Combat aircraft. A difficult choice for the designer Ilyushin


Another reflection inspired by readers' questions. What is IL-10 and how much was it needed by the Red Army Air Force, given the presence of IL-2, "flying tank" etc?


Here we must immediately say that new aircraft in our Air Force after 22.06.1941/5/3 were a huge rarity. Actually, there were only three of them. La-2, which was radically altered LaGG-10, Tu, about which we can say that it was “from scratch” constructed, and IL.

And around the latter, there is still a rather heated debate about what it is: the modernization of the IL-2 or a new aircraft. There are enough arguments for both versions.

Let's watch. As always - in history.


And history has preserved a bunch of documents for us (for example, order by the NKAP No. 414 of July 12, 1943), which indicates that back in 1943 Ilyushin was ordered a certain Il-1 aircraft with an AM-42 engine. And this plane was supposed to be made by factory number 18 to 15.09.1943/2/XNUMX. But it did not work out due to the workload of the plant with the release of IL.

According to GKO Decree No. 4427 of October 26, 1943, Ilyushin was to submit TWO cars for state tests no later than October 15.10, 1943. Single and double.

Why is that?

Because the courtyard was the end of 1943. And the Soviet aviation slowly but surely, overcoming the heroism of the German "aces" such as Hartmann, who shot down hundreds and thousands of aircraft, gained an advantage in the air.

What does an advantage mean? This means that the nine IL-2, on which the eight of Me.109 has focused, was covered not by a couple of four fighters, but by a minimum of 6-8. From here, the hartmans ceased to cope with the total annihilation of the Soviet Air Force, which directly (unpleasant) was reflected in the ground forces.

If we had so many planes that it became difficult for the Germans to get our attack planes, accordingly, we thought about such a maneuver: to strengthen the pilot's armor protection from fire from the rear hemisphere and remove the arrow.

The practice of 1941-43 showed that it is not so useful, comrade "back to front." According to the statistics of the attack air regiments of the 8th and 17th air armies during the period 1943-45, the average ammunition consumption of the UBT machine gun in one Il-2 combat sortie was 22 rounds, which corresponds to a firing duration of only 1,32 seconds.

It is clear that this average is very approximate, that is, someone could not shoot at the enemy because of his absence in 1945, and someone in 1943 landed the entire ammunition from flight to flight. But in general, the statistics for the hospital are as follows.

Move on. There is one more figure. The probability of a shooter being struck by German fighter fire was 2–2,5 times higher than the probability that the attack aircraft would be shot down by the same fire.

At the same time, the probability of victory in a duel between a German pilot and a Soviet shooter was estimated as 4-4,5 in favor of the German.

That is, for one IL-2 shot down by German fighters, there were a minimum of 3-4 killed or wounded gunners. Usually slain. The Germans had gauges in the second half of the war that there was no doubt about that: 13 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm. And with the arrow protection of the shooter there were such nuances that he simply did not leave any chances.

No wonder that in conditions of good fighter cover, pilots began to fly without gunners. There were such people as an example I can give the Hero of the Soviet Union pilot-cosmonaut Georgy Beregovoy, who was noted in such flights.

That is why in 1943 they returned to the project of a single-seat attack aircraft. On the whole, it’s not in vain, because no matter how they called the position of the gunner on the IL-2, even a “sentence”. Losses among the shooters were indeed quite large.

Alas, the circumstances were such that it became clear: two aircraft plant No. 18 will not be able to master. Nobody withdrew obligations on the construction of IL-2 from the plant, and each skilled worker was on the bill.

Sergey Ilyushin faced a difficult choice. Obviously, one of the two aircraft had to be abandoned. Only the chief designer could make a choice which aircraft to leave. That's why he is the main one. Ilyushin chose to leave the two-seater plane, about which he wrote in a letter to the Narcotics Aviation Shakhurin.

Why he did just that will become clear a little later.


The machine should have had the following characteristics:
- maximum speed at the ground - 445 km / h;
- at an altitude of 2000 m - 450 km / h;
- the longest flight range with normal take-off weight - 900 km;
- normal bomb load - 400 kg (overload - 600 kg);
- armament, consisting of two VY cannons with an ammunition of 300 rounds, two ShKAS machine guns with an ammunition of 1500 rounds and one 12,7-mm machine gun of M.E. Berezin UBC with 150 rounds of ammunition.

Now many will say: and how is this aircraft different from the IL-2? Besides a bit more speed and increased ammunition for ShKAS?

These were preliminary requests. Of course, the AM-42, which had 200 horsepower more than the AM-38, could allow other improvements.

I will say a few words in the direction of a single-seat attack aircraft.

In principle, if you reduce the armored capsule, remove the machine gun, arrow, ammunition, it turns out that the plane could lose in weight from 600 to 800 kg. It's a lot. If converted to fuel, the range could increase by 300 km, or increase the bomb load, bringing it to 1000 kg.

Or there was an opportunity to strengthen the supporting structures and thereby provided the possibility of a steep dive. That is, in fact, it turned out a well-armored attack bomber capable of bombing from a dive. This would be a very serious help for attacking ground units.

A project of such an aircraft existed. It was an IL-8, option number 2. However, the development of the IL-8 is worth a special discussion, the fact that it was possible to create such an aircraft.

But in 1943, a new plane did not work. Try to guess the reason? That's right, engine. This is an eternal problem, and the AM-42 was no exception. A plane with a really working AM-42 could be presented for evaluation only in February 1944.

And only in April the car began to fly. The "godfather" of the IL-10 was V.K. Kokkinaki, the legend of our aircraft. He spent several dozen flights on the test program and successfully completed it.

With a standard flight weight of 6300 kg (400 kg of bombs, RSs were not suspended), the maximum speed of the new attack aircraft was 512 km / h at the ground and 2800 km / h at an altitude of 555 m. Ascent time to a height of 1000 m - 1,6 minutes, to a height of 3000 m - 4,9 minutes. The flight range at an altitude of 2800 m at a cruising speed of 385 km / h was 850 km.

It was better than the IL-2. And pretty much better.

But it’s worth looking not at the numbers in general, but at the differences in general.


So, what did the test pilots of Kokkinaki, Dolgov, Sinelnikov, Subbotin, Tinyakov and Painters report in their reports? And they reported about this:

- the aircraft is easy to fly and will not require special retraining of pilots who have mastered the IL-2;
- stability and handling are good;
- loads from the rudders are normal in magnitude and direction;
- the loads from the elevators are somewhat large;
- at the taxiway, the stability of the aircraft is insufficient.

However, despite the deterioration of takeoff and landing properties, the IL-10 has a clear advantage in speed. Its maximum speed is greater:
- off the ground at 123 km / h;
- at the altitude border of 147 km / h.

Climbing time of 3000 m is 3 minutes less. The horizontal flight range at an altitude of 5000 m increased by 120 km.

Weapon almost the same, more precisely, the composition of the weapon. The same two VYA-23 guns, two ShKAS machine guns. But the ammunition has changed. Each Il-2 gun had 210 rounds of ammunition, and the IL-10 had 300. ShKAS Il-2 had 750 rounds of ammunition, and ShKAS on the Il-10 had 1500 rounds.

Already the difference is felt, right?

But the main change was at the rear of the cab. According to the designers, the enhanced armoring of German fighters, as well as the appearance of the Fokke-Wulf 190 with additional protection in the form of a two-row air-cooled engine, required a respectful attitude.

They decided to respect the achievements of German designers by installing the VU-7 and a 20-mm gun. ShVAK, and Sh-20, and UB-20 were installed. With ammunition 150 shells.


For some machines manufactured at factory No. 18, VU-7 was replaced with a VU-8 installation with a UBC machine gun.

In July-August of the 10th, the IL-42 with the AM-44 engine successfully passed state tests at the SC NII VVS KA and by the decision of the State Defense Committee No. 6246ss of August 23, 1944, it was put into serial production at two aircraft plants, No. 1 and Number 18.

In state tests, the aircraft showed simply excellent performance. This was achieved not only by using a larger engine. Huge work has been done to improve the contours of the armored hull, the development of faster wing profiles, thorough surface treatment and sealing compartments.

As a result, the frontal resistance of the IL-10 in comparison with the IL-2 decreased almost twice.

Combat aircraft. A difficult choice for the designer Ilyushin

But even not improved aerodynamics, in my opinion, has become a more useful alteration. The design of the IL-10 was finally thought out and (most important) the protection of the shooter was correctly implemented. I will not compare with the IL-2, everything was done there according to the principle “I blinded it from what it was”, the defense seemed to have a place, but the arrows died like flies. On the IL-10, everything was done initially. And the experience of using IL-2, and the death of a huge number of shooters played a role.

From bullets and shells from the back of the hemisphere, the arrow was protected by an armored partition formed by two adjacent armor plates 8 mm thick each with a gap between them. This protection successfully withstood shells of 20 mm cannons. Ours, ShVAK, which were more efficient than the German.

By the way, the pilot was protected in the same way, he was protected by an armored wall and a headrest, which were two armor plates 8 mm thick.

There was, of course, the probability for the shooter to get hit in the open part, but alas, there was nothing to be done about it.

Moving on.

In the front windows of the pilot's lantern, transparent armor 64 mm thick with a metal edging was placed. Transparent armor was carried out in two layers: raw silicate glass was glued to a plexiglass base. The hinged side covers of the cockpit lantern were made of metal armor (6 mm thick) and plexiglass. Above, the pilot's head was covered with 6 mm armor mounted on the lantern.



Separate opening of the lid covers allowed the pilot to get out of the cockpit with a full hood of the aircraft. On the side of the lantern there were movable vents.





There were places where the armor was reduced. For example, the thickness of the side walls of the cockpit and arrow is reduced to 4 and 5 mm, and the lower part and the floor of the cockpit arrow to 6 mm. Also, the thickness of the hoods armor on top was reduced (to 4 mm), and the lower side ones, on the contrary, increased from 6 to 8 mm.

This is already according to the results of the analysis of damage to IL-2. As the experience of its combat use showed, the front upper part of the aircraft was practically not affected in aerial combat - it was unattainable for fire from the ground, the shooter defended it from the fighter’s fire, and German pilots generally preferred not to mess with the IL-2 in front, evaluating the damaging factor of the VYA-23 cannon shells.

The authors of the IL-10 armor improvement should be mentioned and once again thank them. These are the specialists of NII-48, led by the director of the institute, Professor Zavyalov.

The shape of the new Il-10 armored hull made it possible to improve engine cooling due to the new arrangement of water and oil radiators for the engine cooling and lubrication systems, which were now fully housed in the armored hull behind the center wing side member under the cockpit floor. Air was supplied through the tunnels on the sides of the motor. The temperature could be adjusted using the bronze shutters (5-6 mm thick) from the cockpit.

From below, the tunnels were covered with 6 mm armor, and on the sides with a 4 mm armored hull. From the rear side member, the tunnels were covered with 8 mm thick armor.

Thanks to this layout solution, the contours of the armored hull were made smoother than the Il-2, and the more aerodynamically advantageous scheme for blowing radiators made it possible to reduce their size and resistance.

The total weight of the armor of the Il-10 production aircraft (without fastening) was 914 kg.

The weapon control system was redone. The guns and machine guns were controlled using an electric button on the aircraft control stick and two switches on the shield in the cockpit.


When shooting, it was necessary to first turn on the tumbler of machine guns or cannons, and then to fire by pressing the combat button placed on the control handle. When you turn on both toggle switches, fire was fired from all trunks at once. The machine guns still had a separate descent using a cable.

The reload was pneumatic, controlled by four buttons on the pilot panel.


I’m duplicating the photo, but just here four reload buttons and two weapon selector switches to the left of the sight are clearly visible.

On the attack aircraft was provided (but not necessarily mounted) the installation of 4 beams (two for each console) for rockets of three types: RS-132, ROFS-132 and RS-82.

In addition to bombs, suspension of poured chemical devices UHAP-250 was originally planned for external bomb racks. By 250, the UHAP-1943 was not at all planned to be used as a device for spraying poisonous substances, but it proved to be excellent as a device for setting smoke screens.

Unlike the IL-2, the IL-10 made two bomb compartments instead of four. In the bomb bay of IL-10 with normal bomb load was placed:
- PTAB-2,5-1,5 - 144 pcs. / 230 kg by weight;
- AO-2,5sch (steel cast iron) - 136 pcs. / 400 kg;
- AO-2,5-2 (bomb from a 45-mm shell) - 182 pcs. / 400 kg;
- AO-8M4 - 56 pcs. / 400 kg;
- AO-10sch - 40 pcs. / 392 kg;
- АЖ-2 (chemical ampoule) - 166 pcs. / 230 kg.

