Combat aircraft. The dead cannot be killed

96

In general, within the framework of the cycle, it was not customary to talk about two, in principle, different aircraft, but now an exception will be made. This is justified for two reasons: first, one of the planes was a drastic alteration of the other, and second, they were both equally ugly in every way.

And the reason for this was not so much the inability of the French aircraft designers to create a decent aircraft (as the practice of Dewoitine D.520 and Potet P.63 showed - they could very much), how much a complete mess in the heads of the French aviation command, which by the end of the thirties so and did not develop a strategy and tactics of application aviation.



That is, the commanders did not understand what role was assigned to aviation in the upcoming (and no one doubted that it would be) war, and accordingly, they could not clearly formulate the requirements for designers.

And without a clear TK (technical task) the result will be you know what ...

And so it happened. Almost two dozen firms-developers and manufacturers continued to rivet planes for the French Air Force, who in what, as a result, the Air Force degraded completely and irrevocably, because the worst thing that could happen happened: the French Air Force turned out to be numerous, but the quantity was not quality. There were many planes, but they were of different types, and the number of planes of one type could be only a few dozen.

At the end of the thirties, the French bomber aviation was equipped with 12 (TWELVE) types of aircraft. Base types, modifications are not considered. And almost all aircraft already at the beginning of the Second World War were an example of completely outdated designs.

The quality was also not very good. Let's even say that in terms of quality and flight characteristics, none of the bombers in France has ever flown close to the Junkers and Heinkels of the main potential enemy - Germany.

Here is such a small historical a certificate that gives an idea of ​​what the French Air Force and specifically its bomber unit were. But it was these aircraft that were supposed to impede the advance of the Wehrmacht as much as possible. But we know how the solemn march of the German divisions to Paris ended. And even if the French Air Force were armed with incomparable and competitive fighters, it would still only postpone the collapse of France, because in addition to preventing enemy aircraft from causing damage to your troops, it is necessary that the enemy troops suffer damage from the actions of your aircraft ...

This is exactly what the Germans did not succeed in on the Eastern Front, but in France everything turned out exactly that way: the small but effective forces of the Luftwaffe completely paralyzed the actions of the French Air Force, ensuring the unhindered advance of the Wehrmacht units on the ground.

The impetus for the appearance of our hero was the moment when a competition was announced for a new night bomber, which was supposed to replace the completely outdated at that time biplane "Lior-Olivier" LeO.20.

Combat aircraft. The dead cannot be killed

This significant event took place in 1932.

Eight projects of six manufacturing firms came together in the battle: two developments by Lior-Olivier, two from Farman and one each from Pote, Bordele, Kuzinet and Marcel Blok.

Newcomers are lucky, and most of all the military liked the development of the "Blok" company. A sample for testing was ordered and the process started.

The first copy, which was named MB.200, represented a rather progressive design: a cantilever all-metal monoplane with a very thick wing profile.

The car was not a masterpiece of aerodynamics. On the contrary, the shapes were rather angular. The landing gear, of course, was not retracted and was enclosed in fairings.


The aircraft was equipped with two Gnome-Ron 14 Krsd engines, these 14-cylinder air-cooled engines had a power of 770 hp. each. The combat load consisted of 1200 kg of bombs, and three towers of circular rotation with 7,5-mm MAC1934 machine guns with 1200 rounds of ammunition per barrel were supposed to protect the aircraft from enemy fighters.

MI.200 passed the first round of tests successfully, despite the fact that not the most powerful motors could not provide the required speed of 315 km / h. But speed was not considered a significant parameter for a night bomber, and therefore in 1933 it was decided to order 4 more vehicles for military trials.

But in 1934, the French command decided not to wait for the end of the tests and ordered a series of 25 vehicles. And by the end of the year, the first 20 aircraft were already in the aviation units.


At the same time, the aircraft was refined based on the results of tests and operation. The plane was slightly heavier, but these were quite justified measures.

And orders continued to pour in. In 1935, the number of ordered bombers reached 208. It was necessary to connect additional assembly capacities of such companies as Potet, Breguet and Loire. Blok could no longer cope with such a volume of work.

The last aircraft of the series were transferred to the Air Force in 1936.

The last 50 aircraft of the series were equipped with Gnome-Ron 14Kirs / Kjrs engines, which developed 870 hp. and rotating the screws in opposite directions. These motors made it possible to carry 1400 kg of bombs on board. Small-caliber bombs (up to 100 kg) were placed in the bomb bay, and large ones - on an external sling. The bomb bay could hold 8 bombs weighing 100 kg.

In aviation MV.200 "came to the court." The aircraft turned out to be reliable, stable in flight and unpretentious in maintenance. Speed ​​and maneuverability, however, did not stand up to criticism.

In 1935, four MV.200 completed their first large mission. It was not military, but political: the planes flew to Great Britain, where they were received with interest.


In general, MV.200 was assigned the role of not only night, but also day bombers. In addition, the planes were used as leaders of fighters until the Pote P.630 appeared.

The baptism of fire MB.200 was accepted, of course, in Spain, during the Civil War. To check the battle, 4 aircraft were sent there, two flew on their own, two were brought by sea in disassembled form.

The bombers took part in the war on the side of the Republicans. The practice of use has shown that the planes are nothing like that, but in the absence of opposition from enemy fighters, the MV.200 are able to work both as reconnaissance aircraft and as day bombers.

September 1939 and the beginning of the Second World War were met by 196 MB.200 bombers, of which 92 were in the first line, in seven aviation groups. Four groups were based in France, three in the colonies.

The practice of using MB.200 in the first days after the end of the "strange war" showed the complete unsuitability of these aircraft. Everything was insufficient: speed, climb, defensive armament.


Another foolishness of the French command, which began to send MV.200 to bombardments during the day and without fighter cover, also played a role. It is not surprising that by May 1940, the losses of the MV.200 amounted to about 50 aircraft.

Realizing that the MV.200 was simply incapable of participating in modern warfare, the air command began to withdraw the aircraft from combat units. The MV.200 began to be used as a transport and training aircraft.


The exception was the colonies, where it was not customary to pamper the troops with new technology. So the MV.200, being training vehicles in the school of navigators and shooters in the Algerian city of Blida, began to play the role of patrol aircraft. In May 1940, on the basis of the school, reconnaissance squadron No. 201 was formed, whose aircraft were engaged in patrolling the coastal waters. There were even collisions with Italian planes.

In the former (after the surrender of France) French colonies, MV.200 held out until the end of 1941. The bombing of MV.200 belonging to the troops of the Vichy government against the British troops and de Gaulle's supporters were noted. MV.200 were used as night bombers.

After the end of the war, the career of MV.200 was over.


