Military Review

Combat aircraft. Front-line fighters. Rating with readers

182

So, as promised, we tried together with those who came to stream to discuss the question of what rating could be built for fighters of the Second World War.


Discussed.

The picture turned out ... original.

To begin with, from the very beginning we asked a slightly different way to determine which plane was the best. We decided to abandon the analysis of performance characteristics as a determining factor in the “coolness” of the aircraft.

And what will we measure? Parrots

Not quite.

The following factors were taken as a basis:

1. The period of participation in the war. The bigger, the better.
2. The number of aircraft issued.
3. Speed, altitude and maneuverability.
4. Armament.
5. Which theater was used and with what efficiency.

Perhaps now anger will begin on the part of fans of the P-51 Mustang and Yak-3, but alas, they did not find a place here. The planes went into battle at the end of the war and did not have any real impact on the situation. For them, so to speak, everything was done by others. Like the Hurricanes.

The very principle of rating, we also decided to slightly change. Not because even with the help of readers and viewers they could not come to a certain conclusion, but because there simply wasn’t an ideal fighter. Or wasn’t in those years.

Therefore - a pedestal!

1 place


Fighter Messerschmitt Bf. 109. Germany.


1-1939.
2. 33.
3. Universal fighter.
4 x 1 mm, 20 x 2 mm.
5. At all European theater, Africa.

The embodiment of the power of the Luftwaffe, for the sake of fighting with which the Allied planes took off. An ideal front-line fighter with a minimum of flaws. He went a long way of modifications and became one of the best aircraft of the Second World War.

Yakovlev Yak-9 fighter. THE USSR.


1-1942.
2. 16.
3. Station wagon to the last drop of oil. Maneuverable fighter.
4 x 1 mm, 20 x 1 mm.
5. The Eastern Front, the Far East.

The weakest weapon in our review. However, it was these machines that became the meat grinder grinding the Messerschmitt. This is a fact from which not to get out. The fighter had excellent potential for enhancing both weapons and range.

Fighter Supermarine Spitfire. Great Britain.


1-1939.
2. 20.
3. One of the best aircraft in the world in terms of balance. Perfectly worked on all range of heights. Speed ​​characteristics on the level.
4. 2 x 20 mm, 4 x 7,69 mm. Enough to solve any problems.
5. At all theater: Western and Eastern fronts of Europe, Africa, the Pacific region, Indochina.

An ideal aircraft, not without flaws, but having fought the whole war. Somewhere better (Battle of Britain), somewhere with more modest successes, as in the East. Magnificent engines and flight data made Spitfire one of the best aircraft. Pilots would be Soviet to him ...

2 place


Fighter Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk. USA.


1-1939.
2. 13.
3. Universal fighter.
4 x 6 mm.
5. On all theater of operations as a front-line fighter.

Not having outstanding characteristics, the middle peasant, who, nevertheless, fought the entire war in all theaters of operations. Tenacious, with good weapons.

Focke-Wulf Fw. 190 Würger fighter. Germany.


1-1941.
2. 20.
3. Somewhat overweight, but fast and with excellent weapons.
4 x 4 mm, 20 x 2 mm.
5. At all European theater, Africa.

The fighter is ambiguous. It had the most powerful weapons, excellent defense, on the Western Front was a scarecrow for the Allies, and on the Eastern Front, in conditions of maneuvering battles, it was formidable, but nothing more. Still, it lacked precisely maneuverability.

Fighter Lavochkin La-5.


1-1942.
2. 9.
3. A fighter of excellence.
4 x 2 mm.
5. The Eastern Front, the Far East.

This aircraft was not released in such a large series, this is its only drawback. The rest is beautiful weapon winners (yes, the cabin was hot). Fast, strong, powerful.

3 place


Fighter Bell P-39 Airacobra. USA.


1-1941.
2. 9.
3. He showed himself best on the Eastern Front. The rest are weaker.
4 x 1 mm (37 mm), 20 x 2 mm, 12,7 x 4 mm.
5. Pacific theater of war, the Eastern Front.

Cobra is a hero. But only with us. Only our pilots were able to take everything from this machine and a little more from above. On other fronts, the aircraft did not receive popularity. Deservedly.

Fighter Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. USA.


1-1942.
2. 15.
3. The heaviest single-engine and one of the fastest fighters in the world.
4 x 8 mm, bombs up to 12,7 kg.
5. On all military operations, except the Eastern Front.

Very well armed, powerful, fast aircraft. The main drawback was the huge mass for the fighter, which did not prevent him from participating in the battles in all the theater of the war.

Fighter Dewoitine D.520.


1-1939.
2. 910.
3. He fought the whole war on both sides of the front without modifications.
4 x 1 mm, 20 x 4 mm.
5. European theater of war, Africa, the Middle East.

He has the right to be on our list, because he fought the whole war on both sides of the front. Without modifications, remaining a completely normal aircraft. The plane equally fought against the Spitfires, the Hurricanes, the Saettes and the Messerschmitts.

This is our situation. Naturally, it is controversial, since everyone had an opinion on this. Someone will say about Italian, Romanian and (especially) Japanese planes, but we will talk about them separately. Especially about the Japanese, who did not find a place here. On the stream, we came to the conclusion that we deserved it.

The format itself seemed to us useful, and now we are preparing for the next part. We want to talk about carrier-based aircraft, because there is generally for the revelry of fantasy sea-ocean. But if you don’t hit hard on the alternative historyThere is something to talk about.
Author:
182 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 10 July 2020 18: 20 New
    15
    Perhaps now anger will begin on the part of fans of the P-51 Mustang and Yak-3, but alas, they did not find a place here. The planes went into battle at the end of the war and did not have any real impact on the situation.
    Again, everything is subjective ...
    Maybe it would be more worthwhile to look at how this or that fighter could influence the air war.
    Everything is clear with the BF-109, there are no complaints about it, as there aren’t any fighters, except for the fact that it was on the wrong side.
    But with Yaki it is not so simple. On the good side, the Yakov family should be divided into two series Yak-1/3 and Yak-7/9, but it does not surprise us that the BF-109 of various modifications was very different, and why are we making exceptions here?
    Yes, and the contribution of the “Mustang” should not be minimized, he also entered the arena of fighting in 1942, but of course showed himself in all its glory later.
    1. NF68
      NF68 10 July 2020 18: 50 New
      12
      Quote: svp67
      Perhaps now anger will begin on the part of fans of the P-51 Mustang and Yak-3, but alas, they did not find a place here. The planes went into battle at the end of the war and did not have any real impact on the situation.
      Again, everything is subjective ...
      Maybe it would be more worthwhile to look at how this or that fighter could influence the air war.
      Everything is clear with the BF-109, there are no complaints about it, as there aren’t any fighters, except for the fact that it was on the wrong side.
      But with Yaki it is not so simple. On the good side, the Yakov family should be divided into two series Yak-1/3 and Yak-7/9, but it does not surprise us that the BF-109 of various modifications was very different, and why are we making exceptions here?
      Yes, and the contribution of the “Mustang” should not be minimized, he also entered the arena of fighting in 1942, but of course showed himself in all its glory later.


      The Germans considered the most dangerous fighters of the Red Army Air Force La-7 and Yak-3. The opinion of those who directly dealt with enemy aircraft on the side. The P-40 is in second place, and the Tempest of the Hauker company, which the P-40 was not good for at all, was out of the ordinary. P-51 is not mentioned, although it delivered a lot of trouble to the Axis countries, and there was a place for Devautin.

      Perhaps now anger will begin on the part of fans of the P-51 Mustang and Yak-3, but alas, they did not find a place here. The planes went into battle at the end of the war and did not have any real impact on the situation.



      Even as they had an impact.

      What a mess.
      1. Oleg Bykov
        Oleg Bykov 29 August 2020 00: 08 New
        0
        And "Zero" is not mentioned
    2. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 10 July 2020 19: 46 New
      16
      Well, yes, given that our fighters have changed dramatically from the end of 42 (the LaGG duckling miraculously became the La-5 swan and further to 43 (Yak1 became Yak7 and Yak9) and 44 (La5FN turned into La7, and Yak1 into Yak3), it’s impossible to consider fixed fighter jets.
      Spitfire 42 years and 44/45 - completely different cars. Just like the Mustang 42 and 45 are completely different cars.
      We need a reference point - the rating of the beginning of the war and the rating of its end - two different ratings.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 11 July 2020 08: 51 New
        +1
        No rating will work anyway.

        In the Winter War, the Brewster fighter proved to be excellent. At the same time, over the Pacific Ocean, the pilots spat on later versions of this aircraft and demanded that they be removed from service. The first aircraft that launched the Zero genocide was twin-engine lightning. Which did not show itself in Africa.

        So everything is complicated.
        1. Alf
          Alf 11 July 2020 17: 01 New
          +3
          Quote: Octopus
          At the same time, pilots spat on the Pacific Ocean from later versions of this aircraft.

          Buffalo F2A and F2A-3, in fact, are almost different planes. Moreover, the Finns had land versions, more lightweight.
          One of the aces flying to Buffalo, McFischen, recalled that "we paid more attention to bars than to flights." The result was not long in coming ...
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 11 July 2020 17: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: Alf
            Buffalo F2A and F2A-3

            Yes, the Americans worsened it quite a bit by their improvement. This is constantly with them.
            Quote: Alf
            we paid more attention to bars than to flights

            Yes, American relaxation was the main reason for the failure of the outbreak of war.

            But fact is fact. When trying to make some kind of rating, we will often see conflicting aircraft. In addition to the aforementioned, this is Cobra, and Fock, and Corsair, much can be remembered.
            1. Alf
              Alf 11 July 2020 17: 13 New
              0
              Quote: Octopus
              But fact is fact. When trying to make some kind of rating, we will often see conflicting aircraft. In addition to the aforementioned, this is Cobra, and Fock, and Corsair, much can be remembered.

              Yes, no arguing against the facts.
      2. BMP-2
        BMP-2 11 July 2020 15: 02 New
        +3
        In my subjective opinion, the “best fighter” is the one in the cockpit of which I would like to be if the task was to “destroy enemy aircraft”. Of course at different points in time it will be different cars. But if you build a rating for a certain period, then it doesn’t matter at all when this best car appeared: at the beginning, in the middle or at the end.
      3. NF68
        NF68 12 July 2020 17: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Vlad.by
        We need a reference point - the rating of the beginning of the war and the rating of its end - two different ratings.


        You can even compare fighters produced at about the same time. For example, 1941, 1942, 1943 and so on. This, too, will not be an ideal comparison, but it will nevertheless be closer to reality than as in this material.
      4. Abel
        Abel 12 September 2020 21: 31 New
        0
        Sorry, but in my opinion La-5FN and LA-7 are somewhat different airplanes
    3. Doctor
      Doctor 10 July 2020 20: 45 New
      +2
      Again, everything is subjective ...
      Maybe it would be more worthwhile to look at how this or that fighter could influence the air war.

      Right Because subjectivity contribute people. Novels - Skomorokhov and Krivov.
      If we are talking about the BEST FIGHTER, we should use only 2 of the criteria proposed by the authors, namely:

      3. Speed, altitude and maneuverability.
      4. Armament.

      Because the best fighter is the one who BEST KILLS.
      Best AIR Fighter.

      In doing so, we SHOULD NOT ACCOUNT THE PILOT. The pilot introduces subjectivity. Pilots in aerial combat must be considered equal.
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 11 July 2020 11: 15 New
        0
        Range is also important (barrage time or range over the ocean). Again, the pilot can not be ruled out, well, fighters did not fly on their own, and they do not fight themselves.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 11 July 2020 11: 30 New
          +3
          Again, the pilot can not be ruled out, well, fighters did not fly on their own, and they do not fight themselves.