Bombs from 100 to 250 kg were hung on locks located on the center section.


Air bombs were dropped and the smoke curtain was set electrically using the battle button located on the aircraft control handle, the ESBR-ZP electric bomber, mounted on the right side of the cockpit, and the temporary VMSh-10 attack mechanism located on the right side of the instrument panel.

On the attack aircraft there was an alarm of suspended bombs on the external locks DER-21 and DZ-42, as well as the open position of the flaps of the bomb bay and the drop of small bombs. In this case, the signal lamps responsible for the bombs on the DER-21 and DZ-42 in the working position (that is, when the bomb is suspended) burned and went out as the aircraft was released from the bombs. The signal lights of the hatch leaves, on the contrary, only light up when the hatches are open.

In the rear part of the fuselage mounted a holder of aircraft grenades DAG-10. 10 grenades AG-2 were placed in the holder.

The only thing that remains at the level of the beginning of the century is sights. Aiming during bombing was carried out using sighting lines and pins on the hood and crosshairs on the front glass of the lamp.


Since October 1944, the first serial IL-10 production plants No. 1 and No. 18 without preliminary control tests at the Civil Aviation Research Institute of the Air Force KA began to be transferred to military acceptance for the rearmament of combat units. By January 5, 1945, the 1th IL-45 entered the 10st spare air brigade for the rearmament of marching regiments.

The 10th guards assault aviation orders of the Suvorov and Bogdan Khmelnitsky regiments of the 108rd assault air division (commander lieutenant colonel O.V. Topilin) ​​became the first regiment in the air force to use the IL-3 attack aircraft. The regiment received planes directly at the factory number 18 in Kuibyshev.

In the process of retraining the flight personnel of the regiment and testing the flight test program for serial vehicles, a number of serious design and manufacturing defects were identified both for the aircraft itself and for the AM-42 engine.

Cases of aircraft fire in the air and even the death of a pilot (captain Ivanov) during a training flight were recorded.

It must be said that neither on the IL-10 plane, which was tested at the Civil Aviation Research Institute of the Air Force, nor on the machines circled by the test pilot of the 18th plant KK Rykov, fires never occurred.

A state commission arrived from Moscow to investigate the incident. As a result of her work, a decision was made to temporarily suspend the serial production of IL-10. In December 1944, production was resumed. Deficiencies have been eliminated.

The fighting of the 108th gshap began on April 16, 1945 in the Berlin direction. During the 15 days of fighting (from April 16 to 30), pilots of the 108th gshap made 450 sorties, in which the study of the capabilities of the attack aircraft continued.


The conclusions of the report on the results of military tests of the IL-10 aircraft indicated that:

- The bomb load of the aircraft by weight, purpose and caliber of the suspended bombs ensures the fulfillment of the tasks assigned to the attack aircraft.

- The armament of the IL-10 aircraft in terms of the number of combat points, caliber and ammunition for them does not differ from the weapons of the IL-2.

- When acting on targets covered by enemy fighters, an IL-10 requires escort to the same extent as an Il-2. The presence of a larger range of speeds and better maneuverability facilitates the task of escort fighters and allows the IL-10 to engage in active air combat with the enemy.

- The survivability of the structure (booking the crew and the propeller group) is better than on an IL-2 aircraft, and in general is sufficient. Vulnerabilities can be water and oil radiators. In general, the effectiveness of the armor protection of the crew and the Naval Aviation Defense against small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery and fighter aircraft during the military tests has not been sufficiently identified and require additional verification by analyzing damage to aircraft located in other active parts of the Air Force.

- The view from the cockpit, due to the lack of back view and shading of the front glass in bad weather conditions (rain, snow), is worse compared to the view on the Il-2 airplane.

The main method of bombing in combat conditions on an IL-10 airplane is the same as for the IL-2, with the only difference being:
- Planning angles increased from 30 to 50 degrees;
- increased the speed of entry into the dive from 320 to 350 km / h;
- the speed of withdrawal from the dive increased to 500-600 km / h;
- improved aircraft maneuverability.

In addition, it was noted that the aircraft is simple in piloting techniques. Having better stability, good handling and higher maneuverability, the IL-10 in comparison with the IL-2 eagerly forgives the flight crew for errors and does not tire the pilot when flying in a dummy.

Retraining of the flight and engineering personnel who worked on the IL-2 with AM-38f, when switching to the IL-10 with AM-42, is not difficult. Flight crews need 10-15 training flights with a total flight time of 3-4 hours. The engineering staff can easily master and study the materiel of the aircraft and engine directly during operation.

But there were also negative points. The State Commission noted the following as the main defects of the IL-10.

- Poor lamp design of the cabin (it is difficult to open on the ground, taxiing and flight in difficult weather conditions with an open lamp are impossible).

- There is no review back from the cockpit (it is necessary to make an insert from transparent bulletproof glass in the armored back like an Il-2 aircraft).

- The efforts on the handle of the wheels of the chassis during taxiing and landing on soft ground and in winter burrow into the snow, deform and slow down the movement of the aircraft.

- Ropes everywhere are torn: both restrictive cables of a lamp of a cabin and emergency release of the chassis, and control systems, and also cables of a stopper of a crutch.

- The strength of the tires of the wheels 800x260 mm, as well as the effectiveness of the brakes, is insufficient.

- In case of emergency landing, the power frame of the chassis unit breaks down and the tail wheel stops collapse when landing with the crutch removed, and the frame No.14 of the fuselage breaks.

- The landing gear at an air pressure in the system of 38 atm. at speeds over 260 km / h are not available.

- Insufficient reliability of the AM-42 motor and its short service life.

- Lack of air filters in the air intake system in the motor dust filter.

In conclusion of the report on military tests, the state commission concluded that the IL-10 AM-42 satisfactorily passed the military tests and is a completely modern armored attack aircraft of the KVS.

During military trials, pilots of the 108th infantry regiment destroyed and damaged 6 units of armored vehicles, 60 vehicles, 100 enemy wagons with cargo.


So, on April 18, the 12th Il-10 (the leading commander, Mr. Pyalipets), accompanied by 4 La-5s, launched a bombing assault on enemy vehicles and tanks in the vicinity of Gross-Osning, the Cottbus-Spremberg road.

In five approaches, the group destroyed and damaged up to 14 vehicles, one gun and a tank.

On April 20, the IL-10 seven (presenter - navigator of the regiment, Mr. Zhigarin) launched a bombing attack on suitable enemy reserves on the roads Grosskeris-Troinitz, Erodorf-Tophin. Finding a large convoy of German tanks and vehicles covered by anti-aircraft artillery, the group quickly suppressed anti-aircraft gun fire, and then set fire to 12 vehicles and one tank in 15 approaches.

On April 30, the regiment suffered the first loss. When moving away from the target of a group of attack aircraft Zheleznyakov’s comedian, a large-caliber anti-aircraft shell hit the 10th pilot of Gorodetsky ... The crew died.

An analysis of the combat capabilities of the IL-10 attack aircraft shows that the effectiveness of the IL-10 during operations on German medium tanks, compared with the IL-2, has increased significantly, despite the reduced bomb loading with anti-tank aerial bombs and chemical ampoules. However, piloting and aiming in this case required increased attention from the pilots and were beyond the power of young pilots. But for an experienced and trained attack pilot, the IL-10 was a more effective weapon.

However, if we analyze the qualitative composition of the German tank forces at the final stage of the war, we have to admit: the adoption of the Il-10 attack aircraft did not adequately increase the anti-tank properties of the Red Army attack aircraft. The power of 23 mm guns to defeat the medium tanks of the Wehrmacht was clearly not enough.

The final phase of the war with Germany can be called a testing ground for the IL-10. Then there was the war with Japan, in which the 26th cap of the 12th combat unit of the Pacific Fleet took part. It was the only assault air regiment as part of the Air Force KA and Navy group in the Far East (9th, 10th and 12th VA, Pacific Fleet Air Force), armed with IL-10.

Mostly aircraft attacked ships and vehicles and worked to suppress enemy anti-aircraft points. It turned out that Japanese 25-mm anti-aircraft guns pose a real danger to attack aircraft.

On July 9, 1945, regiment attack aircraft attacked ships in the port of Racine. According to aircraft crews, one transport was sunk, one was damaged.


The Japanese shot down 2 IL-10 directly during the attack and two were damaged so that the planes crashed before they reached the airfield at sea. During the second strike on the same day, another IL-10 was shot down.

Such a large loss of attack aircraft came as a complete surprise to the Soviet command.

A superficial analysis of the past battles shows that, using standard methods of attacking ground targets with a diving angle of 25-30 degrees, the IL-10 attack aircraft had virtually no obvious advantages over the less speedy and less maneuverable IL-2.

Unfortunately, the attack pilots, due to insufficient training, did not use all the capabilities of the new attack aircraft (diving from dives at angles of 45-50 degrees), which could significantly reduce the accuracy of the Japanese anti-aircraft gunners, while ensuring high accuracy of bombing and firing.

Since August 1945, a VU-10 mobile unit with a B-9T-E gun, which successfully passed state tests at the Air Force Research Institute, began to be installed on serial IL-20s.


In just 5 years of serial production, three aircraft plants (No. 1, No. 18 and No. 64) produced 4600 combat IL-10s and 280 training IL-10Us.

In general, the operation of the aircraft was very much hampered by the quality of the AM-42 motor. Numerous failures were noted, caused by both unsatisfactory service in parts and defective production in factories. But all the time the service of IL-10 was accompanied by constant failures and aircraft accidents.

IL-10 was in service not only in the USSR, but also in the socialist countries. In 1949, 40 IL-10s were received by the Polish Air Force (4th, 5th and 6th assault regiments). In addition, the IL-10 entered service with the Yugoslav and Czech Air Force.

Since the end of December 1951 in Czechoslovakia, at the Avia aircraft plant in Sokowice, the serial production of the licensed version of the Il-64 under the designation B-10 was launched according to the drawings of the Voronezh aircraft plant No. 33.


On its basis, the Czechs also produced a training version of the SV-33. In the period 1953-54. Czech attack aircraft were delivered to Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.






Serial production of the B-33 was completed in 1955 after the release of 1200 aircraft of this type.
Unlike the Soviet IL-10, Czech attack aircraft were armed with 4 NS-23RM cannons (150 shells per barrel).

The third and last war for the IL-10 was the war in Korea, where it was used by the Korean Air Force, and as an attack aircraft was very effective.


But the heavy losses from the actions of jet fighters actually blew up the assault units of North Korea, and out of 90 aircraft by the end of the war no more than 20 remained.


US trophy at US Air Force Test Center

So how can you call IL-10: modernization of IL-2, or is it still a new aircraft?

If we go by analogy with a pair of LaGG-3 / La-5, then still the IL-10 was a different machine. You can use the words "deep modernization", but do not want to. A complete alteration of the armored hull, electrification of control, another wing, improved aerodynamics - everything suggests that it was a very painstaking work, taking into account all the identified shortcomings of the IL-2.

And the plane turned out very good. It was spoiled only by the frankly capricious and unreliable AM-42 motor, but engine building has never been our strong point. So do not be surprised.

How not to be indignant that the IL-10 so quickly left the race. The reason for this was not even the AM-42, but the jet engines that had conquered the sky.


But in general, it was an attack aircraft, to which I would like to apply such an epithet as "literate". Indeed, the plane was not something so outstanding, or, as it is customary to broadcast today, “having no analogues in the world.” It was a competent work of people who perfectly understood what and why they were doing.

LTH IL-10


Wingspan, m: 13,40.
Length, m: 11,12.
Height, m: 4,18.
Wing Area, m2: 30,00.

Weight, kg:
- empty aircraft: 4 650;
- normal takeoff: 6 300.

Engine: 1 x Mikulin AM-42 x 1750 hp
Maximum speed km / h:
- near the ground: 507;
- at height: 551.
Cruising speed, km / h: 436.

Practical range, km: 800.
Rate of climb, m / min: 625.
Practical ceiling, m: 7 250.

Crew, person: 2.

Armament:
- two 23-mm guns VYA-23 or NS-23;
- two 7,62-mm ShKAS machine guns;
- one 20-mm UB-20 (Sh-20) gun or 12,7-mm UBS machine gun for protecting the rear hemisphere;
- up to 8 RS-82 or RS-132.

