Military Review

IL-2: myths about the symbol of Victory

239

Soviet IL-2 attack aircraft from the 4th Air Army in the sky above Berlin, photo: waralbum.ru


IL-2 is rightfully one of the most famous aircraft of World War II. A huge number of people know about him, having even the most distant idea of aviation. For the inhabitants of our country, this attack aircraft is on a par with a tank T-34, “Katyusha”, “one and a half”, PPSh submachine gun, identifying itself weapon Victory At the same time, and 75 years after the end of the war, the legendary Soviet attack aircraft, which fought from 1941 to 1945, is surrounded by a number of persistent myths.

The place of the air gunner on the IL-2 was the place of the doomed


Absolutely, we can say that the IL-2 became the most massive combat aircraft in stories aviation. The total release of attack aircraft exceeded 36 thousand units. This aircraft was actively used in battles in all theaters of operations of the Great Patriotic War, as well as in the Soviet-Japanese War. In total, from 1941 to 1945, the combat losses of the IL-2 attack aircraft amounted to 11 vehicles. Contrary to many beliefs, this is about half of all losses, a little more than 448 thousand aircraft were written off as non-combat losses (lost as a result of accidents, catastrophes, depreciation of the material part). For the entire time of the war, the losses of the flight personnel of attack aircraft are estimated at 11 12 people, including 054 pilots, 7837 - observer pilots, 221 - air shooters.

Judging by the figures of official losses indicated in his books by the candidate of historical sciences, a well-known specialist on the IL-2 plane, Oleg Valentinovich Rastrenin, the very first myth that the place of an air gunner on the Il-2 was the place of a finesman who has a chance to survive there were not many. Indeed, many attack aircraft were converted into a double version even at the front, literally in artisanal conditions, using everything that was at hand, and there was simply no talk of any protection of the air gunner. But the serial two-seater versions of the IL-2 did not have an armored cockpit of the air gunner, the only protection of which was a 6 mm thick armored plate, which protected it from fire from the tail of the aircraft. Despite this, according to official figures, losses of air gunners died less than pilots.


Air gunner of the Soviet IL-2 attack aircraft with a 12,7 mm UBT machine gun, photo: waralbum.ru

Most likely, this is due to the fact that by the time when the serial two-seater attack aircraft massively went into the troops, the "Ils" were flying on combat missions already accompanied by fighters. Such cover did not save the attack aircraft from meeting with enemy fighters, but the "flying tanks" received additional protection and support. At the same time, the loss of IL-2 aircraft from anti-aircraft artillery fire from the ground constantly increased until the end of the war, and from the attacks of enemy fighters, they fell. The probability of dying from anti-aircraft fire for the pilot and the shooter, apparently, was approximately equal.

Against the background of losses in the flight personnel of attack aircraft, it’s even a little disappointing that the image of a hero pilot, first of all a fighter pilot with his list of air victories, has formed in the mass consciousness. At the same time, attack pilots and bomber pilots were undeservedly relegated to the background. At the same time, people flying on the IL-2, acted primarily in the interests of the ground forces. Often the success of the ground operation and the breakthrough of the enemy’s defense depended on their competent actions. At the same time, attacks by protected targets and targets located at the forefront were associated with serious risk for attack crews, who were often met by massive anti-aircraft artillery fire, as well as all types of small arms. At the same time, attack aircraft also encountered enemy fighters. Each combat flight to the IL-2 was fraught with considerable risk. Therefore, all the pilots and air gunners who fought on the famous attack aircraft are a priori heroes, each flight risking their lives.

Armor IL-2 did not make the plane invulnerable


Today, the IL-2 is familiar to many, nicknamed the "flying tank." Some Soviet authors claimed that Wehrmacht soldiers called the Soviet attack aircraft "black death" or "plague," and Luftwaffe fighter pilots called the IL-2 a "concrete plane." Many of these nicknames clung to the plane after the end of World War II, it is very difficult to verify the veracity of their appearance and circulation. At the same time, the aircraft was really called a “flying tank”. So Sergei Vladimirovich Ilyushin wrote at the Air Force Research Institute about the need to create an armored attack aircraft or, in other words, a “flying tank”.


Heavily damaged single-seat attack aircraft Il-2, reaching his airfield and landing "on the belly", photo: waralbum.ru

In reality, of course, no Il-2 tank was. It was an armored attack aircraft, which surpassed all Soviet aircraft in terms of security. The attack aircraft looked especially advantageous against the background of fighters, which in 1941 had to be used to attack German units. At the same time, not all elements were armored on the IL-2. The weight of the armored parts on the attack aircraft was estimated at about 950 kg, which amounted to 15,6 percent of the total flight weight of the aircraft. This is a worthy value, but it did not make the plane and the pilot invulnerable to fire from the ground and from air attacks.

Actual hostilities and conducted field tests showed that booking an attack aircraft did not protect the components of the aircraft and crew from the fire of 37, 30 and 20 mm shells of German artillery systems of both anti-aircraft and aircraft guns. Moreover, the armor was also vulnerable to large-caliber 13-mm machine guns. A direct hit of such ammunition almost always ended with the penetration of the attack aircraft armor, followed by the defeat of the aircraft crew and engine parts. The armor fully protected the crew and important components of the aircraft only from bullets of normal caliber, as well as most fragments of anti-aircraft shells that did not penetrate the armor, leaving only dents in it.

At the same time, the combat survivability system adopted and implemented on the IL-2 attack aircraft, based on the armored hull, which covered the pilot and vital parts of the attack aircraft, the tread on gas tanks and the gas tank filling system with neutral gases, was evaluated positively by aviation specialists. The measures taken, of course, played a role in the combat situation, more than once saving the plane and crew from death. But in full measure such protection no longer met the requirements of the unfolding war.

The Flying Tank was half wooden


Speaking about the IL-2 attack aircraft, one should not forget that it was not even an all-metal aircraft. Many structural elements of the famous "flying tank" were wooden. The first all-metal Soviet attack aircraft, which went into mass production at the end of World War II, was the Il-10, which was the product of a thorough modernization of the two-seat version of the Il-2 attack aircraft. This option received not only an all-metal building, but also an improved reservation, including a fully armored air gunner’s cabin, in fact, becoming the very attack aircraft that was originally conceived by Sergey Ilyushin.


At the same time, the IL-2 attack aircraft that fought on the fronts of World War II were mixed-design aircraft. The entire rear part of the aircraft was a wooden monocoque with a working lining, in the manufacture of which birch veneer and plywood were used. The tail fin was also wooden. Moreover, during the war years, part of the Il-2 attack aircraft was also made with wooden wing consoles, which did not add survivability to the machine. This was a necessary measure related to the loss of important aluminum smelters and a general shortage of aluminum products. It was used in the design of the IL-2 aircraft and the canvas.

In general, experts note that the design of even mixed-type attack aircraft was originally designed to withstand a large number of damage in combat conditions. No less important was the simplicity of the design. The aircraft was easy to manufacture and operate, including when repairing directly in the field. All this ensured high maintainability of the machines, as well as the possibility of mass production in the conditions of use of low-skilled workers.

The design bureau of Ilyushin provided the aircraft with such a margin of safety that it could withstand not only the use of low-quality materials in difficult wartime conditions, but also the use of unskilled labor in the assembly. With all this, the plane flew and smashed the enemy. It was possible to produce IL-2 in massive quantities, and its mass use at the front, multiplied by the gradual development of tactics of combat use, gave the Red Army the much-needed result on the battlefield.

Abstract military did not ask Ilyushin to make the plane single


There is a widespread belief that the idea to create a single-seat version of the IL-2 attack aircraft came from the military. That such a decision became erroneous and led to catastrophic losses of attack aircraft, especially in the first year of the war, when they often became victims of attacks by German fighters attacking “silts” flying without fighter cover, which turned out to be completely defenseless before the enemy from the rear hemisphere.


The assembly of IL-2 attack aircraft at the plant number 30 in Kuibyshev, photo: waralbum.ru

In fact, this is a stable myth in which the idea to abandon the gunner comes from either Stalin personally, who called Ilyushin for this, or some abstract military men who demanded that Ilyushin issue a single-seat version of the attack aircraft. In fact, the idea of ​​building a single-seat version of the attack aircraft, which will become the IL-2 in the future, came directly from Ilyushin’s design bureau. Initially, the military wanted exactly the double version of an attack aircraft with an airborne gunner. However, the aircraft implemented by Ilyushin did not fit into the tactical and technical requirements of the military.

It was with this that the appearance of the single-seat version of the IL-2 was associated. Ilyushin tried in a short time to present such an aircraft that would fit into the tactical and technical requirements put forward by the Air Force. It so happened that the designer managed to achieve this only in a single-seat version. At the same time, the military were entirely for the double version of the attack aircraft, but only if it would satisfy the requirements for a combat vehicle. They did not refuse such a plane to the last.

Thus, the initiator of the alteration of the aircraft was Ilyushin himself. But this measure was compelled. The modified aircraft was distinguished by a reduced armored capsule, and in the place where the shooter used to sit, an additional fuel tank appeared. These decisions allowed to reduce the weight of the aircraft and improve the flight characteristics of the machine, which allowed to fit into the requirements of the military. At the same time, the cockpit was raised relative to the engine in order to improve its visibility. The resulting aircraft acquired a recognizable and characteristic profile for the IL-2 attack aircraft, for which the aircraft was affectionately nicknamed "hunchbacked." On the one hand, the decision to get rid of the gunner cost hundreds of pilots in the difficult months of 1941, on the other hand, the Red Army Air Force, in principle, was able to get a new attack aircraft, which they needed not today, but yesterday.

IL-2 was not a killer of tanks


The myth that the IL-2 attack aircraft was a real thunderstorm of German tanks is very stable. This is often spoken by both ordinary people and high-ranking Soviet military leaders recall in their memoirs, however, memoirs are a separate genre of military literature. For example, Marshal Konev is often credited with the words that if IL-2 gives an “Eres” of the tank, it will turn over. As you know, regardless of whether Konev once said this, in reality, everything was completely wrong. Even the direct hit of rockets in the tank did not guarantee the destruction of the combat vehicle, and the probability of getting into the tank was even lower.


IL-2 attack aircraft of the 989th assault aviation regiment before departure for a combat mission, photo: waralbum.ru

To fight with tanks, even the initial period of the Second World War, the IL-2 almost could not. The effectiveness of its 20-mm ShVAK guns, and then the 23-mm VY guns was not enough to penetrate the side armor of even light German tanks. In fact, armor-piercing shells could hit German tanks only in the roof of a tower or engine compartment, but only during dive attacks, to which the IL-2, unlike the Luftwaffe's main tactical aircraft, the Ju-87 dive bomber, was not adapted.

The main way to attack ground targets for the IL-2 was a gentle dive and attack on a low-level flight. In this mode of attack, the armor penetration of aircraft guns was not enough, and it was difficult to effectively drop bombs, since the maximum accuracy of bombing was achieved only with a dive. At the same time, the IL-2 throughout the war lacked good sights for bombing. Stormtrooper sights included a simple mechanical sight with markings on the windshield and a front sight on the armored hood of the engine, as well as markings and sighting pins on the armored hood. At the same time, the pilot also had a rather limited view from the cockpit forward and down, as well as to the sides. When attacking ground targets, the massive bow of the aircraft very quickly closed the entire view to the pilot. For these reasons, the IL-2 attack aircraft was far from the best machine for attacking small targets.

The situation was partially saved by the appearance of more powerful 132-mm rockets of the ROFS-132 with improved accuracy of fire, which, if hit in the engine of a tank or self-propelled guns, could lead to the loss of a combat vehicle, as well as new small cumulative ammunition - anti-tank bombs PTAB-2,5 -1,5. The bomb was equipped in containers of 48 pieces, while the IL-2 could easily take four of these containers. The first application of PTAB on the Kursk Bulge was very successful. When dropping bombs, an area of ​​15 by 200 meters was easily covered. Such ammunition was very effective against accumulations of equipment, for example, on a march or in places of concentration. However, over time, the Germans began to disperse the tanks, cover them under the trees, pull on special nets and use other methods of protection.


The motorcade of the 9th German army, destroyed by the blows of the Soviet Il-2 attack aircraft in the Bobruisk area, photo: waralbum.ru

With all this, it cannot be said that IL-2 did not fulfill its role on the battlefield. Even as he did, his tanks were far from his main prey. The plane coped well with the coverage of area targets, and mass production allowed the use of attack aircraft in large quantities. Il-2 was especially effective in attacks against unprotected and weakly protected targets: automotive vehicles, armored personnel carriers, artillery and mortar batteries, and enemy manpower.

Best attack aircraft acted against columns of enemy equipment on the march and stationary artillery positions. In such cases, when attacking, a certain amount of ammunition was guaranteed to find targets. This was especially important at the first stage of World War II, when the Germans made extensive use of their mechanized units. Any slowdown in the movement of enemy columns during air raids, even with insignificant losses for the enemy, played into the hands of the Red Army, which gained time.
Author:
239 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Strashila
    Strashila 9 May 2020 05: 37 New
    +9
    I did not understand the essence of the article. next, how bad it was, but against all odds we won.
    like any new weapon, the IL-2 required learning how to use it.
    economics of war, IL-2 paid off for 2 sorties, but even the most difficult times, the plane lived 2,5 sorties.
    1. AUL
      AUL 9 May 2020 08: 38 New
      24
      Quote: Strashila
      but even the most difficult times the plane lived 2,5 sorties.

      In his book "Angle of Attack", pilot-cosmonaut Georgy Beregovoy wrote that for 10 combat missions on the Il-2, the pilot was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. He received his first star precisely for this, the second for space flight.
      1. Omskgasmyas
        Omskgasmyas 12 May 2020 14: 58 New
        +1
        And Pedivikia says that he received the Gold Star Coastal for 106 sorties. He received his first order - the Red Banner for 15 sorties, then for another 18 sorties he received the Red Banner, +21 sorties and the training of young pilots of his squadron - the order of Alexander Nevsky, +28 sorties - the order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky. In total, he made 186 sorties during the war. It is impossible to perceive as immutable Truth what is written in memoirs.
    2. iouris
      iouris 10 May 2020 17: 21 New
      +6
      Quote: Strashila
      I did not understand the essence of the article.

      The essence is this: everything at Hitler was so wonderful and high-tech, and at Stalin everything was so bad that the results of the war are beyond any explanation. And computer simulation has repeatedly shown that Moscow was supposed to fall in mid-August.
      1. Lesorub
        Lesorub 10 May 2020 17: 58 New
        +4
        The article has explicit "overtone window" elements, in addition to being ineptly used by the author.
  2. Genry
    Genry 9 May 2020 05: 50 New
    14
    Writer's "masterpiece" in one phrase:
    The armor fully protected the crew and important components of the aircraft only from bullets of normal caliber, as well as most fragments of anti-aircraft shells that did not penetrate the armor, leaving only dents in it.

    And "the armor protected ... only from .... "and"normal caliber"
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 May 2020 06: 55 New
      13
      The peculiarity of the IL’s armored capsule was the fact that spaced reservations from external thin and internal thick armor plates were used. So the bullet of a normal caliber IL-2 was held, however, like the small fragments of shells.
      In order to save the lives of the signalmen, the armored plate was lined behind them with two-inch boards. Shards disappearing into a tree did not give a rebound.
      My personal opinion of IL-2, IL-2M and IL-10 was inferior to SU-6. But alas, the practicality and logic of wartime prevailed.
      1. Snail N9
        Snail N9 9 May 2020 08: 00 New
        +6
        The armored corps, IL-2, is not a new idea, it was first embodied in a German "battlefield" aircraft during the First World War. As it turned out, this idea, which looked good in the mid-30s, when the protection of infantry from air attacks was carried out only by dispersing the infantry along the sides and firing upward from infantry weapons, as well as covering with anti-aircraft rifle-caliber machine guns. in the late 30s already, outdated. It was at the end of the 30s that the columns on the march began to hide behind 20-mm memory units, and then 37-mm caliber located along the roads and moving as part of military columns. In such conditions, the armored hull no longer protected the pilot, but began to play a negative role for the following reasons: 1) the rise in the production cost of the aircraft, 2) the complexity of production, especially its hardening and tempering, 3) the inability to modernize the aircraft by replacing the engine, when installing another engine would have to change the armored hull, 4) difficulty in providing maintenance and repair of the engine and other units installed in the armored hull, 5) poor cooling - blowing of the engine, 6) the impossibility of installing weapons in the bow in the place where the best aiming accuracy for firing is ensured., 6) heavy the armored hull limited the speed and maneuverability of the aircraft.
        Here is an interesting article about the effectiveness of IL-2 and the reasons for their losses.
        https://document.wikireading.ru/11484
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 May 2020 09: 41 New
          18
          A direct hit of a 37mm shell will not leave a chance to any single-engine aircraft of the Great Patriotic War! But try to hit him yet?
          The fragments of 20mm and 37mm shells of the ILA Hoodo were poorly held, which made it possible for our attack aircraft to hang over the battlefield!
          Well, the Germans did not fight tanks alone. They marched with the support of infantry, artillery, sappers. If escort seemed possible to delay, German tanks became easy prey for our shooters!
          1. Snail N9
            Snail N9 9 May 2020 11: 11 New
            10
            The fragments of 20mm and 37mm shells of the ILA Hoodo were poorly held, which made it possible for our attack aircraft to hang over the battlefield!

            Shells of 20-37 mm did not have remote fuses installed at a certain distance (only contact fuses, and self-destructors) - therefore, there were no fragments from shells of these calibers, which the Il-2 "held". The appearance of fragments from such projectiles meant that such a projectile hit the plane. Remote fuses for barrage fire, had air defense shells from 76 mm and above.
            1. WapentakeLokki
              WapentakeLokki 9 May 2020 18: 34 New
              0
              ..how about the 40mm bofors ???
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 9 May 2020 19: 26 New
                +5
                Quote: WapentakeLokki
                how about bofors 40 mm ???

                The Beauforts also did not have remote detonators, only self-destructive devices. Putting remote fuses (not to be confused with a radio fuse) on a gun firing automatic fire is a futile undertaking.
                1. Aag
                  Aag 10 May 2020 17: 51 New
                  -1
                  "Putting remote fuses (not to be confused with a radio fuse) on an automatic weapon is a futile idea."
                  Can you justify?
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 10 May 2020 17: 53 New
                    +2
                    What do you justify? Do you know how the distance was set for such a fuse?
            2. Alexandra
              Alexandra 10 May 2020 18: 46 New
              +1
              The fact that it was required to constantly pass through the explosive zones of 20 mm and 37 mm shells from self-destructors do you not take into account
          2. Octopus
            Octopus 9 May 2020 15: 32 New
            +4
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            Pieces of 20mm and 37mm shells

            )))
            That is, the armored corps kept fragments from shells that fell in the plane. More fragments come from nowhere.
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            But try to hit him yet?

            And they tried and fell, I assure you.
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            Our attack aircraft hang over the battlefield!

            What kind of fairy tales? A plane with a fuel reserve of 2 hours, hanging over the battlefield? Why is it hanging? Maybe in the Red Army there are aircraft guides capable of working with him from the ground? What parts?
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            If escort seemed possible to delay, German tanks became easy prey for our shooters!

            I mean, did the IL-2 purposefully hunt for the rear units, like the Americans in France? The first time I've heard.
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 9 May 2020 22: 49 New
          +6
          Quote: Snail N9
          Armored Corps, IL-2, the idea is generally not new, .....

          If you dig further, the protection of the pilot (the matter has not yet reached the plane) began with a frying pan that the pilot put (or put?) Under his ass, insuring himself against small arms from the ground. At that time, it was enough. On modern aircraft, such as the Su-25, the armor around the pilot and important organs of the aircraft is slightly more than a ton (titanium from 10 to 24 mm thick), while the Su-34 has a little less than one and a half tons (1480 kg).
      2. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 9 May 2020 09: 12 New
        +7
        “The armor plate was lined behind them with two-inch boards. The fragments disappearing into the tree did not give a rebound "- I somehow can not imagine how the fragments and bullets could get into the armor plate bypassing the radio operator arrow.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 11 May 2020 01: 03 New
          0
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          I somehow can’t imagine how fragments and bullets could get into the armor plate bypassing the radio operator arrow.

