise it turns out that Drabkin personally fought.
          1. Vladimir_2U 14 February 2020 04: 36 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Aviator_
            Drabkin has artistically combed interviews, this is a different literary genre than memoirs
            Drabkin himself or someone else called this form of "oral history." I personally would not dare to call these interviews “artistically combed”; some kind of editing was, of course, but the reference to the above is incomparable with the same memoirs. There, in general, some sort of editor like V. Shpakovsky could mark himself, not even so, trample down! And Drabkin and his co-authors are very good at understanding both history and the then technique and tactics, which can be seen on issues.
            Quote: Aviator_
            One of Drabkin’s annoying - all the names of his series "I Fought ..."
            on the cover and title page, the absence of quotation marks in the title of the book is quite acceptable, it is as if highlighted in font and its size.
            1. Aviator_ 14 February 2020 09: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I agree that Drabkin’s consultants understand much more about tactics and history than a teacher of Marxism-Leninism, but the quotation marks in the title would not hurt. And there is a peculiarity - Drabkin in every case pokes the Jewish question in his interviews - one immediately recalls the literary hero of the Golden Calf, the correspondent Birman, who pestered everyone with a Jewish question in a train traveling to the bow of Turksib. Well, memoirs - this is a genre that is close to the epic, tales and epics. Recently, even in the memoirs of my deeply respected Marshal Rokossovsky, the historian Isaev, when analyzing operational orders, found some cunning in the question of Operation Bagration.
              1. Vladimir_2U 14 February 2020 09: 40 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Aviator_
                Jewish question
                This is easily explained by the fact that interviews, various authors, not only Drabkin, were also taken from veterans, God grant them health, who at that time lived in Israel, with a clear nationality. )))
  3. Sapsan136 13 February 2020 15: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Not everything is so simple ... The second gunner-radio operator could be added to Ar-2 and they were added on the surviving vehicles, but it was a drop in the bucket, due to the huge losses at the beginning of the war of this type of vehicle and the termination of their production .. .DB-3F (IL-4) had the same problem, the lack of a lower shooter, but they solved it there by placing an additional crew member ... Yes, SB and Ar-2 had tight cabins, it is a fact, but Pe- 2 had difficulties in piloting, and especially on landing ... Each car has its pros and cons, there are no perfect ones ...
    1. Dmitry V. 13 February 2020 15: 44 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Sapsan136
      Not everything is so simple ... The second gunner-radio operator could be added to Ar-2 and they were added on the surviving vehicles, but it was a drop in the bucket, due to the huge losses at the beginning of the war of this type of vehicle and the termination of their production .. .DB-3F (IL-4) had the same problem, the lack of a lower shooter, but they solved it there by placing an additional crew member ... Yes, SB and Ar-2 had tight cabins, it is a fact, but Pe- 2 had difficulties in piloting, and especially on landing ... Each car has its pros and cons, there are no perfect ones ...


      The SB fuselage is so "squeezed" that even in winter uniforms, it was impossible to turn around in the cabins, not just to place another shooter - they just physically ran into structural limitations on the fuselage volume.
      1. Sapsan136 13 February 2020 15: 47 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Yes, it was possible and accommodated, it was hard to turn around, but not impossible ... The Finns flew on captured troop SBs and did not complain ...
        1. Dmitry V. 13 February 2020 15: 58 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Sapsan136
          Yes, it was possible and accommodated, it was hard to turn around, but not impossible ... The Finns flew on captured troop SBs and did not complain ...


