Anti-tank capabilities of American aviation during the Second World War

63
Anti-tank capabilities of American aviation during the Second World War

Prior to entering World War II, the United States did not have specialized combat aircraft designed to combat armored vehicles. Work in this direction began later than in other countries and, despite the creation of a number of flying prototypes, did not end with the adoption of real samples.

In the future, to combat tanks, in addition to fighter-bombers and light bombers that launched airstrikes using rockets, napalm tanks, 113-kg, 227-kg and 454-kg air bombs against clusters of enemy armored vehicles, long-range four-engine bombers carrying heavy landmines were actively working.



Unlike the British Royal Air Force, the US Air Force did not have squadrons specialized in hunting down German armored vehicles. The American fighter-bombers involved in strikes against ground targets acted at the request of ground air controllers or were engaged in "free hunting" in the near German rear or on communications. After the Allied troops landed in Normandy, the main tactic to counter German tanks and self-propelled guns was to isolate the battlefield and prevent the delivery of equipment, ammunition and fuel to the front, as well as prevent the possibility of timely maintenance, repair and evacuation of faulty armored vehicles.

A-36A Apache fighter-bomber/dive bomber


In the initial period of the war, the US Air Force did not have direct attack aircraft aviation support and, although the design of such aircraft was carried out, they were not mass-produced. To destroy armored targets, the Americans actively used aircraft that were not originally intended for this. Of all American combat aircraft, the Mustang and Thunderbolt fighter-bombers operating over the front line and in the near German rear destroyed and knocked out the most tanks.

The first American aircraft to achieve notable success in combating enemy armored vehicles was the relatively little-known A-36 Apache fighter-bomber in our country, also used for dive bombing.


A-36A Apache

The first Mustang fighters appeared in RAF combat squadrons in early 1942. The aircraft had excellent aerodynamics, was easy to fly and had good maneuverability.

However, the Allison V-1710-39 engine installed on the Mustang I fighter lost power significantly after climbing over 4 meters. Considering that air battles over the British Isles were mainly held at medium and high altitudes, the combat value of the first Mustang as an interceptor was not high. In this regard, the entire batch of American-made fighters was transferred to the Tactical Air Command, which directly interacted with army units.

British pilots flying the Mustangs of the first modification were mainly engaged in low-altitude photographic reconnaissance, free hunting on railways and roads, and attacking pinpoint ground targets along the coast. Later, their tasks included the interception of single German aircraft trying at low altitude, out of sight of British radar, to break through and strike at targets in the UK.

With the success of the low-altitude Mustang fighter, in April 1942, North American received an order to build a purely attack aircraft that could drop bombs from a dive. In total, it was supposed to build 500 aircraft.

The strike A-36A had a maximum takeoff weight of 4 kg. The practical flight range was 535 km. Allison 1-200 liquid-cooled engine with a capacity of 1710 hp. With. in level flight could accelerate the aircraft to 87 km / h. Built-in armament included six 1 mm machine guns. The combat load initially consisted of two 325-kg (587-pound) bombs, later incendiary tanks with napalm began to be hung on the dive bomber.

Due to the fact that the Apache could develop a very high speed in a steep peak, perforated brake flaps were installed on the A-36A to ensure safe bombing.


The first combat use of Apaches occurred in July 1942. The pilots of the 27th Light Bomber Group and the 86th Dive Bomber Group operating in Italy began their first combat missions, attacking targets in Sicily, and over 1 sorties were flown within a month. In August 000, both groups were renamed fighter-bomber.

At the initial stage, A-36A pilots mainly bombed from a dive. Usually, sorties were made as part of a group of 4–6 aircraft, which alternately swooped down on the target from a height of 1–200 m, while the bombing accuracy was quite high. After the bombs were dropped, the target was often fired upon with machine guns, making 1-500 combat runs.

The designers and command believed that the key to the invulnerability of the Apaches was their high speed. This was partly true, but the rather high characteristics of German small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery and the level of training of anti-aircraft crews were not taken into account. When making repeated visits to the target, the anti-aircraft gunners had time to react and shoot, and the losses of the dive bombers were often very significant. In addition, when diving at high speed, the aircraft often became unstable, which was associated with abnormal operation of the aerodynamic brakes.

To reduce losses, a different tactic was used: all bombs were dropped in one run, bombing was carried out from a shallower dive angle and from a greater height. This allowed to reduce losses, but the accuracy of bombing dropped significantly.