          At an angle to the side, bottom, top.
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 9 May 2020 15: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: Genry
      And "the armor protected ... only from ...." and "normal caliber"

      And what is not clear to you? Protected from the rifle caliber, but the rifle caliber in the air defense was used only in the Red Army. Already from American 0.50 did not protect, from German MZA all the more.
    3. Sergey269
      Sergey269 11 May 2020 16: 00 New
      +1
      I agree with you! Did the author try "just a bullet" on himself? I happened to ... And what caliber does he consider "normal"? From 20 mm - this is already a shell ... Article - complete nonsense!
  3. gorenina91
    gorenina91 9 May 2020 06: 32 New
    -9
    -It turns out that the most important myth about the "IL-2" is that it was called a dive ... -Since he could not perform the functions of a dive, then what does this name have to do with it ...- "dive" ...
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 9 May 2020 07: 13 New
      +1
      [/ quote] You, Irina. probably the Il-2 with the Pe-2 dive bomber you confuse [quote = gorenina91] -It turns out that the most important myth about the Il-2 is that it was called a dive ... -Since he could not perform the dive function, then then where does the name ...- "dive" ...
      1. gorenina91
        gorenina91 9 May 2020 08: 33 New
        0
        -Yes, Pe-2 was (was considered) really diving ... -You are right ... -But how then the Il-2 attack aircraft could fight tanks; and, in general, perform the functions of an attack aircraft, if he has an angle of attack for delivering a targeted dive strike not exceeding 30 ° ... -How then, could the Il-2 be considered an attack aircraft? -Then he should be ranked as a front-line bomber ... -But for this purpose, and for performing such tasks, the IL-2 was ...- also not very effective ...
        1. Sergey Valov
          Sergey Valov 9 May 2020 08: 55 New
          15
          To attack the angle of 30 degrees is enough, this is a dive, although gently sloping. As for the fight against tanks, the author wrote everything correctly, and for unarmored targets, which, by the way, are the absolute majority, the IL-2 could work quite successfully. Another question is that for the attack aircraft he had rather weak weapons, that of small arms, that of bombing, but this is another matter.
          1. gorenina91
            gorenina91 9 May 2020 09: 26 New
            +1
            To attack the angle of 30 degrees is enough, this is a dive, although gently sloping.

            -That's what I spoke about (this is what I meant) in my previous comments ...
            Another question is that for the attack aircraft he had rather weak weapons, that of small arms, that of bombing, but this is another matter.

            -So that's why there was weak small arms ... -because ... because the IL-2 had to shoot from a long "long distance" to "catch the target" ...
            1. Sergey Valov
              Sergey Valov 9 May 2020 09: 40 New
              +7
              Distance has nothing to do with it. The armament was weak a priori - 400 kg is normal for PMV, but not the second. Two guns and two machine guns are also quite small. But to put it did not work anymore, the problem is in a weak engine and a heavy glider. As for the “shoot closer”, it is largely a matter of training pilots.
            2. Octopus
              Octopus 9 May 2020 15: 39 New
              +1
              Quote: gorenina91
              But how then could an IL-2 attack aircraft fight tanks; and, in general, perform the functions of an attack aircraft, if he has an angle of attack for delivering a targeted dive strike not exceeding 30 ° ... -How then, could the Il-2 be considered an attack aircraft? -Then he should be ranked as a front-line bomber ... -But for this purpose, and for performing such tasks, the IL-2 was ...- also not very effective ...

              Yeah. Thinking in this direction, you will come up with the idea of ​​a front-line bomber with a load several times less than that of Foki or P-47. Without a sight. Than IL-2, the most massive war plane, and was.

              This is a very unpleasant conclusion, I must admit.
              1. gorenina91
                gorenina91 9 May 2020 15: 53 New
                +2
                -And then minus to me ???
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 9 May 2020 16: 09 New
                  +6
                  Quote: gorenina91
                  -And then minus to me ???

                  No idea. Not mine. I can enjoy the pluses if it is important to you. But there is a group of IL-2 fans on the site, as far as I know. You could offend them, they are very vulnerable.
        2. KVU-NSVD
          KVU-NSVD 9 May 2020 08: 56 New
          12
          Quote: gorenina91
          how then could an IL-2 attack aircraft fight tanks; and generally perform the functions of an attack aircraft, if he has an angle of attack for delivering a targeted diving strike not exceeding 30 °


          We got up in a "circle". the first call - bombs and (or) rain from PTABs, the second - RS, the third - cannons. Despite the author's opinion about the ineffectiveness of air cannons against tanks, a lot of people flew into the roof of the turret and engine compartment.
        3. riwas
          riwas 10 May 2020 04: 08 New
          +3
          really dive was (was considered) Pe-2

          Before the war, the Germans allowed the USSR to freely buy equipment from the Luftwaffe. But ours refused to buy the Ju-87 - it seemed to them too slow-moving and outdated. In vain. Interesting design solutions were implemented on the Ju-87. So, on the "piece" was installed the so-called automatic dive, which ensures the exit of the machine from the dive after dropping the bomb with a constant overload, while the efforts on the handle did not exceed the standard for horizontal flight.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 10 May 2020 10: 00 New
            +1
            Interesting design solutions were implemented on the Yu-87. ... yeah, that’s why they were knocked out in the 43rd and that’s why the stug1 (or 2 I don’t remember) was immediately transferred to the FV-190F, and the thing was good when you could bomb with impunity. and when they started to get it through the snot .... and Ilyukha passed with honor from beginning to end with virtually no fighter cover
            1. Alf
              Alf 10 May 2020 21: 14 New
              +4
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              and Ilya passed with honor from beginning to end with virtually no fighter cover

              Since 1944, the fighter cover has become such that the German MZA became the main carrier of losses for attack aircraft.
            2. Revolver
              Revolver 11 May 2020 01: 58 New
              -4
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              that’s why they were knocked out in the 43rd and that’s why it was stug1 (or I don’t remember 2) that they moved to the FV-190F at once, and the thing was good when you could bomb with impunity

              As everyone is well aware, air supremacy passed from the Germans to the Red Army Air Force in 1943, during the Battle of Kursk. But what was little known in the USSR, and still not very well known in the Russian Federation, is how exactly it passed and why.
              The battle of Kursk lasted from July 5 to August 23, 1943. And on July 24, 1943 and the following week there was a massive bombardment by the allies of Hamburg, the first fire storm that destroyed residential areas on a vast area, and about 45000 mostly civilian casualties. For this, Goering got a thrashing from Hitler like never before. As a result, most of the fighter units, the best ones, were removed from the front and transferred to defend Germany from bombing, with all the ensuing consequences in the form of loss of air supremacy on the Eastern Front. And later, fresh graduates of flying schools were sent to the Eastern Front to gain experience, and experienced, who were fortunate enough to become such, were transferred to the German analogue of air defense.
              Before that, the Ju-87 "Stuck" was a formidable and effective weapon, the then version of high-precision weapons, capable of hitting a single tank or artillery position with bombs, and the howl of their sirens in a dive drove the soldiers crazy under them. After the Soviet fighters were given a free hand, the "laptezhniki" became a laughing stock, in which experienced fighters, as in a training manual, trained those who were not fired on how to shoot down.
              In addition, all the facilities that produced the bombers and attack aircraft were, by Hitler's personal order, refocused on the release of fighters. So, as the Junkers and Dornier were knocked out, FV-190 fighters had to be adapted for attack purposes. By the way, they were quite good in this role.
              And yes, the bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and other German cities (I can say nothing about Japan) from a legal point of view were war crimes. But war crimes committed everything during the war, and only the vanquished went to trial. Is this fair? Judge for yourself, if you take, I do not undertake.
              1. Crimean partisan 1974
                Crimean partisan 1974 12 May 2020 10: 39 New
                0
                Judge for yourself, if you take it, I don’t take it ......... not to judge what. the enemy is the enemy. and with enemies ... you understand. only the USSR was ceremonial. the rest of the allies are not. there is a joke to this topic .... the prisoner is asked, what are your dreams. and that --- the cops swimming with the cops on the river .... and he ... so there are good cops .... and that ... well, yes .. the good in the good and the bad in the bad. .... in principle, the logic is clear. the enemy is the enemy .......
                "As a result, most of the fighter units, and the best ones, were removed from the front and transferred to defend Germany from bombing," - no. it's a delusion. no one sent day fighters for night interceptions. and the night fighters were not enough (Zefirov. Night fighters of the Third Reich)
                FV-190. By the way, they in this role were quite good ..... just the same, they are very bad. if you want to discuss
      2. riwas
        riwas 9 May 2020 16: 54 New
        +4
        IL-10 could attack more accurately - at a diving angle of 45-50 degrees, while IL-2 - only at an angle of only 25-30 degrees. Unfortunately, pilots who used to fly the IL-2, out of habit, rarely used this advantage.
        1. Alf
          Alf 10 May 2020 09: 58 New
          +3
          Quote: riwas
          IL-10 could attack more accurately - at a diving angle of 45-50 degrees, while IL-2 - only at an angle of only 25-30 degrees.

          The smaller the dive angle, the more time it takes to fire. No wonder they tried to create an airborne weapon separate from the axis of flight.
          1. riwas
            riwas 11 May 2020 03: 09 New
            +1
            You mean the IL-20, in which four guns could be installed either horizontally or obliquely with trunks down at an angle of 22 degrees. Thanks to the latter, he could attack from a horizontal flight from a height of 25 meters.
            1. Alf
              Alf 11 May 2020 22: 10 New
              +1
              Quote: riwas
              You mean IL-20,

              Not only. Before the war, Mozharov experimented with Venevidov so that airborne weapons could deviate from the axis of flight to 20 degrees.
    2. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 9 May 2020 07: 16 New
      +4
      The dive was Pe 2, IL 2 attack aircraft.
    3. Cypa
      Cypa 9 May 2020 08: 08 New
      +3
      who called it 'diving'?
    4. mister-red
      mister-red 10 May 2020 21: 35 New
      +3
      I don’t remember anyone calling the Il-2 attack aircraft a dive.
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 9 May 2020 07: 25 New
    +3
    I flipped through the work of the young theorist, a score of 3 with a minus.
    1. Pavlik K.
      Pavlik K. 10 May 2020 13: 52 New
      0
      You indulge them, colleague ...
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 10 May 2020 14: 09 New
        +3
        And how to put less, they know the name all right for our times. request
        In the seventies, I had boys in the model airplane club on SUT, who knew almost all the aircraft of the Second World War by heart, not only ours, but also allies.
  5. knn54
    knn54 9 May 2020 07: 46 New
    +3
    Among the pilots, in the number of Heroes of the Soviet Union, in the first place were attack pilots.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 9 May 2020 08: 00 New
      0
      Not just that at the beginning of the war the hero was given for 10 sorties.
      1. boris epstein
        boris epstein 9 May 2020 17: 59 New
        +5
        In 1942 and 1943, the standard was increased. A native of the city of Artemovsk, Donetsk Region, Hero of the Soviet Union Boris Korsunsky graduated from the Voroshilovgrad Aviation School in February 1942, fought on an IL-2, completed 680 sorties. Luck plus skill.
  6. mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer 9 May 2020 08: 22 New
    +4
    It's a shame that a good, thoughtful author issued an article in a hurry from hackneyed facts with template conclusions.
  7. bairat
    bairat 9 May 2020 09: 05 New
    +6
    "At the same time, the people who flew the Il-2 acted primarily in the interests of the ground forces."
    All of our aircraft acted in the interests of the ground forces.
    1. alimov76
      alimov76 9 May 2020 09: 19 New
      +1
      as well as the fleet and aviation, etc.
  8. Hagen
    Hagen 9 May 2020 09: 21 New
    +5
    So many copies have already been broken around the IL-2 with all these myths and conjectures in miniature notes ... Isn’t it easier to read the same O. Rastrenin? In detail, intelligibly and quite authoritatively (in any case, no one has denied). Or listen here: https://www.oper.ru/news/read.php?t=1051622490
    A man devoted 20 years of life to the study of this topic. It was interesting to me.
  9. Civil
    Civil 9 May 2020 09: 38 New
    0
    Good article, everything is clear and to the point. We are waiting for more articles from the author.
  10. dmmyak40
    dmmyak40 9 May 2020 09: 53 New
    +5
    Editorials - SHAME !!! On the Day of the Great Victory to publish material about the "myths" about the weapons with which our fathers and grandfathers won the victory ... This is something! I don't need such materials on May 9! It would be better if the editors ordered material about the difficult but victorious fate of the Il-2 and those who sat at the helm. I think you can find new information if you try.
    PS I hope that in the evening there will not be an article about the "magnificent" plane of the blitzkrieg U-87 and the "best tank" of the WWII "Tiger".
    1. Valdaev
      Valdaev 9 May 2020 22: 45 New
      +6
      "SHAME !!! On the Great Victory Day" is to write a comment that the IL-2 had a steering wheel
  11. Operator
    Operator 9 May 2020 10: 04 New
    0
    Due to the impossibility of diving bombing, the combat use of the Il-2 was not effective "on the battlefield", but in the enemy's near rear when striking area targets - against artillery in firing positions and armored vehicle columns on the march.

    Bulletproof Il-2 booking was essentially just a strengthening of the design of the aircraft, allowing you to return to the airfield with numerous glider damage.

    8 thousand pilots and 4 thousand gunners of the IL-2 who died during a combat mission - a small fee for the direct support of the ground forces, the losses of which are estimated at 10-11 million people.
    1. irontom
      irontom 9 May 2020 11: 09 New
      11
      The trouble is German. An effective diving battlefield plane from the 42nd turned into a weak analogue of the IL-2 Ju-87D-3 (the most massive of the Raptemakers) and the D-5 lost air brakes altogether. Which was almost never used as a clean dive, occasionally.
      Given that the main military air defense at the beginning of the war in the Wehrmacht was MG on an anti-aircraft machine, the assertion that Il was ineffective was fundamentally wrong. Again to Rasterenin - the main losses of IL-2 at the initial stage from fighter aircraft, as well as the main striking effects of the MZA are fragments from which Il was protected.
      Arrivals on IL in the Internet have been conducted from the beginning of the zero, I remember very well Rubilov on VIF2 NE, stuffing by training manual on the ECHO in Moscow at the Victory Price, and on other resources, like a carbon copy of the same thing.
      All kinds - IL-2 against Foke Wolfe 190, against R-47, against UFOs, etc.
      At one time, he even collected it in a piggy bank, and actively participated in disputes later - tired.
      Seeing your arguments about steep dive-bombers as if again hit the zeros.
      1. Operator
        Operator 9 May 2020 12: 40 New
        +3
        Accept my condolences - for 20 years you have not learned to distinguish between area targets (which bombed from a horizontal flight) from point targets (from a tank to a ship that bombed from a dive) laughing
      2. Alexandra
        Alexandra 10 May 2020 19: 00 New
        -4
        Since then, you learned that the Il-2 was literally imposed by the Ilyushin Air Force, that the initiative to build a single-seat Il-2 was again Ilyushin, that the I-15bis, I-153 and I-16 used until 1943 as light attack aircraft much greater survivability at the front (the number of sorties per loss) than the IL-2. By the way, all these obsolete fighters could bomb from a sharp dive, alas with bombs a maximum of 50-100 kg caliber. However, this is no longer important.
        1. irontom
          irontom 10 May 2020 20: 10 New
          +1
          Oh, these IS storytellers, so many years have passed and the arguments do not change. That's just the trouble regiments flying on IB-153 very quickly ended, and later all sorts of Yak-i type B did not become the basis of attack aircraft, and ancestors and wreckers continued to produce attack aircraft with armored hulls. Even reactive, with a short break due to the Khrushchev cockroaches.
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra 10 May 2020 21: 13 New
            -4
            Name the specific assault regiments that flew on the I-153 that "quickly ended" and indicate the number of combat sorties in these regiments per loss.

            It's not that the concept of the attack aircraft was a failure. The fact is that Ilyushin's implementation in the form of the Il-2 was unsuccessful. I-15bis, I-153 and I-16 as attack aircraft were much better than the Il-2 in the first years of the war. The Su-6 would be much better than the Il-2 if it went into mass production. Look at how much armor is in "armored hulls" Tu-91 or Su-25, which is several times heavier than the Il-2. You will be surprised less than the IL-2. Trying to create an armored attack aircraft with a water-cooled engine, Ilyushin made a mistake, since he was forced to place the engine in the armored compartment and thereby extremely overweight the aircraft, so much so that he himself was forced to abandon the shooter (then he lied in his memories that he was forced).
            1. irontom
              irontom 10 May 2020 23: 51 New
              +5
              Halva again, to be honest, the Su-6 got it, are you not studying history at all? Where is the start of the Su-6 war in mass production? where is the motor to it?
              March 13, 41st !!!! the first flight of a prototype without weapons, the "combat" Su-6 No. 2 flew on June 16 (there will be a war tomorrow). LTH is an IS - with armor protection weighing 200 kg, armament 6 ShKAS and a bomb load of 200 kg. Then we had a complete priest, evacuation. The M-71 was brought to mind only at the end of the war.
              IL-2 was in the series, Ilyushchin had time and many thanks to him for that.
              Its derated engine could eat less octane fuel. At his helm it was possible to land a pilot take-off landing. Il was not picky about the length and quality of the runway. Only the center section and rudders were duralumin, and even then in the 42nd panel the center section was made of bakelite plywood. The main IL was in mass production. All the other van der wafers and super planes did not have time for war, nor did super powerful air-cooled engines. M-82 in the 41st is very raw, it was brought to mind the whole war, power for the attack aircraft was not enough. The installation of the M-82 on the Su-6 Sukhim was not even considered, as a result, the Mikulinsky AM-42 still had to be delivered.
              1. Alexandra
                Alexandra 11 May 2020 01: 26 New
                -6
                Halva again, to be honest, the Su-6 got it, are you not studying history at all?


                Which historians told that the Su-6 was better than the IL-2 should be referred to in response to your question? Or do you not know such historians? I know that. Therefore, I know the history of Red Army attack aircraft better than you.

                Where is the start of the Su-6 war in mass production? where is the motor to it?


                The benefits of the IL-2 in 1941, 1942. somewhat ... uh, exaggerated.

                The LTX is an IS - with 200 kg of body armor, 6 ShKAS armaments and a 200 kg bomb load.


                Too high for the LTH attack aircraft? :) Many hundreds of kilograms of armor didn’t help Il to carry out as many sorties for one combat loss as they did as attack aircraft of 1941-1943. the same I-153s, which, out of all the armor, had a forehead of an air-cooled engine and an armored pilot. You know, infrequently get into a maneuverable aircraft. The non-maneuverable IL-2 brought damage from every third sortie.

                M-71 brought to mind only at the end of the war.


                The M-71 successfully passed the 50 hour test in February 1941. The M-82 in April 1941. The M-82 was launched into the series by order of the NKAP of May 13, 1941. M-71 was too heavy for all of these MiGs and Yaks on which it was required to install the M-82 in this order of the NKAP. That is why the M-82 was in the series, and the M-71 remained an experimental engine.

                Its derated engine could eat less octane fuel. At his helm it was possible to land a pilot take-off landing.


                Seriously? AM-38 and AM-38F ate gasoline B78 + 4 cm³ R-9 * per 1 kg. The octane number is not less than 95. The take-off-landing pilot died or crashed a damaged attack aircraft during an emergency landing after several sorties in the vast majority of cases without having time to inflict significant damage to the enemy.

                The main IL was in mass production. All the rest of the van der waffles and super planes did not have time for war


                Su-2, which was our most tenacious attack aircraft of the initial period of the war (except for the I-15bis, I-153 and I-16 used as light attack aircraft), managed to fight the war.



                So far, the Su-2 would have been pulling the war in 1941-1942. front-line "super-aircraft" Su-6 and Tu-2 would go into production. And Ilyushin's "initiative" Il-2, the single "flying coffin" of the beginning of the war, literally imposed by the Red Army Air Force, was a completely superfluous "weak link" in the Soviet Air Force's armament system.

                M-82 in the 41st is very raw, it was brought to mind the whole war, power for the attack aircraft was not enough.


                https://airpages.ru/ru/su2_2.shtml
                And enough for the Su-2. But not fate: "... Director Kuzin was allowed to complete the construction of the Su-2 only from the existing reserve. When it turned out that the restructuring of production in Perm was proceeding unacceptably slowly, and in the coming months it would not be possible to assemble the Il-4, Shakhurin limited the production of the Su-2 only Many people perceived this decision with bewilderment, and the commander of the 135th bap, Major G. Korzinnikov, even wrote a report to the chief of the Air Force Main Directorate, where he justified the undesirability of stopping the construction of the aircraft, which had proven itself well on the front in recent months.

                There have been cases in the history of our aircraft industry when a car was discontinued and then restored again. In this case, making sure that building an Ilyushin attack aircraft in Perm was not practical, the country's leadership decided - to unprecedented step for the beginning of 1942 - to dismantle plant No. 135. In January and February, due to the personnel and equipment of this enterprise, aircraft plants No. 30 and 381 were strengthened.