          Finns have nothing to choose from :))
          1. Sapsan136 13 February 2020 16: 27 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Yes, there was something to choose from, they could ask for example Leo-451B4 captured by the Germans in France, PZL-37B Los captured in Poland, or something like that ...
            1. Zeev Zeev 13 February 2020 17: 03 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              How many Leo-451B4 were captured from the French? Three four? Maybe seven? Few of them were released at all, and most of the planes flew either to Britain or remained in the aircraft of the Vichy regime. And the Germans had PZL "Los" exactly two pieces.
              1. Uncle Izya 13 February 2020 18: 28 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                C'mon 3 planes, where did the data come from?
              2. Sapsan136 13 February 2020 21: 16 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                PZL-37Abis and PZL-37B LOS After the defeat of Poland, they flew to the allied Hitler Romania, the Air Force of which adopted them and bombed the Soviet troops from them, near Odessa ... These planes in the Romanian Air Force went through the whole war. And the production of Leo-451 continued after the defeat of France, including for the needs of the Luftwaffe, where they were used as vehicles, under the name Leo-451T. In addition to Leo, the Germans captured in France such machines as Amiot-351, Breguet-691,693,695, Bloch MB-175,176 ... The American-made bombers purchased by France, the Germans captured directly in containers, in a disassembled form, but in full configuration, the French did not have time even assemble and fly around most of these planes ... These were the Douglas DB-7 bombers (100 pieces) and Martin-167 ... They all went to the Luftwaffe ...
                1. Zeev Zeev 13 February 2020 23: 17 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  We remember that from 1940 to 1942 half of France was an independent country? And what kind of Mediterranean was Algeria and French Morocco, where there was no German occupation?
                  1. Sapsan136 15 February 2020 11: 41 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    You must remember that I listed only new aircraft, and there were also obsolete ones, such as Bloch MB-131 ... and the old aircraft prevailed in the colonies ... American-made aircraft were completely captured by the Germans in France ...
                    1. Zeev Zeev 15 February 2020 14: 24 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Most of the new aircraft were just flown to the south of France, and then to Algeria. American aircraft were used as transport.
                      1. Sapsan136 16 February 2020 00: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        How transport were used Leo-451T, which were already manufactured at Vichy ... In the colony, never sent new planes ... Biplanes such as Gloucester-Gladiator fought in the colonies in the same colony, and there weren’t enough of them ... Vichy without Berin’s consent and they didn’t take a step ... Someone would give them new planes to drive somewhere, except for German airfields ...
                      2. Zeev Zeev 16 February 2020 06: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The nearest colony of France was beyond the Mediterranean Sea. It was called Algeria.
                      3. Sapsan136 17 February 2020 08: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        So what? England also had a lot of colonies, but there were almost no new planes there, even the old ones weren’t enough, and the VICHY puppet regime, under the protectorate of Hitler, who could not sneeze without Berlin’s approval ..
                      4. Zeev Zeev 17 February 2020 09: 18 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Everything is much more complicated than told on political information. The Vichy regime was an independent state with its own army, navy and aviation, and quite diverse and powerful. Therefore, the British had to spend a lot of effort and resources on the capture of the French colonies and the destruction of the units loyal to the regime. Syria, Lebanon, Senegal, Morocco, Madagascar ...
                        And by the way, to repulse these attacks, new planes were also transferred to the colonies.
                      5. Sapsan136 17 February 2020 09: 20 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        On paper was, in fact, no ... Hitler did not create any states independent of him .. Because VICHI did not become an ally of England ...
                      6. Zeev Zeev 17 February 2020 09: 35 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Independent is not in terms of "making friends with anyone I want," but in terms of not being controlled from Berlin.
                        But here we are far removed from the topic. Even those French bombers that the Germans captured, the Finns did not ask and did not receive.
                      7. Sapsan136 17 February 2020 09: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Whether we asked or not, we won’t know, but the Finns captured by the Germans in France received more than once ... Basically Moran-Solnje MS-406 and MS-410 ... some of which the Finns later upgraded, again received from the Germans, captured Soviet motors and machine guns BK (such machines were called Moran-Werewolf for the Finns)
                      8. Zeev Zeev 17 February 2020 10: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I am aware of the adventures of the Moran. And even the supply of French engines for the DB-3 and SB aircraft. And the requests of the Finnish side are not a secret.
  • Sapsan136 13 February 2020 21: 30 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    France bought in the USA (the first contract of 100 pieces, completed in full, the second contract of 130 pieces, partially completed) of Martin-167 bombers, most of them went to the Nazis fully loaded, in containers, they did not even have time to collect ...
  • Alf
    Alf 13 February 2020 19: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Sapsan136
    Yes, there was something to choose from, they could ask for example Leo-451B4 captured by the Germans in France, PZL-37B Los captured in Poland, or something like that ...