However, the MV.200 was produced not only in France. Czechoslovakia acquired a license for the production of these aircraft and produced machines that generally did not differ much from French aircraft, with the exception of the presence of additional fuel tanks in the fuselage of 620 and 710 liters.

The engines were installed "Walter" K-14 -IP / L, right and left rotation. These were the same "Gnome-Ron" 14 Krsd, manufactured under license.

The armament was strengthened in comparison with the French aircraft, the upper and lower firing points were equipped with twin installations of Vz.30 machine guns of 7,9 mm caliber. Thus, the armament consisted of five machine guns.

These bombers entered the Czechoslovak regiments in 1937, and already in 1939 the conversion of bombers into transport aircraft began.

After the occupation of Czechoslovakia by the Germans, the Luftwaffe got 71 Czech-assembled MV.200 aircraft. These aircraft were used as training aircraft in navigator and bombardier training schools. In 1940, the MV.200 began to be gradually scrapped, and the last aircraft served in the Luftwaffe until the spring of 1941.

A number of aircraft were transferred to Germany's allies. For example, Bulgaria got 12 cars, Romania got 6 cars, Slovakia got one. These aircraft were mainly used as patrol aircraft, and their use ceased after 1941 due to a lack of spare parts.

LTH MB.200

Wingspan, m: 22,45
Length, m: 16,00
Height, m: 3,90
Wing area, м2: 67,00

Weight, kg
- empty aircraft: 4 463
- normal takeoff: 7 280

Engine: 2 x Gnome-Rhone 14 Kirs / Kjrs x 870 HP
Maximum speed km / h: 285
Cruising speed, km / h: 197
Practical range, km: 1 000
Practical ceiling, m: 8 000
Crew, prs: 4
Armament:
- three 7,5 mm machine guns, one each in the bow, dorsal and ventral mountings;
- up to 1200 kg bomb load

A further continuation of the work on MB.200 was MB.210.


This is really a kind of transitional stage between the old angular, non-retractable landing gear aircraft, built according to the scheme of a biplane or a strut-braced monoplane with an upper wing position and a new generation of streamlined cantilever monoplane with retractable landing gear.

MB.210 has become something in between. Much like its predecessor MB.200 in terms of shape and performance, the MB.210 still carried a number of innovations.

The appearance has remained quite creepy. The fuselage was lengthened, at the same time they made a smaller section, the ceiling of the cockpit was lowered, the landing gear pipes and fairings disappeared, instead of them struts appeared, which were retracted into the engine nacelles. The upper and lower machine gun mounts also began to retract into the fuselage. The aerodynamic drag was reduced, but the appearance of the aircraft remained far from perfect.

This project, called MB.210, was created by Marcel Block Avions as a private initiative.


The first version of the MB.210 was equipped with engines "Gnome-Ron" 14 Kdrs / Kgrs "Mistral Major", 800 hp. each. The second version, MB.211 "Verdun", received engines "Hispano-Suiza" 12Y with a capacity of 860 hp.

In fact, apart from the engines, the planes were no different in anything, except that the landing gear on the MV.211 was retracted into the nacelles.

The entire structure of the aircraft was made more rigid, the stabilizer was increased, the rear machine-gun turret was shifted forward. The fuel reserve has been increased to 2 liters.

Based on the tests of MV.210, corrections and revisions were made in parallel to MV.211. However, the MB.211 model was not destined to be mass-produced. But the MV.210 went into production, and the first production aircraft was manufactured in December 1935.

The aircraft differed from the prototype by a retractable landing gear according to the MV.211 scheme, 14Kirs / Kjrs 870Kirs / Kjrs Gnome-Ron engines with a capacity of 7,5 hp, and new engine nacelles. The armament still consisted of three 1600 mm machine guns in three machine gun mountings. The bomb load was increased to XNUMX kg, and all bombs could be placed inside the bomb bay.


There were options for placing 128 bombs weighing 10 kg, 38 bombs of 50 kg, or 2 bombs of 500 kg.

In 1936, orders for MV.210 were placed with different enterprises, since the production capacity of the "Blok" company itself did not allow the production of aircraft at the required pace. Thus, 35 aircraft were ordered by Renault, 10 by Pote, 20 by Anrio, 20 by Muro, 16 by Breguet. In total, the French Air Force ordered 181 bombers.

In 1937, new orders were issued, which brought the total MV.210 to 257 aircraft. In addition, 24 cars were purchased by Romania.

With the start of operation, problems began. Engines, the power of which was clearly not enough for such an aircraft, caused a number of accidents and disasters. The MV.210 flights were discontinued, and the Gnome-Ron 14K engines, which caused the disasters, were quickly replaced by the Gnome-Ron 14N10 / 11 with a capacity of 910 hp.


A float version of the aircraft was also built.


However, tests have shown that such a seaplane does not have a sufficient flight range to make sense to build it serially. Built in one copy, the seaplane was used as an experimental one at the base in Saint-Raphael, where options for dumping torpedoes were studied.

WW210 met the Second World War in service with six bomber squadrons with a total of about a hundred vehicles in the first line. The installation of the Gnome-Ron 14N10 / 11 engines made the aircraft reliable, but not new.


Despite the general obsolescence of the design, the MV.210 managed to fight at the initial stage in the same way as its predecessor MV.200. These were mainly reconnaissance missions and night bombing. Despite this "careful" use, more than 20 aircraft were lost.

Therefore, at the very beginning of 1940, the MV.210 began to be replaced with more modern aircraft such as "Amyot" 351, "Pote" R.633, "Breguet" Br.691 and 693, LeO 451.

In fact, by May-June 1940, all MV.210 were removed from combat units and transferred to flight schools and various training centers. However, the shortage of bombers forced the French command for some time to use MV.210 in conjunction with the more modern "Amyot" 351 and 354 against German troops in Belgium and France.


Two groups, GBI / 21 and GBI1 / 21, raided MV 210 until June 17, 1940, when the commanders were ordered to fly to North Africa. The losses of the groups were more than impressive: 5 aircraft were shot down by air defense and fighter jets, 2 crashed while landing in bad weather, 3 were destroyed by the Germans when attacking airfields, 9 aircraft were damaged so much that they were written off.
The vehicles that flew to Algeria were used together with the MV.200 stationed there.

The Germans got 37 copies of the MV.210 in varying degrees of lamentability. Some of them were donated to Bulgaria, where MV.210 were used for some time as transport vehicles.


