Anti-aircraft installations created on the basis of 20-30-mm German aircraft guns during the Second World War

52
Anti-aircraft installations created on the basis of 20-30-mm German aircraft guns during the Second World War

At the end of the war, the enemy tried to compensate for the loss of air supremacy with the density of anti-aircraft fire. It was the fire of anti-aircraft guns that destroyed most of the lost in 1944-1945. for combat reasons of Soviet attack aircraft and dive bombers.

The extreme danger posed to our aviation German rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns, was largely due to the perfection of their materiel. The design of small-caliber anti-aircraft installations made it possible to very quickly maneuver trajectories in the vertical and horizontal planes. As a rule, as part of an anti-aircraft battery, fire was corrected using POISO, which issued corrections for the range, speed and heading of the aircraft.



Under the condition of individual use, each gun, as a rule, was equipped with an optical rangefinder, which made it possible to make corrections in range. German anti-aircraft crews in most cases had a good level of training, due to which the shooting accuracy was high and the reaction time was short. The German small-caliber anti-aircraft battery was ready to give the first aimed shot already 20 seconds after the detection of an air target. Corrections for changing the course, dive angle, speed, range to the target were introduced by the Germans within 2-3 seconds. Adjustment of anti-aircraft fire was facilitated by the widespread use of tracer shells. The average probability of hitting a non-maneuvering aircraft flying at a speed of 20 km / h from a 38-mm single-barrel Flak 400 assault rifle at a distance of 1 m with a burst of 000 rounds was 20.

With an increase in the number of anti-aircraft guns or the use of multi-barreled installations, the probability of destruction increased accordingly. The saturation of military air defense with rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns from the enemy was very high. The number of barrels that covered objects and troops was constantly increasing, and at the beginning of 1945, up to two hundred small-caliber shells could be fired per second at an attack aircraft operating in the German fortified area. The concentration of fire from several guns on one target increased the probability of defeat. In addition, in most cases, our attack aircraft and dive bombers made several visits to the target, and the German anti-aircraft gunners had time to shoot.

An increase in the density of anti-aircraft fire in the front line inevitably led to an increase in the number of downed and damaged aircraft of Soviet attack and short-range bomber aircraft. So, in 1943, 1 Il-468s were lost from the fire of German anti-aircraft artillery of all calibers of the Red Army Air Force, in 2 1944 attack aircraft were lost, and in the first five months of 1, the number of downed "Ils" amounted to 859 machines. At the same time, the growth in the losses of attack aircraft from the fire of German anti-aircraft artillery was accompanied by a steady decrease in losses from the actions of enemy fighters.

If in 1943 1 Il-090s were shot down in air battles, then in 2 - 1944 vehicles, and in 882 - 1945 Ilov. That is, in air battles in the sky in 369, attack aircraft were lost 1944 times less than from the fire of anti-aircraft systems of all calibers, and in 2,1 - already 1945 times less. The total combat losses of the Il-2,8 practically did not change: in 2, the Soviet Air Force lost 1943 Il-3s on the fronts, in 515 - 2 combat vehicles, and in 1944 - 3 attack aircraft.

Due to the fact that the industry of Germany and the occupied countries could not sharply increase the production of anti-aircraft systems, for firing at aircraft at the final stage of the war, they began to massively remake the aircraft machine-gun and cannon weapons stored in warehouses. Starting from the first half of 1944, anti-aircraft installations created on the basis of aircraft 13–15 mm machine guns and 20–30 mm cannons began to play a very prominent role in the German air defense of the front line.

Since the beginning of World War II, the armed forces of Nazi Germany have been actively using very numerous 20-mm anti-aircraft artillery guns: single-barreled 2,0 cm Flak 28; 2,0 cm FlaK 30; 2,0 cm Flak 38, as well as quadruple 2,0 cm Flakvierling 38. There was also a significant number of 37 mm rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns 3,7 cm Flak 18; 3,7cm Flak 36; 3,7cm Flak 37; 3,7 cm Flak 43 and 37 mm Flakzwilling 43 twins. Do not forget about the hundreds of 25-40 mm anti-aircraft guns captured in other countries.

However, even in the most difficult time for the Red Army, German generals complained about the lack of rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns, which were not enough to protect against attacks by Soviet attack aircraft, columns on the march and troops in places of concentration. It is quite natural that the German command sent most of the small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery to the active army and concentrated it in the area of ​​​​important transport hubs and front-line warehouses.

Under these conditions, the air defense of small field airfields often left much to be desired, and to strengthen it, already in the first half of 1942, the enemy began to use turret 20-mm MG-FF aircraft guns taken from aircraft.


20 mm MG-FF cannon in the lower defensive emplacement of an FW.200 bomber

The MG-FF aircraft gun for 20x80 mm ammunition was created in 1936 by specialists from the German company Ikaria Werke Berlin based on the Swiss 20 mm Oerlikon FF automatic gun.

