Military Review

10 top bombers. Part one

119

Aviation brings death from heaven. Suddenly and inevitably. “Heavenly slow moving” and “Flying fortresses” - these are the main ones in the air. All other planes and ground-based missile systems, fighters and anti-aircraft guns - all this was created to ensure the successful operation of bombers or to counter enemy bombers.

The “Military Channel” TV channel made a rating of the best bombers of all times from 10 - and, as always, a hell of a mixture of cars of different classes and time periods came out. I think it necessary to rethink some points of the American program in order to avoid panic among the morally weak members of Russian society.

It is worth noting that many accusations against the Military Channel seem unreasonable - unlike Russian television with its endless comedy clubs, Discovery makes a truly bright, interesting program for the mass audience. He does as he can, often making absurd mistakes and frankly delusional statements. At the same time, journalists are not without objectivity - every Discovery rating contains truly outstanding models of equipment. The whole problem with the numbering of places, in the place of journalists, I would have canceled it altogether.

10 place - B-17 "Flying Fortress" and B-24 "Liberator"
Strategic bomber. Max. take-off weight 30 tons. Maximum speed 515 km / h. Combat radius: 3200 km with two tons of bombs. Ceiling 11 000 m.
Armament: up to 8 tons of bombs, 13 defensive machine guns caliber 12,7 mm.


In flight Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortress" and Consolidated B-24 "Liberator"

Henry Ford was repeatedly asked why his Willow Run aircraft factory had such a strange L-shape: in the midst of production, the conveyor suddenly turned at a right angle. The answer was simple: a giant assembly complex rested on the territory of another state, where the land tax was higher. The American capitalist considered everything up to a cent and decided that it was cheaper to set up factory workshops than to pay extra taxes.

Willow Run Main Assembly Line

Built in 1941-1942's. at the site of the former Ford parent farm, the Willow Run plant assembled the B-24 Liberator four-engined bomber. Paradoxically, this aircraft remained virtually unknown, giving up all the laurels of the “Flying Fortress”. Both strategic bombers carried the same bomb load, performed similar tasks and were very similar in design, while the B-17 produced 12 thousand aircraft, and the production volume of B-24, due to the talent of businessman Henry Ford, exceeded 18 thousand machines.
Heavy bombers actively fought on all fronts of the Second World War, covered the Arctic convoys, were used as transport aircraft, tankers, photo reconnaissance aircraft. There were projects of a “heavy fighter” (!) And even an unmanned projectile aircraft.

But the “Kreposty” and the “Liberators” were especially famous during their raids on Germany. Strategic bombardments were not an American invention - for the first time the Germans used this tactic, bombing the Dutch Rodders on 4 in May 1940. The British liked the idea - the very next day Royal Air Force planes crashed the Ruhr industrial area. But the real madness began in 1943 year - with the advent of the allies of the four-engine bombers, the life of the German population turned into a hellish disco.

Boeings in the skies of Europe

There are various interpretations of the combat effectiveness of strategic bombing. The most common opinion is that the bombs did not harm the industry of the Reich - despite all the attempts of the allies, the volume of German military production in 1944 was constantly increasing! However, there is the following nuance: military production continuously increased in all the warring countries, but in Germany the growth rates were noticeably lower - this is clearly seen in the figures for the production of armored vehicles (“Royal Tigers”, “Jagdpanthers” - only a few hundred units) or difficulties with the launch of a series of jets. Moreover, this “growth” was bought at a high price: in 1944, the civilian production sector was completely curtailed in Germany. The Germans had no time for furniture and gramophones - all forces were thrown into the war.

9 Place - Handley Page 0 / 400
Heavy bomber. Max. take-off weight 6 tons. Maximum speed 160 km / h. Flight range 1100 km. Ceiling 2600 m. Interesting fact: to climb 1500 m "super-bomber" required as much as 23 minutes.
Armament: 2000 pounds (907 kg) bomb load, 5 defensive machine gun caliber 7,7 mm.


Handley Page 0 / 400

Probably, "Discovery" meant the best bomber of the First World War. Well, I will disappoint the highly respected experts. The Handley Page 0 / 400 was, of course, a great airplane, but in those years there was a much more formidable bomber — the Ilya of Murom.
The four-engine Russian monster was created as a car for a peaceful sky: with a comfortable passenger cabin with heating and electric lighting, sleeping compartments and even a bathroom! The fantastic winged ship made its first flight in the 1913 year - 5 years before the British Handley Page, there was nothing like it in any country in the world at that time!
10 top bombers. Part one

Promenade deck "Ilya Muromets". Ladies and gentlemen could go out into the fresh air during the flight

But the world war quickly set its priorities - 800 kg of bomb load and 5 machine gun points - this was the lot of "Ilya Muromets". 60 bombers of this type were continuously used on the fronts of the First World War, while the Germans managed with enormous efforts to knock down only 3 machines. “Muromtsy” and after the war were used - the planes returned to their peaceful duties again, serving the first passenger-mail airline Moscow - Kharkov in the RSFSR.
It is unfortunate that the creator of this amazing machine left Russia in 1918 year. He was none other than Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky - the brilliant designer of helicopters and the founder of the world famous corporation Sikorsky Aircraft.

As for the Handley Page 0 / 400 twin-engine bomber, who admired Discovery, he was just an aircraft of his time. Despite the more advanced engines and equipment, its characteristics corresponded to the "Ilya of Murom", created on 5 years earlier. The only difference is that the British were able to deploy large-scale production of bombers, as a result, in the autumn of 1918, the sky over Europe plied around 600 of these “air fortresses”.

8 Place - Junkers Ju-88
High-speed bomber. Maximum take-off weight 14 tons. Speed ​​(at a height of 5300 m) 490 km / h. Flight range 2400 km. Ceiling 9000 m.
Armament: 4-5 defensive machine guns caliber 7,92 mm, up to 3000 kg of combat load.
(These figures correspond to the modifications Ju.88A4)


According to Discovery, the planes with black crosses on the wings showed themselves perfectly in Europe, but they were absolutely not suitable for attacking industrial facilities in the Urals and Siberia. Hmm ... the statement is, of course, fair, but Ju.88 was originally created as a front-line aircraft, and not as a strategic bomber.

The Schnellbomber became the main attack aircraft of the Luftwaffe - for Ju.88, any tasks were available at any height, and its speed often exceeded the speed of enemy fighters. The aircraft was used as a high-speed bomber, torpedo carrier, night fighter, high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, attack aircraft, and “hunter” for ground targets. At the end of the war, Ju.88 mastered a new exotic specialty, becoming the first rocket carrier in the world: in addition to the Fritz-X and Henschel-293 guided bombs, the Junkers periodically attacked London with airborne V-1 cruise missiles.

Ammunition under the belly of Yu-88 is of most interest.

Such outstanding abilities are explained, first of all, not by any outstanding technical characteristics, but by the competent use of Ju.88 and the prudent attitude of the Germans to technology. "Junkers" was not without flaws - the main of which is called weak defensive weapons. Despite the presence of firing points from 7 to 9, all of them were controlled, at best, by 4 crew members, which made it impossible to conduct defensive fire simultaneously from all barrels. Also, due to the small size of the cockpit, there was no possibility to replace the small-caliber machine guns with a more powerful weapon. The pilots noted the insufficient size of the internal bomb storage compartment, and with the bombs on the external sling, the combat radius of the Yunkeras was rapidly decreasing. It is fair to say that these problems were characteristic of many WWII front-line bombers, and Ju.88 was no exception here.

Returning to the previously stated assertion that Ju.88 was unsuitable for bombardment of targets in the deep rear of the enemy, then for such tasks there was another machine for the Fritz - Heinkel-177 “Griffin”. The two-screw (but four-engine!) German long-range bomber even surpassed the American “Air Fortresses” in a number of parameters (speed, defensive armament), however, it was extremely unreliable and fire-hazardous, having received the nickname “flying fireworks” —that the strange power plant cost when two engines rotated one screw!