    And you look at the composition of the Finnish Air Force, each creature in a pair, including Blenheim, Pe-2, Yu-88, etc. Oh, and the Finnish procurers loved ...
  • illuminat 14 February 2020 12: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Sapsan136
    The second shooter-radio operator could be added to Ar-2 and they were added,

    And you try to confirm with something, you see, they will believe you.
    At DB-3 / IL-4, the question is well known. First, hatches were cut independently in parts and put the lower ShKAS. But the efficiency turned out to be about 0 precisely for the reason I described. Climb the arrow-radio operator back and forth 100% death for him and the plane. Therefore, they stupidly tied the cable to the trigger guard of the lower ShKAS and "yanking the rope", frightened off the fighters. But even the most notorious supporters of the Security Council's defensive scheme understood that it was a dead poultice. And they began to take gunsmiths as an air gunner, until such a "full-time cage" appeared officially in the carriage. But the IL-4 has a much larger fuselage than the SB

    You tell us about the fourth member of the SB crew; new information is always interesting.
    1. Sapsan136 17 February 2020 08: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I wrote about Ar-2, and not about SB ... There is very little information about these machines, but the one that can be put on the computer even less ... Many cars did not have a lower arrow, and the fuselage does not play a role here .. Bristol Blenhaim was used not only as a night fighter, but also as an attack bomber (France had a Breguet-695 for a similar purpose) and if the Frenchman was like a hedgehog, it was studded with defensive machine guns, 7,5 mm, and the upper rear hemisphere was some cars were covered with a 20 mm gun, then Blenhaim had only one defensive machine gun, which covered the upper rear hemisphere and nothing to cover from below ...
  • K-50 13 February 2020 15: 47 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    mid 3019s

    Explain what is it?
    Probably "in the mid-30s"?
    Or did the author mean something of his own?
    1. fk7777777 13 February 2020 22: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      How is that ...? Elections ...
  • Amateur 13 February 2020 15: 54 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    evidence of the withdrawal from service of the SB aircraft and its further modifications, in particular, the Ar-2. The explanation for this was just as radical (as a sentence to VMN), just as vague: "obsolete."

    These aircraft were built using technologies from the early 30s. Pe-2 - according to the technologies of the second half of 30. And Tu-2 generally began in the 40s. Labor productivity and man-hours are very different.
    That's the only difference.
  • Blue fox 13 February 2020 15: 55 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    In general, I agree with my colleague. At the moment, we are working as a team together with Karelian search engines on the ascent of a downed SB from a swamp, presumably from 72 SBAP. Therefore, it was studied enough history (it was he who took part in the raids on the Finnish aerodromes of Joensuu and Joroynen, when 36 of the 10 SBs lost 25.06.1941 vehicles on June 2, XNUMX) The regiment was armed with both SB SBs and Pes with a quantitative advantage of the first to the beginning of the war. So, the “Pawns” quickly changed the SB in reconnaissance and, in general, turned out to be more tenacious with both higher speed, slightly better rate of climb and, importantly, the navigator’s UBT, which at least somehow leveled the chances of counteracting Finnish fighters with heavy machine guns unlike ShKASov SB.
    Here is a report from one of the Finns on the attack of 25.06 .:
    “Nieminen describes a fight in which he shot down three aircraft:“ Time 11: 55–12: 15, altitude 1500–1000 meters. Faced a link with a connection of 15–20 SB near Tuusjärvi. Caught at a high speed, they caught up to I fired at two planes on the right flank, the engines of both caught fire. Near the island of Kerisalo he again found himself in a good position behind one SB. His gas tank exploded in the air. The plane fell down. Being behind the remaining planes, fired at them. My work, 4-5 aircraft remained from the formation, also smoke, some mountains t. The planes, dodging, acted alone in the formation, and its structure is constantly changing. "
    That is, the Finn stupidly flew after the group and shot cars from a safe distance when his heavy machine guns were effective, and the ShKAS SB was no longer there.
    1. illuminat 14 February 2020 12: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Blue Fox, thanks a lot for the comment. He began to recall that the Finns had large-caliber guns for 1941, only the Fiat G50 and Brewster recalled. Nieminen seemed to be in fiat.
      But I want to clarify. In 72 BAP “pawns” were the first series, they had ShKASs in all defensive points. Not only that, the navigator on the Pe-2 received UBT even later than the radio operator gunner.