Observers noted that the A-36A operated very successfully in places of accumulation of armored vehicles and transport columns. However, 500-pound bombs were ill-suited for use against tanks deployed in battle formation. The combat effectiveness of "Apache" against tanks could be significantly higher when using incendiary tanks with napalm. But incendiary tanks were mainly used against the Japanese, in the jungles of Burma.

It is worth noting that the Apache was not an easy opponent for enemy fighters and could well stand up for itself, but most often fighter-bombers, due to their high flight speed, broke away from enemy interceptors.

At a certain stage of the hostilities, the Apaches played a very prominent role, having a significant impact on the course of hostilities in certain sectors of the front. So, in September 1943, A-36A fighter-bombers and R-38 heavy fighters provided almost decisive assistance to units of the 5th US Army in the Apennines, which found themselves in a very difficult situation. Thanks to a series of successful strikes against enemy concentration points, bridges and communications, the offensive impulse of the German troops was stopped.

It was the Apache pilots who developed the tactics that later turned out to be the most successful. Instead of chasing enemy tanks on the battlefield, they tried to cover them while moving in columns along narrow roads, having previously destroyed bridges and crossings or creating blockages from broken vehicles at key crossroads and mountain roads.

In total, A-36A fighter-bombers made 23 sorties in the Mediterranean and Far Eastern theaters, during which more than 373 tons of bombs were dropped. In air battles, A-8A shot down 000 enemy aircraft. Own losses amounted to 36 units. Most of the lost Apaches were hit by anti-aircraft fire.

The combat career of the A-36A in US Air Force combat squadrons ended in the first half of 1944, when the P-51D Mustang and P-47D Thunderbolt fighters began to arrive en masse.

Fighter-bombers P-51D Mustang and P-47D Thunderbolt and their weapons used against armored vehicles


By the time the Allied troops landed in northern France, American P-51 and P-47 escort fighters, thanks to their increased flight range, could accompany bombers in raids over the entire territory of Germany. Their characteristics improved so much that they became able to confidently withstand any Luftwaffe aircraft.

On the way back, the pilots of the Mustangs and Thunderbolts often fired at ground targets with machine guns. It also turned out that these aircraft, in the case of suspension of bombs and missiles, are capable of effectively providing close air support to ground units and fighting tanks.


P-51D Mustang

The Mustang was not only very beautiful, but also one of the fastest American piston fighters of the Second World War. After the R-51D received the Rolls-Royce Merlin V-1650-7 engine with a maximum power of 1 hp. with., he could accelerate in horizontal flight to 695 km / h. With a maximum takeoff weight of 705 kg, the combat radius was 5 km.

The built-in armament of the Mustang was standard for American fighter aircraft - six 12,7-mm Brownings. Reinforced bomb racks were installed on the R-51D. Now the fighter-bomber could carry two bombs of 454 kg each - at that time it was a normal bomb load for a front-line bomber. Accordingly, instead of bombs, it was possible to take rockets or external tanks of a larger capacity.


The P-51D modification fighter became the most massive in the Mustang family, more than 7 units were built. Although the aircraft had a liquid-cooled engine, which was less resistant to combat damage than an air-cooled engine, this did not become an obstacle to the active use of Mustangs in strike missions.

The Thunderbolt was not as sleek as the Mustang and did not have as good aerodynamics. But this aircraft was a vivid example of the fact that a very powerful engine is capable of providing sufficiently high flight data for a car that does not shine with the perfection of forms.


R-47D Thunderbolt

Pratt Whitney R-2800-63 air-cooled engine with 2 hp afterburner. With. provided in horizontal flight a speed of a little more than 300 km / h. The maximum takeoff weight was 700 kg. Such a heavy aircraft, equipped with a very powerful engine, had no equal in diving, which American pilots often used when it was necessary to break away from enemy fighters. In a steep fall, the P-7D could exceed the speed of 998 km / h. The flight range made it possible to escort long-range bombers. When using PTB - 47 km.


The armament of the P-47D was very powerful - eight 12,7 mm machine guns. As a fighter-bomber, the P-47D could carry up to 1 kg of bombs: two 135 kg bombs under the wings and one 454 kg bomb under the fuselage.

"Thunderbolts" actively fought in all theaters, in total, the customer accepted 12 fighters of the P-602D modification.

When American fighter-bomber pilots had to operate against enemy armor, they preferred to use rockets.


An American soldier holds a 114-mm unguided rocket M8A2 in his hands

The American 114-mm (4,5-inch) M8 rocket compared to the British RP-3 rocket had a much more advanced design, better aerodynamic launchers, good weight perfection and high firing accuracy. This was achieved due to the successful layout and the use of spring-loaded stabilizers, which opened when the rocket exited the tubular launcher.