The external difference from the Swiss model was a slightly elongated barrel, and the reloading system was also changed. To power the aircraft gun, carob magazines for 15 or drums for 30, 45 and 100 rounds were used. A projectile weighing 117 g left a barrel 820 mm long with an initial velocity of 580 m/s. The rate of fire did not exceed 540 rds / min. The mass of the gun was 26–28 kg. Length - 1 340 mm. Barrel length - 820 mm.

Taking into account the fact that very weak ammunition was used for firing, the initial speed was low, and the penetrating effect of the armor-piercing projectile was low. In order to somehow compensate for this shortcoming, at the end of 1940, specialists from the Institute of Ballistics of the Luftwaffe Technical Academy created a thin-walled high-explosive projectile with a high explosive filling ratio. The thinner body of the projectile was made by deep drawing from special alloy steel and hardened by hardening. Compared to the previous fragmentation projectile filled with 3 g of pentrite, the filling factor increased from 4 to 20%.

The new 20-mm projectile, designated Minengeschoss (German projectile-mine), contained RDX-based plastic explosives with the addition of aluminum powder. This explosive, which was about 2 times more powerful than TNT, was characterized by an increased high-explosive and incendiary effect. New lightweight delayed fuses made it possible for a projectile to burst inside the aircraft structure, causing serious damage not to the skin, but to the airframe power set. So, when a new high-explosive projectile hit the base of the wing of a fighter, in most cases it was torn off.

To use the new high-explosive shells, small changes were made to the gun breech. The upgraded aircraft gun, adapted to fire new high-explosive shells, received the designation MG-FF/M. A significant number of existing MG-FF guns were upgraded in field workshops to the level of MG-FF / M by replacing the bolt and return spring. Although the introduction of a new high-explosive projectile into the ammunition load increased the effectiveness of firing at air targets, the range of aimed fire even at very large and low-maneuverable aircraft did not exceed 500 m.

In the second half of 1941, the MG-FF gun was recognized as not meeting the criteria for modern air combat. Her light weight and technological simplicity did not save her from retirement. All the advantages outweighed the disadvantages: low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity and a bulky magazine. The adoption of the new MG.151 / 20 aircraft gun with a belt feed of ammunition, although much more complex and heavy, but also much faster and more accurate, gradually led to the decommissioning of the Oerlikon aircraft.

As a result, many of the 20 mm MG-FF guns in stock repeated the fate of the 7,92 mm, 13 mm and 15 mm machine guns taken from aircraft. Several hundred aircraft guns were installed on pivot mounts, which were used for air defense of airfields and armament of ships of small displacement.


However, the "mundane" MG-FFs in terms of range and accuracy of fire were much inferior to specialized 20-mm anti-aircraft guns, originally designed for much more powerful ammunition. Thus, the maximum effective slant range of the MG-FF anti-aircraft variant was no more than 800 m.

Somewhere in early 1944, a built-in installation began to arrive in the German anti-aircraft units, in which 20-mm aircraft guns MG.151 / 20 were used.

The MG.151 / 20 gun with automatics, which worked on the use of the recoil of a moving barrel, with which the bolt was firmly connected during the shot, was created by the designers of Mauser Werke on the basis of the 15-mm MG.151 / 15 aircraft machine gun. In connection with the increase in caliber to 20 mm, not only the barrel, but also the chamber underwent a change. I also had to use a more powerful rear spring buffer, new tape receiver and sear.

Several modifications of the MG.151 / 20 were produced: a motor-gun for firing through the propeller hub, with a synchronizer, for installation in the wing, and also for use in defensive turret installations. The mass of the gun was 42 kg, the rate of fire was 750 rds / min.


In the non-mechanized turret version, the MG.151 / 20 gun was equipped with two handles with a trigger and a frame sight placed on the bracket.

Production of the MG.151/20 began in 1940 and continued until the end of the war. This 20-mm cannon was widely used as the main armament of the Bf 109 and Fw 190 fighters of various modifications, as well as fighter-bombers, night fighters and attack aircraft, and was installed in mechanized and manual turrets on bombers.

For firing from MG.151 / 20, 20x82 mm ammunition was used. Projectile weight: from 105 to 115 g. Muzzle velocity: 700–750 m/s. In addition to armor-piercing incendiary, armor-piercing incendiary tracer, fragmentation incendiary tracer, the ammunition also included a high-explosive projectile containing 25 g of hexogen-based explosives.


Belt link with shells for 20 mm gun MG.151/20

When a 20-mm high-explosive projectile hit the armored hull of the Il-2, in most cases it was broken. The hit of a high-explosive projectile in the keel or plane of a Soviet attack aircraft, as a rule, caused the destruction of these structural elements, which meant the termination of controlled flight.

The ammunition of the 151/20 gun when firing at air targets was originally equipped with a cartridge belt, which contained only 20% of armor-piercing rounds. The rest were high-explosive, fragmentation-incendiary tracer and armor-piercing incendiary or armor-piercing tracer. However, towards the end of the war, due to the lack of special projectiles, the share of cheaper armor-piercing tracer and armor-piercing projectiles in the tape began to be 50%. An armor-piercing tracer at a range of 300 m, when hit at an angle of 60 °, could penetrate 12-mm armor.