                According to the memoirs of the oldest employee of the OKB M.I. Zuev, such a decision was influenced by Stalin's dislike for Pavel Osipovich. After the death of V.M. Petlyakov in the crash on January 12, 1942 Sukhoi was summoned to the Kremlin and received an offer to lead the work on improving the Pe-2. Sukhoi did not refuse, but did not agree either. Stalin did not like Pavel Osipovich's hesitations, and on January 14, with his knowledge, AI was appointed to the post of chief designer of plant No. 22. Isakson. After another 10 days, an order was issued to disband the aircraft factory in Molotov. Sukhoi was not allowed to return to Podlipki, even when the Nazis were driven away from Moscow. It so happened that the BB-1 (Su-2) aircraft saw the light of day with the direct participation of the leader, and he also stopped its serial production. "
                1. irontom
                  irontom 11 May 2020 12: 22 New
                  +6
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  The benefits of the IL-2 in 1941, 1942. somewhat ... uh, exaggerated.

                  You? take the documents of the chronology of Radionov or of the same Rastrenin, the plane only entered service, nevertheless it was very highly appreciated.
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  the same I-153,

                  They did not try to include logic, the main assault units in the 41st that at the beginning of the 42nd flew on outdated cars, Ilov was few. The result already at the beginning of the 42nd in the USSR there was a shortage of pilots, and pilots with a low level of qualification had to land on Ily. Where did all these pre-war bins go?

                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  The M-71 successfully passed 50 hours of testing in February 1941.

                  And then what did Polikarpov torment all 42nd changing the M-71 engines? on the I-185, in the end I had to put the M-82 (although this engine was not originally considered), you did not answer why the Su-6 eventually switched to AM-42.
                  So there is no motor no aircraft -DIXI

                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  AM-38 and AM-38F ate B78 + 4cm³ R-9 * gasoline per 1 kg.

                  I climb into the treasury of resources -
                  "Handbook of aircraft engines" 1943 and "A short course in aviation fuels, oils and refrigerants." 1942
                  AM-38 - 4B-78 (95) it is allowed to use a substitute 1B-95. allowed to use B-20: identical, but instead of ethyl bromide and monochloronaphthalene, dichloroethane is contained.
                  The use of B-20 caused sparkling of candles (P-9 was not without this problem), but with P-9 in the beginning there was a big trouble, and Lendlizovye benzols and isooctanes were a terrible shortage throughout the war and went to fighters and to imported aircraft.
                  When the AM-35 is only 4B-78 with the R-9. -
                  On the AM-38F, the degree of boost in the cylinder was further reduced, I think it is not necessary to explain what it is and how this degree is related to the octane number. Lead-free candles on the AM-35 (MIG-3, Pe-8) was a chronic problem, the technician was forced to clean them after each flight, this problem was not observed on the AM-38. In the Chronology of Radionov for October or November of the 41st there is a detailed document on the combat use and identified shortcomings of the IL-2.

                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  Su-2 had time for war,

                  That's just Sukhoi is not a ground attack bomber, but a horizontal close-range bomber, why all the Internet experts put the Su-2 into attack aircraft a riddle for me over and over again.
                  Neither the armament nor the security of the Su-2 was capable of plowing with small arms and the RS was not capable of such a military use of death.
                  Another trouble is that the IL-2 was forced to fulfill its functions, but, already here in the ancestors, it was clearly considered that universality and a decrease in the number of types were more important at that time.
                  In general, the IL-2 is a highly specialized machine for direct support of troops over the front edge of the battlefield and the rear, that the attack aircraft became our everything, this is the trouble of the catastrophe of the 41s and 42s. The functions of near bombers, information security, art. spotters, etc.
                  And all its shortcomings at the moment have become virtues.
                  At the beginning of the 42nd, for example, a 2-seater in the general IL-2 armored hull with M-82 on LTX was tested almost equal to a single-armored one with AM-38 - but Stalin's categorical demand not to reduce production, as a result, the RI version is unprotected shooter.
                  For M-82 - and its epic read this article here, from the same resource.
                  The birth of La-5 or the development and development of the M-82 engine during the Second World War Gennady Serov
                  https://airpages.ru/mt/mot4.shtml
                  1. Alexandra
                    Alexandra 11 May 2020 19: 15 New
                    -2
                    Quote: irontom
                    You?


                    Propagandists.

                    They did not try to include logic, the main assault units in the 41st that at the beginning of the 42nd flew on outdated cars, Ilov was few. The result already at the beginning of the 42nd in the USSR felt a shortage of pilots


                    If for an aircraft of one type, combat loss occurs on average for 80 sorties, and for a plane of another type combat loss occurs on average for 20 sorties, what does the logic tell you, on planes of which type, the loss of pilots by the number of sorties performed is higher? Sorry, I probably have a difficult question.

                    Quote: irontom
                    And then what did Polikarpov torment all 42nd changing the M-71 engines?




                    On the AM-38F, the degree of boost in the cylinder was further reduced, I think it is not necessary to explain what it is and how this degree is related to the octane number.


                    If you suddenly find information that the AM-38F could run on gasoline with an octane rating of less than 95, please share a link to this information.

                    Quote: irontom
                    That's just Sukhoi is not a ground attack bomber, but a horizontal close-range bomber, why all the Internet experts put the Su-2 into attack aircraft a riddle for me over and over again.





                    Tell me why, in your opinion, more guides for the RS-82 / RS-132 were mounted on the bomber than on the Il-2 attack aircraft? And how much do you know Soviet bombers that were widely used during the Great Patriotic War RS-82 / RS-132, except for the Su-2 of course?

                    Neither the armament nor the security of the Su-2 was capable of plowing with small arms and the RS was not capable of such a military use of death.


                    "In the conclusions of the report of the 2nd Department of the Air Force Headquarters Operations Directorate on the analysis of aviation losses (August 1943), it was noted that of all the flight performance characteristics, it is maneuverability that has a decisive influence on the combat survivability when operating against ground targets. Air Force Research Institute. They paid special attention to the horizontal and vertical maneuverability of a promising attack aircraft, equipping it with an air-cooled engine, as well as increasing the effectiveness of armor protection while reducing the proportion of armor in flight weight. "

                    "The experience of the combat use of the Il-2 in the initial period of the war, as well as the views of the command on the role and place of aviation in future operations, were reflected in the tactical and technical requirements of the Air Force of the spacecraft for promising aircraft for 1943.

                    From the TTT for 1943 it followed that the SC Air Force expected to receive an attack aircraft from the aviation industry, which could also be used as a light dive bomber. As noted in the document, "the combination of the properties of the Yu-87 and IL-2 will be the best solution to the problem."

                    Compared to the IL-2, the new attack aircraft had to have more powerful weapons, higher average combat maneuvering speeds and maneuverability with good controllability over the entire range of working heights and speeds, an effective combat survivability system, excellent visibility, and the possibility of dive bombing.

                    A positive and very important point was the requirement to use an air-cooled motor, which was much better than a liquid-cooled motor, "kept" hit by fragments of anti-aircraft shells, small-caliber shells and large-caliber bullets.

                    The main targets for attack aircraft were considered enemy tanks and firepower, as well as manpower on the battlefield, on the approach to it and in the nearest rear. At the same time, attack aircraft were primarily supposed to destroy enemy armored vehicles and artillery in all types of combined arms combat. A number of additional targets could be: steam locomotives, train trains and stations, airplanes at airfields, bridges and ferries ... "

                    the attack aircraft has become our everything, this is the misfortune of the disaster of the 41s and 42s. The functions of near bombers, information security, art. spotters, etc.


                    Apparently it was such a "cunning plan", to stop production of the Su-2 in favor of the Il-2 M-82 (which, as a result, was never seen at the front), and then to make a not very successful specialized aircraft "our everything", and the Su- 2 scrape along all the bottom sections, collect wherever possible and repair, because in the role of the same art. the spotter was no longer mass-produced Su-2 was much better than "our everything".
                    1. irontom
                      irontom 12 May 2020 09: 37 New
                      +5
                      I wrote, the dispute is ancient, and extinct. If interested, the detailed history of the Su-6 AM-42
                      from 11 years old where is my nickname E.tom
                      http://alternathistory.com/su-6-alternativnyj-osnovnoj-shturmovik-sssr-v-gody-velikoj-otechestvennoj-vojny/
                      The M-71 doesn’t have to attract conspiracy theories — it’s all easier for Shvetsov to have a permanent base, and not loaded, unlike other motor design bureaus, the loaded M-82 was not able to bring the M-71 to mass production, the most experienced, and even then constantly problems.
                      Ivanov V. - "Aircraft of N.N. Polikarpov" Test report I-185 dated January 29, 1943
                      On the motor - the unsatisfactory work of the M-71 dragged on the testing and refinement of the I-185. In 5 hours 13 minutes of flying time 2 engines failed, due to structural and manufacturing defects. One plane is broken.
                      April 5, 1943. the I-185, the failure of the new M-71 motor, was restored after the accident (earlier, also a motor failure).
                      Su-2
                      "Su-2 on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War" Dmitry Khazanov, Nikolay Gordyukov -
                      One of the leading specialists of the institute, a military engineer of the 2nd rank V. Ya .. Magon regretfully noted that the plane of P.O. Sukhoi was worse prepared than other vehicles for combat operations. Magon believed that the result of the first battles was most affected by the fact that, having the tactical appointment of a close bomber, the Su-2 was most often used as an attack aircraft. However, he did not possess powerful offensive weapons, nor sufficient protection of the most important structural elements. It is important to note: during the construction of the Ivanov aircraft (BB-1 or “close bomber”) and during the testing of the base model, the question of using serial vehicles as attack aircraft was never considered. The tactical and technical requirements for the aircraft itself did not provide for actions from low altitudes in conditions of strong enemy air defense. Consequently, the widespread use of Su-2 for assault attacks should be considered improvisation, caused by the need to stop the rapid movement of German motorized mechanized forces into the interior of our country.

                      Further, to be honest, just laziness to argue, from arguing.



                      .
                      1. Dmitry V.
                        Dmitry V. 12 May 2020 12: 26 New
                        -1
                        Quote: irontom
                        could not bring the M-71 to mass production, the most experienced, and even then constantly with problems.


                        Why experienced? This is common knowledge - the series was M-82, so the production of the M-71 was in the experimental workshop!

                        That is to pass state tests it does not bring to mass production?
                        Based on the results of state tests, such decisions are made.
                        Another issue is that there was no decision to launch the M-71 engine in mass production, since the series was M-82 and the production of M-71, would adversely affect the production of M-82. Therefore, the M-71 was produced in the EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION - or rather, in the experimental workshop.

                        But this is a completely different issue.
                        The M-71 engine was, it passed state tests. But he was not launched into the series due to a LACK of PRODUCTION CAPACITIES - and this is a completely different reason.

                        Cylinder-piston group - identical to M-82.
                        There is no big problem to go to mass production of M-71
                        The cardinal difference is the case of a larger diameter.

                        It was quite possible to bring the M-71F - if there was a corresponding decision.
                        But the La-5 tests with the M-71F made up a negative opinion about the engine.
                        As a result, the Red Army aviation remained "catching up" until the end of the war.
                      2. Alexandra
                        Alexandra 12 May 2020 14: 26 New
                        -1
                        Quote: irontom
                        If interested, the detailed history of the Su-6 AM-42


                        The Air Force did not want in 1943 a promising attack aircraft with a water-cooling motor. But you never know what the Air Force wanted. Some (but not all), in particular Shakhurin, had to answer for the sins of the war years after the war.

                        "I committed the crimes attributed to me in pursuit of the plan and schedule, in pursuit of quantitative data. Having signals from the fronts of the Patriotic War about the defectiveness of our aircraft, I did not inform the chairman of the State Defense Committee, and this is my most serious crime."

                        M-71 does not need to attract conspiracy


                        Have you read the page? M-71 "most likely" did not go into production for subjective reasons.

                        And the subjective reasons were the following: Shvetsov convinced Stalin not to redesign the plant No. 19 for water cooling engines, but the NKAP leadership in the order of May 13, 1941 chose not the M-71 motor needed for Polikarpov and Sukhoi aircraft, but the M motor for serial production -82, which at that time was NOT claimed by any aircraft designer. From the point of view of the Deputy People’s Commissar Yakovlev, the situation was very clear then - Iosif Vissarionovich ordered to meet Shvetsov, well, let the engine go that could at least be adapted to my fighter, and not the one that Polikarpov needed. Because if the Polikarpov fighter goes into series with the M-71 engine, my fellow fighters, Yakovlev, will not be needed by anyone, even with the M-106 and M-107 engines.

                        Quote: irontom
                        the plane of P.O.Sukhoi was worse than other machines prepared for military operations. Magon believed that the result of the first battles was most affected by the fact that, having the tactical appointment of a close bomber, the Su-2 was most often used as an attack aircraft. However, he did not possess powerful offensive weapons, nor sufficient protection of the most important structural elements.


                        If a fellow 2nd-level military engineer V. Ya .. Magon was familiar with the statistics of the loss of the Il-2 and Su-2 for 1941-1942, he would have changed his mind. But you, I hope, are familiar with these statistics? So why did you refer to the opinion of V.Ya. Magon formulated by those in the absence of key data on aircraft losses by type? In fact, in 2, the Su-1941 demonstrated the largest number of sorties per loss among all our attack aircraft, including the Pe-2.

                        The combination of high maneuverability, sufficient structural survivability, which was determined, among other things, by an air-cooled engine, and the presence of defensive weapons, made the Su-2 our most tenacious attack aircraft of 1941. Moreover, Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi very quickly developed measures to strengthen armor protection, and enhanced protection was installed not only on newly manufactured vehicles, but also on vehicles already on the front:

                        "Meanwhile, from Brovary, where the 29st bap was based on July 211, a telegram was received from an engineer of the Byaz regiment with a request to urgently send 42 sets of armor protection for installation on the Su-2 in the field. The military engineer believed that it was better to put armor plates in the form of an apron on a movable turret ring.According to the regiment's headquarters, combat losses by this time amounted to 2 pilots and 23 navigators. (According to other sources, during two months of the war in the 211st bap, 4 pilots and 14 navigators were killed, not counting the aviators who did not return from a combat mission .)

                        By the beginning of August 1941 the Podolsk plant produced 100 sets of armor according to the scheme of the chief designer, and the plant in Mariupol - 10 sets according to the variant of the Kharkovites; factory brigades urgently went to the front to strengthen the protection of already produced aircraft. On August 9, the situation with the reservation of the Su-2 crew was considered by the government. GKO Resolution No. 441 required from August 15 to release all aircraft with navigator's armor in the form of 8,5-mm sheets of case-hardened steel. "

                        Although you are apparently in the know.

                        Further, to be honest, just laziness to argue, from arguing.


                        Yes, we are not having a dispute, just an exchange of views. I just believe in statistics, but you probably do not. You probably think that "there are lodges, big lodges, and statistics." Including statistics of combat losses of the Red Army Air Force by type of aircraft.
        2. Left shot
          Left shot 7 July 2020 16: 02 New
          0
          Well, IL-2 also did not carry more than a hundred
  12. svp67
    svp67 9 May 2020 10: 09 New
    10
    - "Ilyusha", and "Ilyusha", why are you so HUGE?
    -Yes because I pulled the whole war on my hump
  13. sevtrash
    sevtrash 9 May 2020 10: 13 New
    +5
    Everything is as always - there is almost nothing ideal or almost none. Here, a couple of years ago, Linnik had a good article on the effectiveness of the fight against Il2 tanks with numbers. The percentage of penetration of RS in the field conditions was 1-4%, and only a direct hit mattered, the efficiency of the guns was low, as well as of combustible mixtures and incendiary bombs, OFAB100 were more effective, but the accuracy of the bombing of the IL2 was very low. The effectiveness of aviation impact on tanks increased from 5% to 20% with the use of PTAB, then, however, decreased by 3 times with the adoption of various measures by the Germans.
    As for the diving Pe2, I read that although it was intended for diving, only a part of the pilots could use the dive. Polbin, it’s like, is not all.
    1. irontom
      irontom 9 May 2020 14: 27 New
      +9
      Quote: Operator
      Accept my condolences - for 20 years you have not learned to distinguish between area targets (which bombed from a horizontal flight) from point targets (from a tank to a ship that bombed from a dive) laughing

      Eco brought you in, a bunch of boats and tanks mixed up, it’s such a thing that even a dive-bomber is very difficult to get into a tank with a bomb. And it’s not his goal. With art. Normally Rudel only knocked out weapons in his hunting stories. I’ll be obvious as a cap - Yushka paid for accuracy when diving at a low speed and a very low altitude for exiting the dive, and with high qualification of pilots, as soon as ours had a massively normal MZA and the sky was clear, it was a kitten. The trick is that diving at the end of WWII flew over the boats. And fighter-bombers had accuracy plus minus bast and did not differ much from attack aircraft in this matter.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 May 2020 15: 07 New
        -1
        About the decline in the effectiveness of the dive by the end of the war I agree. It’s not for nothing that our 44-year naval operations began to effectively apply top-hatters!
        Er-2 and Tu-2 were full-fledged dive-bombers of the USSR during World War II, and then, according to pilots, these are not battlefield planes! Pe-2 as a dive was limited.
        So the USSR, Germany and the allies had different tools! We bet on attack aircraft, fascists-dive bombers, the USA and allies on fighter-bombers!
        We had the aircraft of the battlefield IL-2 and the Germans Ne-129 and Yu-187! Allies for his unsuccessful experiments in Italy and Normandy preferred to fill up the cutting edge with medium or even strategic bombers! The pilots of their fighter-bomber aircraft preferred to chase locomotives and single vehicles in the near rear!
        Here it should be noted one more key of the Red Army Air Force - Aerocobra (R-39). Not in vain until the end of the war, this machine and its modernized Kingcobra model were in demand in our army !!!
        With Sergey (the Author of the article) I do not agree on one thing: the massive use of rockets, and later cumulative bombs, and chalked up their positive effect !!!
        The Germans themselves wrote in their memoirs that after the Kursk Bulge they preferred to sit out during the raids Ilov not in tanks, but in the nearest leaflet!
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 9 May 2020 16: 05 New
          +6
          Er-2 and Tu-2 were full-fledged dive-bombers of the USSR during World War II

          The Tu-2 did not dive from the word at all (see VB Shavrova). The rest of the plane is wonderful. I also have big doubts about Er-2.
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 May 2020 17: 10 New
            +1
            Sergey, writing comments above, operated on Tupolev's memories!
            Although I found the following:
            The new car showed excellent flight performance during state tests. However, it should be noted that the unique and high flight performance of the bomber as a dive did not have the desired effect on the high military command and selection committee. In full force, the Soviet Tu-2 bomber was never used. The lack of experience in bombing from a dive by Soviet pilots affected the lack of experience. In most cases, the aircraft was used as a conventional front-line bomber, carrying out bombing from horizontal flight.

            That is, the possibility of a dive was laid in the Tu-2 project, the fact that this was not used was due to the lack of experience of Soviet pilots!
            Impressions of Shavrov, the fourth question! It’s hard to call it objective !!!
            Regards, Vlad!
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 9 May 2020 19: 10 New
              +8
              Well, Tupolev will not write differently. There is no more objectivity there than Shavrov’s. Allegedly, the plane is excellent, but the pilots could not do anything. And Shavrov about the fact that the brake grids to limit the speed of diving on the serial Tu-2 were not installed at all. In general, Tupolev was very ambitious, but offended - before the war Ilyushin went around with his TsKB-30, which later became DB-3F and IL-4. After the war, he harbored rudeness at Myasishchev, and finished off with his freak Tu-22, who had finished it for almost 20 years, changing the power plant and making variable geometry. And all under the guise of a modification. So Mozhaisky’s plane can be considered the prototype of all other machines.
              1. unknown
                unknown 10 May 2020 06: 00 New
                -4
                What kind of objectivity can Shavrov speak in general?
                You would think that all his denunciations for him were written by someone else.
                1. Aviator_
                  Aviator_ 10 May 2020 10: 49 New
                  +2
                  And Tupolev pushing his ANT-25 (weapons 1 ShKAS, speed 200 km / h) as a long-range bomber, white and fluffy? And did not write denunciations? And he didn’t push competitors with his power? No need to canonize him.
          2. Alexandra
            Alexandra 10 May 2020 19: 14 New
            +1
            In the absence of an AP-103 dive machine and with AV-5-167A propellers of the reverse circuit with the P-7 regulator, it did not dive. "... When entering a dive, the screws were unwound ..."