He.177 Greif

A relatively small number of issued "Griffins" (about 1000 units) made it impossible to conduct large punitive operations. Heavy He.177 appeared on the Eastern Front only once - as a military transport aircraft to supply the German troops, surrounded at Stalingrad. In general, the Griffin was used at Kriegsmarin for long-distance reconnaissance in the vast Atlantic Ocean.

If we are talking about the Luftwaffe, it is very strange that the Junkers Ju.87 was not included in the list of the best bombers. “Laptezhnik” has more rights to be called “better” than many of the planes present here; he received all his awards not in an air show, but in fierce battles.

The abominable flight characteristics of the Ju.87 were leveled by its main advantage - the possibility of a steep dive. At a speed of 600 ... 650 km / h, the bomb literally "fired" at the target, while it usually fell into a circle with a radius of 15-20 m. Standard armament Ju.87 were large bombs (weighing 250 kg to 1 tons), therefore such targets as bridges, ships, command posts, artillery batteries were destroyed with one call. After a careful analysis, it becomes obvious that Ju.87 was not so bad, instead of a slow-moving clumsy “laptezhnika”, a completely balanced aircraft appeared in front of us, a formidable weapon in capable hands that the Germans proved to all of Europe.


7 place - Tu-95 (according to NATO classification - “Bear”)
Strategic turboprop bomber - missile carrier. Maximum take-off weight 190 tons. Maximum speed 830 km / h. Flight range 11 thousand. Km. Ceiling 12 000 m. Interesting fact: for 17 hours of flight, a bomber spends 96 tons of aviation kerosene!
Armament: multi-position drum launcher for launching cruise missiles, underwing holders. Up to 20 tons of combat load in various combinations. Aft defensive installation: 2 cannon GSH-23.
(These figures correspond to the modern version of the Tu-95MS)


February 2008 of the year. Pacific Ocean south of the coast of Japan. Two Russian strategic bomber Tu-95MS approached the carrier-based strike force of the US Navy led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Nimitz, while one of them flew over the deck of a giant ship at an altitude of 600 meters. In response, four F / A-18 fighters were raised from an aircraft carrier ...

Nuclear "Bear", as in the old bad times, still continues to pull the nerves of our Western allies. Although they now call it differently: barely seeing the familiar silhouette of the Tu-95, American pilots shout “Ba-Bush-ka” joyfully, as if hinting at the age of the car. The world's first and only turboprop bomber was put into service in the distant 1956 year. However, like his colleague B-52 - along with the American “strategist”, the Tu-95 became the longest-lived aircraft in stories aviation.

In October, 1961 was dropped from that Tu-95 by that monstrous “Tsar Bomb” with a power of 58 megatons. The carrier managed to fly off on 40 km from the epicenter of the explosion, but the blast wave quickly overtook the fugitive and randomly twisted the intercontinental bomber in a whirlwind of incredible power for several minutes. It was noted that a fire had arisen on board the Tupolev; after landing, the plane never again rose into the air.

Tu-95 became especially known in the West due to its interesting modifications:
Tu-114 - long-haul passenger airliner. The beautiful, impetuous plane created a sensation during its first flight to New York: For a long time the Americans could not believe that they were facing a civilian plane, and not a formidable “Bear” with a nuclear club. And realizing that this is indeed a passenger liner, they were surprised by its capabilities: range, speed, payload. In all felt military hardening.
The Tu-142 is a long-range anti-submarine aircraft, the basis of the naval aviation of our Fatherland.

And, perhaps, the most famous modification of the Tu-95RC - the "eyes and ears" of our fleet, a distant marine reconnaissance. It was these vehicles that monitored American aircraft carrier groups and participated in “joint maneuvers” with the raised deck-based Phantoms.

Discovery experts toured the Russian aircraft and carefully “appreciated” the comfort of the cockpit. Americans have always laughed very much at the barrel parasha behind the seats of the Tu-95 pilots. Indeed, despite the resilience of the Russian soldier, building an intercontinental bomber without a normal latrine looks at least silly. The strange problem was nevertheless solved, and the Tu-95MS still remains in service, being an integral part of the Russian Nuclear Triad.




6 Place - B-47 "Stratojet"
Strategic jet bomber. Max. take-off weight 100 tons. Maximum speed 975 km / h. Combat radius: 3200 km with a bomb load of 9 tons. Ceiling 10 000 m.
Armament: weight of combat load up to 11 tons, defensive tail set with two 20 mm guns.


The most beautiful bomber according to the Americans

... The first object was a large air base near Murmansk. As soon as the RB-47 turned on the cameras and started photographing, the pilots saw a spiral of predatory silver planes spin around the airfield - the MiGs went to intercept the intruder.
So began the air battle over the Kola Peninsula 8 in May 1954, the whole day the Soviet fighter air regiment unsuccessfully chased an American spy. RB-47E filmed all the “objects” and, scaring away the MiGs from the cannon fodder, dissolved in the sky over Finland. In fact, at that moment the American pilots didn’t have fun - the MiGs ’guns broke the wing, the scout barely reached the UK with the last drops of fuel.

The golden era of bomber aviation! The reconnaissance flights of the RB-47 clearly showed that the fighter, not having missile weapons and speed advantages, was not able to successfully intercept a bomber. There were no other ways to counteract then - as a result, the American B-1800 X-NUMX Stratojet could surely break through the air defenses and launch a nuclear strike on any point on the Earth’s surface.

Fortunately, the domination of the bombers was short-lived. 1 July 1960, the USAF failed to repeat its favorite focus with flights over Soviet territory - the ERB-47H electronic surveillance aircraft was mercilessly drowned in the Barents Sea. For supersonic MiG-19 interceptors, the pride of American strategic aviation has become a slow-moving, unwieldy target.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
119 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. toguns
    toguns 7 November 2012 08: 30
    +9
    wassat Of course, I understand everything about the review and all that, but how can you compare tactical and strategic aviation ???
    1. Civil
      Civil 7 November 2012 09: 35
      +1
      according to Ilya Muromets-600 and 60 is a lot ...
      1. 755962
        755962 7 November 2012 13: 06
        +12
        And perhaps the most famous modification of the Tu-95RC “The eyes and ears” of our fleet, a distant marine scout. It was these vehicles that monitored American aircraft carrier groups and participated in “joint maneuvers” with the raised deck-based Phantoms.

        I am proud of my Kipelovskys!
        http://www.vologda18.ru/
        1. FID
          FID 7 November 2012 13: 45
          +10
          392nd separate long-range reconnaissance aviation regiment (392 odrap). The regiment was created on 01.09.1963/1989/1993, in 95 it was redeployed to AS Ostrov, disbanded in XNUMX. The regiment was armed with long-range reconnaissance and target designation aircraft Tu-XNUMXRC;

          Currently, at Vologda AS (Kipelovo) (according to RNA): anti-submarine Tu-142MK and Tu-142MR repeater aircraft, can perform their own tasks anywhere in the world.
          1. 755962
            755962 7 November 2012 16: 34
            +2
            Thank you Sergey for your support and information. I’m glad that they still smoke Heaven for the good of the Motherland!
            1. FID
              FID 7 November 2012 16: 50
              +5
              Always happy!
  2. beech
    beech 7 November 2012 08: 30
    +5
    some strange rating ...
    1. JonnyT
      JonnyT 7 November 2012 08: 41
      +2
      Yes ...... strange but interesting!
      1. ICT
        ICT 7 November 2012 08: 54
        +10
        Quote: JonnyT
        Yes ...... strange


        I just don’t look at the place that the samopet took, but just read the description - good articles turn out

        thought someone seems to have expressed the title of the article to change something like "10 planes that left their mark on history"

        and everything will be acceptable
        1. Talgat
          Talgat 8 November 2012 15: 48
          0
          I totally agree. Why IL 2 is not taken into account.
          1. Konrad
            Konrad 8 November 2012 19: 23
            0
            Quote: Talgat
            Why IL 2 is not taken into account.