Bomb load:
- the normal version is 400 kg (2 FAB-100 in the bomb bay and 2 FAB-100 on external suspensions);
- reloading - 600 kg (2 FAB-50 in compartments and 2 FAB-250 on external suspensions).
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. Bad_gr 8 March 2020 21: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      .... the average ammunition consumption of the UBT machine gun (rear shooter) in one Il-2 combat sortie was 22 rounds, which corresponds to a firing duration of only 1,32 seconds.
      It is clear that this average is very approximate, that is, someone could not shoot at the enemy because of his absence in 1945, and someone in 1943 landed the entire ammunition from flight to flight. .....

      There was information (memories of a pilot) that some Il-2 pilots, having fired at a convoy with equipment, displayed the plane so that the rear gunner could walk on it from its armament.
  2. Fedorov 8 March 2020 06: 44 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Actually, there were only three of them. La-5, which was radically altered LaGG-3, Tu-2, about which we can say that it was “from scratch” constructed, and IL-10

    But what about the Su-4, Su-6, and Su-8? Passed all state tests. Dry even received a prize. It’s true that they didn’t go into the series, they decided not to “spray” the funds, since Ilya was on the stream.
    1. Fedorov 8 March 2020 07: 00 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      The Su-8 is finally the heaviest piston attack aircraft of all time, carrying 4 re-guns of 37-45 mm and 4 re-machine guns, but the borders of Germany were already looming and were abandoned.
      1. mr.ZinGer 8 March 2020 09: 21 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        [/ quote] Su-8 is finally the heaviest piston attack aircraft of all time [quote]

        A B-25, Ju-88, XA-38 on which stood 75 mm guns.
    2. svp67 8 March 2020 09: 53 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Fedorov
      But what about the Su-4, Su-6, and Su-8?

      You didn’t even name a tenth of the prototypes produced during the war, but only three went into the series
      1. abc_alex 10 March 2020 21: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: svp67
        You didn’t even name a tenth of the prototypes produced during the war, but only three went into the series

        And these are not experienced cars. This is the most ready-to-series attack aircraft. And to consider the history of IL-2 and Ilyushin’s motivation “not noticing” Sukhoi’s machines is fundamentally wrong. It was the modifications of the Su-6 that by the very fact of their existence kicked Ilyushin to make changes to the IL-2, since in terms of their flight and combat characteristics they significantly exceeded the IL-2. And the military regularly took them into service, gave excellent conclusions on the results of the tests.
  3. Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 March 2020 06: 59 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    I will express a blasphemous thought - from the attack aircraft of the Great Patriotic War I like the Su-6.
    1. Fedorov 8 March 2020 07: 06 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      By the way, I also like the Su-6. And the IL-2 had another headache (except for the kamikaze shooter) - a vulnerable oil cooler below, they often died because of it. One hit and a kayuk, a lot of smoke and the motor stalled.
      1. svp67 8 March 2020 09: 55 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Fedorov
        And the IL-2 had another headache (except for the kamikaze shooter) - a vulnerable oil cooler below, they often died because of it. One hit and kayuk, a lot of smoke and the engine stalled.

        A "wooden tail" is not a problem? Not only did he rot and required constant control, but the Germans also got the hang of a short burst of "separate" him from the armored capsule, right in flight
        1. doktorkurgan 8 March 2020 19: 47 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Rastrenin wrote (A&K, 12.2019), we managed to solve this problem (shooting the tail). There, according to the results of reviews from the front, the structure was strengthened, external stringers were installed. It helped.
      2. Bad_gr 8 March 2020 20: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Fedorov
        I also like Su-6 ............

        He looked into the "Corner of the Sky" (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/su6.html) to read about the Su-6. I see a photo of a lantern, I compare it with what is in our article.
        Guess where from whom:


        I think that the jamb with the photo on the "corner of the sky"
        1. svp67 9 March 2020 06: 32 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          I think that the jamb with the photo on the "corner of the sky"

          I agree. Since Sukhoi repeated his successful Su-6 in his Su-2

          And his cabin light was higher, and the design of the arrow cabin is different from your photos
    2. Octopus 8 March 2020 12: 40 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      I like the Su-6.

      Why blasphemous? Naturally, the Su-6 is better. But there is no M-71 engine.
      1. Bad_gr 8 March 2020 21: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Octopus
        But there is no M-71 engine

        On him and AM-42 set
        1. Octopus 8 March 2020 22: 01 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Bad_gr
          AM-42 set

          They put it. But the sense of the Su-6 with this engine was not enough. Then it’s really better than a single IL-10.
  4. andrewkor 8 March 2020 07: 08 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    But a beautiful device! I wonder how it would have proved, for example, in Syria?
  5. Andrei Nikolaevich 8 March 2020 07: 42 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Ilyushin is Vologda. Always respected, Vologda. Great people!
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 March 2020 07: 47 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
      Ilyushin is Vologda. Always respected, Vologda. Great people!

      What does it have to do with it?
      And "Vologda" - the people?
      Perhaps you would like to mention the fellow countrymen Ilyushin or the land that gives birth to such people as the designer Il-2/10/12/14, etc.
      Sincerely, sorry for the tediousness!
      1. Andrei Nikolaevich 8 March 2020 07: 49 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Perhaps you would like to mention the fellow countrymen Ilyushin or the land that gives birth to such people as the designer Il-2/10/12/14, etc.
        You are right! Exactly!
  6. K-50 8 March 2020 08: 25 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    Move on. There is one more figure. The probability of a shooter being struck by German fighter fire was 2–2,5 times higher than the probability that the attack aircraft would be shot down by the same fire.

    The numbers are of course an interesting and useful thing. The author didn’t say that the presence of a shooter for the defense of the rear hemisphere, by his presence alone, reduced the risks for the aircraft to be attacked.
    It is no coincidence that during the war, when IL-2 two-seater vehicles had just appeared, pilots who flew single-seater inserted an ordinary stick instead of a machine gun and this frightened away the insolent fuhrer aces. Consequently, the chance was increased not to be shot down and to complete the task. hi
  7. Oleg Zatsepin 8 March 2020 09: 07 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Romka, well done!
  8. KCA
    KCA 8 March 2020 09: 10 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    At our aircraft factory No. 30, only IL-2 was produced, until now the left-bank part of Dubna is called “Thirty”, somehow you won’t hear “on the left bank” in a conversation, but rather, where? At thirty
  9. svp67 8 March 2020 09: 24 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    - Planning angles increased from 30 to 50 degrees;
    There is a mistake, not "planning", but "diving". But the main thing is different, with such diving angles (up to 50 degrees), there was a real opportunity to hit enemy tanks in the roof, which front-line pilots themselves have repeatedly noted, and when testing at ranges, at angles of attack of up to 30 degrees, shells of aircraft guns 90% went to rebound ...
    And one more question about the weakness of our economy. Pavel Sukhoi with his experienced attack aircraft proved perfectly that it is preferable to use air-cooled engines for this aircraft,


    which made it possible to reduce the weight of transportable armor, without reducing the security of the aircraft, the experimental aircraft of Ilyushin with air-cooled engines confirmed the same thing,

    but Ilyushin was forced to hold on to Mikulin’s engines, which had water cooling, since there were no “free” Shvetsov engines for the attack aircraft, everything went to fighters and bombers.


    1. irontom 8 March 2020 12: 27 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      They heard a ringing again and don’t know where it is - at the beginning of the 42nd M-82 there was more than freedom, and the Am-38 was in short supply, the installation of the M-82 on the IL showed the IL with this engine flies very badly, it’s better, power at low altitudes gives more and drag better.
      1. DimanC 8 March 2020 16: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        At the time of the installation of the M-82, this modification proved to be very good. But with a series of extended
        1. irontom 8 March 2020 18: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          if you are talking about IL-2 M-82IR, then nothing outstanding, but the production would have to be rebuilt. Just this moment came to the test of Am-38F and this is 1720 off the ground, plus you forget that the AM-38 specifically had a reduced boost to use aviation fuel with a lower octane rating. Moreover, in the summer of the 42nd there was no time for a change in production, collapse and panic were worse than the 41st, if we remember we cut the Tu-2 in order to increase the number of fighters. They did not accept the project of a double cabin on Ile from plant No. 1, his Majesty the shaft stood at the head.
      2. svp67 8 March 2020 18: 40 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: irontom
        installation of M-82 on IL showed IL with this motor flies very badly,

        Of course, he flew worse, as he was immediately planning to DOUBLE, unlike his serial SINGLE "brother" with the engine AM-38. Because he was immediately offered to the military series.
        For some reason, you don’t remember that when switching to a two-seat modification of the aircraft with AM-38, the flight data also sank quite strongly.
        Quote: irontom
        We heard a ringing again and don’t know where it is -

        Let's read this:
        The act on state tests of the IL-2 M-82IR, approved by the commander of the air force of the spacecraft A.A. Novikov on March 23, 1942, noted that "... the two-seater Il-2 aircraft tested at the Air Force Research Institute with an M-82 engine of design C .V. Ilyushin considered expedient to introduce into mass production. " It was recommended to install an intercom and RPK-10 radio ammunition on the plane.
        In accordance with GKO Decree No.1502 of 28.03.42/2/82, the IL-381 with the M-1IR was launched into serial production at No. 42 with the manufacture of the first production car by May 56, 2nd. In total, 82 copies of the Il with the MIR were to be released in May. The same number in June.
        However, in view of the fact that by this time mass production of AM-38 engines and single-seat Il-2 attack aircraft had already been established, and the M-82 motor, it was decided to install on LaGG-3, which he needed moreGKO Decree No. 1658 dated 26.04.42/2/82, further work on the IL-2 M-38IR was discontinued. S.V. Ilyushin was asked to consider the possibility of remaking a single-seat serial IL aircraft with an AM engine into a two-seater version with a rear firing point and putting it into serial production without stopping the factory conveyor.

        How do you like this "RING"?
        1. irontom 9 March 2020 00: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          If it were so simple, alas, the M-82, even in the IR version, was inferior to the Am-38, and the aircraft would have to be launched into the series due to a decrease in production, if in the spring when there were illusions that we would break it, after the Kharkov catastrophe before that.
          In February 1942, he summoned Ilyushin to the Kremlin, and according to his memoirs, said: “Immediately give a two-seater plane. Do what you want, but we won’t allow the assembly line to be stopped. ”

          Another thing is that the search for a 2-local alternative was too long.
          And LTH Ilov, due to the transition to the gain tree, reservations and military quality, so dipped quite critically. If the M-82 gave a qualitative increase, it would even be delivered to a single-seat IL, but, alas, the 2-seater IL-2 with the M-82 required a serious alteration. In the Republic of Ingushetia, they did not go for a 2-seater version from plant No. 1, which was simpler in terms of alteration.
          Another question is why later in the 43rd did not make the cabin board arrow.
        2. irontom 9 March 2020 01: 15 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          All the torment of Ilyushin with 2 local cabins is briefly described here.
          http://www.airpages.ru/ru/il2_24.shtml
  10. Potter 8 March 2020 09: 37 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    The novel wrote a new aviation story.
    And for this I would put a minus to the article, if possible. IL-1 is not a certain aircraft, but a very real aircraft, which Ilyushin created on the instructions of the Air Force as an armored fighter. IL-1 was built (in contrast to the one approved by the author), successfully passed tests, showing a speed of more than 580km / h. But, while the aircraft was being created, it became clear that such a plane was no longer needed at this stage of the Red Army Air Force. But a new attack aircraft was needed, and on the basis of IL-1, a two-seater, IL-10, was created. In the book already mentioned ("Airplanes of the Ilyushin Design Bureau" edited by G.V. Novozhilov, M., Mechanical Engineering, 1990), this story is well described. But the Air Force had a huge choice - in addition to the Ilyushushintsev IL-8 and IL-16 aircraft, Sukhoi created some excellent machines, but the trouble was with the motors, they were not ready for mass production.
    1. Undecim 8 March 2020 12: 27 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      The novel wrote a new aviation story.
      The author was simply confused in three pines, or rather in two - between the Il-2I and Il-1 fighters and the Il-2, Il-8, and Il-10 attack aircraft. These are two separate stories that the author “compiled”, having received a third, though somewhat different from the real one.
  11. Constanty 8 March 2020 10: 01 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    The author himself with the advent of Fw-190 writes about the cover in the form of a two-row star. In IL 2/10, most of the armored hull was mainly protected by a water-cooled fire-resistant engine. The use of the M-82, as on the Su-6, allowed one solution to solve several problems - reducing the weight of the airframe, increasing engine power (
    and flight parameters) and unification of the power unit with La-5 and Tu-2. In my opinion, it would be better than the creation step, undoubtedly, very well conceptually old “improved IL-2”, which was not very effective as a ground attack aircraft, as shown by analysis (even those included in the series of articles in magazine "equipment and weapons".)
    Unfortunately, for the crews in the USSR during the war, the choice of fighting by quantity, although the transition to more efficient aircraft even by reducing production volumes, would achieve the same result due to the loss of a smaller number of crews. Airborne shooters IL-2 is not even worth mentioning. In a really serious monograph about this aircraft, R. Michulec mentions the loss of pilots / airborne shooters as 1/7 - not only as a result of the shelling, but also with the forced grounding of the damaged aircraft.
    1. irontom 8 March 2020 12: 19 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Please read the sources and find out that the M-71 was originally on the Su, which was never brought to mass production, as a result, the Am-42 had to be put on the Sukhoi, with an armored car, because of which it did not differ much from the IL in terms of performance characteristics. The IL-2 with the M-82 was worse than with its own engine, but they did not put it on Sukhoi. Like the fact that the Su-6 at 41, 42,43,44 are significantly different.
      At 41, this is an IS with machine-gun armament with scanty bomb loading and armor protection of 200 kg, a 42- and carrying armored hull weighing 600 kg, the 43rd added a side-mounted armored car, and then a new M-42 engine with an armored hood.
      1. Constanty 8 March 2020 12: 37 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Actually my mistake! I do not know why the Su-6 stuck in my head with the M-82? request repeat Although Dry
        Trying to get out of the motor "dead end", P. 0. Sukhoi designs the Su-6 attack aircraft with the M-82FN serial engine on its base.