            "... To work out measures to eliminate the spinning of the AV-5-167A propeller, in January 44 at the Air Force Research Institute, state tests of the AV-2V-716A direct scheme propellers were carried out on the Tu-5 N 167 aircraft.
            The propellers of the direct scheme showed good results, the defect in the spinning of the propeller during a dive was eliminated and these propellers were recommended for urgent installation on Tu-2 aircraft, both at the plant and in the Air Force units ... "
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 10 May 2020 19: 49 New
              -1
              Recommended, this is great, but are they installed in the series? Indeed, even after the war (and the Tu-2 was used by the North Koreans in the Korean War), the car never dived. In the Korean War, this can be explained by the qualifications of the Koreans, and after the mid-50s the very concept of a dive bomber passed away.
              1. Alexandra
                Alexandra 10 May 2020 20: 48 New
                -1
                https://coollib.net/b/269777-s-v-ivanov-tu-2-chast-2/read
                "Up to the 20/59 aircraft of the plant No. 23 and up to the 16th aircraft of the 5th series of the plant No. 166 inclusive, the standard propeller was a three-bladed variable-pitch propeller AV-5V-167A with a diameter of 3,8 m. Later, the aircraft received four-bladed variable-pitch propellers AB-7VF-9K with a diameter of 21 m and an R-3,6SM9 speed governor. The AV-1 propeller had a mode of minimum resistance to oncoming flow. "

                But:
                1. Aviator_
                  Aviator_ 10 May 2020 22: 05 New
                  +1
                  Well, they themselves found the material that the Tu-2 release of 1945-47 could not dive.
        2. Alf
          Alf 9 May 2020 16: 14 New
          +4
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          Er-2 were full-fledged dive-bombers of the USSR during World War II

          ??
          Long-range bomber ???
          The pilots of their fighter-bomber aircraft preferred to chase locomotives and single vehicles in the near rear!

          That is, for goals that initially had weak cover for the MZA and did not have at all.
          Here it should be noted one more key of the Red Army Air Force - Aerocobra (R-39). Not in vain until the end of the war, this machine and its modernized Kingcobra model were in demand in our army !!!

          And what does the P-39 and P-63 have to do with attacks on ground targets?
      2. unknown
        unknown 10 May 2020 05: 58 New
        0
        And when, ours appeared normal MZA, you probably mean 37mm and 25 mm, MASSY?
    2. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 12 May 2020 12: 39 New
      -1
      Quote: sevtrash
      using PTAB, then, however, decreased by 3 times with the adoption of various activities by the Germans.


      The tank column on the march is almost defenseless, mobile MZA are affected by RS (indirect hit - crew contusion and fragmentation wounds).

      Begeldinov Talgat Yakubekovich memoirs:
      At the airport prepared. At the start - nineteen cars, the motors are running. I change planes to another plane that has already been fully refueled, communicate with the flight commanders by radio, and report on the readiness for the CP. I get the confirmation of the task: “Attack the tanks and destroy everyone to one!”

      Take off and lead a squadron. The enemy tank column is already dawning well.

      We make the first call, strike a column of guns, send an eres. They fly, clearly marking their smoky trail and break, breaking through the armor of cars. Some tanks explode, burn.

      The column scatters across the field, tankers lift up the gun trunks, pinkish explosions burst around the squadron in the darkness. But this is already like a dead poultice. Attacks "ILov" more precisely, more efficiently. They bombard cars with cars, destroy machine gun fire.

      Tanks rush from side to side, scatter through the bushes, “ILs” overtake them, beat, destroy, destroy.

      Having used up ammunition, the squadron flies away. In her place, another one rises into the air, and again with me, the host, above the tanks. And so to the end, until on the field, in the bushes there was not a whole tank left, they were burning, bursting with a roar, knocked out by us. Between them the fascists, crazy for fear, rushed about, falling, cut off by machine-gun bursts of attack aircraft, enemy fighters never appeared.
      Tank attack foiled.
      This is one of the enemy’s counterattacks on the Vistula against one of the Sandomierz bridgeheads.
  14. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 9 May 2020 10: 34 New
    +3
    ... IL-10, which was the product of a deep modernization of the two-seat version of the IL-2 attack aircraft. This option received not only an all-metal building, but also an improved reservation, including a fully armored air gunner’s cabin, in fact, becoming the very attack aircraft that was originally conceived by Sergey Ilyushin.

    An Il-8 (formerly Il-2M) could become such an attack aircraft. And the Il-10 is a development of the Il-1 "armored fighter" proposed by Ilyushin himself.
  15. Snail N9
    Snail N9 9 May 2020 12: 31 New
    +2
    IL-2 was released in a colossal series. What other aircraft was produced at that time in such quantities? However, the use of this aircraft was far from the best. The fact is that an attack aircraft is most effective only when it does not act on its own, but in terms of supporting its forward infantry units. For example, the Germans, who had advanced air gunners in units starting with a reinforced company, called for the support of assault aviation at the slightest difficulty. In the Soviet army, there were no advanced gunners at all until 42, and then they appeared at the brigade-regiment level. That is, in fact, for half of the war, Soviet ground attack aircraft acted in the interests of only large subunits or in the interests of armies and fronts, striking not only on the leading front in places of close contact of the opposing sides, but somewhere in the depths of the defense of German troops or in the second line, saturated MZA and larger calibers of air defense artillery, while incurring huge losses with not so much help to their troops. Only at the end of the war, with the saturation of our troops with compact American radio stations, did air gunners appear as part of assault groups and assault companies. For the Americans, from the very beginning, air gunners operated in the ranks of companies, and sometimes (for example, in Burma) even as part of platoons and smaller groups. If you read the memoirs of our soldiers and commanders, then they, paying tribute to the courage of our pilots, especially those who fought in attack aircraft, almost all complain about the insufficient support of the units where they fought by Soviet aviation, including ground attack. In part, this situation is explained by the insufficient accuracy of shooting and bombing the IL-2, and the impossibility of dive bombing, which did not allow the use of these aircraft in places of close contact between the opposing sides. That is why such "outdated" aircraft, but capable of accurately bombing-dive-bombers, "Stuka" and "Dountless", turned out to be more effective for supporting their troops on the battlefield than the armored Il-2.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 May 2020 15: 11 New
      +3
      It is also necessary to note the low payload of the IL-2!
      So Sergey is right in writing that Ilyushin messed up with the attack aircraft. The rest that they had with it and fought, the main thing was to win!
      1. unknown
        unknown 10 May 2020 06: 04 New
        +1
        These are the troubles of all Soviet front-line aircraft.
        The same Pe-2 had a normal bomb load of 600 kg, and only in overload, up to 1000 kg.
        And the Yu-88 in the overload carried up to 3000 kg.
        As the saying goes, feel the difference.
        1. Alf
          Alf 10 May 2020 10: 03 New
          +7
          Quote: ignoto
          As the saying goes, feel the difference.

          PE-2 dragged two engines of 1250 horses.
          S-88-2 to 1700. That is the difference, and not that poorly built. The lack of powerful aircraft engines is the trouble.
          By the way, the TU-2 dragged the same 3 tons into overload. But there on wings hung 2x1850.
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 9 May 2020 15: 57 New
      +3
      Quote: Snail N9
      Stukas and Dauntlesss proved to be more effective in supporting their troops on the battlefield than the armored Il-2.

      You are right, but only partly.

      The thing is good, but when Soviet aviation began to give life signs, it quickly became clear that it was a plane of clear sky. So the main German attack aircraft in the middle of the war and beyond is the Fock assault version. It is necessary to compare the IL-2 with him, and the comparison, to my taste, is not in his favor.

      Downtless yes, good, but only the ILC could appreciate it. The Army Air Force hated both dive bombers and the very idea of ​​direct support. Not from just one valiant prowess, the Allies at Saint-Lo sent 5, perhaps, thousands of strategists to punch a road in the German field defense (which ended, among other things, with the death of their own commander-in-chief of the ground forces under these bombs). They simply did not really understand why they needed aviation, except to bomb residential areas. After the scandals with Eisenhower, he was given the obsolete P-47 escort fighters replaced by the mustangs with the words "on, choke". Which turned out to be very useful, including in the role dive - an overly durable glider for the fighter allowed diving angles, like the Pe-2, it also provided excellent resistance to damage, and the ability to fly if necessary quickly and highly improved survival. However, Cartvelli would be very surprised to find out what the dive attack aircraft is doing.
      1. Alf
        Alf 9 May 2020 16: 19 New
        +4
        Quote: Octopus
        the allies near Saint-Lo sent 5, or, thousand strategists

        And in the 8th and 9th US air armies in Europe there were so many strategists?
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 9 May 2020 16: 23 New
          0
          There were 4 waves. 1. twin engines, 2. English strategists, about 2K, 3. Americans, about 3K, 4. Thunderbolts to directly support the offensive. Maybe something counted 2 times, but the order of numbers is the same.
          1. Alf
            Alf 9 May 2020 16: 32 New
            +2
            Quote: Octopus
            Maybe something counted 2 times, but the order of numbers is the same.

            Maybe the number of sorties meant?
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 9 May 2020 16: 38 New
              +1
              And what does the Boeing have to do with it? The main American aircraft was the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. Boeing created an exaggerated view of himself after the war, because he was alive, and Consolidated disappeared already in the 43rd (Convair, then General Dynamics) (by the end of the war the main producer was not Consolidated, but one there was a non-core company. Ford Motor Company).
              1. Alf
                Alf 9 May 2020 17: 11 New
                +2
                Quote: Octopus
                And what does the Boeing have to do with it?


                So I think, where did five thousand strategists come from? Even with the British so much does not work out. Apparently, they still considered the number of sorties.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 9 May 2020 17: 40 New
                  -1
                  It's not about April 43rd, it seems.
                  After the one-day postponement, Cobra got underway at 09:38 on 25 July, when around 600 Allied fighter-bombers attacked strongpoints and enemy artillery along a 270 m (300 yd) -wide strip of ground located in the St. Lô area. For the next hour, 1,800 heavy bombers of the US Eighth Air Force saturated a 6,000 yd × 2,200 yd (3.4 mi × 1.3 mi; 5.5 km × 2.0 km) area on the Saint-Lô – Periers road, succeeded by a third and final wave of medium bombers. Approximately 3,000 US aircraft had carpet-bombed a narrow section of the front, with the Panzer-Lehr-Division taking the brunt of the attack

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cobra
                2. Octopus
                  Octopus 9 May 2020 22: 02 New
                  -1
                  )))
                  You are right, was inattentive. We cut back to three thousand, of which less than two thousand strategists.
      2. Snail N9
        Snail N9 9 May 2020 16: 32 New
        -2
        In a dive, it is important not only, the "dive" itself, for accurate bombing, but also dropping a bomb at a certain altitude and immediately slowing down the dive speed and launching the aircraft on "automatic" otherwise it will stick into the ground. Therefore, dive bombers who actually drove 227-454 kg of bombs into a circle of 10-15 m should have aerodynamic brakes and an automatic dive-recovery. R-47-suragat, which theoretically could dive and dive, but dropped bombs from a sufficiently high altitude and did not have a special sight for dive bombing, and therefore the accuracy of its bombing was so-so. Basically they used NURS. The most consistent with the concept of a dive-bomber attack aircraft was the A-36 Apache / Inveinder ....
        http://pro-samolet.ru/samolet-usa/62-bombardir-schturmovik/582-attack-aircraft-a-36-apache
        http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/a36.html
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 9 May 2020 16: 56 New
          0
          Quote: Snail N9
          R-47-suragate, who theoretically could dive, and dive, but dropped bombs from a sufficiently high height and did not have a special sight for diving from diving, and therefore the accuracy of its bombing was so-so

          You are absolutely right. Therefore, as you may have noticed, I without approval perceive the situation when the main aircraft building power of the world does not have a specially designed RPE aircraft.
          Quote: Snail N9
          The most well-informed concept of a dive-attack aircraft was the A-36 Apache \ Invader ....

          As you yourself have noticed, just the possibility of diving for a dive is not enough. A-36 - junk. The Air Force joyfully buried him.
          The solution closest to the attack aircraft was the Douglas A-26 Invader. But the Americans twisted and turned this decision and said, well, nafig it, better without it. As a result, in Korea, the naval NPPs were provided with a Skyrider, a very sensible aircraft, and assault versions of the Corsair, and the Air Force - mainly Mustangs, which were not about the NPP at all, and even in the conditions of the 50s.
          1. Snail N9
            Snail N9 9 May 2020 17: 04 New
            -1
            Well, my favorite attack aircraft are: A-4 Skyhawk (various modifications), A-6A Intruder and A-7E Corsair 2. And of course the famous A-1 Skyrader. But this is already somewhat from another "opera". Actually, it seems to me that the Americans have always had naval aircraft better than land ones (well, perhaps, with the exception of the latest versions of the Mustang) ...
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 9 May 2020 17: 35 New
              +1
              Quote: Snail N9
              A-4 Skyhawk (various modifications), A-6A Intruder and A-7E Corsair 2. Well, of course, the famous A-1 Skyrader

              )))
              All naval, if anyone did not understand.
              Quote: Snail N9
              well, except that with the exception of the latest versions of the "Mustang"

              I don’t know what you mean by the latest versions. If H, then this is a rather strange plane. The idea to squeeze the last snot out of Merlin with methanol boost clearly characterizes the American failure in engine building, which is not particularly paid attention to, thanks to the double nines, primitive but powerful enough.
              By the way. The British on Hornet achieved on Merlin 130/131 almost the same power as the Packard V-1650-9, but without dope methanol, pure dumplings supercharged.
        2. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 12 May 2020 12: 53 New
          0
          Quote: Snail N9
          Therefore, dive bombers who actually drove 227-454 kg of bombs in a circle of 10-15 m should have aerodynamic brakes and automatic dive out.


          Came across in the sources "American Navy in the Second World War" the description, as at the request of the Marine Corps, naval pilots successfully drove bombs into the entrances of the caves occupied by the Japanese. Compared to land-based pilots, carrier-based aviation pilots are much better trained.
          Now I do not remember the type of dive, most likely someone from the deck standing in service in 1944
          1. Alf
            Alf 12 May 2020 19: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            Now I do not remember the type of dive, most likely someone from the deck standing in service in 1944

            Most likely, this is Dontless. Helldiver dived like firewood, Corsair had no sight, Avenger did not dive.
      3. Alexandra
        Alexandra 10 May 2020 19: 25 New
        -1
        Then they switched places. The future magnificent P-51D escort fighter began, including as the A-36 Apache, a dive attack bomber:

        At the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943, about 500 exemplars were fired, of which about 1/3 were lost in hostilities.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 10 May 2020 20: 15 New
          0
          Quote: AlexanderA
          Then they switched places. The future magnificent P-51D escort fighter began, including as the A-36 Apache, a dive attack bomber:

          This is the Americans. When the British ordered a new plane, it was just about a fighter. But it turned out to be an unknown animal, as usual with the Americans, and not a fighter, too heavy, and not really a drummer. The British were surprised from this until the 45th year. Why not convert the Mustang into a fighter? - they asked - it flies normally.
  16. IL-64
    IL-64 9 May 2020 12: 34 New
    -1
    In the next topic is a photo of the IL-2 group above the target. If this is a "gentle dive", and which the author writes, then I am a prima BDT https://topwar.ru/170953-legendy-i-mify-velikoj-vojny-chelovecheskij-faktor-vvs-rkka-i-ljuftvaffe.html
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 9 May 2020 16: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: IL-64
      If this is a "gentle dive", and which the author writes,

      It.
      Quote: IL-64
      I prima bdt

      Good girl. You no longer need to determine the angle of the dive on the eye from a photograph from the air.
      1. IL-64
        IL-64 13 May 2020 10: 15 New
        +1
        Clowns have not yet been invited to the arena. Wait for your release.
        Is it difficult to bring the horizon line in the photo to the horizontal? understand
  17. BAI
    BAI 9 May 2020 13: 04 New
    -1
    Against the background of losses in the flight personnel of attack aircraft, it’s even a little disappointing that an image of a hero pilot, primarily a fighter pilot with his list of air victories, has formed in the mass consciousness. At the same time, attack pilots and bomber pilots were undeservedly relegated to the background.

    At the expense of attack aircraft, the author is right. In the initial period, for 100 combat sorties on the Il-2 they gave a Hero. But since there is no mass award, it can be argued that 100 missions were able to complete units. And at the expense of the bombers - long-range aviation: 1 sortie in 2 weeks on a plane. Here, of course, there is something to discuss. Frontline bombers acted more actively.
    In general, the scouts had the hardest time.
    1. Alf
      Alf 9 May 2020 16: 20 New
      0
      Quote: BAI
      In the initial period, for 100 combat sorties on the Il-2 they gave a Hero.

      Trim sturgeon to zero.
    2. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 9 May 2020 16: 33 New
      0
      Not for 100 but for 10, feel the difference.
    3. BAI
      BAI 9 May 2020 17: 33 New
      +2
      Turn on the brains and do not reckon nonsense. For 10 flights. But I, too, was mistaken. For 30 successful departures.
      And how many of them were from real ones? Do not confuse with DBA.
      Secretly
      ORDER of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR No. 0299 ​​of August 19, 1941. Moscow
      On the procedure for awarding the Red Army Air Force flight personnel for good combat work and on measures to combat hidden desertion among military pilots

      To encourage the combat work of the air forces of the Red Army, distinguished themselves in the performance of combat missions of command on the front of the fight against German fascism

      I ORDER:

      Introduce a procedure for rewarding pilots for good combat work, and to represent commanders and commissars of air divisions for the award in accordance with the order:
      I. A. In fighter aircraft.
      1. Set a monetary reward to fighter pilots for each downed enemy aircraft in aerial combat in the amount of 1000 rubles. 2. In addition to the cash award, the fighter pilot is presented: for 3 enemy aircraft shot down - to the government award, for the next 3 enemy aircraft shot down - to the second government award, for 10 enemy aircraft shot down - to the highest award - the Hero of the Soviet Union. 3. For successful assault operations on enemy troops, pilots are awarded and presented with a government award: for performing 5 combat missions to destroy enemy troops, a fighter pilot receives a cash award of 1500 rubles, and for performing 15 combat missions, a fighter pilot is presented with a government award and receives a monetary a reward of 2000 rubles, for performing 25 sorties, a fighter pilot is presented for the second government award and receives a cash reward of 3000 rubles, for performing 40 battles x sorties a fighter pilot is presented to the highest government award - the title of Hero of the Soviet Union and receives a cash award of 5000 rubles. In all cases, the results and effectiveness of the assault must be confirmed by ground commanders or reconnaissance. 4. For the destruction of enemy aircraft at airfields, fighter pilots are awarded and presented to the government award: for the successful completion of 4 combat missions for the destruction of enemy aircraft at its airfields, the fighter pilot receives a monetary award of 1500 rubles, for the successful completion of 10 combat missions in the afternoon or 5 sorties At night, the fighter pilot is presented to the government award and receives a cash award of 2000 rubles for the successful completion of 20 combat sorties during the day or 10 sorties at night. He is awarded the second government award and receives a cash award of 3000 rubles; for the successful completion of 35 combat missions during the day or 20 sorties at night, a fighter pilot presents himself to the highest government award - the title of Hero of the Soviet Union and receives a monetary award of 5000 rubles. The results of hostilities at enemy airfields should be confirmed by photographing or intelligence. Pilots who use an enemy aircraft ram in an air battle are also presented with a government award. The number of enemy aircraft shot down is determined in each individual case by the testimony of a fighter pilot at the place where the enemy aircraft shot down and confirmations of the ground units commanders or by establishing the ground on the ground where the enemy aircraft was shot down by regiment command.

      B. In the near - bomber and attack aircraft.
      . For the successful completion of 10 combat missions during the day or 5 combat missions at night to destroy and destroy enemy targets, each member of the crew is presented with a government award and receives a cash award of 1000 rubles, for the successful completion of 20 combat missions during the day or 10 combat missions at night, each member of the squad the crew is presented to the government award and receives a cash award of 2000 rubles, for the successful completion of 30 combat missions during the day or 20 combat missions at night, each person in the crew is presented with the highest government award - the title of Hero of the Soviet Union and receives a cash reward of 3000 rubles each. In all cases, the quality of the performance of combat missions and their effectiveness must necessarily be confirmed by photographs at the time of the bombing or after 3-4 hours and intelligence data. 2. Regardless of the number of combat missions completed, a pilot, navigator or radio operator who personally shot down: 1 enemy aircraft - receives a cash award of 1000 rubles, 2 enemy aircraft - is presented to the government award and receives a monetary award of 1500 rubles, 5 enemy aircraft - are presented to the second government award and receives 2000 rubles, 8 enemy aircraft - is presented to the title of Hero of the Soviet Union and receives a cash award of 5000 rubles.

