Bringing death. The best attack aircraft in aviation history

72


In combined-arms offensive combat, you can do without air support: the howitzer artillery division of the Soviet army could bring down on the head of the enemy five hundred shells of 152 mm caliber! Artillery beats in fog, thunder and blizzard, and work aviation often limited by adverse weather conditions and the dark.

Of course, aviation has its strengths. Bombers can use huge-capacity ammunition - an elderly Su-24 booms up with two KAB-1500 bombs under the wing. The ammunition index speaks for itself. It is difficult to imagine an artillery gun capable of firing such heavy shells. The monstrous naval cannon "Type 94" (Japan) had a caliber of 460 mm and a mass of guns 165 tons! At the same time, its firing range barely reached 40 km. Unlike the Japanese artillery system, the Su-24 can “throw” a couple of its 1,5-ton bombs on five hundred kilometers.

But for the direct fire support of ground troops does not require such powerful ammunition, as well as ultra-long range shooting! The legendary howitzer gun D-20 beats 17 kilometers - more than enough to destroy any targets in the front line. And the power of its 45-50 projectiles has enough kilograms to defeat most of the objects at the front edge of the enemy’s defense. After all, it is no coincidence that during the years of the Second World War, the Luftwaffe abandoned the "weave" - ​​for the direct support of the ground forces there were enough bombs weighing 50 kg.

As a result, we are faced with an amazing paradox - from the point of view of logic, effective fire support at the forefront can be ensured only by the use of artillery means. There is no need to use attack aircraft and other "battlefield airplanes" - expensive and unreliable "toys" with redundant capabilities.
On the other hand, any modern combined-arms offensive battle without quality air support is doomed to an imminent and inevitable defeat.

Attack aircraft have a secret of success. And this secret is in no way connected with the flight characteristics of the “battlefield planes” themselves, the thickness of their armor and the power of the onboard armament.
To solve the puzzle, I suggest that readers get acquainted with the seven best attack aircraft and aircraft that directly support the troops in stories aviation, to follow the combat path of these legendary machines and answer the main question: why do we need assault aircraft?

Anti-tank attack aircraft A-10 "Thunderbolt II" ("Thunderclap")

Norm take-off weight: 14 tons. Small-gun armament: the seven-barreled gun GAU-8 with ammunition 1350 shells. Combat load: 11 suspension points, up to 7,5 tons of bombs, NURS blocks and high-precision weapons. Crew: 1 pilot. Max. ground speed 720 km / h.

Thunderbolt is not a plane. This is a real flying gun! The main structural element around which the Thunderbolt is built, is the incredible GAU-8 gun with a rotating block of seven barrels. The most powerful of the 30 mm caliber aircraft cannons ever installed on airplanes - its recoil exceeds the thrust force of two Thunderbolt jet engines! Firing rate 1800 - 3900 rds / min The velocity of the projectile at the cut of the trunk reaches 1 km / s.

The story of the fantastic gun GAU-8 would be incomplete without mentioning its ammunition. The PGU-14 / B armor-piercing with depleted uranium core, which penetrates the 500 meters at a right angle of 69 mm of armor, is especially popular. For comparison: the thickness of the roof of the Soviet BMP of the first generation 6 mm, the side of the hull 14 mm. The phenomenal accuracy of the gun allows 1200% of shells to be placed in a circle with a diameter of about six meters from a distance of 80 meters. In other words, a one-second salvo at maximum rate of fire gives 50 hits to an enemy tank!
Bringing death. The best attack aircraft in aviation history


A worthy representative of his class, created at the height of the Cold War to exterminate the Soviet tank armada. The “Flying Cross” does not suffer from the lack of modern sighting and navigation systems and high-precision weapons, and the high survivability of its design has been repeatedly confirmed in the local wars of recent years.


AC-130 "Spectrum" fire support aircraft

Norm take-off weight: 60 tons. Small-gun armament: 105 mm howitzer, 40 mm automatic cannon, two 6-ti barrel "Volcano" caliber 20 mm. Crew: 13 man. Max. 480 speed km / h.