        However, in the case of a comparison between the Su-6 and IL-8, I read, for example:
        Reservation of the attack aircraft was much better than on the IL-2, however, due to the rational distribution of the thickness of the armor plates (from 2 to 12 mm), the total weight of the armor was only 683 kg, including armored glass (for the pilot and the gunner) -64 kg, booking about engine -72 kg, cockpit armor - 345 kg and arrow cabin - 198 kg.


        Due to the need to book the AM-42 engine from all sides, the weight of the armor increased by 252 kg (armored hood thickness 4 mm).
        1. irontom 8 March 2020 13: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Only who will give him the FN, chronically because of the limited production of high-pressure fuel pumps for fighters, even 44 m was not enough.
    2. fighter angel 8 March 2020 12: 27 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      There was not only 1/7, but even 1 / 2-3.
      Figures of real losses of flight personnel, see below in my comment.
      Michul is not serious!
      The first time I hear this name at all ...
      Here O.V. Rastrenin is competent, authoritative, and serious!
      1. Constanty 8 March 2020 12: 41 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        This is the "merit of the translator" and my carelessness
        Robert Michulec
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Constanty 8 March 2020 13: 19 New
            • 16
            • 6
            +10
            To discredit the author only because of nationality is not serious. This is the same as assuming in advance that all Russian authors will not be objective in describing Soviet Russian weapons.
            Please refer to the content, not the person. And therefore - taking into account the data you provided about the losses of assault aviation personnel, you may doubt this loss factor - if this list is correct - because you see that everything can be called into question.

            "pshka" I will miss the silence. I never write “ka..ap” - I respect Russians, even if I don’t always agree with them. I love Soviet and Russian history as much as weapons, and, like a Pole, I do not have that right, in your opinion.

            As for the monograph Iła 2, it has its own years and came from violent literature, and is actually better nowadays (now I mainly read literature in Russian), while Michulec is known mainly for work on armored weapons (although it’s excellent the documented three-volume monograph T-34 will definitely not please you - because the truth is also bitter.)
            1. irontom 8 March 2020 13: 54 New
              • 7
              • 9
              -2
              “Bitter truth” from domestic sources is enough, no matter how we can do without foreign eye openers. People work in the archives, many myths and cranberries of the 90s have long been refuted. It is because of cranberry bias that there is no trust in foreign sources.
              1. fighter angel 8 March 2020 23: 16 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                Vitaliy, thanks!
                That's right, and no other way!
              2. Constanty 9 March 2020 00: 39 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                It was not easy to be interested in Russian / Soviet weapons in Poland: in childhood, only Leninist, party and shitty communities were described in the description of Soviet weapons. It was difficult to read something trustworthy, although it was still a "Model Designer", then what seemed like a miracle "building" In the 90s, a normal, but greatly exaggerated reaction to the other side took place. All this was from, a sensation was sought ...
                Only now objective work is based on documents without a particular ideology. With pleasure you can read Pasholka's articles on armored weapons or Maslova on aviation, the wonderful Gangut magazine about the history of the fleet. And I'm still talking about Russian authors or magazines, because in fact, politics in Poland often influences the opinions of authors too much - that's why I read Russian publications.

                Nevertheless, people sometimes recall what he read 20 years ago
                1. irontom 9 March 2020 01: 40 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I do not argue. In the 90s, when there were no other sources, these monographs were quite interesting. As a bench modeller and aviation enthusiast, they actively used them. Then came serious domestic research, in the magazines Wings of the Fatherland, Aviation and Cosmonautics, as well as individual works. Of the latter, a good book by Rastrenin devoted to armaments in the pre-war and war period, I bought despite a rather high price.
                  But many historical myths from these works were perceived as facts, not to mention pseudo historians like Rezun / Suvorov and the like. But for example. restoration to the flight condition of WWII aircraft allowed to debunk quite a few MIFs, especially for the MiG-3.
                  Serious historians still dig out new facts from oblivion, for example, Yuri Pashilok constantly surprises, makes one look at the familiar facts differently. At one time, he was actively communicating with Mikhail Svirin on the network and was nicknamed “Diak,” I am very sorry that he left us so early.
            2. fighter angel 8 March 2020 22: 39 New
              • 3
              • 5
              -2
              You are my dear.
              I will never consider a foreigner a serious source.
              Even O.V. Rastrenin, who has been dealing with the issues of stormtroopers since the late 1990s, notes that not all archives have been disclosed even for "aviation" historians !!! As for the rest, “zapadentsev”, with regards to WHERE THEY TAKE DATA FOR THEIR “BOOKS” - if all the TsAMO archives are still closed to EVERYONE !!! And in the 1990s, all the more, everything was closed !!! AND I WANT TO ASK YOU, BASED ON WHAT MATERIAL, ANY robert michuleks, and others WRITTEN ITS "WORKS" ????
              WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THESE MORAL MORALS ???
              Take their words at face value ???
              ANSWER ME!!!
            3. fighter angel 8 March 2020 23: 14 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              If a person writes a “monograph” about IL-2, and then, after a while, a “monograph” about T-34, which “will not please us,” then, my dear, it’s worth thinking, AND WHY THIS MAN IS NOT RUSSIAN, PREFERRED AS A MILITARY HISTORIAN, YESTERDAY WRITTEN ABOUT IL-2, AND TODAY ALREADY WRITES ABOUT T-34 !!! THIS FACT DOES NOT CAUSE YOU SOME SUSPECTIONS ??? Here I have YES !!! AND I DO NOT HAVE ANY FAITH FOR THIS “MICHAEL” AND I DO NOT REMEMBER!
              AND ONLY TRY ME TO DISCUSS ME !!!
              1. Constanty 9 March 2020 00: 54 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                As I believe, the monograph on Ile was the beginning (1995) and was profitable because, as I said, Michulec specializes mainly in armored weapons. The cycle of books on the T-34 goes after 2002.
                It’s worth looking at these points if you criticize them and refer to specific statements.
                "He wrote it both incorrectly, he lied here ..." - otherwise it is only a sign of prejudice.

                As for the losses of airborne gunners in the IL-2, as you can see, this opinion (and, possibly, erroneous) is also found in many Russian authors.
                1. fighter angel 9 March 2020 19: 29 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  And let me ask you.
                  What do you foreigners generally care about OUR HISTORY?
                  Why does everyone, excuse me, michulek, consider himself entitled to get into it and write a “monograph” in which, as it turns out, there are practically NO TRUTH ???
                  Who gave him such a right?
                  Why are you climbing over OUR HISTORY TO REWRITE?
                  And the little thing, it also turns out to be a huckster from history! You yourself say that his vile little book made a profit !!! It turns out, also profiting from a FOREIGN STORY!
                  1. Constanty 9 March 2020 19: 52 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    And do not Russians write books about ships, American tanks, Germany, Japan, Polish planes. Yes yes Polish too?

                    Who gave you this right? This is a meaningless approach. You mix too much with the history of politics and nationalistic quarrels
                    In the case of Michulcem, he wrote about the equipment used, including in the Polish army Il-2 and T-34. This is also our story - you do not have a monopoly on it
                    1. fighter angel 9 March 2020 22: 56 New
                      • 3
                      • 3
                      0
                      You get it right.
                      Yes, our historians write books about foreign military equipment.
                      Yes, we know and honor the soldiers of the Polish Army who, together with the Red Army, fought against the Nazis.
                      But we are against attempts to humiliate, and against attempts to show, allegedly, the worthlessness of the Red Army and our Soviet weapons, which brought victory!
                      Hybrid war, dear, it has always been.
                      And there have always been such vile "little books" from all kinds of pseudo-experts, pseudo-historians, such as a midshipman, who, while describing the IL-2 attack aircraft, SPECIALLY Tried to lower, put up this machine for nothing, stupid, etc. etc. Otherwise, why is this little bird trying to argue about SEVEN KILLED ARROWS FOR ONE PILOT ??? This is a VALID AND NASTY FALSE! THIS WASN’T!
                      And if this bastard writes about T-34 in the same vein, I ASK YOU: WHO ALSO MIXES HISTORY AND POLICY ???
                      And what approach then makes sense?
                      I think that this little bird, and there is one of the rewriters of history, is one of those "filthy mouths" that our president promised to shut up soon!
                      1. Constanty 9 March 2020 23: 20 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        First of all, it is obvious that the Russians write not only about Soviet / Russian technology, but the Poles not only about Polish. It is obvious. And yes, there are source-based books, there are propaganda books based on the key "good, better (and choice) Soviet, Polish, American ..."

                        It is interesting that the monograph IL-2, which is under discussion, is not only critical for this aircraft, but also describes various aspects.
                        As for the T-34, although the author himself writes about his sympathy for this tank, he simply mentions the advantages and disadvantages, especially of the earlier models, the engine with a low criminal resource, the malfunctioning L-11 gun, which, in addition to the terribly poor quality of ammunition, it still had poor parameters, a terribly complicated production process (120 degree bending of the front panel of the hull, low quality of the steel itself - about 280 Brinell, terrible quality of welds, the tragic field of view of the crew, including the driver, poorly tuned Meth numbers that do not allow good maneuvering tanks - all of this together with an explanation of the myth of "panic Mtsenskoy" the Germans in 1941 shows that it was not at all in 1941 good tank. However, the author's rating of T-34-85 is different.

                        And most importantly, I do not understand your excessive sensitivity to the fact that your equipment has always been only the best. This was not so - but to show that it really does not mean to discredit your Victory! It would not be an achievement to win on the best equipment with the worst enemy. The USSR did not win due to better weapons - which it often did not have - the USSR won mainly due to great heroism and devotion to the homeland of a huge number of people fighting for their homeland with the help of technology, often worse in some respects due to heavy losses. And no one is going to deny this heroism and these victims, especially me.

                        ps. My grandfather fought in the 2nd People’s Army of the Polish Army along with the Red Army, his brother with Anders in Italy is already a difficult Polish story
                      2. fighter angel 10 March 2020 00: 26 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        It’s not necessary just such talk that the Red Army allegedly won on the heroism of the people and due to heavy losses.
                        How did you forget about the detachments and "bloody executioners" from the NKVD ???
                        These stamps have already smelled and have long been refuted.
                        Well, apparently it still hasn’t reached you.
                        When all of you, “civilized Europeans,” finally realize that our people are able to build and produce the most modern and advanced military equipment!
                        So it was and it will be so! Both our Il-2 attack aircraft and our T-34 are magnificent and efficient combat vehicles, according to a number of characteristics, they were and remain BEST!
                        And do not try to pour dirt on them.
                        Without the best military equipment at its disposal, the USSR could not have defeated the enemy, for which all of Europe worked, and Poland, including, incidentally, half of America ...
                        And you all continue to consider us "oriental savages," incapable of creating anything advanced, and always pressing with quantity, mass!
                        Honestly, I want to spit on your such "opinion"!
                        Envy that you never had such combat vehicles!
                        And we will be proud of them and remember.
                      3. Octopus 10 March 2020 00: 54 New
                        • 4
                        • 1
                        +3
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        our T-34

                        shit. In the 44th relatively brought to mind.
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        our attack aircraft IL-2

                        Pure wrecking. It is impossible to bring to mind.
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        could the USSR defeat the enemy

                        Could, as you see. Everyone had their drawbacks, the Reich too.
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        Envy that you never had such combat vehicles!