          Well, we are still comparing airplanes.
          It is clear that Pokryshkin will disperse us all here on a bicycle. laughing
      2. English tarantas
        English tarantas 13 July 2020 09: 30 New
        0
        Because the best fighter is the one who BEST KILLS.
        Best AIR Fighter.

        In doing so, we SHOULD NOT ACCOUNT THE PILOT. The pilot introduces subjectivity. Pilots in aerial combat must be considered equal.

        Did you hear enough of Vysotsky? A fighter is the one who sits at the wheel, he exterminates. How are you going to consider the Yak-9, Thunderbolt and Bf109 pilots equal. Machines of different technical levels required pilots of different specific qualities, different levels of training and technical knowledge. We must not exclude the pilot from the calculations, but consider the average result of all pilots and evaluate the simplicity and convenience of mastering the aircraft, although this may not give the correct result. And leave the comparison of spherical horses in a vacuum to idiots.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 13 July 2020 15: 45 New
          0
          A fighter is the one who sits behind the wheel, he exterminates

          I meant the type of aircraft. I agree with you too.

          We must not exclude the pilot from the calculations, but consider the average result of all pilots and evaluate the simplicity and convenience of mastering the aircraft, although this may not give the correct result.

          True, but it is unrealistic. Where will you find a WWII pilot who had the same raid on Yak, Mass and Thunderbolt? Not to mention all types of aircraft.

          It remains to compare the performance characteristics of machines, although the authors abandoned this.
          1. English tarantas
            English tarantas 13 July 2020 17: 59 New
            0
            Where will you find a WWII pilot who had the same raid on Yak, Mass and Thunderbolt? Not to mention all types of aircraft.

            Consider the average efficiency of pilots of one type of machine of one particular modification. For example, on the Yak-3, on average, so much was shot down per flight, so much was lost, on the Yak-9 .... on the Yak-9T .... And the results obtained are divided by unit of time (all the same, the service life is different and different intensity (departure / time unit)
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 14 July 2020 01: 39 New
              +1
              Quote: English Tarantas
              Consider the average efficiency of pilots of one type of machine of one particular modification.

              1. And where do you get such statistics?
              2. You will find that Brewster Buffalo at the expense of the Finns is better than Gloucester Meteor, who, EMNIP, did not conduct a single air battle. And Messer is generally located in another galaxy in terms of efficiency.
              1. English tarantas
                English tarantas 15 July 2020 11: 34 New
                0
                The Brewster Buffalo at the expense of the Finns is better than Gloucester Meteor, who, EMNIP, did not conduct a single air battle.

                Well, we decided not to compare the performance characteristics, but the effect of the aircraft on the course of the war. Then yes, it turns out that the plane did nothing - it didn’t affect anything. AND.......
                And Messer is generally located in another galaxy in terms of efficiency.

                Yes, Bf. 109 is still a hero. And even in terms of performance characteristics it is good.
                And where do you get such statistics?

                And that in the 40s there was no paper and no one kept the documentation? Or are you upset that you cannot find a tablet on Wikipedia? This information is possessed by people involved in WWII professionally, and it seems that such statistics are already available, though not thorough.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 15 July 2020 12: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: English Tarantas
                  professional people engaged in WWII

                  Of course not. These people have applications for the downed, and then not in a consolidated form. They don’t know anything about really shot down.
                  1. English tarantas
                    English tarantas 16 July 2020 13: 41 New
                    0
                    And these people also have the opportunity to calculate according to documents how many pilots, sorties and losses there were. I'm telling you about this.
                    They don’t know anything about really shot down.

                    They know, because on the other hand, losses were counted and recorded, too.
    4. Octopus
      Octopus 11 July 2020 08: 42 New
      11
      Quote: svp67
      Mustang’s contribution should not be minimized; it also entered the battle arena in 1942

      Yes, of course the authors here are from the heart.

      Mustang has been participating in battles since July 42, almost a year earlier than the R-47, earlier than the La-5, and even more so the Yak-9. It mustang, (and Jag), grinded most of the 33 thousand Messers in the air defense of the Reich. The volume of production is more than any Soviet aircraft, including the Yak-9 of all modifications.

      Went to battle at the end of the war, Wow! Had no effect, Wow!
      1. svp67
        svp67 11 July 2020 08: 57 New
        +5
        Quote: Octopus
        Mustang participates in battles since July 42

        Nevertheless, his main merit was that he did not allow the Germans to nullify the Allied bombing squadrons and continue day raids ... And by this he greatly influenced the conduct of the air war.
        Quote: Octopus
        before La 5

        You know, now I’m ready to listen to a bunch of different words, but I wouldn’t really separate La-5 from LaGG-3 and La-7 ...
        The Germans, on their Messerschmitt, went a similar development path, and even about the FV-190 and can not speak ...
        Quote: Octopus
        including the Yak-9 of all modifications.

        I already wrote about him, for me he is from the UTI-26 ... I-27 .... Yak-7 ... Yak-9 line
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 11 July 2020 09: 25 New
          +4
          You are partly right, the USSR changed the model numbers of fighters, and the bourgeois changed letters. The Spits and Mustangs had modifications with different engines, the PV had versions with an air vent and a rowman. From this point of view, there are only 4 Soviet fighters, the Yak-1 line, the Yak-7 line, the LaGG line and without the MiG line.
          Quote: svp67
          Nevertheless, his main merit was that he did not allow the Germans to nullify the Allied bombing squadrons and continue day raids

          For this purpose, the Americans ordered and used the R-47 and Lauting (the latter - with less success). P-51 has become a cheaper replacement for them. For the Americans themselves, this was a nice bonus, no more.
        2. English tarantas
          English tarantas 13 July 2020 09: 35 New
          0
          continue day raids ... And with this he greatly influenced the conduct of the air war.

          Let us not forget that the bombing of industry affects the outcome of the entire war, and not just its airborne part.
          1. svp67
            svp67 13 July 2020 09: 37 New
            0
            Quote: English Tarantas
            Let us not forget that the bombing of industry affects the outcome of the entire war, and not just its airborne part.

            I agree completely. But I talked about the role of the Mustangs in this process.
            1. English tarantas
              English tarantas 13 July 2020 09: 40 New
              +2
              Well, the bottom line is that the Mustang allowed the Allies to tear and throw German ground targets in the rear, simultaneously reducing the volume of German aircraft. So, the authors of the rating are wrong.
              1. svp67
                svp67 13 July 2020 09: 41 New
                0
                Quote: English Tarantas
                Well, the bottom line is that the Mustang allowed the Allies to tear and throw German ground targets in the rear, simultaneously reducing the volume of German aircraft.
                So, the authors of the rating are wrong.
                I agree completely
  2. Pavel57
    Pavel57 10 July 2020 18: 24 New
    13
    All truths are false.

    All the same, the approach is not clear.

    La-7 is closer to La-5 than Spitfires with Merlin and Griffon.

    Dewoitine D.520. generally far-fetched.
    1. NIKN
      NIKN 10 July 2020 20: 56 New
      +3
      Quote: Pavel57
      All truths are false.

      You can’t argue, It’s not clear what was generally evaluated. R-47, if you consider it probably as a kind of "attack aircraft", as a fighter, he should not have entered this rating. It was used as a fighter from hopelessness; there was no other for escort.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 11 July 2020 09: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: NIKNN
        a certain "attack aircraft", as a fighter, he should not have entered this rating. It was used as a fighter from hopelessness; there was no other for escort.

        In fact, Jag was ordered and created as a long-range high-altitude escort fighter, and it was in this capacity that it was used very effectively. At 10 kilometers and 4 hours fly from its airfield - this is the best fighter of the war.

        It’s just like an attack aircraft it was used “from despair”, America of the 44th year did not have a decent tactical attack aircraft *. In this role he turned out to be unexpectedly very good.

        * There was, of course, not one. But the US Army Air Force waged a war of extermination with the ground forces, so they refused to send tactical attack planes to Europe, so that, God forbid, they would not be forced to help the land. They fought quite seriously, the commander of the US ground forces died under American bombs.

        The Air Force won.
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty 10 July 2020 18: 28 New
    -3
    Actually, I think that objectivity was respected, but it’s a pity the absence of such aircraft as LaGG and I16 on the list, although rare, he honestly performed his “swan song”! Now, you need to create a rating of the most unsuccessful planes of the Second World War, for such were the case, such as Hurricane. The car was extremely unreliable engine, and weak weapons.
    1. svp67
      svp67 10 July 2020 19: 03 New
      +4
      Quote: Thrifty
      such were the case, such as Hurricane.

      Thanks to which the Britons repelled the German Aviation War in 1940
    2. Alf
      Alf 10 July 2020 19: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      The car was extremely unreliable engine,

      Strongly said, still would have evidence ..
      1. Thrifty
        Thrifty 10 July 2020 19: 21 New
        0
        Alf hi - It’s like the famous Safonov fighter in the Northern Fleet fought and died on it. Then Arseny Petrovich Golovko, in his book “Together with the Fleet,” as commander of the Northern Fleet, pointed out the weakness of the Hawkein Hurricane engine, in which there was “a lot of silver, but not enough reliability.” Archives to help you, but the engine’s low resource, confirmed the fact that these aircraft from the battle, it was unsuitable for our Arctic!
        1. Alf
          Alf 10 July 2020 19: 27 New
          +2
          Quote: Thrifty
          - It’s like the famous Safonov fighter in the Northern Fleet fought and died on it. Then Arseny Petrovich Golovko, in his book “Together with the Fleet,” as commander of the Northern Fleet, pointed out the weakness of the engine of Hawkein Hurricane,

          Safonov died on the P-40E Kittyhawk. Allison on the P-40 worked quite reliably. The fact is that the sound of Allison's afterburner almost did not change from the usual mode and many pilots did not pay attention to this.
          And as for the Merlin, there have been no complaints about the quality of these engines from our Spitfire pilots.
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 10 July 2020 19: 26 New
      +6
      Quote: Thrifty
      you need to create a rating of the most unsuccessful aircraft of the Second World War, for such ones also took place, such as Hurricane. The car was extremely unreliable engine, and weak weapons.

      On the “unsuccessful” Hurricane stood the same Rolls-Royce Merlin as on the “outstanding” Spitfire and the P-51 Mustang. The first Spitfire series carried the same rifle machine guns as the Hurricane, they received guns by the end of the war. And if we take into account the later modifications, we must take into account both the Yak-3, and La-7, and even, about uzhos, Me-262.
      In general, the British mechanics on the Rolls-Royce engines had no complaints. But on the Soviet (Lend-Lease) Hurricane motors rained down. Because, firstly, the gentle British could not stand the Soviet fuel and lubricants, and secondly, the Soviet pilots spent the whole battle on the afterburner, which, according to the factory instructions, could be turned on for no more than how many, but very few minutes. And I understand them. Fast and the Furious often determined the difference between knocking down or being knocked down.
      1. Alf
        Alf 10 July 2020 20: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: Nagan
        The first Spitfire series carried the same rifle machine guns as the Hurricane, they received guns by the end of the war.

        In 1942, guns were registered on Sleep-8.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 10 July 2020 20: 25 New
          +1
          And the Battle of Britain, in which they most marked, was in 1940.
          1. Alf
            Alf 10 July 2020 20: 26 New
            +2
            Quote: Nagan
            And the Battle of Britain, in which they most marked, was in 1940.

            The 42nd year is not the end of the war.
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 10 July 2020 20: 31 New
              +2
              Quote: Alf
              The 42nd year is not the end of the war.

              And it depends on where to count. If from 1941-06-22, then the first half. And if from 1939-08-01, then the second.
      2. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav 10 July 2020 22: 01 New
        +2
        Nagan, there are completely different engines, albeit one firm
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 11 July 2020 01: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: Ryaruav
          Nagan, there are completely different engines, albeit one firm

          Rolls Royce Merlin on both.
      3. Octopus
        Octopus 11 July 2020 09: 16 New
        +3
        Quote: Nagan
        guns they received by the end of the war

        The end of the war - this is sleeping five Vb and Vc, the 41st year.
        Quote: Nagan
        about uzhos, Me-262

        R-80 Shutingstar do not forget. Yes, he also fought in WWII. On it, I think, all issues with ratings "according to the characteristics of the aircraft" are closed.
    4. Octopus
      Octopus 11 July 2020 09: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      like Hurricane. The car was extremely unreliable engine, and weak weapons.