At the sight of the Spectrum attacker, Jung and Freud would have embraced like brothers and wept with happiness. National American fun - shooting Papuans from guns from a flying aircraft (the so-called "ganship" - a gun ship). The sleep of reason gives birth to monsters.
The idea of ​​the “ganship” is not new - attempts to install heavy weapons on the aircraft were made during the Second World War. But only the Yankees guessed to mount a battery of several guns aboard the Hercules C-130 military transport aircraft (similar to the Soviet An-12). At the same time, the trajectories of the projectiles fired are perpendicular to the course of the flying aircraft — the guns fire through the embrasures in the port side.

Alas, it’s fun to shoot a howitzer at cities and towns passing by under the wing. The work of the AU-130 is much more prosaic: the goals (fortified points, vehicle clusters, rebel villages) are chosen in advance. When approaching the target, the “ganship” makes a turn and starts circling over the target with a constant lurch to the port side, so that the trajectories of the projectiles converge exactly at the “aiming point” on the ground surface. In complex ballistic calculations helps automatics, "Ganship" is equipped with the most modern sighting systems, thermal imagers and laser range finders.

Despite the seeming idiocy, the Spektr АС-130 is a simple and ingenious solution for local conflicts of low intensity. The main thing is that the enemy’s air defense should have nothing more serious than MANPADS and large-caliber machine guns - otherwise, no heat traps and opto-electronic protection systems will save the "gang" from fire from the ground.

Workplace gunner


Workplace loader


Twin-engine attack aircraft Henschel-129

Norm take-off weight: 4,3 tons. Small arms: 2 machine gun rifle caliber, two automatic guns caliber 20 mm with 125 projectiles on the barrel. Combat load: up to 200 kg of bombs, suspended gun containers or other weapons. Crew: 1 pilot. Max. 320 speed km / h.

The plane is so ugly that there is no way to show its real b / w image. Hs.129, fantasy artist.

The disgusting celestial slug Hs.129 was the loudest failure of the Third Reich aviation industry. Bad plane in every sense. Textbooks for cadets of flight schools of the Red Army speak of its insignificance: where the Messers and Junkers are given whole chapters, Hs.129 has been rewarded with only a few common phrases: you can attack with impunity from all directions except head-on attack. In short, shoot him down as you like. Slow, awkward, weak, and still a “blind” plane - the German pilot did not see anything from his cockpit, except for a narrow section of the forward hemisphere.

Serial production of an unsuccessful aircraft would probably have collapsed before it could begin, but a meeting with tens of thousands of Soviet tanks forced the German command to take any possible measures to stop the T-34 and its countless "colleagues." As a result, a squalid attack aircraft, released in the total number of 878 copies, went through the whole war. Noted on the Western Front, in Africa, on the Kursk Bulge ...



The Germans repeatedly tried to modernize the “flying coffin”, put an ejection seat on it (otherwise the pilot could not escape from a cramped and uncomfortable cabin), armed the Henschel 50 mm and 75 mm anti-tank guns - after such “modernization” the plane barely kept in the air and somehow developed the speed of 250 km / h.
But the most unusual was the system "Forsterzond" - the aircraft equipped with a metal detector flew, almost clinging to the tops of the trees. When the sensor was triggered, six 45 mm caliber shells were shot at the lower hemisphere, capable of breaking through the roof of any tank.

The story of Hs.129 is a story about flying skills. The Germans never complained about the poor quality of technology and even fought on such poor machines. At the same time, from time to time, they achieved some success, on the account of the damned "Henschel" a lot of blood of Soviet soldiers

Armored attack aircraft Su-25 "Rook"

Norm take-off weight: 14,6 tons. Small-gun armament: double-barreled gun GSH-2-30 with 250 ammunition shells. Combat load: 10 suspension points, up to 4 tons of bombs, unguided missiles, cannon containers and high-precision weapons. Crew: 1 pilot. Max. 950 speed km / h.

The symbol of the hot sky of Afghanistan, the Soviet subsonic attack aircraft with titanium armor (the total mass of armor plates reaches 600 kg).
The idea of ​​a subsonic high-impact shock machine was born as a result of an analysis of the combat use of aviation against ground targets at the Dnepr exercise in September 1967: every time, the subsonic MiG-17 showed the best results. Outdated aircraft, in contrast to the supersonic fighter-bomber Su-7 and Su-17, confidently found and targeted targeted ground targets.