Fighter-bomber P-51D with PU NAR M8

The M8 rocket had a mass of 17,6 kg and a length of 911 mm. An engine containing 2,16 kg of solid fuel accelerated it to 260 m/s. In practice, the speed of the rocket was summed up with the speed of the launch vehicle. High-explosive warhead contained 1,9 kg of TNT. In the event of a direct hit by a rocket with a high-explosive warhead, it broke through armor up to 30 mm thick. There was also an armor-piercing modification with a steel blank, which, with a direct hit, could penetrate 45–50 mm armor, but such missiles were rarely used.

The combat use of M8 rockets began in the spring of 1943. The first carrier of M8 missiles was the P-40 Tomahawk fighter, but subsequently these NARs became very widespread and were used on single-engine and twin-engine American combat aircraft.


P-47D fighter-bomber with M8 missile launchers

At the end of 1943, the improved M8A2 and M8A3 models went into production. These modifications received folding stabilizers with an increased area, which improved stability after launch. The mass of explosives in the warhead increased by 200 g. Thanks to the use of a new gunpowder formulation, the thrust of the sustainer rocket engine was increased, which in turn had a beneficial effect on accuracy and firing range.

In total, more than 1945 million 2,5-mm aircraft rockets were produced before the beginning of 114.

In general, the NAR M8 family turned out to be very successful. In terms of firing accuracy, 114-mm American aircraft missiles were about 3 times superior to British RP-2s. At the same time, having a good effect on manpower and poorly protected targets, M8 rockets could not always hit heavy armored vehicles and pillboxes even with a direct hit. In this regard, in 1944, the 127-mm NAR 5HVAR (English High Velocity Aircraft Rocket - high-speed aircraft rocket) was adopted by the American aviation. In the US Air Force, she received the informal name "Holy Moses" (Holy Moses).


127-mm HAP 5HVAR

As a high-explosive fragmentation part of the 5HVAR rocket, a 127-mm artillery shell weighing 20,4 kg, equipped with 3,5 kg of TNT, was used. Without taking into account the speed of the carrier aircraft, a rocket projectile with a length of 1,83 m and a mass of 64 kg was accelerated by a sustainer solid-propellant engine to 420 m/s.

To destroy armored targets, a missile with a solid steel warhead, with a carbide tip, was intended. According to American data, a 127-mm NAR with a solid steel armor-piercing warhead was capable of penetrating the frontal armor of the German Tiger, and a high-explosive fragmentation rocket, in the event of a direct hit, was guaranteed to disable medium tanks and self-propelled guns based on them.


In tests with 5-inch high-explosive fragmentation rockets, it was possible to break through 57-mm cemented ship armor. In the immediate vicinity of the point of explosion, fragments could pierce armor 12–15 mm thick. Despite the fact that this rocket used clumsy cruciform stabilizers, it was not inferior to the M8 in terms of launch accuracy.

According to the complex of service and operational and combat characteristics, the 127-mm 5HVAR is considered the most advanced type of unguided aircraft rockets used by the Americans during World War II. They became widespread in the allied countries of the United States and were in service in a number of states until the end of the 1990s.

American fighter-bombers often dropped 113-kg, 227-kg and even 454-kg bombs on German armored vehicles. At the same time, in order to avoid being hit by fragments of their own bombs, it was necessary to strictly limit the minimum drop height or use deceleration fuses. Also from the middle of 1944 in Europe, single-engine attack aircraft began to drop 625-liter tanks with napalm, but they were used relatively infrequently.


More heavy-lifting Thunderbolts were more often used as bomb carriers, and rockets were usually hung under the wings of the Mustangs. It is clear that the P-47D was much inferior in bombing accuracy to specialized dive bombers, but given the caliber of the bombs dropped from the Thunderbolts, the magnitude of the miss often did not matter.

The effectiveness of American aviation against German tanks


The Americans were largely forced to use fighter-bombers to solve strike missions. However, this decision turned out to be quite successful, which is associated with the specific conditions of hostilities in Western Europe. By the time the Allies landed in Normandy, the main best German flight personnel were ground on the Eastern Front or defended the German skies from devastating heavy bomber raids.

Even with serviceable fighters in the Luftwaffe, they often could not take to the air due to a chronic shortage of aviation gasoline. And the German anti-aircraft artillery on the Western Front in 1944 was not at all the same as, say, in 1942 in the East. It is not surprising that under these conditions, unarmored Mustangs and Thunderbolts dominated the battlefield and piracy in the enemy's near rear.