                        Are you talking to imaginary Poles?
                      4. fighter angel 10 March 2020 09: 43 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        octopus
                        our T-34

                        shit. In the 44th relatively brought to mind.
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        our attack aircraft IL-2

                        Pure wrecking. It is impossible to bring to mind.

                        I am horrified to imagine that you have in your head the very substance that you called T-34.
                        Judging by all of the above.
                        Therefore, I consider it pointless to argue.
                        Stay with your shit.
                    2. Constanty 10 March 2020 09: 55 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Is it not true that the USSR won at the cost of enormous losses?
                      No less huge is the price - combat losses of "IL-2" (namely, military, not counting accidents and disasters, not counting write-offs for wear) during the war amounted to 10759 aircraft

                      Throughout the war, the loss of IL-2 attack aircraft (expressed as a percentage of the number of flights) was the highest among all types of Soviet military aircraft. From August 1942 to May 1943, one fighter shot down on 69 flights, a bomber for 48 flights, an attack aircraft on 26 flights!


                      As for the T-34, the irreversible losses during the war amounted to 45 thousand. tanks of this type

                      As for the effectiveness of IL-2, here is a fragment of the book of the RUSSIAN author - aircraft engineer - Mark Solonin "The rout of 1941"

                      For all its undoubted merits, the 23-mm cannon to defeat area targets (the nodding enemy force dispersed on the battlefield) was practically unsuitable - the fragmentation effect of a shell equipped with only 10 g of explosives was negligible. The use of bomb weapons was not much more effective. Four bombs (with a caliber of not more than “FAB-100”) could be dropped only from horizontal flight (there were no devices for removing bombs beyond the plane of rotation of the propeller, and the heavily armored vehicle would not withstand a sharp dive). ...

                      From the point of view of the possibility of using bomb weapons, the single-seat IL-2 was inferior to any aircraft with a navigator in the crew, from whose cockpit one could observe the ground (for example, Su-2). As a result, on August 24, 1941, an order was issued in accordance with which the BPS was removed from the "silts", and the bombing should be carried out using "sighting marks" on the engine hood. What does it mean? In specific numbers, the accuracy of the bombing with the "IL-2" was as follows. In polygon conditions, without enemy opposition, when 4 bombs are dropped from a horizontal flight at an extremely low altitude of 50 meters, the probability of at least one bomb falling into a 20 × 100 m strip (this can be imagined as a section of a wide highway with several cars or a firing position of an artillery battery) was only ... eight percent!


                      Without a doubt, the IL-2 was a successful combination of many revolutionary technical solutions. It’s much more difficult to evaluate the real combat effectiveness of this aircraft.. The history of IL-2 has grown into many completely fantastic legends - starting with the “soldier's truth” about how the “silts” chopped down German infantry on a shaving flight, and ending with articles that still appear in authoritative publications that “an excellently trained pilot provided that the target was successfully reached from a distance of 300-400 m, it hit two tanks on average ... ”

                      The harsh reality of the war was not so clear. Yes, the aircraft was released in huge numbers (35668 units for the entire time of the war - compare this with the scale of production of the "raptor") and became the main "air worker of the war." The contribution of this aircraft, its creators and pilots, to the victory over the enemy is enormous. No less huge is the price - combat losses of "IL-2" (namely, military, not counting accidents and disasters, not counting write-offs for wear) during the war amounted to 10759 aircraft. The figure is colossal; it exceeds the number of losses of bombers of all types combined. Throughout the war, the loss of IL-2 attack aircraft (expressed as a percentage of the number of sorties) was the highest among all types of aircraft of the Soviet Air Force.

                      We have to admit that the rumors about the “invulnerability” of IL-2 are greatly exaggerated. The “silt” armored box reliably protected only from the fire of infantry weapons and fragments of anti-aircraft shells. A direct hit by an anti-aircraft shell, of course, pierced such armor. We must take into account the fact that the tail of the fuselage and the wings of the Il-2 had no reservation. The wing consoles were wooden with plywood sheathing, the tail of the fuselage was a “shell” glued from wood veneer. The line of quick-fire anti-aircraft guns or the air guns of a German fighter literally “cut off” a wooden tail from a steel armored box with a pilot.

                      Even more distant from reality are “hunting stories” about the defeat of German tanks by Soviet attack aircraft. In 1942, the operational directorate of the Air Force General Staff established tentative “standards for combat capabilities” of the Il-2 attack aircraft, according to which 4-5 Il-2 aircraft were required to destroy one light tank, and one Pz medium tank to destroy .IV, Pz.III or StuG-III self-propelled guns - at least 12 sorties.

                      These figures are not to be surprised. Getting from a plane to a point target is not easy at all. In field tests (that is, in the absence of enemy opposition) “three pilots of the 245th ShAP who had combat experience were able to achieve only 9 hits in the tank with a total ammunition consumption of 300 rounds for ShVAK cannons.” The attack aircraft attacked the tank in a very gentle (at an angle of 10–20 degrees) dive, while even in the event of a direct hit, the shells almost always gave a rebound. The same testing range at the Aviation Research Institute of Aviation Arms showed that to reduce the likelihood of a rebound, it was necessary to dive at the tank at an angle of 40 or more degrees and open fire from a distance of not more than 300 meters. But under such conditions, 3-4 seconds remain before a collision with the ground, for which you need to aim, open fire and exit the dive. Such aerial acrobatics was, of course, inaccessible to mid-range combat pilots .....
                    3. fighter angel 10 March 2020 10: 05 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      The combat loss of the IL-2 from the number of issued, amounted to -10748, this is about 1/3.
                      The figures are as follows: 36.000 were released according to one source, according to O.V. Rastrenin - 33.136 vehicles, excluding 1430 IL-10s produced during the war.
                      For a battlefield airplane, this order of combat losses is not catastrophic.
                      Do not poke me, be so kind, marcel corned beef.
                      He is no engineer, he is just an ordinary propagandon, a provocateur working on the other side. This is the “worthy” heir to the traitor and traitor Rezun / Suvorov.
                      Your arguments are past, dear.
                      Your corned beef is an ordinary scumbag. Steamed and paid.
                    4. Constanty 10 March 2020 10: 13 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      He is no engineer, this is the usual propagandon, a provocateur working on the other side. This is the “worthy” heir to the traitor and traitor Rezun / Suvorov.


                      You can evaluate his work in different ways, but he is an aviation engineer!

                      Mark Semenovich Solonin was born on May 29, 1958 in Kuibyshev. My father worked as a technologist at a bearing factory, my mother taught German at the institute. In 1975 he graduated from high school with a gold medal and entered the Kuibyshev Aviation Institute. S.P. Koroleva, at the end of which he worked in a closed design bureau


                      And if he is lying here about IL-2, show me where - what’s wrong? Are the numbers indicated? Percentage of efficiency, loss? You just don’t like the data, so the author must lie.
                    5. fighter angel 10 March 2020 10: 24 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      This "propaganda historian" has already been refuted a thousand times, and here in VO, including.
                      I will not do this.
                      I am sorry to waste time on an empty matter.
                      I will not do monkey work.
                      He, the corned beef liar. This is known to all, it is known for a long time.
                      You were born yesterday ...
                    6. Constanty 10 March 2020 10: 32 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      The only problem is that he quotes sources - official and uncontested by anyone - and unlike Rezun, it is difficult to blame him for amateurism and lack of professional knowledge (here about airplanes).
                  2. fighter angel 10 March 2020 12: 49 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    So offhand to you.
                    So as not to climb into the jungle of Soloninsky lies.
                    Last year, O.V. Rastrenin in the journal "Aviation and Cosmonautics", published his latest work on IL-2. I don’t remember the name now, but if it’s interesting, I’ll announce it later. So, the IL-2 dived quite normally for itself, and could throw bombs from a gentle dive, and release the RS, and fire from cannons and machine guns from this position. Rastrenin provided evidence of IL-2 tests, test reports and recommendations. IL-2 normally dived quite well, the only limitation in height was 400-450 m. So marcello - LIES!
                    And what's more, dive was introduced as mandatory in the Combat Charter of Assault Aviation! And this is the most important document regulating all combat activities.
                    So, here you go, offhand, just one refutation of Marcella.
                    Your liar corned beef!
                  3. Constanty 10 March 2020 12: 56 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    But what now is the Lord contrary to the quoted words of Solonin, because I do not see the connection?

                    The attack aircraft attacked the tank in a very gentle (at an angle of 10–20 degrees) dive, while even in the event of a direct hit, the shells almost always gave a rebound. The same field tests at the Aviation Research Institute showed that to reduce the likelihood of a rebound, it was necessary to dive onto the tank at an angle of 40 or more degrees and open fire from a distance of not more than 300 meters. But under such conditions, 3-4 seconds remain before a collision with the ground, for which you need to aim, open fire and exit the dive. Such aerial acrobatics was, of course, inaccessible to mid-range combat pilots.....


                    It turned out that such a dive was possible (for an airplane) but not available to combat pilots of average skill.
                  4. fighter angel 10 March 2020 13: 58 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Sorry, dear, but you are not strong in Russian.
                    And that's it.
                    Some of your expressions are very approximate.
                    There is no specificity and clarity, and this gives rise to discrepancies.
                    Rastrenin writes about diving attack aircraft with angles of 20-35, with the possibility of increasing this angle to 40 degrees!
                    And the liar Solonkin "limited" to 20 degrees!
                    Feel the difference?
                    The attack pilot at the front quickly overcame your notorious "average level". Therefore, do not refer to it.
                    Since the spring of 1943, our ShAPs and ShADs have been of a fairly high professional level in terms of the training level of flight personnel.
                    And many ShAPs were already Guards, the words "average level" - this is not about them at all. Take and read, for example, Alexander Efimov, Vasily Emelyanenko, Tolgat Begeldinov, George Beregovoy, Vladimir Gulyaev and many others - so that it would be more understandable to you.
                    Therefore, one more lie corned-picking on the IL-2 could many pilots, and not just the "most prepared"!

                    And be sure to look for a connection, and you will see and find.
                  5. Constanty 10 March 2020 14: 10 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Yes, if I read Russian well, it is difficult for me to write in this language (using a translator), which I wrote in my first comments.

                    If it is true that for example, from August 1942 to May 1943, one shot down attack aircraft fell during 26 battles, it was difficult to cross the notorious "intermediate level".
                    The fact that there were well-trained GCC pilots there I do not deny - they, of course, were like that.
                  6. fighter angel 10 March 2020 14: 17 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I repeat again for you!
                    About 26 is not true!
                    No false "soloninsky" numbers are needed here.
                    What you need to read about IL-2, I have indicated to you above.
                  7. Constanty 10 March 2020 14: 29 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You wrote about this book:
                  8. fighter angel 10 March 2020 14: 42 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    And about this one too!
                    Look at him as well: "The departure of the Flying Tank", "Archives reveal secrets,"
                    You can also - "Luftwaffe attack aircraft. Myths and reality."
                    You can see the program cycle with him on the YouTube channel Archival Revolution, about the IL-2 attack aircraft.
                  9. Constanty 10 March 2020 14: 49 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Thank. I will read with pleasure.
                2. irontom 10 March 2020 15: 45 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  I’ll add this book
      2. Constanty 10 March 2020 13: 31 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Same as according to order

        https://warspot.ru/16773-gorbatyy-v-neprivychnom-rakurse

        In many sources, there are allegations that this flaw was not particularly significant. Like, the defeat by machine gun and cannon fire and rockets was carried out by a rifle scope, and bombs from "Ilov" could be thrown "by eye". However, the pilots themselves thought otherwise. In addition, the density of German air defense, especially in areas of "tasty" targets, was constantly growing, which forced even armored attack aircraft to climb higher and learn a new role for themselves as a close bomber.


        The document later described the rather painful path of attempts to adapt the IL-2 to the new role of a close bomber. Attempts to bomb from medium (600–100 meters) heights reduced losses, but the very “eye bombing” was ineffective. As a result, after a series of experiments at the training ground in the division, they came to the conclusion that the best option would be time bombing from a horizontal flight. However, even if the bombs were dropped at the command of the leader, that is, the most experienced pilots, practice has shown that the method, which includes “sighting along the edge of the wing planes”, is suitable only for bombing over areas.
  12. Alexey RA 10 March 2020 16: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: fighter angel
    Do not poke me, be so kind, marcel corned beef.
    He is no engineer, he is just an ordinary propagandon, a provocateur working on the other side. This is the “worthy” heir to the traitor and traitor Rezun / Suvorov.