      Normal fighter of the second line. The engine is the same as on sleep and the late Mustang. In the later 4-gun versions, he is more than convincingly armed. Yes, it’s too heavy as a fighter and the bomb load is not enough for IS. But the R-40 as a strike aircraft is superior, the Yak-7 even more so.
  4. Cartalon
    Cartalon 10 July 2020 18: 40 New
    +3
    Not to say that I am very much in the subject, but even for me it looks primitive.
    Bf.109, 39 years old is the same as Bf.109, 44 years old?
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 10 July 2020 21: 23 New
      +3
      Not to say that I am very much in the subject, but even for me it looks primitive.
      Bf.109, 39 years old is the same as Bf.109, 44 years old?

      Of course primitive, you are right.
      Graph of maximum speed versus height in comparison:

      Initial Bf.109E Emil compared to Bf.109F-2 Friedrich


      Bf.109F-2 Friedrich vs Bf.109G-2 Gustav


      Bf.109G-2 Gustav vs Bf.109K-4 Elector
  5. paul3390
    paul3390 10 July 2020 18: 43 New
    +6
    It is amazing - there is not a single Japanese, even the legendary Zero ..
  6. Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 18: 57 New
    0
    It must be understood that the fighter’s rating according to the statistics of downed opponents does not reflect the picture. If a faster and higher-altitude fighter serves as a hunter and a duelist, he can fill a lot of game, but a less fast and more maneuverable fighter - the bodyguard of attack aircraft and bomb carriers, even if he shot down less personally, but he played an equally significant role, rather, more the defeat of enemy forces, reflecting massive raids on the escorted group.
  7. Alf
    Alf 10 July 2020 19: 10 New
    +6
    P-47 Thunderbolt write in FRONT ??? However, a flight of fancy ....
    1. HaByxoDaBHocep
      HaByxoDaBHocep 11 July 2020 05: 56 New
      0
      The "pitcher" was used more as an attack aircraft, I also don’t understand why it was stuffed there
  8. Imperial Technocrat
    Imperial Technocrat 10 July 2020 19: 12 New
    -23
    Fighter Rating:
    1. Su-xnumx
    2. Su-xnumx
    3. F-22
    4. Su-xnumx
    5. Mig-35
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 10 July 2020 19: 23 New
      -2
      Imperial Techno-krat, where is the "icon" of the United States, where is fu35? ?? lol
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 10 July 2020 19: 46 New
        +4
        Quote: Thrifty
        Imperial Techno-krat, where is the "icon" of the United States, where is fu35? ??

        In Israel. Persians in Syria, and not only often flies to the very do not spoil, but they do not even see and do not understand where it came from. They do not see the F-35, but he is.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 11 July 2020 09: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Nagan
          they don’t even see and understand where it came from. They do not see the F-35, but he is.

          In recent days, a lot of interesting things have been happening in Iran itself, including the capital.
    2. Alf
      Alf 10 July 2020 19: 29 New
      +7
      Quote: Imperial Technocrat
      Fighter Rating:
      1. Su-xnumx
      2. Su-xnumx
      3. F-22
      4. Su-xnumx
      5. Mig-35

      And the fact that it was a WWII fighter was not escaped your attention?
  9. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 10 July 2020 19: 20 New
    0
    Skomorokhov everywhere devuatin is trying to push through, the R-40 should not enter the first three places as well as the R-39, the Yak-9 low-altitude plane above 4000m lost the messer and the fokker and you have a funny spitfire in general well then you need to consider the family of yaks from Yak- 1 to Yak-3
    1. Andrey.AN
      Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 20: 22 New
      +2
      There was such a fighter pilot Skomorokhov, twice a hero of the USSR, beat about fifty fascist cars, flew on Lavochkin, maybe he is his kin? I read a book about him. Then probably it’s not well understood, there is a motive.
    2. Andrey.AN
      Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 20: 35 New
      +4
      By the way, half shot down in battles with the trump asses of the Wehrmacht.
    3. HaByxoDaBHocep
      HaByxoDaBHocep 11 July 2020 05: 55 New
      +3
      But why did Yaku have high altitude, most of the battles on the Eastern Front took place at ranges from 2000 to 4000 meters, take the same Mig-3, an excellent high-altitude fighter, but at low and medium altitudes it was inferior to both enemy fighters and ours.
  10. Doctor
    Doctor 10 July 2020 19: 24 New
    +3
    You can try to see the lists of pilot aces and their planes.
    For example, our heroes who won 20 or more victories.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_советских_асов_Великой_Отечественной_войны,_одержавших_20_и_более_личных_побед

    Immediately see the true effectiveness of the Yak-9.

    But there is a way much cooler and more accurate. The truth is much longer and more complicated.
    1. Andrey.AN
      Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 21: 02 New
      +2
      this method is not true, less fast and more maneuverable fighters covering attack aircraft and bombers, served obviously no worse for defeating the enemy, protecting against massive attacks, even if they didn’t shoot down much there, but made it possible to deliver a no less terrible blow.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 10 July 2020 21: 07 New
        -1
        this method is not true, less fast and more maneuverable fighters covering attack aircraft and bombers, served obviously no worse for defeating the enemy, protecting against massive attacks, even if they didn’t shoot down much there, but made it possible to deliver a no less terrible blow.

        The best fighter is the best air fighter, which, with equal pilots, statistically wins the most victories.
        The criterion for the overall contribution to victory is not true. U-2 introduced no less than others, but it is NOT the BEST fighter.

        Therefore, you need to consider 2 criteria out of 5 proposed by the author:

        3. Speed, altitude and maneuverability.
        4. Armament.
        1. Andrey.AN
          Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 21: 11 New
          0
          no, there is a difference, look at it yourself. If the fighter is in free patrol and hunting, he needs speed and altitude, and if he accompanies and protects the assault group, then he must be able to reflect strikes from their speed and height.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 10 July 2020 21: 42 New
            +3
            no, there is a difference, look at it yourself. If the fighter is in free patrol and hunting, he needs speed and altitude, and if he accompanies and protects the assault group, then he must be able to reflect strikes from their speed and height.

            Interesting, but naive. laughing No offense.
            All repeat the words of Pokryshkin: height, speed, maneuver, fire. But few understand what these words mean.

            The beginning of the war, you flew on I-16 type 18 on a free hunt. At an altitude of 3000 you meet the initial Bf-109E Emil. You and the German are equal in strength pilots.
            Comparative characteristics of your aircraft (you are red, it is blue).
            Speed ​​from height:


            Turn time:


            He's fast, you're nimble. He knows this and will never turn into a horizontal bend with you, because your turning radius is less, and you will go to the fire solution earlier.
            He will twist vertical loops and constantly peck at you from above, and in the end will peck. You just have to dodge.

            Everything is the same with accompaniment, only you are also afraid to lose drums.
            He will kill you, and then he will take on the bombers.
            Mercedes is always a Mercedes, and a Cossack is always a Cossack.

            And yes, do not forget his gun and two machine guns, and you only have a machine gun.
            1. Andrey.AN
              Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 21: 48 New
              0
              not quite so sure, if the I-16 is not stupid and does not repeat vertical maneuvers by a parrot, but meets with horizontal ones, those who bomb can normally cover. So maybe it happened, he tried to peck, and had to loop with the oncoming fire, the ammunition was empty, if you were lucky that he didn’t catch it with an oncoming fire, then he would go home empty.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 10 July 2020 21: 56 New
                +2
                not quite so sure if the I-16 is not stupid and the parrot does not repeat vertical maneuvers, but meets with horizontal,

                How do you meet the horizontal one who is on top?

                He falls on you from above, from behind and constantly keeping in sight, shortens the distance. You need to make a fantastic instant jump of 50 meters in order to break out of the aiming cone, and in order to catch you again, you need to move the helm slightly and give your foot a little.

                It takes you 15 seconds to turn into a frontal turn toward him to meet him, and at the same time you will lose speed to the point of stall, and he will fall on you from 3000 to 1000 in 3 seconds.

                At a distance of 100, it will hit you with everything, and having a dive speed below 700 m / s, the slide will go up again, preserving kinetic energy.
                1. Andrey.AN
                  Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 22: 13 New
                  +1
                  look, here is his vertical turn, into which he goes, it’s amplitude, it will take three times more time than making Ishachk to meet. And the I-16’s target is precisely this machine (it’s not convenient to enter, it will be in time to get out of the bend), which goes from the bend to the bombers, and not to the I-16, which will shoot it.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 10 July 2020 22: 34 New
                    0
                    look, here is his vertical turn, into which he goes, it’s amplitude, it will take three times more time than making Ishachk to meet. And the I-16’s target is precisely this machine (it’s not convenient to enter, it will be in time to get out of the bend), which goes from the bend to the bombers, and not to the I-16, which will shoot it.

                    laughing laughing laughing
                    Imagine you're spinning like a plate below. Yes, around you you are spinning like a hula, but you are DOWN. To meet the enemy, you need to lift your nose, that is, fly up.
                    Your speed in the set is 194 km / h, and he has 248. You will never catch him up and finally fall down.
                    He will roll over the wing and go down after your life.
                    The donkey has a dive speed of 580, and Emil has 750.
                    At 1000 he will get you, or your plane will fall apart earlier, trying to leave.
                    1. Andrey NM
                      Andrey NM 11 July 2020 20: 07 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Arzt
                      The donkey has a dive speed of 580, and Emil has 750.
                      At 1000 he will get you, or your plane will fall apart earlier, trying to leave

                      One problem - at high speeds during diving, the Messer became poorly controlled, very large efforts on the handle, so just giving a foot or handle will not work. The second moment - in his memoirs, Golodnikov N.G., Arkhipenko F.F. and other front-line soldiers said that to reliably hit a target, it is better to throw up speed, otherwise you just don’t have time to aim normally. In this case, the throttle response and ability to maintain combat speed becomes more important. A strike from an excess or, as it is now called "computer pilots," the boom zoom requires accurate calculation, and the attacker does not see you, while if the attacker is not a newcomer and noticed you at the beginning of your maneuver, then it is practically impossible to shoot down.
                      Remember how our front-line soldiers described the escort fights? The Germans circled above the ranks in excess and are waiting for a convenient moment to attack when turning the ranks or rebuilding orders, then they are already going on the attack. And that’s not all. Ours in this case, if on the "donkeys" or Yaks, they manage to turn around first in the forehead and on the second turn after the distance allows. You can’t bring down, but you won’t let the enemy take aim. But such an attack is suitable for a bomber attack, because a bomber is a target with poor maneuverability, but only if escort fighters allow it to be done. It seems to me that everything is logical, front-line soldiers will not compose.

