Combat aircraft. Why didn’t they fight for their homeland?


I will never tire of expressing gratitude to those readers who not only read line by line, but also think about what they read. And complement the written, not expressing His Personal Opinion. And therefore, this reflection is the fruit precisely on the grounds of those who supplemented the article about the IL-10 with their conclusions.


I completely agree with those who (like me, however) believe that the situation with the new aircraft models in the Red Army Air Force was more than ambiguous. Yes, in fact, one completely new aircraft for the entire war (Tu-2) and two aircraft, which were the deepest alteration of the existing ones. La-5 and IL-10.

More than once in my reviews of German aircraft, I expressed quite sound, in my opinion, the idea that if Herr engineers hadn’t sprayed on so many different models, it would probably have made Germany’s sky feel better. But since the idea is “miraculousweapons"Soared constantly, then here is the result. Reactive aviation I didn’t have time to “get on the wing”, and the Germans really lacked engine power for 2500-2800.

But I will not be distracted, but today we’ll talk about this. About attack aircraft. About those planes that could be instead of IL-2.

So much has been written about the IL-2 attack aircraft that there is no point in repeating itself. The aircraft is controversial, not without flaws, but played its role in the war, and played more than.


Today, many authors come up with “revealing” articles on the subject of an aircraft of one design or another, which was “no worse” than the Il-2, but didn’t go into the series, because ... further on, the conspiracy theology in full Ren-TV style .

Naturally, with the mention of all involved persons. Especially often flicker Yakovlev, Shakhurin and, of course, Stalin himself. It was just that the three of us walked and chopped projects with axes.

However, it makes sense to briefly (for a long time definitely fail) to walk through the competitors of the IL-2. Indeed, the aircraft industry of the USSR since 1935 has experienced an unprecedented rise, there were many designers, many have designed and built.

And what was created in our pre-war and initial war periods?

Polikarpov VIT-1



Very interesting plane. The first flight was made under the control of V. Chkalov on 14.10.1937/XNUMX/XNUMX.

VIT-1 showed a high maximum flight speed for its time at an altitude of 3000 m - 494 km / h. The flight range was also very impressive: about 1 km at 000 km / h.

According to P. M. Stefanovsky, a test pilot of the Air Force Research Institute, who also flew a VIT-1 as a test pilot, the aircraft was easy to fly, had good maneuverability and was quite acceptable to fly on a single engine.

The crew of the aircraft consisted of two people - a pilot and a shooter.

Defensive weapons included a turret with a ShKAS machine gun. And the offensive was (I will not sin against the truth) simply unique at that time (1937). Two 37 mm Shpitalnoy OKB-15 cannons installed in the center section of the center wing at the sides of the fuselage, and another 20 mm ShVAK gun in the nose of the aircraft. Add to this up to 600 kg of bombs in the bomb bay or two FAB-500 on external sling.

It could be just a masterpiece plane, if it brought to mind. Factory tests of VIT-1 were not completed, and even today the reason is not entirely clear. There are several versions, of varying degrees of doubtfulness, but in general this project is worth a separate investigation.

Personally, it seems to me that, like all Polikarpov’s projects after the death of Valery Chkalov, VIT-1 suffered just such a fate - to be put aside. But this is indeed a topic for another discussion.

Polikarpov VIT-2



This is not a work on mistakes, as many will think. It was born in the brilliant head of Polikarpov universal attack aircraft, which through small field modifications could be turned into anything.

Polikarpov was exploring the possibility of creating a diving bomber, a multi-seat cannon fighter, a multi-gun attack aircraft and a heavy sea attack aircraft based on VIT-2.

Alas, the General Directorate of the Aviation Industry showed no interest in airplanes. Moreover, there is evidence that Tupolev himself slowed down Polikarpov’s projects. Believe it? So I believe. The patriarch was able to play these games.

May 11, 1938 Chkalov made his first test flight. Further tests were carried out by test pilot of plant No. 84 B.N. Kudrin.

With a flight weight of 6166 kg at an altitude of 4500 m, a maximum flight speed of 498 km / h was obtained, and with a flight weight of 5350 kg, 508 km / h.

By the way, this was the first aircraft with M-105 engines. That is, at Polikarpov Design Bureau, the whole burden of refining raw (and there weren’t others then) Klimov’s engines fell.

In general, the plane, which had simply incomparable performance characteristics, was shown to the head of the Air Force of the Red Army Smushkevich only after the chief engineer of the plant No. 84 Nersisyan personally “tapped” Voroshilov that they really “clamped” Polikarpov’s good car into the SUAI.

It seems that everyone was in favor, and the plane passed the state tests, and took part in the air parade on May 1, and was recommended in the series ... But he did not go.

And the plane was very good. But not without drawbacks, among which the main thing I consider is the complete lack of armor (except for the pilot’s armor plate). A kind of "crystal hammer" turned out.


But at a very impressive speed, the VIT-2 had simply stunning weapons:
- two 20-mm ShVAK-20 guns (in the nose and on the turret);
- two 20-mm ShVAK guns and two 37-mm ShFK-37 guns in the wings;
- two 7,62 mm ShKAS machine guns.

Bomb load up to 1600 kg.

Kocherigin Sh / LBSh


Combat aircraft. Why didn’t they fight for their homeland?

This aircraft, created in 1939, is worth mentioning in connection with the fact that it is generally the first aircraft in the world on which wing cannons were installed. Specifically, in the case of LBSh - ShVAK guns.

It was a monoplane with fixed gear, created on the basis of the scout R-9. Two copies were built, with engines M-88 and M-87A.

The following results were obtained in tests: the maximum speed at the ground - 360 km / h (afterburner - 382 km / h), the maximum speed at an estimated height of 6650 m - 437 km / h, and at an altitude of 7650 m - 426 km / h. Take-off weight - 3500 kg.

As an offensive weapon, the attack aircraft had 2 ShVAK cannons with 150 rounds of ammunition per barrel, 2 ShKAS machine guns with 900 rounds of ammunition and 200 kg of normal bomb load (overload up to 600 kg).

The defensive armament consisted of one ShKAS (b / c 500 rounds) mounted on the MV-3 ​​turrets.

The aircraft was built, tested, recommended for mass production under the name BB-21, but did not go into series. The war began, and the factories that originally planned the release of BB-21 were given over for the production of the Yak-1.

Tomashevich "Pegasus"



In the summer of 1942, an engineer little known until that moment proposed to fight the German tank formations create an air anti-tank army. In 1938, Tomashevich became the leading designer of the I-180 fighter and at the same time deputy N. N. Polikarpov.

In December 1938, after the death of Chkalov, Tomashevich was arrested and continued his work in the so-called sharashka. And there, Tomashevich proposed in 1941 a draft anti-tank aircraft. And in 1941, Tomashevich really foresaw tank battles of 1943.

On his plane, Tomashevich proposed using ornamental pine, building plywood, S-20 steel, roofing iron and low-grade aluminum alloys in a minimal amount. The designer suggested making wood not only the plane itself, but also, which was quite unusual, the landing gear wheels. As the power plant, M-11 engines were chosen, which easily started in the winter and consumed any kind of gasoline. According to estimates, for the combat departure of five anti-tank aircraft of Tomashevich, the fuel was consumed as much as was required to ensure the combat departure of one Il-2.

In addition to the fact that the aircraft was supposed to be cheap and easy to manufacture, it carried out activities that allowed entrusting it to low-skilled pilots. The chassis was not cleaned, there was no hydraulics and air system, the wiring was the simplest.

The armament of the Pegasus aircraft consisted of one directional 12,7-mm machine gun UB, the rest of the shock weapons were mounted outside under the center section. Several options have been suggested:

- FAB-250 bomb (hereinafter - 2 x FAB-250 or one FAB-500);
- 9 PC-82 or PC-132;
- 37 mm air gun (NS-37);
- two 23-mm air guns (VYA-23);
- 4 bomb cassettes for anti-tank cumulative bombs.

The plane failed, as usual, the engine. M-11 was installed on the U-2, Shche-2 and Yak-6, and there were simply no engines for the thousands of Tomashevich’s planes. The plane did not go into production.

Sukhoi Su-6



The first copy of the Su-6 was built by February 28, 1941 and March 13 V.K. Kokkinaki made his first flight on it. From that moment, factory flight tests began, which took place at the LII of the NKAP and were completed at the end of April 41st.

It was found that in terms of flight speed, climb rate and take-off and landing characteristics, the Su-6 with the M-71 engine was significantly superior to the Il-2 with the AM-38 engine. The maximum speed at the ground was 510 km / h, and at the estimated height - 527 km / h. The ascent time to a height of 3000 m was 7,3 minutes. Flight range - 576 km.

But it was data for a car without weapons. The total weight of the armor was 195 kg, which was not enough to protect the aircraft and crew.

With a normal flight weight of 4 kg (217 kg of bombs and machine gun ammunition), the maximum speed of the ground attack aircraft was 120 km / h, and at an altitude of 474 m - up to 5 km / h. The aircraft gained a height of 700 m in 566 minutes, and a height of 1 m - 000 minutes. The maximum flight range at an altitude of 1,16-5 m at a speed of 000 km / h - 6,25 km.

Despite the excellent flight data of the Su-6 M-71, LII NKAP experts pointed out the weak weapons of the attack aircraft, which completely does not meet modern requirements.

Later, in the process of fine-tuning the aircraft, P.O. Sukhoi Design Bureau still managed to create an outstanding Su-6 attack aircraft with the M-71F engine with excellent flight, aerobatic and combat properties.

Created in 1943-44 The armored attack aircraft Su-6 with M-71F and IL-10 with AM-42 fully embodied the concept of "flying infantry fighting vehicle", which were better than the main attack aircraft of the Il-2 air force.


Shooting and cannon armament consisted of two wing guns VYA-23 and two wing machine guns ShKAS. Ammunition for VYA-23 guns included 230 rounds, for ShKAS machine guns - 3000 rounds.

Bomb weapons allowed suspension:

- inside on the holders of KD-2 four bombs of the type FAB-50 or FAB-100 (to overload);
- outside on two holders of the DZ-40 type, the FAB-50 or FAB-100 bombs.

Jet weapons consisted of 10 RS-132 or RS-82.

With a normal flight weight of 5 kg (250 x RS-10, 132 kg of bombs, two VYA-200 cannons and four ShKAS machine guns with full ammunition), the attack aircraft had a maximum ground speed of 23 km / h, and 445 km at an altitude of 2500 m / h

Su-6 M-71F brilliantly passed state tests. It was a really wonderful car. In terms of maximum speeds, rate of climb, maneuverability, ceiling, range, armament and reservation, the double Sukhoi significantly exceeded the double Il-2 AM-38F standing on the arsenal of the KA Air Force.

In addition, the Su-6 possessed excellent stability and controllability characteristics, was simple and pleasant to fly.

Due to the fact that the entire bomb load was located inside the fuselage, the maximum speed of the attack aircraft remained almost the same.

Alas, with the fine-tuning of the attack aircraft, Sukhoi was clearly delayed, and in May 1944 he successfully completed state tests of the IL-10 attack aircraft with an AM-42 engine, which showed higher flight data.

Comparison of the flight and combat properties of the Sukhov attack aircraft with the IL-10 was not in favor of the first. The Su-6 with the AM-42 was inferior to the Ilyushin car in most respects. As a result, it was concluded that the launch of the Su-6 with AM-42 into serial production was inappropriate.

Sukhoi Su-8



By mid-1941, the Design Bureau of P.O. Sukhoi developed a project for a single-seat armored attack aircraft ODBSh with two promising air-cooled engines M-71. The ODBSh project was officially presented at the SCA Air Force Research Institute on June 30, 1941.

Rifle-cannon armament consisted of two 37mm Shpitalny caliber cannons (100 rounds of ammunition) and two 12,7mm caliber machine guns (400-800 rounds) placed in the lower part of the fuselage on a swing bridge, and 4-8 ShKAS caliber 7,62 machine guns , XNUMX mm. ShKAS fired synchronously with the fuselage bridge.

The normal bomb load of 400 kg (overload of 600 kg) was placed on the internal suspension in the center section of the wing.

In addition, on the external sling it was possible to suspend another 400 kg of bombs. Thus, the maximum bomb load was 1000 kg. Including the possibility was provided for the suspension of one high-explosive 1000-kg bomb type FAB-1000.

Reservation of the attack aircraft included: armor plate in front of the pilot with a thickness of 15 mm, 64-mm front bulletproof glass, armored back of the pilot with a thickness of 15 mm, as well as 10-mm armor plates from below and to the side of the pilot.

Protected gas and oil tanks. In addition, a system for filling gas tanks with neutral gases was provided.

The flight weight of the attack aircraft was 10 258 kg. The maximum speed at ground level was 500 km / h, and at an estimated height of 6000 m - 600 km / h. Climbing time of 5000 m - 7,5 minutes. The flight range was estimated at 1 km, and the maximum - 000 km at a cruising speed of 1 km / h.

By February 1944, the NS-37 guns were replaced by the NS-45 OKB-16 guns of the 45 mm caliber (200 shells). This decision was caused by the fact that the destructive effect of the standard high-explosive fragmentation projectile used in the NS-45 (weight 1065 g) from the 45-mm anti-tank gun was twice as high as that of the projectile for the NS-37 cannon. A 45-mm shell was enough to destroy almost all of the German tanks existing at that time.

Small arms remained the same: eight ShKAS machine guns (four on each wing console) with 4800 rounds of ammunition, two movable defensive machine guns in the cockpit of the radio operator-gunner: UBT (200 rounds) on the UTK-1 turret and a ShKAS machine gun (700 rounds) per lower hatch turret LU-100.

Missile weapons included 6 missiles PC 82 or ROFS-132 (overload 10). The bombs were located in six bomb bay located in the center section. Each compartment contained one bomb weighing 100 kg (a total of 600 kg), or several bombs of smaller caliber from 1 to 25 kg (a total of 900 kg).

Under the fuselage, it was possible to suspend three 100 kg (300 kg) or 250 kg (750 kg) caliber bombs, or two 500 kg caliber bombs, or two VAP-500.

With the reloading flight weight of the aircraft 13 381 kg, the maximum weight of the bomb load was 1400 kg.

With a normal flight weight of 12 kg, the maximum speed near the Su-213 ground with two M-8F engines was 71 km / h (afterburner 485 km / h), at an altitude of 515 m - 4 km / h. Climbing time to a height of 600 m - 550 minutes.

Unfortunately, the passive position of the People’s Commissariat of the aviation industry on the issue of establishing large-scale production of M-71F engines decided the fate of the Sukhoi Design Bureau heavy attack aircraft - just like the Su-6 M-71F, it was not built in the Su-8 series.

In addition, it was 1944, and the leadership of the country, the Air Force and the NKAP had a strong opinion by this time that a war could be won without such an expensive and complicated machine as the Su-8, even if it was much more efficient than cheap single-engine attack aircraft .

There were still mixed and interesting developments. Yakovlev, Mikoyan, Kocherigin, Sukhoi, Polikarpov.

We can say for sure that there were enough designers in the Land of Soviets. Both talented and not so. But in the end, the front line of the enemy’s defense was ironed by IL-2 and subsequently IL-10.


Was it justified?

From my point of view, absolutely. War. And, therefore, the reconfiguration of the factories was fraught with a loss in the pace of aircraft production. And the pace is exactly what we defeated the Germans. While they were rebuilding their plants after a raid by the British and Americans, we calmly released hundreds and thousands of attack aircraft.

Were IL-2 rivals better? Given that the IL-2 was not an ideal attack aircraft? If you familiarize yourself with the description in detail, one thing turns out: IL-2 was better armored than all the proposed aircraft, with the exception of the Su-8. But the Su-8 was the representative of a slightly different line of aircraft, heavier, twin-engine.

And one can argue for a very long time on the issue of how appropriate would be the release of stronger aircraft than the Il-2. Of course, appropriate. Another question is whether such aircraft were actually created. Faster, heavier weapons, better booked?

If you look closely, then no. The release of tens of thousands of IL-2 attack aircraft was fully justified, no matter how shortcomings this aircraft had. Just a year ago, one of the authors on VO told how beautiful the Henschel Ne-129 was, and what would have happened if this plane had been produced with at least 900 copies, and at least comparable to the Il-2.

But the fact is that He-129 was released just as much, 878. And the IL-2 is a little larger. Little bit. 36. And they could launch Sukhoi attack aircraft, which were even better. But really, the best is the enemy of the good. As the results of the war showed.

The fact that the created attack aircraft Yakovlev, Polikarpov, Sukhoi did not fight, but were in the “reserve”, does not detract from their capabilities. The best confirmation is the State Prize of the 1st degree for the creation of the Su-6, which was awarded to P.O. Sukhoi.

Some aircraft were underestimated, like Polikarpov attack aircraft, and Sukhoi, in principle, too. But there were Ilyushin’s planes that coped with the tasks assigned to them. Here lies the answer to the question. “Ilya” did the work that other aircraft could do. But risking during the war was completely not worth it. How do not change the horses at the crossing.

So the leadership of the USSR also did not take risks.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ltc35 14 March 2020 05: 59 New
    • 32
    • 4
    +28
    I completely agree with the author and thank you very much for the detailed review. I also constantly thought about what could have happened if we had launched all the planes in a series. But the realities of that time simply did not allow experimentation. And in the modern big war, most likely all technically advanced equipment will be knocked out at the very beginning, and it will be necessary to continue with the fact that it is simpler.
    1. rich 14 March 2020 06: 05 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      Thanks for the article, I have learned a lot of new and interesting things for myself.
      1. Insurgent 14 March 2020 06: 20 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        Historian's view on replacing the Su-6 in favor of the IL-2



        He, about the problems of the IL-2 attack aircraft

        1. Insurgent 14 March 2020 06: 28 New
          • 16
          • 2
          +14
          Just a year ago, one of the authors at VO told how beautiful the Henschel Ne-129 was.

          Typical "product of wartime, in German", problematic French-made engines, extremely cramped cabin, lack of rear hemisphere protection, extremely low (before modernization) characteristics in the fight against armored vehicles.


        2. maidan.izrailovich 14 March 2020 07: 37 New
          • 6
          • 5
          +1
          Historian's view on replacing the Su-6 in favor of the IL-2

          Historians on history itself (as a science) cannot agree. Therefore, apparently, they crawl into areas that are far from their specialization.
          1. Insurgent 14 March 2020 07: 46 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            Quote: maidan.izrailovich
            Historian's view on replacing the Su-6 in favor of the IL-2

            Historians on history itself (as a science) cannot agree. Therefore, apparently, they crawl into areas that are far from their specialization.

            How to say, for example, in the museums of political techs, historians, experts in the development of engineering and technology work ... They are quite competent.
            There are archival historians, there are archaeologists, and there are historians - techies ...
            1. polar fox 14 March 2020 19: 15 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: Insurgent
              There are archival historians, there are archaeologists, and there are historians - techies ...

              still to them historians, technologists, that would hit on the head when they begin to tell nonsense.
            2. venik 14 March 2020 20: 04 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              Quote: Insurgent
              in museums of political techs, historians work

              ==========
              Sorry, dear Insurgent! And "political tech" is what - "Institute Political Technology "??? lol
              Well yes! There, "historians" the very place !!! tongue
              1. Insurgent 15 March 2020 12: 31 New
                • 4
                • 5
                -1
                Quote: venik
                Sorry, dear Insurgent! And "political tech" is that - "Institute of Political Technologies" ???

                Well no. These are Polytechnic institutes and universities.
                For example: DPI - Donetsk Polytechnic Institute (now Don NTU)
                1. Golovan Jack 15 March 2020 12: 50 New
                  • 5
                  • 8
                  -3
                  Quote: venik
                  A "polyttex ", is that -" Institute of Political Technologies "???

                  Quote: Insurgent
                  Well no. These are Polytechnic institutes and universities.

                  They with one "тэ" are written. And the question was the same. Sar-erysipelas laughing
                  1. Insurgent 15 March 2020 16: 25 New
                    • 7
                    • 5
                    +2
                    Quote: Golovan Jack
                    Quote: venik
                    A "polyttex ", is that -" Institute of Political Technologies "???

                    Quote: Insurgent
                    Well no. These are Polytechnic institutes and universities.

                    They with one "тэ" are written. And the question was the same. Sar-erysipelas laughing

                    Question about the "stuck" key? Garny question ...
                    A "PolyТtechnical institutes, "is written correctly, is not it?

                    So what are you, Golovan Jack, BukFFoed?
                    1. Golovan Jack 15 March 2020 16: 30 New
                      • 2
                      • 10
                      -8
                      Quote: Insurgent
                      Question about the "stuck" key?

                      No, it’s more of a problem in the brain: to write “t” with two is, okay, the key ... but answer

                      Quote: Insurgent
                      Quote: venik
                      Sorry, dear Insurgent! And "political tech" is that - "Institute of Political Technologies" ???

                      Well no. These are Polytechnic institutes and universities.