            IL 2 is a ground attack aircraft, but here is an overview of the bombers.
    2. Letun
      Letun 7 November 2012 09: 09
      +3
      but interesting to read wink
      1. Beck
        Beck 7 November 2012 12: 03
        -13
        The article is certainly entertaining.

        But the author somehow also made a mistake. Yu-87 attributed to the class of bombers. Yu-87, although it was called a single-engine bomber, it belonged to the class of attack aircraft. Its analogue in the Soviet army Il-2.

        Tu-95. The main drawback was not the parasha, but the noise of its engines. Even the sonar systems of submarines detected its flight. In the West, the Tu-95 was nicknamed the "Roaring Cow".
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 7 November 2012 13: 27
          +4
          In the West, the Tu-95 was nicknamed the "Roaring Cow".

          It seems that NATO called the Soviet atomic submarines of the first generations.
          1. Beck
            Beck 7 November 2012 14: 13
            -1
            Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
            It seems that NATO called the Soviet atomic submarines of the first generations.


            It’s completely, in your opinion. It means a mess in my brain. One is not so connected with the other. But that the jokes spotted this fact.
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 7 November 2012 15: 11
            +3
            Not the first generations, so-called legendary loaves - the 941 project. Later, during modernization, the noise was reduced, but in my opinion, they were not brought to an acceptable level.
            1. FREGATENKAPITAN
              FREGATENKAPITAN 8 November 2012 07: 59
              0
              Batons have always been called "Granites" and "Antei" 949 and 949а etc. ... to make it clear "Kursk"
              1. gispanec
                gispanec 8 November 2012 20: 32
                0
                Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
                Loaves have always been called "Granites" and "Antaei"

                educate what kind of loaf is this .... granite ???? ..... do not write nonsense ...... learn the materiel
                1. Old_kapitan
                  Old_kapitan 9 November 2012 03: 17
                  0
                  It is you who teach materiel. "Granite" - Project 949 SSGN. According to NATO classification - "Oscar-I". The next one is 949A "Antey". According to NATO classification - "Oscar-II". Both those and those in the fleet were called "Batons" - for the characteristic outline of the hull.
            2. Old_kapitan
              Old_kapitan 9 November 2012 03: 10
              +1
              Have a snack! "Roaring cows - SSGN with P-6 anti-ship missiles project 675. Later they upgraded to 675-MK with P-500" Basalt "anti-ship missiles, and even later - up to 675-MKV with P-1000" Vulkan "anti-ship missiles. Learn the materiel!
        2. Samovar
          Samovar 7 November 2012 13: 51
          +4
          Quote: Beck
          But the author somehow also made a mistake. Yu-87 attributed to the class of bombers.

          The U-87 belongs to the class of diving bombers, by the way, as well as the U-88. The main weapons of dive-bombers are bombs, and attack aircraft are small arms. So Yushka attack aircraft can only be in the modification G.
          1. Beck
            Beck 7 November 2012 14: 29
            -10
            Samovar.

            Here is somehow confusing. But the Il-2 is also a metal bomb from a gentle dive, so that it can also be called a twin-engine bomber. And also used cannon-rifle weapons from a shaving flight.

            I don’t know the modifications, but offensive armament was on all the south. And most importantly, the Ju-87 and Il-2 performed the functions of direct support of the infantry. Although there is a fact that it was "Stuck" that severely damaged the battleship "Marat" with two bombs.
            1. Samovar
              Samovar 7 November 2012 14: 47
              +3
              Quote: Beck
              metal bombs from a gentle dive, so that it can also be called a twin-engine bomber

              Nevertheless, bombs were not his main weapons.
              Quote: Beck
              but exchange rate weapons were on all Yu

              Again - if you have a gun, why go on the attack with a gun?
              1. Beck
                Beck 7 November 2012 15: 08
                -1
                Samovar.

                I got it. I give up. But only before the modification of G. Oh, there were 37 mm guns at Yu.
            2. Wedmak
              Wedmak 7 November 2012 15: 17
              +5
              Beck, IL-2 - single-engine. twin-engine - IL-4, but this is already a long-range bomber according to our classification (of the Second World War, of course). IL-2 with a shallow metal PTAB mainly.
              1. Beck
                Beck 7 November 2012 15: 20
                -3
                Vedmarku.

                Again hesitated. Of course single-engine ..
            3. Alf
              Alf 7 November 2012 18: 43
              +2
              Actually, IL-2 was single-engine.
            4. mamba
              mamba 7 November 2012 22: 22
              -1
              Quote: Beck
              there is a fact that it was "Stuka" that severely damaged the battleship "Marat" with two bombs.

              And actually destroyed it like a ship. This happened on September 23, 1941 in Kronstadt. During an air raid, one of the Yu-87 dive pilots, who piloted the Luftwaffe Rudel, dropped two 500 kg bombs that exploded on a tank and a utility. As a result, the ammunition of the first main-caliber tower was detonated. The tower, "jumping", fell into the gap formed by the deck. The nasal superstructure, along with all the fighting posts, instruments, anti-aircraft artillery, the nasal conning tower and the people there, fell on the starboard side and collapsed into the water. The first chimney fell there along with the casings of the armored grate. The ship's commander, senior assistant and 324 more sailors were killed. As a result of the damage, the ship was partially flooded and lay on the ground.
              Rudel’s memoirs indicate that he attacked the Marat twice: on September 16, he dropped two 500 kg bombs onto the Marat’s deck, and on September 23, one armored piercing bomb weighing 1000 kg.
              Only thanks to the courage of our sailors and the forces of the workers of the Kronshtadsky repair plant, the battered battleship was saved as a floating battery. The remaining three gun turrets and anti-aircraft guns continued to be used until the end of the blockade of Leningrad.
              1. mamba
                mamba 7 November 2012 22: 54
                +1
                Here are some pictures on this topic:



            5. Simon
              Simon 8 November 2012 15: 24
              +1
              Beck, you've seen the IL-2! He is with one engine. wassat
              1. Beck
                Beck 8 November 2012 15: 29
                -3
                To Simon.

                Zadolbali. Dear I up there already apologized for my typo. Well, damn it. How not to know the IL-2.
                1. gispanec
                  gispanec 8 November 2012 20: 37
                  0
                  Quote: Beck
                  Zadolbali. Dear I up there already apologized for my slip

                  this is not a fear beck ..... this is your professional level ..... and you are not sick and tired of it and you with your posts
            6. Konrad
              Konrad 8 November 2012 19: 30
              0
              [quote = Beck] But the IL-2 is also a metal bomb from a gentle dive, so that it can also be called a twin-engine bomber.
              You can call it anything you like, but the engine on the IL-2 was one!
              "Although there is a fact that it was" Stuck "that severely damaged the battleship" Marat "with two bombs.
              Hans Ulrich Rudel put it there.
            7. gispanec
              gispanec 8 November 2012 20: 35
              0
              Quote: Beck
              Here is somehow confusing. But the IL-2 is also a metal bomb from a gentle dive, so that it can also be called a twin-engine bomber

              do not be stupid with your posts ....... where the IL-2 has a second motor ... (the first in the nose of the fuselage) ....... God when these children will learn the materiel before writing anything ??? ?????
              1. Beck
                Beck 9 November 2012 08: 41
                -1
                To the Spaniard.

                Well, that’s why you are so not restrained. I was mistaken, I wrote erroneously. And you all climb to swear. As a child, I considered the IL-2 from the book of the hero of the Union, Talgat Begeldinov, who flew to Il twice. And you, because of an error, put everything out of yourself a snob. Wrote one, once noted an error. I apologized. You are again angry in the arc. And do not read my posts at all, who makes you. You won’t worry, you will be healthier.
            8. Old_kapitan
              Old_kapitan 9 November 2012 03: 26
              0
              Dear, bombs were thrown and used cannon-rifle weapons from a low-level flight even fighters. Even I-16! But no one recorded them in the bombers or attack aircraft.
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 7 November 2012 15: 09
            +3
            An analogue of Yu-87 was our Pe-2 - for tactics of use. Later replaced by Tu-2.
            I will add that our Il-2 attack aircraft were also equipped with NURSs and PTAB. The latter, applied to clusters of armored vehicles, showed excellent efficiency - sometimes up to a few hits in the car. Naturally, after this, not a single machine was suitable for operation.
            1. Beck
              Beck 7 November 2012 15: 16
              -4
              Vedmarku.