LTH MB.210

Wingspan, m: 22,85
Length, m: 18,84
Height, m: 4,20
Takeoff weight, kg: 10 200

Engine: 2 x "Gnome Rhone" GR 14N10 / 11 x 950 hp
Maximum speed km / h: 322
Cruising speed, km / h: 240
Practical range, km: 1 690
Practical ceiling, m: 9 850
Crew, prs: 5
Armament:
- three 7,5 mm machine guns;
- bomb load - 1600 kg


In general: a vivid example, as in a country that was the ancestor of aviation, due to the fact that there was no intelligible concept, aircraft were born, which actually became obsolete at the time of leaving the assembly hangar.

The use in real combat conditions only confirmed this.

In fact, when there is a clear understanding of what the aircraft is supposed to do, it usually turns out to be a pretty decent airplane battlefield vehicle. When there is no understanding, the result is MV.200. Airplanes not really fit for anything. As they would say now - the development of the budget of clean water.

And this despite the fact that the French aviation industry was able to develop and build quite competitive aircraft. But in reality, these "Blocks" were obtained.
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    5 January 2022 06: 53
    In fact, when there is a clear understanding of what the aircraft is supposed to do, it usually turns out to be a pretty decent airplane battlefield vehicle. When there is no understanding, the result is MV.200. Airplanes not really fit for anything.

    Such a statement cannot be categorical. An important role in the design of the aircraft was played by materials, and engine power (not to mention the principles of their operation), and navigation equipment ...
    The article drew attention to exactly how the revolution took place in the appearance of rotary-wing aircraft, but it should be noted that the Soviet school of aircraft construction successfully overcame the difficulties of formation. And why kick her, if everything started from practically zero, on the knee ... Not everyone was as lucky as Sikorsky ...
  2. -4
    5 January 2022 07: 12
    The French are such entertainers ... that they do not invent, it still turns out a frog with rare exceptions ... for example, Renault or Nieupora tanks ... the case when a beautiful princess hatched out of a frog. what
    And before WW2, their spirit of invention disappeared somewhere ... the best minds perished in the meat grinder of WW1.
    1. -4
      5 January 2022 19: 58
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      And before WW2, their spirit of invention disappeared somewhere ... the best minds perished in the meat grinder of WW1.

      In England, by the way, the same thing. One of the leading countries of the world never gave birth to any decent tanks or aircraft. And they write the same, catastrophic losses of the best of the best.
      1. +9
        6 January 2022 01: 04
        Quote: Saxahorse
        In England, by the way, the same thing. One of the leading countries of the world never gave birth to any decent tanks or aircraft.

        "Spitfire", "Tempest", "Mosquito", "Lancaster" ... (we will not touch on the post-war) - indecent? ..
        1. -1
          6 January 2022 18: 19
          Quote: Bond James Bond
          Spitfire, Tempest, Mosquito, Lancaster ..

          Only Spitfire. With a bunch of good motors and huge production capacities, not a lot. However, this has already been discussed.
          1. +2
            6 January 2022 19: 31
            Quote: Saxahorse
            Spitfire only

            What did the rest of the above not please?
            Quote: Bond James Bond
            Tempest, Mosquito, Lancaster


            Quote: Saxahorse
            and huge production facilities

            Where did you get it? Did the UK have such huge production capabilities that it was forced to purchase aircraft from the United States?

            Share the source of your knowledge, what are these interesting books? As if a story from a parallel universe is being written.
            1. +1
              6 January 2022 23: 34
              But they started a war with other models!
              There were few "Firebringers".
              Major "Hurricanes".
              And the "Gladiators" were thrown into battle.
              And the bomber "Fairy Battle" was "to put it mildly" not a shadeur ...
              As well as the Defiant two-seat fighters!
              One can envy the variety of British aircraft of the Second World War, but many of them "ended their combat careers" early, and no small resources were spent on them!
              1. +2
                7 January 2022 00: 11
                Quote: hohol95
                But they started a war with other models!

                yes where does this? Everyone started the war with the wrong devices with which they ended it (by the way, the "Spitfire" in the RAF began to arrive before the war). This is not the point. The opponent believes that the British have failed to create a single worthy model (in this case, an airplane), and I strongly disagree with him. Examples are given.
                And in their complete incapacity in terms of armored vehicles can also be argued.
                1. 0
                  7 January 2022 00: 49
                  In terms of aviation, the British "broke a lot of firewood," but the war "weeded out the wheat from the chaff." It's right.
                  And "Suordfish" showed "Kuzma's mother" to the Italian fleet, and "Halifaxes" to the German one.
                  But in terms of tanks (armored vehicles are varied), the British "broke firewood and metal scrap"! Since the 20s!
                  1. 0
                    7 January 2022 08: 33
                    I disagree with you)
                    1. 0
                      7 January 2022 11: 11
                      Announce the entire list of disagreements - 1) ...; 2) ...
                      And so on!
                  2. +1
                    7 January 2022 09: 42
                    Quote: hohol95
                    "they messed up a lot"

                    so they broke all the firewood) And scrap metal too. Even the seemingly pedantic and neat Germans, who really did not have much resources and how to spend them had to think hard with their heads. All went the way of trial and error, and if there were any incompetent models - is there any reason to say that "club-handed inept"? Why don't they talk about the Germans like that, although their "grossstractors" are something, and airplanes like the Henschel Hs123 or Hs129 obviously cannot be attributed to the masterpieces of aviation.
                    Of the British tanks, the "Vickers-six-ton" tank can be distinguished, which gave rise to a whole family of tanks in several countries. "Matalda" (the second), "Churchill", "Comet", and the "Centurion" that appeared at the end of the war - hardly anyone would dare to call him "about nothing."
                    1. +1
                      7 January 2022 11: 27
                      Did the "Centurion" have time to fight?
                      "Comet" is equal to the German Pz.IV, which has already undergone more than one modernization!
                      "Churchill" is a purely tank for breaking through a fortified line of defense and supporting infantry. Just like "Matilda" it was required for him to select a suitable area!
                      Bulwarks were sometimes a hindrance due to the stuffing between them and the hull of dirt, roots and other snow, which interfered with the mobility of the tanks!
                      "Matilda" did not have the resources to enhance weapons, like "Churchill"!
                      And the British tankers did not take the "Six-ton" one for a tank at all!
                      Initially, they were right - not a single battlefield observation device.
                      Only 2 machine gun scopes and a narrow through slot for the driver.
                      It was in the USSR and Poland that they created combat-ready tanks from the "British miracle" !!!
                      But the Yankees "stealing" the British chassis from the "six-ton" did not create anything worthwhile!
                      1. +1
                        7 January 2022 11: 49
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Did the "Centurion" have time to fight?