                      - this, my friends, are already brains request
                      1. Insurgent 15 March 2020 16: 35 New
                        • 9
                        • 5
                        +4
                        Quote: Golovan Jack
                        this, my friends, are already brains request


                        I already wrote to you that you’re not my friend, except you, my friend, with a ponytail.
                      2. Golovan Jack 15 March 2020 16: 41 New
                        • 3
                        • 11
                        -8
                        Quote: Insurgent
                        you are not my friend, except my friend

                        Where is your friend - then you better know. And what’s the trouble with the brains - so don’t go to the fortuneteller. Sweetheart love laughing
                      3. Insurgent 15 March 2020 16: 44 New
                        • 7
                        • 5
                        +2
                        Quote: Golovan Jack
                        Sweetheart

                        So be it, but not a dog.
                        That's all. Not interesting, stupid and boring.
                      4. Golovan Jack 15 March 2020 16: 46 New
                        • 3
                        • 11
                        -8
                        Quote: Insurgent
                        Not interesting, stupid and boring

                        You forgot - you are also illiterate laughing
      2. PilotS37 15 March 2020 12: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Insurgent
        and there are historians - techies ...

        Well, there are very few real tech historians, since, on the one hand, you need to know how the technique works (that is, to have experience in its creation and / or operation), and on the other, to have the competencies of a historian (and this is a completely different field of activity )
        Plus, keep in mind a huge amount of information "on the topic."
        Given the fact that historians have always earned less than “techies”, this alignment (a competent “techie” becomes a professional historian) is extremely unlikely. Unless retired ...
      3. Essex62 15 March 2020 15: 16 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Here are the techies they are. Science is what is confirmed by experiment. Any "historical" piece of paper, in 90 cases out of 100, concocted propaganda and nonsense. Combat reports, for example, are always embellished or a complete substitution of reality. In addition to the fact of the battle, of course. And according to them, the so-called scientists, make up a judgment and impose it on everyone. You can name a maximum of researchers and interpreters, and this is already akin to pomp. There is no such science history.
    2. Krasnoyarsk 14 March 2020 12: 10 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: maidan.izrailovich
      Historian's view on replacing the Su-6 in favor of the IL-2

      Historians on history itself (as a science) cannot agree. Therefore, apparently, they crawl into areas that are far from their specialization.

      Yes confirm. I myself know, from my own experience, what does it mean for an enterprise to switch to the production of other, albeit "related" products. In my case, it took almost a year to change equipment, create non-standard equipment, devices, etc. So, it’s not easy - the plant will switch to the production of another aircraft.
  2. sibiryouk 14 March 2020 14: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is also a book by Rastrenin about WWII attack aircraft, where the reasons and reasons for the release of other models of attack aircraft, and in particular Sukhoi construction vehicles, are described in detail.
  3. Engineer 16 March 2020 14: 42 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Oh, sorry in the Second World War, we did not have such historians in the country's leading design bureaus! The war would end at the click of a button ... on the keyboard
  • mr.ZinGer 14 March 2020 08: 07 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    There is a book by V.B. Shavrova "History of aircraft designs in the USSR" in two volumes. I read it while still a student. There is nothing better. I advise you to look, it is on the Internet, unfortunately a weak illustrative part spoils it.
    1. PilotS37 15 March 2020 12: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: mr.ZinGer
      There is a book by V.B. Shavrova

      Shavrov himself was an aircraft designer, and one of the first in the USSR and quite successful: he created such a "workhorse" for the Severs as the Sh-2 (Shavrushka).
      He knew the industry, knew what he was writing about. Therefore, the book was wonderful too (I say this as a former aerodynamicist and a person who is not indifferent to history).
  • knn54 14 March 2020 13: 50 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thank you Roman. AGAIN became interested in the fate of Polikarpov, Tupolev and Bartini.
    Indeed, a meter, by the way, one of Sikorsky’s students, as he could, pushed competitors.
    Although Ilyushin and Yakovlev were also not far away, they read Sukhoi’s memoirs (Belarusian edition).
    There is no GUAP. But there is the Russian Helicopters Corporation.
    PS I found another 40 ... 45 year old Black Sea sailors who spoke very unflattering about the Tupolev torpedo boats. But that's another story.
    1. mmaxx 14 March 2020 16: 26 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Tupolev boats are praised only by amateurs. Having some erudition and knowledge, it is clear that these boats could only go on smooth water. In addition to torpedoes, 2 more machine guns. What can be done with these machine guns and with whom? The small boat is a duralumin. It rattles like a drum. It’s impossible to get anywhere. On any wave - no speed and no seaworthiness.
      After the invention of the deep V contours by American bootleggers, all countries abandoned gliders with transverse redans and contours like the G-5. In general, the G-5 is better than nothing, but no more.
      1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 15 New
        • 8
        • 3
        +5
        Quote: mmaxx
        in general, the G-5 is better than nothing, but no more.

        Much worse than nothing.

        A country with wooden fighters makes ships from duralumin.

        In a country where the entire Union of Aviation Engineers allegedly has less than one Messerschmitt, the main design bureau for metal planes is engaged in useless boats.
        1. mmaxx 15 March 2020 02: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I think that during the war they were not built. Although I don’t know the data
  • Bar1 14 March 2020 08: 38 New
    • 5
    • 34
    -29
    we know all this for a long time.
    IL2 was developed and launched before the Su6 series, so thousands were released, and the Su2 was left out of work, but the IL-6s were shot down by thousands due to low speed and poor turning / low flight characteristics.
    The mistake of our frankly illiterate political leadership is, in some aspects, the blind imitation of German and generally Western military equipment (for example, this is t26-11thousand units, bt5-2tys.sht. B29 / tu4-1300sht.). As well as mass production low-quality equipment i.e. quantity instead of quality, the same Gas AA-one and a half, which drove for more than ten years with almost no change. Zis5, instead of say Zis6, which was more needed for the economy and for military use.
    The main thing in the war is coordination between troops, this requires communications, but our communications remained in its infancy and this is just an example of the fact that the leadership of the country and the Red Army simply did not understand the importance of communications between the troops and offered to interact in the old-fashioned way. in the last war.
    It even seems that the political leadership of the country did not trust its designers, who proposed progressive, but their own designs.
    It is clear that the aircraft of the front edge of the front should be as tenacious as possible, with all other requirements for the attack aircraft, and this is primarily the presence of two engines (Su25, A10) and the reservation of the main systems, but it was twin-engine aircraft for some reason that the attack aircraft didn’t get the move a clear mistake of those who made the decision to launch the aircraft in a series, and this is of course the very top of the manual.
    1. Yeti Suvorov 14 March 2020 09: 03 New
      • 19
      • 3
      +16
      With aftertaste, it is easy to criticize errors.
      But we forget everything: the USSR began practically from scratch and in the 20 years before the war did more than anyone else in those conditions. Just a little time was running out.
      "That's the whole point ..."
      1. Bar1 14 March 2020 09: 57 New
        • 8
        • 43
        -35
        Quote: Yeti Suvorov
        But we forget everything: the USSR began practically from scratch and in the 20 years before the war did more than anyone else in those conditions


        stupid theory of class enmity, which was not true led to the fact that the USSR parted with the best minds of Russia
        -Sikorsky-helicopter -Russian invention
        -Ponyatov-APEX-the first VCR
        -Zvorykin -first television and television
        -Yurkevich-contours of the ship, Bulba Yurkevich.
        - Ipatiev - the father of the American petrochemical industry
        -Surin - the creator of the Czech tank, which fought against the USSR
        they, as well as hundreds and thousands of Russian talents who could help their country, but were rejected by the Bolshevik government and therefore developed the economies of other countries.
        1. Out
          Out 14 March 2020 12: 52 New
          • 15
          • 1
          +14
          Only now they were forced to leave because of the mistakes of the leadership of the empire, which led to the collapse and massive discontent.
          1. Bar1 14 March 2020 14: 23 New
            • 4
            • 22
            -18
            Quote: Out
            however, they were forced to leave due to the mistakes of the empire's leadership, which led to the collapse and massive discontent.


            what are the mistakes of the "leadership of the empire"? The same Sikorsky or Zvorykin were not even nobles, but they were officers of the Republic of Ingushetia and it was the Bolsheviks who pursued them for epaulets. This was a Bolshevik mistake.
            1. Out
              Out 14 March 2020 15: 47 New
              • 9
              • 2
              +7
              And the Bolsheviks "raised" power, as Lenin seems to say, because mass riots and anarchy began, which did not arise from scratch. During World War II, this did not begin, although there were always enough discontented
            2. nemez 14 March 2020 21: 40 New
              • 5
              • 2
              +3
              Get the story. Sikorsky left the country until October. Zvorykin was a White Guard.
              1. Bar1 14 March 2020 23: 14 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Quote: nemez
                Get the story. Sikorsky left the country until October


                After the October Revolution in early 1918, one of the former colleagues who worked for the Bolsheviks warned Sikorsky: “The situation is very dangerous. I saw an order for your execution. ” According to Sergei, the eldest son of Sikorsky, Igor Ivanovich posed a double danger to the Bolsheviks, as a friend of the tsar and as a very popular person. Sikorsky knew the whole of Petrograd, many looked at him as a hero. Nicholas II himself came to the airport in Tsarskoye Selo to see how a young Russian pilot flies. Therefore, during the time of the Red Terror, when they were shot on the spot without trial, Igor Ivanovich took the danger seriously [15].

                February 18, 1918 Sikorsky through free from the Bolsheviks Arkhangelsk (according to another version - Murmansk [15]) left Russia first to London (according to another version - Liverpool [15]), and then to Paris. In Paris, he offered his services to the French military department, which gave him an order to build five bombers. However, after the ceasefire on November 11, 1918, the order was no longer needed due to uselessness, and this was the end of Sikorsky's aircraft design activity in France.


                https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сикорский,_Игорь_Иванович
                you're wrong...
                As for Zvorykin, it was an officer of the Republic of Ingushetia, a front-line soldier, who served Kolchak, but not as a unit commander, but as a communications specialist.
                1. VladGTN 15 March 2020 01: 10 New
                  • 5
                  • 9
                  -4
                  Wikipedia went into evidence ....
                  I suggest a lifetime ban for using Wikipedia links in the comments
                  1. Bad_gr 15 March 2020 11: 40 New
                    • 3
                    • 4
                    -1
                    Quote: VladGTN
                    I suggest a lifetime ban for using Wikipedia links in the comments

                    In the wiki, as a rule, there are links to the primary sources of the information provided. Shoals are corrected, which, incidentally, are everywhere, even in encyclopedias.
                    Vika is no less reliable source of information than others.
        2. Bar1 14 March 2020 17: 32 New
          • 3
          • 15
          -12
          judging by the minuses, someone really likes that Russia has lost its best sons, this is a military review.
          1. polar fox 14 March 2020 19: 20 New
            • 14
            • 3
            +11
            Quote: Bar1
            judging by the minuses, someone really likes that Russia has lost its best sons, this is a military review.

            og .. I lost the best, but rabble and drunk war with the whole geyropa won "contrary to the leadership of the tyrant" ... cool with logic.
          2. IL-64 14 March 2020 21: 18 New
            • 3
            • 7
            -4
            They just don’t like that someone offends the Bolsheviks.
        3. 16329 14 March 2020 19: 30 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          By the way, Ipatiev (General of the Russian Service) is the creator of the school of gunpowder and TRT in the USA
    2. bk0010 14 March 2020 10: 26 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: Bar1
      but it’s precisely twin-engine aircraft for some reason that the attack aircraft didn’t get the move
      Because then the attack aircraft would be released in half. That engines were the limiting factor.
      1. Bar1 14 March 2020 14: 41 New
        • 2
        • 21
        -19
        Quote: bk0010
        Because then the attack aircraft would be released in half. That engines were the limiting factor.


        this is nonsense and delusion
        A two-engine attack aircraft is EFFECTIVE than two single-engine attack aircraft. One of the two single-engine attack aircraft died when the engine was damaged, and often together with the pilot and gunner, and the twin-engine attack aircraft saved the aircraft and the pilots. This is just for understanding.
        1. bk0010 14 March 2020 15: 01 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          Quote: Bar1
          Two-way attack aircraft EFFECTIVE
          Could he be in three places at the same time instead of two?
          Quote: Bar1
          One of the two single-engine attack aircraft died when the engine was damaged, and often together with the pilot and gunner
          What about other damage? Your maxim would be correct if the planes would die only due to damage to the engines. And they were deliberately destroyed. Look at the same Pe-2: two engines, but not at all invulnerable. Two engines for combat aircraft specifically to combat failures (in peacetime) were put only on the Mig-29.
          1. Bar1 14 March 2020 15: 25 New
            • 3
            • 13
            -10
            Quote: bk0010
            Could he be in three places at the same time instead of two?


            the twin engine took more load, including of course it was better armed, but it became more tenacious. For example, the b29 were so armed that the messers and the fokers could not get close to them and they always performed a combat mission.
            Modern attack aircraft are twin-engine, now they understand it, then no.
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 March 2020 16: 10 New
              • 15
              • 1
              +14
              Quote: Bar1
              b29 were so armed that messers and fokers, no matter, could not get close to them and they always performed a combat mission.

              Especially when you consider that the B-29s were not used in Europe.
              But the Japanese were able to destroy 133 B-29.
        2. Alf
          Alf 14 March 2020 16: 04 New
          • 9
          • 1
          +8
          Quote: Bar1
          A two-engine attack aircraft is EFFECTIVE than two single-engine attack aircraft.

          Here are just one twin-engine attack aircraft could not be in TWO PLACES at the same time.
          1. Bar1 14 March 2020 16: 25 New
            • 2
            • 11
            -9
            Quote: Alf
            Here are just one twin-engine attack aircraft could not be in TWO PLACES at the same time.

            he could be in three places at the same time.
            In order to storm two places, TWO aircraft are needed.
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 March 2020 16: 52 New
              • 9
              • 1
              +8
              Quote: Bar1
              he could be in three places at the same time.

              No comment ...
              Quote: Bar1
              In order to storm two places, TWO aircraft are needed.

              That's exactly why two single-engine is better than one twin-engine.
              1. Bar1 14 March 2020 17: 30 New
                • 2
                • 8
                -6
                Quote: Alf
                That's exactly why two single-engine is better than one twin-engine.

                that's why it is better to have two twin-engine than two single-engine.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 14 March 2020 17: 48 New
                  • 9
                  • 1
                  +8
                  Quote: Bar1
                  Quote: Alf
                  That's exactly why two single-engine is better than one twin-engine.

                  that's why it is better to have two twin-engine than two single-engine.

                  Better yet, have two, three, five engine plants ...
                  1. Bar1 14 March 2020 18: 51 New
                    • 2
                    • 6
                    -4
                    Quote: Alf
                    Better yet, have two, three, five engine plants ...

                    or better yet, have six plants.
                2. bk0010 14 March 2020 17: 55 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Who would argue. But which is better: two single-engine or one twin-engine? Plus, do not forget about the lives of not only the pilots, but also the foot soldiers they help.
    3. svp67 14 March 2020 10: 28 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: Bar1
      IL2 was developed and launched before Su6, so IL2 was released thousands, and Su6 was left out of work.

      Controversial statement. Before that, it was quite successfully produced, and most importantly, it fought Su-2, as well as Su-2 with M-82 (Su-4), by the way, these bombers had the highest rate of sorties per loss, among our attack aircraft, instead of them you can and it was to put the Su-6, and not to redesign the plant to produce aircraft of completely different designs and designers.
      At the expense of Polikarpov, I consider his planes to be underestimated and it’s worth it to regret that they weren’t put into battle, both the WITs and their continuation

      They were better, and most importantly more multifunctional Pe-2
      And in the prewar years, we had one very interesting Kochergin OPB machine, which, although it was considered a diving bomber, was actually a full-fledged fighter-bomber, but it, like many of our other machines, was let down by the engine ... it wasn’t brought. And so they would have had an analogue of FV-190 at the beginning of the war
      1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 11: 08 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Su-2 was produced in Kharkov. Therefore, there was no factory under the Su-6. Plus, the concept of a single-engine bomber was not popular. Or a dive, or attack aircraft.
        My opinion is that according to our Lend-Lease, I refused the R-51A, but in vain. It was necessary to take, at least in the A-36 version, both a dive pilot and a fighter.
        1. svp67 14 March 2020 11: 29 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Pavel57
          Su-2 was produced in Kharkov.

          Not only. It was produced in Dolgoprudny. During the evacuation, these two plants were combined in the city of Perm.
          1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 11: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Aircraft manufactured in Perm?
            1. svp67 14 March 2020 12: 58 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Pavel57
              Aircraft manufactured in Perm?

              Well, if Perm in those days was known as Molotov, then YES
              Here is a pivot table, take a look
              http://www.telenir.net/transport_i_aviacija/vzlyot_2005_05/p30.php
              1. Pavel57 16 March 2020 10: 52 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                If in Perm they produced planes, then from the sets evacuated from Kharkov and Dolgoprudny.
                1. svp67 16 March 2020 11: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Pavel57
                  If in Perm they produced planes, then from the sets evacuated from Kharkov and Dolgoprudny.

                  Not really. And on the spot, they began to establish production, but it was crippled by the fact that the evacuated engine plant from Zaporozhye could not quickly establish the production of engines in a new place.
                  They tried to take the engines "AM", but they were not given, giving everything to release the attack aircraft Ilyushen
                  1. Pavel57 16 March 2020 13: 18 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    So, in fact, Perm aircraft gave meagerly little.
                    1. svp67 16 March 2020 13: 25 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Pavel57
                      So, in fact, Perm aircraft gave meagerly little

                      Given the fact that the production of Jacob was also not possible to establish there - in general, a minuscule
          2. mr.ZinGer 14 March 2020 12: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And for the aircraft that were produced in Dolgoprudny, is there more information? I would be grateful if you share.
            1. svp67 14 March 2020 12: 55 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: mr.ZinGer
              And for the aircraft that were produced in Dolgoprudny, is there more information? I would be grateful if you share.

              So on to the skid: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/su2.html
        2. Alf
          Alf 14 March 2020 16: 12 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Pavel57
          My opinion is that according to our Lend-Lease, I refused the R-51A, but in vain. It was necessary to take, at least in the A-36 version, both a dive pilot and a fighter.

          As a fighter, the P-51A with Allison was none, especially on our theater.
          1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 05 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            Like a P-51A fighter with Allison was none

            All three (single-engine) fighters with Alison were none. Two of their USSR received.
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 March 2020 17: 16 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              Quote: Alf
              Like a P-51A fighter with Allison was none

              All three (single-engine) fighters with Alison were none. Two of their USSR received.

              Then why was it also necessary to hang a third one around your neck?
              Especially if you recall the maneuverable properties of the laminar wing below.
              But our pilots praised the P-39.
              1. Pavel57 16 March 2020 10: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The P-51A was a true fighter-bomber, that is, a universal aircraft. And the A-36 could also dive. They hypothetically could close the niche of dive-bombers, while they did not require escort fighters. Given the shortage of fighters and attack aircraft, he could very well find application.
      2. dmmyak40 14 March 2020 13: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But after all, OPB was originally designed as a dive bomber. Especially for him, a parallelogram suspension was designed and successfully tested to bring the bomb out of the propeller disk.
        And for an analogue of the fokker, his weapons were rather weak: 2 ShKAS machine guns and 2 UBS.
        1. svp67 14 March 2020 13: 32 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: dmmyak40
          And for an analogue of the fokker, his weapons were rather weak: 2 ShKAS machine guns and 2 UBS.

          But do not forget that it was the end of the 30s, I’m sure that he would continue his tests or go into the series, guns would appear on him.
          1. dmmyak40 14 March 2020 17: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Maybe they would have appeared. Or maybe not. When an aircraft is initially designed with a certain type of weaponry, there are usually no problems. But replacing machine guns with guns is how many mass-dimensional issues need to be solved ... And centering ...
      3. Bar1 14 March 2020 14: 14 New
        • 5
        • 6
        -1
        Quote: svp67
        Controversial statement

        and there’s no need to argue, they already showed a video with Oleg Rastrenin, where he disassembles Su6 and Il2, he said that IL 2 was developed earlier than Su 6. Sukhoi could not catch Ilyushin over the entire distance of the war years and not by design, but by various other reasons, including both objective and various others. It is very, very unfortunate that Su6 was a cut above Il2.
        Polikarpov, here, too, everything is semi-mysterious. Polikarpov was simply wiped out of production, there was decent competition among aviation design bureaus. It’s not clear what happened I185 was the best plane, but it didn’t fly, apparently it was played by some kind of undercover fuss of Yakovlev and Ilyushin .. But if he went into the series, it would be a weapon of victory.
        1. svp67 14 March 2020 14: 21 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Bar1
          Not clear what happened

          As with his SPB and NB ...
          Quote: Bar1
          Sukhoi could not catch Ilyushin at all times during the war years and not by design, but for various other reasons, including both objective and various others. This is a very, very unfortunate Su6 was a cut above Il2.

          And most importantly, they could be quietly manufactured in parallel, but instead at the production facilities that produced the SU-2 (4) and where it was possible to produce the Su-6, starting in mid-1942 they tried to arrange the production of Yak fighters, of various modifications - but to no avail
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. irontom 14 March 2020 17: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                What are the supplies? There is still a minuscule, southern route - they have just begun to establish through Iran, there were several convoys to Murmansk ending in PQ-17, and this is June 42nd. You take statistics on deliveries; they have everything.
                About warehousing nonsense, met in the network of nonsense,
                Not to mention the fact that the factories have just been evacuated and began to establish production with workers - women and adolescents. Su-2s were assembled from a reserve that was evacuated from Kharkov.
                Su-6 is based on Su2, or rather its latest version of Su-4
                This is a Su-2 upgraded for new engines.
                As promising engines, the M-90 and AM-37 were considered - under them, the chief designer from February 1941 began to design and build experimental Su-4 (BB-3) machines. Unlike the Su-2, they had to have not only a wooden fuselage, but also a wooden wing with metal spars. The M-90 and AM-37 were considered promising engines - since February 1941, the chief designer began to design and build experimental vehicles Su-4 (BB-3). Unlike the Su-2, they had to have not only a wooden fuselage, but also a wooden wing with metal spars.