                      In addition, the attacker himself can become a target if the attacker sees you, but does not show that he noticed you. Dementeyev B.S. recalled:
                      “I remember, since he (Kamozin) was replaced by four. We fly up to the front line. From the guidance station they transmit:“ Kamozin, carefully. A couple of Messers flew out. - "Well, let them go." Then silence. We are approaching, gaining altitude, have established communication with the guidance station. We hear: “Pasha, Pasha, look, the thin one comes in. -“ I see, let him come in. ”And not a word more. Usually some teams, mate, in the battle, but it's quiet. I look at where he goes, planes so far I don’t see - it’s still far away. About a minute and a half later, and I hear, he transmits: “Look, the thin one is burning. I went in, you see. "And that’s all. Then I myself saw a smoky train. So calmly he took it off."
                      1. Doctor
                        Doctor 11 July 2020 20: 21 New
                        +1
                        One problem

                        All right write. But I’m saying that a more advanced (high-speed) aircraft takes the initiative in battle. Leaving for a vertical maneuver, he dictates the rules, chooses the moment and direction of impact. And ultimately, in a statistically large sample will win.
                        And of course, anyone can run up too.
                2. Avior
                  Avior 10 July 2020 22: 44 New
                  0
                  700 m / s is probably actually 700 km / h
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 10 July 2020 23: 03 New
                    0
                    700 m / s is probably actually 700 km / h

                    Real yes. But the I-16 is also less
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 10 July 2020 23: 05 New
                      0
                      I'm about the text
                      With the graphs it’s clear
                      1. Doctor
                        Doctor 10 July 2020 23: 07 New
                        +3
                        I'm about the text
                        With the graphs it’s clear

                        So do I. Plus the age of the aircraft, engine life, the state of mechanization of the wing, the work of a mechanic, etc. etc.
                        I forgot the main thing. Skill of the pilot. wink
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 10 July 2020 23: 13 New
                        +1
                        I read that other adjustments were also important, about which little is written, for example, the pitch of the screw and so on. In this regard, there were many nuances in the real capabilities of aircraft with formally the same performance characteristics
                      3. Doctor
                        Doctor 10 July 2020 23: 21 New
                        +1
                        screw pitch

                        More on engine overheating.

                        I set a steeper angle, more dime, but the load on the engine increased. Open the radiator valves. This means that resistance to flow has increased and speed has fallen again. And the engine heats up anyway.

                        It’s good if there is a height, the radiator opened to maximum, gas to zero, step to minimum and fall, cool, purging.

                        And if sweaty, do you spin the barrels by 300, and two Foki hang in the back, changing,? bully
                      4. akarfoxhound
                        akarfoxhound 11 July 2020 11: 49 New
                        +2
                        Do not be offended, I did not tease.
                        In the early 90s, the comasco flying 15 years on the Su-15TM and by that time retraining on the Su-27P above the point, in the eyes of all l / s tore both the tail and mane on the 15th captain flying 27. This is me about local disputes at the HE for materiel (equipment / maneuverability) and skill. And almost 10 years ago, the MiG-31 squadron "punished" the self-confident AE on the Su-27SM. And it was not a "shooting" at long distances (the size of the area did not allow), but a carefully thought out, verified small operation. The pleasure received is incomparable. What am I talking about - the head - the main weapon of the fighter, everything else is needed, but secondary
                      5. Doctor
                        Doctor 11 July 2020 12: 44 New
                        +1
                        Do not be offended, I did not tease.

                        No offense drinks
                        In the early 90s, the comasco flying 15 years on the Su-15TM and by that time being retrained on the Su-27P above the point, in front of all the l / s tore both in the tail and mane

                        He tore the captain's comasco. But not the Su-15TM tore the Su-27P. This is a comparison of the pilots.
                        A spetsnazer with a kitchen knife will work for a housewife with AK at a time. Even without a knife. laughing
                        The question is different - what model of aircraft to equip 10 conditional pilots of the country to ensure a percentage victory?
                        The answer, of course, still will not be, theaters and conditions are different.
                        From 3000 to 1000 in 3 seconds ??? Here I was envious

                        Embellished for contrast. So that the principle is clear. Run uphill on a nag or ride down on an Akhal-Teke.
                        In real life, did Ny have a "cheek on your ears" or a confident user of the "keyboard" IL-2?

                        He served in the Air Force-Air Defense, but as a doctor wassat
                        Personal interest in the period of the Second World War, including the Air Force.
                        When I was deeply interested, I got to the "keyboard" Il. Without fanaticism, just to understand and feel the meanings.

                        You can laugh, but my conclusion is that there is no better way to compare the planes of that war than an airplane simulator on a good site.
                        For example on this:
                        http://il2org.ru/
        2. akarfoxhound
          akarfoxhound 11 July 2020 11: 22 New
          +2
          From 3000 to 1000 in 3 seconds ??? Here I was envious laughing
          And so on - where to add, where to slightly diminish for "beautiful argumentation", just like a flight smoker at an air-defense complex. In theory, you are well oriented. In real life, did Ny have "cheeks on your ears" or a confident user of the "keyboard" IL-2?
        3. illuminat
          illuminat 15 July 2020 16: 24 New
          0
          Quote: Arzt
          How do you meet the horizontal one who is on top?
          Usually if you see him. If you don’t see, then the conversation is over.
          Quote: Arzt
          You need to make a fantastic instant jump of 50 meters in order to break out of the aiming cone, and in order to catch you again, you need to move the helm slightly and give your foot a little.

          Well, why rave? There is no sighting cone. Turn around to the oncoming one, and that’s all, the main thing here is to accurately calculate the distance. And not with the helm, but with the handle. The larger the angle, the greater the angular movement of the target. At a distance of fire, this movement is often more than the ability to "move the helm."
        4. illuminat
          illuminat 15 July 2020 16: 39 New
          0
          Quote: Arzt
          It takes you 15 seconds to turn into a frontal turn toward him to meet him, and at the same time you will lose speed to the point of stall, and he will fall on you from 3000 to 1000 in 3 seconds.
          Again nonsense. Not a combat, but an ordinary U-turn. 7 seconds for I-16, 9-10 seconds for Yak and La. This is an established turn. If you lose speed before stalling (forced turn), then you can turn around a little faster.
          2 km in 3 seconds is a steep dive at a speed of more than two swoops (2400 km / h is steep!). You should study mathematics and physics at school, but for now not write, but only read what others write to you.
          Quote: Arzt
          At a distance of 100, it will hit you with everything, and having a dive speed below 700 m / s, the slide will go up again, preserving kinetic energy.
          A dive of 700 m / s is a full mouth of the earth after 1,5 s. No slide, and then there will be no energy after that.
          And you can’t determine the distance of 100 m at this speed.

          Quote: Arzt
          Your speed in the set is 194 km / h, and he has 248. You will never catch him up and finally fall down.
          He will roll over the wing and go down after your life.
          The donkey has a dive speed of 580, and Emil has 750.
          At 1000 he will get you, or your plane will fall apart earlier, trying to leave.
          This is all from toys. Master at least a simple aerobatics on the Yak-52, so as not to carry nonsense.
    2. Gwolf
      Gwolf 11 July 2020 08: 36 New
      -1
      I-16 is faster and better visibility. The pilot of the donkey knows this, so at least at the beginning of the battle I-16 will be pecking, and not Messer.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 11 July 2020 09: 04 New
        -2
        I-16 is faster and better visibility.

        Ohhhhh! Yes, even if it is type 28, cannon! And at the helm of some sort of Vorozheykin! Then, of course, the matter is different ...
        1. Gwolf
          Gwolf 13 July 2020 09: 03 New
          0
          Of course, another ... And?
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 13 July 2020 15: 52 New
            0
            Of course, another ... And?

            Vorozheykin will win, in 90% of cases. But we will evaluate the pilot, not the plane.
            Vorozheikin on I-16 will defeat all opponents, and Hartmann at Mass will bring down 50 newcomers to La-5 FN.
            The leading comrades will decide that Ishak is removed, and Lavka sucks, and they will leave Ishak and Lavochkin to the camp in the series.

            With this method of assessment there is a danger of losing the war.
            1. Gwolf
              Gwolf 13 July 2020 19: 25 New
              0
              Why did we suddenly change the subject? Why do you consider it necessary to discuss pilots, and not a plane?
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 13 July 2020 21: 44 New
                0

                Why did we suddenly change the subject? Why do you consider it necessary to discuss pilots, and not a plane?

                Because, as I understand it, you recognized the priority of the pilot over the aircraft in aerial combat.
                Of course, another ..

                And I think that when discussing the best aircraft, the coefficient of the pilot should be considered equal to 1.

                But you are right, I was the first to violate this rule by mentioning Arseniy Vasilievich Vorozheykin, one of our best aces.
    3. Octopus
      Octopus 11 July 2020 09: 46 New
      +2
      Quote: Arzt
      He's fast, you're nimble. He knows this and will never turn into a horizontal bend with you, because your turning radius is less, and you will go to the fire solution earlier.
      He will twist vertical loops and constantly peck at you from above, and in the end will peck. You just have to dodge.

      Yes.

      Moreover, even having an advantage in the horizontal, good pilots still fought on the verticals. He recently quoted how the best tinkers of war fought.
      Dodging this way from several attacks, John Touch clarified for himself the tactics of the Zero pilots, which, I recall, he encountered for the first time in his life. Based on the overwhelming advantage in speed and climb, they dive from time to time from top to back, trying to "sit on the tail" of the attacked car, and in case of failure they did not try to climb into close combat or fire from the flank, but simply left the attack and almost vertically climbed for a new one. As shown by the overflights of the captured Zero in the fall of 1942, a dispersed Japanese fighter could perform “almost vertical climb, which can last from one and a half thousand (1500) to two thousand (2000) feet [450-600 m] depending on the speed in the beginning of the maneuver. ”

      Quote: Arzt
      He will kill you, and then he will take on the bombers

      )))
      There is one more trouble. Both Mustang and Yak-9 are escort fighters. Only, as Vasily Ivanovich said in a trite joke, is there a nuance. One accompanied IL-2, albeit a three-regiment division, 60 vehicles (in reality, of course, there could not be 60 combat-ready vehicles in the three-regiment division at the same time).
      The second accompanied 400 Libertators. These are slightly different situations from the point of view of the conditions for entering the battle (altitude and speed), numerical superiority (mustangs also 400) and the tenderness of, let's say, guarded attack aircraft.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 11 July 2020 10: 51 New
        +1
        There is one more trouble. Both Mustang and Yak-9 are escort fighters.
        One accompanied IL-2 .... The second accompanied 400 Liberators. These are slightly different situations.

        Mustang is a great plane. Western experts consider his latest modification P-51 D-20 to be the best WWII aircraft.
        But not all so simple.
        If we compare the R-51 D-20 and Yak-9U with the M-107A engine, then the picture is as follows:

        In terms of speed, the Mustang is slightly better:


        The rate of climb up to 7000 is noticeably worse:


        The turn is definitely better for Yak:


        But Yak has an engine with a resource of only 25 hours, a ShVAK and 2 machine guns, while the Mustang has 2 guns and 6 machine guns.
        Hard choice. At least our pilots deciphered the letter “U” laughing
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 11 July 2020 11: 50 New
          +5
          Quote: Arzt
          Mustang great plane

          Erzac, American La-5. He began to fly properly when he got his own engine.
          Quote: Arzt
          Western experts consider his latest modification P-51 D-20 to be the best WWII aircraft.

          Western experts usually mean Discovery Channel. Mustang was better than Jag, because almost half the price. But not by flying qualities.
          Quote: Arzt
          If we compare the R-51 D-20 and Yak-9U with the M-107A engine, then the picture is as follows:

          ))
          You are comparing an escort fighter and an air superiority aircraft, moreover, directly in the front line. The main task of the Mustang, to fly from England to Berlin, was not set for the Yak-9.
          Quote: Arzt
          The speed of the Mustang is slightly better.

          It is better at all heights, except 5-7, where it has a height limit. At its heights of 7+ it is better incomparably.
          Quote: Arzt
          The rate of climb up to 7000 is noticeably worse:

          He is gaining heights of up to 7 thousand along with bombers. Over England.
          Quote: Arzt
          The turn is definitely better for Yak:

          Mustang, like all normal WWII aircraft, fights on verticals. Its dive is incomparably better than the wooden wing of the Yak-9 of the war years.
          Quote: Arzt
          But Yak has an engine with a resource of only 25 hours

          Yes. Yakovlev came to disposable aircraft.
          Quote: Arzt
          Mustang 2 guns and 6 machine guns.