              Oh, let's think about it. Maybe the analogue to our Pe-2 was just Yu-88?
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 7 November 2012 15: 22
                0
                According to LTH, maybe, but I did not insert in vain "on tactics of application." I don’t remember that the USSR had another dive bomber. Pe-2, Tu-2, like everything ...
                1. Kaa
                  Kaa 7 November 2012 20: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  I don’t remember that the USSR had another dive bomber. Pe-2, Tu-2, like everything ...

                  And before them was Ar-2. Modification of the Security Council as a dive bomber, managed to take part in 1941, and quite well.
            2. SIT
              SIT 7 November 2012 17: 21
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              An analogue of the Yu-87 was our Pe-2 - for tactics of use. Later replaced by Tu-2

              By name only. It was impossible to get Pe 2 out of the vertical dive, because it was originally a long-range fighter. This is well illustrated in the film Chronicle of a Dive Bomber. There, the commander had to pull the steering wheel together with the navigator to get out of the dive. The Ju-87 was built according to American technologies and was precisely a dive bomber, which did not need high speed like that of the Pe2. Moreover, the American Downtless had special brake grilles that were produced during a dive.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 7 November 2012 18: 18
                0
                It is true that the first versions of the Pe-2 proved to be a capricious and difficult machine to drive. The latest versions already coped well, only by then they had already begun to replace them with more advanced Tu-2.
                1. Kaa
                  Kaa 7 November 2012 21: 04
                  +2
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  The latest versions already coped well, only by that time they had already begun to replace them with more advanced Tu-2s.

                  The mass use of the Pe-2 with a dive began only in 1943, about the Tu-2 - in general ... it is better to remain silent. "In total, from September 1941 to October 1942, plant No. 166 produced 80 Tu-2s. Production of the aircraft in Omsk was resumed only three years later by order of GKO No. 8934 of June 6, 1945. Deployment of production of Tu-2 at plant No. 23 At first it was not easy In November 1943, instead of the planned 10 aircraft, only one was assembled.In the 1943th quarter of 30, instead of 12 according to the plan, the plant assembled only 1944 aircraft, and in the 88st quarter of 31 - only 1944 instead of 1944. Only by the middle In 23, they managed to cope with the problems.In total, in 378, plant No. 1945 produced 742 aircraft, and in 166 - 23 more. Both factories (No. 1945 and No. 1216) produced 2 Tu-764s in XNUMX, of which XNUMX managed to receive participation in hostilities. The Tu-2 was never used as a dive bomber. Later, aerodynamic brakes were removed from the aircraft and completely abandoned the idea of ​​using it as a dive. During the war, the diving bomber was the Pe-2, and the Tu-2 became a clean medium bomber. http://www.airpages.ru/en/tu2bp.shtml
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 7 November 2012 21: 14
                    0
                    Ah, well, it means a little mistake on the Tu-2.
                  2. Antistaks
                    Antistaks 8 November 2012 22: 32
                    0
                    And on PE2 they dived very rarely. In addition to the memoirs of Polbin, I have never met any mention of a dive. The fact is that from a dive it was possible to drop bombs only from the EXTERNAL suspension. And the external suspension is a sharp decrease in speed. And the lower the speed, the closer the death.
              2. loft79
                loft79 7 November 2012 19: 37
                0
                Quote: SIT
                Moreover, the American Dountlesss had special brake grids, which were produced during a dive.


                The brake grilles were all peak. bombers
              3. FID
                FID 7 November 2012 20: 32
                +2
                Quote: SIT
                Yu-87 was built on American technology



                Don't go crazy. The Germans built their own aircraft, according to their own technologies. Fighters are much easier to withdraw from any maneuver (there is no such thing as a "vertical dive" - ​​there is: dive, steep ..., gentle ..). The plane is very difficult to get out of a steep dive, a fighter is lighter, but difficult. Brake grilles on the bottom on the planes or spoilers on the upper surface - what's the difference how to brake the plane and bring it down at the peak, so no need to invent. If you say somewhere that a fighter cannot be taken out of a dive, then you will simply not be understood.
                1. Vadivak
                  Vadivak 7 November 2012 21: 14
                  +2
                  Quote: SSI
                  The Germans built their aircraft, according to their technologies.


                  Comrade probably wanted to say that the first dive bombers were American one of the first aviators in the United States, Leonard W. Bonnie. During the Civil War in Mexico in 1913–15, one of his contemporaries left a rather curious description of his method. "Bonnie personally dropped his bombs at the end of the peak before leveling, and did not use any sights." In the year 14, they used for this Aircraft: Martin BM-1 from the aircraft carrier Lexington, and the real dive was made by the French Levasser PL-7, 1920
                  1. FID
                    FID 7 November 2012 21: 23
                    +1
                    Using a dive line instead of a bomb sight, yes. But the statement that it is impossible to get the fighter out of the dive, and the Pe-2 was really designed as a barrage fighter, is beyond my understanding. Then why do fighters really need to fly strictly horizontally? The head is not only eaten!
                2. SIT
                  SIT 7 November 2012 23: 58
                  0
                  Quote: SSI
                  No need to go crazy. The Germans built their aircraft, according to their technologies

                  The history of the creation of the U87 dates back to 1933. Then, Germany bought two dive bombers, the Heldiver (issued in 1928) in the USA, which Udet effectively demonstrated to Goering. After that, a contest was announced in which Junkers won. Naturally, all the best that Helldeiver took into account when creating Stukas.
                3. Antistaks
                  Antistaks 8 November 2012 22: 37
                  0
                  The main thing is not steep or gently sloping, but the speed at which the rudders cease to act. And does the term PICK IN DIP not tell you anything? Which fighter did you mean? Have you tried to dive at SU 15?
        3. igor67
          igor67 7 November 2012 14: 10
          +4
          Beck,
          I didn’t hear the American counterparts take off, but at the airport I watched 95 take off, although the earth cracked noisily, but I’ll say something intelligently, gracefully. I can’t pick the right words. Here I remembered and decided to add, during the bombing of Yugoslavia, Ukraine provided a flight by US planes over its territory, so somewhere around five in the morning with a roar no less than the 95th, colossus unfolded, specifically what kind of car I don’t know, four tracks from the back are possible B52?
          1. Beck
            Beck 7 November 2012 14: 49
            +2
            Igor.

            I'm not special. This is what was in memory and gave it out. And then, wherever we are, but we are from there, from the USSR, and secretly, but to the military equipment of the USSR, we will relate excitingly with a touch of sadness for our years. For example, I won't trade my T-54 for the Abrams, although I understand that in modern combat it will be fatal for the T-54. Unless the Abrams were ambushed.
            1. igor67
              igor67 7 November 2012 15: 20
              +5
              Beck,
              Yes, we are really from the USSR, and we live this way. I miss my Cossack how much reptile I drank, I look at the 95x pictures and think whether the engines that I collected are standing there, I tried to show my son, he doesn’t perceive.
              1. Beck
                Beck 7 November 2012 15: 27
                -1
                Igor.