    Solonin, of course, is still a propagandist ... andist. But in this case, he just rewrote the figures from Perov / Rastrenin, providing them with his comments.
    Here is the source:
    ... during the test site of the Il-2 small arms and cannon armament at the NPC AV VVS in relation to the method of attack of German motorized mechanized columns rooted in the assault aviation regiments of the army, it became clear that when attacking a convoy consisting of tanks, vehicles and infantry with a total length about 600 m, three pilots of the 245th cap, who had combat experience, in field conditions, that is, in the absence of opposition from fighters and anti-aircraft artillery of the enemy, were able to achieve only 9 (!) bullet hits in the tank with a total ammunition consumption of 300 shells for guns ShVAK and 1290 rounds of machine guns ShKAS. Shooting with aiming at a separate tank from the convoy under the same attack conditions ensured 553 hits in the convoy of tanks in three sorties with a total consumption of 20 shells, of which 6 hit the aiming point in the tank, and the rest into other tanks from the convoy.

    ... in 12 sorties, the average percentage of hit from the VV cannons in the tank by the aiming point was 7%, and in the tank column - 7,5% (total projectile consumption of 426 pcs.). At the same time, the pilot with the best rifle training (the leading test pilot of the NIP AV Mr. N.I.Zvonarev) provided 7,4% of hits in a separate tank (or a tank of the aiming point) and 9,5% of hits in a tank column, whereas pilots with satisfactory training (combat pilots from the 245th cap) had a much worse result. The average percentage of frontline pilot’s aiming points in the tank did not exceed 4,2% (spread from 1,5% to 6%), although the percentage of hits in the tank column was higher at 12,6% (range from 6% to 20%).

    The average percentage of hits of the RS-82 in the aiming point tank when firing from a distance of 400-500 m, shown in the materials of the report, was 1,1%, and in the convoy of tanks - 3,7%, while only 186 out of 7 shells were received direct hits.

    The results of bombing with IL-2 in polygon conditions from horizontal flight according to the markings on the pilot’s visor and engine hood with a single bomb drop and a series of 4 FAB-50 bombs at a flight speed of 330-360 km / h showed that the probability of being hit one aerial bomb in a strip of 20x100 m2 from a height of 50 m averaged 0,035 and 0,08 for single and serial bombing, respectively. With an increase in the bombing altitude to 200 m, the probability of a single bomb falling into the same band decreased to 0,023 and 0,043, respectively.
    In real combat conditions, the accuracy of bombing in this way was much worse, since targets on the battlefield (tanks, firing points, etc.) were dispersed over a considerable area, as a rule, were well camouflaged and, therefore, were difficult to detect from the air .
  13. Yamato1980 13 March 2020 10: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In a decent society, they do not refer to Solonin, Moveton laughing
  14. Constanty 10 March 2020 10: 02 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    T-34:
    the fact that initially the T-34 was not very successful is most clearly demonstrated by the actions of the Russians themselves, who in the first half of 1941 sought to modernize the tank at any cost, as well as begin production of the T-34M. The difference between this tank and the T-34 points to some of the biggest flaws of the T-34, which made it weaker on the battlefield since Pz.IV. This applies, first of all, to poor visibility (lack of visors, commander’s dome, as well as good observation devices and crosshairs), lack of effective communication, and also the narrowness of the tower. These factors effectively prevented the crew during operation. For example, the gun crew was quickly overworked as a result of physical effort in an extremely uncomfortable position and inhalation of gas-guns. At the same time, the tank commander was in many cases the unit commander (platoon, company ...), which in practice meant a disaster - he could either aim or control the tank, or command subordinate brigades. Whatever he did, he did not do everything possible because he heard a little (the T-34 was not only loud “outside”, but also inside as a result of the engine), he could hardly see anything, and the radio was working poorly (if at all)
  15. fighter angel 10 March 2020 10: 19 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Where is it from? Marcello again, or your little bird?
    So what of this?
    We got a good car, we wanted to improve it!
    The logical process.
    Are you trying to prove something to me?
  16. Constanty 10 March 2020 10: 29 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Yes, the T-34 was the best tank of all time - is that better? Shit facts


    And out of curiosity, see the Mark 4 periscope pedigree, copied and used in T-34-85.
  17. Octopus 10 March 2020 12: 27 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    User Aleksey RA recently posted a letter from the front to the rear workers.
    TO THE CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR OF TANK ENGINEERING TO GENERAL MAJOR TECHNICAL TROOPS Comrade KOTIN
    Your article "TANKS" in the newspaper Pravda dated 5.XI.42, No. 309 (9080), did not arouse in me a feeling of satisfaction and enthusiasm.
    The reader, the Soviet reader, believes in the central organ of our Great Party, LENIN-STALIN, for he knows that the word of truth is printed in it.
    And you, the reader, deceived him, since he does not know the subtleties of the design of the tank.
    I know in advance how you will respond to this letter, nevertheless I decided to write it with the last hope that maybe after that you will get down to broadcasting things. And not only you, but also the chief and leading designers led by you, the same from declarations and promises will go on to real creativity.
    Perhaps I misunderstood your article, allow me to understand its contents.
    1. "... OUR TANKS SHOWED MYSELF IN BATTLES, AS MACHINES, I WOULD SAVE A SPECIAL, NEW TYPE."
    What is the effect of this "special, new type of tank"? The fact is that from the very first days of the war, almost every unit sent brigades of workers from factories, with wagons of spare parts. Why? Because the tanks on the march became technical failures.
    Could it be better now? No.
    During the march, 100-150 km. in three mechanized corps, due to technical malfunctions, 270 tanks were repaired.
    In one of the Armies, up to 100 tanks were damaged by diesels; after the marches on the Stalingrad and Voronezh front, malfunctions in buildings of 25-30 tanks failed.
    2. "IT WAS TO BE DRAWN, MAKE A BIG LEAP FORWARD. THIS AND LEAD TO CREATION OF MACHINES OF TYPE" KV "," T-34 "AND A ROW OF OTHERS. THIS IS A MACHINE OF A NEW TYPE"
    "..... CONSTRUCTORS BREAKED WITH THE TANKS OF FORMER, OLD TYPES, WITH IMITATION ABROAD. AND DARK EXIT ON A NEW ROAD."
    What is expressed in “daring”? The fact that the KV tank was made with torsion bar suspension and both tanks (KV and T-34) received more powerful armor and weapons.
    Have you resolved the issues of using these advantages in battle? No. The dynamics of the tanks did not increase, but the speed decreased - if only because the speeds had to be switched together. Visibility from the tank remained limited, the crew’s tightness was the same (T-34) and even worse than the old ones. After a minor march, the crew instead of resting for battle sticks upside down from the tank and makes the inevitable adjustment of the mechanisms.
    So what was your daring?
    It is obvious that when in 1939 and 1940 you were asked to use the designs of Comrade BLAGONRAVOV and IVANOV - planetary transmissions for the KV tank - you considered it necessary to disdain them and ditch these proposals.
    And when the German T-2 tank was at the factory for 3-3 months, it was possible to make sure that your “daring”, “break with imitation abroad” and neglect of domestic offers brought you to the oldest, most ancient road.
    3. I willingly believe you that after meeting with Comrade STALIN, you "... left him armed with NEW THOUGHTS, IDEAS, ENRICHED WITH HIS WISE INSTRUCTIONS AND ADVICE."
    Your whole misfortune lies in the fact that you do not translate all this into a real tangible, material one. And from new thoughts and ideas alone, the quality, combat quality of the tank will never increase. In my opinion, you understand this very well.
    (...)
    You take advantage of the incredible patience of our tankers who are ready to put up with any inconvenience just to beat and destroy the despicable fascists.
    (...)
    HEAD OF BTU GABTU OF THE RED ARMY
    COLONEL ENGINEER
    Afonin


    Of course, the arguments of Comrade Afonin should also be taken carefully: some of his proposals in the same document are unrealistic. But it should be borne in mind that people who directly fought all this grandly-reported nonsense could be a little frustrating.

    In general, it has long been noticed. Who remembers better is less proud. Or not this way proud at least. Much quieter than it is now supposed to.
  18. Alexey RA 10 March 2020 17: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    Of course, the arguments of Comrade Afonin should also be taken carefully: some of his proposals in the same document are unrealistic.

    Well, these are army Wishlist, the implementation of which the GABTU required a year that way from 1938.
    The real claims to the T-34 are set forth in reports and reports from units and factories. And these reports invariably "delight", yes ...
    District engineer at the factory number 183 military engineer 2 ranks comrade Kozyrev
    Copy: to the head of the 1st department of the Armored Command of the spacecraft, military engineer of the 1st rank comrade Pavlov, chief of the 3rd division of the Armored Command of the spacecraft to a military engineer of the 1st rank comrade Afonin
    December 1940
    On the subject: defects of the main friction clutch of the T-34 machine.
    When receiving the first T-34 machines at STZ, a defect was discovered: failure to turn off and burning the main clutch discs.
    The audit found that the friction clutch parts were manufactured and installed on the machine in accordance with the drawings and technical specifications of Plant No. 183.
    When analyzing the causes of the defect, I found that they are of a purely constructive nature and consist in a small value of the diametrical clearance between the gearbox [gear changes], the ring off and the ball ...
    When choosing the specified gap, slipping and burning of the main clutch discs occurs.
    The clearance that occurs in the assembled machine on the conveyor belt decreases the first time the clutch is turned on under load, with the engine running, and after several starts it completely disappears ...
    Disks of the main friction clutch wear out especially quickly when the machine is operating in difficult road conditions, when starting off, when shifting gears ...
    I made a decision (and I recommend that you ask the factory) to pass the cars that passed the acceptance tests, open and set a gap of 1 mm ... so that the cars that arrived at the unit can pass at least 200-250 km ...
    The main clutch in its current design is not suitable for work, it is necessary to force efforts to improve it in every way ...

    The great thing about this report is that the T-34’s main clutch resource is less than 200 km. And the fact that a structural defect was detected when receiving the first T-34 at STZ. Not in Kharkov, but in Stalingrad. It turns out that the parent plant was either not aware of the fatal structural defect, or the local envoy simply did not pay attention to it and took all-ready tanks throughout 1940.
  19. Alexey RA 10 March 2020 16: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: fighter angel
    Both our Il-2 attack aircraft and our T-34 are magnificent and efficient combat vehicles, according to a number of characteristics, they were and remain BEST!
    And do not try to pour dirt on them.

    Great and effective T-34s were mostly in German memoirs - when the brave Ubermensh needed to write off their operational and tactical epic failures for something.
    Our "end users" had a completely different opinion about the domestic tanks.
    What is expressed in “daring”? The fact that the KV tank was made with torsion bar suspension and both tanks (KV and T-34) received more powerful armor and weapons.
    Have you resolved the issues of using these advantages in battle? No. The dynamics of the tanks did not increase, but the speed decreased - if only because the speeds had to be switched together. Visibility from the tank remained limited, the crew’s tightness was the same (T-34) and even worse than the old ones. After a minor march, the crew instead of resting for battle sticks upside down from the tank and makes the inevitable adjustment of the mechanisms.
    So what was your daring?
    It is obvious that when in 1939 and 1940 you were asked to use the designs of Comrade BLAGONRAVOV and IVANOV - planetary transmissions for the KV tank - you considered it necessary to disdain them and ditch these proposals.
    And when the German T-2 tank was at the factory for 3-3 months, it was possible to make sure that your “daring”, “break with imitation abroad” and neglect of domestic offers brought you to the oldest, most ancient road.

    © Head of BTU GABTU KA Colonel-Engineer Afonin - letter to the Chief Designer of Tank Engineering, Major General of the Technical Forces Comrade Kotin

    And if we take the reports of the same Kubinka on T-34 tests, then they apparently left completely slanderers and defamerswho have no good words for the T-34.
  • Viktor Sergeev 8 March 2020 10: 28 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    A couple of thousand need to be done now by removing the arrow and putting a more powerful motor. Drive the barmaley the most.
    1. agond 8 March 2020 12: 31 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Quote: Constanty
      although the transition to more efficient aircraft even by reducing production volumes would achieve the same result due to the loss of fewer crews

      In addition to the USSR, no one had a plane like the Il-2, that is, an armored attack aircraft, and why so? and probably there was no need for a slow armored car with a small bomb with a load of 400 kg, and then the losses of IL-2 and IL-10 were mainly from shelling from the ground, since they, like irons, flew slowly and low over enemy positions, If Ilyushin instead of reinforced booking, it would increase speed, flight characteristics and bomb load would not require a shooter, and aircraft losses would be much less and efficiency would increase because to bring down an airplane you have to get into it at the beginning, and the faster it flies the less time it takes shelling.
      1. Octopus 8 March 2020 13: 47 New
        • 10
        • 4
        +6
        Quote: agond
        no one had a plane like the Il-2, that is, an armored attack aircraft

        Hello.