          He never had 2 guns.
          Quote: Arzt
          Difficult choice

          Nothing complicated. The analogue of the Yak-9 was not the Mustang, but the late one sleeps in low-altitude versions. Of the Americans, Birket, and almost unfilled Birket.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 11 July 2020 12: 09 New
            +3
            I practically agree with everything, except for this:
            You are comparing an escort fighter and an air superiority aircraft, moreover, directly in the front line. The main task of the Mustang, to fly from England to Berlin, was not set for the Yak-9.

            Although I agree with this. There is no escape from specialization; everyone has sharpened airplanes for his tasks.
            But there are general principles and characteristics for the main criterion - victory over an enemy aircraft in battle.
            Roughly speaking: a thousand conditionally identical pilots on the Yak-9U versus a thousand pilots on the Mustangs carry out one battle (a thousand battles).
            I do not dare to predict the score.

            PS With the guns got excited, confused 7,62 and 12,7 in the early ones.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 11 July 2020 12: 32 New
              +5
              Quote: Arzt
              I do not dare to predict the score

              I will risk.

              A thousand mustangs and lightings arrive, with them a thousand B-17 and B-24. They take out the Kyustrinsky bridgehead cleanly, the fighters control the runways proven by the lightings and the mosquito and attack on take-off. Separate leather jackets manage to pick up 2-5-10 former allies, but in general, of course, the result is near zero, getting on an American bomber with two ShVAKs is completely crazy.

              The opposite is impossible, silt and pawns with yaks to 8VA bases do not reach under any circumstances. Even one way. Even without English air defense.

              Again. You correctly noticed.

              Quote: Arzt
              Mercedes is always Mercedes, and Cossack is always Cossack

              Of course, you are too sharp, the Americans made planes using low technologies for them. But low American technology is high Soviet. The obsolete cobra was one of the best Soviet aircraft of the end of the war, the Soviet side in the 44th could not even dream about the latest American shooter.

              If would 45-year-old Americans built a fighter to bend all life at a distance of 200 km from their airfield - that would be other airplane, not a mustang. For the real Allies, Spit worked in this role, which is not just a distant one, and not an IS, but a pure fighter.

              As for real Americans, in the 45th year both Birket and Shutingstar were armed, superiority in height and speed means that it is the American who will choose the battle conditions, the American’s entry into battle at heights favorable to the yak is only mistake of the American pilot. At the same time, Kozhedub is a leather jacket, but on average The American is much better prepared, even at the end of the war.

              But they Not needed such planes in Europe, they work otherwise they otherwise balanced aircraft. There is nothing strange about this.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 11 July 2020 13: 04 New
                0
                I will risk.

                Let's break the task down into components (as sergeants taught laughing )
                A thousand mustangs and lightings arrive, with them a thousand B-17 and B-24.

                What types of aircraft are able to quickly climb, wait and meet suitable?

                Climbing on an American bomber with two ShVAKs is completely insane.

                Which aircraft will best deal with the B-17? In a statistical sense.

                fighter jets control the runway proven by lightings and mosquito and attack on take-off.

                What is able to take off from an unprepared airfield and quickly gain altitude? Again, a statistically large sample.

                The opposite is impossible, silt and pawns with yaks to 8VA bases do not reach under any circumstances.

                We exclude aircraft with an unacceptably small radius.

                Etc. for different typical conditions. So we get the best.

                The obsolete cobra was one of the best Soviet aircraft of the end of the war.

                Let's be honest - the best!
                But not Soviet.
              2. Octopus
                Octopus 11 July 2020 13: 27 New
                +4
                Quote: Arzt
                What types of aircraft are able to quickly climb, wait and meet suitable?

                Sleep, of course. But they are in Moscow air defense. Kingcobra, they are not in Europe either. Alison at high altitude ends, especially VC. Remain La-7, perhaps. But wait - not with their tanks. And to meet 2 thousand planes by air patrol forces - well, such.
                Quote: Arzt
                will deal with the B-17? In a statistical sense.

                Yaks with large guns (VYA, NS). But they will not climb high. Cobra, but she needs to come close with her ballistics, the chances are near-zero.
                Quote: Arzt
                What is able to take off from an unprepared airfield and quickly gain altitude?

                It's nothing.
                Quote: Arzt
                We exclude aircraft with an unacceptably small radius.

                Then you will exclude all Soviet things, the success of aviation at the end of the war was precisely based on the relief of aircraft due to the abandonment of equipment and fuel.
                Quote: Arzt
                Let's be honest - the best!

                1. The best Soviet. Spaatsu such an aircraft unnecessarily, air defense islands too. He did not impress the Japanese at all in the 42nd.
                2. The USSR, with its pilot training system and with its attack aircraft in the form of IL-2, cannot have Cobra as the main fighter of the war, the Soviet Sleep. Even if we assume that the Americans supply it without any restrictions on the quantity, fuel, etc.
            2. Gwolf
              Gwolf 13 July 2020 09: 20 New
              +1
              Thousands of B-17s and B-24s will not make any bridgehead. Great luck will be if they do not touch their own. But an IL-2 regiment with the appropriate cover will bomb anything, while organizational, logistical, material and human losses will simply not be comparable.
            3. Octopus
              Octopus 13 July 2020 09: 28 New
              +4
              Quote: GWolf
              no bridgehead can be taken out.

              Seriously?
              Quote: GWolf
              Great luck will be if they do not touch their own.

              Its on the other hand from Berlin, so it is unlikely.
              Quote: GWolf
              But the regiment of IL-2 with the appropriate cover will bomb anything

              20 cars (actually 18), 8 tons of bombs. Three pieces A-26 or 6 R-47.
              Quote: GWolf
              at the same time, organizational, logistical, material and human losses will simply not be comparable.

              Of course they are not comparable. Silts are useless.
            4. Gwolf
              Gwolf 13 July 2020 19: 46 New
              0
              Ha, changed the record! Which A-26 or P-47? You initially spoke about other cars. No strategists at the tactical level in efficiency can compare with a normal attack aircraft or at least with information security. Your B-17 and B-24 are an excellent target for any air defense systems, so they have to bomb from high altitudes with a bomb spread a few km from the aiming point, if they even see this point behind the clouds. Yes, the IL-2 carries a few bombs, but he puts these bombs with such accuracy that your strategists have never dreamed of.
            5. Octopus
              Octopus 14 July 2020 01: 49 New
              +1
              Quote: GWolf
              Ha, changed the record!

              Let me remind you that moving from strategists to IL-2 is your idea.
              Quote: GWolf
              No strategists at the tactical level in efficiency can compare with a normal attack aircraft or at least with information security.

              Yes, you are a genius.
              Quote: GWolf
              Yes, the IL-2 carries a few bombs, but he puts these bombs with such accuracy that your strategists have never dreamed of.

              No, you seriously want me this explain?

              Your problem is that you are not in the know. The USSR has a 45th year weak tactical aircraft. Living Ilov about 3 thousand, EMNIP, despite the fact that the silt squadron carries weight as one A-26. The main striking force is pawns, but under the conditions of the Second World War, it is an ordinary horizontal plane, which is less effective than the P-47 (the latter carries the same number of bombs, it dives from a dive). Tu-2 is good, but is available in the amount of one body.
            6. Gwolf
              Gwolf 15 July 2020 00: 05 New
              0
              Quote: Octopus
              Let me remind you that moving from strategists to IL-2 is your idea.

              Let me remind you that using tactics on a tactical level is your idea.
              Quote: Octopus
              Yes, you are a genius.

              You too.
              Quote: Octopus
              No, you seriously want me this explain?

              Your problem is that you are not in the know. The USSR has a 45th year weak tactical aircraft. Living Ilov about 3 thousand, EMNIP, despite the fact that the silt squadron carries weight as one A-26. The main striking force is pawns, but under the conditions of the Second World War, it is an ordinary horizontal plane, which is less effective than the P-47 (the latter carries the same number of bombs, it dives from a dive). Tu-2 is good, but is available in the amount of one body.

              Your problem is that you do not understand that in the 45th in the reserve units, Ilov was almost an order of magnitude larger than in the acting units. We, unlike Germany, understood what reserves were in a total war. A pawn is a good dive player, in conditions of the Second World War, if the crew is experienced, it can bomb from a dive, if not really, then they bomb from the horizon. P-47 is a mediocre fighter, forced to become a mediocre attack aircraft. A-26 - a good car, but not so massive.
  • Alf
    Alf 11 July 2020 17: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    and Mustang has 2 guns and 6 machine guns.

    In what place does Kobyla have two guns and 6 machine guns? Native weapons P-51B 4 Colt-Browning, P-51D 6 Colts.
    Quote: Arzt
    ShVAK and 2 machine guns,

    Enough for any fighter.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 11 July 2020 17: 52 New
      +2
      Quote: Alf
      ShVAK and 2 machine guns,

      Enough for any fighter.

      )))
      No.

      The P-77 had the ideal armament, a Spanish-syuz motor-gun, two .50 per fuselage, a sophisticated American sight, and high ballistic close to all weapons.

      In production aircraft, this was not implemented. The wing armament of the Americans and the British does not allow the scope to be realized, the ShVAK has poor ballistics, Yaks with heavy guns do not have complex sights, the Germans set large calibers with weak ballistics, so a complex sight does not provide sniper shooting.
  • illuminat
    illuminat 15 July 2020 16: 16 New
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    He will twist the vertical loops
    Will not be. It doesn't work that way, from the word at all. There will be dives and slides, on loops you quickly squander all the energy and hi "dogfight". They will devour.
    Quote: Arzt
    You just have to dodge.
    Everything is the same with accompaniment, only you are also afraid to lose drums.
    He will kill you, and then he will take on the bombers.
    So while you dodge, he will not touch the drummers. The goal is achieved.
    In fact, everything is different, but this is another question.
    Quote: Arzt
    And yes, do not forget his gun and two machine guns, and you only have a machine gun.
    And yes, with the materiel you have absolutely sour. First, study the question, then bring the blizzard to the masses.
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 21: 16 New
    +1
    Let's just say that a fighter incapable of operating at low speeds is incapable of guarding slow-moving aircraft and ground targets.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 10 July 2020 22: 20 New
      +2
      Let's just say that a fighter incapable of operating at low speeds is incapable of guarding slow-moving aircraft and ground targets.

      Nothing of the sort, escorting drums (ground targets ?!) does not mean hanging on their tail at their speed. Such tactics are the right path to the grave for everyone.

      Beginning of 1942, you and a follower on Yak-1 accompany a couple of Ilovs. The silt goes to 1000 you at an altitude of 1500, 500 meters behind.
      Speeds Ilov and yours:


      You are faster than Ilov, but you go 30% of the gas making light slides and turns to stay behind.

      Towards 5000 is a pair of Bf-109F-2 Friedrich
      Speeds of yours and Friedrich:


      You will not even notice them from 1500, and you have them on top in full view, two fat beaver and a cover.
      They will quietly go into the clouds, let you through, and having distributed the targets (radio!), Going from the side of the Sun will first dump you, and then calmly, like in a dash, will smear heavy, slow Ilov.

      Competent cover is a whole system. And the characteristics of the aircraft are more important than in free hunting.
      1. Andrey.AN
        Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 22: 27 New
        +1
        whatever you say, if the ward is constantly lost sight of, at its speed, he doesn’t protect the ward, security is needed nearby, ready at any moment to repel the attack, which was actually detected, and not to rush to the SOS signal.
      2. Andrey.AN
        Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 22: 31 New
        +1
        Tell me, what will happen if a high-speed high-altitude guard misses a less speedy and very maneuverable car to his charges, can a fox in a chicken coop?
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 10 July 2020 22: 52 New
          +4
          Tell me, what will happen if a high-speed high-altitude guard misses a less speedy and very maneuverable car to his charges, can a fox in a chicken coop?

          It’s unrealistic to cover up alone.
          Nine Ilov sequentially takes off from the airfield, the eldest gathers a group and gains altitude depending on the distance to the front line, either right on the spot or going to the front or (if very close) even moving to the rear.
          If hawks are based together, they take off first and are built in battle formation, if they are met from the other at the agreed point.