                Well, you, why did you decide to interest the son of archaeological antiquity? They have chips, iPhones, three Ds, etc. They live in a different era. And we, as mammoths, live.
                1. igor67
                  igor67 7 November 2012 15: 42
                  0
                  Beck,
                  He wasn’t interested in tanks a bit when he started playing the world of tanks, and that's right Galaxy, chips, though he bought a rocking chair for him, a machine, not a hall
          2. FID
            FID 7 November 2012 15: 44
            +3
            And the Americans, apart from the B-52 and B-1, would not have gotten to Yugoslavia. True, the 52nd had 8 motors (2 on four pylons), and the B-1 had 4 motors. But at the height of 4 inverse tracks from 8 motors can and can be, can.
            1. igor67
              igor67 7 November 2012 15: 49
              +1
              FID,
              Sergey greets, that's why I don’t say it, I just remember fishing dawning 4-5 in the morning and suddenly these fools broke all the rims, and even if you think about where they flew to the U-turn
            2. Windbreak
              Windbreak 7 November 2012 16: 12
              0
              B-2 still has 4 engines
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 7 November 2012 16: 23
                0
                Located in pairs.
          3. Santa Fe
            7 November 2012 15: 50
            0
            Quote: igor67
            four tracks from the rear, possibly B52

            The B-52 has eight engines. And they fly mainly from the United States
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 7 November 2012 15: 54
              +1
              Yeah, but the SSI said the same. They were installed in pairs very close by, so there could well be 4 tracks.
              1. Beck
                Beck 7 November 2012 16: 38
                -2
                Vedmarku.

                Not quite, but for sure. Especially from afar. And this from a distance can be different. Maybe 500 meters, maybe a thousand. And then everything is the same.
            2. Konrad
              Konrad 9 November 2012 17: 10
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The B-52 has eight engines.

              Now under the modernization program, 4 Rolls Royce RB211-535E should be installed. One traction is even more than that of the native Pratt-Whitney TF-33. Better economy and accordingly increased range without refueling.
          4. mamba
            mamba 7 November 2012 23: 15
            0
            Quote: igor67
            I didn’t hear the American counterparts take off, but at the airport I watched 95 take off, although the earth is cracking noisily, but I’ll say something intelligently, gracefully. I can’t find the right words.

            My cottage is located opposite the runway of the Engels air base through the Volga. One early summer morning at 4 o'clock I was awakened by the deafening roar of the engines of the 95s. The guys took off in a group for some great exercises. The cottage trembled, the glass rang. As soon as I fell asleep, after an hour and a half was again awakened by the whistle of motors of the 160s. But the sound pressure was much less and nothing resonated.
            The width of the Volga in this place is about 5 kilometers. About ten kilometers from the left bank to the runway, which runs parallel to the shore. I can imagine what it is like for residents of houses located near the air base.
        4. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 7 November 2012 16: 58
          +1
          Stuck is not a ground attack aircraft, this is a dive bomber ...
        5. SIT
          SIT 7 November 2012 17: 12
          0
          Quote: Beck
          His flight was even detected by sonar systems of submarines.

          The boss of the campaign in which I worked in Alaska served at a submarine tracking station in the Aleutian Islands in the 60s. He said that they didn’t immediately guess that the sound from the TU 95 was in the hydrophones. When they finally found out, all the personnel’s alarm stops and the expectation of a nuclear doomsday in the next half hour.))) He told me with humor, but he felt that then they suffered a great deal of fear.
        6. Simon
          Simon 8 November 2012 15: 21
          +1
          But this "roaring cow" flies to this day and flies normally. good
        7. Cynic
          Cynic 8 November 2012 16: 54
          0
          Quote: Beck
          His flight was even detected by sonar systems of submarines.

          That's what, and thanks for that statement.
          1. Beck
            Beck 8 November 2012 19: 30
            -1
            Quote: Cynic
            That's what, and thanks for that statement.


            Growing up. At what time the Zinnik did not go across. Good luck.
        8. Konrad
          Konrad 8 November 2012 19: 25
          0
          Quote: Beck
          But the author somehow also made a mistake. Yu-87 assigned to the class of bombers

          Yu-87 - a dive bomber, which was successfully done.
          1. Beck
            Beck 8 November 2012 19: 31
            -2
            Quote: Konrad
            Yu-87 - a dive bomber, which was successfully done


            I already apologized to everyone above. That's what you said.
  3. Baron Wrangell
    Baron Wrangell 7 November 2012 08: 42
    +2
    but I liked the article, especially the author’s comments! thank!
  4. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 7 November 2012 08: 46
    +3
    Discovery and its top ratings for people who are even a little versed in military matters look like ordinary brazenly-Saxon PR about the greatness and power of brazen-Saxons.
    The fact that the ratings fall on the representatives of Russia, Germany, France, Israel ... or any other country only emphasizes the obviousness of public relations for the stupefied people who stupidly believe that everyone except brazenly Saxons are losers and are not good at it.
    1. Trofimov174
      Trofimov174 7 November 2012 10: 19
      +3
      Discovery Rule: The American taxpayer must know that their army and the allied army (whatever in reality it is) is the most-most in the world and it should not be otherwise, otherwise he (the taxpayer) will not understand where $ 700 billion is spent every year.
      1. kopar
        kopar 8 November 2012 12: 28
        0
        I agree one hundred percent !!!!! They, unlike us, the taxpayer must necessarily chew where the money goes!
        1. wax
          wax 8 November 2012 22: 02
          0
          Precisely to "chew". But the goal and the result are the same, what you chew and what you don’t have is to give a taxpayer noodle on the ears.
    2. smprofi
      smprofi 7 November 2012 14: 10
      +2
      Sakhalininskcolleague Trofimov174 answered you correctly. in any state (in a normal, that is, under normal leaders), it first praises its own. maybe sometimes with distortion, but his own. and if you blame your own, then a simple layman will simply lose faith in his state.
      however, these are common truths.
    3. Beck
      Beck 7 November 2012 14: 35
      +1
      Well, what does the Anglo-Saxons have to do with it. This is the opinion of the Discovery edition. Well, there is some kind of supernumerary journalist sitting there and playing up to his taste. Some other publication will have a completely different rating.

      That's even your own rating, I’m sure it will not match mine. So, we will blame all Sakhalin residents and all Kazakhs. Well, it’s not serious.
      1. Roman Skomorokhov
        Roman Skomorokhov 7 November 2012 21: 52
        +2
        Well, the Anglo-Saxons, despite the fact that all of the ratings lead to one thing: to show that all the very same is English or American. I often watch these pseudo ratings, so they mix the unmissable just to show who is the best.

        They collected everything from the Fokker-Triplan to the MiG-21 fighters. Nonsense was complete. And the best fighter of all times and peoples is the R-51 "Mustang". Who put the whole of Germany in cancer. I am sure that in this "rating" the same will be the best. For who pays, he dances the girl.
        1. Old_kapitan
          Old_kapitan 9 November 2012 03: 38
          0
          And the best bomber is Mosquito.
  5. Dimon Lviv
    Dimon Lviv 7 November 2012 09: 02
    +5
    The author's comments made the review of Discovery much more interesting, thanks for the good article!
  6. loft79
    loft79 7 November 2012 09: 33
    +1
    Good article. I read it without tension (despite the fact that it’s about disco). +
  7. Slevinst
    Slevinst 7 November 2012 10: 02
    0
    do the top 10 modern ones, history is good and interesting but it’s interesting to know how things are now
    1. Antistaks
      Antistaks 7 November 2012 11: 14
      -1
      Modern ten ??? Where did they come from?
      1. Santa Fe
        7 November 2012 15: 53
        -1
        Quote: Antistaks
        Modern ten ??? Where did they come from?

        Each creature by pair

        Tu-160 vs B-1
        ___ vs B-2
        Su-34 vs F-15E
        Cy-24 vs F-111
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 7 November 2012 15: 56
          +2
          Su-34 vs F-15E uh, are you serious?
          1. Santa Fe
            7 November 2012 17: 11
            -2
            Quote: Wedmak
            Su-34 vs F-15E uh, are you serious?

            Yes
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 7 November 2012 18: 22
              -1
              But the F-15E is an air superiority fighter! And the Su-34 is a front-line bomber! These are different cars. F-15 should rather be compared with Su-27.
              1. Santa Fe
                7 November 2012 18: 46
                -2
                Quote: Wedmak
                But F-15E This is a fighter for gaining superiority in the air!


