The Germans called the "airplane made of concrete": about the Soviet Il-2 attack aircraft

When it comes to which attack aircraft should be considered the best in World War II, a considerable number of specialists tend to call the Soviet Il-2 as such. This is a legendary combat vehicle that has been in operation since 1941. Moreover, the operation of the IL-2 continued after the end of the Second World War. The use of these Soviet attack aircraft was documented until almost the mid-1950s.

There are also those who do not consider the IL-2 to be the best. At the same time, such experts also admit that if the aircraft had any significant flaws in the performance characteristics or design, then it certainly could not become the most massive aircraft in stories world aviation... Data from manufacturers and military archives indicate that in total, over 35 thousand of such attack aircraft were produced over the years of production. And they managed to fight on various fronts, destroying, without exaggeration, hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment of the Nazis and their allies.

Over the years of the war, the Il-2 was awarded all sorts of nicknames, including from the side of the enemy. German pilots often called the Soviet attack aircraft "stone (concrete) aircraft" (a plane made of concrete).

Soviet pilots pointed out that the attack aircraft can hardly be called a maneuverable vehicle. However, the Il-2 was most effective precisely for destroying targets, including armored vehicles. It was also noted that the plane could be landed even with significant damage.

IL-2 actually changed the idea of ​​battle tactics.

The reflections of the historian Boris Yulin on the IL-2 are presented on the Sky Artist channel. It also tells about comparisons with German planes. Narration in 2 parts:

Comments

[Galleon]

From 1939 to 1945, the industry of the USSR produced 36163 Il-2 attack aircraft. In April 1945, the Air Force numbered 3075 aircraft of this type. Terrible war. By far the best attack aircraft of that war was the attack aircraft of the victorious army, our Il-2

[Silver bullet]

For 6 years more than 36 thousand "flying tanks"! Everything for the front! Everything for Victory!
Presently, it is not realistic to imagine such a number of aircraft in one country. Even in the face of a technological revolution and technological progress. The era of "frontal" attacks (fighters + bombers) 500 by 500 is probably gone forever.
Ahead are UAV battles, long-range missile competitions, invisibility, target illumination. Cannon fights will be rare.
And then Star Wars.

[Kayala]

Our pilots called it "humpbacked" because of the specific shape of the flashlight on the first models. They greatly appreciated his vitality. Legendary machine, although the losses among the Il-2 are not feeble. But only IL-2 and nobody else could work like this on the battlefield.
The German Lapotnik was of course an outstanding dive bomber, but by the beginning of the Second World War it was already outdated, although it did not lose its relevance. He did us dirty tricks, Mom, don't worry. But still he is not a stormtrooper.
Honor and glory to our soldiers who won that terrible war!

[Snail N9]

In the series of books "I fought ....." Drabkin has a couple of books with the memoirs of those who had a chance to fight on it. In addition, there are several books where the IL-2 was compared with the "Stuka" in terms of efficiency. So, none of those who fought on the IL-2 remember this attack aircraft with a kind word. Everyone notes the unreliable weapon and its sluggishness and the lack of modern sighting devices, and the impossibility of diving, and the insignificant bomb load, and the vulnerability of the shooter, a real suicide bomber. Even the famous effective PTABs at first ceased to inflict serious losses on the German marching columns due to the fact that the Germans began to use rarefied order and dispersal during the raid. It was the lack of sighting devices that forced the use of dense orders of attack aircraft, which attacked in the lead, while incurring simply monstrous losses from the fire of MZA and fighters. The laudatory armored hull, in fact, was evil, because it did not allow the aircraft to be modernized, reduced the possibility of cooling and installing weapons in the most convenient part of the aircraft, for accurate shooting, reduced the bomb load, etc. The armored hull itself was produced with violations of technology and even penetrated with 7,92 mm bullets. The pilots honestly admit that they were not happy with the fact that they had to fight on the Il-2, but there was a war, and they had to use what they had, there was no other way ...

[A1845]

Quote: Snail N9

impossibility to dive

cannot be considered a disadvantage of an armored attack aircraft of the WWII period, it was fundamentally impossible with those materials and technologies.

Quote: Snail N9

sluggishness

the necessary payment for stability in flight and ease of control, otherwise where could we get experienced pilots for 36 thousand cars?

Quote: Snail N9

while suffering at the same time simply monstrous losses

alas - yes .. 3 thousand vehicles in service at the end of the war with 36 thousand produced, count yourself (taking into account non-combat losses, of course) ..

it can be added that such a concept of using an attack aircraft (direct support of troops on the battlefield) was not in other armies of the world, but this is already a separate conversation

[Avior]

... such a concept of using a strike aircraft (direct support of troops on the battlefield) was not in other armies of the world,

Do you think that other armies did not provide such support?

[Baron pardus]

This one? No. The US Air Force used the same Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Laigtnings (by the way, the bomb load of ALL of these machines was HIGHER than the IL-2. P38, without overloading it took two 900kg bombs) A ton of bombs was easy. The Marines and the Navy, for the same purpose, used the Corsairs and Hellkets (the same ton of bombs), plus, of course, the Helldivers, the Dountless. The British used Typhoons, Tempests and Mosquitoes and Beaufighters. Only the tactics were different. The planes were called ON THE RADIO, for a SPECIFIC purpose. The aircraft made several approaches to the target, either bombing it or firing 127mm missiles (which were distinguished by excellent accuracy, only German anti-tank missiles were better). These planes simply did not need a shooter, because the same Tempest or Mustang must first be caught up. Even at a gentle peak. The tactics were completely different. Approach at a low altitude and at MAXIMUM speed, close to the target, a small climb, dive attack, turn, re-attack, if there is ammo, and away from the target at MAXIMUM speed. Naturally, the groups were divided, some attacked the air defense, the other part, the actual target. Even the heavy carcass of Thunderbolt, when he had already developed his maximum speed, was difficult to catch up. By the way, the same Thunderbolts, Typhoons, Tempests, Hellkets and Corsairs showed excellent survivability. So there were no attack aircraft in the US / British Air Force, there were fighter bombers. By the way, Focke Wulf was exactly the same fighter-bomber, and having dropped his cargo, he was quite nimble (when he picked up speed), and it was much more difficult for a fighter to catch him than to catch an IL-2. By the way, I will note that for fighters such as FV-190 or Corsair, or Hellket, the radio operator's 12.7mm machine gun was a dubious threat.
Yes, Il could hang over the head of the Germans for a long time, but what good? Ammunition 400kg of bombs. Everything. Hellcat will take its 900kg to the target FASTER, and take it FASTER. And to shoot down and Hellket, and Corsair, and Focke Wolf is not much easier than IL-2. There were modifications to the FV-190 booked so my compliments. Moreover, if necessary, by dropping bombs Hellcat (like the Mustang or the Corsair) can stand up for itself very well. It is quite another matter that it takes much more time to train a pilot for a Fighter Bomber than it does for an attack pilot. In addition, if the Corsair is shot down or there is a Typhoon or Fokker, then there is a threat to lose only the pilot, and if silt 2 was shot down, then there was a threat to lose both the pilot and the gunner.
In general, I cannot call the IL-2 a successful aircraft. Especially when compared to American, British or German fighter bombers. Those are faster and more maneuverable and carry a large bomb load. I repeat. For Hellket, 900kg is NORMAL. And if we compare it with the same Soviet single-engine bomber SU-2, then the SU-2 is not only faster, not only carries more bombs, but the losses of the Su-2 were several times less than the SU-2 one plane was lost on 80 sorties, IL- 2 two-seater one plane lost on 26 sorties. Speed ​​proved to be a better defense than an armored hull (made with technology violations).

[zenion]

Baron Pardus. If this plane doesn't suit you, don't buy or fly.

[Baron pardus]

I draw your attention to the fact that we are not at the bazaar on delivery. IL-2 that was, for various reasons. Could it have been done better? In theory - yes, even proceeding from what was in the USSR. And the problems were with engines, aluminum, and high-octane gasoline. Would the ASh-82 engines be enough for the IL-2 if we stopped producing the AM-38F and threw all our strength on the ASh-82? Unknown. I know that the transitions from the V-shaped engine to the star-shaped one were made both in the USSR and in Japan. Violation of manufacturing technology? Well, Duc there is no qualified labor force - everything is at the front, and there was not much of it, where did the super specialists work and engineers come from, when in 1914, under Nikalashka, literacy was 27%, the chemical industry was at zero, and they could not even provide themselves with rifles and machine guns ? It is IMPOSSIBLE to cross such an abyss completely in 27 years.
PTAB Were not a miracle weapon either. Especially when the Germans began to pull metal nets over the tanks. Although without nets, PTAB, if hit, it guaranteed to disable any tank or self-propelled gun. However, modern cluster bombs are also neutralized by the same nets.
One can argue that an attack aircraft or a high-speed fighter bomber is better. The same Focke Wulf 190F, EMNIP, could carry the same 900kg of bombs as the Hellket, twice as much as the IL-2, and was booked - God forbid. I simply do not have information on how many tanks and other FV-190F were burned for each lost aircraft and how many tanks and other IL-2 equipment were burned for each lost aircraft. One thing is not subject to discussion - by dropping bombs, Fokker (as well as Hellcat, Thunderbolt and others like them) could get out of the air defense engagement zone faster, and break away from fighters much better than the IL-2. By the way, with a full bomb load, Fighter bombers could reach the target faster than the IL-2 with a full bomb load.

[demiurg]

Yes, you are my friend, an expert. You are comparing aircrafts developed in 40 and 43-44. Burn further, compare the IL-2 with a warthog. Why can't Tempest be compared to the Su-25?
This is me to warm up. All these tempestos and other bolts were burned in 44-45. When, in fact, Germany did not have any air defense or air force. Well, the Germans at 41 chased individual trucks of the Red Army almost stormily.
Passing off the need for virtue, that is to yourself. The Germans had a thing to support the attacking troops. The USSR has IL-2.
Attack with a bolt or, even more so with Mustang, a front line saturated with air defense. Yes, even when there is no air supremacy, a la the middle of 43-beginning of 44. I would have looked.

[ramzay21]

3 thousand vehicles in service at the end of the war with 36 thousand produced, count yourself (taking into account non-combat losses, of course)

The Il-2's combat losses amounted to 11 448 aircraft. Another 11 055 are non-combat losses, and the rest are aircraft that have exhausted their service life and were written off due to damage and the inexpediency of their restoration. Considering how many tanks, armored vehicles, cars, artillery and manpower they destroyed, the plane was outstanding.
It is not for nothing that, following the results of its operation, attack aircraft after the Second World War appeared in all modern armies of the world.

[hagen]

Quote: ramzay21

Considering how many tanks, armored vehicles, cars, artillery and manpower they destroyed, the plane was outstanding.

All assessments, especially those given 70 years after the Victory, are exclusively subjective. We are not comparing the effectiveness of German aviation against our troops. And probably it should. I think that the Il-2 was, of course, a formidable machine for the enemy, but most importantly it was cheap to manufacture. At the same time, the volume of losses of aircraft and flight personnel was so enormous that the Germans abandoned the widespread use of such tactics of work on the battlefield. They strove to gain supremacy in the skies and work on the "ground" was given to bombers. Although I must admit that they also occasionally made attempts to use assault tactics, making a number of Hs-129s and refitting serial fighters and a number of Ju87 (G, G2). But the German assault aviation did not develop on such a scale as ours. They had a slightly different view of the work of aviation. The name "concrete airplane" can also carry a twofold emotional connotation - it can be an assessment of its "impenetrable" qualities, or it can be a comparison of its flight performance with a concrete beam. I don’t know how proud of this epithet one can be.

[Roma 1977]

The Germans used an assault modification of the FW-190 F fighter. A tenacious radial engine, an armored cabin, speed, dive ability.

[Alf]

Quote: Roma-1977

speed,

That's exactly what "speed" is. The speed of the IL-10 was also increased, so what? The pilots began to complain that the accuracy had dropped, they simply did not have time to aim.

[Roma 1977]

I meant that when meeting with enemy fighters, "Foka" could get away from them by diving. The IL-2 did not have such an opportunity.