As a result, “Grach”, a specialized Su-25 attack aircraft with an extremely simple and robust design, was born. An unpretentious "soldier aircraft" capable of working on the operational challenges of the ground forces in the face of strong opposition from the enemy's front-line air defense.

A significant role in the design of the Su-25 played "trophy" F-5 "Tiger" and A-37 "Dragonfly", arrived in the Soviet Union from Vietnam. By that time, the Americans had already “tasted” all the delights of the counterguerrilla war in the absence of a clear front line. The design of the light attack aircraft "Dragonfly" was embodied all the accumulated combat experience, bought, fortunately, not with our blood.

As a result, by the beginning of the Afghan war, the Su-25 became the only aircraft of the Soviet Air Force, the most adapted to such "non-standard" conflicts. In addition to Afgan, thanks to its cheapness and ease of operation, the Grach attack aircraft was noted in a couple of dozen armed conflicts and civil wars around the world.

The best confirmation of the Su-25 effectiveness - “Grach” has not been off the assembly line for thirty years, in addition to the basic, export and combat training version, a number of new modifications have appeared: the anti-tank attack aircraft Su-39, the deck aircraft Su-25UTG, modernized Su-25M with “ a glass cabin ”and even a Georgian version of the Scorpion with foreign avionics and Israeli-made sighting and navigation systems.





Assembling the Su-25 "Scorpion" at the Georgian aircraft factory "Tbilaviamsheni"


Multi-purpose fighter P-47 "Thunderbolt"

Norm take-off weight: 6 tons. Small-gun armament: eight machine guns of the 50 caliber with 425 ammunition on the barrel. Combat load: 10 suspension points for 127 mm unguided rockets, up to 1000 kg bombs. Crew: 1 pilot. Max. 700 speed km / h.



The legendary predecessor of the modern attack aircraft A-10, designed by the Georgian aircraft designer Alexander Kartvelishvili. It is considered one of the best fighters of the Second World War. Luxurious cockpit equipment, exceptional survivability and security, powerful armament, 3700 km range (from Moscow to Berlin and back!), Turbocharging, allowing heavy aircraft to fight at dizzying heights.
All this is achieved thanks to the advent of the Pratt & Whitney R2800 engine - an incredible 18-cylinder air-cooled "star" with a capacity of 2400 hp.

But what makes an escort high-altitude fighter on our list of the best attack aircraft? The answer is simple - the combat load of the Thunderbolt was comparable to the combat load of two Il-2 attack aircraft. Plus, eight large-caliber "Browings" with a total 3400 ammunition of ammunition - any unarmored target will turn into a sieve! And to destroy heavy armored vehicles under the wing of the Thunderbolt, 10 unguided rockets with cumulative combat units could be suspended.

As a result, the P-47 fighter was successfully used on the Western Front as a ground attack aircraft. The last thing many German tankers have seen in their lives is a stupid silvery beam diving at them, spewing deadly fire.

P-47D Thunderbolt. In the background B-29 Enola Gay, National Museum of Aviation and Astronautics USA






Armored Stormtrooper IL-2 vs Dive Bomber Junkers-87

An attempt to compare the Ju.87 with the Il-2 attack aircraft every time meets with vehement objections: how dare you! these are different planes: one attacks the target in a steep dive, the second one fires the target from a strafing flight.
But these are only technical details. In fact, both cars are “battlefield airplanes” created to directly support ground forces. They have common tasks and ONE destination. But which of the attack methods is more effective is to find out.

Junkers-87 "Stuck". Norm take-off weight: 4,5 tons. Small-gun armament: 3 machine gun caliber 7,92 mm. Bomb load: could reach 1 tons, but usually did not exceed 250 kg. Crew: 2 man. Max. speed 390 km / h (in horizontal flight, of course).









In September, 1941 was released on 12 Ju.87. By November 1941, the production of “laptezhnika” was almost discontinued - just released 2 aircraft. By the beginning of 1942, the production of dive bomber was resumed - in just the next six months, the Germans built around 700 Ju.87. It is amazing how a “laptezhnik” produced in such insignificant quantities could do so much trouble!