                Su-6
                P.O. Sukhoi was invited to submit, by July 1, 1939, considerations on the construction of a single-engine armored attack aircraft with an air-cooled engine in the development of the BB-1 aircraft.

                Not to mention that the weight in dimensions is two different aircraft, even the wing area of ​​one 29 of the other is 26 sq.m.
        2. bk0010 14 March 2020 15: 07 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Bar1
          It is not clear what happened I185 was the best plane
          His engine (M-71) was "not mastered" plus aluminum was not enough for him.
          1. dmmyak40 14 March 2020 15: 51 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The problem was more likely with aluminum. Instead of the M-71, the M-82 was quite good: the power is less, but reliable.
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 March 2020 16: 15 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: dmmyak40
              The problem was more likely with aluminum. Instead of the M-71, the M-82 was quite good: the power is less, but reliable.

              Not much better he was to rebuild the plant.
              1. KERMET 16 March 2020 13: 21 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Not much, but better, we look and compare the range, armament and bomb load to the column.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 16 March 2020 19: 24 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: KERMET
                  Not much, but better, we look and compare the range, armament and bomb load to the column.

                  In the 42nd two ShVAKs were quite enough, our fighters carried a bomb load very rarely. The only major advantage was the range, but for the sake of this, we did not dare to transfer the plant to the production of an ABSOLUTELY new aircraft with a lack of metal and an inevitable drop in output. And they did it right.
                  1. KERMET 17 March 2020 08: 33 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    And if, to be honest, we reduce by one gun (120 kg) we halve the weight of the fuel (about 100-200 kg) and then compare the performance characteristics?
                    A small series in the second half could find a place for him
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 17 March 2020 18: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: KERMET
                      A small series in the second half could find a place for him

                      And we will find iron for him ...
                    2. KERMET 17 March 2020 19: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And how much iron do you think and what does he need, compared to the same La-5?
                    3. Alf
                      Alf 17 March 2020 20: 05 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: KERMET
                      And how much iron do you think and what does he need, compared to the same La-5?

                      Oh Jupiter Optimus Magnus! How difficult it is to speak with a stubborn amateur! I stop talking, stay in your alternative universe.
                    4. KERMET 17 March 2020 22: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quietly, why hysteria? I will prompt wink
                      According to Shavrov: I-185 wing 410kg. The spars are not completely aluminum, the duralumin there is only on the shelves, if you exclude the shields, the ailerons - the frame of which on the La-5 was duralumin, then roughly another 100 kg can be discarded. Total approximately 300 kg of "excess" duralumin on one I-185. Is there really so much? For any I-185 was not planned as a mass
      4. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 17: 01 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: dmmyak40
        The problem was more likely with aluminum.

        Yes, I know that one aluminum plant was hastily evacuated from near Leningrad, as the Germans approached. Not to fat was.
      5. KERMET 16 March 2020 13: 18 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        There was recently an article about aluminum: the American delegation went nuts when it saw that the aluminum supplied by Lend Liz was going to the flooring
  • Alf
    Alf 14 March 2020 16: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Bar1
    It is not clear what happened. I185 was the best plane, but it didn’t fly. Apparently, some kind of undercover fuss of Yakovlev and Ilyushin played a role here.

    The lack of motor and iron played a role here.
    1. KERMET 16 March 2020 13: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Motor probably with iron - not so much he "ate"
      1. Alf
        Alf 16 March 2020 19: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: KERMET
        Motor probably with iron - not so much he "ate"

        Just a little bit .. That's what Yakovlev jumped with joy when he was given metal on only the side members in the 43rd ...
        And here the wing is completely all-metal, as is the plumage.
        1. KERMET 17 March 2020 08: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yakovlev created his I-26 when there were no problems with aluminum, a little later he created the I-30 also with an all-metal wing, which if it had not been for the start of the war, they planned to produce at three plants, which prevented him from immediately sticking a metal spar into the Yak-1
          1. Alf
            Alf 17 March 2020 18: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: KERMET
            what prevented him from immediately sticking a metal spar in the Yak-1 is not clear

            Don't you understand Russian at all? There was no METAL.
            1. KERMET 17 March 2020 19: 54 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In the comment above, in Russian it is written that I-30 was going to be released immediately at three factories - how ?!! If the METAL as you say was not
              1. Alf
                Alf 17 March 2020 20: 03 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: KERMET
                In the comment above, in Russian it is written that I-30 was going to be released immediately at three factories - how ?!! If the METAL as you say was not

                So why didn’t they release it? If the production of duralumin for the most part remained in the occupied territory.
                Why Willy Messerschmitt on the latest versions of the Messer G-10, G-12, K changed the tail unit from dural to tree? Why was the TA-154 made entirely of wood?
              2. KERMET 17 March 2020 22: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The war began - they left what was already in serial production. Before the start of which (when I-30 was planned) no one could even think about the occupation. The Germans at the end of the war came to the same point that ours came to the middle of the war - there is nothing to "trick grandmother" and invent whole-wood structures - the most optimal are mixed ones. Ta-154 and I-185 are both of mixed design wink
          2. Octopus 17 March 2020 21: 08 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            There was no METAL.

            In February the 40th was not a hundred kg of metal for a couple of thousand aircraft? Where did he go?
  • ser56 14 March 2020 17: 01 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Quote: Bar1
    , here, too, everything is somehow mysterious

    Yes, everything is transparent - see how the MiG-1 appeared ... request
    Quote: Bar1
    there was decent competition among aviation design bureaus

    I would say that it was transformed from a struggle for technological progress to a struggle for survival (literally!) ....
  • carstorm 11 14 March 2020 11: 18 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Arguing on this subject, for some reason everyone stubbornly forgets about combat readiness. new weapons are super. but any change is always a loss. there is IL 2. it is permissible so-so. not my topic is simply relying on the writers here. but he is and is fighting. and there is a new plane. he’s better, he’s stronger, but he needs to be released to him, he needs to retrain his personnel. to study everything. this is all a loss of combat readiness of those parts that go through it. in such a situation, they are not looking for good from good. and it’s better to have at least a mediocre but combat ready unit than an armed one that is new but does not have the ability to carry out tasks. during the war, any decision on a similar topic is a risk. and often the risk is not justified.
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 14: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I had to relearn anyway. Take at least Hurricanes, P-39, P-40, etc.
  • John22 14 March 2020 11: 37 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    I agree completely. A misunderstanding of the importance of communications in the troops and aircraft for interaction between them among the leadership of the Red Army and the USSR led to terrible consequences in 1941-1942. As well as a misunderstanding of the need for fighters and attack aircraft with different types of engines and armor on airplanes.
    1. Krasnoyarsk 14 March 2020 12: 27 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: John22

      I agree completely. A misunderstanding of the importance of communications in the troops and aircraft for interaction between them among the leadership of the Red Army and the USSR led to

      What does misunderstanding mean?
      When the Security Council was shown to Stalin, he asked the question - "Is there a radio on it?" - and was very annoyed that - no. Those. he perfectly understood the significance of radio communications, but as in the film, I rephrase a little - “I want to have a Volga, but I don’t have the opportunity, I have the opportunity to have a goat, but there is no desire.”
      And the proof of that, "the leadership of the Red Army and the USSR" understood the importance of radio communications, was the fact that radios appeared on almost all planes and tanks. Not very good quality, but still. And here the question is not for the leadership, but for the radio engineers.
      1. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 02 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        And as proof of that, "the leadership of the Red Army and the USSR" understood the importance of radio communications,

        Seriously? and the profile people's commissariat was not defense ... request
  • VladGTN 15 March 2020 01: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Spreading. I did not read further
  • lucul 14 March 2020 12: 01 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    I also constantly thought about what could be if we then launched all the planes in a series

    As if someone knew in advance about the future war, and specially ruined our aircraft. An I-185 with an M-71 engine would be out of reach for enemy piston aircraft. I do not believe that the M-71 could not be brought to mind - something immediately after the war, right away instantly - all the promising engines and the M-107 and M-71 were ready. If you recall WHAT R&D was for the V-2 tank engine, yes, even a third of engineers and finances would throw on the M-107 / M-71 and by 42g they would be ready .....
    No wonder Erwin Romel, according to the experience of fighting in North Africa, said - under the dominance of enemy aircraft in the sky, all military operations on earth will resemble a battle between colonial troops and natives ....
    And domination in the sky, we returned only to the spring of 1943, over the Kuban.
    1. Octopus 14 March 2020 12: 48 New
      • 10
      • 15
      -5
      Quote: lucul
      As if someone knew in advance about a future war, and specially ruined our aircraft

      Goering moved into the body of Great Stalin and began to harm the Soviet regime by appointing him to aviation:
      Alksnis is the enemy of the people;
      Loktionov is the enemy of the people;
      Smushkevich is an enemy of the people;
      Leverage - the enemy of the people;
      Zhigarev - friend people, brilliantly merged all Soviet aviation in the 41st, lived to see the development of socialism.
      Novikov, Marshal of Victory, Chief Marshal of Aviation, twice GSS, is the enemy of the people.

      In industry:
      M.M.Kaganovich, self-propelled labor front.
      Shakhurin is an enemy of the people.

      Quote: lucul
      domination in the sky, we returned only to the spring of 1943, over the Kuban

      Fairy tales. Soviet aviation had no dominance in the sky never. Like German, by the way. In terms of dominance, only late Americans operated on, later, not the 43rd year. Local superiority sometimes we have began to appear in 44-45, when the German sat down without gasoline.
      1. lucul 14 March 2020 13: 28 New
        • 9
        • 4
        +5
        Tales

        Mr. foreign agent - perelogintintest.
        Goering moved into the body of Great Stalin and began to harm the Soviet regime by appointing him to aviation:

        Let me remind you - Former director of Nativa (from 1999 to 2006) Zvi Magen, wrote a book in which he unequivocally stated that the entire Jewish movement in the Union was under control and in contact with the West. And those who wanted and subsequently left the country, and those who advocated democracy in the USSR — all of them were in contact with the West.
        1. Octopus 14 March 2020 13: 36 New
          • 5
          • 6
          -1
          Quote: lucul
          the entire Jewish movement in the Union was under control and in contact with the West

          Yes, very good, thanks. Jews in contact with the West ruined Soviet (and German, I add) aviation.
          1. lucul 14 March 2020 13: 37 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            Yes, very good, thanks. Jews in contact with the West ruined Soviet (and German, I add) aviation.

            Hallelujah
    2. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 05 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Quote: lucul
      and specially ruined our aircraft.

      Shirokorad writes like this about artillery ... repeat
      Or maybe it was a consequence of the atmosphere in the country - when the plans were given without resources, and for their failure to implement - they planted ... request OR when good engineers were removed by denunciations for the sake of a career - but you did create such an atmosphere ...
      1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 21 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: ser56
        good engineers were taken away by denunciations for a career

        )))
        a few days later, Stalin asked:
        - Well, how is Balandin?
        “It works, Comrade Stalin, as if nothing had happened.”
        - Yes, in vain they planted.
        Apparently, Stalin read bewilderment in my opinion - how can you put innocent people in jail ?! - and without any questioning from my side he said:
        “Yes, that’s what happens.” An intelligent man, works well, they envy him, they dig under him. And if he is also a brave man, he says what he thinks - he causes discontent and attracts the attention of suspicious Chekists who do not know the affairs themselves, but willingly use all sorts of rumors and gossip
        1. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 27 New
          • 3
          • 6
          -3
          Quote: Octopus
          causes discontent and attracts the attention of suspicious security officers who do not know the affairs themselves, but willingly use all sorts of rumors and gossip

          1) Who appointed such security officers? repeat
          2) Who gave them such power and created a system when there is no presumption of innocence? request
          And yes, the switchmen were always to blame for the IVS ... bully
          1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 42 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Yezhov bastard! Decayed man. Calling him at the People's Commissariat - they say: he left for the Central Committee. You call the Central Committee - they say: he left for work. You send to his house - it turns out, lies dead drunk on the bed. He killed many innocents. We shot him for it

            As soon as I undressed and lay down in bed, I looked, Yezhov crawls over to me and offers to do pederasty. It stunned me and I pushed him away, he rolled onto his bed. As soon as I fell asleep, I felt something in my mouth. Opening my eyes, (removed by censorship) I jumped up, cursed him and threw him away with force, but he again climbed up to me with vile offers


            From the description of the lifestyle of Nikolai Ivanovich, it becomes completely clear that the fifth column of liberals, most likely sent from America, made their way into the drug commissariat. Comrade Stalin is not to blame.
            1. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 43 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              Quote: Octopus
              Stalin ovary is not to blame.

              Of course, Yezhov is to blame. Beria, etc. bully
              1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 49 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: ser56
                Beria etc

                Of course. Beria is Azerbaijan’s spy, if I remember correctly. There was such a country, and it also had spies - deputy chairman of the GKO.
                1. ser56 16 March 2020 13: 47 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Of course. Beria is Azerbaijan’s spy, if I remember correctly

                  and the TDF is the secret agent in these coordinates ... request
                  1. Octopus 16 March 2020 22: 56 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ser56
                    The IVS agent is a secret police in these coordinates.

                    Well, Trotsky, with the Revolutionary Military Council, he checked. The Social Revolutionaries are generally practically without exception.
          2. Krasnoyarsk 14 March 2020 20: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: ser56

            1) Who appointed such security officers?

            Yes, yes, yes, Stalin personally appointed each investigator of the regional department of the NKVD and each judge and prosecutor in addition.
            1. ser56 16 March 2020 13: 48 New
              • 1
              • 5
              -4
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Yes, yes, yes, Stalin personally appointed each investigator of the regional department of the NKVD and each judge and prosecutor in addition.

              Remember who said - frames decide everything? bully The IVS appointed the heads of departments, and then the vertical ... this is HIS system ... and its responsibility ... request
              1. Krasnoyarsk 16 March 2020 14: 09 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: ser56

                Remember who said - frames decide everything? bully IVS appointed heads of departments, and then the vertical ... this is HIS system ... and its responsibility ...

                Have you ever had to lead at least a small team? In addition to the army.
                1. ser56 16 March 2020 14: 11 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                  Have you ever had to lead at least a small team?

                  I still manage it now ... repeat and I have known the truth for a long time - what is pop. such is the coming ... request
                  1. Krasnoyarsk 16 March 2020 15: 16 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ser56
                    I still manage it now ...

                    And you were never deceived, never let down, and always did everything the way you wanted?
                    I'm not talking about the fact that people from the rival "company" or "sold out" to her could "get rid of you."
                    1. Octopus 16 March 2020 22: 58 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                      make fun of people from a competing "firm" or "sell out" to her.

                      Some Polish spies under 100 thousand wings, including a member of the Politburo Kosior.
                    2. Krasnoyarsk 17 March 2020 09: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus

                      Some Polish spies under 100 thousand wings, including a member of the Politburo Kosior.

                      Do you see? And you say ... laughing
                      So, as the children say: - "Look at yourself, are you good?"
  • Alexey RA 16 March 2020 15: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: lucul
    I do not believe that the M-71 could not be brought to mind - something immediately after the war, right away instantly - all the promising engines and the M-107 and M-71 were ready.

    So work on fine-tuning the mind of the M-107 went all the war. And even in 1945, the engine already standing on the serial Yak-9U remained moody and extremely demanding on maintenance.
    VK-107A required exact compliance with factory instructions, which was extremely difficult for our mechanics. In all the air forces there was only one regiment, in which the 107th resource “in the field” exceeded the factory standard - but there the technicians were first trained by the factory brigade, and then their further work was strictly controlled.
    Quote: lucul
    If you recall WHAT R&D was for the V-2 tank engine, yes, even a third of engineers and finances would throw on the M-107 / M-71 and by 42g they would be ready .....

    The V-2 diesel engine was brought to mind in 1944 - 12 years after the start of work, and in the third year of the war ..
  • smart ass 14 March 2020 14: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Su6 is very similar to 87
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 16: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Clever man
      Su6 is very similar to 87

      In what?
  • antivirus 14 March 2020 18: 45 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    We can say for sure that there were enough designers in the Land of Soviets. Both talented and not so.
    - in the USSR there was a problem - technologists-technologies-manufacturability and production culture. Now other scales of production and the same problems.
    in 2020 we didn’t come to “give me what I want” - there’s “I’ll make it easier or cheaper for you.” THIS IS A HISTORICAL PROCESS OF GROWING CONSCIOUSNESS OF PEASANTS TO STARS, CHANGE OF MENTALITY FROM BARSHINA TO URBAN LIFE.
  • 75 Sergey 14 March 2020 06: 05 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    The author brings the topic on only one side, because a combat aircraft should not only fly well, but also perform the combat mission as efficiently as possible.
    As practice shows, in the Red Army there were no fools and technological machines went in a series that performed tasks as efficiently as possible, while maintaining mass production.
  • old_pferd 14 March 2020 06: 28 New
    • 10
    • 3
    +7
    "Moreover, there is evidence that Polikarpov’s projects were inhibited by Tupolev himself. Believe me? I believe so. The patriarch knew how to play these games."
    What about VIT-2? Which patriarch is omnipotent, he sat in the sharaga from 1937 to 1941, but he reached out from there, damned ....
    1. dmmyak40 14 March 2020 08: 25 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Sharaga is not a slammer; there the possibilities were completely different. Especially with Tupolev.
      1. old_pferd 14 March 2020 08: 35 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Was he a consultant at the NKAP? Yes, even if we distract from the sharaga, were Tupolev’s planes polykarpovsky competitors? Did he crush Polikarpov out of a love of art? In the 50s and after, yes, here he turned around, and in the late thirties, why did he need it.
        1. dmmyak40 14 March 2020 13: 22 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Unfortunately, I just don’t remember the details from the book about air sharagi, the author, like, Adler. The author himself was sitting in a sharaga with aircraft designers and knew the pitfalls firsthand. And Tupolev, like, inserted many sticks into the wheels. Hardly from pure art: rather help those whom he sympathizes with.
          Not ready to argue about this for sure.
          1. old_pferd 14 March 2020 15: 27 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            I flipped through Kerber "Tupolevskaya Sharaga" and did not find any evidence there of his ability to influence the NKAP and even more so play against Polikarpov. If I missed something, the book is easy to find on the net, poke your nose.
            1. dmmyak40 14 March 2020 15: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I will try to remember. I'm not going to poke anyone's nose. I have an indirect relation to military aviation, in contrast to civilian.
    2. John22 14 March 2020 11: 24 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Tupolev slowed down Polikarpov’s projects (and not only) even before 1937. He achieved a monopoly on the design and manufacture of all-metal aircraft. Thanks to relations in the NKAP, he intercepted orders for aircraft with which he could not cope later. Subordinated TsAGI.
      1. Very smart Chukchi 16 March 2020 22: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Facts please - quotes from orders, instructions, memoirs of witnesses, or as usual "one grandmother said"
    3. Pavel57 14 March 2020 11: 45 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Tupolev was a master of the game against competitors, and this is also his quality with plus or minus, how to look.
      1. Pushkar 14 March 2020 12: 11 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: Pavel57
        Tupolev was a master of the game against competitors, and this is also his quality with plus or minus, how to look.

        With a minus, since he "played" in his favor, and not in favor of the homeland.
        1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 14: 09 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          A definite minus was with the Tu-154. All other cases are ambiguous.
  • mark1 14 March 2020 06: 28 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    "Pegasus" was quite difficult to pilot and is doubtful in terms of concept, this is the main reason for the refusal. One can also mention Moskalev’s “armored flea” in this vein - this is an idea!
    IL-10, if alteration of IL-2, then at the level of concept, but in general it is alteration of IL-1.
    Kocherigin is the creator of very interesting designs (not only W / LBS) - the man was unlucky.
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 16: 21 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: mark1
      "Pegasus" was quite difficult to pilot and is doubtful in terms of concept, this is the main reason for the refusal.

      I can imagine the results of using Pegasus with a maximum speed of 172 km / h in 42-43 ... Have you heard the expression "one-way ticket"?
      1. mark1 14 March 2020 18: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Imagine a massive attack of “armored fleas” by Moskalenko (with an envelope around the terrain on a shaver, by the way!). A spectacle is a mix of crazy Max with Star Wars episodes and a sad result for many pilots.
  • nikolaj1703 14 March 2020 06: 29 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    I agree with the author, in the pre-war years a good engineering school was created in the field of weapons, but today the engineers of the old school are leaving by age, and our universities will begin to graduate new engineers only four years later, now they graduate bachelors and masters who find it very difficult to create engineering projects , due to the training methodology. Cadres decide everything - so said Stalin I.V.
  • Mountain shooter 14 March 2020 06: 34 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    An attack aircraft - unfortunately - is a consumable of war ... Invulnerable - does not exist. Therefore, it should be CHEAP, and there must be LOTS of them. Based on this, the IL-2 was good. Could be better - most likely. Is it cheaper?
    1. Bar1 14 March 2020 14: 30 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Attack aircraft - unfortunately - war consumables


      this is not only an erroneous, but also a harmful point of view. Airplanes are not bullets that are really consumable. Well, trained pilots are the most valuable component of the war of the present and the future. Therefore, confusing pilots and airplanes with consumables is your hallucination. Airplanes and the pilots should be of the best quality, unless it's a kamikaze.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Alf
        Alf 14 March 2020 16: 22 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Bar1
        Planes and pilots should be of the best quality, unless it is a kamikaze.