        Another thing is that everyone had a niche plane, and the main work was done by IS.
        Quote: agond
        If Ilyushin instead of enhanced booking would increase speed, aerobatic properties and bomb load

        Empty.
        It is impossible to create a Skyrider mixed steel-wood construction with AM-38.
      2. Yamato1980 8 March 2020 14: 40 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        That's why they created the SU-6. The military, by hook or by crook, tried to replace IL 2 with SU 6. But the realities of life are such that desire alone is not enough, there are also objective possibilities for industry.
      3. Tima62 8 March 2020 22: 20 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: agond
        the faster it flies the less time

        aiming at the pilot, especially with such a primitive sight.
      4. hohol95 9 March 2020 00: 28 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        If Ilyushin instead of enhanced booking would increase speed, aerobatic properties and bomb load

        And a speedy and maneuverable bomber with one pilot would come out ...
        But there were no motors for this.
    2. Octopus 8 March 2020 12: 44 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      A couple of thousand need to be done now by removing the arrow and putting a more powerful motor. Drive the barmaley the most.

      ))
    3. Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 March 2020 17: 04 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      A couple of thousand need to be done now by removing the arrow and putting a more powerful motor. Drive the barmaley the most.

      Here the concept of the post-war IL-20 (attack aircraft) will be more interesting!
      1. Lontus 8 March 2020 19: 52 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        A couple of thousand need to be done now by removing the arrow and putting a more powerful motor. Drive the barmaley the most.

        Here the concept of the post-war IL-20 (attack aircraft) will be more interesting!

        Brutal bird
  • irontom 8 March 2020 11: 58 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    To the author - mentioning the mass of the armored hull, you forgot to write that this is the attacking fuselage itself.
    To be honest, the constant regrets about what kind of vanders we lost the Su-6 are tired of. Il-2 at the beginning of the war was a series, only the center section remained dural at 42m. Plant No. 1v 42 proposed a project with a fully armored gunner’s cabin, but, for this, the TBs were carried to the center bomb bomb
    reduce the load to 200, as a result, they adopted the RI option.
    Dry at 41, this is a shortage of information security, a short attack aircraft with machine gun weapons and armor of 200 kg, not to mention the fact that the M-71 engine brought the whole war.
    On board the shooter, IL-10 with our pilots in the fifties helped the PRC against Taiwan, from the memoirs of an internationalist pilot, the shooter was very necessary, not only an extra pair of eyes back but also a nuisance for Sabers, hired pilots did not really like to climb.
    1. DimanC 8 March 2020 16: 39 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      There is a feeling that the M-71 didn’t want to finish well. After all, the M-82 was also long and painfully finished. And then they brought it. But the M-71 did not. Perhaps because then there would be no formal reason for banning the launch of the I-185 and Su-6 series. And for some - this is no longer comme il faut, because there is no own plane under the M-71, but I really want to "win on my brainchild" ...
      1. irontom 8 March 2020 19: 21 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Considering that the designer of the M-82 and M-71 Shvetsov and the same design bureau worked on them, which was at home and did not move anywhere, unlike Mikulin and Klimov, your statement is strange. The need for a motor was great, but could not. ASH-73 is just brought to mind M-71. M-107 really, really, wanted the whole war, also failed.
        Moreover, there was no formal prohibition; in the first two years of the war, no one would accept new aircraft with the breaking of all production. Later - on the basis of mastered adequate competitors.
  • fighter angel 8 March 2020 12: 24 New
    • 16
    • 1
    +15
    Roman, it seems, is a good article, but this is where it came from:

    "... We’re going further. There is one more figure. The probability of a gunner shooting a German fighter was 2–2,5 times higher than the probability that an attack aircraft would be shot down by the same fire.
    At the same time, the probability of victory in a duel between a German pilot and a Soviet shooter was estimated as 4-4,5 in favor of the German.
    That is, for one IL-2 shot down by German fighters, there were at least 3-4 dead or wounded gunners. Usually slain ... "

    Where did these numbers come from, Roman?
    And again, this myth of the arrows, "suicide bombers" on the IL-2 ...
    Again, "five killed shooters per one downed pilot" !!!
    That bothered worse than the bitter radish, honestly!
    Enough to relay this myth, invented, by the way, by Western propaganda in the 90s.
    Someone from the stormtrooper veterans, once, in hearts, without a second thought, told someone, and then they carried an elephant out of a fly!
    We turn to the most authoritative and competent specialist in attack aircraft, Oleg Valentinovich Rastrenin. We open his work, “Flying Tank Departure,” and read, here I quote the author:
    "The combat losses of the flight personnel of the attack aircraft amounted to 12054 people, or 25% of all combat losses of the Red Army Air Force, including: 7837 pilots, 3996 air shooters, and 221-letnab, spotters."
    Where, damn it, here is "five dead shooters per IL-2 pilot" ????
    7837 and 3996, with all the possibilities of mathematics, dividing one into another, neither five, nor four, nor three in the end, WELL, NO NOW!
    1. mr.ZinGer 9 March 2020 23: 08 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      In the book of Vladimir Shavrov, "The History of Aircraft Structures in the USSR," published in 1979, the figure is 1: 7.
      1. fighter angel 10 March 2020 00: 11 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Vadim Borisovich Shavrov in his book described only the design and technical characteristics of aircraft.
        He did not touch on their combat use.
        Therefore, be so kind as to give a specific quote about allegedly 1/7, with an indication of the chapter and page of the book.
        1. mr.ZinGer 10 March 2020 06: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "The presence of the shooter allowed in some cases to operate without cover by fighters. However, this was not easy, and the losses among the shooters were very large (there were seven killed shooters per one dead pilot), since their head and chest were not protected."
          The head of "Attack aircraft OKB S.V. Ilyushin"
          Section "IL-2 (wing with arrow)"
          Alas, I won’t tell you the page, as the quote is taken from the Internet version.
          But if this is important to you then I will give a full link.
          And thanks for the amendment in the name of Vadim Borisovich.
          1. fighter angel 10 March 2020 09: 37 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            So that's where the "legs grow" ...
            I did not think that Vadim Borisovich would turn out to be the main "provocateur".
            Now it’s clear where it all came from ...
            He would have known how difficult it is now to stamp out this planted stereotype.
            But after all, you just had to go into the archives and see the real numbers of combat losses.
            And everything would fall into place ...
            With his authority and access to the archives, it cost him nothing.
            But he hurried, did not figure it out and went on about myths and legends ...
            And then I would get to the bottom of the true numbers of combat losses; I would not write such a heresy ...
            And now it would be easier for us.
            1. mr.ZinGer 10 March 2020 10: 07 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I agree, his opinion is worth a lot.
              But there were scientific editors who at that time clearly followed published materials, or he crushed them with his authority.
    2. Alexey RA 10 March 2020 17: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: fighter angel
      We turn to the most authoritative and competent specialist in attack aircraft, Oleg Valentinovich Rastrenin. We open his work, “Flying Tank Departure,” and read, here I quote the author:
      "The combat losses of the flight personnel of the attack aircraft amounted to 12054 people, or 25% of all combat losses of the Red Army Air Force, including: 7837 pilots, 3996 air shooters, and 221-letnab, spotters."
      Where, damn it, here is "five dead shooters per IL-2 pilot" ????

      There is one subtle point - before comparing the losses of pilots and gunners, you need to subtract from the total number of losses of pilots the pilots who died on single IL-2. For they had no shooters.
      1. fighter angel 11 March 2020 09: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There are also loss figures for single IL-2.
        I just can’t bring them to you now, but I remember that when I analyzed them, subtracting from the same number of 7837 lost in battle single IL-2s, I did not receive that “catastrophic” loss ratio !!! I assure you that neither 1/3 nor 1 / 4-5 were there at all!
        Despite the fact that there I considered the planes lost in the battle, not the pilots.
        And the number of cars lost in battle, as a rule, is always greater than the number of dead pilots.
        Someone still had the opportunity to jump with a parachute, or drag the front line and flop on the "belly".
  • lucul 8 March 2020 12: 41 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The only thing that remains at the level of the beginning of the century is sights. Aiming during bombing was carried out using sighting lines and pins on the hood and crosshairs on the front glass of the lamp.

    It seems that the aircraft is not bad - but the lack of modern sights significantly reduced its effectiveness.
    Because of this, getting on target “by eye” could only be done with a hand, ie, make at least 50 sorties. Needless to say, few pilots could boast such a large number of sorties - the Ilov casualties show that there were not so many bombing aces.
    And so in everything - it seems that the technique is not bad, but there were key nuances that completely crossed out all the advantages. Like the same air filter on a V-2 engine, on a T-34, which did not allow the motor to "breathe" full chest ....
    1. Alexey RA 10 March 2020 17: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: lucul
      It seems that the aircraft is not bad - but the lack of modern sights significantly reduced its effectiveness.

      And their presence increased the injuries of pilots.
      The very first days of the combat use of IL-2 revealed a serious miscalculation in equipping the aircraft with a bombing sight. It turned out that in relation to the established tactics of IL-2 actions, it was impossible to use the PBP-16 sight mounted on the attack aircraft for bombing in horizontal flight (or on planning to 5 °) at altitudes above 25 m (due to the limitation of the field of view by the engine hood), and at lower altitudes, its use was hindered by the conditions of piloting the aircraft (in this case, all the pilot's attention was focused mainly on observing the ground). Therefore, the pilots of the air assault regiments were forced to reset air bombs in time delay, which was tantamount to an almost non-aimed bombing. In addition, PBP-16, installed in the cockpit in front of the visor, greatly interfered with the visibility of the front hemisphere, and the pilot himself often hit his sight with the head, which often led to serious injuries, and fatalities during forced landings .
      © Perov / Rastrenin
  • irontom 8 March 2020 12: 45 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    To the author - about the last war, in the 50s there was a little-known air war of the People's Republic of China against the Kuomintang, where the IL-10 took an active part with our crews.
  • Sahalinets 8 March 2020 14: 37 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The main drawback of all our serial stormtroopers is the lack of forward-downward visibility. What is unacceptable for an attack aircraft. Plus, primitive means of aiming, very low combat load, well, the liquid engine was too vulnerable.
    About 23 mm guns, the author regrets in vain. Hits in the tank were for any rare occurrence. Aranov has a wonderful series of articles about battlefield planes, there it is examined in detail.
    1. Lontus 8 March 2020 20: 01 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Sahalinets
      The main drawback of all our serial stormtroopers is the lack of forward-downward visibility. What is unacceptable for an attack aircraft. Plus, primitive means of aiming, very low combat load, well, the liquid engine was too vulnerable.

      That's right, so it was necessary to make twin-engine attack aircraft.
      Their greater combat load, better visibility and better defense with a large margin would compensate for the higher price and smaller amount.
      Yes, and the rear shooter could participate in the attack and in leaving it from the lower rifle installation.
      1. Lontus 8 March 2020 20: 05 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Lontus
        therefore, it was necessary to make twin-engine attack aircraft.

        For example, something like Su-8
        In the figure, apparently not a variant of the attack aircraft - the other front end.
        1. Lontus 9 March 2020 10: 04 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Lontus
          For example, something like Su-8
          In the figure, apparently not a variant of the attack aircraft - the other front end.

          here is an attack aircraft
        2. Lontus 9 March 2020 10: 06 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Lontus
          therefore, it was necessary to make twin-engine attack aircraft.
          For example, something like Su-8

          layout diagram with engines AM-42
      2. Octopus 8 March 2020 20: 51 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Lontus
        It was necessary to make twin-engine attack aircraft.

        Yes, for the USSR this is a fairly obvious decision.
        Unfortunately, on those engines that were available - M-62 or M-85 - they did not begin to make their Fw-189.
        1. hohol95 9 March 2020 00: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Was the Fw-189 a ground attack aircraft?
          You do not accidentally confuse him with Henschel Hs 129?
          1. Octopus 9 March 2020 00: 36 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: hohol95
            Was the Fw-189 a ground attack aircraft?