The table characteristics of Ju.87 are also surprising - the plane became morally outdated even 10 years before its appearance, what kind of combat use can we talk about ?! But, in the tables, the main thing is not indicated - a very strong, rigid structure and aerodynamic brake grids, which allowed the “laptezhnik” to swoop down on the target almost vertically. At the same time, Ju.87 could "put" the bomb in a circle with a radius of 30 meters GUARANTEED! At the exit from the steep peak, the Ju.87 speed exceeded 600 km / h - it was extremely difficult for the Soviet anti-aircraft gunners to hit such a fast target, constantly changing their speed and altitude. The barrage of anti-aircraft fire was also ineffective - a diving “laptezhnik” could at any moment change the slope of its trajectory and move out of the affected area.
However, despite all its unique qualities, Ju.87 high efficiency was due to very different, much deeper reasons.

IL-2 Sturmovik: norms take-off weight 6 tons. Cannon armament: 2 XY-23 automatic cannon caliber 23 mm with 150 ammunition shells on the barrel; Shkas machine gun 2 with 750 ammunition shots on the barrel; 1 heavy machine gun Berezina to protect the rear hemisphere, 150 rounds of ammunition. The combat load is up to 600 kg of bombs or 8 unguided rockets PC-82, in reality, the bomb load usually did not exceed 400 kg. Crew 2 man. Max. speed 414 km / h



“The corkscrew does not break, it flies in a straight line steadily, even with abandoned control, it sits down itself. Simple as a stool

- the opinion of the pilots IL-2

The most massive aircraft in the history of military aviation, "flying tank", "concrete plane" or simply "Schwarzer Tod" (incorrect, literal translation - "black death", the correct translation is "plague"). The revolutionary machine for its time: stamped double curvature armor panels, fully integrated into the design of the attack aircraft; rockets; most powerful cannon armament ...

In all, during the war years, 36 of thousands of IL-2 aircraft were launched (plus about a thousand more upgraded Il-10 attack aircraft in the first half of 1945). The number of Ilovs released exceeded the number of all German tanks and SPGs that were on the Eastern Front - if each IL-2 destroyed at least one unit of enemy armored vehicles, the Pancervaff steel wedges would simply cease to exist!

Many questions are related to the invulnerability of the Stormtrooper. The harsh reality confirms: heavy booking and aircraft are incompatible. The shells of the German automatic gun MG 151 / 20 pierced through the IL-2 armored car through. The wing consoles and the tail section of the Attack aircraft fuselage were generally made of plywood and did not have any reservations - the line of the anti-aircraft machine gun simply “chopped off” the wing or tail from the armored cabin with the pilots.

The meaning of the “booking” of the Stormtrooper was in a different way — at extremely low altitudes, the probability of the German infantry shooting small arms sharply increased. This is where the Il-2 armored cabin came in handy - it perfectly “held” rifle-caliber bullets, and as for the wing plywood consoles, small-caliber bullets could not harm them - the Elah safely returned to the airfield, having several hundreds of bullet holes each.

And yet, the combat use statistics of the Il-2 are bleak: 10759 airplanes of this type were lost in combat missions (without taking into account non-combat accidents, catastrophes and write-offs for technical reasons). With the Assault weapon too everything was not so simple:

When firing a WN-23 cannon at a total 435 projectile consumption in 6 sorties, the 245 th Fighter pilots received 46 hits in the tank column (10,6%), of which only 16 hits in the target point tank (3,7%).

- test report Il-2 at the Air Force Research Institute of Arms

Without any opposition from the enemy, in ideal range conditions for a previously known goal! Moreover, shooting from a gentle dive had a bad effect on armor penetration: shells simply ricocheted from armor - in no case had the armor of enemy medium tanks been broken through.

The bombs left even fewer chances: when 4 bombs were dropped from horizontal flight from 50 meters, the probability of hitting at least one bomb in the 20 × 100 m band (wide highway section or artillery battery position) was only 8%! Approximately the same figure expressed the accuracy of firing rockets.