A typical American fighter-bomber tactic was a surprise attack from a shallow dive. When operating on columns, railway junctions, artillery positions and other targets behind the German defense line, repeated combat visits in order to avoid losses from anti-aircraft fire, as a rule, were not carried out. American pilots, providing close air support to their units, also tried to inflict "lightning strikes", after which they carried out low-altitude escape.

Unlike the Soviet Il-2, they did not iron the target, making several attacks, and, accordingly, the losses of American fighter-bombers from small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery were minimal. With such tactics, taking into account the total superiority of the allies in the air and the number of American strike aircraft flying out daily on combat missions, it was impossible for the Germans in the daytime in flying weather to make any movement along the roads in the front line.


The incessant attacks from the air had a debilitating effect on the tankers. As the Germans themselves said, on the Western Front they developed a “German look” - the personnel of the Panzerwaffe, even far from the front line, constantly looked at the sky with alarm in anticipation of an air raid.


In general, the average effectiveness of the R-51D and R-47D bombing and assault strikes using bombs and missiles was about the same as that of Soviet or German attack aircraft. Thus, under ideal test site conditions, missiles managed to hit a stationary target in 6-8% of launches.

Things were no better with the accuracy of rockets on the battlefield. So, when examining the wrecked and destroyed German armored vehicles at the site of the battles in the Ardennes, it turned out that only 6 tanks and self-propelled guns were hit by rockets, although the pilots claimed that they managed to hit 66 armored vehicles. During a massive missile attack on a tank column of about fifty tanks on a highway in the vicinity of La Baleine in France, 17 units were declared destroyed. During the survey of the air strike site, only 9 tanks were found on the spot, and only two of them could not be restored.

Given the total air superiority that the Allies had at the final stage of the war, the Americans could use all the combat aircraft they had, including heavy bombers, against German tanks. There are many cases when dozens of B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers were involved in the bombing of German tank units, which swept away enemy concentration areas with carpet bombing. After such massive bombings, even the surviving crews on serviceable tanks often lost their combat capability due to the strongest moral shock.

The direct hunt for German armored vehicles was not as effective in terms of reducing the combat capability of the enemy as paralyzing strikes on German transport communications. Much more effective were attacks against unarmored targets such as trains, tractors, trucks, and fuel trucks.

Allied fighter-bombers in the daytime, under good weather conditions, reliably blocked the movement of German troops, made it impossible to transport ammunition, fuel, food and evacuate damaged equipment. This circumstance most negatively affected the capabilities of the German troops. German tankers, left without fuel, ammunition and spare parts, were forced to abandon their vehicles.

Thus, American fighter-bombers, unable to hit most of the enemy armored vehicles, became the most effective anti-tank weapon, depriving the enemy of supplies.
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    21 November 2022 06: 12
    The main advantage of the United States is private military companies that are fighting for the supply of equipment to the armed forces. Progress loves competition, I hope ours will also come to this over time, this is especially true in the development of drones and various electronic systems, even the FCS can be ordered from private traders.
    1. +3
      21 November 2022 07: 34
      Quote from Eva Star
      The main advantage of the United States is private military companies that are fighting for the supply of equipment to the armed forces.

      The main advantage is not that they are private, but that there are A LOT of them (more than one).

      having previously destroyed bridges and crossings
      Interestingly, this "discovery" about bridges will finally illuminate the leadership of the NWO?
      1. 0
        21 November 2022 15: 23
        And with the needs there, it seems, they are better defined
        1. -1
          21 November 2022 16: 38
          Quote: Oleg812spb
          And with the needs there, it seems, they are better defined

          Needs like military requirements? So they are not a market, but the Ministry of Defense determines ...
          1. +2
            21 November 2022 23: 54
            So I'm hinting at their Ministry of Defense. And who will get the contract depends on many factors.
            1. -1
              22 November 2022 08: 38
              Quote: Oleg812spb
              So I'm hinting at their Ministry of Defense.

              Then it’s clear, then it’s enough to compare RAND and ... it seems there is nothing to compare with ...
    2. -4
      22 November 2022 10: 24
      Read the history of the adoption of the very successful F / A-18.
      And F15 is basically the same.
      Both in the first and in the second case undercover games of concerns were used. As a result, instead of the first, they began to produce the obviously not very successful F16, and the second "won" the much more functional F14.
  2. 0
    21 November 2022 06: 26
    So did these missiles pierce the frontal armor of the tiger or not?
    On the western front, the Allies were able to reliably ensure air supremacy, so their aviation acted very effectively. Well, it’s clear that much more advanced aircraft allow you to act much better
    1. +2
      21 November 2022 09: 50
      So did these missiles pierce the frontal armor of the tiger or not

      doubtful, the mass is not bad. but the speed is not enough, although at the final stage of the war there was evidence of a deterioration in the quality of German armor
    2. +1
      21 November 2022 15: 19
      Witman and his Tiger are recorded by some as victims of attack aircraft missiles.
  3. +8
    21 November 2022 06: 52
    The Mustang was not only very beautiful,
    Agree completely! Of the pistons, only the "SuperTucano" is more beautiful, but that's another story.
    Thank you, Sergey!
    1. +5
      21 November 2022 07: 12
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      The Mustang was not only very beautiful,
      Agree completely! Of the pistons, only the "SuperTucano" is more beautiful, but that's another story.
      Thank you, Sergey!