The German 20 mm MG.151/20 aircraft gun had good capabilities in terms of destroying air targets, and the protection of armored attack aircraft, as a rule, turned out to be not sufficiently resistant against it. As the experience of military operations and control shooting at the training ground showed, the Il-2 armored box in most cases did not protect against the destructive effect of 20-mm fragmentation and armor-piercing shells.

For the failure of the propeller group of an attack aircraft, it was often enough to hit one 20-mm fragmentation projectile in any part of the engine. The dimensions of the holes in the armored hull in some cases reached 150 mm in diameter. The cabin armor also did not provide adequate protection against the action of 20-mm shells. When hit in the fuselage, on average, 2-6 8-mm fragmentation shells were required to disable the Il-20. At the same time, the likelihood that the rudder control cables of the attack aircraft would be broken by fragments of shells was very high.

By 1944, there were about 7 MG.000 / 151 guns and more than 20 million shells for them in warehouses. The first 5 mm MG.20/151 cannons adapted for anti-aircraft fire were turrets dismantled from damaged bombers. Such installations were used to provide air defense for field airfields.

Turret MG.151 / 20 were mounted on improvised supports in the form of logs or pipes buried in the ground. Sometimes an armored shield was placed on a turret aircraft gun used as an anti-aircraft gun. Very soon, the factory production of pedestal installations was launched, which could be mounted on any solid base.


If there were no particular difficulties with the use of turret guns for anti-aircraft fire, then the synchronous and wing variants, which were part of the strike weapons of fighters and attack aircraft, could not be used in anti-aircraft installations without serious refinement.

Synchronized and turret 20-mm aircraft guns were converted for ground use on armory factories and large repair shops. The main changes were made to the reloading device and the trigger mechanism. The existing electric trigger systems and pneumatic reloading mechanisms were replaced by mechanical parts that ensure continuous fire when mounted on single-barreled, twin and triple anti-aircraft guns.

The most common anti-aircraft gun using 20 mm MG.151/20 guns was the horizontally built mount on a pedestal support, known as the 2,0 cm Flakdriling MG 151/20. Mass production of this installation began in the spring of 1944, and it structurally and externally had much in common with the ZPU, which used 15 mm MG.151/15 machine guns.


Anti-aircraft gun 2,0 cm Flakdriling MG 151 / 20 in firing position

Three shell boxes were attached to the swivel pedestal support below the guns. The front box held a tape with 400 shells, two side boxes - 250 each. This feature of storing ammunition was associated with the inconvenience of equipping the front box in comparison with the side ones. The barrels of some of the anti-aircraft installations had flame arresters, which reduced the muzzle flame that blinded the shooter. The weight of the anti-aircraft gun with ammunition exceeded 200 kg.

Aiming the built-in installation at the target was not mechanized. Significant physical effort was required from the shooter to aim the installation at the target. Although the designers tried to balance the guns in the horizontal plane, the angular pickup speed was small, and the inertia during rotation on the pedestal was very significant. The sights of the built-in 20 mm 2,0 cm Flakdriling MG 151/20 mount were very simple and, in terms of their capabilities, were significantly inferior to the 20 mm 2,0 cm Flak 28 anti-aircraft guns; 2,0 cm FlaK 30; 2,0 cm Flak 38 and 2,0 cm Flakvierling 38.

Nevertheless, an anti-aircraft installation with a total rate of fire of more than 2 rds / min for aircraft flying at low altitude posed a serious danger. A significant advantage of the belt-fed 000 cm Flakdriling MG 2,0/151 mounts compared to the 20 cm Flakvierling 20 quad 2,0 mm MZA mounts was the ability to fire in long bursts of longer duration. This required only one gunner, while servicing a quadruple 38-mm magazine-loading anti-aircraft gun required a calculation of eight people. In the presence of armor-piercing tracer shells in the ammunition load, the 20 cm Flakdriling MG 2,0/151 gunner corrected the lead angle along the tracks.

It is currently impossible to determine how many anti-aircraft installations were created using MG 151/20 aircraft guns, but judging by the numerous photographs where they are captured, these anti-aircraft guns were fired quite a lot.


Three-barreled installations 2,0 cm Flakdriling MG 151/20 were often mounted both permanently for object air defense, and on towed four-axle trailers, various armor, auto and railway equipment, including armored air defense trains.

Half-track armored personnel carriers of the SdKfz 2,0 family were most often used as an armored chassis to accommodate the 151 cm Flakdriling MG 20/251. Initially, anti-aircraft guns were installed on armored personnel carriers with an open rear platform. With a good view, the shooter was protected from bullets and shrapnel only by an armored shield in front.

Later, the Sd.Kfz.251/21 anti-aircraft self-propelled gun, covered in a circle with bulletproof armor 8–14,5 mm thick, went into production. The gun mount itself was placed in an armored box.


It was possible to fire not only at air, but also at ground targets. According to American combat reports, the Sd.Kfz.251/21 ZSU on the Western Front was very often used in support of ground forces. In terms of the combination of characteristics, the Sd.Kfz.251 / 21 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns can be considered one of the most successful German models on a half-tracked chassis.