                Like the Su-34, the F-15 two-seater tactical bomber (mod. "E") was created on the basis of the F-15 fighter
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 7 November 2012 19: 10
                  0
                  Fighter bomber. This type of aircraft is in the fighter regiments of the United States aviation, and not in the bomber. And Su-34 was created ..
                  .... the result of a deep modernization of the well-known fighter gaining air supremacy Su-27

                  But in the end, the United States and Russia got two different planes. So F-15E vs Su-27М (for the first modifications could not work on the ground and were interceptors)
                  May Vaf correct me if I made a mistake. But in my opinion I was not mistaken.
                  1. FID
                    FID 7 November 2012 20: 40
                    +3
                    Instead of Sergey, I’ll try. Eagle is a fighter-bomber (modification E). Front-line bomber could be considered F-111.
                    1. Wedmak
                      Wedmak 7 November 2012 20: 50
                      0
                      I figured it out here. Apparently with the development of aviation (as well as technology, electronics, etc.), the concepts of fighter-bomber and front-line bomber are somehow blurred. If you think about it, you can still attract multifunctional fighters here (although these are more likely complexes). And those, and others, and still others can work in the air and on the ground. The only difference is that someone has more "sharpened". While long-range aviation stands apart, the specifics of their use are too special for them.
                      1. FID
                        FID 7 November 2012 21: 12
                        +2
                        In principle, right. Therefore, more and more often they talk about a "platform" for weapons, or a delivery complex. The romance of previous discoveries, inventions, creation of new AIRCRAFT is lost, and not platforms and complexes. Tu-160 is called a strategic aviation complex. But in the argument, you were right in comparing the Eagle to the Su-27.
                      2. Wedmak
                        Wedmak 7 November 2012 21: 44
                        0
                        Nothing, there will be a new romance. While hypersound is mastered, while supersonic becomes commonplace, many unique devices are riveted. And then, in the distant, distant future, specialization will go on the aerospace subject (or maybe they will still capture the aquatic environment) - there it is so far from universalism.
  8. FID
    FID 7 November 2012 10: 02
    +2
    Comments are comments, but ... It is not very clear how the Tu-95 (which is natural), and the B-47, and even the B-17, fell into the ranks of strategic bombers. I can assume that for the times of World War II, the B-17 was a strategist (I wonder where the authors of the IL-4, which, according to our classification, would be just a long-range player, would be attributed). But referring to the V-47 strategists with a range of 3200 - this somehow does not fit. The Americans have always been distinguished by the desire to exaggerate their achievements, and to somewhat downplay the achievements of everyone else. I can assume that Discovery will put forward one of its owns in the first place (B-52, B-1B, B-2, but this is an assumption).
    1. Dr. Pilyulkin
      Dr. Pilyulkin 7 November 2012 11: 07
      +5
      Quote: SSI
      The Americans have always been distinguished by the desire to exaggerate their achievements, and to somewhat downplay the achievements of everyone else.

      This, of course, is insanely annoying, but the goal has been achieved: most of the world believes that it was the United States that won the Second World War. Moreover, many Russian schoolchildren think so. Who are these channels and ratings for? For specialists? Obviously not. For people who are ready to eat this pill without wincing.

      Quote: SSI
      I can assume that Discovery will put forward one of its owns in the first place (B-52, B-1B, B-2, but this is an assumption).

      Not necessary. Both T-34 and AK-47 won in the ratings. But it is not important. The policy of the channel itself is designed to popularize American weapons and advertise the role of the United States in maintaining peace on earth. In other words, professional hanging noodles on the ears of a weak mind. That’s why we don’t have such a channel? There is something similar, but not so colorful, they do not speak so well, etc. Those. young people will not watch. And this is the main target audience.
      1. FID
        FID 7 November 2012 11: 34
        +2
        + I fully support! But it does not change anything. After all, the bulk of people watching TV knows little about aviation, and the rating from the TV is indisputable for them! My purely rhetorical fabrications for thinking people.
      2. datur
        datur 7 November 2012 13: 39
        0
        Dr. Pilyulkinthere is a star yes - but I agree, while against the discovery it is weak !! feel although it is gaining momentum !!!!!! yes
        1. Dr. Pilyulkin
          Dr. Pilyulkin 7 November 2012 13: 54
          +2
          Quote: datur
          there is a star

          While there is. The Defense Ministry will give Zvezda frequencies to Public Television.
          Here is what they write:
          The audience of the TV channel is about 65 million people, but, nevertheless, the decision has already been made and is not subject to discussion. According to Nikolai Nikiforov, Minister of Communications and Mass Media, the frequencies of the Zvezda TV channel will be transferred to the new Public Television (OTR), which will start operating on January 1, 2013. OTR will be part of the main package of digital channels and will be available completely free of charge for residents of all of Russia.
          Anatoly Lysenko, general director of Public Television, did not comment on the government’s decision, although he stated that he was fully aware of the current situation.

          Quite a lot of attempts were made to defend the broadcasting of the Zvezda TV channel, however, all of them were unsuccessful. The decision to create Public TV was made by Dmitry Medvedev in April this year. The main reason why the channel will operate on the basis of the Zvezda TV channel is convenient frequencies. The frequencies of this channel are available over a large territory of Russia, they are broadcast in 79 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. But it should be noted that it is also important that the channel belongs to the Ministry of Defense. This means that various private investors do not have any questions about the buyout of Zvezda.


          It's a pity. The only decent channel. No pop music.
      3. Roman Skomorokhov
        Roman Skomorokhov 7 November 2012 21: 55
        0
        Do you remember HOW the palm of the AK-47 was given?
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 7 November 2012 22: 00
          0
          Remember - the most massive, most unkillable. Everything. But the flaws found a whole bunch.
    2. VAF
      VAF 7 November 2012 12: 55
      +4
      Quote: SSI
      I can assume that Discovery will nominate one of its


      Seryoga, I have the same thought, + wink
      1. Commodus
        Commodus 7 November 2012 14: 46
        0
        B-52 or b-2? Hmm. "The Invisible Man" starred in many films ... Straight show, who will win the pancake.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 7 November 2012 15: 19
          0
          With B-2 I remember only one movie, but with F-117, yes, there were many. And almost everyone is funny.
      2. kenvas
        kenvas 7 November 2012 17: 35
        +1
        You are right, at Discovery in the first place B52, when I looked, I was surprised why not TU160, but I won the second place B52 in terms of the number of issued and the use, it’s like with them in the first place, but in terms of performance and beauty TH34 is definitely the first IMHO
    3. Vadivak
      Vadivak 7 November 2012 21: 18
      +1
      Quote: SSI
      But referring to the V-47 strategists with a range of 3200 - this somehow does not fit.

      Maybe like a Tu-22M2 with refueling?
      1. FID
        FID 7 November 2012 21: 30
        +2
        Tu-22M2 / M3 - this is not a strategist, this is long-range aviation. Strategists are the Tu-95 and Tu-160.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 7 November 2012 21: 55
          +2
          Quote: SSI
          Tu-22M2 / M3 - this is not a strategist, this is long-range aviation.


          Well, we are of this opinion, and the Americans insisted on the inclusion of the Tu-22M2 in the list of strategic forces of the USSR, with a barbell he was a strategist for them and even the NATO said that if you need, then fly to the end ...
          1. Kaa
            Kaa 8 November 2012 01: 58
            0
            Quote: Vadivak
            If you need, then fly to 1 end ...