        Absolutely true, it remains only to create a miracle economy capable of producing such aircraft in the millions.
        1. Octopus 14 March 2020 16: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Alf
          capable of producing such aircraft in the millions.

          Why the hell do you planes - in millions? How many enemy aircraft are there?
          1. Alf
            Alf 14 March 2020 17: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            Why the hell do you planes - in millions?

            And how many should there be?
            1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alf
              And how many should be

              Quote: Octopus
              How many enemy aircraft are there?
            2. WapentakeLokki 14 March 2020 20: 43 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              but the great strategist Tukhachevsky wanted (though not in the sky but on sinful earth) to have at least 50-100 K BT light tanks ... which is quite correlated with your calculations about millions of attack aircraft (.. read Rezun with his Iva'nov in a series up to 100K .. well, here you are certainly cooler .. huh.) It is a pity that Stalin did not appreciate and erased the brilliant ensign-marshal ... in vain, what do you think ??
              1. Alf
                Alf 14 March 2020 20: 45 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: WapentakeLokki
                read Rezun with his Iva'nov in a series up to 100K.

                I wonder where did Rezun get the figure of 100 thousand attack aircraft?
    2. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Could be better - most likely. Is it cheaper?

      Well, Po-2 was cheaper. Why do you need cheaper?
    3. WapentakeLokki 14 March 2020 20: 39 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      and you yourself would prefer to fight in a stormtrooper; in cheap and mass (if they kill - please consider me (that is, you) a communist !!) or in an expensive and small-scale but extremely protected (.and best two motor .. ) with a chance to survive at least 88% !!! or your reasoning for other gm.proletariat..mol country is expecting self-sacrifice from them .. and give me an import `` Pitcher '' or better A-26 ...
      1. Mountain shooter 14 March 2020 20: 50 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: WapentakeLokki
        protected (.and best of two motor ..) with a chance to survive at least 88%

        88% in one sortie? Then there are almost no chances to return from 10 chances. The Americans during the bombing of Germany for 20 sorties gave a month of vacation. Pilots, returning to the regiment a month later, could not meet a single crew with which they flew a month ago. War is like that. And these are attack aircraft!
        And their front-line life is short. Even if it is twice as good, but 4 times more expensive ... Draw conclusions.
        1. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 20: 58 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          The Americans during the bombing of Germany for 20 sorties gave a month of vacation.

          In my opinion, after 20 sorties, they generally stopped fighting and wound home for good. Golovanoy’s memoirs have such info.
          1. Alf
            Alf 14 March 2020 22: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            Quote: Mountain Shooter
            The Americans during the bombing of Germany for 20 sorties gave a month of vacation.

            In my opinion, after 20 sorties, they generally stopped fighting and wound home for good. Golovanoy’s memoirs have such info.

            Norm 25 departures and go home! That's just the probability of the downing of the Fortress sharply increased already by 20-22 sorties ..
            1. mr.ZinGer 14 March 2020 23: 01 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, this is pure statistics, is it starting to work?
      2. Alf
        Alf 14 March 2020 21: 02 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: WapentakeLokki
        and you yourself would prefer to fight in a stormtrooper; in cheap and mass (if they kill - please consider me (that is, you) a communist !!) or in an expensive and small-scale but extremely protected

        How stupid was General Heinz Guderian, who, with foam at the mouth, proved the failure of the idea of ​​stopping the production of T-3 and T-4 and releasing the Tiger and Panther super tanks instead ...





        Quantity is also quality. Especially in war. Everyone stumbled on this, wanting to have less, but better. Only less, but better in different places at the same time could not be obtained from any country.
  • unhappy 14 March 2020 06: 35 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    ... "Polikarpov’s projects were put aside" - the reason is well known.
    Mikoyan’s clan tried, nobody argues that Mig-1 is Polikarpov’s project, that his design bureau became Mikoyan’s design bureau, that the country's best aircraft factory began to sculpt Migi.
    In the modern slang, Polikarpov did not have a “roof”, the launch of the I-185 series “in a mysterious way” did not take place (and I consider this a crime of Mikoyanov)!
  • Amateur 14 March 2020 06: 53 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Airplanes are good. That's just all of them were calculated for engines or Perm M-71 or Zaporozhye M-90, which were not. Therefore, only aircraft with ASh-82 and M-88 (with modifications) were serially built (meaning airplanes with air-cooled engines)
  • Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 March 2020 07: 49 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    I completely agree with those who (like me, however) believe that the situation with the new aircraft models in the Red Army Air Force was more than ambiguous. Yes, in fact, one completely new aircraft for the entire war (Tu-2) and two aircraft, which were the deepest alteration of the existing ones. La-5 and IL-10.

    Are there really only two?
    Offhand, without straining - Yak-9 and Yak-3.
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 09: 52 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Yak-3 is essentially a variant of the Yak-1. And the Yak-9 is a variant of the Yak-7.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 March 2020 10: 19 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Based on Lice Logic!
        La-5 and La-7 "essentially options" Lagg-3 (another engine).
        IL-10 version of IL-2 (another armored capsule)!
        The same Lugg-3 had at least 26 modernization options (modernization models), but the name did not change. I think the designers knew better when they changed digital models !!!
        Therefore, the Yak-1 is the Yak-1, the Yak-3 is the Yak-3 !!!
        1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 10: 48 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          La-5 is more drawn to a new plane. The number of changes is enough. Here’s IL-10, just like a new plane, it grew not from IL-2, but from an IL-1 fighter. The line between the modification and the new aircraft is blurred and subjective.

          Rather, prizes and awards relied for the new name, more than for the modification.
  • avia12005 14 March 2020 07: 58 New
    • 14
    • 8
    +6
    Stalin, with his education, this unique ingenious self-taught person, was well versed in the TTD and the economy, so it turned out the way it turned out. A great victory!
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 09: 54 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Stalin is also a man. Many decisions were prepared for him by specialists - Yakovlev and Shakhurin.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 March 2020 10: 20 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: Pavel57
        Stalin is also a man. Many decisions were prepared for him by specialists - Yakovlev and Shakhurin.

        And how the "people" were mistaken, and all three of them.
        Which in principle does not beg what they have achieved !!!
        Regards, Kote!
        1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 10: 55 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          The result is victory in the war. It remains to be regretted that this result could be achieved with the best aircraft, which means less losses.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 12 New
      • 3
      • 9
      -6
      Quote: avia12005
      because it turned out the way it happened. A great victory!

      aha, 27 million losses ... request
      1. Lekz 20 March 2020 00: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Babi Yar and Khatyn did not forget to include in these 27 million?
        1. ser56 20 March 2020 12: 01 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: Lekz
          Babi Yar and Khatyn did not forget to include in these 27 million?

          But this is not a loss?
  • Potter 14 March 2020 08: 00 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Article plus. But, just, in the autumn of 1937 A.N. Tupolev could not influence the development of other designers, especially Polikarpov. Tupolev was sitting. At first, under investigation, then, with a sentence of 15 years, he developed the future Tu-2 in sharashka. Although Polikarpov had a conflict with Tupolev, in 1931, when Polikarpov worked for Tupolev at TsAGI, his brigade was disbanded and transferred to Sukhoi.
    Since 1933, Polikarpov worked in the Central Clinical Hospital, whose head was Ilyushin. Since 1936, Polikarpov has its own design bureau at the 84 plant in Khimki. These aircraft were already developed in this design bureau.
    Well, and then, Polikarpov’s design bureau was torn apart while he was on a business trip in Germany. For the development of I-200 (MIG-1) allocated created a separate design bureau (future MIG).
    Well, the reason for not launching a series of excellent Sukhoi aircraft was completely covered by the novel - engines not brought to the series.
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 09: 55 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Of all the designers, only Ilyushin was warm to Polikarpov.
      1. PilotS37 20 March 2020 13: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Pavel57
        Of all the designers, only Ilyushin was warm to Polikarpov.

        As far as I can tell, P.O. Sukhoi, who himself was a student of Polikarpov, when he came under his leadership, treated him quite loyally: the Sukhoi brigade was instructed to build a new fighter, the future I-14, but N.N. believed that Sukhoi was too risky and began to work in parallel on the tandem of future I-15 - I-16. And no one bothered him.
        As a result, Ilyushin took Polikarpov with him when he left for the Central Design Bureau ...
        As for Nikolai Nikolayevich himself, I ended up with sensationthat person he was quite conflicted. Think about it, after the completion of the "Cause of the Industrial Party", Polikarpov was sentenced to death. This sentence was not carried out (given success with I-5), but also was not canceled - this happened only in the second half of the 1930s. Even in those days, such a "good" attitude had to be "earned"! Perhaps he was too "right," perhaps very demanding and unyielding ...
        1. Pavel57 20 March 2020 13: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The practice that the sentence was not canceled is understandable in those years - you could keep a person on the hook. And that doesn't say anything. It would be hard to say if Polycarpoa could otherwise promote his planes in those years. And so Po-2, but Po-1 and Po-3 did not happen.
  • Jarserge 14 March 2020 09: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Good article Thank you.
  • Hermit21 14 March 2020 09: 22 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    The Il-2 reservation concept in the form of “center-coating” of the center-wing armor was appropriate in Spain, but in WWII, when the Wehrmacht was armed with massive firearm machine guns and 13,2-20 mm caliber guns, as well as fighters with similar weapons. In addition, according to the results of combat use, it turned out that where the booking was the most powerful, there were almost no hits, but where it was weak, on the contrary, there were many hits. It would be much more efficient to focus on the local booking of critical units and the cockpit, saving several hundred kilograms of weight and improving the performance characteristics
    1. Octopus 14 March 2020 12: 59 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Hermit21
      The IL-2 reservation concept in the form of “smearing” with the center section armor was appropriate in Spain

      Quite a lot has been written on this subject. Booking Il-2 was partly reasonable against the Soviet air defense at Maxims. Even the air defense at the KKP actually nullified his armor, but the Germans did not have the KKP, they went immediately to the MZA.
      Partly reasonable - because you don’t even have the German MZA, Il’s problems associated with being overweight did not go away. This range (= the time of duty in the air), and the load, and the impossibility of a steep (> 30 °) dive.
    2. mark1 14 March 2020 14: 20 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Hermit21
      in the form of "smearing" with the center section armor

      This is the best option for protecting the liquid-cooled engine and crew. Or do you see another way?
      1. Octopus 14 March 2020 16: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: mark1
        Or do you see another way?

        How was the Yu-87 protected?
        1. mark1 14 March 2020 18: 14 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Octopus
          How was the Yu-87 protected?

          "... So Mitrich died ..."
      2. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 15 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Quote: mark1
        Or do you see another way?

        make an air-cooled attack aircraft ... request
        1. mark1 14 March 2020 18: 21 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: ser56
          make an air-cooled attack aircraft ...

          What kind of air-air apartment did we have for 39-40 years?
          There was also IL-2 M-82, a certain series was released, but they were not particularly admired (as a backup option).
          1. Octopus 14 March 2020 18: 55 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: mark1
            did we have an air-ventilation unit for 39-40 years?

            M-25 + from I-16 and M-85 from DB-3.

            It takes two.
            1. mark1 14 March 2020 19: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Who needs?...
              1. Octopus 14 March 2020 21: 05 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Those who want to create an armored attack plane need two named engines for the plane, one will not pull. Duplex cyclones and 4-row PV were not delivered.
                1. mark1 14 March 2020 21: 24 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Those who want to create an armored attack aircraft need

                  receive technical assignment from the customer and create according to these requirements
                  And now, a twin-engine attack aircraft is half the size of aircraft
                  1. Octopus 14 March 2020 21: 35 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: mark1
                    twin-engine attack aircraft is half the size of aircraft

                    Motors from I-16 in the 40th are already unnecessary.
                    1. mark1 14 March 2020 21: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      When you say, Ivan Vasilyevich, the impression is that you are raving.

                      no offense...
                      1. Octopus 14 March 2020 22: 10 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        In the 40th in a series of 3 new fighters. One of them uses a motor from IL-2. Old Polikarpov aircraft are also in the series (the 40th is the peak of I-16 production), but in the 41st I-16 is already produced only as a UTI. Until the 43rd year, the growing demand for ASH-82, Perm products were least in demand from motor plants, but they were well mastered in the series. But for the Mikulinsky engines the 42nd year was extremely difficult, and for the new Kuibyshev site, and even more so for the Moscow Region.

                        Materiel.
                      2. mark1 14 March 2020 22: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Those. organize in 1942 the temporary production of a new twin-engine attack aircraft ...
                        See above.
                      3. Octopus 14 March 2020 22: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: mark1
                        organize temporary production in 1942

                        Why is it "temporary"? You lacked engines, I found them for you. M-25 is lighter and simpler AM-38, well mastered in the series.
                      4. mark1 14 March 2020 22: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Because even in your layouts (and they are not true) since 1943, the entire program has been consumed by the AS-82 for the La-5, which is no less priority.
                      5. Octopus 14 March 2020 22: 58 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: mark1
                        the entire program is eaten by ASH-82 for the La-5 no less priority.

                        And what is the priority of La-5, besides attaching the Perm engine to the business?

                        What else La-5 in the 39th year, when there is a decision that all new fighters will be with JO, and bombers, to hell, are also made with JO?
                      6. mark1 14 March 2020 23: 18 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        I am already familiar with your ability to arrange a kind of carousel from any discussion. Everything was said above, re-read, there is an answer to everything. For sim hi
                      7. Octopus 15 March 2020 00: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: mark1
                        Everything was said above.

                        It was said above
                        1. Customer requested single motor. It's true.
                        2. 72 thousand M-25 is twice as much as 36 thousand AM-38. It is not true.
                        3. The Red Army Air Force needed exactly 61 shads, and these shads needed exactly 36 thousand aircraft, whatever they were. (What does the 41st shad have 15 pieces and a shack in them one at a time). This assumption is not the most obvious.
  • bang April 13 2020 01: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    according to the results of combat use, it turned out that where the booking was the most powerful, there were almost no hits
    So maybe there were no hits, because there was armor?

    It would be much more efficient to focus on local booking of critical units and the cockpit,
    And how to make such a “piecewise” reservation? Uneven mass distribution does not have a very positive effect on the performance and strength of the machine.
  • Nikolaevich I 14 March 2020 09: 38 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Well, that .... on the one hand, they once again reminded us of the history of aviation of past years ... Not bad! “Repetition is the mother of learning!” ... Well, what next? Just "take note," or "indignant in righteous anger": against Stalin? Beria? Yezhova? Molotova? Tupolev? Commissars of heavy industry? Like, they could, but they didn’t want it, scoundrels! But could they? Would you like to?
    Many of these aircraft (for example, Su-6, Su-8 ...) were developed for the M-71 / 71F engine ..., which promised to be wonderful, but turned out to be a "traitor" ... "betrayed the party" of hope and government ", and especially -developers of combat aircraft! (I don’t even remember ... did he, after all, finish it or not ....?). And there were “promising” planes, but difficult to fly, requiring a lot of training time, requiring new materials, not mastered or insufficiently mastered by industry ... was it advisable to start their production in wartime conditions? During the war, explicit surrogates appeared, the main "advantage" of which was "plywood production in a bed workshop", but during the tests the expected "advantages" were crossed out "revived" cons! There were other reasons ... For example, was it easy to launch a new aircraft into production when there were not enough "old" ones? When there was a terrible “migraine” from necessity: 1. to take out whole plants from under the nose of the advancing Germans and in a large number ... 2. deliver them to their destinations and assemble them back to a single puzzle ... 3. start production of any, but still previously mastered, aircraft ... When the "movement of history" was determined by the principles: "I don’t care about fat, I would be alive ..."! This, as you understand, is the 1st half of the war! And here is the second half of the war ... Well, maybe the "habitual features" of the human psyche played a role here ... Like, it seems we are winning ... and we will win, in the end, it is possible that soon .. . Why do we need a "crane in the sky" when "a woodpecker ... in the hand"!? Again ... if you look around the district and look towards the Germans, it turns out that in Germany there will be “a lot” of different types of aircraft; but, basically, old surviving planes or new ones, but a little bit! The "mass" types are "one, two, three and ... miscalculated!"
    These are, basically (!), The “pre-war” Me-109s, Yu-87s, Yu-88s .... War time is just the Fokker-190s ... (German experiments "We will not indicate the end of the war, basically unfinished! I" mention "only" mass "planes ...). So ... will we continue to “blame” Soviet industry, designers, and the country's leadership?
  • Undecim 14 March 2020 09: 39 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    We can say for sure that there were enough designers in the Land of Soviets. Both talented and not so. But in the end, the front line of the enemy’s defense was ironed by IL-2 and subsequently IL-10.
    Was it justified?
    In the situation prevailing in June 1941, it is certainly justified. But the answer to the question “Why did IL-2 competing aircraft not fight for their homeland” lies in a different plane.
    There is such an interesting document -
    "Act on the reception of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR SS Timoshenko K. K. from Voroshilov K. E." dated May 8, 194.
    Excerpt from the act in relation to our topic.
    "In pursuance of Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of May 8, 1940 No. 690, upon receiving the Commissariat of Defense of Comrade Timoshenko from Comrade Voroshilov in the presence of Comrade Zhdanov, Malenkov and Voznesensky, the reports of the heads of central departments were heard and the following was established:
    .....
    STATE OF BIRTH OF TROOPS
    .....
    2. The air force. The material part of the Air Force of the Red Army in its development over the past three years has lagged behind aviation of the leading armies of other countries in speed, range, engine power and armament of aircraft. The People’s Commissariat of Defense (Air Force Directorate) did not show sufficient initiative and perseverance to introduce more modern types of aircraft. The Air Force Directorate did not determine the direction of development of military aviation. For this reason, the Air Force does not have dive bombers and lags behind in the introduction of modern types of aircraft. In armament, the introduction of large-caliber weapons is lagging behind.
    Testing new aircraft samples, testing and debugging them is extremely slow. "
    The phrase "Air Force Administration did not determine the direction of development of military aviation" in our case is key. Yes, there were enough designers in the Land of Soviets. And here is the optimal look for a promising summer of the battlefield (structural diagram of the machine, number of engines, crew, armament and layout of its placement on the aircraft, the minimum required ammunition size, etc.) that can effectively solve the combat tasks of direct air support of troops by the leadership of the Red Army was not formed.
    The designers worked at their own peril and risk, as they saw, but there was no system in this work.
    It was naturally impossible to correct the situation that had developed over the year. Although they tried.
    Therefore, by June 1941, of the entire variety of aircraft, which could more or less efficiently carry out direct support of troops on the battlefield and be produced in sufficient quantities, the industry turned out to be IL-2.
    1. Octopus 14 March 2020 13: 42 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      The People’s Commissariat of Defense (Air Force Directorate) did not show sufficient initiative and perseverance to introduce more modern types of aircraft. The Air Force Directorate did not determine the direction of development of military aviation

      )))
      Here it must be borne in mind that the task of Comrade Tymoshenko was covering her ass by dumping as many jambs as possible dashing 90 Soviet power Voroshilov. To include in the sins of Voroshilov the lag of the USSR on motors - this must be a great arrogance.
      1. Undecim 14 March 2020 17: 16 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Even taking into account the "cover of the ass", it is enough to look at the number of aircraft structures and compare their performance characteristics so that it is clear that the process was chaotic.
        1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Undecim
          the process was chaotic

          Well, in the fleet he was not chaotic. It was better?
          1. Undecim 14 March 2020 18: 26 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Are we discussing attack aircraft or the fleet?
            1. Octopus 14 March 2020 18: 57 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              We are discussing what you want from the Air Force? Where (in what country or in what kind of troops of the USSR) was the case posed as you think is right?
              1. Undecim 14 March 2020 19: 05 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                I don’t want anything from the Air Force and I don’t think anything. The author in the title posed a question, but instead of answering it, he went into consideration of the options for attack aircraft created before the war, that is, in my understanding, reversed the cause and effect. In my comment I meant exactly that.
                As for the statement of the case in other branches of the armed forces and in other countries, this is the subject of another discussion, which has nothing to do with this article.
                All the best.
  • Pavel57 14 March 2020 10: 02 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    It was difficult to create aircraft in the country of the Soviets. It was necessary to guess with the motor, to have a serial plant, to have support at the top.