This ZSU, with a relatively low cost and good indicators of mobility and maneuverability, had high firepower and could successfully operate against aircraft, hit lightly armored targets and manpower. But the Germans did not have time to build many such anti-aircraft self-propelled guns. From October 1944 to February 1945, the German industry managed to produce approximately 150 armored personnel carriers armed with built-in cannon mounts. This successful ZSU appeared too late and did not have a noticeable effect on the course of hostilities.

Talking about German anti-aircraft installations created using aircraft guns, one cannot but mention the 30-mm MK.103 gun, which was one of the most successful types of aircraft weapons created by German designers during World War II.

The MK.103 air gun was designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in 1940. For firing from this gun, a powerful shot measuring 30x184 mm was used. The 30 mm MK.103 cannon weighed 145 kg without ammunition. The mass of a box with a tape for 100 shots is 94 kg. The scheme of functioning of automation is mixed: the extraction of the sleeve, the supply of the next cartridge and the promotion of the tape occurred due to the short rollback of the barrel, and the removal of powder gases was used to cock the bolt and unlock the bore. The MK 103 cannon was fed from a loose metal strip with a length of 70–125 shells. Rate of fire - up to 420 rds / min. Direct shot range - 800 meters.

The design of the weapon is quite simple and reliable. The main disadvantage, according to Soviet experts, was the strong shock loads during the operation of automation and excessive recoil, which limited the use of 30-mm guns as part of the armament of single-engine fighters. According to the complex of combat characteristics, the MK.103 occupied an intermediate position between the 23-mm VYa air gun and the 37-mm NS-37.

Armor-piercing projectile weighing 455 g, with an initial speed of 760 m / s at a distance of 300 m could penetrate 32-mm armor. Subsequently, an armor-piercing tracer sub-caliber projectile was created for a 30-mm aircraft gun, which at a distance of 300 m, when hit at an angle of 60º, could penetrate 50-mm armor.


30-mm projectiles for aircraft gun MK.103

The most effective when firing at air targets was a 330 g high-explosive projectile 3 cm M.-Gesch. o. Zerl., containing 80 g of TNT, and 320 g of high-explosive tracer 3 cm M.-Gesch. L'spur o. Zerl., equipped with 71 g of phlegmatized RDX mixed with aluminum powder. For comparison: the Soviet 37-mm fragmentation tracer UOR-167 weighing 0,732 g, which was part of the 61-K anti-aircraft gun ammunition, contained 37 g of TNT. High-explosive 30-mm projectiles hit any part of the Il-2 attack aircraft resulting in critical damage.

Production of the MK.103 was carried out from mid-1942 to February 1945, and a significant number of unclaimed 30-mm guns accumulated in the warehouses of the Luftwaffe, which became the reason for their use in anti-aircraft installations.


At the first stage, as in the case of other aircraft machine guns and cannons, the MK.103 was mounted on handicraft anti-aircraft gun carriages. In the summer of 1943, the first 30-mm guns were mounted on primitive and rather crudely made turrets. Thus, the ground personnel of the Luftwaffe tried to strengthen the air defense of the airfields.

In the summer of 1943, Waffenfabrik Mauser AG created a 20 cm Flak 38/3,0 mount by superimposing an aircraft gun on a 103-mm Flak 38 anti-aircraft gun machine. Although this anti-aircraft gun was in many ways a forced wartime improvisation, on the whole it was very successful.


30 mm anti-aircraft gun 3,0 cm Flak 103/38

Compared to the 20 mm 2,0 cm Flak 38 mount, the new 30 mm Flak 103/38 anti-aircraft gun is about 30% heavier. The mass of 3,0 cm Flak 103/38 in the transport position was 879 kg, after separation of the wheels - 619 kg. According to expert estimates, the effectiveness of the 30-mm anti-aircraft gun has increased by about 1,5 times.

The effective fire range has increased by 20%, but due to the use of belt feed and a box for 40 shells, the combat rate of fire has increased significantly. At the same time, the destructive effect of a 30-mm projectile exceeded a 20-mm projectile by about two times. Thus, to shoot down an armored attack aircraft or a twin-engine dive bomber, as a rule, it took no more than two or three fragmentation tracer or one high-explosive projectile hit. Since the heavier 30-mm projectile lost its energy more slowly, the maximum slant range against air targets was 5 m, and the altitude reach was 700 m.

Single-barreled anti-aircraft guns based on the MK.103 on a standard carriage of a 20 mm 2,0 cm Flak 38 anti-aircraft gun were used in a towed version and were placed on various self-propelled chassis. Very often, 3,0 cm Flak 103/38 anti-aircraft guns were installed on Austrian Steyr 2000A trucks.


30 mm anti-aircraft gun 3,0 cm Flak 103/38 in the back of a Steyr 2000A truck

In order to reduce the cost of production, the cabin was made open. To protect against the weather, an awning could be installed over the driver's workplace and body on removable arcs. In addition to the armored shield, the calculation of the improvised anti-aircraft self-propelled gun was not covered by anything from bullets and shrapnel and was vulnerable to them.