      B. In long-range bombing and heavy-bombing aircraft.
      1. For bombardment of enemy targets of industrial and defense significance, the crews of airborne and airborne aviation crews are to be awarded: for each successful bombardment, crew members receive a cash award of 500 rubles each, for 5 successful bombardments, except for the cash award, crew members are presented to the government award, for 8 successful bombing, in addition to the cash award, the crew members are presented to the second government award, for 12 successful bombing, except for tender awards, crew members are presented for the highest government award - the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. 2. For successful operations in the enemy’s near rear, airborne and airborne safety crews receive cash awards and are presented to government awards in the same manner as short-range bombardment crews. 3. During actions in the political center (capital) of the enemy: for each successful bombardment, each crew member receives a cash award of 2000 rubles, for 3 successful bombardments each crew member is presented with a government award, for 5 successful bombardments each person from the crew is presented for the second government award, for 10 successful bombings, each person in the crew is presented with the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union.

      1. BAI
        BAI 9 May 2020 17: 34 New
        +2
        Continuation of the order
        G. In the near and far reconnaissance aircraft.
        1. For the successful completion of enemy reconnaissance missions: for the successful completion of 10 combat missions during the day or 5 combat missions at night, each member of the crew is presented with a government award and receives a cash award of 1000 rubles, for the successful completion of 20 combat missions during the day or 10 combat missions at night each crew member is presented for the second government award and receives 2000 rubles, for 40 combat missions during the day or 15 combat missions at night, each crew member is presented with the rank of Hero of the Soviet oyuza and gets 3000 rubles. In all cases, reconnaissance data must be confirmed by photographs or testimonies of other crews flying out to destroy enemy targets or to clarify intelligence data of previous crews.

        II. The order of awarding the air forces of the Red Army and their commanders. The presentation of the best aviation regiments and individual squadrons for awarding the orders of the USSR is made by the commander of the air forces of the fronts based on the results of combat work with the least loss of people and equipment. Commanders and commissars of air regiments and squadrons are presented to government awards:
        A. In fighter aircraft. The commander and commissar of the squadron, which destroyed at least 15 enemy aircraft in air battles and lost no more than 3 of their aircraft, are presented to the Order of Lenin. The commander and commissar of the regiment, which destroyed at least 30 enemy planes in air battles and lost no more than 5 of their planes, are presented to the Order of Lenin.
        B. In short-range bombing and attack aircraft. The commander and commissar of the squadron that completed at least 100 successful sorties with the loss of no more than 3 of its aircraft are presented with a government award. The commander and commissar of a regiment that has completed at least 250 combat sorties with the loss of no more than 6 of its aircraft are presented to the Order of Lenin.
        B. In long-range bombing and heavy-bombing aircraft. The commander and commissar of the squadron, which performed at least 50 successful sorties to bombard enemy targets with the loss of no more than 2 of its aircraft, are presented to the Order of Lenin. The commander and commissar of a regiment that has completed at least 150 sorties while losing no more than 5 of its planes are presented to the Order of Lenin.
        G. In reconnaissance aircraft. The commander and commissar of the squadron, which performed at least 100 reconnaissance flights in near-reconnaissance and at least 50 long-range reconnaissance flights with the loss of no more than 3 of its aircraft, are presented to the Order of Lenin.

        III. Encouragement for the maintenance of materiel and trouble-free. The flight and technical personnel, regardless of the nature of the work performed, are subject to a cash reward for saving materiel and flights without breakdowns and accidents: pilots, regardless of seniority and command category, for every 100 flights, except for flights in a circle, without any flying accidents, receive a reward of 5000 rubles, loss of orientation by the pilot during the flight excludes the possibility of receiving a monetary reward, the technical staff serving the planes receives a monetary reward of 3000 rubles, provided that for the operation of the materiel and in the absence of missed flights for every 100 departures, the senior engineering staff receives 25% of the cash award of the total bonus of the technical staff of the unit, for quick and high-quality reconditioning aircraft repairs, the PARM personnel will be awarded with a cash award of 500 rubles for each restored airplane , for the restoration of more than 50 aircraft, in addition to a monetary reward, the personnel of the PARMs are represented by the division command to the government award.

        IV. Measures to combat hidden desertion among individual pilots. To the commanders and commissars of air divisions, all cases of emergency landing with the landing gear retracted and other flight accidents incapacitating the materiel of aircraft out of order should be thoroughly investigated. The culprits who made landings with the landing gear retracted or committed other actions that incapacitate the materiel, for no good reason, should be considered as deserters and brought to trial by a military tribunal. The order to enter into force on August 20 this year, to transmit to the Air Force by telegraph and read to all personnel.

        People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR I. Stalin

        It should be noted that attack aircraft did not fly at night.
  18. aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 13: 17 New
    +2
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    radio operator

    the shooter the radio operator was in the T34 tank, on il2 there was just a shooter
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 9 May 2020 16: 34 New
      0
      Sorry, got excited, wrong.
  19. aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 13: 18 New
    0
    Quote: gorenina91
    where is the name ...- "dive" ..

    and where does il2?
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 May 2020 15: 13 New
      -1
      Quote: aglet
      Quote: gorenina91
      where is the name ...- "dive" ..

      and where does il2?

      Formally, yes!
      Really only - Tu-2!
  20. aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 13: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: gorenina91
    and generally perform the functions of an attack aircraft, if he has an angle of attack for delivering a targeted diving strike not exceeding 30 °

    the attack aircraft, basically, does not deliver a dive bomb, but shells the enemy with cannons, machine guns and RS. well, bombs, horizontally
  21. aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 13: 24 New
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    But I couldn’t put it anymore, the problem is in a weak engine

    all the problems of our aircraft in the war were due to the lack of adequate engines. or a powerful engine, or lightweight. fighters, attack aircraft, and even bombers. the only more or less engine m 82
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 9 May 2020 16: 05 New
      0
      Quote: aglet
      the only more or less engine m 82

      Do not understand. in what parallel reality was the ASh-82 the only Soviet more or less engine? What more or less engines of 1940, for example, of the year, you name?
      1. Alf
        Alf 9 May 2020 18: 52 New
        +2
        Quote: Octopus
        Do not understand. in what parallel reality was the ASh-82 the only Soviet more or less engine? What more or less engines of 1940, for example, of the year, you name?

        And what Soviet engine besides M-82 gave more than 1800 mares? Only the AM-38 approached, the rest remained without crossing 1300 horses.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 9 May 2020 19: 24 New
          +1
          Why do you need 1800 mares in the 40th year?

          I will name you fighters of the end of the 40th year:

          1. Mig-1, 1350 hp
          2. I-16 type 29, 1100 hp
          3. Yak-1, 1100 hp
          4. Supermarine Spitfire Mark II, 1175 HP with cheating American stoctan.
          5. Bf 109 F-2, 1159 HP
          6. P-40 Tomahawk, 1080 h.p.
          7. A6M1 (3) Reisen, 950 HP

          So what's wrong with the engines?
          1. Alf
            Alf 9 May 2020 20: 08 New
            +2
            Quote: Octopus
            Why do you need 1800 mares in the 40th year?

            And in order to fly the fastest and jump to a height instantly, and load bombs not "as much as it will turn out", but "as needed." Why did the Corsair need a Pratt-Whitney in 1940 with 2000 horses?
            Or do you think that if Willy Messerschmitt were given dvigun in the 40th in 2000, he would not have added it to his messer?
            And why, then, on Spit the first stood Merlin in 1030 horses, and on the Five in 1941 already 1440?
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 9 May 2020 20: 14 New
              +1
              The corsair, as I recall, appeared in the ILC in the 43rd.

              The USSR at the beginning of the Second World War was in a strange situation. Suddenly it turned out that his engines of the 40th year, which on paper corresponded to the best competitors - half-dead scrap metal, work every other time, and promising engines like the M-91, our answer to Pratt and Whitney is generally fantasy. So I had to spin.

              Nonetheless. If you look at the numbers (and do not look, let's say how these numbers were issued), then just in the terrible 41-42th - the numbers are at the level. Lagging behind the end of the war when, it would seem, Soviet aviation came to life.
              1. Alf
                Alf 9 May 2020 20: 19 New
                +1
                Quote: Octopus
                The corsair, as I recall, appeared in the ILC in the 43rd.

                An agreement was signed with the company for the construction of a prototype of a new aircraft in June 1938.

                Most of the technical solutions in the design of the Corsair are dictated by the requirements of the military for the high-speed characteristics of the aircraft. To provide him with high horizontal flight speed, the car was equipped with a 2000-horsepower radial air-cooled engine and .... On May 29, 1940, the pilot Laimen Builliard made a test flight.

                Stupid, probably, were the customers in the face of the fleet and ILC, once again in the 38th they demanded such a motor on an airplane.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 9 May 2020 20: 39 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Alf
                  once again in the 38th they demanded such a motor on an airplane.

                  )))
                  The US Navy fought in the 30s, with the result that the F40A Buffalo, the miracle of American car building, turned out to be the main naval fighter of the early 2s, which eventually improved to complete flightlessness. But in the 38th year, Congress suddenly discovered that something incomprehensible was happening (Munich, the second year there was a war in China), and began to pour money on the defense without an account. As a result, the navy naturally went crazy with happiness and began, like a poor child, to gobble up sweets. All the cars of the 38th year's competition - F4U Corsair, Bell XFL-1 Airabonita and Grumman XF5F-1 Skyrocket - were some kind of sleep of reason, none of them turned out. None, I repeat, including F4U. The sailors of the 38th year would be very surprised if they were told that the new deck that Chance Worth promises them will receive in 1945 year, and his main war (as a deck) will be the war in North Koreans 1950-53. I think it would not be without a fight. Especially after the words that their deck in the great war will hardly be used by the fleet, but will become the main coastal vehicle of the ILC.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 11 May 2020 14: 16 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Alf
                  Stupid, probably, were the customers in the face of the fleet and ILC, once again in the 38th they demanded such a motor on an airplane.

                  There was no 2000-strong engine on the experienced Corsairs.
                  The Chance Woot XF4U-1 was a single-seat monoplane fighter equipped with a 18-horsepower Pratt-Whitney XR-2800-2 “Huosp” twin-row star-shaped air-cooled engine.

                  R-2800-8 appeared only after the transition to mass production - under the contract of 30.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX
                  Pratt-Whitney continued to improve its R-2800 series motors, and the F4U-1 Corsair received one of the latest modifications - the R-2800-8 with a capacity of 2000 hp. This allowed the fighter to develop maximum speed and. 684 km / h.

                  The first production F4U-1 with this engine took off on June 24.06.1942, XNUMX.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 11 May 2020 22: 37 New
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    There was no 2000-strong engine on the experienced Corsairs.
                    The Chance Woot XF4U-1 was a single-seat monoplane fighter equipped with a 18-horsepower Pratt-Whitney XR-2800-2 “Huosp” twin-row star-shaped air-cooled engine.

                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 12 May 2020 13: 57 New
                      +1
                      Everything would be fine, but there is one hitch: if you open the book "Grumman F4F Wilcat - Grumman F6F Hellcat - F4U Corsair " authorship of Mantelli - Brown - Kittel - Graf, it says on page 80 in black and white that the prototype XF4U was
                      P & W engine XR-2800-2 1,800 hp

                      This book is on Google Books - it appears first in Google search for the query "XR-2800-2".
                      However, other books indicate that the power of the experimental XR-2800-2 was 1800 hp.
            2. Alexandra
              Alexandra 10 May 2020 19: 41 New
              -1
              As you probably know, the M-82 engine was developed initiatively and by 1941, the M-82 was, there were no aircraft under it. But the M-71 was not launched into the series, because neither the I-185 fighter nor the Su-6 and Su-8 attack aircraft were launched into the series.

              The I-185 with the M-71 in 1942 was apparently the best fighter in the world in its performance characteristics (I-185 with the M-71 engine, the so-called “model for the series” or “standard”, with improved aerodynamics, at the factory The tests, which ended on October 12, 1942, reached a maximum speed of 577 km / h with afterburner on the ground and 667 km / h at an altitude of 6100 m), and by the way was armed with three ShVAK cannons and could carry 500 kg of bombs.

              "According to the official version, the I-185 variant with the M-71 engine (like the Su-6 attack aircraft of P.O. Sukhoi) was not mass-produced due to the lack of serial production of the M-71 engine and the alleged lack of a plant for the production of I-185. However, at the same time, the non-launch of the M-71 into mass production was explained by its uselessness due to the lack of aircraft for it. "

              Look for the names of those who prevented the launch of the M-71 engine in mass production (and accordingly prevented the launch of the I-185 and Su-6 aircraft in mass production).
              1. Alf
                Alf 10 May 2020 21: 20 New
                +3
                Quote: AlexanderA
                Look for the names of those who prevented the launch of the M-71 motor in mass production

                Give the names of these pests.
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra 10 May 2020 21: 53 New
                  -2
                  http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/33/page22.html
                  “This turned out to be in the hands of those forces in the People's Commissariat of the aircraft industry, which were hostile to NN Polikarpov and in every possible way put a spoke in his wheels.” Soon all work on the I-185 was stopped (meanwhile, in the act state tests, this machine was rated as "the best known domestic and foreign fighters.") The decision of the People's Commissariat dealt a serious blow to the M-71 motor program, but Shvetsov still had hope for a more powerful, albeit less high-altitude version of the M-71F, which was intended for attack aircraft Su-6 and Su-8. However, a very good attack aircraft Su-6, which had serious advantages over the well-known Il-2, also did not become serial, despite the fact that its designer P.O. Sukhoi received the Stalin Prize for creating the machine. The reluctance to begin a serious restructuring of production, fraught with a reduction in the production of aircraft and engines, played its role. In addition, the attitude towards P.O.Sukhoi among the country's leadership in those years was about negative (they say that I.V. Stalin was seriously angry with him because of Pavel Osipovich's refusal to head OKB-22 after the death of designer V.M. Petlyakova in a plane crash). "

                  "A typical episode of the subjective assessment of NN Polikarpov's activities can be an excerpt from the memoirs of AS Yakovlev, concerning directly the I-185 fighter. Yakovlev himself describes the dialogue with Stalin: “On the evening of February 185, 16 <...> Stalin read aloud a letter from designer NN Polikarpov, in which he reported on a new high-speed fighter that was undergoing factory tests and showed great speed. know about this car? " "Nice car. The speed is really great." Stalin immediately: "You give up your corporate morality. You do not want to offend the designer, speak well. How impartial?" Shakhurin and I tried to objectively assess the aircraft and give it the most comprehensive description <...> Stalin was interested in the flight range. We named the range figure. Stalin: "Was it checked in flight?" I answer: "No. The range has not been checked in flight. These are the calculated data." Stalin: "I do not believe the words. First, check the range in flight, and then we will decide what to do with this machine." And put Polikarpov's letter aside. " And this despite the fact that at that time the I-1943 had passed all the tests and was almost ready for mass production. "

                  1. Alf
                    Alf 10 May 2020 22: 11 New
                    +3
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    The unwillingness to begin a serious restructuring of production, fraught with a reduction in the production of aircraft and engines, played its part during the war years.

                    It is most important.
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    The decision of the People’s Commissar also dealt a serious blow to the M-71 engine program, but Shvetsov still had hope for a more powerful, albeit less high-altitude version of the M-71F, which was intended for the Su-6 and Su-8 attack aircraft.

                    Pay attention to the second paragraph in my picture.

                    It doesn’t matter what a beautiful airplane it is. If his engine runs through ... his mother only 12-15 hours, then there can be no talk of any aircraft. And Yakovlev’s assessments, true or blasphemous, have nothing to do with it.
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    “I do not believe the words. First check the flight range in flight, and then we will decide what to do with this machine ”

                    Is the IVS wrong?
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    And this despite the fact that the I-185 at that time passed all the tests and was almost ready for mass production. "

                    The plane was ready, but was there any iron for it? The wing was completely all-metal.
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    its constructor P.O. Sukhoi received the Stalin Prize for creating the car.

                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    say I.V. Stalin was seriously angry with him because of the refusal of Pavel Osipovich to head OKB-22

                    Do not you think that these are somewhat conflicting opinions?
                    And in his memoirs, Yakovlev was caught so many times by the hand that he did not have much faith.
                    Now, regarding the quote from Sukhovites about If.
                    Already in 1941, Polikarpov put an all-metal wing on his fighter. Metal on the wings of Yakovlev and Lavochkin was given only in 1943. Yes, and the M-71 and M-90 engines did not reach the series, and with the ASh-82FN motor, the I-185 data was not much better than that of Lavochkin. They gave iron to Semen Alekseevich in the 46th and turned out to be his 185th version in the form of LA-9.
                    1. Alexandra
                      Alexandra 10 May 2020 23: 51 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Alf
                      It is most important.


                      When the MiG-3, Su-2, Tu-2 were removed from production, "there was a desire to start a serious restructuring of production." It is noteworthy that this serious restructuring was carried out in favor of the deployment of additional production of Yakovlev and Ilyushin aircraft, and not vice versa.

                      http://www.famhist.ru/famhist/kerber/0000e956.htm
                      "AS Yakovlev and SV Ilyushin were not arrested. Both were party members. In addition, Yakovlev was Stalin's referent, and Ilyushin got out of the bottom, which, of course, contributed to his untouchability. To his teacher and patron in the VVA Yakovlev, naturally, favored. It was said that it was he, against the will of the military, who promoted the legendary "Black Death", the Il-2 attack aircraft. Both were talented engineers who gave the country such magnificent weapons as the Yak-1, Yak-3 and Il-2 The Il-4 bomber, which Yakovlev praised in his book, was called by the front-line pilots a "grave" ... "

                      Pay attention to the second paragraph in my picture.


                      Tell me why, in your opinion, on May 13, 1941, the order of the NKAP No. 438 "On the release of M-82 engines at plant No. 19" was published:

                      "To establish a program for the production of M-82 engines in 1941 in the amount of 1510 pieces ... Chief designers Comrades Mikoyan, Yakovlev, Sukhoi and Polikarpov ensure the installation of M-82 engines on airplanes and begin flight tests:

                      a) on a Mig-3 aircraft - July 1, 1941; b) on an experimental twin-engine fighter designed by Mikoyan and Gurevich - September 25, 1941
                      c) on the plane Yak-3 - July 15, 1941
                      d) on a Su-2 airplane on July 1, 1941
                      e) on the experimental fighter design Polikarpova (I-185} - June 15, 1941
                      OTB NKVD ensure the installation of M-82 engines and begin flight tests on the plane "103" on July 25, 1941) "

                      But didn’t the order for the release of M-71 engines come out?

                      Is the IVS wrong?


                      Isn't it too late in 1943 to talk about the range of an aircraft that confirmed all its flight characteristics and was poisoned for military trials to the front in 1942? You understand that Yakovlev "forgot something" in his memoirs?

                      The plane was ready, but was there any iron for it? The wing was completely all-metal.


                      All-metal, like the Il-1 fighter, which ... the Air Force did not order.

                      Already in 1941, Polikarpov put an all-metal wing on his fighter. Metal on the wings of Yakovlev and Lavochkin was given only in 1943.


                      Lavochkin is "delta-wood", and Yakovlev - "I-30-1 was a low-wing aircraft with retractable landing gear. The airframe was all-metal. The first flight was April 12, 1941."

                      Yes, and the M-71 and M-90 engines did not reach the series


                      You also write that the AM-37 motor did not reach the series. Before the series in 1941-1945. only those motors that were required by Yakovlev and Ilyushin were "held out". Well, and also created semi-underground M-82 with its subsequent modifications.
                      1. Alf
                        Alf 11 May 2020 22: 24 New
                        +2
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        When they discontinued the MiG-3,

                        They removed it because the AM-38 was more needed on the attack aircraft, and the MIG-3 was more difficult to pilot, at low altitudes it was inferior to the Yak and, more importantly, to the 109th.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        The Il-4 bomber, which Yakovlev praised in his book, was called by the front-line pilots a "grave" ... "

                        So "especially gifted" and Ishak called bad and strict.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        You understand that Yakovlev "forgot something" in his memoirs?

                        I did not say that Yakovlev “forgot something,” I said that Yakovlev was openly lying in his books.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Lavochkin is "delta-wood",

                        On the side members.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        and Yakovlev - "I-30-1 was a low-wing aircraft with retractable landing gear. The airframe was all-metal. The first flight was on April 12, 1941"

                        So what ? Then it suddenly became clear that there was no duralumin.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Before the series in 1941-1945. only those motors that were required by Yakovlev and Ilyushin were "held out".