          A pair of big-eyed and nimble sent forward for reconnaissance at 6000.
          Behind them, at 4000 - 5000, a group of combat ties (4-6), led by a Rex like Kozhedub.
          Behind Ilami for 3000 the insuring and finishing link. Above all this is the 7000 coordinator.

          After crossing the front lines, Ilya approaches the goal for which the first pair is already spinning, reporting on the purity of the horizon. Before hitting, a pair of greyhound hawks at low altitude, speed and maneuver "raises" anti-aircraft guns, forcing them to identify themselves and distracting attention.
          At this time, Ilya inflict a group strike on anti-aircraft guns and go to the second round.
          The rising pair leaves for the nearest enemy airfield and freezes in the band visibility zone, but is out of reach of the anti-aircraft guns, controlling takeoffs.
          Rex with a group between the target and the enemy airfield, insuring between the target and the front line.

          After work, everyone returns, the insured and the big-eyed change places.
          If everything is calm and anti-aircraft guns are suppressed, hawks can also "grind" the target.

          If you meet an enemy, then they associate him with battle, then hundreds of options, up to refusing to strike.
          1. Andrey.AN
            Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 22: 56 New
            +1
            ideally, rarely does something happen in the face of a desperate reaction.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 10 July 2020 23: 01 New
              +2
              ideally, rarely does something happen in the face of a desperate reaction.

              Sure. But the characteristics of the aircraft is the second most important link. Pilot, of course, first. good
              1. Andrey.AN
                Andrey.AN 10 July 2020 23: 03 New
                +2
                I agree, it’s up to the pilot to decide.
          2. Octopus
            Octopus 11 July 2020 09: 54 New
            +1
            Quote: Arzt
            It’s unrealistic to cover it alone

            Well, you have already described the 45th year, and even then some exemplary. Such a luxury, most pilots of Il have not seen in their entire lives.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 11 July 2020 11: 27 New
              +4
              Well, you have already described the 45th year, and even then some exemplary. Such a luxury, most pilots of Il have not seen in their entire lives.

              This is to show what a fighter should be able to do.
              In battle, there is no specification of the type:
              If the fighter is in free patrol and hunting, he needs speed and altitude, and if he accompanies and protects the assault group, then he must be able to reflect strikes from their speed and height.

              The situation is changing every second, now you are hanging over Ilami in cover, but now they’ve hit your tail (armored back!) and you have to escape at low altitudes (ground speed) twisting the barrels (maneuverability) at maximum (overheat time on max) revolutions.
              If you are lucky and come off, you need to quickly gain height (rate of climb) and look around (overview), simultaneously opening the radiator, adjusting the gas and the pitch of the screw.
              Now you need to catch up with the group (speed in the horizon) and save the screaming silt below, falling down at the peak (dive speed) at the Mass, having tried in fractions of a second to put a maximum of lead into it from an uncomfortable angle (centerline stability at peak)(second burst weight - weapon power).
              Then a steep hill (glider overload resistance) go up to immediately collide in the frontal with Foka Fw-190 A-8.
              And then pray, it is covered by a powerful engine with 2 guns and 2 machine guns and you are on the Yak ... laughing
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 11 July 2020 12: 07 New
                +2
                Quote: Arzt
                The situation is changing every second

                In theory, yes. In practice, there were no aircraft that could combine all this. So it was necessary in each case to deal with the strengths of the aircraft. So in everything, the inferior Zero F4F became competitive when it mastered team tactics and traverse maneuver (the advantages were realized in total radio communications, survivability, good fire training of the Americans, which made it possible to shoot confidently with a lead ahead of the plane flying across the course. Line two on Yaks of the 42nd year they could do this, with Soviet pilots of military release). Heavy lightning, as I already wrote, became just an ultimatum - he could be on duty at a height where Zero could not climb at all, and wait for his chance for a falconry strike. It is far from always a productive blow, but Zero has nothing to catch at all if the American was not mistaken himself.

                In relation to the Second World War. Indirect cover was mastered in the 44th 45th year - a group of air clearing separately and a direct cover separately. In the clearing, they are not very nimble, but diving best (metal lining!) Cobras with a heavy volley (therefore there are so many of them in the tops, this is the best Soviet boommer). In direct support are Yaki, whose main advantages are quantity and availability for a poorly trained pilot.
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 11 July 2020 12: 28 New
                  +2
                  In theory, yes. In practice, there were no aircraft that could combine all this.

                  Yes. But they strove for this. Where it was impossible to squeeze a characteristic out of an airplane, the tactics changed according to its criteria. But this is from hopelessness. Like here:
                  In the clearing, they are not very nimble, but diving best (metal lining!) Cobras with a heavy volley (therefore there are so many of them in the tops, this is the best Soviet boommer). In direct support are Yaki, whose main advantages are quantity and availability for a poorly trained pilot.

                  If Cobra were enough, but why the heck is Yaki?

                  Three speeds (up, horizon down), maneuver (not only a turn), volley, and reliability should be maximum.
                  The rest can be considered acceptable.
                2. Octopus
                  Octopus 11 July 2020 12: 46 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Arzt
                  If Cobra were enough, but why the heck is Yaki?

                  And where do you get cobras in the USSR? And fuel to them? And the pilots? Cobras are guardsmen’s cars, evil cars, somewhat similar to the I-16 in terms of requirements for the pilot.

                  So Cobra has its advantages, but also its disadvantages.
                3. Doctor
                  Doctor 11 July 2020 12: 51 New
                  +1
                  And where do you get cobras in the USSR? And fuel to them? And the pilots?

                  Wrong questions. You approach globally as a high-ranking leader who must take into account the whole complex.
                  We have a simple task - to compare planes and choose the best. Excluding other factors, including pilots. Although the complexity of development and management probably matters.
                4. Octopus
                  Octopus 11 July 2020 13: 05 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Arzt
                  A simple task is to compare planes and choose the best. Excluding other factors, including pilots.

                  Again. If your question is who will be Peresvet against the Yak-9U, then for the Allies in Europe this is by no means Mustang D, but late Sleep. For Americans specifically, this approach is the closest almost unfilled Corsair of later modifications.
                5. Doctor
                  Doctor 11 July 2020 13: 08 New
                  0
                  who will be Peresvet against the Yak-9U,

                  Wider. Not only against Yak. We take one model and drive a hundred battles against everything else in the sky. Including bombers. The percentage of victories is recorded. Etc.
                  Summarize. We draw conclusions.
                6. Octopus
                  Octopus 11 July 2020 13: 16 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Arzt
                  We take one model and drive a hundred battles against everything else in the sky. Including bombers. The percentage of victories is recorded.

                  There is nothing to think about. Germans. Only they had to fight against everything else in the sky. Including bombers .

                  But there is one problem. This is the path to defeat. No options.
                7. Doctor
                  Doctor 11 July 2020 13: 21 New
                  +1
                  There is nothing to think about. Germans. Only they had to fight against everything else in the sky. Including bombers.

                  In reality, yes. But we can simulate. In a virtual model. It’s speed and in Africa it’s speed.

                  But there is one problem. This is the path to defeat. No options.

                  I don’t get it.
                8. Octopus
                  Octopus 11 July 2020 13: 32 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Arzt
                  I don’t understand

                  From below, you are fighting with lightweight front-line fighters, from above you have high-altitude mustangs and jagas, and in addition you need to drag a hefty gun for the B-17, but they all don’t need to.

                  You're finished.
                9. Doctor
                  Doctor 11 July 2020 13: 58 New
                  +1
                  From below, you are fighting with lightweight front-line fighters, from above you have high-altitude mustangs and jagas, and in addition you need to drag a hefty gun for the B-17, but they all don’t need to.

                  You're finished.

                  Now I understand.
                  Well then, I propose to stop pretending to be girls and finally name the best fighter of the period of the Second World War, which was mass-produced and actively participated in real battles.

                  His 4-mm 30-mm air cannon MK-108 allowed him to fight with any air target, and his speed characteristics were so much superior to the record holder (according to the West) Mustang.



                  And this is him.

                10. Octopus
                  Octopus 11 July 2020 14: 10 New
                  +3
                  )))
                  Agony too. Losing, the Germans were forced to introduce undeveloped decisions into the battle. Which, by the way, did not help them.
                  Quote: Arzt
                  record holder (according to the West).

                11. Doctor
                  Doctor 11 July 2020 14: 25 New
                  +1
                  Agony too. Losing, the Germans were forced to introduce undeveloped decisions into the battle. Which, by the way, did not help them.

                  This is the lyrics.
                  But the real question is: who will then dare to challenge the Me-262?

                  Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star as well as the Gloster Meteor did not take real part in the hostilities.
                12. Octopus
                  Octopus 11 July 2020 15: 46 New
                  0
                  Quote: Arzt
                  But the real question is: who will then dare to challenge the Me-262?

                  Someone Walter Nowotny answers the question:
                  Feldfebel Gossler - the radio operator of our regiment - tuned in a radio through which I and many others listened to radio messages transmitted by Novotny. His last words were “I'm burning” or “The plane is on fire.” The words were a little distorted.

                  Quote: Arzt
                  Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star as well as the Gloster Meteor did not take real part in the hostilities.

                  Quote: Octopus
                  But they don’t need such planes in Europe, they work differently, their planes are otherwise balanced.

                  At that time, another P-80.
                  Small combat radius
                  + The highest requirements for the pilot, in fact the test pilot, hello Ira Bong.
                  + More importantly, the highest requirements for ground personnel.
                  + Concrete stripes.
                  = Air defense fighter. Not military, cities.

                  The British Meteor still somehow adapted the FAA to catch. But why is this for the Americans? 4 pieces were sent for front-line tests and that's enough.
  • HaByxoDaBHocep
    HaByxoDaBHocep 11 July 2020 05: 47 New
    +1
    That's it for the cover of Ilov and the bombers Pokryshkin developed a "whatnot"
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra 10 July 2020 20: 02 New
    -4
    That damn thing I say again !!! You can’t, in principle, compare the battles we had with the ones fought for Britain. Some are front-line, others are high-altitude - no, look, damn it. In the Northern Fleet, Hurricanes give a thrush, but as Pokryshkin rejected an aerocobra, he somehow did not reject, with the help of Cobra, he rejected many
  • Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 10 July 2020 20: 31 New
    +3

    1. The period of participation in the war. The bigger, the better.
    2. The number of aircraft issued.
    3. Speed, altitude and maneuverability.
    4. Armament.
    5. Which theater was used and with what efficiency.

    Where is the Lightning P38?
  • Free wind
    Free wind 10 July 2020 20: 41 New
    -2
    I read that afterburner is only on jet aircraft. Extra fuel is supplied almost at the exhaust, the engine starts to eat fuel incredibly, the thrust increases slightly. And what afterburner can be on a piston engine, give more fuel, the engine will simply drown. Maybe just the momentum behind the red line.
    1. Zufei
      Zufei 10 July 2020 21: 19 New
      0
      Fast and the Furious
    2. Avior
      Avior 10 July 2020 23: 03 New
      +1
      Fast and the Furious was achieved by enriching the fuel mixture. There is a similar thing in cars - in carburetors there is, for example, an accelerator pump, which enriches the mixture with a sharp pressure on the gas pedal, while increasing the engine power for a while during acceleration.
      There was another option with afterburning fluids - and now there are some “advanced” ones on the Auto, some kind of nitrous oxide.
      There were other fluids
      MW 50 (from German: Methanol-Wasser) is an aircraft piston engine boost system developed by German engineers in the middle of World War II. This system made it possible to increase engine power at heights of up to 5000 m by 10-15% for a period of up to 10 minutes under normal flight conditions (after which a break of at least 5 minutes was required) or up to 5 minutes during air combat due to injection into the engine cylinders mixtures of water with methanol.
    3. Avior
      Avior 10 July 2020 23: 15 New
      +1
      There was another option to boost the engine. More power per unit volume of the cylinder, but less engine life
    4. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 10 July 2020 23: 33 New
      +2
      1. Turnovers
      2. The composition of the fuel-air mixture. Methanol injection and the like.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  • borys
    borys 10 July 2020 20: 44 New
    +5
    In the photo in the article Messerschmitt is wrong. Not the one
    motor and in the wrong place. Not that screw propeller at all.
    1. Alf
      Alf 10 July 2020 22: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: borys
      In the photo in the article Messerschmitt is wrong. Not the one
      motor and in the wrong place. Not that screw propeller at all.