30-mm aircraft guns were also armed with anti-aircraft self-propelled guns, produced on the basis of light tanks Czech-made Pz. Kpfw. 38(t). Externally, this machine was almost indistinguishable from the Flakpanzer 38(t) ZSU with a 20mm automatic cannon.

At the end of 1944, similar to the 20 cm Flakvierling 2,0 quad anti-aircraft gun, the 38 cm Flakvierling 3,0/103 was created. Externally, the 38 mm quad mount differed from the 30 mm in longer and thicker barrels, equipped with a multi-chamber muzzle brake.


30 4mm anti-aircraft gun 3,0 cm Flakvierling 103 / 38

Compared to the quadruple mount 2,0 cm Flakvierling 38, the weight of the 3,0 cm Flakvierling 103/38 in combat position has increased by about 300 kg. But the increase in weight was more than offset by increased combat performance. The total rate of fire was more than 1 rds / min. When using armor-piercing shells, 600 kg of hot metal per second flew towards the enemy.

The Wehrmacht command had high hopes for 30-mm quad mounts and planned to arm Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind armored self-propelled anti-aircraft guns with them.

In terms of firepower, the 30-mm Flakvierling 3,0-mm anti-aircraft gun had no analogues at that time and could pose a serious danger to both combat aircraft operating at low altitudes and tanks.

In total, about 500 anti-aircraft installations chambered for 30x184 mm were assembled at German and Czech enterprises. Germany's limited resources, the incessant bombing of defense plants and the successes of the Red Army did not allow the release of a sufficient number of 30-mm anti-aircraft guns that could have a significant impact on the course of hostilities.
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    18 August 2022 05: 32
    It was the fire of anti-aircraft guns that destroyed most of the lost in 1944-1945. for combat reasons of Soviet attack aircraft and dive bombers.

    I wonder what the allies wrote about this?
    Or the "hordes" of their fighter-bombers did not notice the German anti-aircraft installations and the losses were in the amount of a "statistical error"?
    1. -1
      18 August 2022 06: 40
      The Allies did not rely on front-line attack aircraft, the total number of front-line attack aircraft they released was lower than our Il-2 losses in one year of the war.
      1. +7
        18 August 2022 07: 12
        And the great masses of "Hurricanes", "Typhoons" and "Tempests" thrown into the assault operations of the rear of the Teutons are not taken into account?
        1. -1
          18 August 2022 07: 40
          Not accepted. Sawing a fighter into an attack aircraft is poverty and snobbery.
          The concept of front-line assault aviation did not exist among the allies.
          1. +9
            18 August 2022 07: 46
            And who then violated the movement of military echelons and transport columns?
            Who brought the ordinary (and unfortunate) military from the Wehrmacht (and other power structures of the TR) to the panicked "German View"?
          2. +9
            18 August 2022 08: 11
            Better to say there was no concept of a battlefield aircraft.
            They had a concept of use and tactics of use on the battlefield and I will express a seditious thought as if no more flexible than ours. Communications officers in advanced orders. Direct call to the duty group in the shortest possible time. Etc.
            Sawing a fighter into an attack aircraft is roguery and snobbery.

            IS against an attack aircraft is a standard holivar. It is obvious to me that if someone has Pratt & Whitney, then IB is the best choice for that someone.
          3. +10
            18 August 2022 09: 21
            Quote: 3x3zsave
            Not accepted. Sawing a fighter into an attack aircraft is poverty and snobbery.
            The concept of front-line assault aviation did not exist among the allies.

            Anton, hello! You're exaggerating a little. Here is an article on the subject:
            The role of Allied combat aviation in the fight against German tanks
            https://topwar.ru/96135-rol-boevoy-aviacii-soyuznikov-v-borbe-s-nemeckimi-tankami.html
            1. +5
              18 August 2022 10: 21
              Hello, Sergey!
              Thanks, I'll take a look!
            2. +7
              18 August 2022 14: 09
              Quote: Bongo
              ,

              hi
              I recognize the master's hand!
              Now I understand why the previous part was so short wink

              Thank you for an interesting and informative story!
          4. +4
            18 August 2022 11: 25
            Quote: 3x3zsave
            Sawing a fighter into an attack aircraft is roguery and snobbery.

            Is this about the FW-190?
            Good afternoon Anton! hi
            1. +2
              18 August 2022 11: 49
              Hello, Sergey!
              No, this is about Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tempests and other Mustangs.
              1. +11
                18 August 2022 12: 33
                That's about the "Typhoons" and "Tempests" you are in vain, these machines justified themselves. Do not forget that the British, and the Americans, had a different tactic. They, like our IL-2 and IL-10, did not make 5-6 visits to a well-protected target.
                As for the striking abilities of the Mustang, do you know anything about the A-36 Apache / Invader?
                1. +4
                  18 August 2022 15: 15
                  I apologize for the offtopic, I don’t understand how the sights are located in this photo.
                  One over the other? Why are there two of them at all?
                  1. +7
                    18 August 2022 16: 00
                    One over the other?

                    Moved to the right and left of the axis of the trunk
                    Why are there two of them at all?