                        I wrote:
                        Quote: Bond James Bond
                        the "Centurion" that appeared at the end of the war


                        For the rest, you are trying to move away from the original plot of the dispute "the British did nothing" to "English was not the best." Don't you think the meaning is completely different? And flaws can be found in any technique, there is no ideal, because any military technique is a compromise, sometimes between mutually exclusive requirements. drinks
                      2. +1
                        7 January 2022 12: 28
                        I argued that the British DIDN'T KNOW?
                        I claim that they squandered resources and for various reasons "forgot how" not only to produce, but also to design tanks with a resource for modernization!
                        Their "cruiser" tanks are a collection of Christie's chassis and anlician "ego"! In the USSR, BT and T-34 tanks were equipped with exhausted M-17 engines not because of a good life!
                        And the British simply saved and installed the engines decommissioned from aviation into new tanks !!!
                        Infantry tanks, at least with engines, were lucky, but there was such a leapfrog too. That 2 then 1 engine and all different manufacturers and for different fuels!
                        And during the war, they feverishly tried to fill their tank units with at least something.
                        Thanks to the Americans, they helped them in this and gave their designers a break!
                    2. 0
                      10 January 2022 23: 50
                      I would have stood up for Hs123, it was very effective on the Eastern Front, even at one point they thought to re-deploy its production.
            2. 0
              7 January 2022 18: 46
              Quote: Bond James Bond
              What did the rest of the above not please?
              Quote: Bond James Bond
              Tempest, Mosquito, Lancaster

              And you compare with American counterparts. Tempest with Thunderbolt, Mosquito with Lightning, Lancaster with B-24 and even more so with B-29 .. Everything is better, all much earlier, and often on British engines.
              1. +1
                7 January 2022 19: 00
                Quote: Saxahorse
                Can you compare with American counterparts

                It was not about comparisons at all, do you forget?
                Your quote:
                Quote: Saxahorse
                In England, by the way, the same thing. One of the leading countries in the world never gave birth to any decent tanks or aircraft.

                There was no question of who had "faster, higher, further", you categorically stated that tanks and planes in Britain were shit, I apologize. You shouldn't change the original theme, what do you think?
                1. 0
                  7 January 2022 22: 50
                  Quote: Bond James Bond
                  It was not a question of who had "faster, higher, further"

                  Are you twisting? This is what we were talking about. The leading industrial power at the beginning of the century hardly copies other people's samples without having to offer anything of its own .. I will repeat it for the dull ones again. PMV knocked out the best of the best!
                  1. 0
                    7 January 2022 23: 00
                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    It was not a question of who had "faster, higher, further"

                    Distort?

                    Can you read? I brought you your own quote!
                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    I will repeat for the dull ones again

                    and I will repeat - read your own comments... You are now either changing your shoes in a jump, or you do not know how to express your thoughts from the word at all. But the first and second is your joint.
              2. 0
                9 January 2022 07: 42
                Mosquito with Lighting,

                It is incorrect to compare a bomber with a fighter.
                1. 0
                  9 January 2022 18: 28
                  Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
                  It is incorrect to compare a bomber with a fighter.

                  Is it a Mosquito bomber? Do not understand what actually it .. And so the takeoff weight is exactly the same, the bomb load is the same 2 * 900 or 1800 kg, the speed is the same 666 km / h, the engines are almost tick-to-tick, 2 * 1480 hp. (Rolls-Royce Merlin was really considered the best WWII engine))

                  However, Lightning took off a year earlier and how many things are heaped up on it .. And sabotage raids and reconnaissance (Saint Exupery remember?) And a heavy fighter interceptor - all the best American aces on it have filled their accounts, however! And what about Mosquito? A couple of vague sabotage raids?

                  "maneuver more carefully, it may fall apart, plywood sir!" wink
                  1. 0
                    9 January 2022 20: 28
                    Designed and used as a high-speed bomber. There was also a fighter variant of the Mosquito NF, a reconnaissance Mosquito PR, but they were built much less.
                    1. 0
                      9 January 2022 21: 15
                      The point is that he, despite the best engines, is inferior to the Lighting in all variants. In the USSR, pilots even had a saying - with a good engine and the fence would fly! But the British, alas and ah, did not really succeed, despite the best engines in the world.

                      I’m writing about that, too many young and intelligent guys in the WWI were ineptly drained.
                  2. 0
                    10 January 2022 23: 58
                    The mosquito was not used as a fighter in practice - it achieved very serious success in the form of a reconnaissance aircraft and, as it were, a night fighter. With lightning, massively booming obsolete Japanese in the Pacific Ocean, such a comparison. In Europe, the P-38 didn’t show itself very well.
                  3. 0
                    12 January 2022 09: 54
                    "What about Mosquito?" - intense combat work. All raids by British long-range aviation were covered by Mosquito jammers, target leaders and markers, and night fighters. The Germans had to urgently develop their "anti-Mosquito", without much, however, success. By the way, the British write that by the end of the war, with a comparable range, the Mossi bombers took more bombs than the B-17 - the latter's machine guns and ammunition consumed the entire combat load.
        2. 0
          7 January 2022 08: 31
          Moreover, Matilda, Crusader, Tetrarch (and other "kids"), Comet Churchill, quite decent tanks. Yes, not blitzkrieg machines, but the same infantry tanks are peculiar, but they performed their tasks more than.
          1. 0
            7 January 2022 11: 18
            Here I agree with Baryatinsky's opinion - when the Russians, Germans and Americans changed towers and weapons on their tanks, the "British mods" did not change the turrets or the guns of the tanks - they changed the tanks!
            The British do not have a single tank that began to fight in 1940 and went through a series of upgrades that completed it in 1945!
            There are no cars that appeared later in 1941 and 1942!
            The use of "Valentine" in the Red Army and the Australians of "Matilda" Mk.2 is not taken into account. These are not British tank units!
            The best Boritan tank is the M-4 Sherman Firefly.
            1. +1
              7 January 2022 13: 59
              The British do not have a single tank that began to fight in 1940 and went through a series of upgrades that completed it in 1945!

              Crusader
              There are no cars that appeared later in 1941 and 1942!

              Cromwell - Comet
              These are not British tank units!

              Are we talking about tanks or tankers? Be so kind as to consider this experience too.
              "British mods" did not change turrets or tank guns - they changed tanks!

              As well as the Teutonic gloomy genius. Just like the Soviets, they changed the square meter for is, and could not change the t-60/70 and bt to the t-50. Just like the Americans first changed the stewarts for the Shermans, and then for the chaffee.
              Their "cruiser" tanks are a collection of Christie's chassis and anlician "ego"!