      Therefore, the best survivability of the Pe-2 was due to its speed, maneuverability and precisely that the effectiveness of the distribution of crew responsibilities in air combat, and not the caliber of weapons.
      1. Blue fox 14 February 2020 14: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: illuminat
        Nieminen seemed to be in fiat.

        Photo of the same day.
        The mechanic congratulates the commander of 3 / LLv 26, Lieutenant Nieminen (Urho Nieminen) with three victories.

        Fiat G.50, flight code FA-11, Lieutenant Nieminen
      2. Blue fox 14 February 2020 14: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: illuminat
        In 72 BAP “pawns” were the first series, they had ShKASs in all defensive points. Not only that, the navigator on the Pe-2 received UBT even later than the radio operator gunner.

        Thanks I'll know. Do you have more information on 72 SBAP? At the moment, we have only RZD 55 CAD, separate reports from 72 SBAP, loss lists and the information with which Ilya Prokofiev, widely known in narrow circles, shared with us.
  • Krasnoyarsk 13 February 2020 16: 03 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    = All of the above gave grounds to Perov and Rastrenin, widely known in narrow circles, on the basis of studying a large amount of data (and these two researchers usually take the issue very seriously) to do in the article “Unknown Ar-2” published in “Aviation and Cosmonautics” ( numbers from 2nd to 7th) back in 2003 an interesting conclusion: =
    From all this, we can conclude that Petrov and Rastrenin, having studied "very seriously", showed that people who made the decision to stop the production of AR-2 were incompetent at least, and at most - pest-traitors.
  • BAI
    BAI 13 February 2020 17: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Pe-2 was conceived as a fighter. Hence the review.
    1. illuminat 14 February 2020 13: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      Pe-2 was conceived as a fighter. Hence the review.

      Only a very superficial look. If you have never seen photos of the Pe-2 and the "hundred".
      The review on the “hundred” is not just worse, but much worse than on the Pe-2 (I’ll explain right away - not because of “stupid soviet designers”, but because of a pressurized cabin).

      Therefore, the "extermination past" review factor is not explained. No way.
  • Ros 56 13 February 2020 17: 24 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Ar-2 and appeared due to the fact that Arkhangelsk A.A. was Tupolev's right hand.
    Well, this plane could not become a full-fledged bomber, like the same Tu-2, although they did not finish it, there simply was no time.
    1. fk7777777 13 February 2020 22: 47 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      There were no engines, normal for him ... And those that set up, so they banned diving with them, only with horizontal bombing ... We have everything, everything will be brought to mind, but except for the engine ...
  • Alf
    Alf 13 February 2020 19: 28 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    3. The bomb load of one, and even more so one and a half tons, was normal for the so-called medium bombers. And, in any case, it exceeded that of our main attack aircraft Pe-2 and Il-2.