    Sukhoi with Su-6 at least did not have 1 and 2. Polikarpov had problems with everything (1, 2,3). Ilyushin guessed with everything, but was ready for any whim of the customer. Therefore, the IL-2 was both single-engine and twin-engine. And IL-10 was less effective than IL-2 and IL-8. In evidence of this, recall the IL-10M, which in fact was the IL-8.
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 11: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Mentioned - IL2-single and double.
    2. irontom 14 March 2020 17: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Here is the number, IL-10M is IL-8, however, heh, heh, and not that Emka from IL-10 was distinguished by a wing that was technologically sophisticated, increased rudders, 4 NR-23 guns under a weakened cartridge of VL (although on the last the Il-20 series were the 4th NS-23) and richer instrumentation equipment, but forgot to add a turret with the B-20, and so on a little detail.
      1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 18: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I take as a comparison the size of the glider.
        1. irontom 14 March 2020 18: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The IL-8 is the IL-2 with a new engine enhanced protection and improved aerodynamics.
          The first version of the new attack aircraft according to the documents was designated "Il-2 AM-42 with improved aerodynamics" or the aircraft "S-42".
          And it was called IL-2M with AM-42
          Compared with the Il-2 AM-38F, the Il-8th, as well as the Il-2M AM-42 mentioned above, had slightly larger dimensions.
          IL-8 is a modification of the IL-2 aircraft with the preservation of all basic overall dimensions. 50% of parts and accessories remain unchanged, and out of 50% of the equipment, which is subject to alteration, 25% will undergo only refinement. In addition, all conveyor lines are retained.
          The IL-10 was a completely new aircraft. The two-seat modification of the Il-1k Ilu-2 fighter was only relevant in terms of the concept of a bearing armored hull covering the engine, fuel tanks, and pilot.
          1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 18: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And the IL-10M was closer to the IL-8 than to the IL-10. Apparently, the restoration of production in Rostov IL-10 was an occasion to review the design in the direction of IL-8.
            1. irontom 14 March 2020 19: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Now for more details referring to sources, not your IMHO.
              1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 21: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                There will be a desire to compare the sizes of IL-8, IL-10 and IL-10M.
                1. irontom 15 March 2020 04: 28 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Class - according to the wing area of ​​10 and Emka alone, the difference is 3 meters, the span is larger by 0.6 meters, when the IL-8 has an area of ​​39 (compare and feel the difference - 30, 33. sq m).
                  At IL-2 with an arrow 38.5
                  Not to mention wing geometry. You know, I still believe the historical document from Ilyushchin than your geometric fantasies.
                  1. Pavel57 15 March 2020 10: 54 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    No question, expect from Ilyushin.
  • Dimmedroll 14 March 2020 11: 09 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Someone said, "that not everything has to be built, what has been invented." Apparently this is about it. But another person said, "that history does not endure the subjunctive mood." And so reasoning on what would happen, if so. This is akin to masturbation. The main thing is that we won the war and left to live as a people. The rest is essentially not important. But this does not cancel the study of history.
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 11: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Dimmedroll, the decision-making aspect is not important for you, it is important for others. This is part of the story.
      And mistakes in decision-making are additional losses, which could be less.
    2. Octopus 14 March 2020 13: 07 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Dimmedroll
      reasoning on what would happen, if so. This is akin to masturbation

      How did you attach the whole altistory. In masturbation has its advantages.
      Quote: Dimmedroll
      The rest is essentially not important.

      The rest is crucial. It is impossible to disassemble a particular decision made in reality without having in mind its alternatives. Another thing is that it is necessary to stick to real-life alternatives, and not to fall into the world of elves, as is usually the case.
  • seacap 14 March 2020 11: 22 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Everything is correct, and the technological chain must also be taken into account, for example, 1 engine and 2 engines, factories have been relocated, many skilled workers were absent, the machine tools had women and children. This is the same as in tanks, the T-34 was inferior in many combat characteristics to the Panthers and Tigers, even the modified T IV, but it was simpler and more technologically advanced, its production almost did not require highly skilled labor, production was massive, which ultimately decided question.
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 11: 41 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      36 thousand T-34. Of these, we will consider 20 thousand burned out. This is 80-100 thousand. tank crews. It would be a better tank. 15 thousand tanks would have burned down ...

      So it is with airplanes. Better an airplane - less losses, more victories.
      1. Alf
        Alf 14 March 2020 16: 38 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Pavel57
        Of these, we will consider 20 thousand burned out. This is 80-100 thousand. tank crews.

        Fine. But did all the tankers after the hit remained in the tank, didn’t anyone jump out?
        1. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 17: 34 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Alf
          But did all the tankers after the hit remained in the tank, didn’t anyone jump out?

          Just when you hit the first thing, and it was necessary to pop up, as far as I remember the stories of my grandfather (instructor-mechanic).
          1. Alf
            Alf 14 March 2020 17: 50 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            Quote: Alf
            But did all the tankers after the hit remained in the tank, didn’t anyone jump out?

            Just when you hit the first thing, and it was necessary to pop up, as far as I remember the stories of my grandfather (instructor-mechanic).

            Here! A colleague Pavel57 immediately put them all on death row, he apparently believes that if the tank is wrecked, then the crew is guaranteed to die with it.
            1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 18: 13 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              All figures are conditional. Put your calculation option. In any case, the technique is better - less of their losses, more damage to the enemy.
              1. Alf
                Alf 14 March 2020 20: 01 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Pavel57
                In any case, the technique is better - less of their losses, more damage to the enemy.

                Who argues? That's just the best of all does not work with the approximate equality of economics and science.
      2. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 17 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: Pavel57
        It would be a better tank.

        the most offensive was! T-34M, by the spring of 41g ...
        1. Alf
          Alf 14 March 2020 17: 26 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: ser56
          Quote: Pavel57
          It would be a better tank.

          the most offensive was! T-34M, by the spring of 41g ...

          It remains the smallest-run in a series and bring .. Especially if you recall the new gearbox, suspension. The T-34 was only brought to the 42-43rd with great difficulty, and if you recall the decline in quality due to women and children at the machine tools ...
          1. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 37 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Quote: Alf
            It remains the smallest-run in a series and bring

            and what's the difference, what to bring - T-34 or T-34M? The most problematic thing is the engine ...
            Quote: Alf
            T-34 was brought only to 42-43rd with great difficulty,

            so the war was ...
            Quote: Alf
            about the decline in quality due to women and children at machine tools ...

            this is a question for those who called for skilled workers - in fact, wrecking ... request
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 March 2020 17: 45 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: ser56
              and what's the difference, what to bring - T-34 or T-34M?

              Big one. T-34 is already there, though not the most optimal, and T-34M is just a mockup.
              Quote: ser56
              so the war was ...

              It would be even funnier. The war has begun, the T-34 has been removed from the assembly line, and the T-34M has just been brought up ...
              Quote: ser56
              The most problematic thing is the engine ...

              Do not forget about the checkpoint. Normal could not be put on the five-step only on the T-34 at the end of the 43rd.
              And do not forget about the story of the transition from 4-mortar to 3-mortar on the BT-7 due to production problems.
              1. ser56 16 March 2020 13: 46 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Quote: Alf
                It would be even funnier.

                you exaggerate greatly - you didn’t expect a war in the summer of 1941 - we drove the shaft for the new MK!
                Those. supplied the troops with knowingly worse weapons ... request
                Quote: Alf
                ro checkpoint do not forget.

                when it became necessary - done ...
                1. Alf
                  Alf 16 March 2020 19: 37 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: ser56
                  Those. supplied the troops with knowingly worse weapons ...

                  And they would have armed the BT-7 ...
                  Quote: ser56
                  when it became necessary - done ...

                  In the 43rd, but not in the 41st.
                  1. ser56 17 March 2020 11: 08 New
                    • 1
                    • 5
                    -4
                    Quote: Alf
                    And they would have armed BT-7 ..

                    good tank, compare it with the T-1 or T-2 of the Germans ... and the T-3 with a short 50mm is not particularly better ...
                    Quote: Alf
                    In the 43rd, but not in the 41st.

                    I repeat, because of the war ... would set a task in the spring of 41, would be by the summer ...
                    1. bk0010 17 March 2020 21: 08 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: ser56
                      good tank, compare it with the T-1 or T-2 of the Germans ... and the T-3 with a short 50mm is not particularly better ...
                      Strongly better: the T-3 is suitable for a blitzkrieg, but the BT with its 150 operating hours to capital is not.
                      1. ser56 18 March 2020 12: 19 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Quote: bk0010
                        and BT with its 150 hours to the capital - no.

                        if not a secret - how much does the T-3 have? wink
                      2. bk0010 18 March 2020 20: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Either 3, or 4 times more. Now I don’t remember exactly. In a straight line from the border to Moscow, three times was enough.
                      3. ser56 19 March 2020 11: 51 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Now I don’t remember exactly.

                        informative.... bully
                        Quote: bk0010
                        In a straight line from the border to Moscow, three times was enough.

                        as Guderian had other information, he turned south for the environment near Kiev was dangerous precisely because of the resource ... request
                      4. bk0010 19 March 2020 21: 20 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, they have already passed through France, Poland, Yugoslavia and other Europe. In addition, "in a straight line" usually does not work. We made an analogue of T-3 (T-50), but they did not manage to put it into production, T-34 riveted for them in factories.
                      5. ser56 20 March 2020 12: 00 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Well, they have already passed through France, Poland, Yugoslavia and other Europe.

                        without repair and replacement of motors? bully it is clear - in the discussion with you I do not see the point .. hi
  • Pavel57 14 March 2020 21: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    There was a T-43. But no one could decide to cancel the plan for quantity.
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 22: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      There was a T-43. But no one could decide to cancel the plan for quantity.

      There was no point in releasing it. By artillery, he was no better than the T-34-76, ZIS-S-53 would not have climbed into this tower anyway, by reservation he was, of course, better protected, but from PAK-40 and, especially, KVK-8,8, XNUMX still did not save.
      1. Pavel57 15 March 2020 00: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The T-43 was better armored and had an 85 mm gun, which was later transferred to the T-34-85.
        1. Alf
          Alf 15 March 2020 00: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Pavel57
          had an 85 mm gun

          What is your evidence?
          1. Pavel57 15 March 2020 00: 41 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The T-43 had an enlarged turret with a shoulder strap of 1600mm. Originally installed 76mm gun, it is. But the emergence of new German tanks made it possible to increase the caliber of the gun. Therefore, the requirement was for the T-43 to have an 85mm gun. But the gun lingered. On the other hand, the T-43 tower was tested on a modified T-34. As a result, it was decided to modify the T34 in the T-34-85 with a tower from the T-43. A T-43 instance with an 85mm gun was created. But this did not affect the decision on the medium tank, the T-34-85 went to the series, which had known shortcomings in armor, suspension, etc.
            1. Alf
              Alf 15 March 2020 21: 14 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Pavel57
              On the other hand, the T-43 tower was tested on a modified T-34. As a result, it was decided to modify the T34 in the T-34-85 with a tower from the T-43.

              I did not know, thank you. +.
          2. Bad_gr 15 March 2020 01: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alf
            Quote: Pavel57
            .... and had an 85 mm gun, which was later transferred to the T-34-85.

            In Wik they write a little bit wrong:
            ".... The design of the tank was extreme, precluding further modernization. And when the serial" thirty-four "was equipped with an 85-mm gun, the need for the T-43 disappeared, although it was the tower from the T-43 with minor modifications that was used for the T-34 -85 .... "
            1. Pavel57 16 March 2020 12: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Further modernization of the T-34 also stopped. The new line began with the T-44.
  • Octopus 14 March 2020 13: 21 New
    • 4
    • 7
    -3
    Quote: seacap
    modified T IV

    He was inferior to the three, as a rule. The troika was a tank, and the T-34 arr 40 was an infantry support vehicle, such as Valentine KS or the tower bar. Another thing is that with the outbreak of war they began to remake it into a tank, for lack of a better one.
    Quote: seacap
    simpler and more technologically advanced

    More complicated and extremely low-tech.
    Quote: seacap
    its production almost did not require highly skilled labor

    Production required highly skilled labor, but it was not even in peacetime. The result was this horror.
    Quote: seacap
    at machine tools women and children

    By the way. And what the hell do women and children have on machine tools? More than 183 thousand people never worked at the 30rd plant, what did these 2 divisions decide for the 10 millionth Red Army? Who decided to put skilled workers on cannon fodder?
    1. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 28 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: Octopus
      The troika was a tank, and the T-34 arr 40 was an infantry support vehicle

      I've heard about different tank classification systems, but your funniest ... bully
      1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ser56
        your funniest

        Have you heard of BT-7A before? Well, now you will know.
        1. ser56 16 March 2020 13: 50 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: Octopus
          Well, now you will know.

          learn, a useful thing, instead of writing nonsense ... request
          1. Octopus 16 March 2020 22: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            You essentially wanted to say something, or are you preparing a speech for the pioneer rally?

            As for the T-34, it was not a machine suitable for rough penetrating operations. Both on execution, and constructively. To consider it a tank or not is whoever it wants.
            1. ser56 17 March 2020 11: 10 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              Quote: Octopus
              As for the T-34, it was not a machine suitable for rough penetrating operations.

              when it was finished - from 1943 - it’s completely ... the question is not in technology, but in commanders ...
              Quote: Octopus
              To consider it a tank or not is whoever it wants.

              your opinion is negligible ...
              1. Octopus 17 March 2020 21: 17 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: ser56
                your opinion is null and void

                You, it seems to me, decided to abuse.

                My difference from the mentioned corbine is that I don't give a damn if it is a tank or a self-propelled gun. So and so shit.
                Quote: ser56
                when it was finished - since 1943

                In the meantime, they didn’t come to war. Like the Americans.
                1. ser56 18 March 2020 12: 21 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  In the meantime, they didn’t come to war. Like the Americans.

                  1) Hmm, there are always enough fools in Russia ...
                  2) Somehow the USSR was not asked about the beginning of the war ... request
                  1. Octopus 19 March 2020 08: 14 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ser56
                    there are always enough fools in Russia ...

                    Kharkov is Ukraine.
                    1. ser56 19 March 2020 11: 52 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Kharkov is Ukraine.

                      noticeably ... bully
    2. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 17: 36 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Octopus
      Who decided to put skilled workers on cannon fodder?

      They worked so hard at the factories that the people themselves were eager for the front.
      1. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 47 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Quote: mordvin xnumx
        They worked so hard at the factories that the people themselves were eager for the front.

        could be called up and left in the factories ... hi
      2. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: mordvin xnumx
        the people themselves were eager for the front.

        But at the front he was resting, it turns out? Now you understand what they said?
        1. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 18: 04 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Octopus
          Now you understand what they said?

          I understand perfectly. And this is not my opinion, this is the opinion of war veterans who went to factories for new cars and helped workers assemble tanks. Yes, the crews were involved in the assembly of cars. They really worked there until you drop and at any cost they tried to break out to the front.
          Quote: ser56
          could be called up and left in the factories ...

          Yes, they did not want to stay there.
          1. Octopus 14 March 2020 18: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            Yes, they did not want to stay there

            Someone seems to have thought of something. Do you really need tanks?
            1. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 18: 35 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              Someone seems to have thought of something. Do you really need tanks?

              And the tanks are needed. Which is better, underfeeding a soldier on the front line, or underfeeding a worker? Here is such a poor choice. Then Vojaka Ukh told how his father fell into a hungry swoon behind a machine at the Kirov plant. At the front they fed better. Do not forget the lines from order No. 227
              The territory of the USSR, which the enemy has captured and seeks to capture, is bread and other products for the army and the rear, metal and fuel for industry, factories, factories supplying the army with arms and ammunition, railways. After the loss of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states, Donbass and other areas, we have become much less territory, therefore, there are much less people, bread, metal, factories, factories. We have lost more than 70 million people, more than 800 million pounds of bread per year and more than 10 million tons of metal per year. We now no longer have a predominance over the Germans either in human reserves or in stocks of bread. Retreating further means ruining oneself and ruining our Motherland at the same time. Each new patch of territory left by us will in every way strengthen the enemy and in every way weaken our defense, our Motherland.

              Therefore, we must fundamentally stop talking about the fact that we have the opportunity to retreat endlessly, that we have a lot of territory, our country is large and rich, there is a lot of population, there will always be plenty of bread. Such conversations are deceitful and harmful, they weaken us and strengthen the enemy, for if we do not stop retreat, we will be left without bread, without fuel, without metal, without raw materials, without factories and plants, without railways.
              Somehow in the 90s, Sister Yeltsin and I began to scold at a degree, my grandfather was silent, looking at us like interesting animals, and the grandmother, who worked in the war at the factory, cried: "Guys, you can’t even imagine how well you live!"
              1. Octopus 14 March 2020 19: 06 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                You guys can’t even imagine how you live well

                Yes. Therefore, I always go nuts when comparing Yeltsin's liberal genocide (which I or you survived) with the Stalin era.
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                underfeeding a soldier on the front line, or underfeeding a worker?

                A soldier, of course. The soldier is 10 million, and the workers of the country's main tank factory less than thirty thousand.. This I leave out of the brackets of different comrades from different departments, which were not worth feeding at all.
                By the way, what is this strange choice? Why do you need to feed someone? Is the stew in America over?
                1. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 19: 19 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Yes. Therefore, I always go nuts when they compare the liberal genocide of Yeltsin (which I or you survived) with the Stalin era.

                  No. She compared it with wartime. My grandfather under Stalin worked at the mine, where the regime sent him after being wounded in a penal battalion and earned very well. Grandma didn’t work at all after the war.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Is the stew in America over?

                  Imagine yes. When the anti-adviser Edik Topol came to America with his aunt and started talking about military hunger, she assented: "Yes, yes, we also had hunger, there was no meat, one chicken." They were starving, damn it.
                  1. Octopus 14 March 2020 21: 13 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: mordvin xnumx
                    one chicken

                    It’s not easy for everyone. But talk about something else. It’s possible to feed Tagil, especially not all, but several thousand skilled workers, who are more important than soldiers, more important than tankers, the characteristics of tens of thousands of machines critically depend on the machine’s presence and health condition. They simply did not consider it necessary.

                    Poor design of the military armor system is one of the most important mistakes of that period.
                    1. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 21: 38 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Feed Tagil, especially not the whole, but several thousand skilled workers

                      In addition to Tagil, there is Chelyabinsk, and in general, others, that you do not need to feed, or what? The entire rear worked at the front.
                      Quote: Octopus
                      skilled workers who are more important than soldiers

                      Do the soldiers agree with you that workers are more important? And the wounded? But how can I pull leverage on the driver, and throw shells at the artilleryman? How drove a steering wheel without any hydraulic booster, and a pilot flying several sorties a day with overloads? Snipers needed sugar for visual acuity, for example. Mortar men dragged their samovars, signalmen - reels with wires, nurses pulled out the wounded, remember the dialogue from "They fought for their homeland": "And why only take such bumps into the army? Six pounds in you! Ninety-three ... What is 93? Kilogram ! Before the war it was! " Count at a glance how many products are needed to feed the army. The grandmother-collective farmer won the last chicken to Maresyev that she remained in the village. Otherwise, he might not have survived. By the way, in the Black Sea, the authorities were indignant at the pleasure of the sailors, it was painfully fat, they said you had a resort here, but when they went to sea and froze to the bone, they shut up in an instant.
                    2. Octopus 14 March 2020 22: 21 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: mordvin xnumx
                      in general, others that do not need to be fed, or what?

                      Therefore, do nothing.
                      Quote: mordvin xnumx
                      Do the soldiers agree with you that workers are more important?

                      In exchange for a tank that is capable not only of leaving the factory yard on its own? Will definitely agree. I remind you (I see, for some reason it falls out of your head) that highly skilled workers in thousand times less than a soldier and they are factor of closer to ports with american grub. Feeding them is not particularly difficult, rats will eat much more. You can’t tell about the hard life of war veterans here, with a tank that fails for 5 hours without adjustment and repair, it will not be more satisfying and warmer.

                      And yes, by the way. Under Comrade Stalin, rations were distributed by vote, is that for sure?
                    3. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 22: 52 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      I remind you (I see that for some reason it falls out of your head) that there are a thousand times fewer highly skilled workers than soldiers,

                      And I remind you that during the Second World War, the whole country was malnourished and processed. Except thieves. Even Marshal Golovanov, the commander of the ADD (long-range aviation), on a report by Stalin, fainted from fatigue, and he soldered it with vodka.

                      Quote: Octopus
                      there are a thousand times fewer highly skilled workers than soldiers,

                      I do not agree. And I am from hereditary workers, and I worked at a defense enterprise of national importance. There was nothing archaic in either tanks or planes, I don’t understand how a normal man can understand such a primitive technique of those times. This is not a tiger, with the repair of which German repairmen suffered. And fed better than all pilots, intelligence and wounded. And the fighters are also, to some extent, highly qualified specialists.
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Under Comrade Stalin, rations were distributed by vote, is that for sure?

                      The first time I hear about this. How does it look at all, can you explain? What kind of vote? recourse I didn’t get it.
                    4. Octopus 14 March 2020 23: 12 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: mordvin xnumx
                      The first time I hear about it

                      Well, you are writing.
                      Quote: mordvin xnumx
                      Do the soldiers agree with you that workers are more important?

                      And they were asked?
                      Quote: mordvin xnumx
                      Disagree

                      With what? What at the 184th factory of skilled workers one division by force? And is this one division responsible for half of the Soviet medium tanks?
                      Quote: mordvin xnumx
                      There was nothing archaic in either tanks or aircraft

                      And here is comrade
                      Quote: Alf
                      if we recall the decline in quality due to women and children at machine tools ...

                      complains about the quality.
                    5. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 23: 36 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Octopus
                      And here is comrade
                      Quote: Alf
                      if we recall the decline in quality due to women and children at machine tools ...

                      complains about the quality.