              A cruising tank is a concept, and the concept to which the British managed to come and came before they needed tanks with such a set of characteristics. A cruising tank is precisely a blitzkrieg tank, a tank primarily capable of making long marches on any road, while maintaining good maneuverability and resource. Although the Germans thought of this, such a concept was dictated to us by the size of the country, and then only one BT corresponded, which became a good LT by the end of his career, but the French, like the British, were not given any prerequisites, for France it ended in defeat, and for the British the birth of Matilda, Valentine and Churchill.
              In the USSR, BT and T-34 tanks were installed

              christie chassis

              And the rules. But they did not put a number of other things to compete with the Germans, but the British did.
              But in general, the comrade is above the rights and has already said
              For the rest, you are trying to move away from the original plot of the dispute "the British did nothing" to "English was not the best"
              1. 0
                7 January 2022 15: 38
                "Crusader" fought until 1945 in the European theater of operations?
                "Cromwell" and "Kommeta" made in 1941 or 1942?
                What did the British put on their tanks to compete with the Germans?
                Tower grenade launchers?
                Who in the USSR could produce them?
                The military wanted to, but the industrialists "kicked out" of them!
                Observation devices Mk.4 - Polish product of Gundlyach.
                And there was an "inspiring pendal" for the production of these observation devices at factories in the USSR!
                Car diesels from Leyland? There was a diesel engine.
                Anti-aircraft gun on the tower - its own is recognized as the best.
                It was not always installed, but the resources were already so small.
                Or do you have your own list?
              2. 0
                8 January 2022 18: 05
                Voros from the series "which comes first - an egg or a chicken" - which was designed earlier: T-70 or T-50?
                And which T-50 car was to be replaced?
                1. +2
                  9 January 2022 07: 45
                  And which T-50 car was to be replaced?

                  T-26.
  3. 0
    5 January 2022 07: 23
    That is, the commanders did not understand what role was assigned to aviation in the upcoming (and no one doubted that it would be) war.
    it seems to me then no one even thought that there would be a war. Except for Hitler, Stalin, and maybe Churchill. Everyone thought there would be a short war.
    Do you think the situation is the same now? Everyone around is talking about the war. And even then, not really someone wrote in the press.
  4. +3
    5 January 2022 08: 06
    French bomber aviation at the end of the thirties was equipped with 12 (TWELVE) types of aircraft
    - was there less in the USSR? The 30s is a transitional period for aviation and tanks, the Americans were lucky - due to their remoteness from serious opponents, they saved on the production of tanks and aircraft they did not need ...
    1. +2
      5 January 2022 10: 29
      I counted 8 types of bombers: Su-2, Yak-2 (BB-22), SB-2, Pe-2, DB-3, Er-2, TB-3, Pe-8 (TB-7).
      1. 0
        5 January 2022 12: 44
        R-5, U-2, Li-2, Il-2, Tu-2?
        1. +4
          5 January 2022 13: 15
          Quote: Constanty
          I counted 8 types of bombers: Su-2, Yak-2 (BB-22), SB-2, Pe-2, DB-3, Er-2, TB-3, Pe-8 (TB-7).

          Quote: faiver
          R-5, U-2, Li-2, Il-2, Tu-2?

          They forgot about the Ar-2 ... The P-10 was produced until 1940, at two factories 490 vehicles. Again, the DB-3F, which began to be produced in 1939, although outwardly it seems to be like the development of the DB-3, but structurally they are completely different machines.
          1. 0
            5 January 2022 14: 50
            I wrote about the main types, and not about various modifications - the Ar-2 is a far-reaching modernization of the SB-2.
            IL-2 - attack aircraft, Neman R-10 Multipurpose reconnaissance aircraft, and Tu-2 did not exist at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.
            R-5, U-2, Li-2

            I really forgot about these
            1. 0
              5 January 2022 15: 30
              R-10 (KhAI-5) "scout tenth" - Soviet multipurpose single-engine reconnaissance aircraft, light bomber and attack aircraft

              R-5 fifth reconnaissance aircraft - Soviet multipurpose single-engine aircraft of the 1930s.
              One of the most massive biplane aircraft of the 1930s in the USSR: more than 1000 aircraft were operated in the Civil Air Fleet as postal and cargo-passenger aircraft. More than 5000 aircraft were in the Red Army, where it was the main model of a reconnaissance aircraft, light bomber and attack aircraft until the early 1940s.
              How does one multipurpose aircraft differ in its intended purpose from another, multipurpose one? The U-2 was originally a training biplane, the Li-2 went into series as a Passarzhi and a military transport, as a bomber it began to be refitted in 1942, and it received the designation Li-2 in September 1942, also past the basin.
              1. 0
                5 January 2022 18: 36
                Both have a P in the name, which means the main target - a reconnaissance.In fact, the P-10 were in service with the 4th, 9th and 135th LBAP - that is, a bomber!
              2. 0
                5 January 2022 18: 43
                The Li-2 went into series as a Passarzhi and a military transport one, as a bomber, he began to re-equip in 1942, and he received the designation Li-2 in September 1942, also past the basin.


                Yes. You are right, although before the war it was planned to build a bomb version of the PS-84, as that plane was called before it was called by the names of the designers, and not by purpose.
                At the end of 1936, N.N.Polikarpov and the chief designer of the aviation armament design bureau B.G.Shpitalny made an offer to the deputy minister of the defense industry, M.M.Kaganovich, on the draft of an armed version of the aircraft. The vehicle was supposed to be equipped with five cannons: two promising 11P-37 37 mm and three 20-mm ShVAK, as well as three 7,62-mm ShKAS machine guns. In the reloading version, the aircraft could also take 500 kg of bombs. In general, it turned out to be a real flying fortress. Kaganovich entrusted the solution of this question to V.M. Myasishchev. In 1937, he began to work on the project, but for purely political reasons Shpitalny did not cooperate with him - Myasishchev had already been declared an "enemy of the people." The project was not implemented.

                Even before the war, Senkov proposed to create a strike aircraft on the basis of the PS-84. However, this idea was implemented only at the beginning of 1942, when the military aircraft was modified for a night bomber, while retaining the ability to perform transport tasks ... In the future, the car was able to carry the FAB-100/250. Normal bomb load on the external sling was 500 kg
                1. 0
                  6 January 2022 00: 32
                  Quote: Constanty
                  Myasishchev has already been declared an "enemy of the people."

                  Now they say "declared the enemy" ... They just took it and declared it ?! For some reason, after all, they did not "declared enemies of the people" Lavochkin, and Ilyushin, or the same P.O. Sukhoi ... Or maybe it was all the same for what? ... Remember why ANT himself was sentenced to 15 years? I agree nowadays they don’t imprison for this - Rusnano as an example - but then the state counted every ruble, and did not allow them to be used at its own discretion. Now we have a delegation of 2 specialists + 70 incomprehensible representatives, each with a "secretary", "assistant", "deputy" ... - and all at the expense of the state. So what if they didn't decide anything, didn't sell / didn't buy, but our delegation was the largest ...
                  1. 0
                    6 January 2022 02: 23
                    I have cited a quote from the Russian side - meaningful when it comes to aviation - airwar ru. I really don't know on what basis the repressions against the designers were used, although, for example, Taubin's example shows, on the one hand, denunciations and personal benefits of informants - on the other hand, his unfulfilled promises.
                    Another example is the genius - Polikarpov - the reason for the repression - religiosity - I don't believe it!
                    1. +1
                      6 January 2022 04: 35
                      Quote: Constanty
                      Another example is the genius - Polikarpov - the reason for the repression - religiosity - I don't believe it!