      Regarding the aesthetic perception of "Mustang" and "Supertucano" I completely agree with you. But in fairness, it is worth noting that the Brazilian TCB, which is often used as a light attack aircraft, has turboprop power plant.
      1. +4
        21 November 2022 07: 19
        Oh sure. I wrote without thinking. Thank you!
    2. +4
      21 November 2022 08: 13
      Of the piston ones, only "SuperTucano" is more beautiful

    3. 0
      21 November 2022 12: 40
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      Of the piston ones, only "SuperTucano" is more beautiful

      Since when did the Super Tucano suddenly become a piston? EMB 314 Super Tucano - powerplant: 1 x Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68C 1196 kW (1604 hp) turboprop
    4. +5
      21 November 2022 13: 05
      Hello Anton! smile

      The Mustang was not only very beautiful,


      Well, it was necessary to support the brand! wink Everyone who bore this name was beautiful.




      Sergey, as always, thank you very much for the great work! good

      The direct hunt for German armored vehicles was not as effective in terms of reducing the combat capability of the enemy as paralyzing strikes on German transport communications. Much more effective were attacks against unarmored targets such as trains, tractors, trucks, and fuel trucks.


      So, and without direct raids on military equipment, aviation achieved an effective impact on the capabilities of the German tank forces. Although tanks were also hit, the Yankees at one time disputed with the British the honor of destroying the Wittmann tank with the entire crew, attributing this to their Thunderbolts, but this, of course, is not a fact.
    5. 0
      21 November 2022 19: 35
      I agree completely!

      The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation CA-15 Kangaroo is just as good.
  4. +3
    21 November 2022 08: 19
    However, the Allison V-1710-39 engine installed on the Mustang I fighter ...
    Author: Sergey Linnik

    What power did he put out?
    In addition to power, how did the V-1710-87 differ from it?
    1. +2
      22 November 2022 10: 47
      In addition to power, how did the V-1710-87 differ from it

      The biggest difference is the gear ratio of the supercharger drive. Other differences include ignition distributors, magnetos, oil pumps, the presence or absence of a synchronizer, etc.
      1. +2
        23 November 2022 09: 08
        Quote from Yorick
        The biggest difference

        Thank you
        1. +1
          23 November 2022 09: 15
          Thank you

          My pleasure. Get in touch if so.
  5. +2
    21 November 2022 08: 21
    Even Sergei still screwed up about the Eastern Front in a conversation about American aircraft. Sadly.

    For reference. The Thunder had an exceptionally high wing loading. From that, his aerodynamics were, although worse than the Mustang, but comparable to the thin one, for example. 850 km / h is the standard dive speed (top speed) for any American aircraft, including the Cobra. Specifically, the R-47 at high altitudes could reach 1000 km / h on instruments (but perhaps these are hunting stories). At the same time, the Thunder's exceptional dive speed, mediocre maneuverability and lack of air brakes almost ruled out a steep dive when working on the ground. Usually they worked from a gentle dive, no more than 45 degrees.

    It is also funny that American tankers, not spoiled by the attention of the Air Force of the Army, in their memoirs for 44, quite often call the Thunder "dive-bomber".
    1. +4
      21 November 2022 08: 52
      From that, his aerodynamics, although worse than the Mustang, were comparable to the thin

      She was better (than the bad one)
      850 km / h is the standard dive speed (top speed) for any American aircraft, including the Cobra.

      So standard or extreme?
      The strength limit for the Mustang in a dive was 0.81 M. At 0.83M, the destruction of the structure began. But since destruction is a probabilistic process, Mustang in exceptional cases reached 0,83-0.85.
      The Mustang manual had a 505 mile speed limit of -808 km. In combat, pilots accelerated to 550 miles -880 km
      For a turntable, the manual speed limit is 500 miles.
      In all cases, we are talking about the measured speed IAS
      The actual speed (TAS) exceeds the measured speed with increasing altitude
      1. +3
        21 November 2022 10: 35
        Quote: Engineer
        So standard

        The word "standard" meant "any aircraft had the ability to accelerate to such a speed."
        Quote: Engineer
        The strength limit for the Mustang in a dive was 0.81 M. At 0.83M, the destruction of the structure began. But since

        965 km/h at sea level. Let's do it better without M))

        OK, to clarify so to clarify.