                      And I do not agree with him. Tanks are constantly upgraded. The thickness of the armor increased, instead of one heavy hatch, which was barely opened, two were placed, and the commander’s turret was installed. Then an 85 mm gun appeared, the radio operator arrow was added. This is all our 34th. In the 44th appeared heavy IS-2 with a 122 mm gun.
                    6. Octopus 14 March 2020 23: 38 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: mordvin xnumx
                      And I do not agree with him

                      And, well, if you have no comments on the quality of Soviet military technology, then OK, everything is logical.
                    7. Mordvin 3 15 March 2020 00: 40 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      And, well, if you have no comments on the quality of Soviet military technology, then OK, everything is logical.

                      Acceptable quality. Of course, there are complaints about fragile armor, which when hit by blanks could “shoot” small fragments at tankers, mediocre optics, a tight gearshift lever, but in general it’s acceptable. Of course, the Americans made their Shermans with great comfort, painted white inside, and slipped a bottle of whiskey into their guns as a gift, but they had nowhere to hurry. They did not fight on land until the 44th. And we did it maybe rudely, but quickly.
  • vnord 14 March 2020 12: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Based on Lice Logic!
    La-5 and La-7 "essentially options" Lagg-3 (another engine).
    IL-10 version of IL-2 (another armored capsule)!
    The same Lugg-3 had at least 26 modernization options (modernization models), but the name did not change. I think the designers knew better when they changed digital models !!!
    Therefore, the Yak-1 is the Yak-1, the Yak-3 is the Yak-3 !!!

    The question is why LAGG -3 of the last modifications was made in Tbilisi until the end of the war. So he had his own niche.
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 12: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yakovlev got to Tbilisi last.
    2. mark1 14 March 2020 14: 28 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: vnord
      why LAGG -3 of the last modifications was made in Tbilisi until the end of the war

      Until 1944. Due to ASh-82 deficit
    3. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 16: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: vnord
      The question is why LAGG -3 of the last modifications was made in Tbilisi until the end of the war. So he had his own niche.

      Just OTHER aircraft could not do there.
      1. KERMET 16 March 2020 14: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Or didn’t want to
        1. Alf
          Alf 16 March 2020 19: 40 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: KERMET
          Or didn’t want to

          The stump is clear .. It is necessary to make the Yak-3! I do not want ! And what you want ? I want LAGG-3. Well then, let's run it!
          1. KERMET 17 March 2020 08: 40 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, the instructions of the party and government sometimes well stimulated desires. Then apparently they decided not to torment proud Georgians wink
  • Pushkar 14 March 2020 12: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The subjunctive mood exists only in Lukyanenko, but in films. It is not known if the “best” planes would actually be the best. I happened to serve on a powerful, high-speed high-altitude interceptor, a handsome man was good, but one "trifle" interfered with - the complexity of take-off and landing. Pilots fought on it.
    1. WapentakeLokki 14 March 2020 20: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      you dear not Tu-22 of the first series mean ?? looked about their epic in the Star .. they didn’t have a downward view at all, and the landing speed was 250 or ~ .. they said that the pilots by all means tried to transfer from this uber waff..and for live something hotstsa..a so TU-22 was ..good..krasava..aga
      1. Pushkar 15 March 2020 11: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: WapentakeLokki
        you dear not Tu-22 of the first series mean ??

        I wrote about the Su-11, he had the same trouble. Thank you, dear.
  • Elturisto 14 March 2020 13: 03 New
    • 0
    • 9
    -9
    This is nonsense. Yaroslavna’s next cry about the “dumbness” of the damned commies who could not be appreciated by the genius of Polikarpov ... Polikarpov is a typical bastard, an opportunist, personally responsible for the death of a large number of pilots. All these concepts are 2 fighters, the inability to create competing models. Only thanks to the wide competition in which Yakovlev, Mikoyan, Lavochkin, Pashinin, Yatsenko took part, it was possible to overcome the wrecking monopoly of Polikarpov.
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 19: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      MiG-1/3 is getting harder and harder - this is Polikarpov’s project. And LaGG-1/3 was no better than the I-180, which was originally registered in Gorky.
      1. Elturisto 14 March 2020 20: 37 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Yes, yes, all the projects of Polikarpov ... I-180 buried several pilots, in addition, Polikarpov violated the terms of the competition, used aluminum in the wing structure ... he wanted to disengage everyone ... did not work ...
        1. Pavel57 15 March 2020 00: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Almost all tests of aircraft passed with the death of pilots. And Yakovlev.
          And the decision to launch the I-180 in the series was, but it was not implemented. And the plant drove the I-16 to 42goda. And could produce I-180.
          1. Elturisto 15 March 2020 10: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            yeah especially with the lack of engine ...
  • zenion 14 March 2020 13: 33 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Now you can safely say that at that time there was someone and why to send to work in the taiga. It is a pity that the author did not understand the so-called expediency in manufacturing. It turned out that the Kalashnikov assault rifle was not a star, but its manufacture was worth a penny instead of making assault rifles worth a hundred rubles. Of course, if there were enough luminium in the country, and not iron, then you would build aircraft from luminium, or titanium.
  • dmmyak40 14 March 2020 13: 35 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The novel did not indicate that Pegasus was a reserve reserve in the event of a worsening economic situation, when the production of more complex aircraft and engines would become impossible. And Pegasus could have been made at the saucepan factory by unskilled personnel. Thank God it didn’t come to that.

    The article does not have TIS, DIS, OKO and many other prototypes. Or did the author leave for later?
  • iouris 14 March 2020 13: 50 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The question of why certain successful (according to some observers) designs of combat aircraft did not go into series before or during the Second World War has long been resolved. The USSR won under the leadership of Stalin and the Stalinist political and economic system. And do not shag grandmother.
    Such articles under flashy and ambiguous headings are aimed at “likes,” “author’s success,” or achieving propaganda goals that lie in the political sphere for an audience that, besides a smartphone, knows no other sources of information, is poorly educated (which can be clearly seen by spelling and punctuation) . This audience is characterized by clip thinking and behavior typical of fans of “top” football clubs.
    1. Elturisto 14 March 2020 20: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Soviet socialist system ... no need to sketch ...
      1. iouris 14 March 2020 20: 40 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        “Spell” is not the state Russian language, but the language of the gateway.
  • seacap 14 March 2020 14: 04 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Quote: Pavel57
    So it is with airplanes. Better an airplane - less losses, more victories.

    But is it that our then 90% of the population 25 years before these events was illiterate and the economy was absent as such, only thanks to the "bloody dictator" and its ministers managed to do what others spent centuries on? There were no extra resources, no production capacities, no engineering staff to “play” with untested and raw machines, retrain l / s, this is even when moving entire industries and creating new ones from scratch, such truths can at least be understand sitting on the couch and at least think a little?
    1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 16: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Seacap, what your emotions are not related to the topic of discussion. We already know what the country was and what the people were. But in hindsight, watching alternatives is not forbidden, right?
    2. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 21 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Quote: seacap
      There were no extra resources, no production capacities, no engineering staff

      if not a secret, and who built linear ships, heavy bombers, aircraft jackets in the Republic of Ingushetia?
      another question is that after the war many educated people (2 million) found themselves in a foreign land - but why?
      Maybe because Polikarpov was sentenced to death, Tupolev was sitting, etc. request
      1. Elturisto 14 March 2020 20: 40 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        It is unfortunate that they were not shot. The linear ships were cardboard (even there were no bulkheads) with Vickers guns.
        1. ser56 16 March 2020 14: 04 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          Quote: ElTuristo
          It is unfortunate that they were not shot.

          fools in Russia ....
          Quote: ElTuristo
          Battleships were cardboard (

          aha, from papier-mâché ... bully
    3. Bad_gr 14 March 2020 17: 47 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: seacap
      But it’s nothing that at that time 90% of the population in our country 25 years before these events was illiterate

      That 90% would write 100% illiterate. Or you can do it without numbers: literacy was not at all.
      1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 19: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Confused with tsarist Russia.
        1. Bad_gr 14 March 2020 20: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Nete ​​is full of literacy information in Russia for any period of history. It would not hurt to read on the topic, and not write nonsense right away,
  • Operator 14 March 2020 14: 12 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    The author’s logical message is incorrect, therefore the whole article is also incorrect: the armored attack aircraft, a tank destroyer of the 1940s model, was inoperative in any design.

    Careerist Ilyushin made a fool of his head to lay Stalin and forced him to throw huge funds into the wind to produce completely useless aircraft, in which:
    - guns did not penetrate tank armor;
    - bombs from a gentle dive could not even get into a surface ship;
    - PTABs fell into tanks only on a march in closed columns:
    - the load in the form of FAB and NURS was scanty, incl. in comparison with fighter planes due to the large weight of the parasitic “armor” that made its way through 20 mm anti-aircraft guns.
    1. iouris 14 March 2020 15: 35 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      Careerist Ilyushin stupefied a layman Stalin

      Stalin’s expression is known: “I have no other writers for you.”
      With this phrase, Stalin responded to a complaint against the writers of the chairman of the Writers' Union D. I. Polikarpov., Who in the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) oversaw the activities of the Union of Soviet Writers and complained to Stalin about drunkenness, the "immoral lifestyle" of writers. The next day, Polikarpov was demoted and found himself at the Pedagogical Institute as deputy rector for the business.
      1. Operator 14 March 2020 15: 41 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Poet - classic of children's literature of Georgia Joseph Dzhugashvili professionally versed in Soviet writers laughing
        1. iouris 14 March 2020 15: 48 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Stalin (Dzhugashvili) was quite deeply versed in everything. According to some estimates, he read about 20 thousand books, personally supervised the culture, watched all theatrical and ballet performances, films. And all aircraft designers were under his constant personal control. Nevertheless, in the field of ballet, the Stalinist USSR had much greater achievements than in the field of aviation. The victory was won by the army: infantrymen, tankers, artillerymen.
          1. ser56 14 March 2020 17: 22 New
            • 2
            • 6
            -4
            Quote: iouris
            deeply versed in everything.

            that’s the problem - no worse than amateurs who read a couple of books ... request
            1. iouris 14 March 2020 19: 02 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: ser56
              no worse amateurs who read a couple of books.

              Stalin was neither a poet, nor a critic, nor an aircraft designer. Stalin was a statesman who designed, created and left us a powerful independent state and society. In this he was not an amateur. It's not for us to judge him or engage in gossip. Read reviews by Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle about Generalissimo Stalin.
              1. Alf
                Alf 14 March 2020 21: 07 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: iouris
                Read reviews by Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle about Generalissimo Stalin.

                And alozych about IVS responded oh how good.
                1. Mordvin 3 15 March 2020 00: 56 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: Alf
                  And alozych about IVS responded oh how good.

                  Stalin at the negotiations on the second front, even the old drunk Roosevelt could re-drink. That poor fellow then could not remember what they agreed on. laughing
                2. ser56 16 March 2020 14: 03 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: Alf
                  And alozych about IVS responded oh how good.

                  it is clear - he allowed him to defeat France ...
              2. ser56 16 March 2020 14: 02 New
                • 1
                • 5
                -4
                Quote: iouris
                It's not for us to judge him or engage in gossip.

                speak about yourself and for yourself ...
                Quote: iouris
                who designed, created and left us a powerful independent state and society

                which was created so that it collapsed immediately after his death ... request
                and when creating the loss of the people was terrible ...
    2. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 16: 46 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      - guns did not penetrate tank armor;

      And which aircraft guns pierced the tank armor?
      Quote: Operator
      - the load in the form of FAB and NURS was scanty, incl. compared to fighter jets

      And which I-Bs dragged more bombs or NURs?
      1. Octopus 14 March 2020 16: 55 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Which I-Bs dragged more bombs or NURs?

        Any. Hurricane took 2x230, not to mention Fock or the Americans. Yak-7 less.
        1. Alf
          Alf 14 March 2020 17: 08 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Octopus
          Hurricane took 2x230,

          454. And how much dragged IL? The same 400.
          Quote: Octopus
          Yak-7 less.

          Yak-7 has never been a fighter-bomber.
          Quote: Octopus
          the americans.

          Yes, the P-47 lifted to 908 kg, but what kind of speed did it have near the ground and what kind of bomb sight?
          For 190 the same thing. And it was not for nothing that our infantrymen were most afraid of the 87th.
          1. Octopus 14 March 2020 17: 30 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            how many dragged il? The same 400.

            That is less. While a) Khariton is a strongly pre-war aircraft b) the British were just building a fighter, and not like the Americans.
            Quote: Alf
            Yak-7 has never been a fighter-bomber.

            )))
            Will the Yak-9B go? 4x100?
            Quote: Alf
            But what was his speed near the ground and what kind of bomb sight?

            Are you still interested in comparison with IL-2? Dash on the hood as a sight fit?
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 March 2020 17: 54 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Octopus
              Are you still interested in comparison with IL-2?

              By the way, IL-10 showed lower efficiency in battles precisely because there was a higher speed near the ground, the pilots simply did not have time to aim.
              Quote: Octopus
              Dash on the hood as a sight fit?

              Yes, this sight was not optimal. But, the question is, what kind of bomb sight stood on the 190th and 47th?
              There is a difference, 400 kg with dashes and a minimum at the ground and 908 in the absence of anything at all and greater speed at the ground.
              1. Octopus 14 March 2020 18: 13 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Alf
                which bomb sight was on the 190th and 47th?

                Test results were generally favorable. A plane with two FAB-250 bombs normally took off from the Vaeng airfield. The bombs were dropped in a dive at an angle of 50 degrees from a height of 3000 m, aiming during bombing was carried out using a standard machine-gun sight. Bombing with three FAB-250s or two FAB-500s was considered possible to carry out only from horizontal flight. Below is an excerpt from the Thunderbolt P-47D-22-RE Aircraft Testing Protocol.

                From the commander of the Air Force of the Northern Fleet, Lieutenant General Aviation Preobrazhensky No. 08489 of November 13, 1944

                Report to the Commander of the Air Force of the USSR Navy Marshal Zhavoronkov I report that, based on the results of testing the P-47D-22-RE Thunderbolt aircraft of serial construction, I made a decision to equip one 255th IAKP squadron with 14 Thunderbolt aircraft.

                The squadron will perform the following tasks:

                1. long-range escort of bombers

                2. horizontal and low-altitude bombing based on the bomb load of up to 1000 kg per aircraft

                3. attack of convoy guard ships


                The Americans had their own problems:

                1. Their industry could not, did not want, categorically refused even to discuss the production of fighters. She made only bombers, including single-engine.
                2. The Air Force command could not, did not want to, categorically refused even to discuss the use of aviation for military, rather than political purposes. Therefore, it flew four-engine across Europe, and single-engine dive bombers - R-51 and R-47 - gave out as fighters, hanging additional fuel tanks instead of bombs on them, removing air brakes, trapezoid and sights.

                With the unthinkable efforts of industry and the Air Force as a whole, it was possible to achieve satisfactory results in the battles against German fighters from the converted R-51 and R-47 bombers. But the British got them all the war with the question "Why can’t you just build a fighter and not torture a bomber?" (See P-51L).
                1. Alf
                  Alf 14 March 2020 19: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Take the P-51 as a bomber ... No comment.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  bombers, including single-engine.

                  Which ones ?
                  Quote: Octopus
                  (See P-51L).

                  This one is not even built, the project.
                  1. Octopus 14 March 2020 21: 53 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Alf
                    P-51 count as a bomber

                    Bad fighter and bad bomber.
                    In the early, the load is the same as in the Su-2, in the later - like in the Pe-2. But at the same time, the weight of an empty aircraft with the same engine (Packard) is 1.5 times more than that of Spit. When remaking the R-51 into the A-36, the glider was not recounted.
                    Quote: Alf
                    Which ones

                    Both the jug and the mustang were not made according to the destructive norms of glider durability. Above is an excerpt from the Soviet tests of the jug, where it is written that the bomb load of the aircraft and the recommended diving angle practically correspond to those for the Pe-2 (theoretically, the Pe-2 should have bombed by 60 degrees, but was actually used as a horizontal plane). Do you think such opportunities are normal for a fighter? Let me remind you that the IL-2 dived at an angle of no more than 30 degrees with three times less load.
                    If you read the memoirs of American land explorers in Europe, you will often see dive P-47.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 14 March 2020 22: 08 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Octopus
                      If you read the memoirs of American land explorers in Europe, you will often see P-47 dive bombers.

                      I agree, but there is an explanation for this. Are there many German front-line raids on the allies in the West? Of course, there were simply no one to drive the Thunder as fighters.
                      Mustang dived so that approached the Sound, is that an indicator is not fighter?
                      1. Octopus 14 March 2020 22: 41 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Alf
                        There were simply no one to drive the thunder as fighters.

                        Have you heard anything about the Messer dive even during the period when no one interfered with him? You really do not see anything strange in that maximum weight dive bomber Yu-87B less than empty Thunder D?
                        Quote: Alf
                        Mustang dived like that

                        ... like a heavy aircraft with good aerodynamics. The rate of climb, heel speed, rate of change of direction of the heel - mediocre.

                        Mustang was done in six months at the company, which before him did the B-25 bomber, training and commercial aircraft. Naturally, the glider was designed according to commercial / bomber strength standards. Where does Zero or Spit come from?
                      2. Alf
                        Alf 14 March 2020 22: 58 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Well, you convinced me, a Mustang bomber, and judging by the range of the 3700 strategic. I won’t argue.
                        Thunder is also a strategist. It will be necessary to fix Vika and other aircraft sites.
                        Here one comrade is also a T-34, Sherman considered anti-tank self-propelled guns, and a DT heavy rifle on bipods.
                      3. Octopus 14 March 2020 23: 34 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Alf
                        moreover, judging by the range of the 3700 strategic

                        Do not confuse the range with the PTB and the combat radius.

                        That the R-51 is a bomber, no need to remember. But you need to remember that the British did not consider him a fighter and did not use it as a fighter. Moreover, the good British explained to the Americans that a fighter is a plane built otherwise.
                        By the 45th year, the Americans began to see clearly slowly. F8F is 1.5 times lighter than the Thunder with the same engine.
                        Quote: Alf
                        Here one comrade is also a T-34, Sherman considered anti-tank self-propelled guns, and a DT heavy rifle on bipods.

                        Old carbine?
                        Not DT, but DP, he considered a rifle, and not a PT, but rather an assault self-propelled gun, he considered the T-34, if I remember correctly. He wrote Sherman not in self-propelled guns, but in light tanks.
                        He was right in many ways, oddly enough, but too excited. Handbrake guns, like a PC, are still not held by machine guns, and the T-34 was an early one, which could only work from infantry, because it couldn’t see a damn thing, and didn’t pull on the tank in Guderian’s understanding.
                      4. Engineer 15 March 2020 17: 36 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        More hell and fumes.
                        It seems to me that your polemical enthusiasm plays a cruel joke with you. Usually there is no reason to expose your awareness, but here the number of pearls exceeded all expectations.
                        Mustang was done in six months at the company, which before him did the B-25 bomber, training and commercial aircraft. Naturally, the glider was designed according to commercial / bomber strength standards.

                        I would be more careful in the statements. After the pilots received anti-loading suits, they maneuvered so that the fuselage skin that Mustang was working bent. It turns out that the strength of the horse was not so overstated.
                        Have you heard anything about the Messer dive even during the period when no one interfered with him?

                        Pilot JG 77 Dietrich Huey hit the Warspite during the Battle of Crete
                        A plane from LG2 Ilefeld hit Fiji
                        Both attacks from a gentle dive on Yabo
                        But limes also want to bomb with a dive. On the fighter.
                        “I believe that we reached 600 mph, but, of course, the speedometer could no longer show this. Several times the aircraft of the 43rd squadron after diving on Spitfire VIII collapsed the center section. Of course, “Sleeps” was not intended for such work and did not have special reinforcements. At the exit of the peak we experienced great overload. The pilot laid a steep turn to the left and threw the plane down. At a diving angle of 80 degrees, it seemed to the pilot that the plane was standing upright, and he hung on seatbelts.

                        http://militera.lib.ru/h/smith_p1/12.html
                        Conclusion - diving with a bomb is important for a fighter-bomber.
                        You really do not see anything strange in the fact that the maximum mass of the diving bomber Yu-87B is less than the empty Thunder D?

                        And what is criminal?
                        Empty thunder modN 5 tons
                        Typhoon - 4 tons
                        Moreover, the good British explained to the Americans

                        Who is interested in the opinion of losers who could not create an escort fighter? In the sense of completely failed.
                        Bad fighter and bad bomber

                        Someone Gunther Rall
                        I had a very good impression of the P-51 Mustang ....
                        Certainly the Spitfire was excellent, but it didn't have the endurance of the P-51. I think this was the decisive factor. They flew for seven hours, and we flew for one hour and 20 minutes.

                        By the unthinkable efforts of industry and the Air Force as a whole, it was possible to achieve satisfactory results in the battles against German fighters from the converted R-51 and R-47 bombers.

                        Americanophobia on the march.
                        There is a simple obscene fact. An air attack on Reich began in January 1944. In September, the campaign was won. The Germans at that time were paying 3 aircraft for each shot down.
                        Mustang and Thunder fit almost perfectly into the doctrine of American Air War.
                      5. Octopus 15 March 2020 21: 25 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        More hell and fumes.

                        Yeah!
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Americanophobia on the march.

                        AMERICANOPHOBIA AND TENTACLES !!!
                        I’m showing the thread how to hate America.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        It turns out that the strength of the horse was not so overstated.