    The IL-2 stormtrooper compared to the BOMBERS - the top of unprofessionalism.
    In 1944, an instruction was issued that allowed increasing the carrying capacity to 1300-1500 kg provided that it was dropped from horizontal flight, the motors completely allowed.
    And to compare the maneuverability of the Pawns and the AP-2 is not at all funny.
  • Bobrick 13 February 2020 20: 29 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Good evening.
    The question is: are the best opportunities for diving the Ar-2 associated with a large number of aluminum alloys in the structure, and if so was the Pe-2 plane easier or more profitable in production due to the smaller number of scarce materials used in the structure, with comparable characteristics?
    1. KERMET 13 February 2020 20: 46 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Pe-2 all-metal could not be more profitable in terms of materials
      1. Bobrick 13 February 2020 21: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        According to the Wikipedia description, the Pe-2 could have a wooden fuselage (but not a wing), while the Ar-2 was guaranteed to be all-metal
        1. Alf
          Alf 13 February 2020 22: 53 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Bobrick
          according to the Wikipedia description, the Pe-2 could have a wooden fuselage

          The fuselage of the aircraft consisted of three sections, which were interconnected by bolts on power frames. The entire fuselage was of a monocoque design, with smooth lining of wide and long sheets. The fuselage frame consisted of U-shaped frames, upper and lower spars and stringers, the F-3 had no stringers. Section F-1 was a cockpit for the pilot and navigator. Ahead-bottom there was a large glazing, intended primarily for dive bombing - in the first series of aircraft there was more glazing than on planes of a later construction. Entrance to the front cockpit was made through the access hatch with a step ladder tilted down [source not specified 551 days].

          Where does Wick say about a tree?
          1. Bobrick 14 February 2020 13: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Sheets can also be plywood.
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 February 2020 20: 15 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Bobrick
              Sheets can also be plywood.

              Yes, yes, and from Kevlar too. request
              Name at least one bomber during the war, except Mossi, and even dive from a tree.
              1. Bobrick 16 February 2020 17: 45 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Hs 123 laughing
                So, bombers of this type were created not so much, especially for those years.
                In the sense that the time period from the idea of ​​an airplane to the first flight can be spent in a couple of years.

                PS And on the topic, most likely there was a whole bunch of Pe-2 advantages from ease of assembly, to a wider bomb bay and the possibility of hanging bombs on the wing
                1. Alf
                  Alf 16 February 2020 21: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Bobrick
                  PS And on the topic, most likely there was a whole bunch of Pe-2 advantages from ease of assembly, to a wider bomb bay and the possibility of hanging bombs on the wing

                  And the plywood in the design of the PE-2 here?
      2. Bobrick 13 February 2020 21: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That's why I ask
  • Ryaruav 13 February 2020 21: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    pe-2 could actively maneuvering, is that you say about a very strict machine in control, yes for a highly skilled pilot it is possible, a small question of the loss of 11 thousand pe-2 who knows?
    1. illuminat 14 February 2020 13: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Ryaruav
      ne-2 could actively maneuvering, are you talking about a very strict machine in control
      About her, darling. According to RLE-41, Pe-2 performed a turn with a roll of up to 70, a combat turn.
      She was strict only at landing. Disruption of the flow developed very quickly and throughout the wingspan. And landing speed, for pilots of those years, is unusually high. But this, by and large, is a feature of takeoff and landing characteristics, no more.
    2. illuminat 17 February 2020 21: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Ryaruav
      a small question of the loss of 11 thousand ne-2 who knows?
      I will repeat my post from another branch:

      Battle losses Pe-2
      1941-522
      1942-665
      1943-721
      1944-517
      1945 too lazy to look (41-44 just now at hand)
  • fk7777777 13 February 2020 22: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Please clarify about the accuracy of the bombing, from a dive comparable to the u-87 ?, i.e., could he dive at an angle of 90 degrees ?, or is it an imagination of the afftor?, ...
    1. KERMET 14 February 2020 09: 23 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      In the process of testing the bombing method from a dive to Ar-2 at a diving angle of 80 °, the crews confidently placed bombs in a circle with a radius of 57 m at a bomb drop height of 2000 m
      Over the entire period of state testing, 25 dives were made at angles from 40 degrees. up to 75 degrees
      If anything, for the 87th the standard diving angle is about 80 degrees
    2. illuminat 14 February 2020 13: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: fk7777777
      Please clarify about the accuracy of the bombing, from a dive comparable to the u-87 ?, i.e., could he dive at an angle of 90 degrees ?, or is it an imagination of the afftor?, ...