[Alf]

Quote: Roma-1977

when meeting with enemy fighters, "Foka" could get away from them by diving.

The fact that he can get away from the fighter at the peak is, of course, wonderful. But the only question is the meaning of such a "attack aircraft", if it is precisely because of this high speed that it cannot perform its tasks?

[Roma 1977]

It is very convenient to place bombs from a dive. And he took up to one ton of bombs. Its military operation was successful, coped with the tasks.

[Alf]

Quote: Roma-1977

It is very convenient to place bombs from a dive.

If there is a bombsight. What is the model of the bombsight on the 190?

[Roma 1977]

A bombsight is not needed when diving. Just a normal corrected collimator. At the end of the war, Soviet fighters, in the absence of worthy targets in the air, began to hang a couple of bombs under their wings. Veterans said that from a dive it was very accurate to lay them down.

[Alf]

Quote: Roma-1977

A bombsight is not needed when diving.

But otshen the glupies German on the 87th and on the 88th all the same added BP. I wonder why?

[KERMET]

In order to bomb from a steep dive, which the 190th is not capable of, only the Glupy German 87th for some reason changed to the 190th

[Alf]

Quote: KERMET

In order to bomb from a steep dive, which the 190th is not capable of, only the Glupy German 87th for some reason changed to the 190th

The losses of the 87th from the second half of the war became such that the fighter cover did not help, so they moved to the Fokkers.

[KERMET]

Yes, but also because the increased opposition forced earlier to change the tactics of using the 87s, they began to drop bombs from high altitudes, which immediately affected the accuracy of bombing, and this was the main advantage of the Lapotnik over 190

[Vladimir Mashkov]

I haven't watched the video yet due to lack of free time, just scrolled through it. I'll see later, it looks like interesting and good ones.

But I read the video announcement and comments. Announcement as announcement, enticing and vague. It was this vagueness and uncertainty that allowed some "iksperd" in the comments to write something from which, reading them, he laughed a lot and a lot. Well this is necessary, time passes, and the next would-be researchers grow up and make new and new "miraculous discoveries"! It turns out (by their opinion), the IL-2 was a VERY unfortunate design, which the German heroes shot down in batches and which, quite by accident, became the most massive combat aircraft not only in World War II, but also in the history of aviation! And everything about him "was very bad": and penetrable armored hull (as one illiterate "specialist" described it - laudatory), and low speed, altitude, climb rate, combat load, and poor maneuverability, engine, and weak unreliable weapons, and huge losses of aircraft, pilots and suicide shooters (in fact, not). And he could not dive, and his use was bad. And what is much better, more efficient and with less losses than the unsuccessful Il-2, the "bastard" and all fighter-bombers of all countries acted.

And it is unaware, after all, to all these openers that the plane of the battlefield - the attack aircraft - NOT NEEDED neither the high speed, rate of climb, maneuverability, the ability to dive a fighter, nor the long range and carrying capacity of the bomb carrier. As well as impossible fully and securely book whole the plane with thick armor is like a tank, while retaining the ability to fly and perform tasks. Although the Il-2 was called an "air tank", it was armored and its armor was far from a tank one. So, the IL-2 is NOT an aircraft that has outstanding individual qualities, but an optimal design, in which the many contradictory qualities necessary for a battlefield aircraft are most reasonably combined. And, as battles have shown, a highly efficient design that to nobody failed to repeat despite all attempts. That is why IL-2 was highly appreciated long ago. real world experts and recognized the best attack aircraft - the plane of the battlefield of the Second World War... With which he entered the history of aviation. Although attempts to shake this are constantly being made by various d ... mi.

[ramzay21]

Almost all fighters of that war flew to attack aircraft, but only our Il-2s were best suited for this. As for the "huge losses", it is impossible to compare the losses of aviation with direct support on the battlefield with other types of the Air Force.
And let me remind you that the use of the Il-2 PTAB during the Battle of Kursk made the Il-2 a legendary aircraft. The newest PTAB destroyed the Tigers and Panthers, which played one of the decisive roles in the destruction of the heavy tanks of the Nazis.

[hagen]

Quote: ramzay21

The newest PTAB destroyed the Tigers and Panthers, which played one of the decisive roles in the destruction of the heavy tanks of the Nazis.

This is how the journalists write. But how in numbers? And what about onboard weapons, what is their effectiveness against a tank?

Quote: ramzay21

And let me remind you that the use of the Il-2 PTAB during the Battle of Kursk made the Il-2 a legendary aircraft.

I agree with that. IL-2 was overgrown with legends very densely. No other BOB aircraft is discussed with such fury as the Il-2. After all, what is a legend is one of the varieties fabulous prosaic folklore, an approximate synonym for the concept of myth. And how much real truth is there? So here ... But the truth is that the SCA in the first half of the war was assigned for 10 !!! combat missions. This means that both the pilots and the command staff at the highest level understood that the pilot's chances of surviving in battle are extremely small. Therefore, they simply did not have time to prepare them (you can read about the influence of insufficient training on the quality of the battle of assault aircraft in the memoirs of I.I. Pstygo). Their lives were plugged into the gaps created by the lack of mobility and effectiveness of ground anti-tank forces. After all, the Wehrmacht somehow reached almost to Moscow without similar tactics in its Air Force. It is just that in those years we did not have other options due to the level of development of "productive forces". War, as a complex confrontation, is very multifactorial. One of the significant factors is the mental acceptance of the admissibility of the amount of expenditure of human and material resources to defend their own military goals. Such an expense for pilots in the German Air Force was considered unacceptable, and therefore they did not have their own Il-2.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Why so long, I would say right away, they threw corpses.

[hagen]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Why so long, I would say right away, they threw corpses.

If I wanted to say "they were showered with corpses," I would say so. And he wrote for a long time because complex topics cannot be disclosed in three lines. And you need to understand them. After all, for some reason, our troops near Moscow stood to their death, and the French surrendered their Paris without a fight. And this fits well in the head, if we understand the mental difference in the perception of values ​​and the essence of war in different theaters of operations. Maybe this is unnecessary for you, but I considered it important.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Look at the data on the loss of flight personnel and you will be unpleasantly surprised for your views.
And when some stand to death, others have to attack, too, with huge losses. And the battles near Moscow turned out to be the first disaster for the Wehrmacht.
And whatever they say about the mental acceptance of the admissibility of losses, the USSR could not afford it. At the most critical moments, a significant part of the conscript contingent was unavailable due to the occupation. So the difference is not in mentality, but in mentality.
As for the Luftwaffe took care of the pilots, it is enough to remember what contingent they planted on the assault version of the Focke-Wulfs.

[hagen]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

And whatever they say about the mental acceptance of the admissibility of losses, the USSR could not afford it.

If you want to continue the conversation, then please follow our standards - to strangers - to "you". Your statements about what the USSR could not afford need to be supported by facts.

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

So the difference is not in mentality, but in mentality.

MENTALITY (mentality) (from Latin mens - mind, thinking, way of thinking, mental disposition) is a deep level of collective and individual consciousness .. Why did you oppose these two concepts?

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

it is enough to recall what contingent they planted on the assault version of the Focke-Wulfs.

Remember. What is the difference between "contingents"? Considering that both are citizens of their countries for which they fought ...

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Firstly, contacting YOU is not a requirement, but a recommendation. Besides, to people, not anonymous nicknames. And the nickname Hagen does not in any way apply to those whom I respect.
Secondly, read how the mentality differs from the mentality, I have to deal with educational programs.

[ramzay21]

This is how the journalists write. But how in numbers? And what about onboard weapons, what is their effectiveness against a tank?

This is indicated by combat reports. The first application of the developed PTAB occurred at the Kursk Bulge. Prior to this battle, on Stalin's personal instructions, the use of PTAB was prohibited. Therefore, the use of PTAB dramatically changed the situation, and it took the Germans time to find its understanding and solution, during which the Il-2 played a decisive role in defeating the Germans at the Kursk Bulge.
And before that, the Il-2 was not very effective against German medium and heavy tanks, but it coped well with the destruction of other targets.

Such an expense for pilots in the German Air Force was considered unacceptable, and therefore they did not have their own "IL-2".

The Germans and their allies, according to some sources, lost 87 thousand pilots killed, so by the end of the war there was no one to fly in the Luftwaffe, even on a jet fighter, and this is a well-known fact.
And in our Air Force there were more and more experienced pilots, because ours took care of their pilots much more than the Germans. Our fighters covered bombers, dive bombers and attack aircraft, and the Germans were more engaged in free hunting, because the losses of our pilots amounted to 47 thousand, and not 87 thousand like the Germans.

[dauria]

or maybe a comparison of flight performance with a concrete beam. I don’t know how proud of this epithet one can be.

Well, there is a second nickname - "fleischer". Butcher. This was given to him by the German infantrymen themselves.
Yes, and the Germans tried to assign the task of direct support to many aircraft, in the second half of the war - to FW. 190. Not without success, I must say. Quite a decent attack aircraft came out of it. But he also became heavier, overgrown with armor and was clumsy. You can't go anywhere.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: ramzay21

Another 11 055 are non-combat losses, and the rest are aircraft that have exhausted their resource and decommissioned due to damage and the inexpediency of their restoration

And here the nuance of the armored hull is just hidden:
since The armored hull carries the functions of a power structure, then its penetration by bullets / shells in a certain sequence (certain places) led to the write-off of the entire armored hull and the aircraft.
https://maxpark.com/community/2039/content/2103620
Since the armored hull could not be repaired, it was written off due to one or two close penetrations (by weakening the structure)

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The strength of the armored hull as a power set is even excessive. Therefore, due to several penetrations, no one will write it off. But if there is deformation, then yes.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

The strength of the armored hull as a power set is even excessive.

The armored hull is unequal - a part of a complex shape with variable wall thickness. The greatest thickness in the lateral projection - this part bears the greatest compressive-tensile loads, with rough landings. Alternating tensile / compression loads and the upper part, which is weakened by the cutout for the cab, acts on stability.

Lumbago in the lateral projection of the armored hull - 15-20 mm, significantly weakens.
And I repeat - the armored hull is not repairable, this hardened part cannot be fixed by welding or patches. Welding work will further weaken the armored hull - and therefore it was written off.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Did it seem so to you?

[sunzhenets]

My grandfather, GSS Fedor Borisovich Bublikov, moved to the IL-2 in 1943. More than 100 sorties, destroyed a lot of equipment, including an armored bug, a strategically important bridge. 4 planes shot down, including in the battle with superior forces. So I think that the IL-2's shortcomings are exaggerated.

[Avior]

Rather, your grandfather was a happy exception.
At the beginning of the war, the title of Hero was given for 10, by 1943 - for thirty combat missions, later - already for 80.
Your grandfather received the rank of GSS in 1944 for 82 sorties.
Average statistics for the war - 30 sorties per plane: ((and at the beginning of the war - in general, five sorties.
For one dead pilot, seven dead shooters.
Sad statistics.

[Letun]

Quote: Avior

For one dead pilot, seven dead shooters.
Sad statistics.

You have a look at the videos attached to the article. They just talk about this myth, which you wrote about.
More than 30 years of brainwashing the population has certainly borne fruit. This is very sad.

[sifgame]

Well, everything is as always, the Soviet shitty airplane is all bad, unreliable, ineffective, the armored hull is not an armored hull, the ptabs poured the earth so fertilized, they just filled it up with 35k ,. Did you learn from everyone who fought on the IL-2 about the good word? In short, it is not clear why the Soviets produced so many extremely inefficient aircraft, wasting human and material resources during the war. And in general it is not clear how they won. What is it that bothers you?

[Captain45]

Quote: sifgame

What is it that bothers you?

Yes buggers, colleague! They have the word "Russia" in their anus itching like an electric shock drill!

[Letun]

I, too, am amazed, where does modern well-fed and well-groomed people have such an incomprehensible arrogance towards their ancestors? There were fools. The plane is not effective, but it was stamped more than any other.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Forgive me, but you are simply lying, saying that everyone who flew on it scolded the IL-2.
As for PTAB, here you are clearly showing your ignorance both in aviation matters and in military affairs in general.
Firstly, all the available ammunition of the PTAB on board the Il-2 is much cheaper than a simple truck, not to mention the cargo. So pouring everything out is guaranteed by destroying this already, so to speak, positive balance.
Secondly, have you ever seen a military column from the air? It seems not, otherwise they would have known how the attempt to disperse it would turn out. There just won't be enough roads, not to mention how to manage such a chain. So all these statements of the Germans how they dealt with PTAB are nothing more than the post-war whine of the beaten.