                    I bet that the optical effect of binocular vision was used in this way (I don’t remember the exact name), due to which the shooter’s gaze looked at the aiming grid strictly along the line of the barrel.
                    1. +5
                      18 August 2022 16: 53
                      At the beginning, I thought that it was on the right and on the left, such as in order to take into account from which side the plane is attacking, but there is no mention of the effect of binoculars.
                      Thank you! hi
                2. +2
                  18 August 2022 22: 14
                  I know about this modification, Sergey. Limited series of 500 aircraft. Sometimes you should not consider me a stupid feudal lord.)))
                  1. +4
                    20 August 2022 14: 05
                    Quote: 3x3zsave
                    I know about this modification, Sergey. Limited series of 500 aircraft. Sometimes you should not consider me a stupid feudal lord.)))

                    You need to think about the "feudal lord", but I definitely never considered you "stupid". As for the A-36, 500 aircraft is not so little, and with the right tactics of use, this aircraft proved to be very good.
                    1. +2
                      20 August 2022 16: 07
                      But I never thought you were "stupid".
                      "The older I get, the less often I pronounce the words" always "and" never "" (C)
                      1. +2
                        20 August 2022 16: 26
                        Quote: 3x3zsave
                        "The older I get, the less often I pronounce the words" always "and" never "" (C)

                        Anton, of course, you are extremely self-critical, but we still know each other in person ... wink
                      2. +1
                        21 August 2022 00: 42
                        Sergey, if I don't laugh at myself, then what kind of minstrel am I?
                        "I'm François, which I'm not happy about,
                        Alas, the death of the villain awaits,
                        And how much does this ass weigh
                        The neck will soon recognize "(C)
          5. +5
            19 August 2022 03: 12
            Quote: 3x3zsave
            The concept of front-line assault aviation did not exist among the allies.


            "The concept of front-line attack aviation" is the concept of a slow and insufficiently maneuverable aircraft with a water-cooled engine hidden in a heavy armored compartment, therefore weakly armed?

            The Allies did not have such a concept. If we had a Su-6 attack aircraft with an M-71 air-cooled engine in 1941, which demonstrated a maximum speed near the ground of 510 km / h, then in the USSR the Il-2 concept would have been quickly recognized as flawed.

            When in the spring of 1941 it was possible to convince Stalin that it was impossible to stop the production of air-cooled engines at one of the largest Soviet engine-building plants (Plant No. 19 in Perm), the question arose of which promising air-cooled engine to establish at the enterprise: 18-cylinder double "star" M -71 with a maximum power of 2000 hp (the motor passed the test for a 50-hour resource in February 1941), or a 14-cylinder double "star" M-82 with a maximum power of 1700 hp. (the motor passed the test for a 50-hour resource in April 1941), the M-82 motor was chosen. This choice, in view of the impossibility of simultaneous large-scale production at plant No. 19 of engines of the M-71 and M-82 series (during the war, in addition to the large-scale production of engines of the M-82 family, the 9-cylinder M-62IR was also produced at the plant in a fairly large series) deprived the chances of serial production of promising Sukhoi attack aircraft and the Polikarpov fighter developed under the M-71 engine.

            So excuse me, poverty is just the IL-2, which Ilyushin was forced to convert into a single-seat one before the war in order to raise its performance characteristics to acceptable levels and "shove it into the series without washing it like that." And the planes with, alas, the Soviet "Pratt and Whitney" M-71 / M-71F, which did not go into the series, would allow not to rely on this poverty.

            It is worth adding that it went into the M-82 series ("The motor had rather intense specific parameters: its take-off liter power was 41,3 l.s / l, and the average effective pressure in the same mode was 15,5 kgf / cm², that is, significantly more than the M-71 and M-81 "), and not the M-71 for completely subjective reasons.
        2. +11
          18 August 2022 07: 44
          It’s just that an attack aircraft is commonly understood as a battlefield aircraft. And you can "storm" anything and anywhere. There may be confusion.
          Contrary to popular belief, the Allies had battlefield aviation, that is, attack aircraft. First appeared with the British in Africa in March 1943. The P-40 was used for this role. (Maybe Hurricane, the source is not at hand)
          But the Allies did indeed place more emphasis on operations in the rear and strikes against communications. There were special commands. The same Tactical air force.
          Plus, hundreds of American pilots of the 8th VA not only did not participate in the battles, but they did not even see enemy aircraft at all. Out of boredom, the Americans descended and fired at any target. And they fell into the zone of action of the MZA.
    2. +8
      18 August 2022 06: 46
      I wonder what the allies wrote about this?

      Something like this:
      "anti-aircraft guns are beautifully camouflaged", "the accuracy of the fire is unpleasantly striking"
      1. -1
        18 August 2022 07: 43
        "The accuracy of the fire is amazing..."
        But we have no losses!
        A lot has been written about our Il-2s, but less is known about the assault actions of the Allied aviation.
        It seemed that they were flying, they seemed to be shooting trains, transport columns.
        The Teutons developed a "German look" - a gaze fixed on the sky for the early detection of fighter-bombers of the Allied Air Force!
        It turns out that the German could only oppose the allied raids by "Yabo" only with the "German look", and not with the barrels of anti-aircraft guns!
        "Yabo" - Jagdbomber - hunter-bomber (attack aircraft).
        1. +10
          18 August 2022 08: 03
          But we have no losses!