      Messer with Merlin, licensed in Spain.
      P.S. There is also Yak-Z lime with a double cabin.
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 12 July 2020 12: 29 New
        0
        HA-1112-M1L Buchón
  • Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 10 July 2020 21: 27 New
    -1
    I just absorbed a series of articles about Stalingrad. So, whatever the creature Khryukin would say, but the Luftwaffe were the kings of heaven in that battle, their Junkers bombed with impunity from the classical circle, and when our Khryukins tried to enter the battle, they immediately squeezed them out, and on important days of the offensive, our airdromes simply blocked .. four rootstocks. A very exhausting, but verified battle element. The Germans knew very well the location of our airfields and when the nine Jukers left to work on the city, at that very moment pressure was pressed on our airfields.
    The Red Army was not sitting at home, the Air Force sent sensitive injections on communications, at unloading stations. Once it flew into the air, detonating wagons from the rear base of the Sixth Army. In the second assault on Stalingrad, German divisions suddenly paused. Previous reports clearly show the rate of ammunition at 16 and most importantly, at 24 td. On that day, after the Soviet bombers raided three supply stations, the Wehrmacht's offensive on the Volga slowed down, but over the battlefield the domination of the German pirate bombers was overwhelming. This was noted by everyone. Every day began with the German fighters blocking the Soviet airfields., and the squadron of dive-bombers quietly worked to call motorized infantry battalions.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 10 July 2020 23: 13 New
      +1
      Well, come on, minuser, prove that the Red Army Air Force confidently covered the Army area 62. In response to the video of the Junkers storming I will give / think such a maneuver would not be possible with a serious counteraction of advice_ nine is classically lined up in a circle, and here’s the first break from a height, then the second, the third, the whole nine attacked. Climbing and again attacking the Soviet positions At least take memoirs from that and from our side. The Germans paved their way for the Junkers and Shtugs, the Soviet soldiers made it the road to Hell.
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 10 July 2020 21: 55 New
    +1
    I advise - Vitaly Gorbach aviation in the Battle of Kursk at the goblin in video clips
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 10 July 2020 22: 24 New
    +6
    The logic of the author is not easy to understand.
    In one case, he takes the family, although they differ in engines and wings, and weapons,
    in another case, he does not.
    -Me-109 - a family of aircraft, with essentially different engines and weapons. (3 engines in serial versions).
    FV-190, generally a whole family with two different engines.
    Spitfire is a family with different engines and wings.
    P-40 - a family with different engines.
    The author refused to consider the Yak-3 as a modification of the Yak-1, primarily due to the reduction in wing span .. (Spitfire did not take into account the wing span).
    Yak-7- is not mentioned at all, although it is from the same family as the Yak-9.
    And if you dig deeper, then Yaki -1, 3, 7, 9 are all from the same family, and if you take the engine, then they just have one, with different letters.
    LaGG-3, La-5, La-7 - the author denied kinship, although continuity is visible very clearly.
    The Yak-9 is being considered. If we take even the pedigree of the Yak-7, then the aircraft entered service not from the beginning of the war. But here P-51 on this basis has been eliminated.
    Well, the volume of output and significance in the war:
    D-520 just turned out, apparently, out of sympathy for the Frenchman.
  • Boris55
    Boris55 11 July 2020 08: 08 New
    -6
    Quote: R. Skomorokhov, R. Krivov
    Rating with readers

    It is not technology that wins in war, but fortitude. The result of the war is known - we and our weapons defeated the West and that’s it.

    The West is aggressive in nature and uses its entire intellectual potential for the consciousness of weapons of destruction, for the enslavement of other nations. This is the fundamental difference between us and them. We don’t need someone else’s, but we won’t give our own.

    Today, the West again forced us to create the most modern weapons, and we created it.

    It does not make sense to build ratings without understanding all this, except to exalt our enemies.
    1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
      Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 11 July 2020 10: 51 New
      +6
      Your main enemy is alcohol and television, a fighter
  • Alecsandr
    Alecsandr 11 July 2020 10: 07 New
    -1
    For me, the criterion for a good fighter is the ability to cover bombers. There are memoirs of pilot Ivan Ivanovich Kozhemyako on the net. He seems to me to be the most professional in sorting out the specifics and use of aviation in air battles on the Eastern Front. The West has a slightly different specificity, but the main provisions The characteristics of what a fighter should be basically coincide.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 11 July 2020 10: 39 New
      0
      And who will destroy the enemy bombers? Or did they wave their arms and scatter? The primary task is the destruction of enemy bombers. And no matter what authority he says. this is my position.
      1. Alecsandr
        Alecsandr 11 July 2020 10: 53 New
        +1
        So air battles started near the bombers. On a "free hunt" it is much easier to fight than to cover the bombers. This is noted by all pilots from the warring parties. Fighters were sent to clear the air and cover the attacking bombers. But this is true for our Air Force. German Luftwaffe sometimes without fighter planes, and then completely switched to attack using the FV-190. Ours, on the contrary, increased the number of cover fighters. Kozhemyako described this situation in detail in the tactics of air war in the East
        1. Free wind
          Free wind 11 July 2020 11: 11 New
          0
          Well, our fighter jets took bombs and flew for attack on I-16, LA-5, LA-7, and they were much more accurate than IL-2, they could also go into a dive. Foker could pick up a ton of bombs under his belly, and then also fight. As a child, I read that our fighters forced the enemy to drop bombs right on the Germans. So it turns out that there is a toggle switch in the cabins, "bomb without explosion."
          1. Alecsandr
            Alecsandr 11 July 2020 12: 24 New
            +2
            The main thing in a war is to achieve superiority on land and this is decided by bombers. Just what are the Allied carpet bombings. And fighters are designed to cover these air strikes in the first place, and only then fight among themselves, if circumstances allowed
            And "sportsmen" like Hartman beat a lot, but could not stop the bombing of Germany.
      2. Vladimir Mashkov
        Vladimir Mashkov 11 July 2020 12: 50 New
        0
        The tasks of fighters are much wider and more diverse!
  • Vlad Malkin
    Vlad Malkin 11 July 2020 11: 36 New
    0
    Probably La-5FN, not La-5. La-5 lacked engine power, and hence quite poor maneuverability.
  • Vladimir Mashkov
    Vladimir Mashkov 11 July 2020 12: 49 New
    +6
    And the preliminary discussion, and the stream, and the discussion article have passed. What happened?
    Changed the subject of discussion. They began to discuss not the best fighters of the Second World War, but the most useful and effective. It is good that most of the best are among them. But not all! After all, what is the "best WWII aircraft"? Of course, they were not always the most useful and effective due to the fact that they were developed as a result of the experience of their predecessors and released at the end of the war: they simply did not have time to prove their superiority.
    As was clear from the very beginning, the task of determining the absolutely best WWII fighter is not uniquely resolved. And this is true. The leading three of the first three places were determined in the areas of application. And this is absolutely correct!
    We started with front-line fighters, which is also true: this is the largest group. Sea (deck) - this is perhaps the second largest group (although there will be aircraft of only three countries). Which is also true. Further there should be fighter-bomber, heavy fighter, escort (escort of armada of heavy bomber), high-altitude fighter, fighter-interceptor, night fighter.
    About the article itself. It is written and framed quite casually. Why? After all, the first three are defined almost correctly and there are almost no complaints against the rest.
    All winners are incorrectly designated (in my opinion). So, in the case of the first three, it was necessary to write:
    Bf.109 (all modifications E, F, G, K, the most massive - G).
    Spitfire (of all modifications, the most massive is Mk.IX).
    The Yak fighter - by analogy with the Me-109 and Spitfire - (Yak-1,7,9,3, the most massive - Yak-9).
    Similarly, all the other winners of the 2nd and 3rd places. In the case of La-5, it was necessary to write: La fighter (La-5,5F, 5FN, La-7, the most massive - La-5FN). Perhaps he deserves a place in the top three.
    Colorful illustrations do NOT match the text:
    The text about the Me-109 is illustrated by a modern replica with a different engine and the plane is very unlike the Me-109.
    The text about the Yak-9 fighter is illustrated by some strange design: either one of the latest modifications of the Yak-9V, or a modern alteration of the Yak-11 for a piston engine. Perhaps someone will tell you what it is?
    The text about "Aero Cobra" is illustrated with the image of "Kingcobra".
    D.520, perhaps, can be removed, and, instead of it, put the Ki-84 "Hayate".

    In general, careless and dashing. For the "boysColeisUrengoy" come down. But for a knowledgeable person - no.
    1. Vladimir Mashkov
      Vladimir Mashkov 11 July 2020 13: 19 New
      +1
      And yet: many fighters (and aircraft in general) were produced in various modifications, designed for different tasks. Therefore, many NAMES of aircraft fall into different directions and applications. Determining the best in each is not easy and accessible only to true and ATTENTIVE aviation experts. And only after the last article of this cycle can it be fully said about the most useful aircraft.
      1. Vladimir Mashkov
        Vladimir Mashkov 11 July 2020 13: 33 New
        +1
        Perhaps it’s worth also to clarify the Yak fighter jets: Yak-1,1B, 7B, 9 of all modifications, 3, ...
    2. Alecsandr
      Alecsandr 11 July 2020 13: 41 New
      +2
      I absolutely agree with you. The photos somehow do not correspond to the article. Tyap are selected. Those who are interested in the history of aviation immediately note this. And the qualification by type, series and modernization of fighters is more suitable in the article as you showed in your comment
    3. pro100y.belarus
      pro100y.belarus 11 July 2020 20: 18 New
      +1
      I will add that the top photo, along with everyone, shows La-9 (or La-11), which did not participate in the war at all.
  • va3610
    va3610 11 July 2020 16: 44 New
    +2
    Well, to be precise, the photo is not BF-109 but the Spaniard HA-1112 Buchon
  • Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 11 July 2020 22: 26 New
    +1
    How did Devotin get here? The series is small, the application and influence on the course of the war, too.
    If the characteristics were taken, then the Italians and the Japanese also had decent aircraft.
  • Freedim
    Freedim 12 July 2020 01: 00 New
    0
    [quote = Arzt] [quote] Mustang has 2 guns and 6 machine guns [/ quote]
    It seems that only the 51st machine guns were set.
    1. Alf
      Alf 12 July 2020 21: 21 New
      +1
      [quote = FreeDIM] [quote = Arzt] [quote] Mustang has 2 guns and 6 machine guns [/ quote]
      It seems only machine guns on the 51st set. [/ Quote]
      On the option P-51A Mustang IA put 4 20-mm guns.
  • Tamek
    Tamek 12 July 2020 14: 47 New
    0
    The first place at the worst. I agree, deservedly for the whole war.
    Surprised by the absence of the Japanese and the presence of the Frenchman
  • Schekn Irtch
    Schekn Irtch 12 July 2020 21: 29 New
    0
    They all wrote well, did not read everything, but the question is to the author of the article. For what .... Messer with the Allison engine, the Yak-9 is incomprehensible, and instead of the P-39, the P-63 is generally. Author! You do not respect us, nor yourself. Shame and shame on amateurs.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 13 July 2020 07: 04 New
      0
      ))) Well, there are not many left to the military-patriotic site before the classics didyvoyale.