[geniy]

I had to use what was, there was still no other ...

Well, how was it nothing else? Do you not remember that at the beginning of the war there was such a light bomber Su-2 - which actually performed the same tasks of bombing the enemy's front line as the Il-2. But the Su-2 was removed from service - and it could have been produced in parallel with the Il-2. So the IL-2 was better? And then, in the middle of the war, Sukhoi created the Su-6 and Su-7 attack aircraft, which were better than the Il-2, but not so much better than to abandon the Il-2. Do you want agility by reserving your armor? so please, at the beginning of the war, I used I-15 and I-153 biplanes fighters for attack, but they were quickly knocked out.

[Torins]

The Su-2 was not an attack aircraft at all, and it was a mediocre light bomber. Its most successful applications are spotter and light reconnaissance. The rest of Sukhoi's aircraft had no opportunity to be put into operation due to the fact that the war was in full swing, the losses from aviation were catastrophic and it would be a crime to waste resources on another type of aircraft.

[Adler77]

Yes, the expert is immediately visible

[geniy]

Su-2 was not an attack aircraft from the word at all

What do you mean the Su-2 was not an attack aircraft? After all, this is only a formal designation "Sturmovik", but in fact it is an aircraft capable of throwing bombs at enemy troops and firing at them from cannons and machine guns. Therefore, let me remind you that at the beginning of the war, all German aircraft carried out ground attacks on Soviet troops - both Junkers 87, and even twin-engine Ju-88, and even more so Messerschmitts-109 and even 110. But were they attack aircraft? Moreover, both the Ju-87 and FV-190 were produced in a special assault version - with onboard armor. So, compare the effectiveness of the attack with the IL-2. So - didn't you even stand nearby? Don't you want to compare them?

[Vovk]

Quote: geniy

... But the Su-2 was removed from service - and it could have been produced in parallel with the Il-2. So the IL-2 was better?

1) The Su-2 was not an attack aircraft and was not intended for this, read the history of the development of the Ivanov aircraft. All his armor is a radial engine and an armored back between navigator and pilot. During the attack, the aircraft was easily stitched from nose to tail with conventional small arms, and therefore there were large losses in the flight crew. Therefore, immediately after the first battles, the armor-backs were removed from the broken SU-2 and placed on the pilot's and navigator's feet.
2) Su-2 was mainly made at the 135 plant in Kharkov, which fell into the German occupation in October 1941.

[geniy]

1) The Su-2 was not an attack aircraft and was not intended for this, read the history of the development of the Ivanov aircraft. All his armor is a radial engine and an armored back between navigator and pilot. During the attack, the aircraft was easily stitched from nose to tail with conventional small arms, and therefore there were large losses in the flight crew. Therefore, immediately after the first battles, the armor-backs were removed from the broken SU-2 and placed on the pilot's and navigator's feet.

And what - didn't the other planes have exactly the same? Didn't the German Ju-87 or Me-109, which did not have side armor, were pierced from nose to tail with conventional small arms?
Or maybe you don’t know that the Ju-87 dive bomber came out of the dive at a minimum altitude of 500 meters - where he was easily shot from both large-caliber machine guns and even anti-tank rifles?
And in general, except for the Il-2, all aircraft in the world at that time did not have onboard booking. And despite this, they were engaged in storming. For example, the famous American Thunderbolts and the mustangs of the first series were engaged in ground attack - and they did not have onboard booking.

[Siberian54]

Two-row engine, three meters in diameter ... from the propeller to the tail

[Siberian54]

Mr. X / Su-2, as a result of evacuation confusion, was left without an engine .. And so even female crews successfully fought on this beautiful "drummer" ..

[ramzay21]

Yes, yes, a beautiful fairy tale, how the Red Army with terrible attack aircraft, bad tanks, evil commissars and stupid Supreme Commander-in-Chief defeated the army of Europe, with a population several times larger than the population of the USSR and the most modern industry in the world. Tired of it!

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

Yes, yes, a beautiful fairy tale, how the Red Army with terrible attack aircraft, bad tanks, evil commissars and stupid Supreme Commander-in-Chief defeated the army of Europe, with a population several times larger than the population of the USSR and the most modern industry in the world. Tired of it!

Tired of hearing the nonsense that all of Europe worked for Hitler, and the entire population fought.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Isn't that so? Or did Europe all in one impulse come out against Hitler? And he had no Erlikons, no Hetzer self-propelled guns, no Czech trucks, no French planes?

[Pilat2009]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

and French planes?

YOU look how many planes and tanks the USSR produced and how many Germany together with Europe. And do not forget to add America. And then compare the number of troops in the middle of the war on the Eastern Front. THOUGHTS if each European country had put up a couple of armies, the USSR would have ended in 41

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Well, look. The numbers are quite comparable. And if you consider that due to the lack of materials, the resource of the aircraft was greatly reduced, even in favor of Germany.

[ramzay21]

And you try to name the countries of Europe that did not work for Hitler

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

And you try to name the countries of Europe that did not work for Hitler

They worked to work, but where, besides Germany, were the main tanks and aircraft produced?
The numbers are quite comparable, well, yes, yes. The USSR produced tanks during the war:
1941 year - 6590
1942 year - 24445
1943 year - 30100
1944 year - 33274
first half of 1945 - 15450
Germany:
1941 year - 3805
1942 year - 6189
1943 year - 10700
1944 year - 18300
Italy = 2473 or 2680
Hungary = 500 or 710
Romania = 105



All types of military aircraft
US = 254
USSR = 213 742
UK = 117
Japan = 109 320
Germany = 108
Canada = 16 431
Italy = 11 122
Other countries of the British Commonwealth = 3081
Hungary = 1046
Romania = 1113

Crazy something Europe worked

[ramzay21]

In fact, my question was which countries in Europe did not work for Hitler.
Only Czechoslovakia, which you forgot, in 1944, according to German data, monthly supplied the Wehrmacht with 11 thousand pistols, 30 thousand rifles, more than 3 thousand machine guns, 15 million cartridges, about 100 self-propelled artillery guns, 144 infantry guns, 180 anti-aircraft guns , more than 620 thousand artillery shells, almost a million shells for anti-aircraft guns, from 600 to 900 carriages of aerial bombs, 0,5 million signal ammunition, 1000 tons of gunpowder and 600 thousand explosives.
The Škoda factories in Plzen and the Mürz Tsuslag-Bohemia factories in Česká Lipa produced Sd.Kfz 251/1 Ausf.C and Sd.Kfz / 251-1 Ausf D armored personnel carriers; assembly of Messerschmitt Bf 109G fighters.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

In fact, my question was which countries in Europe did not work for Hitler.
Only Czechoslovakia, which you forgot, in 1944, according to German data, monthly supplied the Wehrmacht with 11 thousand pistols, 30 thousand rifles, more than 3 thousand machine guns, 15 million cartridges, about 100 self-propelled artillery guns, 144 infantry guns, 180 anti-aircraft guns , more than 620 thousand artillery shells, almost a million shells for anti-aircraft guns, from 600 to 900 carriages of aerial bombs, 0,5 million signal ammunition, 1000 tons of gunpowder and 600 thousand explosives.
The Škoda factories in Plzen and the Mürz Tsuslag-Bohemia factories in Česká Lipa produced Sd.Kfz 251/1 Ausf.C and Sd.Kfz / 251-1 Ausf D armored personnel carriers; assembly of Messerschmitt Bf 109G fighters.

What did Luxembourg produce? And how many messengers did Czechoslovakia produce, if you know how many of them were produced in total? In fact, everything produced in the Benelux countries was credited to Germany. ...

[ramzay21]

if you know how much T-4 was produced, for example, then you don't need to say that something else was produced in the Czech Republic

In 1939-1942, the Czechs produced 38 LT-1480 tanks.
The self-propelled gun based on the LT-38 tank - which received the name "Hetzer" in the Wehrmacht, turned out to be the best light anti-tank self-propelled gun of the Second World War. A total of 2584 Hetzer self-propelled guns were produced.

In addition to assembling the Messerschmitt Bf.109G-6 and Bf.109G-14 fighters, as well as the two-seat Bf.109G-12 trainers, the Avia plant supplied the Luftwaffe with:
MB-200 - 4
Aero A-304 - 14
B-71 and B-71B - 55
Bucker Bu-131 - 200
Focke Wulf Fw. 189 - 337
Siebel Si.204D - 533 (not counting another 490 fuselages)
________________
In total - 1143 pieces.

[ramzay21]

At the end of 1939, the assembly of light trucks 6LTP6 for the Romanian army began at the Škoda plant in Plzen, and the Czechs began to supply the Wehrmacht with modified versions of Škoda commercial trucks of the 100/150 series, 254/256; and “706D”, as well as diesel versions of heavy machines 6ST6 and 6VD.
The Škoda factories also assembled 5 Hkl6 (Sd.Kfz.11) half-track transporters, manufactured DB10 tanks and tractors under the S10 index.
The Škoda factories are the second most important arsenal in Central Europe, which, according to Winston Churchill, in the period from August 1938 to September 1939, produced almost as many military products as all British enterprises produced during the same time.

According to the Center for Military Economics of Germany, only on March 31, 1944, the Fuhrer from the workshops of 857 plants of the previously annexed Czech Republic received almost 13 billion 866 million brands of weapons and equipment.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Wow, how limited your horizons are.
Concerning the "giant" Luxembourg:
by 1938, Luxembourg was exporting 47,22% of its iron and steel production to Nazi Germany, where they were badly needed due to the Nazi rearmament program. Luxembourg's iron ore reserves will make Germany self-sufficient in steel production.
As for the Czech RepublicIs the messer production the only indicator? Doesn't the Focke Wulf Fw. 189 count? Which was produced by 337, is quite enough considering what kind of car it is. In total, the Czechs built 1143 aircraft, plus trophies.
And how many problems the Red Army caused the Hetzer self-propelled gun, which the Czechs developed in proactive order and made 2500 pieces.

[ramzay21]

You will also tell the perestroika story about the fact that at the beginning of the war the Red Army had an overwhelming advantage in armored vehicles, aviation and manpower.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

You will also tell the perestroika story about the fact that at the beginning of the war the Red Army had an overwhelming advantage in armored vehicles, aviation and manpower.

In terms of tanks and aviation, it had. The technical unavailability of the tank is not a problem of the Wehrmacht, but of the Red Army.

[ramzay21]

In terms of tanks and aviation, it had. The technical unavailability of the tank is not a problem of the Wehrmacht, but of the Red Army.

If we count our machine-gun wedges and machine-gun tanks for tanks, and do not count their tanks as their self-propelled guns, which we did not have, but they had about a thousand, and also do not count their armored personnel carriers, which surpassed our machine-gun wedges and tanks in the amount of 15 thousand and remember that we did not have armored personnel carriers at all, then, of course, we had an advantage.
It should also be remembered that only serviceable tanks participated in the attack, while we counted everything, including for repairs, and in some cases tanks were counted that should be in the state, but which were not available in the formed tank parts.
In fact, it was something like this:
USSR in the western and central districts - 16 armored vehicles.
Hitler (with allies) on the "Eastern" Front - 23 armored vehicles.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

In terms of tanks and aviation, it had. The technical unavailability of the tank is not a problem of the Wehrmacht, but of the Red Army.

If we count our machine-gun wedges and machine-gun tanks for tanks, and do not count their tanks as their self-propelled guns, which we did not have, but they had about a thousand, and also do not count their armored personnel carriers, which surpassed our machine-gun wedges and tanks in the amount of 15 thousand and remember that we did not have armored personnel carriers at all, then, of course, we had an advantage.
It should also be remembered that only serviceable tanks participated in the attack, while we counted everything, including for repairs, and in some cases tanks were counted that should be in the state, but which were not available in the formed tank parts.
In fact, it was something like this:
USSR in the western and central districts - 16 armored vehicles.
Hitler (with allies) on the "Eastern" Front - 23 armored vehicles.