          Why are you inventing?
          Nobody wrote that.
          It turns out that the German could only oppose the allied raids by "Yabo" only with the "German look", and not with the barrels of anti-aircraft guns!

          The episode with the confrontation between typhoons and anti-aircraft guns is in Johnson's memoirs.
          The American ace Gabreski was shot down by anti-aircraft guns while trying to attack a German aircraft on the ground.
          but less is known about the assault actions of the Allied aviation
          .
          Who knows less? Russian reader?
          If you want to dive into the topic, read the work of Christopher Shore. For example this one.
          https://www.amazon.com/2nd-Tactical-Air-Force-Camouflage/dp/1906537011
          I can't recommend anything for Americans. Don't know.
          1. +4
            18 August 2022 08: 40
            Thank you. I'll take a look!
            Winston Churchill praised the Hurricane Mk.2D very much. With two 40mm guns.
            Then there was Mk.2E.
  2. +6
    18 August 2022 05: 48
    The Wehrmacht command had high hopes for 30-mm quad mounts and planned to arm Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind armored self-propelled anti-aircraft guns with them.

    There was a case when this installation practically destroyed the advancing American infantry battalion. Only a small number of 100 pieces did not have a big impact on the course of hostilities. Our assault aviation was lucky that these installations operated mainly in the western direction against the allies.
    Based on this installation, the legendary "Shilka" was created.
  3. +7
    18 August 2022 06: 00
    Oh, we would have such in the 41st ..
    1. 0
      18 August 2022 09: 12
      Oh, we would have such in the 41st ..

      Not everything was so bad, where air defense was organized.
      Quadruple maxims showed themselves effectively. The German pilots were especially annoyed by camouflaged installations that suddenly opened fire. ...
      from the order of a German general intercepted on the Kalinin Front
      1. +6
        18 August 2022 09: 27
        Quote: Konnick
        Quadruple maxims showed themselves effectively.

        Frankly speaking, as a means of air defense, the M4 installation was so-so. The weight for a weapon of this caliber was excessive, the effective firing range did not exceed 500 m, the rate of fire for such a mass and dimensions is low.
        1. -2
          18 August 2022 09: 34
          Frankly

          Frankly speaking ... the recognition of the enemy is more valuable than the conclusions of our unfortunate historians.
          1. +5
            18 August 2022 12: 41
            Quote: Konnick
            Frankly speaking ... the recognition of the enemy is more valuable than the conclusions of our unfortunate historians

            Well, if you listen to the enemy, then "General Frost" prevented the Germans from taking Moscow.
            As for the "woe of historians" (I don't know who you are talking about), it is not necessary to listen to them. It is enough to independently compare the characteristics of the Soviet ZPU M4 and the German Zwillingssockel 36, despite the fact that the rate and effective range of fire are approximately the same. Even a surrogate built-in installation based on the PV-1 aircraft machine guns was more successful than the quadruple M4. Indirect evidence of this is the fact that the Germans very willingly used captured DShKs, but at the same time most of the 7,62-mm quadruple installations were transferred to the Finns. In Finland, captured M4 installations were reworked, getting rid of water cooling.
            1. -1
              18 August 2022 13: 20
              Well, if you listen to the enemy, then "General Frost" prevented the Germans from taking Moscow.

              The order of the Luftwaffe General Fiebig was for internal use, therefore it is quite objective. And to ignore the weather conditions in the victory near Moscow is simply stupid. The Germans fought well with the active support of aviation, and there was no such support near Moscow, including because of the weather.
              1. +2
                19 August 2022 01: 02
                Quote: Konnick
                The order of the Luftwaffe General Fiebig was for internal use, therefore it is quite objective.

                A moot point ... Quadruple Maxims of German aviation certainly inflicted certain losses, but these installations were already outdated at the time they were put into service, and the author is absolutely right in this. What would a German general sing if we had the same anti-aircraft artillery as the Wehrmacht?
    2. +7
      18 August 2022 09: 23
      Quote: Sibiryak 66
      Oh, we would have such in the 41st ..

      In 1941, we would have had anti-aircraft units fully equipped with equipment and weapons. The shortage of 12,7 mm DShK machine guns and 37 mm 61-K assault rifles was up to 70%.
      1. +3
        18 August 2022 10: 06
        The shortage of 12,7 mm DShK machine guns and 37 mm 61-K assault rifles was up to 70%

        The Black Sea Fleet suffered especially from this. I even had to rearrange the DShK from the torpedo boat that arrived after the raid to another, which was being prepared for going to sea.
  4. +3
    18 August 2022 06: 18
    Good morning friends!