                        It turns out that the strength of the Mustang was not intended for fighter overloads. Naturally, if you have so much weight in the planes, you will have problems with fighter maneuvers.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        http://militera.lib.ru/h/smith_p1/12.html

                        We found someone to quote))) Smith and on airships would have demanded to bomb from a dive.

                        The chapter on Italy is an example of the improper, abnormal use of fighter jets. Yes, American aircraft were much better suited for such work.

                        Quote: Engineer
                        Conclusion - diving with a bomb is important for a fighter-bomber.

                        It was a tiny button that you could barely feel. The button was recessed into the socket, as was the trigger. In the event of a failure of the reset system, at first you cursed a little, and then began to push with your foot another device for dropping the bomb. It was a spring-loaded steel rod in the floor, which should be moved with brute force. After a few kicks, it blew, and your bomb came off the plane. We did not think too much what was happening, and we did not care at all exactly where the bomb would fall. Most often we were north of the forbidden line, and therefore this question did not bother anyone

                        No. Conclusion - IS should not be used in this way. That was a mistake.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Who is interested in the opinion of losers who could not create an escort fighter?

                        And what does the escort fighters have to do with it? Yes, in the "escort fighter" genre, the leaders (and in fact - the only participants) are Americans (well, Zero, perhaps). But in the 40th they were not asked for an escort fighter.
                        Aircraft beginning of the 41st year, empty weight, kg:
                        Sleeps 5 cannon - 2313;
                        Friedrich - 2392
                        Yak-1 - 2445
                        LaGG-3 1 ser - 2680
                        Mustang I - 2967.
                        Ju-87b-2 - 2750
                        Su-2 M-82 - 3220

                        Mustang I, with all the capabilities and achievements of the American people, weighs significantly more than wooden Soviet squalor (and has an approximately identical engine with it, 1,5 times weaker than English). What are the reasons to consider him a fighter? The composition of the weapons?

                        Quote: Engineer
                        An air attack on Reich began in January 1944. In September, the campaign was won.

                        They filled up with corpses (s).
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The Germans at that time were paying 3 aircraft for each shot down.

                        8ВА lost 47,5 thousand people, EMNIP. On suicidal IL-2, they haven’t lost so much in the entire war.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        almost perfectly fit into the doctrine of the American air war.

                        Yes. The duets used the aircraft in such a way that it was Thunder and Mustang (the first due to the highest load on the wing, the second due to the laminar wing) to the maximum extent possible from existing aircraft. However, neither one nor the other aircraft were created for such a task, these are emergency, emergency solutions. The high-altitude escort fighter is Lightning, which failed in this role in Europe.
                      6. Engineer 15 March 2020 23: 23 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        As usual, branded aplomb is attached.
                        Conclusion - IS should not be used in this way. This was a mistake.
                        .
                        Dive bombing is a plus. So the Germans and the British believed. You selectively quoted, Smith has a lot.
                        Mustang I, with all the capabilities and achievements of the American people, weighs significantly more than the Soviet wooden squalor (and has an approximately identical engine with it, 1,5 times weaker than English)

                        Lacking TK, experience in designing fighters, and even an approximate concept, Nort American made an analogue of the P-40 but with great potential. Not bad.
                        They filled up with corpses (s).

                        8BA lost 47,5 thousand people

                        On suicidal IL-2, they haven’t lost so much in the entire war.

                        8 VA made the largest contribution to the air war in 44 of all participants. Actually, she buried backlash and at least in her area. Reich air defense was crushed. This is not counting the hardest damage to the industry.
                        IL-2 can boast of this?
                        Can we compare the results with the English? The bomber command lost even more, not having achieved even a quarter of the results.
                        However, neither one nor the other aircraft were created for such a task, these are emergency, emergency solutions.

                        And I see the natural development of the strengths that the aircraft had initially
                      7. Octopus 16 March 2020 00: 32 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Engineer
                        company aplomb is attached.

                        )))
                        The polemical sharpening of the theses presupposes an excessive determination of statements.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Dive bombing is a plus.

                        Dive bombing is a plus, of course. When she is engaged in dive bombers.
                        This is what Smith is talking about. Plus dive - accuracy. Precision weapons 50 years before precision weapons. The described experience has nothing to do with accuracy.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Lacking TK, experience in designing fighters, and even an approximate concept, Nort American made an analogue of the P-40 but with great potential.

                        You are right, Mustang was a beautiful, extremely successful plane. Successful for the hopelessly backward in the design plan of the American military industry.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Can we compare the results with the English? The bomber command lost even more, not having achieved even a quarter of the results.

                        WWII’s main frenzy, of course, was Harris’s bloody nightmare. Even the Soviet government could not achieve anything like this.

                        What is especially funny, it was Harris’s ideas that dominated American military thought the decades after WWII, although their absurdity was already apparent in the 44th.

                        Was the 8VA completely useless like the English bomber command? No, definitely not. Could these resources, including hundreds of thousands of officers, be used in a more reasonable way? Absolutely yes.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        And I see the natural development of the strengths that the aircraft had initially

                        Mustang was made by completely different people for completely different tasks. Thunder - an attempt to put Lightning into a single-engine aircraft, which also became famous in the field, which its authors did not even think about. An accidental American Fokker, but he was born in the opposite way to Fokker.
                      8. Engineer 16 March 2020 10: 08 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Dive bombing is a plus, of course. When she is engaged in dive bombers.
                        The described experience has nothing to do with accuracy.

                        Selective citation is our everything. If you do not read bias and have no presets in your head, then everything looks different
                        It was a tiny button that you could barely feel. The button was recessed into the socket, as was the trigger. In the event of a failure of the reset system at first you cursed a little, and then began to push with your foot another device for dropping a bomb.

                        And here’s how in practice dealing with accuracy
                        As a target, we used a small raft aboutcolo 6 feet in diameteranchored on a nearby lake

                        I remember once when two of us destroyed the church to the base in order to pick out a sniper from there. We flew so low that I saw soldiers waving our hands. ”) But more often it was required to destroy individual tanks disguised as haystacks, or houses turned into strongholds. ("On another departure, we were given the number of the house that should have been destroyed on the street. The Gestapo residents settled there. We gladly fulfilled the request.")


                        You are right, Mustang was a beautiful, extremely successful plane.

                        Bad fighter and bad bomber

                        What is it like??

                        Was the 8VA completely useless like the English bomber command? No, definitely not.

                        8BA is not just not useless, it is the most effective force in the air in that war. At the level of Task Force or even higher
                      9. Octopus 16 March 2020 23: 16 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        What is it like??

                        The rest is even worse.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        the most effective force in the air in that war. At the level of Task Force or even higher

                        You have found a good analogy. Both 8VA and TF were the embodiment of industrial power. Some hammer of Thor, which could only raise the American people.

                        In both cases, the mountain of expensive iron masked the poverty of military thought.

                        Quote: Engineer
                        that's how in practice dealing with accuracy

                        Quote: Engineer
                        about 6 feet in diameter,

                        Quote: Engineer
                        individual tanks disguised as haystacks

                        You quote it as if one of them was falling.

                        Again. Smith is a big fan of diving. You can agree with him, you can not. But the bombing in general and from the dive in particular is not the main task fighter.
                      10. Engineer 17 March 2020 09: 17 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You quote it as if one of them fell

                        Bring you at least a ton of facts, you will not give up. What a wonderful communist you would have made))
                        If something is used as a target, then something falls into it. You preferred to not notice the chapel destroyed by a couple of sleeps. And Smith still has an example of a bomb falling into the hatch of a tank, albeit a polygon.
                        But the bombing in general and from diving in particular is not the main task of the fighter.

                        Summarize. ALL participating countries wanted to turn their fighters into IS after achieving dominance (superiority) in the air. Even bombs hung under elegant messers and sleepers. Diving bombing in such a paradigm is a VERY good bonus. Americans in the application of the concept of information security have advanced farthest. And their IS was dived best of all. This is not a flaw. This is a virtue.
                        Any design is a compromise. To do this, they had to sacrifice some characteristics. But here's a disappointment for fobov- even with such a sacrifice, they remained extremely dangerous rivals. Backlash will confirm.
                        I know that now you will start the song again, that these American planes were not originally conceived as long-range escort fighters with the ability to carry a ton of bombs. Nevertheless, the result is obvious. The design approach has paid off 100%. They did it.
                        In both cases, the mountain of expensive iron masked the poverty of military thought.

                        Do you expect from them some operational fencing on the verge of the possible? How is Japanese blitz? How is a German landing in Norway?
                        You see, with all your skepticism, they were not fools. Chess game - for the weak and the poor. It is best to take and hit harder.
                        The Russian people you do not like (already two, the list is incomplete, as I understand it) understands this perfectly:
                        "Alyosha sprinkle him with chalk" (c)
                        By the way, what about the British with military thought? How did their carrier forces with Tirpitz show themselves. And how they breathed.
                        What is there with the wealth of thoughts of the Bombing Command?
                      11. Octopus 17 March 2020 22: 00 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        If something is used as a target, then something falls into it.

                        Uh, no, that doesn't mean.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The chapel destroyed by a couple of sleeps you preferred not to notice

                        ))). It says "church." Two 200 kg bombs. Which supposedly hit both. Even.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        During another departure, we were given the number of the house that should have been destroyed on the street. The Gestapo settled there. We gladly fulfilled the request

                        From this colorful episode, I conclude that they just lie to me. Yes, hunting stories can also be written in English.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        wanted to turn their fighters into information security after achieving dominance (superiority) in the air

                        Yes. But the Americans did it instead achieve excellence. And there is nothing to nod at the 44th year, the Mustang was created 5 years earlier. What did Mustang do in Tunisia? Why are sleeping bombers fighting in Italy?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        extremely dangerous rivals. Backlash will confirm.

                        Yes. 4 years of aircraft development + unique, optimal tactics for him.
                        And as for dangerous opponents. What does the British fly in the 44th? The Germans? Do the Americans themselves?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Bring you a ton of facts

                        Especially if instead of the thesis "Mustang with Alison was a bad fighter," you are discussing the thesis "bombing from a dive is good."
                        Quote: Engineer
                        It is best to take and hit harder.
                        The Russian people you do not like (already two, the list is incomplete, as I understand it) understands this perfectly:

                        As with other people I don't like, thoroughness Americans cost tens of millions of lives. Unlike other people I don't like — not my own.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        What is there with the wealth of thoughts of the Bombing Command?

                        I, it seems, have already spoken out about the bomber command.
                        And what about Tirpitz? Was it expensive for the British?
                      12. Engineer 18 March 2020 09: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It is written there
                        "church"
                        . Two 200 kg bombs. Which supposedly hit both. Even.

                        From a bore) I do not like to argue about trifles, but do you represent St. Peter's Cathedral under the church? In Rome there are many small churches the size of a typical village German church
                        From this colorful episode, I conclude that they just lie to me. Yes, hunting stories can also be written in English.

                        And I conclude that the very fact of multiple bombing from a dive by a refined fighter like sleeping can be considered proven. Skeptics begin to replace the notion of "now you prove that you got"
                        But the Americans did it instead of achieving excellence. And there is nothing to nod at the 44th year, the Mustang was created 5 years earlier. What did Mustang do in Tunisia?

                        What did Mustang do in Tunisia? AND when did he appear there? And in what quantity? And Mustang was it
                        Answers to these questions remove all claims to the Mustangs.
                        A claim can be made in the United States for the African company as a whole and its air aspect. Well, so they just learned to fight in a new theater for them. We learned in six months - faster than the same British.
                        Why are sleeping bombers fighting in Italy?

                        Because there are never too many airplanes to work on the ground. Because the Britons also want to fight on the ground, they understand the importance of this and do not want to depend on amers in everything. And the fact that they work precisely asleep speaks of two facts.
                        A fighter in the role of IS and bombing from a dive is quite normal. They have nothing better.
                        And what about Tirpitz? Was it expensive for the British?

                        The idea was that having gathered forces equivalent to Amer Task Group. The British could not even decide operational task
                        Therefore, to decide strategic tasks are needed Task Force like amers and no less. With all the high cost. It is 100% justified.
                      13. Octopus 19 March 2020 08: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        the size of a typical rustic German church

                        Which is enough for a single shot 25 lbs direct fire?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        the fact of multiple bombing with a dive by a refined fighter like sleeping can be considered proven.

                        Yes, sure. Has anyone argued with this?

                        The debate was about whether to make the plane 2 times heavier than sleeping, which is much more sleepy as a dive, but is also called a fighter.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Was it a Mustang?

                        It was mainly the R-40 and he was also engaged in storming the land. Americans had nothing to do with the Messers for air.
                        As for Mustang A, it was used as a high-speed strike aircraft of the colonial theaters. In this role, he was clearly worse than airplanes with PV2800, land and sea, especially twin-engine. But cheaper and without the use of a scarce PV engine.

                        This is what I have been trying to explain for quite some time.

                        Quote: Engineer
                        They have nothing better.

                        They are better off to figs, but they dropped old irrelevant planes into a secondary theater. In Africa, the Hurricanes generally fought.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        With all the high cost. It is 100% justified.

                        )))
                        It was justified to create a floating rear system that allowed TF to operate on the other side of the earth. To create groups of 20 AB, which for some reason release shock waves of the same size as the Japanese with 4-6AB is not such a good idea, as you think.

                        As for the level of American operational excellence, before the Spruans on Marianas and Halsey, Leyte showed him exhaustively.
                      14. Engineer 19 March 2020 10: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Which is enough for a single shot 25 lbs direct fire?

                        Well what is it. The standard explosive bomb charge is half the weight. Spitfires in the book carried either 500 pounds or 2x250 fn. ANY of this bomb is enough for the specified work. And then 25 pounds? Have you seen how at least VOF39 explodes in which less than 10 kg of explosives in TNT? Even it’s enough.
                        They are better off to figs, but they dropped old irrelevant planes into a secondary theater. In Africa, the Hurricanes generally fought
                        .
                        I know this, a few months ago I explained to one user very similar to you. laughing
                        Do I need to make a plane in 2 times sleep heavier

                        Stop feeding the Mustang. almost quote
                        You have it all fatter and fatter.
                        But at the same time, the weight of an empty aircraft with the same engine (Packard) in 1.5 times more than Spit

                        And there is still
                        Sleeps 5 cannon - 2313;
                        Friedrich - 2392
                        Yak-1 - 2445
                        LaGG-3 1 ser - 2680
                        Mustang I - 2967.

                        I see that a simple replica exchange has turned into ping pong. It is better to reformulate the theses.
                        The re-equipment of horses on Merlin began in June 1943. Prior to that, Mustang was an average in terms of combat characteristics. This is a known fact.
                        Mustangs participation in North Africa - one air group in Morocco since April 1943. And it was not Mustang 1, but A-36. I don’t know about the Mustangs. He could not make any contribution simply because he did not have time.
                        In the A-36 variant, the Mustang was an approximate equivalent of the Typhoon. The British had nothing better for working on the land.
                        The claim to the Mustang that he was not with Merlin from the very beginning is not clear to me.
                        I recall the original "TK" from the British, to be a fighter and have a price of 40 thousand dollars. All. There is no fighter concept. As a result, North American sculpts an analogue of the P-40. Already not bad. It could be worse.
                        The Americans were unable to build the Mustang P-51B right away. But the same British could not build their analogue even by the end of the war.

                        P-47
                        The P-47C, in which the flaws of the previous model were eliminated, was not commissioned until September 1942. Only by the end of the year all the flaws were eliminated and the 56th air group went to England.
                        If you compare with naval aircraft, you can see that the combat debut of Corsair and Hellket took place in mid-1943. That is, no PW 2800 aircraft could participate in the database before 1943.

                        As a result, in North Africa, the Germans resisted the P-40 horde, and in the end, the reinforced P-38. The British were, as it were, no worse. The completely obsolete Hurricane dominated numerically, plus the same P-40s, plus relatively few spits, mostly the Mk5, which was withdrawn from the arsenal of the metropolitan air force.
                        As a result, the Luftwaffe holds a master class knocking down a huge number of aircraft, not forgetting about the support of his troops and attacks on concentration ports. At the same time, the Amers have an excuse - a completely new theater of operations, their troops do not have combat experience at all. But the Angels do not have such an excuse, and the result is common to all.

                        Yes, the Americans until 1943 did not have a workhorse comparable to opponents, but the severity of the situation is completely different compared to the Germans and the British, who needed such an aircraft like air. Moreover, since 1943, real miracles of technology with enormous range, vitality, and at the same time capable of competing on equal terms with the best enemy fighters began to come into service with them. And the ability of their fighters to throw a bunch of bombs and even from a dive finally made them inaccessible.
                      15. Octopus 19 March 2020 22: 55 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        ANY of this bomb is enough for the specified work. And then 25 pounds?

                        Despite the fact that the call of aviation to a very small building looks strange for the perfectly packed British art.
                        However, we really got bogged down in a particular case.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        explained to one user very similar to you

                        Me about Charitons? I don’t remember.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        You have it all fatter and fatter.

                        The quoted reference to the weight of the American fighter refers to the tander. Indeed, unsuccessfully put it.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        I don’t know about the Mustangs.

                        In Europe they were with the British, but they did not work in Africa. The Americans Mustang A appeared in the 43rd year in Burma, did not enter Europe.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        mustang was an exemplary typhoon equivalent

                        In fact, the equivalent is twice as powerful as this. Plus option with air vent.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        to be a fighter and have a price of 40 thousand dollars

                        And fast, very fast. Great planes like cats will not be born.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Could be worse

                        Of course it could, at the same Curtiss. That's why I call Mustang successful.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        the British were unable to build their analogue even by the end of the war.

                        In the sense of a long-range escort fighter?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        That is, not a single aircraft with the PW 2800 could participate in the database before 1943.

                        Since April 42nd. Only it was a B-26.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        the Angels do not have such an excuse, but the result is common to all.

                        Just asleep, they already were, they fought for air in Africa and Italy.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        a completely new theater of operations, their troops have no combat experience whatsoever.

                        The Americans have the experience of the Battle of Britain, obtained by someone else’s blood, and aircraft of the mid-30s (Hariton level), because all of the pre-war programs for fighters failed. All failed: engines, gliders, weapons. One exception: Corsair. Which also, in general, failed like a deck car.
                        Fighters of the war - Mustang, Thunder, Hellcat - improvisations, cars of a special period.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        real miracles of technology with great range, survivability and at the same time able to compete on equal terms with the best enemy fighters

                        Actually not, Mustang D's performance in aerial combat remained limited. Look at the same dreams of the 44th year. Another thing is that few Spit reach the middle of the Elbe. Mid in length.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        the ability of their fighters to throw a bunch of bombs and even with a dive finally made them inaccessible.

                        For whom? For assault versions of Foki?

                        Again. Your position - Mustangs and Tenders have done their work in their place. I understand it quite well. My position - Mustang is an American La-5, a wack of wartime. The thunder was created at all for a not very clear purpose, and found its place where it was completely not intended - in the role of an ersatz attack aircraft and a dive-pilot, from which Air Force aircraft the armies fought back and forth.

                        Yes american circumstances led to the fact that even such aircraft looked competitive. But for me this is just an excuse to run into them: how stupidly such opportunities have been spent.
  • WapentakeLokki 14 March 2020 20: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    34 armor penetrated the armor of the T-37 (at least from the stern and into the motor blinds) .. and at least Rudel knocked out 87 tanks and other armor on the Ju-500 (.. if you can believe him .. aha)
    and I / B mattresses (..particularly R-47 ..) carried bombs more than Pe-2 (.. as well as FW-190 ..)
    and MAX NUR incidentally carried Me-262 to 24 pcs.
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 21: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      34 armor penetrated the armor of the T-37 (at least from the stern and into the motor blinds) .. and at least Rudel knocked out 87 tanks and other armor on the Ju-500 (.. if you can believe him .. aha)

      1. Alf
        Alf 14 March 2020 21: 33 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Especially if you recall how many sub-caliber and armor-piercing battleships were in the BK REALLY.
    2. Sergey M. Karasev 23 March 2020 12: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Another moment. Strongly protruding back breech bars VK 3.7 did not allow the release of brake grilles, i.e. Ju-87G could dive at an angle of no higher than 30 degrees, which means that when it gets into relatively thin upper armor, the probability of a rebound is very high. And the accuracy of shooting from a gentle dive is not at all the same as from a steep one.
  • sibiryouk 14 March 2020 14: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    About the first aircraft with wing guns- In 1939. on Khalkhin Gol an I-16P fighter was used with 2 ShVAK guns in the wings!
  • Operator 14 March 2020 15: 52 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Quote: iouris
    in the field of ballet, the Stalinist USSR had much greater achievements than in the field of aviation

    Achievements in the field of ballet were already in the Russian Empire.

    In my comment, it was not about the achievements of the USSR, but about the taste of its leadership - in some matters.
    1. Mordvin 3 14 March 2020 17: 41 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Operator
      and about the taste of his leadership - in some matters.

      No need to blame everything on Stalin.
      All issues were resolved, but I did not leave.

      “Do you want to ask me something?”

      - Comrade Stalin, what is Tupolev sitting for? ..

      The question was unexpected.

      There was a rather long silence. Stalin, apparently thinking.

      - They say that he is either English or American spy ... - The tone of the answer was unusual, there was neither firmness nor confidence in him.

      “Do you really believe that, Comrade Stalin ?!” - escaped from me.

      - And do you believe?! - Turning to "you" and getting close to me, he asked.