Well, if you think the T-3 is the height of engineering and it was superior to the BT then you can think so.

[ramzay21]

Well, if you think the T-3 is the height of engineering and it was superior to the BT then you can think so.

Do you consider the T-27, which was designed as a mobile machine gun shield, to be an outstanding tank, surpassing their armored personnel carriers?

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

In terms of tanks and aviation, it had. The technical unavailability of the tank is not a problem of the Wehrmacht, but of the Red Army.

If we count our machine-gun wedges and machine-gun tanks for tanks, and do not count their tanks as their self-propelled guns, which we did not have, but they had about a thousand, and also do not count their armored personnel carriers, which surpassed our machine-gun wedges and tanks in the amount of 15 thousand and remember that we did not have armored personnel carriers at all, then, of course, we had an advantage.
It should also be remembered that only serviceable tanks participated in the attack, while we counted everything, including for repairs, and in some cases tanks were counted that should be in the state, but which were not available in the formed tank parts.
In fact, it was something like this:
USSR in the western and central districts - 16 armored vehicles.
Hitler (with allies) on the "Eastern" Front - 23 armored vehicles.

I don’t know why you are pushing tanks and armored personnel carriers into a pile, which were not in any way first-line vehicles, but here is the most * patriotic calculation *
https://topwar.ru/8452-1941-god-skolko-tankov-bylo-u-gitlera.html

[ramzay21]

I don’t know why you are pushing tanks and armored personnel carriers into a pile, which were not in any way first-line vehicles.

Because you think so.
Consider 3 thousand T-27 tanks like this

Consider as a tank 2300 T-37 like this

Consider as a tank 1100 T-38 like this

Consider as a 620 BT-2 tank like this

But at the same time, I do not consider German self-propelled guns in the amount of almost one thousand of these

Do not count as a tank almost 1700 of these armored cars

and don't count 15 thousand armored personnel carriers like this for a tank

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

Do not count as a tank almost 1700 of these armored cars

Because in the USSR they did not consider the BA-10 tanks, of which there were 2800 pieces. and other armored cars

Quote: ramzay21

and don't count 15 thousand armored personnel carriers like this for a tank

Why should I count them as tanks?
You piled everything that moves and has armor in a heap, while counting the ganomage at the BT level.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Pilat2009

You piled everything that moves

Let's like this-
Germans
On June 22, 1941, the active army in the East had a total of 3332 tanks (without flamethrowers). " (B. Müller-Hillebrand. Handbook "The Land Army of Germany. 1933-1945").

Their types and quantities are as follows:

- TI (two machine guns 7,92 mm) - about 180;

- T-II (20 mm cannon, machine gun 7,92 mm) - 746;

- 38 (t) (37 mm gun, 2 machine gun 7,92 mm) - 772;

- T-III (37 mm or 50 mm gun, 3 machine gun) - 965;

- T-IV (75 mm short-barreled gun, two machine guns 7,92 mm) - 439

- commanding - 230.

the USSR
T-35 (76 mm cannon, 2 guns 45 mm, 5 machine guns 7,62 mm) - 59 pcs. (42 pcs.)

- KV -1 (76 mm gun, 4 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 412 pcs. (410 pcs.)

- HF-2 (152 mm howitzer, 4 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 135 pcs. (134 pcs.)

- T-28 (76 mm gun, 4 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 442 pcs. (292 pcs.)

- T-34 (76 mm gun, 2 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 1030 pcs. (1029 pcs.)

- BT-7М (45 mm gun, 1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 704 pcs. (688 pcs.)

- BT-7 (45 mm gun, 1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 4563 pcs. (3791 pcs.)

- BT-5 (45 mm gun, 1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 1688 pcs. (1261 pcs.)

- BT-2 (37mm gun, 1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 594 pcs. (492 pcs.)

- T-26 (45 mm gun, 2 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 9998 pcs. (8423 pcs.)

- T-40 (2 mm machine gun 12,7 mm and 7,62 mm) - 160 pcs. (159 pcs.)

- T-38 (1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 1129 pcs. (733 pcs.)

- T-37 (1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 2331 pcs. (1483 pcs.)

- T-27 (1 machine gun 7,62 mm) - 2376 pcs. (1060 pcs.)

- Su-5 (1 gun 76 mm) - 28 pcs. (16 pcs.)
If you do not like t-27 - t-40, then you can not count them

[ramzay21]

The author to whom you are referring indicated only the tanks in the first echelon, forgetting to indicate the tanks of two reserve tank divisions, out of 350 tanks, as well as tanks located in Finland, while he does not indicate not that the tanks are under repair, he forgot about a thousand ACS and 15 thousand armored personnel carriers. Their armored personnel carriers were much more powerful in armament and armor than our T-27, T-37, T-38, T-40 and 1626 two-turret T-26.

And how do you compare these figures with the number of T-26s produced since 1931, some of which ended up in Spain, fought on Khasan and Kholkhin-Gol and participated in the war with Finland?

T-26s in various states on June 1, 1941 were in the front-line districts in the following quantities:
Leningrad Military District 531 tank,
Baltic Special Military District 507 tanks,
Western Special Military District 1271 tank,
Kiev Special Military District 1698 tanks
Odessa Military District 214 tanks
TOTAL 4 tanks
As you can see, the T-26 tanks, including the two-turret tanks, released in 1931-32 against the Germans were not 8423 at all, but 4221, of which 589 were machine-gun tanks released 10 years ago, that is, junk. In total, we get 4221-589 = 3632. The same goes for the rest of the tanks.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

The author to whom you are referring indicated only the tanks in the first echelon, forgetting to indicate the tanks of two reserve tank divisions, out of 350 tanks, as well as tanks located in Finland, while he does not indicate not that the tanks are under repair, he forgot about a thousand ACS and 15 thousand armored personnel carriers. Their armored personnel carriers were much more powerful in armament and armor than our T-27, T-37, T-38, T-40 and 1626 two-turret T-26.

And how do you compare these figures with the number of T-26s produced since 1931, some of which ended up in Spain, fought on Khasan and Kholkhin-Gol and participated in the war with Finland?

T-26s in various states on June 1, 1941 were in the front-line districts in the following quantities:
Leningrad Military District 531 tank,
Baltic Special Military District 507 tanks,
Western Special Military District 1271 tank,
Kiev Special Military District 1698 tanks
Odessa Military District 214 tanks
TOTAL 4 tanks
As you can see, the T-26 tanks, including the two-turret tanks, released in 1931-32 against the Germans were not 8423 at all, but 4221, of which 589 were machine-gun tanks released 10 years ago, that is, junk. In total, we get 4221-589 = 3632. The same goes for the rest of the tanks.

excuse me, but where do you get the data and why should I believe them?

[ramzay21]

excuse me, but where do you get the data and why should I believe them?

According to the Auto Armored Directorate of the Red Army, 1931 T-9770 tanks have been produced since 26, of which 1626 two-turret machine-gun, produced 10 years before the war.
According to the data you cite, there were 9998 units at the front against the Germans.
In total, as of June 1, 1941, there were 8747 T-26 tanks in the troops, of which there were 2100 tanks in the Far East, another 635 T-26 tanks in the Trans-Baikal Military District, 217 tanks in SAVO, and another 637 tanks in the Transcaucasian Military District. ...

At the same time, your author indicates that the Germans had only 180 T-1 tanks, although it is known that more than 2000 tanks were produced.
So I'm wondering how you compare the number of combat-ready tanks in the front line of the offensive with the number produced in factories over 10 years?
If you use this counting system and swap the places of the Soviet and German, then it turns out that the Germans had 30 thousand tanks, tankettes and armored personnel carriers, against 3500 Soviet tanks. How do you like this ratio?

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

At the same time, your author indicates that the Germans had only 180 T-1 tanks, although it is known that more than 2000 tanks were produced.

With the growth in production of medium tanks Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV, as well as the beginning of the production of light Pz. 38 (t), already during the Polish campaign, an active reduction in the number of Pz.Kpfw.Is in active forces and their massive re-equipment into self-propelled guns and special-purpose vehicles. As a result of this, as well as combat losses, by the beginning of the French campaign, the number of Pz.Kpfw.Is in the front-line units was reduced to 554 units as of May 10, 1940.
By the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the obsolete Pz.Kpfw.Is were mainly replaced in the troops by medium and more advanced light tanks. T. Yents cites data on 152 tanks [89] located in the 9th, 12th, 17th - 20th tank divisions, but this number does not include tanks in their sapper battalions, the 3rd companies of which are the state had 11 Pz.Kpfw.I (pio) vehicles - there were 17 in total in 185 divisions [90]. In addition, 37 Pz.Kpfw.Is were in the 40th tank battalion operating in Finland [91], as well as 3 in MinRaum-Abt.1

[ramzay21]

Quote: Pilat2009

As a result of this, as well as combat losses, by the beginning of the French campaign, the number of Pz.Kpfw.Is in the front-line units was reduced to 554 units as of May 10, 1940.

Soviet T-26 tanks in 10 years were also lost in battles and some of them simply fell into disrepair, but for some reason you give the total number of these tanks produced in 10 years and compare them with the number of combat-ready tanks in the frontline parts. You either compare the total number of produced tanks, or the total number of tanks in combat readiness troops

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

how do you compare the number of combat-ready tanks in the front line of the offensive with the number produced in factories in 10 years?

For 10 years and as a result of the Spanish, Polish, French companies, the number of tanks thinned, don’t you think? In addition, by the beginning of the Second World War, there was a replacement for more advanced models.

[ramzay21]

In fact, it was you who indicated the number of Soviet tanks produced in 10 years, the number of which also thinned out after Spain, Hasan, Khalkhin Gol, Finland, and simply because of wear and tear?

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

How do you like this ratio?

No, for this is fantastic. Not in one army of the world, including the USSR, armored vehicles were not classified as a tank. And not a single gun mage in armament can be compared with the same BT, whose gun blows them from a kilometer distance
By the way, 15000 of these were produced during the entire war period, so on June 22 they could not have been in the troops in any way. Until 41, only 560 pieces were produced. this must be understood as a number not only on the Eastern Front

[ramzay21]

That is, when you compare the number of German tanks only in the advanced order with the total number of tanks and tankettes produced in 10 years, this should be a reality, but when, on the contrary, is it fantastic?
Let's compare the T-27, with a 7,62 machine gun and 10 mm armor, which you class as tanks with the German T-4 tank.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

Their armored personnel carriers were much more powerful in armament and armor than our T-27, T-37, T-38, T-40 and 1626 two-turret T-26.

Again twenty-five. I suggested that you do not count the T-27 and T-40. As for the armored personnel carrier with its 7.62 machine gun, then compare it with the BT, and even more so the T-26 is nonsense

https://nvo.ng.ru/history/2007-06-22/6_tanks.html

Although the thickness of the armor of the T-II tank in 2 times more than that of the T-26 tank, it didn’t turn into a tank with a counter-armor. The Soviet T-26 type 20K 45 mm caliber cannon confidently penetrated such armor at a range of 1200 m, while the 20 mm projectile KwK-30 gun retained the necessary penetration only at a range of 300-500 m. This combination of armor and weapon parameters allowed the Soviet with proper use of the tank, it was practically impunity to shoot German tanks, which was confirmed in battles in Spain. The T-II tank was also unsuitable for the execution of the main task - the destruction of fire weapons and manpower of the enemy, since the 20 mm cannon shell was not at all effective for this task. To hit a target, a direct hit was required, like from a rifle bullet. At the same time, a “normal” high-explosive fragmentation projectile weighing 1,4 kg was developed under our gun. Such a projectile struck targets such as a machine-gun nest, a mortar battery, a log dug, etc.

Now about the quantity. Against the 280 "tanket" 1-th tank group of the Wehrmacht in the ten mechanized corps of the South-Western and Southern fronts were combat-ready 1501 tank T-26 of 1873 listed as registered. The ratio of the number of tanks in this category is 1: 5,3 in favor of the Soviet tanks. In addition, 1 in June 1941 of the year in the Kiev OVO and Odessa VO included more than 421 units of T-37 and T-38 amphibious tanks with machine-gun armament, as well as 111 new T-40 amphibious tanks armed with a large caliber machine gun and an 12,7 gauge. 7,62 mm caliber.