    Thank you Sergey for an interesting continuation of an interesting article. good

    I dug around and found this interesting photo "MG-151/20 Drilling"



    The caption under the photo -- "... semi-handicraft installations with guns "MG-151" were made in parts. In total, about 15 thousand performance characteristics of the installation were redone: caliber - 20 mm; length - 1,7 m; barrel length - 1,1 m; weight of a single-barrel gun - 42 kg; rate of fire - 750 rounds per minute; projectile weight - 115 kg; initial speed - 725 m / s; ammunition - 20x82 mm: ammunition - tape in boxes (450 rounds per central barrel, 240 per lateral); effective firing range - 600 m.
    1. +9
      18 August 2022 09: 10
      Quote: Sea Cat
      Thank you Sergey for an interesting continuation of an interesting article.

      Kostya, good day!
      Again went for mushrooms and this article was published in my absence. request
      Quote: Sea Cat
      I dug around and found this interesting photo "MG-151/20 Drilling"

      Of course, I'm very sorry, but in your photo - a 20-mm anti-aircraft gun 2,0 cm Flak 28 for natron 20 × 110 mV in a position for firing at ground targets, manufactured by the Oerlikon company in Switzerland. In total, in the period from 1940 to 1944, Oerlikon supplied Germany, Italy and Romania with 7013 20-mm machine guns, 14,76 million shells, 12 spare barrels and 520 cartridge boxes. Several hundred of these anti-aircraft guns were captured by German troops in Belgium, Holland and Norway.

      Here is a staged photo of German soldiers simulating fire on a ground target.

      Due to the low rate of fire and the use of box magazines for 2,0 and drum magazines for 28 rounds, the combat rate of fire of 15 cm Flak 30 was relatively small, in general, thanks to a simple and reliable design and acceptable weight and size characteristics, it was a quite effective weapon, with an effective range of fire at air targets - up to 1,5 km.

      The same installation in the position for firing at air targets
      1. +4
        18 August 2022 16: 50
        Sergey, hello and best wishes! smile

        I took it all from -- All about World War II
        Historical, scientific and educational site about the Second World War.
        Anti-aircraft guns | Germany
        02/05/2017 by Administrator.

        Now I am once again convinced that you should not get into a topic in which you are not entirely competent, and even an extra confirmation of the reliability of information on the Internet.
        But someone still gave pleasure - there are so many minuses stuck, really for the cause. laughing

        A bow from me to Olga. love
  5. +5
    18 August 2022 06: 46
    The author forgot to take into account the factor of a significant reduction in the size of the front of hostilities in 1945 compared to 1941. Which, in turn, led to an increase in the concentration of MZA barrels, which led to an increase in the losses of our aviation from anti-aircraft fire. Everything else seems to be correct.
    1. +1
      18 August 2022 06: 54
      Does the author also not take into account the losses of the enemy’s MZA in manpower and equipment?
      1. +6
        18 August 2022 07: 31
        With this to the author. hi
    2. +2
      18 August 2022 14: 11
      "from anti-aircraft fire" they stupidly did not have enough fighters
  6. +4
    18 August 2022 10: 45
    Fortunately, the Germans did not have radio contact viewers .... It was not in vain that the Anglo-Saxons staged a pogrom against Japanese aviation on the Pacific!
    1. +8
      18 August 2022 11: 22
      Quote: bagatura
      Fortunately, the Germans did not have radio contact viewers .... It was not in vain that the Anglo-Saxons staged a pogrom against Japanese aviation on the Pacific!

      What are "radio contact fuses"? Maybe radar, and what do they have to do with MZA?
  7. +4
    18 August 2022 13: 30
    Hello. Sergey! With this work, I never bothered to read some of your previous articles. Well, today it turned out to read with pleasure! good .
  8. +1
    18 August 2022 14: 08
    "German anti-aircraft crews"
    In the Second World War, the MZA had calculations from girls. In my opinion, we also had "four-barreled * ...
    It seems in the movie "Alexander Garden" such a gun.
    It seems that Rudel wrote that Soviet girls were more courageous than men to gunners.
    1. +2
      19 August 2022 11: 33
      hi
      It seems that he mentioned this when describing the battles on the Volga.
      Something like "their fire was accurate, we were told that their crews consisted of women. Before the flight, many said "I flew on a date with Russian anti-aircraft gunners"".
    2. +3
      20 August 2022 13: 03
      hi
      I found a more accurate quote from Rudel by searching: "When we are going on daytime flights to this sector, our crews always say: "We have a date with these anti-aircraft gunner girls today." This is by no means disparaging, at least to those who have already flown this sector and know how accurate they are."
      1. +1
        20 August 2022 15: 19
        No matter how the phrase sounds .. The essence remains: our girls fought with the Luftwaffe and tanks.
        Still small, a frame from some movie: near Stalingrad, girls, zinitchers fired at tanks and died
  9. +3
    19 August 2022 11: 30
    hi
    As always, great article!
    Of course, it is interesting how the Germans coped with the supply of MZA shells for so many different calibers ... But, with a big BUT, their MZA was very effective.
    1. +3
      20 August 2022 13: 59
      Quote: Wildcat
      As always, great article!

      drinks
      Quote: Wildcat
      Of course, it is interesting how the Germans coped with the supply of MZA shells for so many different calibers ...

      They coped easily, shells of all the listed calibers were in abundance in the depots of aviation weapons.