            Rather, they said, we need you to fly one way? No.
          2. FID
            FID 8 November 2012 07: 49
            +3
            Quote: Vadivak
            the Americans insisted on the inclusion of the Tu-22M2 in the list of strategic forces of the USSR, with a barbell he was a strategist for them

            This is after test pilot Borisov Tupolev Design Bureau, flew (with refueling naturally) from Zhukovsky to Hawaii. Then they removed the rods ... Only not M2, but M3.
  9. Borz
    Borz 7 November 2012 10: 14
    0
    Thanks to the author. Calm, unobtrusive narration. Ratings from "Discovery", of course, a place in the same "parasha", but all the examples given are worthy of admiration.
  10. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 7 November 2012 10: 48
    +1
    In the best traditions of Discovery. Not correct, deliberate and biased ...

    (I will assume that B-52 will be the "most superb" ...)
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 November 2012 10: 57
      +1
      I bet on B2 in the 2 place.
    2. Kasym
      Kasym 7 November 2012 11: 36
      +2
      This rating has been shown repeatedly on the discovery channel. The truth is I do not remember who took 1st place. But you, Vasily, are not far from the truth - B-52, in my opinion. But the Tu-160 is not there.
      1. FID
        FID 7 November 2012 15: 37
        +5
        Here you have the Tu-160. The most extreme aircraft. 2007, Zhukovsky.
  11. Wedmak
    Wedmak 7 November 2012 10: 55
    +2
    Discovery films can be admired - the production, the picture, there is something for us to learn. But you need to believe their storytelling with a great deal of skepticism. PR of their products climbs from all the cracks, sometimes it even becomes funny.
  12. david210512
    david210512 7 November 2012 11: 10
    0
    this is by no means an American propaganda channel
  13. Lucky
    Lucky 7 November 2012 11: 18
    0
    The article is very exciting, I liked it!
  14. Kars
    Kars 7 November 2012 11: 39
    +7
    S-75 as if hinting.
    1. Kars
      Kars 7 November 2012 11: 41
      +5
      And what can we say about the descendants. The layered air defense is the guarantor of the fulfillment of human rights and the democratic character of the country's leadership.
    2. VAF
      VAF 7 November 2012 13: 13
      +10
      Quote: Kars
      S-75 as if hinting.


      Andrew, welcome, +! Amer. As always, they are silent. how much they lost their Fortresses with every raid. and the British are the same with their Lancesters ... not far gone ...

      1. smprofi
        smprofi 7 November 2012 14: 16
        +5
        Well, especially I would not be happy about the loss of gringos over Germany ...



        but the sky of Vietnam or Korea is another matter
      2. Kars
        Kars 7 November 2012 15: 47
        +3
        I think you as a pilot, the topic of air defense is generally relevant.
        We don’t fly ourselves and we won’t let others. About losses --- http: //soneta.ru/milavia/Skolko-zhe-vse-taki-samoletov-amerikantsi-pote
        ryali-vo-Vetname

        I liked this article as a review, I will not confirm the reliability, etc. I personally think the numbers are real.
        1. Santa Fe
          7 November 2012 21: 31
          0
          Look "Fritz" what a kid, but such a fellow. I think Junkers could carry several of them.
          1. Kars
            Kars 7 November 2012 21: 41
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Look "Fritz" what a kid, but such a fellow. I think Junkers could carry several of them

            I don’t know what you are talking about, what Fritz? The one that 1.5 tons weighed? Which junkers - carrying capacity, and it’s not realistic to use several carriers for WWII. After all, it’s impossible.
            1. Santa Fe
              7 November 2012 23: 03
              0
              Quote: Kars
              I don’t know what you mean, what Fritz? The one that weighed 1.5 tons?

              In the photo, where Junkers in the museum - Fritz lies on the floor under the plane
              Quote: Kars
              After it is generally impossible.

              So there was already no Fritz
              1. Kars
                Kars 7 November 2012 23: 06
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Fritz lies on the floor under the plane

                You never know what lies where. I flipped through so carefully, not looking at the details
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                So there was already no Fritz

                Here I am about the same, a short and rather plain-looking career for the van der Wafer. Although the sinking of the former ally’s LC brightens up the pill, but not really.
      3. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 7 November 2012 17: 02
        0
        They seemed to never hide the percentage of losses ...
  15. tambu
    tambu 7 November 2012 12: 02
    0
    Author: Come on ISHO!))))
  16. white_f
    white_f 7 November 2012 13: 09
    0
    It was interesting to read, we look forward to continuing.
  17. Diesel
    Diesel 7 November 2012 13: 36
    0
    Interestingly, I don’t look at ratings and positions, I just read about interesting planes ...
  18. Val_y
    Val_y 7 November 2012 15: 08
    +3
    This, of course, is insanely annoying, but the goal has been achieved: most of the world believes that it was the United States that won the Second World War. Moreover, many Russian schoolchildren think so. Who are these channels and ratings for? For specialists? Obviously not. For people who are ready to eat this pill without wincing.

    This is really annoying. angry By the way, this places a huge responsibility on parents who raise their children so that the children know as much as possible about the real victories of the Red Army in the victory over Germany and their allies.
  19. Santa Fe
    7 November 2012 15: 48
    0
    From the newspaper 2008
  20. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 7 November 2012 17: 04
    0
    Recently in the Red Star there was an article by one of the Myasischevtsev - so there the author spits wildly on the Tu-95, and it seems quite reasonable ...
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 7 November 2012 18: 18
      0
      Brother Sarych, can I have a link? For some reason, there was an opinion about Myasishchev’s aircraft as weak competitors of the Tu-95 ...
      1. cherkas.oe
        cherkas.oe 7 November 2012 21: 57
        +3
        Quote: EvgAn
        For some reason, there was an opinion about Myasishchev’s aircraft as weak competitors of the Tu-95 ...

        It was formed thanks to the enormous efforts of the unforgettable grandfather of Andryusha Tupolev. He very much did not like competitors, and especially competent and talented ones, an example of this is P. Sukhoi's Sotka and Myasishchevskaya machine. After 95 was put into production and into service, Grandfather loosened the stranglehold and Myasishchev managed to bring the last modifications to mind, but in principle, the main problem was in the engines that were not completed. There is a good dock movie. about this on the website "Military Aviation of Russia" (video) in the strata section. av.
  21. Comrade1945
    Comrade1945 7 November 2012 20: 06
    +1
    Another American delirium. Discovery Channel just does not cease to amaze. wassat
    1. smprofi
      smprofi 7 November 2012 23: 00
      0
      draw yours - and all short
  22. Ppsh
    Ppsh 8 November 2012 10: 38
    +1
    The best strategic bomber is one that has never fought. Its presence alone was enough to prevent a war! Hence the conclusion - the best aircraft - Tu-95 and Tu-160!
    1. Santa Fe
      8 November 2012 20: 38
      0
      Quote: PPSh
      Its mere presence was enough to prevent a war

      This is not the merit of the Tu-95. This is a merit of ballistic missile nuclear submarines
  23. sanyabasik
    sanyabasik 8 November 2012 12: 40
    0
    And I read the article with pleasure and the knowledgeable comments .. Thank you.
  24. Nechai
    Nechai 8 November 2012 15: 42
    +1
    Quote: igor67
    I just remember fishing 4-5 mornings dawning and suddenly these fools broke all the rims, and even if you think about where they flew to the U-turn

    Recollections of early childhood (they lived relatively far from plant number 18) - you wake up at night from the hum that fills the entire room, At the airport, mechanics drive the new Tu-95 engines.
    Quote: cherkas.oe
    Myasishchev managed to bring the latest modifications to mind

    In Ukrainka I had a chance to see the M-4-2 tanker taxiing to the start and taking off. AWESOME !!! And his M-50 ?! Even with "non-native" engines, the speed was M = 0,99. And this was in 1959-60!
    1. Santa Fe
      8 November 2012 20: 36
      0
      Quote: Nechai
      you wake up at night from the hum that fills the whole room, At the airport, mechanics drive the engines of the new Tu-95.

      Tu-95 pilots said that in the cockpit of a turboprop bomber they felt like in a metal mixer
      Quote: Nechai
      Even with "non-native" engines, the speed was M = 0,99. And this was in 1959-60!