                        And what are you talking about? The 105th engine was the only one that worked normally before the war, and even then, only because it came out of the M-100, nee Hispano-Suiza, which was sold to us before the war by the French, and together with equipment, technology and drawings, which is called "turnkey".
                        Now for AM-37.
                        In May 1940, the AM-37 engine passed a fifty-hour joint test. The terms of state tests were set twice on the motor (August 1, 1940 and February 1, 1941), but due to the presence of the same defects that were discovered on the AM-38 motor, the state test engine did not pass the specified time.

                        Motor AM-37 Motor No. 1080 was delivered for a one-hour factory test. The motor passed a dive and 10 hours of operation. Defects during the test: during running-in, the support of the supercharger and two cases of leakage of water-air radiators were destroyed. The indicated defects have been eliminated, the motor test continues. The assembly contains three motors designed for factory and state testing. The deadline for submission for state tests is scheduled for September 25-30 (according to the plan - September 1, 1940).

                        Motors for plants No. 39 and No. 156 are assembled and prepared for control tests. The delay is due to radiators. Plant No. 34 does not provide timely delivery of reliable water-air radiators.
                        - from report No. 628c signed by the deputy. beg. NKAP V.P. Kuznetsova of September 19, 1940
                        On October 5, Colonel Ilyukhin, a freak of the head of the Air Force control group, stated in his "certificate of progress on the implementation of the decisions of the KO" that "the motor was not handed over for state testing." By the end of 1940, 10 prototypes were manufactured, bench tests of which began on January 5, 1941. In April, the motors passed the 100-hour state tests and were approved for production. AM-37 was unsuccessfully nominated for a prize to them. Chkalov. The engine was installed and planned for installation on many promising aircraft, but it turned out to be unreliable and prone to overheating. In 1941, Moscow Plant No. 24 produced only 29 engines, and in October production was interrupted by the German offensive and the evacuation of the plant. Mikulin could not correct the shortcomings of the AM-37, and production did not resume.
                      2. Alexandra
                        Alexandra 12 May 2020 08: 29 New
                        -3
                        Quote: Alf
                        They removed it because the AM-38 was more needed on the attack aircraft, and the MIG-3 was more difficult to pilot, at low altitudes it was inferior to the Yak and, more importantly, to the 109th.


                        http://wunderwafe.ru/WeaponBook/Avia/Mig3/24.htm
                        "The fine-tuning of the AM-37 engine at the early stage of its creation was quite successful. By the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated October 30, 1940, plant No. 24 was obliged to complete 100-hour state tests of the AM-37 engine by February 1, 1941. And here the first signals appeared, indicating trouble. Long-term factory tests of the motor showed that some parts did not provide reliable operation during the life. Typical defects of AM-37 were:

                        - burnout of the exhaust valves of the motor, which reliably worked no more than 70 hours;

                        - cracking of block heads on some engines;

                        - crankcase cracks that occurred three times during long-term engine tests (in one case after 90 hours of operation, in the second case after 116 and in the third after 197 hours) [2].

                        Let us note that in addition to the I-200 fighter jet, a dozen military aircraft of the most varied purposes were built for the AM-37. Using the cannon version of the AM-37P engine, Polikarpov proposed a project for a very interesting heavy cannon fighter (ITP) to combat bombers and armored ground targets. MI Gudkov began developing a fighter of the "Airacobra" (Gu-1) type, for which a variant of the AM-37 engine with an extended shaft and an external gearbox was needed. SA Lavochkin presented the project of the LaGG-3 fighter with the AM-37 engine. VP Gorbunov developed a project of a single-engine dive bomber with an AM-37 engine. In February 1941, NN Polikarpov proposed an original design of a single-engine daytime dive bomber with very high flight-tactical data and an AM-37 (or AM-38) engine located inside the fuselage. At about the same time, S.A. Kocherigin presented a project to modernize the OPB dive bomber under the AM-37 engine. There was also a project for a short-range bomber BB-3 with an AM-37 engine, which was developed at the P.O. Sukhoi Design Bureau. "

                        Aren't you surprised that the engine needed by so many designers and aircraft "failed" to be put into production, and instead the engine needed only by Ilyushin and the Il-2 was launched into production?

                        Aren't you surprised that Tupolev, for example, abandoned the AM-37 engine in favor of the M-82 on his "103"? Some historians even wrote about Tupolev's "betrayal" of Shevtsov ...

                        "During the war, when the practical need for AM-37 engines was removed, work (on fine-tuning) was actually stopped."

                        Just think, the Mikoyan fighter with the AM-109 engine would be inferior to Messerschitt's 37th, which also "failed to finish" and, from a tactical point of view, the Tu-2 with the AM-37 would look like.

                        "To be fair, it should be noted that in reality practically all flight data (except for the flight range) of the Tu-2 not only with M-82A engines, but even with the ASh-82FN turned out to be worse than that of the 103U aircraft with AM-37 engines. . "

                        Just think about what would have happened if it had not been for the "initiator" Ilyushin, who suddenly rushed out of the chair of the head of the head office to invent his own "flying tank" not ordered by the Air Force and successfully introduced it into the series on the eve of the war in a single form with the support of a friend who came to Stalin, Deputy People's Commissar Yakovlev ... How would our aviation have developed during the war. What planes and with what engines. Do this thought experiment ...

                        Just think about how it happened that in 1941-1945. only those engines (except the initiative M-82 developed by the Shevtsov who had made an appointment with the reception and who managed to explain why the attempt to transfer the machine-tool equipment designed to produce air-cooled engines to the production of liquid-cooled engines) went into the series were needed the tandem of Ilyushin and Yakovlev (even the M-106, which really could not be brought up - even in the conditions of the war they were released in the amount of several hundred copies).

                        And yes, think about why, after going to Stalin Shevtsov, the NKAP order appeared to launch the Polikarpov fighter and Sukhoi attack aircraft, and the M-71, which was initially unnecessary to the M-82 series, not needed. Which on their planes instead of liquid cooling motors Mikulin and Klimov by the same order of aircraft designers simply did.

                        Interesting questions after all.
        2. Pavlik K.
          Pavlik K. 10 May 2020 15: 23 New
          0
          All wrong . Well, there are very few good aircraft engines ... We are lagging behind in terms of compression, then in Tg, then in general production culture ... Regarding 1940 - At the beginning of summer 0, DB-1939Aа with a capacity of 601 hp was installed on Messer E-1175, and already on later emiles, already in 1940- m year - DB-601E engine - 1350hp. (at 2700 rpm) So Frederick was menacing for ours. About ASh-82 - Lavochkin grabbed the "star" M-82NV with its aerodynamic inconveniences only because of 1700 forces (injection, reducer) and only in 42 did they already receive La-5 and HERE hello to German superiority in the sky over Stalingrad. .43 year, already ASh-82 FN (1850 hp) and La-5FN - even the gustavs are not scary to us, although reliability could ..., the pilots flew even in winter with open lights (in the cockpit + 55) and so on, the main thing is speed ... And Yakovlev, just as he got involved with the Klimovsk forcing, did not break through until the end of the war (although the glider, IMHO, is the best among the fighters for gaining air superiority in the air). It should be emphasized that "According to the results of tests at CIAM, in the combat (afterburner) mode, the DB 601Ea engine developed a power of 1450 hp at an altitude of 2000 m and 1350 hp at an altitude of 5100 m, that is, it significantly surpassed the domestic M- 105PF2 (1944, Yak-3, Yak-9) there is a lot that can be written, but each of our success in engines - immediately a breakthrough in aircraft - ASh-82FN, D-36, Al-41 ... We are waiting for PD-14 ... (PD-35)
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 10 May 2020 16: 02 New
            0
            Quote: Pavlik K.
            Well, very few good aircraft engines ...

            )))
            The point was that the situation of the 40th year seemed much better than the situation of the 45th. But why it seemed, but was not - here you need to talk seriously.
            Quote: Pavlik K.
            later emilia already in 1940 - the DB-601E engine - 1350hp.

            You are cheating. The DB-601E is the 4th Frederick engine, mid 41st. On Emily, he was placed only during the tests.
            Quote: Pavlik K.
            Lavochkin grabbed the "star" M-82NV with its aerodynamic inconveniences only because of 1700 s

            There are many reasons. As for the aerodynamic inconveniences, they weren’t such terrible inconveniences; Foka, Zero and R-47 will not be allowed to lie.
            Quote: Pavlik K.
            La-5 and HERE greetings to German superiority in the sky over Stalingrad.

            Fantasies. The superiority of the Luft over Stalingrad is undeniable. But here domination - such that the boiler could be supplied with transport aircraft - it was beyond their capabilities.
            Quote: Pavlik K.
            even the gustavs are no longer afraid of us,

            This is in vain.
            La-5FN allowed to play the German head start in typical combat situations in the East. But in general, the present is still a nervous, complex, unreliable aircraft.
            Quote: Pavlik K.
            And Yakovlev, as he tied up with the climatic forces, didn’t break through to the end of the war.

            A light fighter is a light fighter. Its pros, its cons. A huge Shvetsovsk pan did not suit him.
            1. Pavlik K.
              Pavlik K. 10 May 2020 16: 36 New
              -1
              "Superiority is not superiority" - not to me, maybe not right somewhere. But by "cheating" - all that is by numbers - medical facts, - "In the fall of 1940, the modifications of the Bf 109E-8 and E-9 were launched. Their main difference was the use of the DB 601E engine, which was also more forced in terms of crankshaft speed and boost, modification of the "six hundred and first". In addition, the pilot's booking was improved. Bf 109E-8 was generally similar to the E-7 (except for the engine), and the Bf 109E-9 was produced in a reconnaissance version without wing guns, but with a Rb 50/30 camera in the rear fuselage. "
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 10 May 2020 16: 56 New
                0
                Quote: Pavlik K.
                "In the fall of 1940, the Bf 109E-8 and E-9 modifications were put into production. Their main difference was the use of the DB 601E engine.

                Hmm, the CIAshush want to quarrel us.

                You quote airvor. I am an Englishman.
                Early E-7s were fitted with the 1,100 PS DB 601A or 1,175 PS DB 601Aa engine, while late-production ones received 1,175 PS DB 601N engines with improved altitude performance - the latter was designated as E-7 / N
                .
                E-8 (Long-range version of E-1 using drop tank installation of E-7, 4 × 7.92 mm / .312 in MG 17)
                E-9 (Recon version of E-7 / N, drop tank, camera equipment, 2 × 7.92 mm / .312 in MG 17)


                Need to understand.
                1. Pavlik K.
                  Pavlik K. 10 May 2020 17: 41 New
                  0
                  Yes, do not care ... how they were equipped there ... In any case, German engineers are well done in their profession, and ours must also, besides this, break through our illiterate-stubborn bureaucracy (only war sometimes helps, unfortunately)
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 10 May 2020 17: 44 New
                    0
                    Quote: Pavlik K.
                    and ours needs, Besides this, to break through the illiterate-stubborn bureaucracy (only war sometimes helps, unfortunately)

                    Well, this is speculation. Soviet motor industry as a whole was and remained very secondary. Including the modern samples mentioned by you with incomprehensible optimism.
                    1. Pavlik K.
                      Pavlik K. 10 May 2020 18: 00 New
                      +2
                      D-36 is a great engine. Breakthrough Yak-42, An-72. On its basis, the turboshaft D-136 plows on the Mi-26, D-236 - on the Be-200 (4 bought from beggars this year), so the design is very successful (a long time to write why. ..). (I used it myself)
                    2. Octopus
                      Octopus 10 May 2020 18: 05 New
                      0
                      Breakthrough Yak-42? In the 80s? As you say.
  • riwas
    riwas 9 May 2020 17: 02 New
    0
    In fact, the idea of ​​building a single-seat version of the attack aircraft, which will become the IL-2 in the future, came directly from Ilyushin’s design bureau.

    The fact is that the alterations of the TsKB-55 significantly weighted the aircraft and, accordingly, worsened its characteristics. And the following was done: additional reservation was established, two 20 mm ShVAK guns and eight launchers for firing rockets with RS-82 and RS-132 shells. Installing an armored gunner’s cabin with a machine gun would be 270 kg extra weight with insufficient engine power. In addition, the alignment would be violated (shifted backward), which would adversely affect the stability and controllability of the aircraft.
    In September 1941, simultaneously with the installation of a more powerful AM-38 engine (1700 hp) with air cooling, facilitating the Il-2 by removing the armor protection from the engine, S.V. Ilyushin. returns to a two-seat version with a heavy machine gun UBT as a defensive weapon, but for the first time this version of the Il-2 entered the battle only in October 1942 near Smolensk. There are many reasons for more than an annual gap: S.V. Ilyushin. doubted the reliability of the UBT machine gun (when firing in a burst of more than 10 rounds, it was necessarily jammed - a break in the muzzle of the sleeve and jamming of the automation); work on the design of the gunner's cabin continued for a long time (there were many options) - it was necessary to provide large sectors of machine gun fire (although in the end they turned out to be insufficient and in order to "expand" them the shooter often took an additional YES light machine gun with him); But the main thing is that the transition to the two-seater version led to a serious redesign and new development of the aircraft, to the restructuring of streamlined production, which was very, very difficult to do in the war.
    1. irontom
      irontom 9 May 2020 20: 16 New
      +3
      Rastrenin’s epic of the creation of a two-seater silt in the 2nd was described in great detail, there were several options, one of which was a side-shooter cabin with a completely closed armor, for which it was necessary to put the fuel tanks into the center section as a result of the combat load dropped to 42 overload 200, plus rework of production lines was required. Stalin set the condition 400-seater without a drawdown in production, as a result, Ilyushin took the path of least resistance.
    2. unknown
      unknown 10 May 2020 06: 19 New
      +1
      It's funny. In our historiography, it is customary to water rifle-caliber aircraft machine guns with whatever they hit, calling them "humane weapons." And for example, on the Me-109, large-caliber machine guns appeared only in 1943. Rifle-caliber machine guns were used on German bombers until the middle of the war, and on British bombers until the end of the war.
  • riwas
    riwas 9 May 2020 17: 10 New
    +1
    Even the direct hit of rockets in the tank did not guarantee the destruction of the combat vehicle, and the probability of getting into the tank was even lower.

    To destroy one tank from a range of 300 m, 32-50 pieces were spent. RS-82 - too much.
    The guns were no better. It would be most effective to use them almost from a vertical dive into the weakest upper part of the tank at projectile angles with armor close to normal. But the IL-2 did not fly like that.
    A 20 mm ShVAK cannon and a VYA-23 gun that appeared later than 23 mm (more reliable than ShVAK) pierced a maximum of 15 mm normal - this is the side and rear armor of light tanks, if you're lucky: the projectile angle will be close to normal and it will not get into the path wheel or roller. Shooting medium tanks was useless in principle.
    Later attempts (1943) to use 2 mm and even 37 mm guns on the IL-45 were not effective enough. Due to the strong recoil (the moment of recoil due to the wing arrangement of the guns), respectively, the large dispersion of the shells, relatively targeted shooting was possible only in short bursts of 2-3 shells. Moreover, to compensate for the weight of the guns and their ammunition load, the IL-2 bomb load for this option was reduced to 100 kg.
    The most effective IL-2 weapon for hitting tanks was the FAB-100 bomb with an instant fuse, dropped from heights of about 500 m. The fragments of this bomb pierced the tank’s 30 mm armor even with a miss of 5 meters. Later appeared PTAB-2,5-1,5. Dropping them, the IL-2 created a continuous destruction zone for all types of tanks with a width of 15 m and a length of about 70 m. In the first five days of the Battle of Kursk, they destroyed 422 tanks. Before the PTAB-2,5-1,5 attack aircraft in one take-off usually destroyed one, less often two tanks. In total, more than half a million of these bombs were used up in the Battle of Kursk. In 1943, industry manufactured more than 6 million PTAB-2,5-1,5, and in 1944 - about 7 million bombs.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 9 May 2020 17: 29 New
      0
      “Prior to the PTAB-2,5-1,5 attack aircraft, one tank, or less than two tanks, was usually destroyed in one take-off.” “In the first five days of the Battle of Kursk, they destroyed 422 tanks” - patriotism is good, but you need to know the measure. wink
      1. riwas
        riwas 10 May 2020 03: 58 New
        +1
        patriotism is good, but one must know the measure.

        These are the facts. See books:
        1. "Aircraft of the Ilyushin Design Bureau" ed. G.V. Novozhilov, M., Mechanical Engineering, 1990.
        2. M.G. Garyaev "Attack aircraft are on target", Ufa, Bashkir book publishing house, 1973.
        3. "Weapon of Victory" ed. Novikova V.N., M, Mechanical Engineering, 1987
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 10 May 2020 19: 54 New
          0
          This is propaganda. The facts were completely different. Moreover, Ilyushin managed to mislead even Stalin:

          http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/il2-shfk37.html

          "In the light of the above, Ilyushin's letter (No. 1229 of 22.09.41), which the latter, without waiting for the official completion of the state flight tests of the IL-2 with the ShFK-37, sent to I. In this letter S.V. Ilyushin reported literally the following: “On the Il-2 plane in August of this year. I installed 2 37 mm Shpitalny cannons with a stock of 40 rounds per gun, and the entire stock of 80 rounds. The aircraft with these cannons passed State tests at the NIPAV GU of the Air Force. Shooting from an Il-2 aircraft from these cannons makes a strong impression with the power of the fire and the accuracy of the hit. This is already a real flying artillery. ... The advantage of the IL-2 aircraft with installed guns is that it will be possible to conduct targeted, very accurate shooting from the aircraft, and besides, it will be possible to start shooting from a distance of 3 or more kilometers, when the enemy troops of our aircraft do not see and do not hear ... ""

          That still "storyteller" was Comrade Ilyushin.
          1. riwas
            riwas 11 May 2020 03: 58 New
            +2
            This is propaganda. The facts were completely different.

            It was about the effectiveness of PTAB-2,5-1,5. As for the 37 mm cannons, in my message (according to the book of G.V. Novozhilov) it says:
            Later attempts (1943) to use 2 mm and even 37 mm guns on the IL-45 were not effective enough. Due to the strong recoil (the moment of recoil due to the wing arrangement of the guns), respectively, the large dispersion of the shells, relatively targeted shooting was possible only in short bursts of 2-3 shells.
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 11 May 2020 15: 55 New
              0
              Quote: riwas
              It was about the effectiveness of PTAB-2,5-1,5.


              "Before A PTAB-2,5-1,5 attack aircraft in one sortie usually destroyed one, less often two tanks "- this is propaganda. Before PTAB-2,5-1,5, many dozens of Il-2 sorties were required to destroy one or two tanks. Taking into account the typical losses for one destroyed tank, several destroyed Il-2s had to be paid. The exchange was definitely not in favor of Il. The effectiveness of PTAB-2,5-1,5 was quite high for a fairly short period of time. German tankers quickly introduced countermeasures, steel use dispersed marching and pre-battle formations, covered armored vehicles in parking lots under trees, pulled on protective nets.As a result, the anti-tank effectiveness of Ilov decreased again, although of course it exceeded that in the era before PTAB-2,5-1,5.
              An IL-2 anti-tank aircraft would become quite effective if it were possible to bring the RS-82 from the cumulative warhead and work out the tactics of launching all eight RSs in armored vehicles from a minimum distance of 200-250 m. But the development of RBSK-82 was unsuccessful, This modification of the RS-82 did not go into the series, just as the launch tactic of eight of the eight who went into the RSB-82 series with armor-piercing warheads, but also the RBSK-82, which did not differ in high armor penetration, was not worked out.

              Quote: riwas
              As for the 37 mm cannons ... relatively accurate shooting was possible only in short bursts of 2-3 shells


              Yes. IL-2 with 37 mm cannons both times, as they say, "did not take off", either with the ShFK-37 or with the NS-37. Large dispersion when firing from wing 37 mm cannons was due to the insufficient longitudinal stability of the silt and the low rigidity of its wing, as well as the unsuccessful installation of the cannons on the wing far from the longitudinal axis. Unlike Ila, the Su-6 with NS-37 cannons did not have such problems:

              http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/su6.html
              ".. unlike the Il-2, the 6P-11 guns on the Su-37 were placed closer to the axis of the aircraft. The latter, together with the higher stability margin of the attack aircraft, ensured a higher efficiency of cannon firing in the air against small-sized ground targets.

              During field tests of the new attack aircraft, no complaints related to the influence of the recoil force of the guns on the vehicle when firing in the air were expressed by the test pilots: "... On a dive when firing, the aircraft is stable, recoil even when firing from all points is insignificant" ... "
              1. riwas
                riwas 12 May 2020 02: 23 New
                +2
                “Prior to PTAB-2,5-1,5, an attack aircraft usually destroyed one, less often two, tanks in one sortie” - this is propaganda.