Next, we consider the comparative combat characteristics of the second category - "light tanks". These include all the tanks of the Wehrmacht, armed with 37 gun mm caliber and machine guns. These are German T-III tanks of the D, E, F series and Czech tanks 35 (t) and 38 (t). In the 1 th tank group armed with five tank divisions of Czech production tanks were not, and the T-III tanks of the above series were 162. From the Soviet side, we will accept for comparison analysis light tanks BT-7 and BT-7 M.

In terms of the “armor, mobility and armament” parameters, our “light tanks” BT-7, at least in two, are not inferior to the German “troika”, and the Czech tanks are significantly superior in all respects. Frontal armor with X-NUMX mm thickness for the T-III tanks of the specified series, as well as T-II tanks, did not provide counter missile protection. Our tank with a 30 mm gun could hit a German tank at a kilometer range, while remaining in relative safety. As for mobility and power reserve, the BT-45 (7) tanks were the best in the world. The fragmentation projectile (7 g) of a Škoda 610 tank gun of mm caliber was 37 times smaller than that of the Soviet 2K cannon, which resulted in a considerably smaller striking effect on infantry. As for the action on bronzesel, 20mm caliber guns were ineffective (in the German army they were called "army door beaters").

The “light category” combat-ready tanks in the Kiev ABO mechanized corps on 1 June 1941 were 994 BT-7 and 192 BT-7М, and in Odessa IN - 150 BT-7 and 167 BT-7М. The total number of serviceable "light tanks" of the BT series of two districts was equal to 1503 (from 1970 - registered), which was the numerical ratio of 1: 9,1 in favor of the Soviet troops.

So, in the category of "light tanks", the Soviet troops in the Southern theater of operations had a huge quantitative advantage with some qualitative superiority.

Next, we consider the category of "artillery tanks", which were designed to maximize the approach to the enemy of a powerful fire impact on manpower and combat means.

Artillery support tanks for infantry were not originally intended to fight their own targets. A distinctive feature of tanks in this category were short-barreled guns (the T-IV tank had a barrel in caliber L equal to 24), the initial projectile speed of which and, therefore, the penetration rate of these guns was very low (45 mm Soviet gun 20K exceeded the German gun 75 mm T-IV tank at all distances). To fight the infantry, our T-28 tank (thanks to the presence of two separate machine-gun turrets) was better armed. In addition, some of the T-28 tanks of the last years of release were armed with longer guns and shielded with additional armor plates 20 – 30 mm thick. A similar modernization in terms of armor reinforcement took place with German tanks (T-IV tanks of the first series A, B, C, etc. had forehead armor - 30 mm, board - 20 mm). As for the short-barreled gun, its replacement with the long-barreled (L 43) occurred only in April 1942. The wide tracks of the Soviet T-28 tank provided him with better maneuverability. In general, on the whole set of tactical and technical characteristics of these tanks were equivalent.

As part of the Wehrmacht’s 1 Tank Group, T-IV support tanks had exactly 100 units: 20 tanks in the division. As of 1 June 1941, the mechanized corps of the Kiev OZOZ were armed with X-NUMX tank T-171 (from 28 registered) and 191 operational five-tower giant T-42, armed with one 35 mm cannon, two 76 cannon caliber, two 45 guns, two 10 guns, one 28 caliber, two two-guns 213 caliber armed with two XNUMX caliber guns, two XNUMX caliber guns, two XNUMX guns, two caliber guns, two XNUMX guns equipped with two XNUMX caliber guns and two XNUMX caliber guns equipped with two XNUMX caliber guns and two XNUMX caliber guns equipped with two XNUMX caliber guns and two XNUMX guns. In the Odessa military district there were about XNUMX T-XNUMX tanks. In total, there were more than XNUMX serviceable "artillery tanks" in the South theater, that is, twice as many German ones.

THE BEST

Finally, let us consider the best that was used by the Wehrmacht’s tank divisions and the Red Army’s tank divisions on 22 June 1941 of the year conventionally included in the category of “medium tanks”.

“The best” was determined not by the author of this article, but by the state commission (out of fifty engineers, designers and scouts), who, under the leadership of the people's commissar Tevosyan, three times in 1939 – 1941 studied the state of the German tank production in detail and only one tank brand T-III. The best tank T-III of the H and J series was due to two circumstances: the new 50 mm KwK-38 cannon and the front armor of the hull 50 mm thick. All other types of tanks of our specialists are not interested. By the way, under the cover of the friendship agreement, the following were purchased: “Messerschmitt-109” - 5 pieces; "Messerschmitt-110" - 6 pieces; 2 stuff "Junkers-88"; 2 things Dornier-215; one newest experimental Messerschmitt-209; 105 battery mm anti-aircraft guns; drawings of the newest world's largest battleship "Bismarck"; tank radio stations; dive bombing sights and many other weapons systems and military equipment. And only one German tank of the same type.

This tank at the Soviet training ground was thoroughly studied and tested by shooting at armored vehicles. Therefore, our military-political leadership was well aware of the level of German tanks and the state of the German tank industry as a whole.

In the Red Army, the "best" from the category of "medium tanks" was the T-34 tank.

By all indications - mobility, armor protection, armament T-34 tank surpassed the German T-III H and J tank, the best in June 1941 of the year. Long-barreled 76 mm F-34 gun penetrated any armor of the most protected German tanks at a distance of 1000 – 1200 meters . At the same time, not a single tank of the Wehrmacht could hit the “thirty-four” even with 500 meters. A powerful diesel engine provided not only fast-moving and relative fire safety, but also allowed more than 300 km to pass at one gas station.



And now about the quantity: in the 1 tank squadron of “medium tanks” T-III series H and J there were 255 units. The mechanized corps of the South-Western Front had 555 T-34 tanks, and the South one - 50 tanks (a total of 605 T-34 tanks).



In the tank divisions of the Wehrmacht heavy tanks were not. No one!

On the 22 June 1941, the South-Western Front mechanized corps had 277 serviceable KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, and the Southern Front had 10 units. Total 280 units. In view of the absence of heavy tanks in the Wehrmacht, we will compare them with the best German T-III tanks of the H and J series, which are really incomparable!

So, against 255 the best German tanks 1-Panzer Group von Kleist in Mechanized corps of Kiev PSB and Odessa IN on 22 June 1941 year was 605 tanks T-34 and 280 heavy tank KV-1 and KV-2, just 885 tanks that exceeded the total number (799) of German tanks of all types of the 1 tank group, including obsolete TI tanks with machine guns, TII with 22 mm gun, T-III with 37 mm gun and "commander".

So, for the month of June 1941 of the year, against the 799 tanks of the 1 tank group of the Wehrmacht, which were armed with five tank divisions (there were no tanks in the German motorized divisions) were opposed by twenty Soviet tank and eleven motorized divisions equipped with 5997 armored tanks.

[ramzay21]

then for the armored personnel carrier with its 7.62 machine gun, then compare it with the bt and even more so the t-26 is nonsense

Is it normal to compare the T-37 or T-38 with one machine gun, as well as the two-turret T-26 with two machine guns with the T-3?
In addition, you are only comparing the number of combat-ready tanks in the offensive zone with all the tanks and tankettes we have produced.
And it is correct to compare the amount of all available combat-ready armored vehicles, including tanks, tankettes, self-propelled guns and armored personnel carriers, just then a completely different balance of power will be, which you and those who support these myths do not like. But machine-gun tanks and especially tankettes, with weak bulletproof armor, are even inferior in their capabilities to armored personnel carriers, which you stubbornly do not consider, and even more so they are inferior to self-propelled guns, which you also do not consider.

[ramzay21]

Why should I count them as tanks?
You piled everything that moves and has armor in a heap, while counting the ganomage at the BT level.

These are all armored vehicles, and the armored personnel carriers in terms of armament and armor protection significantly surpassed the overwhelming part of our armored vehicles, which you write down as tanks

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

Why should I count them as tanks?
You piled everything that moves and has armor in a heap, while counting the ganomage at the BT level.

These are all armored vehicles, and the armored personnel carriers in terms of armament and armor protection significantly surpassed the overwhelming part of our armored vehicles, which you write down as tanks

I am crying.

[ramzay21]

You just don't like the facts, it is much better to compare the number of combat-ready tanks in the first line of the offensive, forgetting about other armored vehicles on the one hand, with all the tanks produced at the factories and self-propelled machine-gun shields on the other.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Wow, how interesting. Will you provide your data and calculations?

[ramzay21]

With the participation of all European countries in the war against the USSR on Hitler's side, as I understand it, we figured it out.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

With the participation of all European countries in the war against the USSR on Hitler's side, as I understand it, we figured it out.

Well, you apparently did not understand?. Europe worked for Germany, but worked quite sickly. I gave an example of the production of tanks and aircraft. You can see the guns yourself. As a result, it turns out that the USSR produced tanks and aircraft more than Germany and Europe combined. (By the way, and lost more) and even America

[ramzay21]

Well, you probably didn’t understand? Europe worked for Germany, but worked pretty feeble

An example of the release of products from Czechoslovakia alone, which you forgot about I gave you. If you think it is a frail job that only Czechoslovakia produced more military products in one year than Great Britain did for the entire war, then tell us what it means to work well for you.
620 shells a month is that not enough?
Is 900 carriages of aerial bombs a month not enough?
Is 100 self-propelled guns per month not enough?

As a result, it turns out that the USSR produced tanks and aircraft more than Germany and Europe combined.

There is a small inaccuracy in your numbers that makes them fake. In these figures, the number of produced tanks and aircraft includes both released tanks and aircraft and repaired ones, but for some reason, in the numbers of German tanks and aircraft, you only count the released ones.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: ramzay21

the number of produced tanks and aircraft includes both released tanks and aircraft, and repaired

Why would it? Was there any special statistics on output in the USSR? Or is it also the intrigues of the liberals?

[Siberian54]

ramzay21 \ Your memory is full of holes, and where are 9,000,000 raped German women?

[ramzay21]

Yes, yes, exactly

[fighter angel]

To snail No. 9
About the "monstrous losses" of attack aircraft:

For you, the specialist figures for the losses of Soviet attack aircraft.
The facts are as follows:
During the war years, the Red Army Air Force attack units received - 33083 Il-2 aircraft.
Including: 8067 single, 23882 double and 1134 IL-10.
The combat losses of all types of IL-2 attack aircraft during the war amounted to 11448 aircraft!
11 and a half thousand cars.
No shit, no 30 thousand like you, and people like you of "pro-Western" orientation are accustomed to counting, according to "Western research"!
During the entire war, about 10.000 vehicles were written off due to wear and tear of materiel, damage, accidents, and unusability.
The alignment by years: In 1941-503, 1942-1676, 1943-3649,1944-3727, 1945-1893 cars.
This is how the liberal-pro-Western myth about the "catastrophic losses of the IL-2" in the Great Patriotic War and the allegedly "overwhelming with ups" is collapsing.
For a battlefield aircraft, a one-third loss order is considered acceptable.
Remember the tactics, with the loss of a third of the personnel, any unit continues to be considered combat-ready.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: fighter angel

During the entire war, about 10.000 vehicles were written off due to wear and tear of materiel, damage, accidents, and unusability.

Il-2 aircraft were written off for combat damage - since the armored hull was not repairable - for example, 2-3 holes from a large-caliber machine gun led to a weakening of the supporting structure and the Il-2 was written off.
https://maxpark.com/community/2039/content/2103620
Curiosity: even in this short description of combat damage, how many planes should be decommissioned.
A one-piece armored hull is not only good - it happened to be written off due to several holes, since it weakened the power element.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: fighter angel

About 10.000 vehicles during the entire war were written off due to wear of materiel, damage

Excuse me, but under what article will you write off another 10 thousand aircraft?
Well, if you think so, then half of the destroyed German aircraft, too, let's write off according to the same article.