      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 13 July 2020 14: 53 New
        -1
        Yes, for such a thing it is already necessary to really banter on the authors of this ....... and to hold accountable that would not have been common
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 13 July 2020 14: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Arzt
    For example, our heroes who won 20 or more victories.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_советских_асов_Великой_Отечественной_войны,_одержавших_20_и_более_личных_побед

    .


    From the table I decided to pull out the numbers, how many times this or that fighter was mentioned. It turned out very curious -
    I-153 - 15 times,
    I-16 –26 times
    Hurricane -12 times
    R-40 Kittyhawk - 11 times,
    R-39 Cobra -40 times
    MiG-3 - 20 times,
    Lagg-3 - 35 times,
    La 5-59 times,
    La 7-28 times,
    Yak-1 - 101 times,
    Yak-7 - 66 times,
    Yak-9-76 times,
    Yak-3-36 times.

    There is something to think about.
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 13 July 2020 15: 40 New
      +2
      I will complete my "study".
      The number of references to aircraft types is divided by the number of aircraft issued (obtained by Lend-Lease).

      The coefficient obtained (I increased it by 1000 for clarity) and can be determined as the coefficient of utility of the aircraft in the Red Army Air Force.
      Type of aircraft ------ Released ------ Set
      Hurricane ------ 3082 ------ 3,89
      R-40 Kittyhawk ------ 2134 ------ 5,15
      P-39 Cobra ------ 4952 ------ 8,08
      MiG-3 ------ 3172 ------ 6,31
      Lagg-3 ------ 6528 ------ 5,36
      La-5 ------ 9903 ------ 5,96
      La-7 ------ 5905 ------ 4,74
      Yak-1 ------ 8720 ------ 11,58
      Yak-7 ------ 6399 ------ 10,31
      Yak-9 ------ 14579 ------ 5,21
      Yak-3 ------ 4111 ------ 8,76

      It is clear that all this is a game of the mind, but nonetheless ... Conclusions are the most useful aircraft - the Yak-1, Yak-7, Yak-3 and R-39.
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 14 July 2020 10: 10 New
        0
        Well, the final touch in my "analytics".

        Combine in groups what the author of the article did not want to do. -

        Type of aircraft --------------------------- Issued --------- Kit
        Yak-1/3 ----------------------------------------- 12831 --- ----------- 10,68
        Yak-7/9 ----------------------------------------- 20978 --- ----------- 6,77
        La-5/7 ----------------------------------------- 15808 --- ----------- 5,50

        and by line
        Lavochkin (LaGG-3, La-5, La-7) ------- 22336 ---------- 5,46
        Yakovlev (Yak-1/3/7/9) ------------------- 33809 ---------- 8,52
        once again
        P-39 Cobra -------------------------------- 4952 -------- 8,08

        It is clear that the comparison is oblique. Nevertheless, it was unexpected for me that Yakovlev’s planes were so useful. In some places, according to the calculated coefficient, it is not worse, but even better than R-39.
        And what is completely unexpected - a low coefficient for the Yak-9, Lavochkin and R-40 aircraft.

        I hope that there is a more meticulous researcher, with more objective results of the analysis of the utility of fighters of the USSR.
  • Crimean partisan 1974
    Crimean partisan 1974 13 July 2020 14: 41 New
    0
    Romka launched another srach ........... and the matter is simple. you should consider what is needed for a fighter to be a fighter. what’s the first of the first ... so let's start
    1. Wing loading should be as low as possible than comparable fighters
    2 thrust-to-weight ratio as much as possible than comparable fighters
    3. aerodynamic quality. Which directly affects fuel consumption
    4 balanced second volley of airborne weapons
    5 automation of the propeller group and plumage. which directly affects the speed of maneuver
    6. The most important thing is HUMAN CLOCK to produce one copy ... not dollars not Tugriks, but HUMAN CLOCK and, in fact, what is at hand from which this fighter can be made
    THERE IS WHEN THESE ALL THE PARAMETERS ARE COMPARED, THAT WILL BE GIVEN-AND WHO IS THE MOST
    Yes, I forgot about the important secondary details of enhancing the characteristics of a fighter, there are such devices as
    1 view from the cab light
    2 quality glazing
    3. availability of gyro
    4 the presence of a gyro sight
    5 Well, if finally tin. the presence of a compact radar, in my opinion except for the F6 Helket, no one had
    Well, as if everything ..... go for it comrades and you will be happy
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 13 July 2020 15: 42 New
      +1
      It's not gonna go.
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      wing load should be as low as possible

      If you need speed, you need a heavily loaded wing.
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      thrust ratio as much as possible

      Missed the altitude.
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      aerodynamic quality. which directly affects

      Let's say.
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      balanced second volley

      What does balanced mean? Are yaks with NS-37 balanced?
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      automation of the propeller group and plumage

      Yes.
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      the most important thing is HUMAN WATCH

      The most important thing? What difference does it make? Let's say R-47 hours are longer than that of Yak-9, but R-47 is still done more.
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      1 view from the cab light
      2 quality glazing
      3. availability of gyro
      4 the presence of a gyro sight
      5 Well, if finally tin. the presence of a compact radar, in my opinion except for the F6 Helket, no one had

      In the reality.
      1. The metal glider.
      2. The radio.
      3. 100/130 gasoline.
      4. The guns.
      5. The nose landing gear.

      Then what you mentioned, and much more.
      1. Tamek
        Tamek 13 July 2020 16: 50 New
        0
        You know the topic very well. It is very interesting, what do you think is the best fighter of the second world?
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 13 July 2020 18: 19 New
          +3
          )))
          He wrote in the thread several times. There is no better overall. Germans do not need Zero, Americans do not need a messer.

          It’s possible to single out only fighters, where the designer used all the possibilities he had specifically to achieve the maximum result, correctly understood and stated in the TTZ by the customer. This Zero, both Germans, is sleeping. Of the Soviet, by this criterion, I would single out the Yak-9U, especially the UT, but he was late. Of the Americans, Corsair was closest, but Corsair failed on his main task - the deck of the masses of the Essexes of the 43rd year, which negates all its advantages. The rest of the aircraft were either relatively mediocre (even the outstanding aircraft, Mustang, Tempest, made very moderately, let's say), or interesting (the same Me-262), but did not show themselves.

          I emphasize separately that I am looking at the capabilities of a particular designer. It is clear that Mitsubishi in the 40th did not have the engine that Chans-Wurth had. Therefore, the Corsair, who took off in the 40th, was definitely stronger, but Zero is definitely better. So it’s not easy.
          1. Tamek
            Tamek 14 July 2020 09: 09 New
            0
            Dodged the same. )) That's why I asked that the comments were not clear. And if the question is different:
            You were called to protect the sky, for example, Vladivostok, from all the aircraft that were at the beginning of the 45th (for example, the Germans reached Vladik, and the Anglo-Saxons betrayed us). Which fighter do you choose, knowing that Stalin for such a cool ace as you can get any of that war?
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 14 July 2020 10: 03 New
              +2
              Quote: Tamek
              the Germans reached Vladik, and the Anglo-Saxons betrayed us

              To leave the gardens. In the taiga.

              If you are looking for an air defense fighter of the cities of the 45th year, then this, of course, is a Gloucester meteor, it is significantly less buggy than a jet German, and better imprisoned in air defense than an American. But the meteor is not a front-line machine, not an IS (although they tried to adapt them), not an escort, not a sea plane. And, by the way, in Vladik of the 45th year there is no one to serve him.
              1. Tamek
                Tamek 14 July 2020 11: 06 New
                0
                Quote: Octopus
                To leave the gardens. In the taiga.

                )))
                Gloucester Meteor

                And in the forty-third?
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 14 July 2020 14: 16 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Tamek
                  And in the forty-third?

                  If you are looking for an urban air defense fighter, then you need to look at the machines of the country that was concerned about urban air defense. I think this is pretty obvious.

                  That is, either the Reich or Britain. Me-262 still does not fly (minimally) normally, so the 12th Spit (the 14th appeared in the army only in January 44th), or the seven, if you need to fight high.

                  However, if, for example, you are discussing the Unthinkable in the summer of the 45th from the “blue” side, then you need Corsair, Birket and Lightning more than Meteor or Shutingstar. The value of the reagents in this situation generally approaches zero.
  • tolancop
    tolancop 13 July 2020 16: 08 New
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    Again, everything is subjective ...
    Maybe it would be more worthwhile to look at how this or that fighter could influence the air war.

    Right Because subjectivity contribute people. Novels - Skomorokhov and Krivov.
    If we are talking about the BEST FIGHTER, we should use only 2 of the criteria proposed by the authors, namely:

    3. Speed, altitude and maneuverability.
    4. Armament.

    Because the best fighter is the one who BEST KILLS.
    Best AIR Fighter.

    In doing so, we SHOULD NOT ACCOUNT THE PILOT. The pilot introduces subjectivity. Pilots in aerial combat must be considered equal.

    I can’t agree with using only criteria No. 3 and 4 for evaluation. The device can have outstanding characteristics according to criteria No. 3 and 4, but at the same time be so complicated that more or less mass production is practically impossible. Or very poor in maintenance, repair. Or something else...
    I think finding out which fighter was the BEST is a deliberately disastrous idea, since even in one theater of operations, an aircraft, when performing various tasks, can be both excellent and below average. Aircraft is a tool with all the consequences arising from this circumstance. The ax is good for cutting wood, but for hammering nails .... You can hammer, but a hammer for this purpose is better. I think my idea is clear.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 13 July 2020 21: 04 New
    0
    About the German Me-109 -without options. Common name. But the Yak - 9? Yak-3 is somehow more manifested. Yakovlevsky Design Bureau has learned during the war how to make good aircraft "fighters"
  • illuminat
    illuminat 15 July 2020 16: 42 New
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    More on engine overheating.

    I set a steeper angle, more dime, but the load on the engine increased. Open the radiator valves. This means that resistance to flow has increased and speed has fallen again. And the engine heats up anyway.

    It’s good if there is a height, the radiator opened to maximum, gas to zero, step to minimum and fall, cool, purging.

    And if sweaty, do you spin the barrels by 300, and two Foki hang in the back, changing,?

    Again, nuclear delirium. From the first to the last word. A step is traction and revolutions, not overheating. And which one will twist sweaty barrels under fire? This is real nonsense.
  • Sergey Skrebtsov
    Sergey Skrebtsov 30 July 2020 15: 06 New
    0
    1. The intro to the article depicts La-9, which did not take part in the war.
    2. In the section about the P-39 Airacobra is a photo of the P-63 Kingcobra
    In general, thanks to the author.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 31 July 2020 20: 54 New
    -1
    Yeah, Yak1,3 is worse than Cobra, they made fun. I'm just wondering, but by what parameter, except for the gun, the characteristics of which, in general, are not so hot?
  • Titan 5
    Titan 5 15 August 2020 10: 00 New
    0
    Actually, 109 has not fought since 39, but also hooked on the war in Spain and made a great impression on Soviet politicians, military and designers
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 5 September 2020 17: 21 New
    0
    In vain they did not include our I-16 on special grounds. Perhaps, according to formal criteria, he was far from meeting the requirements, but the fact that the first two years gave heat to the Messers and Junkers is beyond doubt, and the Hero of the Soviet Union Dolgushin, who fought on them, directly says that experienced pilots were not inferior to the Messers.
  • Olgerd Gediminovich
    Olgerd Gediminovich 10 September 2020 11: 48 New
    0
    About the weak weapons of the Yak-9.
    Since 1943, Luftwaffe fighters tended to evade combat if they recognized the silhouette of the Yak-9.
    This is after the launch of the Yak-9T modification into the series. Nobody wanted to get at least one 37-mm shell.
    The same goes for the Aircobra. And our pilots respected this car for its comfort. In domestic aircraft, the placement was not so comfortable. And getting into a car - through the door.