White phosphorus showed itself well, however, the high requirements for its storage made its mass use impossible in combat conditions. But the most interesting story is connected with cumulative anti-tank bombs (PTAB), weighing 1,5-2,5 kg - An attack aircraft could take on board up to 196 such ammunition in each combat departure. In the first days of the Kursk Bulge, the effect was overwhelming: the attackers "carried out" with the PTNS on the Fascist tanks on 6-8 in one go, in order to avoid a complete defeat, the Germans had to urgently change the order in which the tanks were built. However, the real effectiveness of these weapons is often questioned: during the war years, 12 millions of PTABs were manufactured: if at least 10% of this amount would have been used in battle, and of them 3% bombs hit the target - nothing would happen to the Wehrmacht’s armored forces not left.

As practice shows, the main objectives of the Stormtroopers were, after all, not the tanks, but the German infantry, weapon emplacements and artillery batteries, clusters of vehicles, railway stations and warehouses in the front-line zone. The contribution of the stormtroopers in the victory over fascism is invaluable.







So, we have seven of the best aircraft that directly support ground forces. Each "superhero" has its own unique history and its own unique "secret of success." As you can see, all of them are not distinguished by high flight characteristics, rather the opposite - all as one are clumsy, slow-moving “irons” with imperfect aerodynamics, at the mercy of increased survivability and armament. So what is the reason for the existence of these aircraft?

The 152 mm gun howitzer D-20 is towed by a ZIL-375 truck with a maximum speed of 60 km / h. Attack "Grach" flies in the sky at a speed of 15 times faster. This circumstance allows the aircraft to arrive in a matter of minutes at the desired section of the front line and pour a hail of powerful ammunition on the enemy’s head. Artillery, alas, does not have such operational maneuver capabilities.

From this follows a straightforward conclusion: the effectiveness of the work of the “battlefield aviation” depends primarily on the competent interaction between ground forces and the air force. High-quality, communication, organization, correct tactics, competent actions of commanders, air traffic controllers, spotters. If done correctly, aviation will bring victory on its wings. Violation of these conditions will inevitably cause "friendliness".
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mother russia
    +17
    21 February 2013 08: 24
    Well, the Su-25 Rook is a completely separate topic for conversation. A real flying tank!
    Looking at him, you experience only positive emotions.
    Let the adversary experience the exact opposite. lol
    1. +10
      21 February 2013 09: 25
      In Afghanistan, this plane showed itself one hundred percent))) According to a friend, he personally observed in the 80s the landing of the Rook, with the engine torn out, after Stinger got in. At first there was a shock, then pride in our weapons
    2. Octavian avgust
      +8
      21 February 2013 10: 22
      Rook is now being upgraded, a new electronic filling - will make it the best in its class! hi
    3. +8
      21 February 2013 10: 23
      1. Hs. 129



      2. Problems with the interaction of the army and the air force have not yet been fixed, the clearest example of 08.08.2008/XNUMX/XNUMX.
      1. 0
        17 February 2018 14: 50
        By the way, it’s very similar to a rook (bird)
    4. Beck
      +9
      21 February 2013 12: 55
      Yeah. After all, they can.

      The article is objective, without the slightest creep on cheers-patriotism. Everyone deserves both flowers and carnations. To the author plus.
  2. +13
    21 February 2013 08: 45
    Didn't minus, there are many interesting details, but the review, frankly speaking, is surprising. Like a classic: "horses, people mixed in a heap." Some of the devices presented can only be viewed as curiosities. Well, what, excuse me, is the A-130 the best attack aircraft? And what does Henkel 129 have to do with it, if the article is called "the best attack aircraft"? Or did the author describe everything that was found?
    1. +1
      21 February 2013 11: 13
      Quote: Vladimirets
      I didn’t minus it, there are a lot of interesting details, but the review, frankly, is surprising.