[fighter angel]

Facts are either accepted or denied. Other facts. With speculation and gossip, follow to another place. Sorry.

[Roma 1977]

I must say that half of this number was written off due to the development of a resource or due to combat damage, and was not shot down by the enemy. What is characteristic: among those shot down, most of them were anti-aircraft artillery, not fighters. P / S this is me by the way, otherwise many do not know.

[Konnick]

most of it is anti-aircraft artillery, not fighters. P / S this is me by the way, otherwise many do not know.

It is true, large losses of the first half of the war were from antiaircraft guns. There was an erroneous tactic of using the Il-2, along the front edge, which was saturated with anti-aircraft artillery, and the infantry was in cover. Starting with Operation Bagration, we did not attack the front edge, but concentrated strikes on the columns, railway lines and artillery batteries behind the front line, especially since the air supremacy was behind us. German troops lost the ability to maneuver and normally supply their units, even a retreat in such conditions was tantamount to death. And this was the main component of the victory in this operation. Blitzkrieg is the opposite. Losses from anti-aircraft artillery dropped sharply, and our fighters had 16-fold superiority in the air and did not allow German fighters to counter attack aircraft in excellent sunny weather. And the stubborn resistance of the Wehrmacht at the Seelow Heights was due to low clouds and spring fogs, which did not allow the widespread use of attack aircraft, and artillery hit the squares, spending a lot of shells without the desired effect, otherwise it would focus fire on anti-aircraft weapons for targeting our aviation.

[Vovk]

Quote: Konnick

It is true, large losses of the first half of the war were from antiaircraft guns.

To clarify, 1942-1943 Kharkov, the KhAZ airfields (where, by the way, the SU-2 was assembled before the war), the runway opposite the KhAZ in Lesopark, the KhAI airfield during the occupation were actively used by the German Luftwaffe. The USSR Air Force stubbornly tried to bomb them throughout 1942-1943, but this brought a modest result and huge losses of the IL-2 from anti-aircraft fire (official documents of the USSR Air Force) ... roughly hundreds of Soviet crews ...

[Konnick]

roughly, these are hundreds of Soviet crews

Oddly enough, the Po-2 night bombers suffered the smallest losses during the war; they managed to extinguish anti-aircraft guns at airfields, thanks to their stealth. And in the Korsun-Shevchenko operation, they managed to storm tanks at night, when the weather was bad for everyone else. Not always armor and speed are better than stealth. German pilots received a cross for the downed Po-2. The Luftwaffe used the Me-110 night fighter with a direction finder against our maize workers.

[Pavel57]

Terrible war. By far the best stormtrooper of that war is the stormtrooper of the victorious army ...

It is a pity there was no comparison with the FV-190F. Comparison with U87 is not entirely correct.
Some of the presenters' arguments are controversial.
And the Su-6 was better, but was not armored in capsule armor.

[Sergey Valov]

"There was no comparison with the FV-190F." - He's not a stormtrooper either. In essence, the IL-2 has nothing to compare with. Perhaps with the He-129.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

"It is a pity there was no comparison with the FV-190F"

Well then, too, with the "Mustang" and "Typhoon". Il-2 - the plane of the beginning of the war, by chance it was delayed in it until the end. German and Western fighter-bombers of the end of the war were faster, more maneuverable, and more armed, and could dive almost vertically, and in air combat they could stand up for themselves .. They did not need to hang over the battlefield. But what they had. Our legend is IL-2.

[Alf]

Quote: Pavel57

And the Su-6 was better

Only there was no motor for him.

[KERMET]

There is no motor because there are no serial aircraft for it, there are no aircraft in the series because there is no motor.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Yes, the machines are different, "lapotnik", in modern terms, is a front-line bomber, FV-190F is a fighter-bomber, and the Il-2 is like an attack aircraft.
It's just that these three machines were trying to solve the same task - direct support of the ground forces. And it is not the machines themselves that are compared, but the efficiency of their discounts.

[tank64rus]

Goering, as he suggested to Speer to make steam locomotives out of concrete, can be seen after a good dose of cocaine. Well, from concrete, so from concrete.

[Wahmister 1970]

I read somewhere that during the Second World War, self-propelled or towed barges were made of concrete

[KERMET]

It's better to listen to Rastrenin about the IL-2 ...

[Pavel57]

LEE

Quote: Sergey Valov

In essence, the IL-2 has nothing to compare with.

As it is not with anything. Once the plane performed the task of destroying ground equipment on the battlefield, then completely.
The Germans had it in the second half of the war FV190F, we have Il-10 and Su-6. The Il-10 was faster, but less effective as an attack aircraft. Ilyushin was for the IL-8. Everyone admits that the Su-6 was better, but they did not break the series. And the Su-6 did not have an armored capsule. So it's not about the armor?

In fact, the main weapon of the attack aircraft is the NURS. Everything else is secondary and bombs and guns.

[Avior]

During the war, the Nurs hit accuracy was very low
The guns were much more accurate in this respect.

[agond]

Quote: Galleon

From 1939 to 1945, the industry of the USSR produced 36163 Il-2 attack aircraft. In April 1945, the Air Force numbered 3075 aircraft of this type.

And imagine, instead of Polikarpov, Ilyushin fell out of favor with Stalin and the production of the Il-2 would have been discontinued at the end of 1941, and instead the Mig-3 would have been produced with the same engine and in the same quantities, I think the German air superiority would have ended already in 1942 g, and not in 1944, and in general the Germans somehow managed the whole war without an aircraft like the Il-2, however, like all other participants in the Second World War

[Adler77]

It's a nightmare, it's better than the Il-2 than the MiG 3. That is certainly a worthless plane.
If it were promising, its production would not have been stopped. And so, a mediocre and poorly armed aircraft.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

She still does not shine.

[2112vda]

Quote: Avior

During the war, the Nurs hit accuracy was very low
The guns were much more accurate in this respect.

It's like that. There is no point in arguing here. But! We take the book by SN Reznichenko "Jet armament of the Soviet Air Force 1930-1945. There appears a somewhat different, different from the official, picture of the use of RS, their accuracy and efficiency. The accuracy of RS depended on the storage conditions of ammunition at the airfield and the experience of the pilot. - 1-2 RS were enough for the attack aircraft to disable any type of German tanks. The pilots had intense competition for the use of ROFS M-13 in the aviation version. The warhead of this rocket was a 122 mm howitzer shell. scrap metal.
Now about the losses. Large losses of the Il-2, as well as the Me-109, are due to the use of liquid-cooled engines. A shot through the engine block or radiator led to a loss of coolant and overheating of the engine. If the motor overheats, the led block, the motor can only be sent for remelting. At the air vents, even if several cylinders were knocked out, the plane returned to base. The damaged ShPG and CPG were replaced and the engine returned to service. It is clear that in wartime conditions, changing the Il-2 to the Su-6 was risky, so they fought on what was. After the war, all over the world, liquid-cooled engines were no longer installed on new aircraft and helicopters, only air vents were used. Our "very effective managers-managers", represented by Manturov and Gordin, decided that liquid-cooled engines from a passenger car are the very thing that is needed for light aviation, in particular for aircraft of local airlines. History goes in a circle, we repeat the experience of the 30s of the last century. History teaches only one thing; it teaches nothing. Our economists know best how to make piston aircraft engines. I wish I could be so smart too!

[Avior]

It's fantastic - one PC to get into the MTO tank, and not just into the tank.
Even a modern unguided PC cannot do this, and the accuracy of the PC during the war was incomparably lower

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Avior

It's fantastic - one PC to get into the MTO tank, and not just into the tank.

It was carried out not only RS but also dropping bombs, proving ground tests. Experienced pilots needed several approaches to get into a stationary tank.

[Alf]

Quote: 2112vda

After the war, all over the world, liquid-cooled engines were no longer installed on new aircraft and helicopters, only air vents were used.

Because they were able to raise the power of the air vents to 3000 mares, and the aquatic ones could not afford this, the limit seems to be 2150 horses on Griffon.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

The guns were much more accurate in this respect.

I'm not sure that the cannon firing was accurate on the Il-2. In any case, the attack pilots were not particularly taught aimed firing - "they were shooting across the squares."

[Avior]

In any case, more accurate than RS

[Sergey Sfiedu]

In fact, the main weapon of the attack aircraft is the NURS

Our military in the course of the war in NURS became disillusioned. The type of tank does not penetrate (one might think, there are no other targets, except for tanks) .. On the Il-10 there were no rockets at all, only after the war they appeared again on the Il-10M. And the British, having studied our RS, on the contrary, assessed them, and released a whole line of different NURS, and the Americans - looking at them - the same thing, which in many ways became the key to the effectiveness of Western fighter-bomber aviation. And the Germans made many different NURS, though others, "air-to-air".

[Pavel57]

Quote: Alf

Only there was no motor for him.

And with the Ash-82 it was better. But the question is, it was with local reservations, like all strike aircraft.
By the way, the Su-6 grew out of the Su-2 with the Ash-82 engine.

[Pavel57]

And imagine, instead of Polikarpov, Ilyushin fell out of favor with Stalin, and the production of the Il-2 would have been discontinued at the end of 1941, and instead, the Mig-3 would have been produced with the same engine and in the same quantities, it seems that German air superiority would have been put to an end already in 1942, not 1944, and in general the Germans, like the whole war, did without an aircraft like the Il-2, however, like all other participants in the Second World War

An interesting alternative story. But it cannot be verified. In fact, all mass aircraft were built around three lines of engines - Klimov, Mikulin, Shchvetsov. So choose what to build. The line of Su-2 and Tu-2 was closed, surplus M-82 was formed. Emphasized on IL-2 steel in short supply Mikulin motors

[Alf]

Quote: Pavel57

Closed the line of Su-2 and Tu-2,

This is when the Tu-2 line was closed? In the 47th?

[Pavel57]

Quote: Avior

During the war, the Nurs hit accuracy was very low
The guns were much more accurate in this respect.

Where to go then? Into the tank? If shooting at the convoy, then NURSs are more effective. It's like a large-caliber projectile.
The allies with their I-B did just that, from Bazookas to bunches of NURS.

And PTABs were less effective only at the beginning of their application.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Because PTAB are in service now?

[Avior]

In reality, attack aircraft effectively learned how to deal with the appearance of guided munitions with tanks.
That didn’t stop us from fighting trucks with fuel and shells.

[Avior]

And the accuracy of hitting the tanks was also very low, despite the fact that they had more perfect RS - they rotated to stabilize in flight
I remember that when landing in Normandy, British pilots declared hundreds of defeats for RS tanks, in fact, nine were confirmed.
Before the advent of guided ATGMs, it was much more effective for attack aircraft to deal with the provision of tanks with fuel and ammunition, and not with the tanks themselves.

[Taoist]

Well, Il certainly deserves all his nicknames ... Because of survivability, because of simplicity, because of real benefits. And as practice has shown, no information security can replace an armored aircraft of a soldier, an aircraft of the battlefield ...

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Combat helicopters succeeded in this, replacing the aircraft of the battlefield.

[Pavel57]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

vovochkarzhevsky (Vladimir)

Because PTAB are in service now?

The effectiveness of PTAOB s is determined by the accuracy of bombing and the density of tank columns.

The Il-2 with a bombsight was bad. After the 43rd, the Germans realized that the tanks had to be spread out. Hence, the peak of the effectiveness of PTAB s falls on the Battle of Kursk.

I have not heard of the modern use of PTABs during the war.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

1. PTAB just allow you to work with not too high precision bombing.
2. Wow, it turns out that it is impossible to work from extremely low and close to them low altitudes without a bomber sight. And I didn't know, and on the Mi-24P I laid bombs on the target.
3. These mantras about the dispersion of technology are just some kind of test for stupidity.
First, you will not do anything with battle formations. You start to spread out, all the required concentration of forces and means will fly to hell.
Secondly, I have already said, I repeat, have you ever seen a military column from the air? It seems not, otherwise they would have known how the attempt to disperse it would turn out. There just won't be enough roads, not to mention how to manage such a chain. So all these statements of the Germans how they dealt with PTAB are nothing more than the post-war whine of the beaten.
Well, to the heap, and how do you imagine this dispersal in the area of ​​the crossings? What will be the capacity of the crossing, guess?
4. Have you heard anything about the KMG-U system?