      “No, I don't believe it,” I replied resolutely.

      - And I do not believe! - suddenly answered Stalin.

      I did not expect such an answer and stood in deepest amazement.

      “All the best,” Stalin said, raising his hand. This meant that today the conversation with me is over.

      I went out. I changed my mind a lot on the way to my headquarters ...

      http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/golovanov_ae/09.html
  • Cowbra 14 March 2020 16: 17 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Experiments in the army are not brought to good NOT ONLY during the war. You can not bring for example weapons in the field. In general, about the experiments that did not go into the series ...


    Do you know what's in the photo? The Electropult project - tests of an electromagnetic catapult, at the fleet airbase on the Petuxent River from Westinhouse Electric, 1947, with a 12-ton B-25 taking off below laughing
    Only the trick is that such a catapult has NOT been finalized even now ... Well, what would happen if they were stuck instead of steam ones then?
  • Dog
    Dog 14 March 2020 16: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    complement written, not expressing your personal opinion

    And right there:
    I expressed quite sound, in my opinion, the idea that if the heroes were engineers

    I didn’t understand: to express my personal opinion (sensible, in my opinion, thought) is it good or bad?

    PS: thank you for your work
  • Old26 14 March 2020 16: 35 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Bar1
    Quote: bk0010
    Because then the attack aircraft would be released in half. That engines were the limiting factor.


    this is nonsense and delusion
    A two-engine attack aircraft is EFFECTIVE than two single-engine attack aircraft. One of the two single-engine attack aircraft died when the engine was damaged, and often together with the pilot and gunner, and the twin-engine attack aircraft saved the aircraft and the pilots. This is just for understanding.

    This is not nonsense and delusion. Kamrad bk0010 is right in writing that the engines were a limiting factor. If you believe the recollections of aircraft designers, then many new cars did not go into the series due to the fact that they used the same engines as the ones in the series. And there were two options. Either drive the already established series, and leave the new machines for later, or drastically reduce the production of the required aircraft and launch vehicles with higher performance characteristics in the series.
    This was done exclusively in cases where similar vehicles appeared at the enemy. And so again, comrade bk0010 is right. If, for example, plant No. xxx produced 500 ASH-xxx engines per month (figure from a flashlight). then it would be possible to make either 500 single-engine attack aircraft, or only 250 twin-engine ones. The release would be clearly less.

    Quote: Bar1
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Attack aircraft - unfortunately - war consumables


    this is not only an erroneous, but also a harmful point of view. Airplanes are not bullets that are really consumable. Well, trained pilots are the most valuable component of the war of the present and the future. Therefore, confusing pilots and airplanes with consumables is your hallucination. Airplanes and the pilots should be of the best quality, unless it's a kamikaze.

    Any equipment, and planes incl. is a consumable item. For any technique can be destroyed. You can make a super-duper tank, ultra-modern, sophisticated, ultra-armed. Or a plane. But he will still be vulnerable, will be a consumable. Maybe in less quantity than his simpler counterparts. But there will be. And there’s not much to do. Will have to fight a simpler plane (tank). You can make a couple of thousand of the same T-14 Armata, but if the databases are protracted, something simpler will be used. And it will be easier to produce in factories, which will require less man-hours and scarce materials. So alas, any equipment in the war is a consumable ...
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 17: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      Kamrad bk0010 is right in writing that the engines were a limiting factor.

      So.
      It is enough to recall that the LAGG was originally designed for the M-106 in 1360 mares, and the Yakovlev ITP also reckoned with it. But there is no motor, no plane. So our aircraft designers had to get sophisticated with the M-105.
      1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 18: 19 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Alf, slight inaccuracy - ITP Polikarpov fighter.
        1. Alf
          Alf 14 March 2020 20: 06 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Pavel57
          Alf, slight inaccuracy - ITP Polikarpov fighter.

          I apologize, thank you for the amendment.
  • ser56 14 March 2020 16: 48 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    The review is good, but in the end the author contradicts himself ... request
    "Another question, were such planes really created?"
    "The first flight was made under the control of V. Chkalov 14.10.1937/XNUMX/XNUMX."
    and so -VIT-1 flew almost 3 years before IL-2, VIT_2 in May 38, more than 2 years ...
    If it were not for the sabotage of the NKAP and the open mockery of Polikarpov, when his design bureau was being driven around the factories, by the beginning of the Second World War they could have had assault regiments not on seagulls, but on VIT-1/2 .... request I'm not talking about the fate of the I-180, when a good plane was killed ... the question is not in realities, but in the ambitions of some ... request
    1. irontom 14 March 2020 17: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      WIT and their similar tank destroyer and Il-a had completely different destinations, the main purpose of the IL-2 was the direct support of the troops over the front battle cart. The aircraft was imprisoned for this, that it became our everything, and on Il dumped unusual functions such as a close bomber, tank destroyer, art. spotter, the crisis of the 41st, 42nd is to blame. Management focused all resources on one type.
      Low efficiency art. arming aircraft against tanks showed the experience of war, hundreds of destroyed tanks left on the conscience of Rudiel and Goebels propaganda. The real statistics are those of artificially miserable tank aircraft destroyed by artillery.
      The epic of VIT is well described by Rastrenin. As a combat use art. weapons.
      I recommend to read.
  • Operator 14 March 2020 17: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Alf
    And which aircraft guns [1940s] pierced tank armor?
    ?
    That’s what it’s about, that’s why none of them - therefore, anti-tank planes were not mass-produced anywhere except in the USSR.
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 17: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Operator
      Quote: Alf
      And which aircraft guns [1940s] pierced tank armor?
      ?
      That’s what it’s about, that’s why none of them - therefore, anti-tank planes were not mass-produced anywhere except in the USSR.

      And anti-tank variants of the Yu-87? The Germans are not fools to produce cars that nobody needs.
      1. Pavel57 14 March 2020 18: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Ju87 D and G were anti-tank.
      2. Operator 14 March 2020 20: 00 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        In single copies.
        1. Alf
          Alf 14 March 2020 20: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          In single copies.

          Quote: Pavel57
          Ju87 d

          1559 pieces.
          Ju-87G.
          308 pieces.
          Single instances ...
          1. Operator 14 March 2020 20: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The probability of hitting a medium tank using a diving bomber Ju-87D, equipped with built-in 20-mm wing guns, according to the Germans themselves was 0,007 laughing

            The Ju-87G anti-tank bomber, equipped with suspended 37 mm wing guns with a rate of 1 shot per second and with a large impulse and recoil arm, could make only one aimed shot in one attack (if you can call the situation with a distance of several meters between the axis of the gun barrel and pilot sight). In any case, 308 aircraft during WWII are nothing more than an experimental batch.
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 March 2020 21: 37 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              The Ju-87G anti-tank bomber, equipped with suspended 37 mm wing guns with a rate of 1 shot per second and with a large impulse and recoil arm, could make only one aimed shot in one attack (if you can call the situation with a distance of several meters between the axis of the gun barrel and pilot sight).

              Do you dare to doubt the Great Rudel, which has already shot 519 tanks? Well, or said he had shot .. laughing
    2. bk0010 14 March 2020 18: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well yes. It’s just that the states fought with the Tigers with the help of airplanes, the Tigers carried out the rest before they could do any harm.
      The modification of Ila with 37-mm guns (42-43 year) was considered anti-tank, not the most numerous.
      In addition, I’m not at all sure that any tank will withstand even a 23-mm projectile at the top of the turret or MTO. The USA built the A-10 as an anti-tank aircraft with a 30-mm cannon against much later tanks.
      And most importantly, besides the USSR, was someone able to stop the blitzkrieg? And tanks are his important tool. So the fact that no one built is not an argument.
      1. Octopus 14 March 2020 19: 14 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: bk0010
        the Tigers endured all the rest before they could do any harm.

        Against the usual square tiger, 76mm guns were enough for the Americans in any projection. The problems were with the Panther and other equipment with inclined armor.
        Quote: bk0010
        fought with aircraft

        Destroying rembats, tankers, etc.
        Quote: bk0010
        the tank can withstand even a 23-mm shell at the top of the tower or MTO.

        Get into the roof of the tower with a maximum diving angle of 30 degrees?
      2. Operator 14 March 2020 20: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The USA in WWII fought with enemy tanks using conventional unarmored fighter aircraft equipped with a 500-kg fab.

        A-10 is a modern aircraft built around a rapid-firing gun with high-speed armor-piercing shells from uranium. MBT is affected by a shell volley, incapacitating attachments and the undercarriage of the tank or breaking through side or stern armor.
      3. Alf
        Alf 14 March 2020 20: 13 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: bk0010
        The US built the A-10 as an anti-tank aircraft with a 30-mm cannon against much later tanks.

        That's right, only the 30-mm GAU-8A gun can not be compared with the NS-23, it’s better on the head. V = 1010, m = 395 grams, and even a core of depleted uranium. At firing, this shell pierced the roof of the T-62 tower from 1200 meters.
        1. bk0010 15 March 2020 13: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alf
          That's right, only the 30-mm GAU-8A gun can not be compared with the NS-23, it’s better on the head.
          Yes, but the T-3 (T-4) is also not the T-62.
  • Fishery 14 March 2020 17: 53 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    someone suggested that the attack aircraft had the biggest losses, among all the pilots, 22000 of them were 12000 casualties, the wiki has such data.
  • Petrol cutter 14 March 2020 18: 29 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Honestly, I’ve been studying this topic for a long time. On the same site.
    It has long been an impression that all the main problems with the development of aviation are connected (as is familiar) with the lack of engines. Sufficient power, sufficient resource.
    And the end is not expected (for some reason never). Neither tankbuilding, nor shipbuilding, nor aircraft building.
    A thought has been visiting for a long time, can finally pay attention to the development of engine building in the Russian Federation?
    Not pay, but PAY finally close attention ?!
    1. irontom 14 March 2020 20: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      With a good motor and the gates fly. ;)
      1. Petrol cutter 14 March 2020 21: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        What is the close attention?!. In total / just in question, guys, what do you lack for solving this or that question ?! And the guys will always tell you what is going wrong, what is the point of the problem.
  • Jacques Sekavar 14 March 2020 19: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Great-grandfather, near Moscow once went on the attack with one rifle for two and was wounded. Fell in the dugout, not where. Woke up, hears - the Germans. Woke up another time - Russian voices. He called, picked up. In the hospital, instead of cutting off a quick leg, the military doctor took up the treatment of the boy and cured him, spending supernormal medicines, dressing, time, bed, etc. Grandfather survived, was awarded a medal for the defense of Moscow, his leg survived but did not bend. All his life he kindly recalled the doctor who suffered for him and was either shot or sent to where. Such is military expediency.
    1. irontom 14 March 2020 19: 49 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And my younger sergeant, after a serious wound on the Kursk Bulge, an offensive grenade exploded in the face, sepsis from small fragments was lost to Sochi, he survived, and was buried last year in 95 with an honor guard and a military salute.
      Second grandfather, mother's father, a signalman, autumn 42nd Stalingrad, heavy from a fragment of a mine, evacuation at night through the Volga and then nursed in hospitals for a year.
      Secular military medicine in the Second World War was one of the most effective.
    2. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 20: 14 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Jacques Sekavar
      who suffered for him and was either shot or sent to where.

      How is it known?
    3. Pavel57 15 March 2020 01: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Jacques Sekavar
      Great-grandfather, near Moscow once went on the attack with one rifle for two and was wounded. Fell in the dugout, not where. Woke up, hears - the Germans. Woke up another time - Russian voices. He called, picked up. In the hospital, instead of cutting off a quick leg, the military doctor took up the treatment of the boy and cured him, spending supernormal medicines, dressing, time, bed, etc.

      Grandfather was lucky. Treatment of one seriously wounded person translated several lightly wounded into the category of severe ones. So his life is possibly paid for by someone else's life.
      1. Jacques Sekavar 15 March 2020 12: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes Yes. To "hammer" on all abdominal labor-consuming expensive and risky operations. A wound in the leg, arm, head, so as not to delay the flow - amputated quickly and engaged in others. It’s a waste of time to spend it on lightly wounded people - they themselves will be healed by improvised and folk remedies, because the injuries are slight.
        On the question of expediency, is that military doctor an enemy of the people?
  • bk0010 14 March 2020 20: 25 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Jacques Sekavar
    who suffered for him and was either shot or sent to where. Such is military expediency.
    It is very doubtful: no one except the attending physician can assess the appropriateness of treatment. No, theoretically it is possible to gather a consultation, but do you really think that someone will do it in a front-line hospital?
    1. Jacques Sekavar 14 March 2020 23: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Vrachej ne hvatalo i kazhdy byl na vidu. Potok ranenyh bolshoj, lekarstva i perevyazochny material v bolshom defitsite, a ego raspredelenie vsegda porozhdaet nedovolnyh. Dolozhyli po instanzii, a voprosy reshali po voennomu - bistro i reshytelno. Eto kak v dezimaziya v dr.Rimskoj armii - desyatym mog okazatsya i pravyj i vinovatyj, no distsyplinirovalo vseh.
      1. Alf
        Alf 15 March 2020 00: 12 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Jacques Sekavar
        Vrachej ne hvatalo i kazhdy byl na vidu. Potok ranenyh bolshoj, lekarstva i perevyazochny material v bolshom defitsite, a ego raspredelenie vsegda porozhdaet nedovolnyh. Dolozhyli po instanzii, a voprosy reshali po voennomu - bistro i reshytelno. Eto kak v dezimaziya v dr.Rimskoj armii - desyatym mog okazatsya i pravyj i vinovatyj, no distsyplinirovalo vseh.

        Try it in Russian.
  • vitlas 14 March 2020 20: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The article is interesting. During the Great Patriotic War, Pe-2 was produced successfully. They were released during the war most of all. It’s just not clear then why during the Great Patriotic War they began to produce the Tu-2. They also released Ep-2 until September 1941, and then resumed production in 1944. Although he, like the IL-4, was a long-range bomber. And other planes were produced in small series.
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 21: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: vitlas
      And other planes were produced in small series.

      Because the plants were not rubber.
      Quote: vitlas
      It’s just not clear then why during the Great Patriotic War they began to produce the Tu-2.

      As a high-speed and HORIZONTAL bomber, he was better than the PE-2.
  • Cer59 14 March 2020 21: 24 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The author conducted a high-level work. and, oddly enough, he did not draw the conclusions. when there was a question of issuing Su-8, 200% of the IL-2 from those at the front stood in reserve. and the transition to a better car was justified. but as always, the opinion of not quite competent officials. By the way, why didn’t I go all the way six months earlier than the GU-5 instead of la-5. cars are much worse than GU? why the shopkeeper committed a crime by not handing over the plant to Gudkov, and there are thousands of such questions about our equipment and weapons during the war. t-28 until 1943 in superior t-34 in everything except booking. although in 1938 a decision was made to further shield the tank, replace the N-10 guns, and much more. communications simply played a role in industry. and the high patron guaranteed immunity.
    Blat was, is and will be regardless of the social system. be socialism, be capitalism. and the IL-10 was a pretty bad and unfinished aircraft. just study the combat path of the regiments that were transferred to this plane. weak spot engine.
    1. Alf
      Alf 14 March 2020 21: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Cer59
      t-28 until 1943 in superior t-34 in everything except booking.

      ??
      Quote: Cer59
      why didn’t go all the way six months earlier GU-5 instead of la-5.

      What is a GU-5?
      Maybe GU-1?

      Quote: Cer59
      why the shopkeeper committed a crime by not transferring the plant to Gudkov,

      Because on the basis of LAGG-3 he made LA-5 very quickly.
      1. Pavel57 15 March 2020 01: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Gudkov -Gu-82. Ahead of La-5 with the M-82 engine for six months. But who will give the reins of government itself. And Lavochkin was not white and fluffy. Also struggled with competitors. And with Gudkov and with Alekseev.

        In fact, the decision on Lag-5 was made by Stalin after the appeals of Shvetsov and the Perm Region Secretary.
        1. irontom 15 March 2020 04: 50 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Here you are not here, during the war for six months the difference in development is a very valuable resource. This is a valuable design experience. If you are interested, take sources, and find out that the M-82 was required to be installed on fighters from spring 41, all the designers Mikoyan, Yakovlev, the same Gudkov were put on airplanes, and that’s a complete Arctic fox. The performance characteristics of all cars were worse than those of liquid ones, because it was not possible to squeeze the hoods to ensure normal cooling of the second row of cylinders. Even Polikarpov rushed off with an experienced I-185 translating it to the M-82.
          The torment of designers with the M-82 described in the article The birth of La-5 or the development and refinement of the M-82 engine during the Second World War. Gennady Serov Lavochkin was lucky that an experienced mechanic, a representative of Design Bureau Shvetsova A.I., turned out to be at the plant Waledinsky who literally on his knee and intuition managed to pick up deflectors, a bow motor plane turned out.
          1. Pavel57 16 March 2020 01: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There is one more aspect - the future La-5 for both Shvetsov and Lavochkin was a chance for survival, and the last. They used it.
            1. irontom 16 March 2020 09: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              This topic can be turned in another direction. The same question of survival concerns Mikoyan and Gurevich, they received their first M-82 flight engine in May of the 41st, if the I-210 / MiG-9 managed to bring to mind the evacuation and decision to start production IL-2 at the factory number 1, there was a chance to save the MiG in the series, the main reason for the removal of the aircraft was in the motor AM-35A. M-82 of the summer of 41 was very raw and problematic, all the designers then tried to apply it and they grabbed problems. The same story with the installation of the M-82 on the Su-2.
              1. Pavel57 16 March 2020 10: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                irontom (Vitaliy), you can talk about why Mikoyan could not defend his MiG-9, but only Lavochkin, or rather his team, together with the Permians, succeeded in this. Otherwise, there would be only Yaks with Klimovsky engines.

                Stalin left all the flowers to bloom - but without a serial plant - and Mikoyan, and Sukhoi, and Polikarpov. And without a serial plant, it is even more difficult to break through a new aircraft. Polikarpov lost the serial plants, in this case it doesn’t matter for what reason, and that’s all. Partly also Sukhoi and Mikoyan.
                Again, the fetishization of IL-2 affected both Sukhoi and Mikoyan.
  • HaByxoDaBHocep 15 March 2020 07: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Bar1
    Quote: Out
    however, they were forced to leave due to the mistakes of the empire's leadership, which led to the collapse and massive discontent.


    what are the mistakes of the "leadership of the empire"? The same Sikorsky or Zvorykin were not even nobles, but they were officers of the Republic of Ingushetia and it was the Bolsheviks who pursued them for epaulets. This was a Bolshevik mistake.

    The Bolsheviks persecuted for shoulder straps? Have you been banned in Google? or have the liberal press been read?
    75 thousand former officers served in the Red Army, while in the White Army about 35 thousand out of the 150 thousandth corps of officers of the Russian Empire
    http://krasvremya.ru/dvoryane-kostyak-krasnoj-armii-rkka/
  • PilotS37 15 March 2020 12: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This aircraft, created in 1939, is worth mentioning in connection with the fact that it is generally the first aircraft in the world on which wing cannons were installed. Specifically, in the case of LBSh - ShVAK guns.

    But what about the VITs created in 1937 ... 38 years? !!
    The author contradicts himself, and even so clearly ...
  • PilotS37 15 March 2020 12: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: knn54
    Thank you Roman. AGAIN became interested in the fate of Polikarpov, Tupolev and Bartini.
    Indeed, a meter, by the way, one of Sikorsky’s students, as he could, pushed competitors.
    Although Ilyushin and Yakovlev were also not far away, they read Sukhoi’s memoirs (Belarusian edition).
    There is no GUAP. But there is the Russian Helicopters Corporation.
    PS I found another 40 ... 45 year old Black Sea sailors who spoke very unflattering about the Tupolev torpedo boats. But that's another story.

    And can you find out what the book is called and its output? - For the first time I hear that Pavel Osipovich wrote memoirs, and I worked in his design bureau for 6 years!
  • PilotS37 15 March 2020 12: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Bar1
    <...>
    The mistake of our frankly illiterate political leadership is, in some aspects, the blind imitation of German and generally Western military equipment <...>
    The main thing in the war is coordination between troops, this requires communications, but our communications remained in its infancy and this is just an example of the fact that the leadership of the country and the Red Army simply did not understand the importance of communications between the troops and offered to interact in the old-fashioned way. in the last war.
    It even seems that the political leadership of the country did not trust its designers, who proposed progressive, but their own designs.


    Eka you, my friend, spun ... And the fact that before the war in the country there was neither the required number of factories, nor the required number of skilled workers, does it bother you?

    It is clear that the aircraft of the front edge of the front should be as tenacious as possible, with all other requirements for the attack aircraft, and this is primarily the presence of two engines (Su25, A10) and the reservation of the main systems, but it was twin-engine aircraft for some reason that the attack aircraft didn’t get the move a clear mistake of those who made the decision to launch the aircraft in a series, and this is of course the very top of the manual.

    Neither the A-10 nor the Su-25 actually ever participated in battles with a rich air defense system. These are local warplanes when a real army is opposed by either real rebels or an army that differs little from them in their level of training.
    Had the Su-25 been in the conditions of IL-2, and the formula would have worked very quickly: how many engines were released, so many planes would be. Accordingly, under equal conditions, the Su-25 (and A-10) would be released half as much as the IL-2. Would we have enough 18 even if Su-000 to win the Second World War?