        In the manual of the 45th year (51-127-5) it is written that in the case of the Mustang, the problem is not the glider, but the wave crisis (compressibility), which makes the dive uncontrollable. TAS from 495 to 560 depending on altitude. 796-901 km/h.
        505 is IAS at 5000 feet. TAS respectively 900 km/h.
        1. +2
          21 November 2022 11: 14
          965 km/h at sea level. Let's do it better without M))

          Everything is fine with M. This is an objective criterion. It is clear that at sea level 0,81M is not achievable. Another thing is that it is not always possible to accurately determine M, but the same applies to IAS
          In the manual of the 45th year (51-127-5) it is written that in the case of the Mustang, the problem is not the glider, but the wave crisis (compressibility),

          There are no contradictions here. The wave crisis is accompanied by the strongest vibrations that the aircraft can not withstand. The British damaged their Mustang by 0.84M
          http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51d-dive-27-feb-45.pdf
          1. +4
            21 November 2022 11: 27
            Quote: Engineer
            but the same applies to IAS

            IAS is just the indicated speed, as I understand it, the air pressure on the sensor. That's why she falls so high.
            Quote: Engineer
            There are no contradictions here.

            Well, it doesn't hurt to clarify. It is one thing for you to lose the effectiveness of the controls, another thing from your wing begins to rip off the plywood.

            However, we are off topic.
            1. +2
              21 November 2022 11: 37
              IAS is just the indicated speed, as I understand it, the air pressure on the sensor. That's why she falls so high.

              Thanks, Cap. The idea was that the very process of measuring speed with a device is far from being as trivial as one might think.
              Well, it doesn't hurt to clarify. It is one thing for you to lose the effectiveness of the controls, another thing from your wing begins to rip off the plywood.

              The British in the report write about structural strength. The radiator cracked, the hydraulic line ruptured, the flap bent.
              American pilots write about loss of control.
              1. +3
                21 November 2022 11: 51
                OK, we came to the conclusion that 0,84 is a wrong exider on the glider. 892 km / h at an altitude of 11 km.
                1. +3
                  21 November 2022 12: 01
                  It seems to be yes, but there are strange moments.
                  The British have no word on handling problems. It is only said that at 0.75 M it began to roll slightly
                  I know two testimonies of American pilots about diving at top speeds. There it is about the sweat of control, but not a word about damage to the structure.
                  1. +2
                    21 November 2022 12: 15
                    As you said, the process of airframe destruction is a probabilistic issue. Plus, depending on the height, the aerodynamic pressure could differ significantly at the same Mach number.
                  2. +2
                    21 November 2022 16: 25
                    why did they put swept wing on planes? not for supersonic flights, is it?
    2. 0
      21 November 2022 09: 56
      there was an article, it seems, in "Wings of the Motherland" about the testing of Thunderbolt by Soviet pilots, with a verdict - this is not a fighter.
      1. +5
        21 November 2022 10: 54
        Soviet pilots did not fly at those altitudes and speeds where Thunderbolt was the king of the sky.
  6. 0
    21 November 2022 10: 15
    It seems to me that you can think about an attack aircraft with a VK2500 theater of operations ..... in addition to helicopters and with similar weapons.
    1. +3
      21 November 2022 10: 42
      Have been thinking for a long time.
      https://topwar.ru/93960-boevaya-selskohozyaystvennaya-aviaciya.html
      1. +2
        21 November 2022 11: 22
        End of this article:
        . At the moment, light turboprop multi-purpose aircraft are in high demand, and the demand for them is growing every year. Unfortunately, our country has nothing to offer in this market yet.

        And here one of the main thoughts is to become attached to serial theater and weapons ...
        1. +3
          21 November 2022 16: 26
          and make your own "supertukano"!
  7. +4
    21 November 2022 11: 00
    Please pay attention to the following passage:
    "So, under ideal conditions of the range, missiles managed to hit a stationary target in 6-8% of launches."
    Nothing changed. This is true even today.
    When you see a super duper helicopter that launches rockets from a pitch, what do you think? What is the probability of hitting a ground target? And in "Ukraine"?
    How much does one rocket cost? How much does one hour flight cost? Didn't think? But in vain. Especially if you work in the General Staff.
  8. -2
    21 November 2022 11: 02
    Unlike the Soviet Il-2, they did not iron the target, making several attacks, and, accordingly, the losses of American fighter-bombers from small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery were minimal.