[Andrey Mansurov]

This plane may not be the Generalissimo, but the Marshal of Victory is for sure. Like the T-34, BM-13 and Zis-3. And many others, made by the hands of women and children in the rear.

[fox_rudy]

The famous Soviet actor Vladimir Gulyaev fought on Il 2. And the book was written 'In the air of "Eli"'. It shows the tactics of using the aircraft well.

[agond]

And yet it is interesting how the rest of the participants of the Second World War did without armored attack aircraft, while many different aircraft models were created by the same Germans, and for some reason no one wanted to create an analogue of our Il, probably because there was no need for it.

[Alf]

Quote: agond

and for some reason no one wanted to create an analogue of our Il

Have you heard about the Hsh-129?

[Alf]

Quote: Alf

no one wanted, probably because there was no need for him.

Have you seen this? The letter "A" in the name says nothing?

By the way, we ordered the Bear back in the middle of 42 ...

[stoqn477]

Quote: Torins

The Su-2 was not an attack aircraft at all, and it was a mediocre light bomber. Its most successful applications are spotter and light reconnaissance. The rest of Sukhoi's aircraft had no opportunity to be put into operation due to the fact that the war was in full swing, the losses from aviation were catastrophic and it would be a crime to waste resources on another type of aircraft.

Rather, the point is not that resources will be allocated to another machine in production, but that it is necessary to teach workers to make new equipment and begin mass production of it. And if the Il-2 is removed and a Sukhoi is installed in its place, then at some point the army will be left without the necessary aircraft, and you cannot afford it.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

There is another option. Su-2, this is perhaps our first attempt to create a universal front-line aircraft. A kind of universal soldier who can act as a bomber, an attack aircraft, and a reconnaissance officer. And if it is necessary to fight off the fighters, the bombers with the transporters will pinch themselves.
The idea did not arise from scratch, there was already one universal fighter in the Red Army Air Force, the Polikarpov P-5. But it is already very outdated.
In addition, the Su-2 is a peacetime aircraft. Very perfect, quite comfortable for pilots and most importantly, initially all-metal, which means with a good resource. That is why he was forgiven a rather high cost and launched into a series. After all, if the car serves much longer than its wooden counterparts, then you can close your eyes to the price. Moreover, the series in peacetime is nothing compared to the military.
Yes, then it was transferred to a mixed design, trying to reduce the cost, but this did not save the situation. Its advantages in wartime turned into disadvantages. It was just that the technologies of those years did not allow making a universal machine good enough. The exhaust is a collection of mediocrity.
This was the main reason for abandoning it, although officially, the lack of an engine.

[Vovk]

The SU-2 was created for the conditions of complete domination of the USSR aviation in the sky and weak air defense of the enemy ground forces. But in reality, the wars have shown the erroneousness of the choice.
The SU-2 had to perform the functions of an attack aircraft, which were not characteristic of it, without fighter cover and in conditions of large losses of flight personnel, not from large-caliber weapons, but from conventional small arms.
They tried to fix the mistakes after the first battles - the armored backs between the navigator and the pilots were removed from the wrecked cars and placed under their feet, an additional hatch was cut under the navigator to install an additional machine gun. Hero of the Soviet Union pilot Yekaterina Zelenko 135BBAP, a participant in the Finnish war, in her last battle she was able to shoot down 1 messer, then the wounded navigator left the car by parachute and then she rammed the second messer.
This feat has already been written on this site https://topwar.ru/73602-ekaterina-zelenko-devushka-sovershivshaya-taran.html

[Pavel57]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

1. PTAB just allow you to work with not too high precision bombing.
2. Wow, it turns out that it is impossible to work from extremely low and close to them low altitudes without a bomber sight. And I didn't know, and on the Mi-24P I laid bombs on the target.
3. These mantras about the dispersion of technology are just some kind of test for stupidity.
First, you will not do anything with battle formations. You start to spread out, all the required concentration of forces and means will fly to hell.
Secondly, I have already said, I repeat, have you ever seen a military column from the air? It seems not, otherwise they would have known how the attempt to disperse it would turn out. There just won't be enough roads, not to mention how to manage such a chain. So all these statements of the Germans how they dealt with PTAB are nothing more than the post-war whine of the beaten.
Well, to the heap, and how do you imagine this dispersal in the area of ​​the crossings? What will be the capacity of the crossing, guess?
4. Have you heard anything about the KMG-U system?

At what speed is the bombing from the Mi-24?
KMGU was used mainly for mining.
Bombing the crossings with PTABs is nonsense. The most effective thing that the Americans have proven in Vietnam is guided missiles.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

1. At the same speed as the IL-2. 335 and 375 km / h at the ground, not such a big difference.
2. KMGU has a wide range of ammunition, including PTAB.
3. IL-2 does not need to bomb / storm the crossings, and the accumulation of troops inevitably arises at these.

[Pavel57]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

1. At the same speed as the IL-2. 335 and 375 km / h at the ground, not such a big difference.
2. KMGU has a wide range of ammunition, including PTAB.
3. IL-2 does not need to bomb / storm the crossings, and the accumulation of troops inevitably arises at these.

Bomb the Mi-24 at 300 km / h. ? Are you kidding?
Here is an article on a topic without great
https://borianm-livejournal-com.turbopages.org/turbo/borianm.livejournal.com/s/760050.html

[vovochkarzhevsky]

1.Do you think the IL-2 was operating at maximum speed? These I named to have an idea of ​​the range of speeds. If you cannot understand this, then what are you doing in the aviation branch? However, if you decide to run away, then first, explain what is such a fundamental difference in aiming when bombing with PMA at 250 and 350 km / h?
2. This is not an article, but the speculation of an amateur blogger suffering from ChSV. Sorry, but declaring the armor useless, since it does not hold a 20 mm projectile, as well as the fact that an air-cooled engine does not need protection, can only.

[Pavel57]

As you become personal, the conversation loses its meaning.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Where did I get personal? Or do you simply have nothing to answer on the merits?

[Pavel57]

The only meaning of the IL-2 was in its design in conditions of aluminum deficiency. A mixed wood + cast iron construction was available at the beginning of the war. And by the end of the war, decision-making inertia, typical for the aircraft industry, played a role.

And I'm not against booking, but against irrational booking. IL-2 is an example of irrational placement of armor, which inevitably affects all characteristics.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The point of the IL-2 was that it was the only aircraft capable of operating along the leading edge and the nearest tactical depth.

[Pavel57]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

The point of the IL-2 was that it was the only aircraft capable of operating along the leading edge and the nearest tactical depth.

There was no other plane. IS believed in him, which was important. But it was not possible to apply it with greater efficiency - from the bottom of the MZA, from the top of the messengers. And here and there, the armor does not help much. Exit to fly at low level flight, then it is difficult to aim. Efficiency increases in a dive, albeit a flat one, but you need to climb higher, and then there are messers ... hence the huge losses. And it is not uncommon that the Il-2 reached the airfield, but was beyond repair. All this is described in detail by the link given above.

The attack aircraft is a very specific aircraft. It is difficult to find the optimum characteristics in terms of maneuverability, speed, protection, efficiency. In my opinion, the IL-2 was not optimal. Hence the enormous losses.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Sorry, but this is amateurish nonsense. The main threat when working at altitudes of 500 meters or less is, first of all, small arms. It was from him that the armor was designed to protect, and MZA, with all the desire, cannot be crammed everywhere.
Someone deceived you about the difficulty of aiming at an extremely low altitude. The only difficulty is the complication of visual orientation.
But the question with the identification and identification of the target is removed.
Regarding which is better, repair, or replacing the aircraft with a new one, and let the old one go "cannibalism".
Oddly enough for amateurs, but if the production of aircraft from available materials is established, then replacement is better. In a repaired car, especially after field repair, performance characteristics are sagging to one degree or another. And from repair to repair it only accumulates.
And your link, I have already said, is the ranting of a sofa strategist who imagines himself to be a specialist.

[Pavel57]

So you did not answer at what speed and under what conditions did you throw the Mi-24 bombs? Was there air defense cover for those targets?

I will not pay attention to your snobbery.
But one more link from the same "dilettante".
https://vihrbudushego.livejournal.com/3597259.html

and a quote from there-

Well, as for the Il-2 - IMHO, a reasonable alternative not in spherical in a vacuum, but in Soviet conditions would have been development towards the Su-2 striking machine ..... But the Su-2 lost the plant - it was produced in Kharkov, and left from a distance .....

[vovochkarzhevsky]

1. Have you decided to wriggle like a snake in a frying pan? You still have not answered the question - what is such a fundamental difference in aiming when bombing with PMA at 250 and 350 km / h?
At the same time, run away from the city's answer to new conditions that are not of fundamental importance. Admit it honestly, you don't know.
2. This is not snobbery, but experience and knowledge of the issue. Because I'm not interested in links from which a mile away carries ignorance and aviation illiteracy. The author of that opus does not even know why the Henschel-129 turned out exactly the same, what is the difference between the overhead armor and the front integrated into the power set.
3. Is the Su-2 a reasonable alternative? This despite the fact that he could not work for PMA, did not have cannon armament?

[Pavel57]

Alas, you are negative. The discussion is meaningless.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

And from you there is no constructiveness. You have absolutely no command of the question.

[agond]

But the question is, what would have happened if the IL-2 had not existed?
answers-
1 would have produced 36 thousand aircraft of other types, such as fighters
2, the average survivability of Soviet aircraft during the Patriotic War is known:
fighter - 64 sorties per loss
attack aircraft - 11 sorties
3 - if from month to month, from quarter to quarter, the number of newly built aircraft is 6 times more than the number of lost, then the accumulation of the total mass of aircraft on the fronts will not inevitably occur and after a while you will have overwhelming air superiority, and it's impossible to deny
4 if overwhelming air superiority was achieved, then this should significantly bring victory in the war, and the Il-2 did not contribute to the achievement of overwhelming air superiority, of course, this does not mean that Il was completely worthless, but not being worthless is not enough.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Something you have is all chaotic.
1. How are you going to replace attack aircraft with fighters?
2. Where does this data on the loss plaque come from?
3. Airplanes do not fly by themselves, pilot training is a long process.
4. With what fright did you decide that the Il-2 did not bring the victory closer?

[agond]

1 in countries where there was no analogue of our Il, that is, fighters or other types of aircraft were used everywhere
2 data on the ratio of losses to the number of departures is known
3 "Airplanes do not fly by themselves, pilot training is a long process." - if you have low losses, you do not need to train many pilots,
4 I have it written - "IL-2 did not contribute to the achievement of overwhelming air superiority," and he certainly made his contribution to the victory

[vovochkarzhevsky]

1. At the same time, the effectiveness of ground attacks was falling.
2. Of course they are known, therefore the figures you declared are lies.
3. You are probably far from aviation, otherwise you would know that most of the losses of pilots during the period of hostilities managed to change several aircraft.
4. You have written nonsense. According to tactics, its own air force gains air supremacy, the enemy is superior. In addition, the conquest of air supremacy is a matter for the IA. SHA can only provide support here.

[Alf]

Quote: agond

attack aircraft - 11 sorties

Cabbage rolls again?

[agond]

quote = Alf] Cabbage rolls again? [/ quote]
1 And so during the war years 36163 units were produced and as we were told by April 1945 there were 3075 units left, which means that for various reasons, 33088 units have disappeared from them, we subtract the total losses according to your table, this is the top line 10740 we get a difference of 22298 aircraft (36163 -3075-10740 = 22353), that is, 22 thousand did not hit the table
2 A, that if we sum up the row from the table "Estimated number of sorties" for 1941-1945 and then divide the sum of sorties by the number of aircraft built for 1941-1945, we get the average value of sorties for one aircraft, divide 664192 sorties by 36163 aircraft = 18.37 sorties, that is, on average, each of the built IL-2 for the entire war accounted for only 18 sorties ???
An interesting arithmetic, however, turns out

[Pavel57]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

In fact, the main weapon of the attack aircraft is the NURS

Our military in the course of the war in NURS became disillusioned. The type of tank does not penetrate (one might think, there are no other targets, except for tanks) .. On the Il-10 there were no rockets at all, only after the war they appeared again on the Il-10M.