                      Therefore, I try to cite less politicized quotes from "Russian sources" hi .
                2. 0
                  6 January 2022 23: 15
                  Was the Ju-52 a good bomb carrier?
      2. 0
        5 January 2022 18: 11
        As well as fighters: I-15, I-16, Yak -1, Mig-3, Lagg, ....
        1. +1
          6 January 2022 00: 33
          Quote: vadim dok
          As well as fighters: I-15, I-16, Yak -1, Mig-3, Lagg, ....

          While we are counting purely bomb carriers ...
      3. 0
        9 January 2022 07: 50
        You can also add flying boats MBR-2 and MDR-6.
  5. +2
    5 January 2022 08: 41
    Compared to TB-1 (ANT-4), some progress is visible. Expression
    "progress is evident" on the contours of the bow disappears.
    became smooth? And the retractable landing gear (was it hydraulically retracted?) - full
    breakthrough ...
  6. +5
    5 January 2022 08: 59
    I would not say that everything that the French flew did not lie next to the products of Junkers and Heinkel (apparently, and Dornier too). The same Leo-451 and MB-174 were no worse (as of 1940). And, for example, reservations with service jackets appeared earlier.
    1. +1
      5 January 2022 10: 09
      Quote: sivuch
      I would not say that everything that the French flew did not lie next to the products of Junkers and Heinkel (apparently, and Dornier too). The same Leo-451 and MB-174 were no worse (as of 1940). And, for example, reservations with service jackets appeared earlier.

      The author is somehow very critical of the French aviation of that period, apparently based on the fact of surrender. And on account of the vague concept, I think it's fair.
      1. +4
        5 January 2022 12: 58
        With a concept, or rather, its absence - of course. And with a man-made catastrophe in the form of nationalization - too
  7. KLV
    +8
    5 January 2022 09: 02
    An article replete with stylistic and punctuation errors. Well, at least the author did not touch on the topic of covid.
    1. +2
      5 January 2022 15: 02
      Let's call a spade a spade - this is actually plagiarism and it is "dumbfounded".
      Original (airwar ru):
      The MB.210 is most notable for being a transitional phase in the French approach to medium bombers. It sits midway between the angular, strut-braced, over-wing monoplane with fixed landing gear and the later sleek, cantilever monoplane, with the down-wing and landing gear retraction in flight. Rugged, reliable and obedient to fly, but unhurried like the venerable mother of a family, this aircraft is by no means an "inspired creation." In its appearance, it showed a clear resemblance to its immediate predecessor, MV.200.


      "author's version"
      This is really a kind of transitional stage between the old angular, non-retractable landing gear aircraft, built according to the scheme of a biplane or a strut-braced monoplane with an upper wing position and a new generation of streamlined cantilever monoplane with retractable landing gear.

      MB.210 has become something in between. Very similar to its predecessor MB.200 in terms of shape and performance
  8. +2
    5 January 2022 09: 35
    Let's even say that in terms of quality and performance characteristics none of the bombers in France He did not come close to flying with the Junkers and Heinkels of the main potential enemy - Germany.


    Lioré et Olivier LeO 451, Bloch MB.174 / 175? The first was released in the amount of 452 pieces, the second - 140 pieces.
  9. +5
    5 January 2022 09: 36
    The last 50 aircraft of the series were equipped with engines "Gnome-Ron" 14Kirs / Kjrs

    All serial aircraft were produced with such engines. Gnome-Rhône 14 Krsd engines were installed on prototypes only.
  10. +3
    5 January 2022 09: 52
    that the Germans did not work out on the Eastern Front, but in France everything turned out exactly like this: the small but effective forces of the Luftwaffe completely paralyzed the actions of the French Air Force, ensuring the unhindered advance of the Wehrmacht units on the ground.


    What I will write will certainly be unpopular, but it is true.
    Soviet Air Force in 1941 did not play a significant role in the outcome of hostilities... It suffered horrific losses and acted ineffectively.
    It was the potential of the population (and its fighting spirit), the vast territory of the USSR, the underdeveloped network of roads and railways, the remoteness of production facilities from the front lines that gave the USSR time to accumulate experience and exhaust the enemy.
    1. +9
      5 January 2022 13: 10
      Quote: Constanty
      What I will write will certainly be unpopular, but it is true.
      The Soviet Air Force in 1941 did not play a significant role in the outcome of the hostilities. It suffered horrific losses and acted ineffectively.

      Hmm, I could be wrong, but ...
      the period from June 22 to July 5, the Luftwaffe lost on the Eastern Front 807 aircraft (this number includes completely destroyed and requiring major repairs). From 6 July to 2 August - more 843 aircraft. In total, from the morning of June 22 to December 31, 1941, the combat losses of German aviation amounted to 4 aircraft, of which 543, or 3%, were on the Eastern Front.

      As far as I remember, the entire Luftwaffe grouping before the start of the French company numbered about 4,5 thousand aircraft.
      I am ready to agree that the Soviet Air Force in 1941 showed itself not in the best way, for which there are many, both objective and subjective reasons, but its contribution cannot be called "insignificant". request
      1. -2
        5 January 2022 14: 18
        And what about the losses of Soviet aviation at that time?

        I am not saying that Soviet pilots did not shoot down German planes during this period, but that the actions of the USSR aviation did not have a decisive influence on the course of hostilities in 1941.
        1. +13
          5 January 2022 15: 30
          I understood perfectly well what you said.
          If you think that the loss of 800 aircraft (7 squadrons !!!) in the first two weeks of the war is an undeserving trifle that has not shown the slightest influence on the course of the war, then I am afraid I cannot help you in any way.
          Quote: Constanty
          And what about the losses of Soviet aviation at that time?

          AND...? How does this make the contribution insignificant?
          1. -4
            5 January 2022 15: 47
            How does this make the contribution insignificant?


            I wrote
            that the actions of the USSR aviation did not decisive influence on the course of hostilities in 1941.


            And the fate of the 1941 campaign took shape in late autumn and winter, when the role of aviation was not decisive.