    1. Losses from the German MZA of American aircraft on the battlefield were very heavy. From the MZA, they suffered 80-90% of all their combat losses, which were comparable in number to the losses of Soviet attack aircraft over the same period of time and much more in terms of the cost of lost aircraft. The same thing happened later in Korea.
    2. The Americans exaggerated the enemy's losses on the ground from air strikes by an average of 8-10 times. This is the result of a series of studies both in World War II and in Korea. The share of aviation in enemy losses hit an average of 5-6%.
    1. +4
      21 November 2022 11: 09
      Quote: Kostadinov
      From the MZA they carried 80-90% of all their combat losses

      Quote: Kostadinov
      The losses of the enemy on the ground from air strikes by the Americans exaggerated by an average of 8-10 times

      All figures are sucked from the finger.
  9. +2
    21 November 2022 11: 53
    Quote: Negro
    Quote: Kostadinov
    From the MZA they carried 80-90% of all their combat losses

    Quote: Kostadinov
    The losses of the enemy on the ground from air strikes by the Americans exaggerated by an average of 8-10 times

    All figures are sucked from the finger.

    Not at all.
    1. The losses of American and allied aviation in the West in 1944-45 by types of aircraft and the reasons for the loss are available to everyone.
    And losses in Korea can be found on individual aircraft and the alleged cause of the loss.
    2. Analysis of applications for destroyed equipment, including tanks, and the real results of American aviation in the West 44-45 and in Korea are also easily accessible. You just need to show interest in real statistics, and not in fisherman-hunting tales about wars.
    1. +2
      21 November 2022 12: 00
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Losses of American and allied aviation in the West in 1944-45 by types of aircraft and reasons for the loss

      Not available. Moreover, they never existed, given the practice of the Americans to write off everything that could reach the airfield, for technical reasons.
      Same for Korea.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Analysis of applications for destroyed equipment

      Applications have never interested anyone, except for the accounting department and the awards department.
      1. +5
        21 November 2022 12: 34
        Not available. Moreover, they never existed, given the practice of the Americans to write off everything that could reach the airfield, for technical reasons.

        https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA542518.pdf
        For the European theater of operations, the total losses are 17062 aircraft. In combat operations -11687. From anti-aircraft guns 5380.
        I don't see any weirdness. Non-combat losses seem to be even lower than in the Red Army Air Force (there, from memory, under 50%)
        The problem of damage beyond repair accounting existed for the statistics of all warring countries.
        American casualty statistics for the war as a whole are perhaps the most simple, detailed and accessible.
        Everything was calculated already in December 45th. The rest to learn
        1. +3
          21 November 2022 13: 33
          )))
          You decided to clarify here.

          It's a bit of a hassle to work with a 300 page document. Is there anything about losses from MZA in the amount of 90% of the total? Here a friend needs to kill the loss of 30+ thousand IL-2s.
          1. 0
            21 November 2022 13: 41
            You decided to clarify here.

            All Americanophobes will be punished am
            Is there anything about losses from MZA in the amount of 90% of the total?

            Losses from anti-aircraft guns are not broken down into MZA and large calibers, alas.
            1. +2
              21 November 2022 14: 21
              And together, how many in single-engine vehicles?

              PS Wangard is better than Alaska.
              1. +2
                21 November 2022 16: 00
                And together, how many in single-engine vehicles?

                page 255 in the document.
                PS Wangard is better than Alaska.

                On the flag, only slowpoke him instead of St. George.
                1. +3
                  21 November 2022 16: 38
                  Quote: Engineer
                  only slowpoke flag

                  But the money was given to pensioners.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  page 255 in the document.

                  2449 aircraft in three years? Is the patriot lying again?
                  1. +1
                    21 November 2022 16: 42
                    2449 aircraft in three years?

                    What's wrong again?
                    Theater specified? Did you remember the start date of the dense battles? Compared with the losses of the 8th VA?
                    1. +2
                      21 November 2022 16: 50
                      Here, a fellow patriot promised me to lime thunderbolts like IL-2.
                      Quote: Kostadinov
                      From the MZA they suffered 80-90% of all their combat losses, which were comparable in number to the losses of Soviet attack aircraft over the same period of time
                      1. -1
                        21 November 2022 16: 55
                        Your expectations are your problems
        2. +4
          21 November 2022 16: 58
          Gotta give them credit hi the statistics of losses are very plausible, and for subsequent conflicts, and not only for aviation.
  10. -1
    21 November 2022 12: 59
    Not available. Moreover, they never existed, given the practice of the Americans to write off everything that could reach the airfield, for technical reasons.
    Same for Korea.