      Heh, the Convair B-58 bomber was developing the 1,5M already in 1956.
  25. VLADIMIR700
    VLADIMIR700 8 November 2012 17: 23
    0
    These top rankings are relative. feel And so for general development, you can read No.
  26. Santa Fe
    8 November 2012 20: 43
    0
    All fantasies that the United States so wanted to attack the peaceful Soviet Union are refuted by a simple fact - they could easily have done this in the 50's, but obviously they didn’t want to. It is hard to imagine an even better moment.

    The jet B-47 Stratojet easily penetrated deep into Soviet territory. The US Air Force was armed with 1800 of these machines + hundreds of B-50 and B-36 in the "second line".
    There was no fear of a retaliatory strike - the Tu-4 (a copy of the obsolete B-29) had no chance of reaching America
    1. Kars
      Kars 8 November 2012 21: 24
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      There was no fear of a retaliatory strike - the Tu-4 (a copy of the obsolete B-29) had no chance of reaching America

      London, Paris, it was encouraging.

      And how many fighters did the USSR have in those days? Which did the Yankees meet in Korea?
      1. Santa Fe
        8 November 2012 22: 21
        0
        Quote: Kars
        And how many fighters did the USSR have in those days? Which did the Yankees meet in Korea?


        With a two-fold speed advantage, it was not difficult to shoot down the piston Super Fortresses.
        But the RB-47 flew with impunity until the end of the 50's. In 1954, a whole MiG regiment chased a spy in the sky over the Kola Peninsula. To no avail - RB-47 flew along the planned route and flew back with impunity. Although they not only shot at him, but even tried to ram
        1. Kars
          Kars 8 November 2012 22: 33
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          RB-47


          Maximum speed: 978 km / h (at a height of 4968 m)
          Cruising speed: 806 km / h
          Stall speed: 308 km / h (at normal takeoff weight)
          Combat radius: 3797 km (with 4536 kg of bombs, ATGs and a tank in the bomb bay)
          Ferrying range: 8038 km
          Ceiling: 12 344 m

          Mig 17
          Flight characteristics

          Maximum allowable speed: 1200 km / h (1,15M)
          Maximum speed: 1070 km / h on 5000 m
          Landing speed: 170 — 190 km / h
          Practical range:
          at an altitude of 5000 m: 700 km / 1010 km with PTB
          at an altitude of 10000 m: 1165 km / 1735 km with PTB
          Flight duration per 12000 m: 1 h 52 min / 2 h 55 min with PTB
          Ceiling: 14 700 m

          And not catching anyone, but shooting down bombers reaching their targets is another matter.

          The RB-47B has already flown over two of its five targets; they were photographed, received and images issued by the radar. By this time, the aircraft had consumed most of the fuel, flying at an altitude of 12000 meters at a speed of 900 km / h, which is significantly higher than the cruising speed of the RB-47B. When the plane flew over the third target, the sensors began to report that it was spotted by Russian tracking stations. Hillman told Hunter that MiG attack is possible. Gunter moved to the tail tower and took a seat at the machine guns.

          A few minutes later he announced that he saw Soviet fighters. MiG-15s went behind and below the B-47, trying to take a position to intercept a high-speed bomber. Hillman realized that they had been discovered, and violated the radio silence mode. He told Fleming his coordinates and how things are going. Now, if they were shot down, the United States would know what happened to them. Gunther continued to watch the interceptor, but the MiGs took off too late and could not intercept the RV-47. However, Hillman and other crew members understood that the situation was serious. The speed, altitude and course of their aircraft were now known to the Russians; new MiGs could appear and attack them.

          The RB-47B continued to fly, continually changing course. Despite all the fears, they did not meet other MiGs - perhaps the Russians in this area did not have enough interceptors. The plane passed over the Egvenkinot and, flying along the coast, reached Providence Bay, where the MiG regiment was based. Thus, the task was completed, and the crew turned off the cameras. B-47 B left the Soviet airspace and headed for the Seward Peninsula in Alaska. After sunset, Hillman landed his plane at Yelson base. The flight lasted 7 hours 45 minutes; they covered a distance of 5500 kilometers, and about 1300 kilometers passed over the territory of the USSR. A few minutes after Hillman’s landing, Fleming’s plane also landed successfully. Filmed cassettes were immediately removed from the cameras and taken to the darkroom, which was located here, at the base. After processing, a copy was taken from the film, and all materials were sent to Washington. General Armstrong was pleased - the mission was completed successfully.

          Soon the first reaction of the Russians to the flight appeared. On the morning of October 16, an intelligence officer told Hillman that, according to radio interception, the Soviet command was transferring the second regiment of fighter interceptors to the region.

          And not somewhere above Kamchatka or the Kola Peninsula (in principle, let the Kola be bombed), but in regions more densely populated by fighters and anti-aircraft units.
          1. Santa Fe
            9 November 2012 00: 49
            0
            Quote: Kars
            RB-47B has already flown over two of the five intended goals; they were photographed, received and images issued by the radar. By this time, the plane had consumed most of the fuel

            Two of the five targets were photographed, and the plane had already consumed most of the fuel))))
            Quote: Kars
            And not somewhere over Kamchatka or the Kola Peninsula

            The Kola Peninsula was one of the largest arsenals of the USSR. There the density of garrisons was one of the highest, m. not counting Moscow (Severomorsk, Vidyaevo, Safonovo, etc.), a large port city of Murmansk ....

            Bear in mind that during the battle the RB-47 only shot once - and even that was enough to scare the MiG away. And attacking from another direction was useless. Plus, in the event of a real attack, fighters would accompany most of the B-47's journey.

            Quote: Kars
            in more densely populated by fighter and anti-aircraft units regions.

            Well, the anti-aircraft parts would not help, this is a fact
            Secondly, at about the same time, high-altitude Canberra somehow flew to Svetly Yar and returned back.

            PS Korea showed that neither the B-29 nor the Tu-4 could reach either Paris or London
            1. Kars
              Kars 9 November 2012 15: 32
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Two of the five targets were photographed, and the plane had already consumed most of the fuel))))

              And what? You want to say that he was able to leave 15x because he felt better? Maybe.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The Kola Peninsula was one of the largest arsenals of the USSR

              But are you really? And all this stuff was covered by ONE MIG-15 regiment, ay-ay-ay, and as I understand it, you did not finish reading the article.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Bear in mind that during the battle, the RB-47 fired only once - and even this was enough to scare off the MiGs

              When was he firing at the MiGs? Did you dream something?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              most of the B-47 route would be accompanied by fighter jets
              This is from the degraded airfields of Western Europe? On which the best air defense - the Soviet T-54 (T-34-85) would stand? And they would not have reached the Urals.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Well, the anti-aircraft parts would not help, this is a fact

              Just would help.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              PS Korea showed that neither the B-29 nor the Tu-4 could reach either Paris or London

              Yes, of course, from eastern Germany, Soviet bombers, well, they wouldn’t fly to Paris, Bon, Zurich, Brussels, London,

              I don’t understand that you’re craping the last time more often, and crap, it’s strange. And I remember the nuclear war in the 50s didn’t start because the USSR made a nuclear bomb in 1949. And it’s not voluntarily the Yankees.
  27. Nymp
    Nymp 8 November 2012 21: 26
    0
    Interesting, which means I put a plus. But here the history of the development of our aviation should not be with a touch of past great achievements. Something must be fixed in the present. I do not agree with those who conduct analogues of our wings with foreign ones. Caesar's Caesar!
  28. Antistaks
    Antistaks 8 November 2012 22: 53
    +1
    The i-16 engines were the same as those of the B 17 (well, or vice versa). And the specific gravity of the bombs (with an air launch) is greater - 500 kg with its own take-off 1800. And he bombed the bridge over the Danube. Ishachka in first place.
  29. YaMZ-238
    YaMZ-238 10 July 2015 10: 43
    0
    Yes, Ilya Muromets is really something something !!!!!!