It was a mistake. Hence, the efficiency of the Il-10 is lower than that of the Il-2.

[Pavel57]

This is when the Tu-2 line was closed?

They slowed down more precisely, and gave the plant to Yakovlev.

[Alf]

Quote: Pavel57

and the plant was given to Yakovlev.

In 42nd, when it was normal, without overheating, 82nd could not work. In the 44th, having created the M-82FN, the Tu-2 was quietly put into production.

[Pavel57]

Quote: Adler77

It's a nightmare, it's better than the Il-2 than the MiG 3. That is certainly a worthless plane.
If it were promising, its production would not have been stopped. And so, a mediocre and poorly armed aircraft.

The Germans appreciated the MiG-3 well, considering it stronger than the Yak-1 and LaGG-3. For air defense, the MiG3 was not bad. And the armament was gradually built up in the process of release.

[agond]

Comparing Ju 87 and IL-2
on the built 6500 German Ju-87, individual pilots (at least 75 pilots) managed to perform over 400 sorties
.: IL-2 was built 5.5 times more, but only 11 pilots made more than 400 flights,
for comparison purposes, let us bring the number of aircraft of the sides to a common denominator and multiply by 5.5, we count 75 x5.5 = 412, these aircraft indicators differ 37 times !!!

[Konnick]

Comparing Ju 87 and IL-2

And no need to compare, the main use of "pieces" was when the Luftwaffe had domination in the air. At the beginning of the 44th, the Germans realized that in the face of air superiority and an increase in the number of anti-aircraft guns of the enemy, the Ju-87 had no chance and stopped production, switching to the Fw-190. The last massive use of "pieces" was in the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising in the absence of opposition in the air.
IL-2, in skillful hands, could act well even in conditions when the sky was behind the Germans and even shoot down fighters. Junkers, however, without fighter cover turned into a target.

[agond]

When there are no arguments, there is only one minus the author, but your minuses to me to the lantern, so we will continue
- average value of combat sorties per aircraft = 18 sorties
-Probability to make an IL-2 pilot more than 400 sorties = 0.03% for a U-87 pilot 37 times higher, = 1.13%
-On average, the Il-2 fleet was renewed by 100% every 7-8 months of the war. for the year, in the 43rd, - in the 44th, it reached 150-200,% of course the crews were lost less,
the conclusion if the planes were not leaving so quickly, for example, with an average value of departures per aircraft = 180 departures, then they would be required ten times less, only 3.5 thousand instead of 36 thousand
The question is how the IL-2 was in service and in such an amount, 36 thousand is not a hedgehog sneezing for you
The answer is that a strange idea has long and firmly settled in the heads of our military thinkers that it is possible to create an invulnerable armored plane, in the likeness of a medieval knight ... and they created a strange plane that took 400 kg of bombs and at the same time had 1 ton of armor which he carried on himself behind the front line and back while suffering heavy losses,. however, the benefits of the armor turned out to be a little more than from the weight on the convict's leg. By the way, the idea of ​​creating something armored still lives on, for example, combat helicopters, I think if, for example, the Mi-28 is transferred to the past under the fire of a German anti-aircraft battery, then it will be shot down and possibly faster than the Il-2, and the FW-190 will also be knocked down by its reinforced armor not a hindrance, but let's say there is no unarmored attack aircraft based on the MiG-21 (there were such in Afghanistan), why armor if it is impossible to get on the plane

[vovochkarzhevsky]

1. Data on the number of sorties on the plane, you sucked from the thumb.
2. Do not confuse the number of flights to the pilot and to the plane, given the fact that German pilots are still dreamers ..
3. The USSR, in conditions of a deficit of duralumin, replaced it with accessible materials, due to which the resource and maintainability were sacrificed.
4. The thought of an invulnerable plane, these are personal cockroaches in your head. As for the IL-2, the task was to protect the pilot and the vital components of the aircraft from small arms fire, the most important damaging factor when working near the ground.
5. If only, if only, but in reality, not even the Mi-28, but the old Mi-24 is opposed by the German anti-aircraft battery and the meow will not have time to say. They won't even understand where they came from. The same about the FW-190, in a duel situation against the Mi-24 it has the only chance to escape without entering the engagement zone of the helicopter's armament.
6. MiG-21 was far from shining in Afghanistan.

[Seal]

Well, it’s not for nothing that Joseph Vissarionovich after the Victory seriously took up the aviators. And you also need to understand that in Germany motors and airplanes were assembled by professionals, technical workers in the third or even fourth generation, while we had to attract minors, old people, women, and yesterday's peasants.

[Seal]

Still, the Germans did not call him from scratch "Cementbomber" and "Iron Gustav".

[Pavel57]

Quote: agond

...... so let's continue
- average value of combat sorties per aircraft = 18 sorties
-Probability to make an IL-2 pilot more than 400 sorties = 0.03% for a U-87 pilot 37 times higher, = 1.13%
-On average, the Il-2 fleet was renewed by 100% every 7-8 months of the war. for the year, in the 43rd, - in the 44th, it reached 150-200,% of course the crews were lost less,
the conclusion if the planes were not leaving so quickly, for example, with an average value of departures per aircraft = 180 departures, then they would be required ten times less, only 3.5 thousand instead of 36 thousand
The question is how the IL-2 was in service and in such an amount, 36 thousand is not a hedgehog sneezing for you
The answer is that a strange idea has long and firmly settled in the heads of our military thinkers that it is possible to create an invulnerable armored plane, in the likeness of a medieval knight ... and they created a strange plane that took 400 kg of bombs and at the same time had 1 ton of armor which he carried on himself behind the front line and back while suffering heavy losses,. the truth is, the use of armor turned out to be a little more than from a kettlebell ...

It turns out that the Il-2 essentially has such advantages:
He was. And there were factories and motors for it. There was IP support.
He lay down in the presentation of the leadership of what should be the strike aircraft of the battlefield.
Required no aluminum.
Provided protection for the pilot, which gave him a chance to return, even if the plane was being written off. (out of 30 thousand IL-2, about 10 thousand were written off, if you follow the arithmetic of losses).
Cons (controversial essno)))): low efficiency, high losses, lack of desire of the leadership to consider alternative aircraft of the battlefield.

[agond]

Quote: Pavel57

Required no aluminum

The AM-38 engine had a dry weight of 860 kg, of which about 60% aluminum, the rest of the steel is of high quality and, in general, the engines were always expensive, naturally, when the plane was hit, it disappeared in enemy territory along with aluminum and, say, 10 thousand fallen single-engine aircraft could contain about 5 thousand tons of aluminum only in engines

[Siberian54]

How many shit and fan lovers gathered on the thread ...

[Pavel57]

Quote: agond

Quote: Pavel57

Required no aluminum

The AM-38 engine had a dry weight of 860 kg, of which about 60% aluminum, the rest of the steel is of high quality and, in general, the engines were always expensive, naturally, when the plane was hit, it disappeared in enemy territory along with aluminum and, say, 10 thousand fallen single-engine aircraft could contain about 5 thousand tons of aluminum only in engines

The loss of aluminum in tank and aircraft engines has not yet been counted.))))

[agond]

Speaking of the IL-2, it will be very indicative to recall the Mosquito, in the first months of combat use, one loss accounted for an average of 9 sorties, but then they changed the tactics of its use and, in general, the losses turned out to be one of the lowest in the Second World War, 16 per 1000 sorties. weight like a conventional Il without a bomb load), but this will not fundamentally change anything, if it is easy to get into a plane or helicopter from anti-aircraft artillery or from a fighter, then no armor will help it, even ceramic, it is necessary either to increase maneuverability and speed, or change tactics, and better both, and another plus subtle.

[Pavel57]

Quote: agond

Speaking of the IL-2, it will be very indicative to recall the Mosquito, in the first months of combat use, one loss accounted for an average of 9 sorties, but then they changed the tactics of its use and, in general, the losses turned out to be one of the lowest in the Second World War, 16 per 1000 sorties. the weight is the same as that of an ordinary Il without a bomb load), but this will not fundamentally change anything ...

Mosquito had one of the best WW2 engines - Merlin. And it is difficult to talk about his tactics, since he was in various modifications of a night interceptor, a fighter-bomber and a bomber without cannon armament.

[agond]

The mosquito was a very popular aircraft and it was always in short supply, but we are talking about an armored attack aircraft and whether it needed armor weighing twice its bomb load (the weight of the armor was about 19-20% of the takeoff weight of the aircraft), and so
1 making an armored vehicle heavier than air - an aircraft, makes it even heavier
2 in wrestling, for example, a boxer first of all trains the ability to strike blows himself, secondly, to avoid the opponent's blows, and there is no such training to staunchly endure blows to the head
and our military thinkers before and still pay great attention to the ability to resist blows to the head, and from that they thought and continue to think about how a helicopter can withstand a hit of 30mm shells or what kind of body armor a fighter needs to survive under the aimed fire of a 5.6 caliber machine gun, , not about that thought, think about how to do what the fighter did not get.

[Alf]

Quote: agond

and our military thinkers before and still pay great attention to the ability to resist blows to the head, and from that they thought and continue to think about how a helicopter can withstand a hit of 30mm shells or what kind of body armor a fighter needs to survive under the aimed fire of a 5.6 caliber machine gun, , not about that thought, think about how to do what the fighter did not get.

Yes, yes, and the tank designers too ... are nuts, they don't understand this. Leopard-1 had 70 mm armor, and modern Leo-2 for 500-700 in equivalent. After the war, the idea came up again that booking was not important, the best protection was speed and maneuverability. It turned out, not always.

[Pavel57]

IL-2 before the war was not considered as the main aircraft of the battlefield. But due to a number of objective and subjective reasons, it became such. The analogy with the T-34 is complete.
In general, in my opinion, a number of mistakes were made, which are controversial and ambiguous, but cost the country more losses as a result.
It:
Rejection of the Ar-2 as the main dive bomber in favor of the Pe-2. And the Pe-2 was essentially a fighter.
Refusal from I-180 in favor of LaGG-1/3.
Refusal of the Su-2, although there was an opportunity to resume its production in Perm.
Behind these decisions was the personal attitude of the People's Commissariat, which guessed the mood of the IS, which was superimposed on the misunderstanding of what was needed in the coming war.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

As for the I-180, it is far from a fact. Of course, this is a good step forward compared to the I-160, while maintaining continuity in production and operation. And keep peacetime, then the undisputed leader for the series. And there I-185 arrived in time.
But the beginning of the war put everything in its place. There was no time to wait for the VMG to be completed, besides, the mixed design still required an order of magnitude more duralumin than the wooden LaGG-3, which further evolved into the La-5.
Su-2, an excellent vehicle for training flight personnel in peacetime. And just as unsuitable for large-scale production of wartime.

[Pavel57]

Quote: Alf

Quote: Pavel57

and the plant was given to Yakovlev.

In 42nd, when it was normal, without overheating, 82nd could not work. In the 44th, having created the M-82FN, the Tu-2 was quietly put into production.

It all came together and the engine, and the emphasis on the Yaki.

[agond]

As you know from military memoirs, 50% of the Il-2 returned from the flight with traces of hits, and some did not return, that is, someone regularly got on the plane, because it flew slowly, low and often, so the Germans had a lot of practice.
IL-2 from horizontal flight at an altitude of 400 m it is difficult to hit a ground target from automatic cannons at the beginning it is necessary to notice the target then tilt the nose of the aircraft to wait until the sight mark coincides with the aim of aligning the aircraft, there is only enough time for a short burst, and it was even more difficult to drop bombs aimed. at the same time, the enemy was hiding in the trenches at that time and there was little sense from the air raid, and bombs were only 400 kg (7% of the weight of the aircraft), but the Ju-87 could aim a bomb at a moving tank, of course there was no direct hit, but a strong explosion next to the tank incapacitated ngo, and at sea the junkers got into warships and sank them
In general, the Il-2 was not the plane that the country needed.
,

[vodolaz]

Just yesterday I went to the aviation museum in Monino. The photo seems to be from there.