    I will believe my eyes and what I wrote down from the net. The Americans have the practice of writing off as many losses as possible for technical reasons, but there are still statistics of losses and reasons.
  11. +1
    21 November 2022 18: 08
    1. The irretrievable losses of only the US Air Force in combat vilets on the so-called European theater swishe 17 thousand and on the Mediterranean, which is not included in the European swishe 10 thousand. At the same time, they fought for a shorter period against enemy ground forces
    2. More specifically, only in the Normandy operation and only 2 tactical air army lost irretrievably 829 aircraft, and 9 US air army 897 aircraft. Almost all of them are fighter-bombers that are lost when attacking terrestrial targets and more than 80% of the MZA. In general, the Allies irrevocably lost 4101 aircraft only in the Normandy operation.
    German losses of tanks and self-propelled guns in the operation are 1500, but of these, no more than 100 from aviation or less than 7%.
    Soviet losses of the Il-2 in combat flights alone for the entire 1944 were approximately 3,3 thousand aircraft.
    1. +3
      21 November 2022 18: 22
      Did you familiarize yourself with the materiel via the engineer's link?
  12. -2
    21 November 2022 18: 58
    American fighter-bombers ... became the most effective anti-tank weapon, depriving the enemy of supplies


    An uncritical attitude to the Anglo-American officialdom and myths about the war is simply the misfortune of all Russian-language publications
    1. -3
      21 November 2022 20: 45
      The main reason for all the successes of the Allies on the Western Front, except of course the monstrous superiority of forces, was the unwillingness of the Germans to fight with their brothers in European civilization.
      Where the Germans got down to business seriously, the Allies stood up like a stake and moved forward only after the Germans withdrew.
  13. +1
    21 November 2022 20: 41
    In general: "strength breaks straw." In general, the best anti-tank weapons of the Second World War, 14 and 16 inch guns of American and British battleships. After them, it was impossible not only to determine the types of broken tanks, there were problems with counting the number laughing.
    By the way, the author offends the Thunderbolts in vain, judging by the ratio of takeoff weight, engine power and speed, their aerodynamics were whiter than at their best. The Americans generally knew how to make thick planes very streamlined.
  14. +1
    22 November 2022 12: 41
    Quote: Grossvater
    In general, the best anti-tank weapons of World War II, 14 and 16 inch guns of American and British battleships.

    If the battleships could go on land (on tracks or wheels) and if they could be riveted in several hundred copies, and if mines, artillery and aviation were not beaten.
    1. -2
      22 November 2022 17: 17
      I just want to compare "anti-tank" aircraft
      R-51D Mustang crew 1 person
      engine with a maximum power of 1 liters. With.
      speed up to 700 km/h.
      maximum takeoff weight 5 262 kg
      the combat radius was 1 km.
      Built-in armament - 6 x 12,7-mm "Brownings", the mass of a second salvo is 250 kg / s
      fighter-bomber could carry two bombs of 454 kg = 900 kg
      IL-2 crew 2 people
      engine maximum power 1720l/s
      speed 420km/h
      maximum takeoff weight 5800-6060 kg (various options) including armor weight 990kg
      range 720 km
      Built-in weapons - two 2x23mm and 2x7.62mm, cannon shot mass 48 kg / s
      Bomb load -400kg
      1. 0
        23 November 2022 17: 24
        Dear colleague,
        in terms of bombs, the Mustang is certainly better, but in terms of gunnery, the VYa-23 is much better than the Brownings. So VYA-23 is a 195 gram projectile (energy 80,4kJ), and armor penetration is 25/400 m, and Browning is a 45 gram bullet (energy 19kJ), and penetration is 19/183, or data from the 80th year - 25/100 m.
  15. 0
    23 November 2022 11: 16
    Comparing a fighter and an attack aircraft is incorrect.
    The Mustang is less protected from the front and bottom and is more vulnerable to bullets and shrapnel. In World War II and Korea, he suffered very heavy losses when he descended to attack earthly targets.
    In addition, the Mustang does not have a second crew member and a defensive weapon in the rear hemisphere. When lowered to attack a target on the ground, he is very vulnerable to surprise attacks.
    1. 0
      23 November 2022 16: 41
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Comparing a fighter and an attack aircraft is incorrect.

      It is not correct to assume that a fighter and a fighter bomber are the same,
      It is ugly to put minuses for only one list of technical data, aircraft