            And not the loss of these 800 + 853 aircraft (In any case, these are Luftwaffe losses not only from WWS actions, but also from defense. Technical failures, disasters and non-combat losses) by Germany caused the Blitzkrieg crash.
        2. +3
          5 January 2022 20: 10
          Quote: Constanty
          but that the actions of the USSR aviation did not have a decisive influence on the course of hostilities in 1941.

          Complete nonsense. Have you read Guderian's memoirs? In 1941, already near Moscow, he suddenly wrote - "there are almost no vehicles left in our divisions. Our tank and motorized divisions have completely lost their mobility!" This is not someone's prayer or some miracle, it is the result of continuous ground attacks by the German strike forces with everything that was available .. From I-5 and I-153 to Mig and Lagg, inclusive. Yes, the losses of the flight personnel turned out to be huge, but they cannot be called useless.

          By the way, have you met the gloomy German joke about the "Aryan look"? This is when, on any road, everyone stares into the air in anticipation of trouble from above ..
          1. Alf
            +3
            5 January 2022 20: 38
            Quote: Saxahorse
            Have you read Guderian's memoirs? In 1941, already near Moscow, he suddenly wrote - "there are almost no vehicles left in our divisions. Our tank and motorized divisions have completely lost their mobility!" This is not someone's prayer or some miracle, it is the result of continuous ground attacks by the German strike forces with everything that was available .. From I-5 and I-153 to Mig and Lagg, inclusive. Yes, the losses of the flight personnel turned out to be huge, but they cannot be called useless.

            By the way, have you met the gloomy German joke about the "Aryan look"? This is when, on any road, everyone stares into the air in anticipation of trouble from above ..


            And I remembered one more quote about the summer of 41.
            "It is impossible to move during the day, enemy air raids follow at intervals of 30 minutes." The whole problem is that this is a quote from the diary of a GERMAN infantryman.
    2. +3
      5 January 2022 13: 23
      In your opinion, United Kingdome was saved by the complete absence of roads and railways (the English Channel) plus the remoteness of production facilities from the front line (Canada, USA)!
      And so the British pilots did not show themselves "from the word at all"!
      Is that how it works?
      1. +1
        5 January 2022 14: 22
        Exactly - English Channel plus the Royal Navy - if not for these two factors, the German army would have carried out Operation Zilev, and then the British aviation would have done nothing.


        ... and the Germans' lack of strategic aviation, which meant that a large number of British aircraft factories could operate without hindrance.
        1. +3
          5 January 2022 17: 07
          Royal Navy.
          And who covered him from the raids of "Goering's hawks"?
          Is it only your own anti-aircraft weapons?
          1. 0
            5 January 2022 18: 23
            And you know at least one case before 1941, when a German air raid on the Royal Navy was stopped by RAF aircraft. Because there are many examples of the sinking of British ships by 1941 by the Luftwaffe. wink
            1. +1
              5 January 2022 19: 02
              I haven’t "dug up" the fleet yet.
              But on September 15, 1940, 2 German raids on Britain were repelled.
              Reflected by RAF fighters.
              The Germans lost 60 aircraft against 26 British!
              1. 0
                5 January 2022 19: 11
                You wrote about the navy
                Royal Navy.
                And who covered him from the raids of "Goering's hawks"?
                Is it only your own anti-aircraft weapons?
                1. 0
                  5 January 2022 20: 06
                  I wrote that I have not yet "dug up" information on the Royal Vilicia Fleet.
                  I will find it - I will announce it.
        2. Alf
          +6
          5 January 2022 20: 02
          Quote: Constanty
          Exactly - English Channel plus Royal Navy - if not for these two factors,

          The sea lion did not happen precisely because the Luftwaffe was unable to knock out the RAF. And if British aircraft did nothing, then why did the Germans start NIGHT bombing of Britain? And why did Goering give the order to have no more than one officer in the bombers?
          1. 0
            5 January 2022 20: 22
            Plan "Seelöwe" ("Sea lion") was largely based on one of the strategic studies of Adm. Erich Raeder, who formulated the assumptions before the war, the fulfillment of which was necessary for a successful sea landing on the shores of Albion. According to Raeder, it was necessary eliminate or withdraw from the area of ​​operation of the British Navy.
            The main condition was to obtain at least a temporary advantage at sea
            ,weakening of the British Air Force, destruction or neutralization of coastal fortifications and prevention of the activity of British submarines necessary for the redeployment of troops.

            In my opinion, the Germans mistakenly decided that for this it was necessary to gain control in the air over the islands, and not to attack British ships, and to provide a local advantage in the air there - further from British airports, and from where the downed English pilots did not always return after shot down their planes.
            1. Alf
              +4
              5 January 2022 20: 28
              Quote: Constanty
              In my opinion, the Germans mistakenly decided that for this it was necessary to gain air control over the islands, and not to attack British ships,

              Not this way. The fleet near the coast without air cover suffers heavy losses and Dynamo proved it. Before landing an assault force ashore, it is necessary to ensure air supremacy in this sector. The Luftwaffe could not do this precisely because of the actions of the British aviation, which, as someone put it, "achieved nothing."
        3. -1
          6 January 2022 01: 12
          Quote: Constanty
          and the Germans' lack of strategic aviation

          the Germans had enough to bomb England with the available Non-111 and Ju-88 with comrades.
          And who won the Battle of England - the Royal Navy or the RAF?
  11. +5
    5 January 2022 10: 10
    In fact, when there is a clear understanding of what the aircraft is supposed to do, it usually turns out to be a pretty decent airplane battlefield vehicle. When there is no understanding, the result is MV.200. Airplanes not really fit for anything. As they would say now - the development of the budget of clean water.

    When there is no systemic knowledge of the history of the development of aviation, but there are excerpts taken out of context, such maxims are born.

    This is the British Boulton Paul P.75 Overstrand - "classmate" and the same age as Bloch MB.200. They even made their first flight almost simultaneously in 1933. It was operated in the RAF until mid-1941.
  12. +2
    5 January 2022 10: 11
    A number of aircraft were transferred to Germany's allies. For example, Bulgaria received 12 cars, Romania got 6 cars, Slovakia got one.


    The captured MB-200, registration number D-RVBB, shown in the photo in the article, was transferred to Bulgaria.
  13. +2
    5 January 2022 11: 48
    As part of the Romanian Air Force, MB 210 took part in hostilities on the Soviet-German front. At least in the summer of 1941 combat missions are documented.
  14. +2
    5 January 2022 13: 00
    Now is the time when very few people understand the direction of development of combat aviation.
  15. -2
    5 January 2022 13: 36
    Useless freak, trash.
    1. 0
      12 January 2022 10: 05
      Without this rubbish, the brilliant planes of Marcel Bloch-Dassault - Hurricane, Mister, Mirage, and others would not have appeared later. And if we compare with contemporaries - in most cases it is quite up to the mark, ordinary night bombers. By the way, it is interesting that the Germans put him in Buchenwald, but did not shoot him, although as a Jew they could well.
  16. Alf
    +2
    5 January 2022 20: 05
    Another foolishness of the French command, which began to send MV.200 to bombardments during the day and without fighter cover, also played a role.