            There was an assault modification, Fw-189s, but did not go into the series, it is rather weak.
            But you're right, Henschel is a more suitable example. And by the way, the USSR has an engine for it, which seldom happened, the Gnomron M-85/88.
      3. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 March 2020 22: 44 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        That's right, so it was necessary to make twin-engine attack aircraft.
        like A-20 or Pe-2, which in the war riveted more than 10 thousand? So they were expensive, and the attack aircraft should be massive.
        1. Octopus 8 March 2020 22: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
          attack aircraft must be massive.

          1. What for?
          2. And why is this Pe-2 not massive?
          1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 March 2020 23: 15 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            1. What for?
            Based on the tasks of directly supporting the ground forces. Since the armies were large at that time, the front was long, there were a lot of attack aircraft. Everything is the same as with tanks and ships. Military equipment is created to solve the problem with minimal loss of people and resources.
            And why is this Pe-2 not massive?
            10 thousand, quite massive, but for a huge army, more aircraft were needed, and 35 thousand IL-2 were rescued here.
            1. Octopus 9 March 2020 00: 27 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
              here 35 thousand IL-2 were rescued.

              10 thousand Pe-2s raise 10 thousand tons of combat load.
              36 thousand. IL-2 lift 14,4 thousand tons of combat load.
              And how many sorties did Il-2 manage to make while still alive? Pe-2? B-25?
              Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
              needed more planes

              What for?
              Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
              Based on the tasks of the direct support of the ground forces.

              Are you crazy? What other direct support in the Red Army, and even the 41st year of the sample? At what level of ground forces did an air corrector appear in the state? What about walkie-talkies on a direct plane, forgive the Lord, support?
              Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
              Military equipment is created to solve the problem with minimal loss of people and resources.

              The minimum loss of resources is when the GSS give for delivery of 12 tons of weapons to the enemy? 240 rounds of 152 mm?
              1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 9 March 2020 01: 01 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                10 thousand Pe-2s raise 10 thousand tons of combat load.
                36 thousand. IL-2 lift 14,4 thousand tons of combat load.
                And how does a huge bomb load help in destroying point targets, which are enough for a couple of hits from a small-caliber gun?
                And how many sorties did Il-2 manage to make while still alive? Pe-2? B-25?
                I have no objective data. However, I note that the rate gave priority to the IL-2 even in the most difficult times, and with the accumulation of combat experience, this priority only grew. And the Germans were afraid of these machines, the harmless dandelion was not called the "plague".
                Why did you need more planes?
                In order to cover the entire front line with air support, to be able to timely compensate for the inevitable losses.
                What other direct support in the Red Army, and even the 41st year of the sample?
                Yes, this is such, through the interaction of headquarters of all types and branches of the armed forces at the beginning of the war. Imagine, people fought before the introduction of radio communications.
                The minimum loss of resources is when the GSS give for delivery of 12 tons of weapons to the enemy? 240 rounds of 152 mm?
                Once again: it’s not enough to deliver ammunition beyond the front line, they need to get somewhere. Sometimes a 10 gram bullet is more useful than a 50 kilogram shell.
                It’s one thing to cover ground targets with beans, such as cities and industrial facilities, and it’s quite another to hammer through forests and fields in the hope of causing at least some damage to the dispersed units.
                1. Octopus 9 March 2020 01: 34 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                  which is enough for a pair of small-caliber gun hits?

                  Do you have SHAKI for motorcyclists?
                  Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                  I have no objective data.

                  Officially - an average of 50 for the Great Patriotic War on IL-2 (this is strange, 30-80 sorties of the GSS with 50 on average. Politruk is lying). 80 on the Pe-2, 70 (according to the experience of Africa) on the B-25.
                  Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                  And the Germans were afraid of these machines, the harmless dandelion would not be called a "plague".

                  And who called him the plague? Besides the Soviet newspapers?
                  Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                  In order to cover with air support the entire front line

                  Is this the USSR’s air support from the Baltic to the Black Sea? Have you heard much about Soviet air support, except from political instructors from GlavPUR and memorial grandfathers? Memoirist pilots, exclusively pilots.

                  How many German aircraft were there on this front line? Which ones?
                  Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                  Imagine, people fought before the introduction of radio communications.

                  )))
                  They fought without air support. I’ll say worse, they, after the introduction of radio communications with aviation support, were not very friendly, to be honest.
                  Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                  Yes, this is such, through the interaction of headquarters of all types and branches of the armed forces at the beginning of the war

                  That's it.
                  What other direct support do you have for land interaction at the front and above?
    2. fighter angel 8 March 2020 22: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Sakhalinets,
      Aranov- does not represent anything like a historian of the Air Force of the Red Army.
      Getting into the tank was not a rare occurrence - remember the PTAB of different calibres !!!
      The day of August 12, when the "Dead Head" lost in one day more than 70 of its "Tigers" and "Panthers" !!!
      From the use of the Soviet attack aircraft IL-2 PTAB with a cumulative effect !!!
      And remember, for example, Zurab Hitalishvilli from 232 ShAP !!!
      This man, Hero of the Soviet Union, by the way, Destroyed 69 tanks on the battlefield!
      Moreover, he flew on the Il-2M3-NS-37!
      And it was on it that he won most of his victories.
      1. Sahalinets 9 March 2020 00: 56 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Hitting a tank from a cannon was a rare occurrence. Well, as for the PTAB ... does it not surprise you that the books all the time mention the case you mentioned (not confirmed by the other side!), And then about the great role of the PTAB does not particularly apply?
  • Snail N9 8 March 2020 17: 40 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The only thing that remains at the level of the beginning of the century is sights. Aiming during bombing was carried out using sighting lines and pins on the hood and crosshairs on the front glass of the lamp.

    And it's on a plane-the front line of battle! That is, on that plane, which often had to act on the direct contact line of the troops, deliver precision strikes suppressing enemy firing points in the interests of advanced gunners ....
    1. agond 8 March 2020 18: 40 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      One could try to make IL-2 and IL-10 entirely wooden without armor by analogy with the de Havilland Mosquito PR Mk VIII. that would fly low, but fast, dropped 500 kg of bombs and back, it’s more effective than shooting 300 shells 23 mm in trenches in two three passes
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 March 2020 22: 39 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        At the beginning of the war, we had a similar Su-2 described by you!
        Did not live up to expectations, or rather, the concept was vicious.
        1. Octopus 8 March 2020 23: 00 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          similar to the Su-2 you described!

          Su-2 - Soviet Mosquito? Suddenly.
      2. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 March 2020 23: 02 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        similar to de Havilland Mosquito PR Mk VIII. that would fly low but fast, dropped 500 kg of bombs and back
        ... that the target flew, dropped bombs anywhere and was shot down by a random stray bullet, because plywood and a shaving flight do not forgive mistakes ...

        A normal attack aircraft should be able to investigate the target already in place, be able to hit a point target, be able to survive where each stick shoots from the ground.
        Accordingly, the following should be combined in the machine:
        Relatively low machine speed (because human response is limited by physiology)
        Powerful and accurate weapons (these are not necessarily guns)
        Armor + full survivability package
        And of course the review.
        IMHO, for its time, the il-2 was an outstanding machine, the maximum was squeezed out of the available means.
        1. su25 12 March 2020 22: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Only in IL-2 (and IL-10) the possibilities of hitting point targets were very limited. The first could not dive in principle, but the second ... Where can one dive from a shaving flight? The guns did not provide guaranteed destruction even of medium tanks, with a horizontal flight, the target, when approaching it, covered the nose of the aircraft, so that the bombing had to be carried out according to the NMS timer - the “temporary attack aircraft mechanism”. With an accuracy of plus or minus two bast shoes.
  • Stas57 8 March 2020 23: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    From the category "I looked at Rastrenin Tactics-Media"
  • Elturisto 8 March 2020 23: 19 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    the author is raving heavily and for a long time ...
    -the arrows died, including because they were not covered by armor from the bottom, from shelling from the ground.
    -Small ammunition consumption of shooters is proved by the fact that ki from the Luftwaffe clasped in riding breeches from the need to attack IL-2 from the back hemisphere, and attacked from below or from above, which generally reduced the effectiveness of the attack.
    Hartmann’s heroism was the speed of throwing with a parachute, drenching his overalls abundantly, in case of danger ...
    -the need for a shooter was relevant for quite some time, everywhere !!! and even on MI-8 helicopters ...
    1. KERMET 9 March 2020 10: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The author writes:
      Ours, ShVAK, which were more efficient than the German.

      And what?
  • lexseyOGK 9 March 2020 16: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Ilyushin could put AM-38 on this plane, and due to aerodynamics, win in speed with the same reliability. Combat efficiency with the new engine has not grown significantly. The combat load and the guns are the same.
    1. agond 9 March 2020 18: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It would be appropriate to compare the percentage of aircraft losses with reinforced reservations of which were Il-2 and Il-10 and with the losses of unarmored fighters from different countries that sometimes solved the tasks of attack aircraft, or the completely unarmored Bell UH-1 helicopter in Vietnam 1 helicopter for 18000 sorties, This was even written in the journal Aviation and Cosmonautics in the eighties that instead of an attack aircraft, a fighter should be fired - a light bomber with an engine and cannons from IL-2; how to carry around a ton of armor instead of bombs and weapons is wasteful about
      And in general there is an interesting article "Eradicating heresy. Unique armored attack aircraft IL-2"
      1. su25 12 March 2020 22: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This comparison will be extremely conditional, because the nature of the use of these aircraft was completely different. At least in terms of the ratio of lost planes to the number and type of targets hit and the degree of their cover by air defense systems. "New weapons give rise to new tactics" (c) Or vice versa? ;) Another thing is that in a number of post-war work it was argued that to solve typical tasks, the IL-10 would have to complete 1.5 times more sorties than the Il-2; 2-2,5 times more than IL-8 and Su-6, and 3-4 times more than Su-8.
    2. Pavel57 14 March 2020 21: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And they refused the RSs.
  • Alexey RA 10 March 2020 18: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This protection successfully withstood shells of 20 mm cannons. Ours, ShVAK, which were more efficient than the German.

    Mwa ha ha ...
    Here's what they wrote about the 20 mm ShVAK machine gun in 1936 - with regard to air defense:
    Given that the existing MG-3 fuse acts on the skin of the aircraft at final speeds of at least 300-350 m / s, and also that successful hit by aircraft can be expected at flight times not exceeding 2-2,5 seconds, it should be considered that the maximum distance of actual anti-aircraft fire for 20 mm ShVAK is 1000 m, and for 12,7 mm ShVAK it is about 1500 meters.
    For anti-aircraft defense, this distance is unsatisfactory.

    Due to the fact that ShVAK automation was originally designed for a 12,7 mm caliber, it was necessary to make a 20 mm cartridge for use in it a shell of extremely light weight (91 grams against the normal weight for this caliber of 125-150 grams) and short length. As a result, the projectile received reduced ballistic qualities, leading to a rapid loss of initial velocity.
    This circumstance leads to a significant decrease in the armor penetration of a 20 mm ShVAK machine gun and to a reduction in anti-aircraft fire distances compared to a 12,7 mm machine gun

    That is, we have a 20-mm low-power projectile, and even quickly losing its initial speed. The reason is the need to make a 20 mm shot of the same length as the 12,7x108 cartridge so as not to remodel the ShVAK-12,7 automation.
    1. agond 14 March 2020 22: 10 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The design of the IL-2 could be different, for example, instead of two cannons in the wings, one could be placed under the cockpit, partly behind the cockpit, and the cockpit should be raised and had a better view, the gun barrel should be extended to the screw reducer or the pipe should be put on it ,. Such a solution would give a significant increase in firing accuracy, since the recoil in the center of gravity and the center itself will shift back, which would allow the wing to move away from the plane of rotation of the propeller and thereby increase the speed of the aircraft
      1. agond 19 March 2020 23: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If we consider the main weapon of the attack aircraft a gun, then you should design a plane around the gun as it was done in the A-10 Thunderbolt, if it was for example a reconnaissance plane, then it should be designed around the camera, as it was done in Lockheed U-2, and in IL-2, the main feature was armor and it very weakly protected 7.92mm from armor-piercing bullets, then what is the meaning of such armor
        1. agond 19 March 2020 23: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          For a WWII-era attack aircraft, a cabin-front engine rear scheme would be more suitable as in the Bell Aerocobra R-39, at least the recoil momentum of the gun would be exactly in the center of gravity of the aircraft and the view would be better.