      90 degrees is just such a fetish for many modern aviation history lovers. Diving with such angles is unprofitable. Accuracy, compared to angles of 70-80, is growing slightly, but the loss of height due to the withdrawal from the dive is much greater (you have to throw from higher altitudes). And aim at the rate of 90 degrees. extremely uncomfortable.
      1. Yeti Suvorov 14 February 2020 14: 50 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        This "fetish" has reason: full of chronicle + unrivaled effectiveness
        1. illuminat 14 February 2020 16: 05 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Yeti Suvorov
          This "fetish" has reason: full of chronicle + unrivaled effectiveness

          On most chronicles, "pieces" are bombed with angles of 50-70 degrees, in strict accordance with the theory of combat use. Sometimes with 40. It is extremely rare with 80.
          And NEVER with 90.
    3. Sergey269 15 February 2020 07: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In the coup - yes! From a height of 800 m, if the target was not strictly on course, withdrawal from a dive at a height of 400 m, automatic withdrawal ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Saxahorse 14 February 2020 21: 50 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The article is excellent, thanks to the author!

    All arguments praising the AP-2 are based solely on the relatively high bomb load of 1.5 tons. However, everyone forgets that without a serious fighter cover this machine is completely helpless ..

    Thank God that it was the Pe-2 that turned out to be our front-line bomber in the first months of the war! The machine is capable of at least snarling and quickly leaving the enemy’s air defense zone. Ar-2 would be for Messers the same simple goal as TB-3.

    Niche Ar-2 the first years of the war occupied the IL-4. And only by 1944 finally the Tu-2. Tales of alternative people about the wonderful Ar-2 should be forgotten as a nightmare.
    1. unknown 15 February 2020 07: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Without a serious fighter cover, all bombers are helpless.
      Even the "flying fortress."
      Prior to the modernization carried out under the leadership of Myasishchev in 2, serial Pe-1942s did not have any outstanding speed.
      But, even after modernization, the Pe-2 bomb load was 600 kg. In overload up to 1000 kg.
      The bomb load of the Yu-88 in the overload is up to 3000 kg.
      The further evolution of SB-RK (Ar-2) was to become SBB-2.
      1. illuminat 15 February 2020 15: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: ignoto
        Without a serious fighter cover, all bombers are helpless.

        But only to a very different degree. Pilots "Mosquito" and Ar-234 will not agree with you.
        Quote: ignoto
        Prior to the modernization carried out under the leadership of Myasishchev in 2, serial Pe-1942s did not have any outstanding speed.

        Well, firstly, 540 km / h for 1941 is a very good result. In the north, where the Germans in the initial period had only "emily", having an advantage of 20-30 km / h, intercepting the Pe-2 was not a trivial task for them. Ours just left in a gentle decline. And the Finns at that time, the "pawn" was generally too tough.
        Secondly, after the modernization, the navigator got a shielded turret, due to which the Pe-2 became significantly slower, 510 km / h.
        Quote: ignoto
        But, even after modernization, the Pe-2 bomb load was 600 kg. In overload up to 1000 kg.
        The load before the modernization was 600/1000.
        1. unknown 16 February 2020 08: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Indeed, significantly slower.
          Pe-2 FZ (with shielded turret) -483 km / h.
          And only after the modernization of Myasishchev was it possible to bring the speed to 534 km / h.
      2. Saxahorse 15 February 2020 19: 25 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        The further evolution of SB-RK (Ar-2) was to become SBB-2.

        SBB is not evolution, it is a completely different plane.

        Normal bomb load was 600 kg, overload - 1000 kg (of which 800 kg inside the fuselage)


        In fact, SBB is a complete analogue of the Pe-2. The power circuit is completely different than that of the SB (and Ar-2). Dramatically increased the safety margin and turned the aircraft into a full-fledged dive. On the other hand, the combat load also fell sharply. The development of the machine was stopped because the Pe-2 had already gone into production, duplication did not make sense.