                The fact that "Prior to PTAB-2,5-1,5, an attack aircraft in one sortie usually destroyed one, less often two tanks" says in his memoirs the pilot-attack aircraft M.G. Garyaev in the book "Stormtroopers Go to the Target", Ufa, Bashkir Book Publishing House, 1973.
                http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/gareev_mg/index.html
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 May 2020 14: 27 New
      +3
      Quote: riwas
      A 20 mm ShVAK gun and the VYA-23 gun that appeared later than 23 mm (more reliable than ShVAK) pierced a maximum of 15 mm normal

      The 20 mm ShVAK machine gun had less armor penetration than the original 12,7 mm ShVAK machine gun.
      Comprehensive tests of this system in 1936 as anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons of a rifle regiment showed that the transition from a caliber of 12,7 mm to 20 mm is disadvantageous from the point of view of air defense and anti-aircraft missile defense.
      Due to the fact that the ShVAK automation was originally designed for a 12,7 mm caliber, it was necessary to use an extremely light weight shell (20 grams against the normal weight for this caliber of 91-125 grams) and a short length for using a 150 mm cartridge. As a result, the projectile received reduced ballistic qualities, leading to a rapid loss of initial velocity.
      This circumstance leads to a significant decrease in the armor penetration of a 20 mm ShVAK machine gun and to a reduction in anti-aircraft fire distances compared to a 12,7 mm machine gun

      At a distance of 400 m, a 20 mm ShVAK penetrated 11 mm of armor, and a 12,7 mm ShVAK penetrated 16. At a distance of 200 m, 14 mm versus 17 mm.
      1. riwas
        riwas 12 May 2020 02: 32 New
        +1
        So it is true, but the VYA-23 winged 23 mm cannon made it possible to attack planes at airfields, in the air and unarmored targets on the ground more efficiently than a 12,7 mm machine gun.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 9 May 2020 19: 31 New
    -1
    I do not agree with the author regarding the inefficiency of ShVAK cannons and especially VYA-23 against light tanks.
    T-1s, T-2s with bulletproof armor were fully capable of ShVAK forces, and T-3s were confidently struck from VYA-23 from all sides (15mm armor), only on its latest modifications (E, F, G) - only the side / stern.
    1. irontom
      irontom 9 May 2020 20: 20 New
      +2
      The problem is exactly, yes, in general, all the warring parties had this problem at this time. Therefore, records about the crowds of tanks destroyed by air fire need to be taken very critically, especially German.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 9 May 2020 20: 36 New
        -1
        From the IL-2 visibility was not very.
        According to the experience of the game of the same name smile (in the mode with maximum realism), it’s possible to get into the tank by the queue by making the correct “entry”. ShKAS machine guns were used as a target, which allowed saving shells.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 May 2020 16: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: 3danimal
      T-1, T-2 with bulletproof armor were quite capable of ShVAK

      The armor penetration of the 20-mm ShVAK machine gun is 14 mm at 200 m. Here is how its "ground" prospects were assessed in 1936:
      Comprehensive tests of this system in 1936 as anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons of a rifle regiment showed that the transition from a caliber of 12,7 mm to 20 mm is disadvantageous from the point of view of air defense and anti-aircraft missile defense.
      Due to the fact that the ShVAK automation was originally designed for a 12,7 mm caliber, it was necessary to use an extremely light weight shell (20 grams against the normal weight for this caliber of 91-125 grams) and a short length for using a 150 mm cartridge. As a result, the projectile received reduced ballistic qualities, leading to a rapid loss of initial velocity.
      This circumstance leads to a significant decrease in the armor penetration of a 20 mm ShVAK machine gun and to a reduction in anti-aircraft fire distances compared to a 12,7 mm machine gun.
      (...)
      Based on the reduced armor penetration and anti-aircraft fire range of 20 mm ShVAK as compared to 12,7 mm, it is necessary to use 12,7 mm ShVAK machine guns as a means of air defense and anti-aircraft missile regiments.

      Quote: 3danimal
      and the T-3 was confidently struck from VYA-23 from all sides (15mm armor), only on its latest modifications (E, F, G) - only board / stern.

      "Only on its latest modifications"- this is almost all the released" three-pieces ". Because only 60 models were produced AD. smile
      And the "three-ruble" board, starting from the E model - up to 30 mm. Even the forty-five had problems with him.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 11 May 2020 21: 13 New
        -1
        I agree that the armored versions of the T3 could be effectively attacked only from directions covered by 15mm armor.
        But many T-1 and T-2 remained quite easy targets for the IL-2.
        Not to mention armored personnel carriers, convoys, trains.
        1. illuminat
          illuminat 12 May 2020 13: 37 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          I agree that the armored versions of the T3 could be effectively attacked only from directions covered by 15mm armor.

          Three are armored in a circle of 30 mm (except for the bottom and roof). The forehead was constantly growing, 30 + 30, then 50, then 50 + 20.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 13 May 2020 06: 20 New
            0
            30mm side and forehead armor appeared only starting with version “E”. The feed remains 15mm, the top of the engine compartment is even smaller.
            The attack of the T-3 model "E" and later from the stern had a good chance of success.
            1. illuminat
              illuminat 18 May 2020 19: 15 New
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              30mm side and forehead armor appeared only starting with version “E”. The feed remains 15mm, the top of the engine compartment is even smaller.
              The attack of the T-3 model "E" and later from the stern had a good chance of success.

              The stern 15 mm had the first 40 cars. The next 561 is already 21 mm.

              The remaining 5090 (specially in words - five thousand and ninety) tanks had a feed reservation of 30, and then 50 mm.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 19 May 2020 15: 45 New
                0
                Want to say that the tank was booked 50mm in a circle ?? What weight would he get?
                The mass of the latest version of G was 20,3 tons.
      2. illuminat
        illuminat 12 May 2020 13: 35 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And the "three-ruble" board, starting from the E model - up to 30 mm. Even the forty-five had problems with him.

        Not "up to 30", but "over 30". The actual thickness of the armor plate is 32 mm. The magpie began to penetrate such armor closer than 400 m.
  • aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 21: 31 New
    0
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

    Formally, yes!
    Really only - Tu-2!

    well, not il2, for sure
  • aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 21: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    Impressions of Shavrov, the fourth question! It’s hard to call it objective !!!
    Regards, Vlad!

    but as a dive player, tu2 was not used, right?
  • aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 21: 46 New
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    Do not understand. in what parallel reality was the ASh-82 the only Soviet more or less engine?

    I don’t want to rummage through the Internet and look for facts for you. if you are interested, do it yourself, at the same time, Schaub do not walk twice, read the technical characteristics of the Soviet engines of those years, everyone, starting from a half and a half, and ending at least
  • aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 21: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    So what's wrong with the engines?

    and the fact that there were no more powerful engines, because of the above, it was so-so, the third grade, in comparison with the Germans, and even amers
  • aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 21: 55 New
    -1
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    About the decline in the effectiveness of the dive by the end of the war I agree. It’s not for nothing that our 44-year naval operations began to effectively apply top-hatters!

    and what maritime operations we had, enlighten, please. and what kind of top-managers did we have?
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 May 2020 06: 22 New
      0
      A-20 Boston.
  • aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 21: 59 New
    -2
    Quote: Octopus
    The thing is good, but when the Soviet aircraft began to give life signs, it quickly became clear that this was a plane of clear sky

    thing, and tanks T1, T2 and T3 made 1941 and 1942 for the Germans, and only then, far then they were able to overcome
  • aglet
    aglet 9 May 2020 22: 01 New
    -1
    Quote: Octopus
    Nonetheless. If you look at the numbers

    if you look at the numbers, now we are all hurt
  • Force multiplier
    Force multiplier 9 May 2020 22: 37 New
    +3
    Again myths and the fight against them. But you can go the other way and see how the enemy assessed the effectiveness of the Il-2 and Soviet assault aviation. I suggest reading excerpts from the brochure "Assault Aviation of the Soviet Union", prepared by the Foreign Air Force of the East of the General Staff of the Luftwaffe. Here, for example, how the Germans evaluated the Ila booking

    They write that it is very extensive and strong. So was the Il-2 a "flying tank"? And is it only a matter of booking, or is this meant?

    As you can see, Il could actually be used as a combat vehicle on the battlefield, only flying. "Flying tank" - a brief and succinct description of this method of using an attack aircraft
    What goals and at what distance from the front line could Il hit? And again the Germans have an answer

    There are a lot of interesting things about tactics, there are interesting remarks about the effectiveness of the German anti-aircraft fire, which do not quite correspond to stereotypes, but let’s summarize how effective the IL-2, and therefore the Soviet attack aircraft, was. The Germans began their brochure to answer this question.
    1. irontom
      irontom 10 May 2020 20: 15 New
      +2
      It would be nice to translate, alas, not everyone knows German, and Google translating from pictures is a very dreary business.
      1. Force multiplier
        Force multiplier 11 May 2020 03: 10 New
        +4
        Briefly 1st fragment
        A type [IL-2] It has a very extensive and strong reservation, which surrounds vital elements such as the cockpit, engine, fuel tank and oil tank, water and oil coolers, etc.

        2nd fragment
        Immediately during the attack, Soviet attack aircraft move over Soviet tanks and the infantry following them. With the help of airborne weapons, rockets and small-caliber fragmentation bombs, they clean the area in front of tanks, mainly from altitudes of about 100 meters. They open the way for ground troops by suppressing the enemy.

        The third passage says that the main task of Soviet attack aircraft is to support ground troops by attacking targets in the immediate vicinity of the front line. These goals are listed - marching columns, accumulations of troops and equipment in the open, settlements, airfields. tanks and armored personnel carriers, trains and armored trains, port facilities and ships. It is further indicated that the range of more than 3 km allows the IL-200 to attack and targets located in the rear, as well as areas of concentration of motorized units and airfields located in the rear

        4nd fragment
        Soviet attack aircraft includes about a fifth of the aviation units available at the front. During the war, despite all the defensive measures, its importance increased and today it is an effective attack weapon in the vicinity of the front line, which is clearly used in the direction of the main attack and the attack tactics of which adapt to the situation and the task, but from due to insufficient preparation of young [crews] its impact force is not reduced to unlimited deployment
        1. irontom
          irontom 11 May 2020 10: 43 New
          +1
          Thank you, enemy rating.
  • Valdaev
    Valdaev 9 May 2020 23: 01 New
    +1
    Attack aircraft with armor as part of a power structure - are there any other examples?
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 10 May 2020 20: 04 New
      -1
      For example, PBSh-1 Mikoyan.

      http://airwar.ru/enc/aww2/pbsh.html

      The draft design was recommended for approval. But the Chief of the Air Force P.V. Rychagov did not approve it, but on September 20, 1940 he wrote a resolution: "My opinion is that Comrade Mikoyan should not be given a new aircraft, but rather demand that the I-200 aircraft be adjusted to the standards we require" ...
      According to its flight data, the PBSh-1 aircraft does not satisfy the 1941 program. A similar model of the Sukhoi armored attack aircraft with higher flight data than the PBSh-1 is under construction. Therefore, the implementation of the PBSh-1 project should be abstained.
      Deputy Chairman of the Scientific and Technical Committee under the Chief of the Air Force of the Spacecraft, military engineer of the 1st rank Znamensky.
  • pro100y.belarus
    pro100y.belarus 10 May 2020 00: 33 New
    +2
    How tired of reading articles about all sorts of different "myths" from people who have never seen the Il-2 attack aircraft.
    And in the comments of such "experts" a dime a dozen ...
    It is enough to take and read the book of the Hero of the Soviet Union, attack pilot Vasily Borisovich Emelianenko "In the harsh military air."
    The attack aircraft and its combat use are very well described there. A man in this car flew and fought personally, and did not rewrite "myths" from the Internet.
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 10 May 2020 20: 10 New
      -5
      Vasily Borisovich Emelianenko was lucky that he survived until May 9, 1945, but was unlucky in the fact that he fought on IL-2, and not on PBSh-1 Mikoyan, OPB-5 Kocherigin or Su-6 Sukhoi.
      1. Alf
        Alf 10 May 2020 21: 35 New
        +3
        Quote: AlexanderA
        OPB-5 Kocherigina

        The OPB showed all its excellent data with the M-71 and M-90. No motor, no airplane.
        Quote: AlexanderA
        Su-6

        M-71 where?
        Quote: AlexanderA
        PBSh-1


        I wonder how long PBSh-1 and OPB would have lasted when meeting with German fighters, subject to a single-seat variant and a speed of 450 km / h?
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 10 May 2020 22: 23 New
          -3
          Quote: Alf
          The OPB showed all its excellent data with the M-71 and M-90. No motor, no airplane.

          OPB AM-37. But there is no engine, there are no planes - neither OBP AM-37, nor MiGs. The only thing that could be cooler than that is the "there is a motor, no aircraft" operation, which was done with the Su-2, and as a result, even disbanded (!) The plant that produced the Su-2 with the M-82 engine. And in order not to get up twice, the operation to stop the serial production of Tu-2, which was restored only in 1944.

          The "group of comrades" "squeezed" the factories for their planes through very intricate hardware intrigues.

          Quote: Alf
          M-71 where?

          https://airpages.ru/mt/mot4.shtml
          "... a group letter received on April 17, 1941 in the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) addressed to G.M. Malenkov and K.E. Voroshilov:

          “The experimental department of plant No. 19 prepared for mass production two powerful star-shaped air-cooled air motors M-71 and M-82A. These motors successfully passed joint 50-hour tests, the M-71 in February 1941 and the M-82 in the month of April 1941.

          The main data of the motors are as follows:

          Motors M-71 and M-82A are currently undergoing development tests to a 100-hour resource and will be completed by June of 1941.

          However, the motors can be put into mass production by the time of refinement.

          These motors, according to their technical data, are of great interest for military aviation. The M-71 motor has no equal, both here in the USSR and abroad.

          The M-71 motor is installed on experimental aircraft: the I-185 fighter - a flight speed of 665 km / h (designer Polikarpov) and the Su-6 attack aircraft - a flight speed of 600 km / h (designer Sukhoi). These aircraft with M-71 engines successfully pass flight tests and are the best in terms of their combat qualities and also the reviews of the pilots. The M-82A motor is not yet installed on the plane.

          It would seem that decisive measures must immediately be taken to prepare mass production for the production of these engines. But plant No. 19 was entrusted with manufacturing only 20 M-71 engines by May 1.

          Considering that the cycle of preparation and launch of serial production of aircraft is 2-3 times less than the cycle of preparation of serial production of engines, and that the M-71 and M-82 engines will certainly be used in military aviation, it is necessary now to conduct energetic preparation at plant No. 19 mass production so as not to create a gap from the needs of aircraft plants.

          This gap in the production of aircraft and engines will become inevitable if the aircraft and engine are put into serial production at the same time.

          The NKAP did not give plant No. 19 instructions on preparing for serial production of M-71 engines, and even vice versa, the equipment available at plant No. 19 for the production of air-cooled engines is removed and transferred to other plants.

          The removed equipment is considered superfluous, based on a given program for 1941 according to M-62. And it is completely not taken into account that plant No. 19 will have to make M-71 and M-82 motors.

          Thus, instead of preparing the production of new powerful motors at the plant No. 19, conditions are created that impede their implementation.

          From our point of view, the false purposefulness of the plant No. 19 only for liquid motors does not accidentally lead to conditions that prevent the introduction of new, most valuable motors ... "

          Quote: Alf
          I wonder how long PBSh-1 and OPB would have lasted when meeting with German fighters, subject to a single-seat variant and a speed of 450 km / h?


          Following PBSh-1, Mikoyan proposed PBSh-2. See the turn time, the climb rate of PBSh-2 and OPB, estimate how much you hold out. I-15bis, I-153, I-16 held well, demonstrating the largest number of sorties per loss among domestic combat aircraft in 1941-1942.
          1. Alf
            Alf 10 May 2020 22: 36 New
            +2
            I didn’t know about motors, thanks.
            Quote: AlexanderA
            I-15bis, I-153, I-16 held well, demonstrating the largest number of sorties per loss among domestic combat aircraft in 1941-1942.

            If everything was so beautiful, then where did these shelves go?
            Quote: AlexanderA
            See turn time, rate of climb PBSh-2 and OPB,

            OPB.
            Note that in the fuselage bomb bay, as well as on the M-90 OPB, instead of the bomb, an additional 500-liter gas tank could be placed.

            The maximum flight speed of the car according to the project at the ground is 462 km / h, at an altitude of 7000 m - 580 km / h. Climbing time of 5000 m - 6,8 minutes. Flight range - 960 km (with an additional gas tank of 1560 km).

            6,8 minutes, to say the least, a bit. Messer 5,2 minutes, ours 5,6-6,2 and at the same time inferior to Messer in rate of climb.
            And 6,8 minutes at a speed of 460 is a verdict to an airplane without tail protection. He will not be able to fight, as well as quickly flee.
            PBSh-2.

            Same. Single aircraft with a maximum speed of 460 km / h. Until the first messer.
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 11 May 2020 00: 23 New
              -1
              Quote: Alf
              If everything was so beautiful, then where did these shelves go?


              I will ask a counter question. A plane whose production was discontinued in 1940. With an average flight of 120 sorties per one loss, how long did it have to hold out at the front until all of them were down and written off as being beyond repair until May 9, 1945? These vehicles fought until 1943. Su-2, whose serial production was discontinued at the beginning of 1942, lasted at the front until 1944. But how many Ilovs of the 1941 release fought until 1943? Is at least one such aircraft known?

              6,8 minutes, to say the least, a bit. Messer 5,2 minutes, ours 5,6-6,2 and at the same time inferior to Messer in rate of climb. And 6,8 minutes at a speed of 460 is a verdict to an airplane without tail protection. He will not be able to fight, as well as quickly flee.


              That is why Perov V.I. and Rastrenin O.V. in their book they wrote about the Kocherigin OPB:
              https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=273095&p=39
              “We can only regret that such an interesting and necessary for the Air Force and the Red Army, a vehicle such as OPB with M-90, AM-37 or M-82FN engines was not implemented. OPB had every chance of becoming an optimal battlefield aircraft as a combat vehicle combining in itself the qualities of a dive bomber and an attack aircraft - the accuracy of bombing strikes and the ability to "iron" the enemy's positions under a hurricane of air defense fire. "
              But about PBSh-1 and PBSh-2 Mikoyan did not express such regrets.
  • kig
    kig 10 May 2020 03: 05 New
    0
    The symbol of Victory should be a simple soldier, like this:

    1. BAI
      BAI 10 May 2020 21: 08 New
      +1
      This is a political instructor.
      1. Alf
        Alf 10 May 2020 21: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: BAI
        This is a political instructor.

        Does it change anything ?
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 10 May 2020 08: 18 New
    +1
    As for armor resistance, you are not quite right. A shell from a fighter or anti-aircraft gun flies at an acute angle to the armor, an analogue of the inclined armor of the tank, so often 20mm shells did not penetrate.
  • aglet
    aglet 10 May 2020 09: 55 New
    0
    Quote: ignoto
    A-20 Boston

    Well, straight, topmaster, and even more so, not ours. oh well, but in what naval operations with bombing on enemy ships he was involved, that’s interesting, can you tell me?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 May 2020 14: 35 New
      0
      Quote: aglet
      Well, straight, topmaster, and even more so, not ours. oh well, but in what naval operations with bombing on enemy ships he was involved, that’s interesting, can you tell me?

      In almost all operations of 1944-1945, including the most famous:

      Then, on top of a small (30 meters), top-hatters reached the target, at 17 o’clock the first pair dropped 1000 kg of bombs. Behind her at a minimal interval, the blow was dealt by a couple. At least 2 1000-kg bombs hit the ship. The cruiser tipped first, then capsized and soon sank.