    And what about the BRITISH command, which also dropped the Battles and Blenheims without cover during the day? Nonsense too? Or a shortage of fighters?
    1. +3
      5 January 2022 20: 48
      Here, by the way, the use of TB-3 is remembered in the first months of 1941.
    2. 0
      7 January 2022 00: 00
      On June 10, 1940, the gallant Poles flying the French "Codron" CR.714 "overwhelmed" two British "Battles". Bombing the Seine crossings !!!
      1. Alf
        0
        7 January 2022 11: 57
        Quote: hohol95
        On June 10, 1940, the gallant Poles flying the French "Codron" CR.714 "overwhelmed" two British "Battles". Bombing the Seine crossings !!!

        Are the circles and crosses confused? Or did they not find the Germans and decided out of frustration to shoot down what they found?
        1. 0
          7 January 2022 12: 51
          Already and do not know ...
          Britons go without an escort. The Germans did not send their messengers.
          And the Poles must have been let down by their "eyesight"!
  17. 0
    6 January 2022 01: 01
    the French aviation industry was able to design and build highly competitive aircraft. But in reality, these are the "Blocks"

    not always. The French LeO 45 medium bomber was pretty good.
  18. -1
    6 January 2022 14: 52
    Say what you like, but what is called a "design school" can be seen right away ... it is impossible to confuse the same Frenchmen, for example, with the Germans ... with him, but with a squiggle ... "
    1. Alf
      -1
      6 January 2022 17: 37
      Quote: Taoist
      Say what you like, but what is called a "design school" can be seen right away ... it is impossible to confuse the same Frenchmen, for example, with the Germans ... with him, but with a squiggle ... "

      Either a squiggle is obtained or a veranda in the form of a chest with wings.
    2. 0
      7 January 2022 19: 16
      Quote: Taoist
      it is impossible to confuse the same French, for example, with the Germans

      and in these planes, would you also accurately identify the "French"?



      1. 0
        7 January 2022 20: 16
        Made in the occupied part of France, U -52 FORGOT to insert !!!
        Moran 406/410 is clear in color. The Germans "gave them" to the Finns. The French themselves sent 30 cars to Suomi. The Germans "presented" 27 MS406 / 410!
        The Vichy government has 30 more cars!
        But they did not find much fame ...
        In the battles for France, they had more victories!
        Like the British "Hurricanes" there were simply more of them than the Dewoatins 520 / "Spitfires"!
        And these machines suffered the main losses in the battles of 1939!
      2. 0
        8 January 2022 20: 35
        Well, the "squiggles" have become more streamlined over time ... but still not gone anywhere. Well, before the appearance of "averaged computer" technical design, the design school is determined by eye - as they say, "national characteristics".
        1. +1
          8 January 2022 20: 41
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, before the advent of "computer-averaged" technical design

          excuse me, do the machines in the photographs refer to the times of the use of computer technology? What do they have in common with the same Bloch MB.200? With the same success it could be English cars, those guys also won in due time. And square-parallel is similar to TB-1/3. If you didn’t know that in the photos I have given, French cars of a slightly later time - could they be identified by their appearance? I doubt it very much. Here in the bottom photo - who? The crosses on it look very organic, although, of course. it is not "German".
          School is not an appearance, not only it, it is a complex that allows "people in the subject" to accurately determine the designer
          1. -1
            9 January 2022 20: 44
            Well, in general, your humble servant is an aviation engineer himself and just by eye determines the school ... "about the average computer design", of course, I meant modernity (and even then the "national peculiarities" are still noticeable to the experienced look), in any case, from the British from Frenchmen could always be distinguished .. Cockroaches there are big but still different.
            1. -2
              9 January 2022 20: 56
              Quote: Taoist
              Well, in general, your humble servant is an aviation engineer himself and just by eye determines the school ...

              Wow, how cool you are to throw your regalia right away) Do you know, I am also an engineer, and in the defense sphere, and I know no less than yours, however, in a different area (specificity). And aviation is my ancient because of the age of my hobby. But it so happened that objective reasons did not help to connect life with aviation, and therefore the whole head "land". And then, you know, it is rather difficult to determine the nationality by the external appearance, without knowing other details. Sometimes you come across products that are completely atypical for a school in a particular country. But here your "find out by eye" will not work, because you need to be either the highest analyst, or just know by sight. ”Rather, the second, you are replacing analytics with this. I didn’t know - I was thoughtful. The French had a fair amount of twists and turns in one direction or another. As for cockroaches, you are undoubtedly right, few people were as weird as they are, but they also had models that were completely different from the "general line"

              At one time, I held the post of a leading engineer of a very respected organization in Russia, whose pen (including mine) owns fairly modern models that are currently in service.
              1. 0
                10 January 2022 14: 56
                Well, cars "breaking out" from the general tradition were always and everywhere ... But most likely for the same reason, they usually did not leave the status of experimental and one-of-a-kind ... "national peculiarities" ... This applies not only to aviation ... after all, "French" "British" "German", etc. design schools are not invented by us. Even the layout of the nodes is often visible. Now these differences are leveled ... everyone works in the same programs, with the same libraries, etc. The differences probably remain at the level of the problem statement ...
  19. 0
    12 January 2022 18: 54
    The baptism of fire MB.200 was accepted, of course, in Spain, during the Civil War. To check the battle, 4 aircraft were sent there, two flew on their own, two were brought by sea in disassembled form.
    The bombers took part in the war on the side of the Republicans. The practice of use has shown that the planes are nothing like that, but in the absence of opposition from enemy fighters, the MV.200 are able to work both as reconnaissance aircraft and as day bombers.

    Unfortunately the whole quote "Tales from the Vienna Woods". The Spaniards planned the purchase and production of the MB-200, one car flew to Cuatro Vientos in 1935 to participate in the competition and EVERYTHING. Photo in the collection of Juan Arraez Cerda.
    We were planning to purchase a LOT of MB-210 Verdun. Different sources write from 5 to 50 machines. Reality: at the end of 1936, 5 assembly kits were purchased. 2 cars were assembled (the option flew from France), 3 sets remained in Catalonia. Nobody drove these "suitcases" after the loss of the majority of Potezes 540 during the day. Having passed through 3 different bomber "grupo", we ended up in the 7th squadron of the defense of the Catalan coast. In 1939, BB-001 and BB-002 were available.