      “Sheer” at Sõrve was also attacked by “Bostons”.
      Five minutes later, the battleship was attacked by three A-20Zh of the 51st regiment. The German historian Kayus Becker describes this episode from the words of eyewitnesses very picturesquely: "Admiral Scheer" began the fight like a huge wild boar fighting off a pack of hunting dogs. An incredible, amazing dance began. The torpedoes, clearly distinguishable from the trail, each time passed by the ship, describing the circulation at high speed, and bombs exploded around ... "The description is only half true - this time the Bostons attacked the enemy with the method of mast bombing. However, the Germans and Previously, FABs dropped by this method were mistaken for “jumping torpedoes” or “large-caliber missiles.” The cruiser fiercely defended herself, using even main battery artillery against planes. the enemy because of the boldness with which the group approached the German ships belching anti-aircraft routes. Yet three FAB-20 and three FAB-500 dropped by the planes did not hit the target, although the crews insisted that one "five hundred" hit the destroyer ...
      © M. Morozov
      In general, after receiving the Bostons, flying out with bombs became commonplace in the MTAP, especially given the eternal shortage of airborne torpedoes. Presnyakov, pomnitsa, praised the Boston for the bow battery, which made it possible to press down the target's air defenses themselves when going on the attack.
  • Rostislav
    Rostislav 10 May 2020 10: 24 New
    +1
    Yesterday, the article was about ATGM, 14,5 mm. was enough to fight light tanks on board, and sometimes in frontal projection.
    And here is 20/22/23 mm. SHVAK was not enough to attack the least protected upper projection.
    It's hard to figure it out.
    1. 2112vda
      2112vda 10 May 2020 11: 26 New
      -2
      Everything is correct. The ballistics of the Shvak cannon shells were very mediocre. Shpitalny's "undercover" intrigues did not allow the adoption of a normal 20x110 cartridge for air cannons. Taubin and Baburin were generally treated very well, although after that they adopted the guns of their development, though under a different brand. Cartridges for the Shvak cannon were removed from service after the Patriotic War, 23 mm ammunition is still in service.
      Regarding the use of ROFS-132 missiles from BM-13 on IL-2. These missiles showed very high efficiency against all types of German tanks. A direct hit from such a projectile was guaranteed to disable the tank. 40 kg of "happiness" did not add "health" to any tank. Read the book by S.N. Reznichenko "Jet armament of the Soviet Air Force 1930-1945."
      1. Rostislav
        Rostislav 10 May 2020 11: 52 New
        0
        Thanks for the comment. I read.
      2. Pavel57
        Pavel57 10 May 2020 14: 31 New
        0
        Nevertheless, not a single aircraft in the role of WWII attack aircraft used RS against tanks. Efficiency was not high.
      3. Alf
        Alf 10 May 2020 21: 38 New
        0
        Quote: 2112vda
        A direct hit from such a projectile was guaranteed to disable the tank. 40 kg of "happiness" did not add "health" to any tank.

        Reminder percentage of hits. Browse through Rastrenin’s excellent monograph on IL-2 and the data from the FIRST test.
    2. Alexandra
      Alexandra 10 May 2020 20: 15 New
      0
      PTR had armor-piercing bullets with tungsten carbide cores. For aircraft guns, there were no tungsten carbide shells. For some time a shot was fired and delivered to the troops with such a projectile for the TNSh-20 gun, a tank version of the ShVAK gun.
    3. Alf
      Alf 10 May 2020 21: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Rostislav
      14,5 mm. was enough to fight light tanks on board, and sometimes in frontal projection.

      Subject to hit normal.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 May 2020 14: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Rostislav
      And here is 20/22/23 mm. SHVAK was not enough to attack the least protected upper projection.
      It's hard to figure it out.

      Firstly, the ShVAK-20 had a light short projectile with disgusting ballistics and the penetration rate was less than that of the original 12,7 mm machine gun.
      Secondly, the main problem with penetration at air guns is the corners of the meeting with the armor. With a gentle dive, it is 60 degrees from normal, so that armor penetration drops sharply.
      Field tests of the ShVAK gun when firing at captured German tanks carried out in June-July 1942 at the NPC AV of the Air Force KA in accordance with the order of the Air Force Commander KA No. 46 dated 27.05.42/20/0,41 showed that the BZ-15 shell of the ShVAK gun can penetrate armor made of chromium-molybdenum steel with an increased (up to 38%) carbon content up to 250 mm thick (tanks Pz.ll Ausf F, Pz.XNUMX (t) Ausf C, armored personnel carriers Sd Kfz XNUMX) at meeting angles close to normal from a distance of no more than 250-300 m. When deviating from these conditions, firing from the ShVAK gun became ineffective. So, with an increase in the angle of the projectile with the armor above 40 °, continuous ricochets were obtained even on the armor sections 6-8 mm thick. For example, out of 19 hits received during firing from this gun at Sd Kfz 250 (approach height 400 m, planning angle 30 °, firing distance 400 m), there were 6 through holes in the side (armor thickness 8 mm), 4 - in the roof of the engine hood (armor thickness 6 mm), 3 rebounds and 6 hits in the chassis.

      When shooting light tanks (approach height 100 m, planning angle 5-10 °, firing range 400 m) of 15 hits, 3 hits fell on the side (armor thickness 15 mm) with one core jam, one rebound and one armor penetration, which indicates the maximum capabilities of the BZ-20 shell, 7 hits in the chassis, and the remaining 5 shells that hit the roof of the tank towers (2 shells in the tank turret Pz.38 (t) Ausf C and 3 shells in the Pz.ll Ausf F , armor thickness 10 mm), gave a rebound.

      Field tests showed that when firing from VYA-23 cannons with an armor-piercing incendiary projectile BZ-23 from an Il-2 aircraft at planning angles of up to 30 ° (approach height 100-600 m), light German tanks like Pz.ll Ausf F and Pz.38 (t) Ausf C when a shell hits the side and rear of the tank from a distance of 300-400 m, since the thickness of the armor in these places is 15 mm. Damage to the roof of the towers of these tanks (armor thickness 10 mm) from the same distances is also possible, but with diving angles of more than 40 °.
      © Perov / Rastrenin
  • 2112vda
    2112vda 10 May 2020 11: 13 New
    +1
    I wonder, on which aircraft was the shooter's seat safe? Take any foreign or our aircraft from bomber aviation, well, there were no tank towers with anti-cannon armor anywhere. The best defense for a shooter is his accuracy and reaction speed and, accordingly, powerful weapons, in the form of a large-caliber machine gun or a 20-mm aircraft cannon. Tanks also fell under the "distribution" regardless of the thickness of the armor, the crews also died. The only safe place for a shooter on airplanes is in flying shooting games such as Il-2 or Vartander. In all other cases, the probability of death for the shooter is very high, in other respects, as for the pilot.
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 10 May 2020 20: 21 New
      -3
      For example, the Su-6 was safe.
      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/su6.html
      "The armor of the attack aircraft was much better than that of the Il-2, however, due to the rational distribution of armor plate thicknesses (from 2 to 12 mm), the total weight of the armor was only 683 kg, including armored glass (for the pilot and the gunner) -64 kg, booking near the engine -72 kg, the armor of the pilot's cabin - 345 kg and the gunner's cabin - 198 kg Reservation covered the cockpit and gunner, gas tank, engine compartment, oil tank, oil coolers and pipelines to them, the propeller cylinder.
      The front part of the fuselage up to the pilot's armored back was a fully armored body, which housed the pilot, gas tank, oil tank and controls. 65mm transparent armor visor. The gunner's cockpit was made in the form of an armored "capsule" with an armor thickness of 4 to 12 mm. The shooter was protected by: metal armor from below, from the sides, from the back and partly from above, and transparent armor (65 mm thick) blister installation. "
      1. Graduate engineer
        Graduate engineer 10 May 2020 23: 09 New
        +1
        "Reservation of the Su-6 attack aircraft was performed much better than on the Il-2" ...
        By whom and when was this proven?
        Practice is the best criterion of truth. In this case, the practice of war. But this practice did not pass the Su-6. The rest is speculation.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 11 May 2020 16: 37 New
          -4
          The arrow cabin on the Su-6 was protected by armor not only from the rear (12 mm rear, not the 6 mm armored partition mounted on the Il-2), but also from the side, from below, protecting the head of 65 mm bulletproof glass in a blister installation. What practice do you need to understand that the shooter on the Su-6 was protected much better than on the IL-2? The question is rhetorical.
      2. irontom
        irontom 11 May 2020 12: 55 New
        +4
        That's just the trouble - Su-6s are very different planes in time.
        - IB Su-6 of the 41st
        - Su-6 M-71 summer of the 42nd year - 660 kg (at the beginning of the 42nd all the same 200 kg) mounted armor is not bearing, when compared with the IL-2 for some reason they forget that his armor is the carrier fuselage of the plane (without tail). The performance characteristics of the 6nd Su-42, compared with the 6st Su-41, were greatly sagged.
        High LTH for everything you need to pay - this is a more powerful engine and less load on the wing. All-metal wing.
        Comparison of the Su-6 20 m / 2 IL-2 38 m / 2 I think the difference is obvious. A very high wing load - minus, is also obvious.

        - Su-6 M-71F double is already the middle of the 43rd.
        Then, for some reason, they forget that these are experimental cars when they are compared with serial wooden Ilami especially of the 42nd year.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 11 May 2020 16: 53 New
          -4
          Quote: irontom
          That's just the trouble - Su-6s are very different planes in time.


          At any time, the Su-6 was superior to the Il-2, either in 1941 or in 1944. What joy is it that the Il-2 has "bearing armor" if it was an unmaneuverable "iron" that brought combat damage from every 2-3 sorties and if the Il was an unstable "gun platform" (with its constant problems with longitudinal stability)? In contrast to the Su-6, for which even the installation of 37 mm cannons did not cause the test pilots to claim dispersal during firing.

          The IL-2 was a surprisingly poorly designed aircraft. Unsuccessful of him from specialized attack aircraft was designed except that Hs.129. Only excellent training of German pilots flying on it allowed the Germans not to slide down to the level of losses characteristic of the IL-2. And that is not always:
        2. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 12 May 2020 11: 14 New
          0
          Quote: irontom
          mounted armor is not bearing, when compared with the IL-2 for some reason they forget that his armor is the carrier fuselage of the aircraft (without a tail). The performance characteristics of the 6nd Su-42, compared with the 6st Su-41, were greatly sagged.


          All design solutions have pros and cons.
          The IL-2 armored capsule carrying the load, when piercing with 20 mm shells or 2-3 piercing 13 mm or 5-6 piercing 7.92 mm in a certain place - the body was subject to decommissioning, even if the plane flew to the airfield.
          A building with several penetrations - not repairable, was decommissioned because it could not bear the structural load.

          At the same time, a plane with hinged armor could be repaired - so a carrier armored capsule is not the most economically viable option - IL-2 was written off for military damage a lot.
          Su-6 would have less write-offs for reasons of combat damage.
          1. Graduate engineer
            Graduate engineer 12 May 2020 15: 08 New
            0
            We analyze the proposed message by points. During aerial shooting, the aircraft could be attacked by the enemy within a narrow cone 10 -15 ° relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Under such conditions, the longitudinal armor of the armored hull worked at ricochet angles, i.e. in more favorable conditions, and could withstand both 13 mm B and 20 mm fragmentation shell. In the worst position was transverse armor, this is the pilot’s armored back. Under unfavorable conditions of shelling from the MG131 with an armor-piercing bullet, a 12-mm armor piercing could have been broken, which inevitably entails the death of the pilot and aircraft. There is nothing to repair.
            Well, and the most interesting. According to the Central Research Institute 48, which examined the armored hulls of the downed Il-2 x, up to 45 percent of the lost aircraft were shot down without a single hit in the armored hull! This is the work of the 20-mm high-explosive projectile "M" of the MG151 / 20 cannon, which worked on the structure: planes, empennage and tanks.
  • 2112vda
    2112vda 10 May 2020 16: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Pavel57
    Nevertheless, not a single aircraft in the role of WWII attack aircraft used RS against tanks. Efficiency was not high.

    The above book describes the use of ROFS-132 (M-13) against tanks, moreover, successfully. Naturally, only experienced pilots could use it. As stated in the book, there was a rivalry between the pilots for the M-13 shells. For ten destroyed tanks they were given a Hero of the Soviet Union. Usually they used shells in pairs against the tank, there were specialists who spent one shell per tank. When using the M-13, it was important not to fall under the blast wave and fragments of our own shells. The warhead of the M-13 projectile was a 122 mm HE round howitzer. The power of such a projectile was enough to disable the tank; when it entered the engine compartment, the tank was destroyed. The RS was launched from a distance of less than a kilometer. I think so, when the M-13 hit the tank, the crew of the German tank received "indelible impressions" even if there was no armor penetration. Read the literature on this topic, there are many interesting facts. Naturally, in conditions of strong air defense, carpet bombing by PTAB is more effective.
  • ua1osm
    ua1osm 10 May 2020 18: 59 New
    -3
    Among the Germans, the Yu-87 was a universal aircraft - for attack and for dive bombing, which our pilots almost did not practice due to the weak design of the Pe-2 aircraft and their usual inability. There was no mastery.
    However, the Yu-87 was not as armored as the IL-2, and their losses during the attacks of the Red Army fighters were higher.
    In general, the idea of ​​IL-2 became popular due to the inability of our infantry to attack the battle formations and lines of the Germans quite successfully. A single MG-34 machine gun (42) allowed the Germans to very effectively repel attacks from both infantry and cavalry, causing enormous damage to the Russians. Therefore, they began to produce IL-2, since striking at the positions and columns of the Germans from the air and hitting a certain number of ground targets, equivalent to the value of the aircraft, even if it was shot down, was much more effective.
    1. Alf
      Alf 10 May 2020 21: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: ua1osm
      due to the weak design of the Pe-2 aircraft

      The plane on which Polbin unscrewed the ALL aerobatics-weak?
      Quote: ua1osm
      In general, the idea of ​​IL-2 became popular due to the inability of our infantry to attack the battle formations and lines of the Germans quite successfully.

      And why then did the Allies use Thunderbolts, Typhoons and Tempest? Also due to the inability of their infantry?
      From Ukraine, it still seems not so.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2020 14: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: Alf
        The plane on which Polbin unscrewed the ALL aerobatics-weak?

        And if you remember - what the "pawn" was "nee" ... smile
  • rus d.
    rus d. 10 May 2020 20: 47 New
    0
    Of course, now they know better how the IL-2 Germans then called, the author, and how the aircraft in general did not bomb the tanks only attack aircraft. And about why the shooters didn’t die so much, because they shouldn’t let the aircraft into their dead center, and they tried not to let , but if you already went to the rear then the shooter is still a chance to survive.
    They didn’t know how to fight, they let the enemy near Moscow, the equipment was bad. That in 1945 prevented Germany from gathering and taking advantage of the fact that they know how to fight in good technology to push our army away from Berlin
    1. Alf
      Alf 10 May 2020 21: 44 New
      0
      Quote: rus d.
      What in 1945 prevented Germany from gathering and taking advantage of the fact that they know how to fight in good technology to push our army away from Berlin

      Huge hordes of Mongols hired by the Anglo-Jewish plutocracy. laughing
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 May 2020 10: 20 New
    0
    I have great doubts about the effectiveness of aviation against stationary artillery positions.
    1. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 12 May 2020 11: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      I have great doubts about the effectiveness of aviation against stationary artillery positions.


      The tanks were heading for a breakthrough, incurring significant losses from the squeezing neck of the breakthrough on both sides of the German artillery.

      The general turned for help to Commander Ryazanov.

      The attack aircraft responded. The corps commander immediately lifted the 144th Guards Squadron into the air. The first to fly was Lieutenant Stolyarov’s link. The neck below them, on the ground. There is a hot battle. Our tanks are conducting an artillery duel with the cannons of the enemy. But they are well buried, lined with bags of earth. And our tanks are in sight, as at a training ground. Alone, one, the second "thirty-four" is already burning.

      - I'm Rook! Stolyarov, can you hear me? To the left of the head tank, there are three batteries in the bushes. Destroy them. Attack the falcons! - General Ryazanov commands from the busy KP high-altitude building.

      Stolyarov attacks. One battery is destroyed. The second approach, the bombs carried three more guns.

      Sunsets follow continuously. The enemy’s guns fall silent one after another. Around the tears of anti-aircraft guns. The fragments whip on the armor plates, on the fuselage, the planes.

      The general observing the action of the link waits every second that, just about, one of the attack aircraft will smoke, fall down or not come out of the peak, hit by a shell. But they dive time after time.

      And so before the approach of the successor link, which in turn was replaced by our squadron in full force.

      So, continuously attacking artillery, enemy tanks buried in the ground, attack aircraft cleared the flanks of the breakthrough, tankers expanded it and rushed into a powerful stream.

      The fight for Sandomierz bridgehead flared up

      GSS Begeldinov Talgat Yakubekovich, memoir "A dive to immortality"
      http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/begeldinov_ty/24.html

      This episode describes the destruction of anti-tank artillery directly on the battlefield, when the enemies are separated by the distance of a direct shot.
      Dealing with howitzer batteries is less problematic.
  • aglet
    aglet 11 May 2020 16: 45 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    In almost all operations of 1944-1945, including the most famous

    what is it famous for? that it is almost the only enemy ship sunk by our sailors? and a little more detailed - the light cruiser built in the 19th century was successfully sunk by more than 130 aircraft, by the way, there were only 8 bostons there. I think the gasoline for these planes was more expensive than this ship. and according to the neck, what did our pilots have to do with the fact that the Angles sank this ship, which was being repaired at the port? and again the presence of bostons is not approved there
  • aglet
    aglet 11 May 2020 16: 46 New
    0
    Quote: Kostadinov
    I have great doubts about the effectiveness of aviation against stationary artillery positions.

    that's just against stationary objects, aviation is fighting most effectively
  • aglet
    aglet 11 May 2020 16: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    including the most famous

    once again about this famous one - there was irreparable damage caused by il2, the first to successfully drop a 10-kilogram bomb, the remaining 130 aircraft finished off the already dead ship - it was necessary to sink
  • aglet
    aglet 11 May 2020 16: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The attack of the A-20 troika aroused admiration of the enemy because of that courage

    and again about the sheherd, I didn’t see that the Bostons were present in the amount of 3 pieces, though they didn’t get anywhere, at least in the sheer.
  • aglet
    aglet 11 May 2020 17: 35 New
    -1
    Quote: Alf
    Subject to normal hit

    light tanks with armor up to 20mm, penetrated this cartridge in all directions, and pierced them from the rifle
    1. Alf
      Alf 11 May 2020 22: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: aglet
      and shot them out of the rifle

      14 millimeters deuces from a mosquito? Hm ...
  • aglet
    aglet 11 May 2020 17: 42 New
    0
    Quote: 2112vda
    These missiles showed very high efficiency against all types of German tanks

    who argues? it was only necessary to get in, and that’s all
    1. agond
      agond 11 May 2020 23: 04 New
      -3
      An interesting aircraft was obtained by Ilyushin, the author indicates that it was effective mainly against lightly armored, and even better completely unarmored targets and chips from radio-fired shells, there were no naive questions
      1, why is such an aircraft 850-950 kg of armor, that is 15.5% of the take-off weight? despite the fact that she did not keep hits from heavy machine guns
      2 maybe you didn’t have to make half the plane out of steel and the other out of wood, maybe you had to do all of the wood like Pinocchio like La Havenland?
      3, why was it necessary to build them in such numbers?
      4 the most interesting question, and what are the statistics of the losses of the parties from actions on one plane for the Il-2 and the Junkers-88?
      1. Alf
        Alf 12 May 2020 19: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: agond
        the most interesting question, and what are the statistics of the losses of the parties from actions on one plane for the Il-2 and the Junkers-88?

        And what is the statistics of losses per aircraft for the KhSH-129 and TU-2?
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 12 May 2020 11: 42 New
    +2
    The best feature is the opponent’s opinion:
    In the matter of creating attack aircraft, the Russians firmly adhered to the rules of sacrificing speed and maneuverability for the sake of powerful armor. This approach was diametrically opposed to the opinion of the Luftwaffe military experts, who preferred to have high-speed, lightly armored attack aircraft. However, from the point of view of many German commanders, the modernized IL-2 fulfilled all the requirements for an attack aircraft, and was often considered by them as an ideal combat weapon for attacks on small-sized ground targets in the front line.


    http://militera.lib.ru/h/schwabedissen/03.html
    Schwabedissen Walter Schwabedissen Walter
    Stalin's Falcons: Analysis of the actions of Soviet aviation in 1941-1945.
    1. Alf
      Alf 12 May 2020 19: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      The best feature is the opponent’s opinion:
      In the matter of creating attack aircraft, the Russians firmly adhered to the rules of sacrificing speed and maneuverability for the sake of powerful armor. This approach was diametrically opposed to the opinion of the Luftwaffe military experts, who preferred to have high-speed, lightly armored attack aircraft. However, from the point of view of many German commanders, the modernized IL-2 fulfilled all the requirements for an attack aircraft, and was often considered by them as an ideal combat weapon for attacks on small-sized ground targets in the front line.


      http://militera.lib.ru/h/schwabedissen/03.html
      Schwabedissen Walter Schwabedissen Walter
      Stalin's Falcons: Analysis of the actions of Soviet aviation in 1941-1945.

      For such a characteristic, sofa experts are stumbling you now.