      I’ll support it. I didn’t plus or minus. I expected a little different, based on the title of the article.
      1. +2
        21 February 2013 20: 18
        I still put a plus in the article for just mentioning the R-47 of the Republican company. The author correctly noted that this monster was not literally an attack aircraft, but how many enemies he crumbled on the ground ... Especially in Normandy.
        1. +3
          21 February 2013 20: 44
          the author forgot to attribute to the "thunderbolt" the "typhoons" "Tempests" "Mustangs" "Iniders" "Bostons", well, in short, all the hordes of Anglo-American aviation ironing Normandy
    2. +3
      21 February 2013 15: 49
      Quote: Vladimirets
      Well, what, excuse me, is the A-130 the best attack aircraft?

      Powerful efficient and unusual machine, for more than half a century it has been fighting all over the world more.
      It was created for its specific conditions - fire support of ground units in low-intensity conflicts, patrolling and guarding their own bases, cover for search and rescue helicopters. How would such a machine be useful to our troops in the Afghan war or Chechnya!

      Whoever thinks that it is easy to knock her down - let him first try to do it. 50 years ago, the AC-130 "huddled" the Ho Chi Minh trail and no S-75 air defense systems and MiG-21 fighters could do anything. It flew too high for the DShK machine guns and too low for the S-75, hiding in the folds of the terrain. And at the same time, slow enough to find and destroy any truck or other point target.



      Quote: Vladimirets
      And what does Henkel 129 have to do with it, if the article is called "the best attack aircraft"?

      Because not a single "best" A-10 or Su-25 has even a fraction of the combat experience of this machine. Yes, and not in LTH business. The main thing is competent interaction between ground units and the Air Force, otherwise even the coolest attack aircraft, what good, will cover its own.
      1. +2
        21 February 2013 19: 54
        therefore, he confidently hits, for example, with the "arrow" 2M, generally an ordinary colonial toy
      2. +3
        21 February 2013 22: 35
        Yeah, Henschel in the Second World War for 6 years (from 1.09.1939/2.09.1945/25 to 12.1979/02.1989/XNUMX) and then not all the time of the war, but the Su-XNUMX in Afghanistan (XNUMX to XNUMX) is certainly not a combat experience
      3. +5
        22 February 2013 10: 33
        Well, at the expense of Spectrum's invulnerability, you got a little excited. Amer acknowledges that in Vietnam 52 crew member of ganships was lost ... They are silent about the number of downed planes. It is known that after two gunships were shot down two days in a row, their use on the Ho Chi Minh trail was discontinued. The losses were just from the C-75, the anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance, and the largest from the MANPADS Strela. There have also been attempts to apply them with varying success in Grenada and Panama.
        In the "desert storm" there were attempts to use this machine, but not successfully, moreover, at least one plane was shot down ...
        They tried to apply both in Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan ...
        In general, for 50 years, two dozen trucks, two tanks and five hundred Mujahideen!
        Good performance!
      4. SSR
        +1
        22 February 2013 17: 52
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Powerful efficient and unusual machine, for more than half a century it has been fighting all over the world more.

        Only now the author writes in black and white
        At the sight of the attacking Spectrum, Jung and Freud would embrace as brothers and cry with happiness. National American Fun - Shooting Papuans from guns on board a flying plane
  3. +2
    21 February 2013 09: 19
    so praise the "u-87" which in the typical sense is not an attack aircraft, but a dive bomber and at the same time speak so badly about the "il-2" Then why is there no "pe-2" in the review "A-130" that from the attack aircraft, apart from the cannon armament "Not-129", there are no words
    1. +2
      21 February 2013 18: 57
      Then you can recall DB-3 with DB-3f, who successfully bombed from a steep dive (otherwise they could not) into a Finnish company.
      1. 0
        21 February 2013 20: 23
        And even before the heap of Tu-2, and from above with "Schnellbomber" polish: the same dive bombers.
      2. +1
        22 February 2013 01: 18
        Ar-2 was diving, another thing is that they were not particularly noted and no one remembers them.
  4. avt
    +5
    21 February 2013 09: 21
    Quote: Vladimirets
    Didn't minus, there are many interesting details, but the review, frankly speaking, is surprising. Like a classic: "horses mixed in a bunch, people"

    Got ahead. Indeed, this American fashion does not lead to good ratings; they will always be compared with a hedgehog because there is a common letter Zh.
  5. +1
    21 February 2013 09: 46
    Quote: "Nevertheless, the real effectiveness of this weapon is often questioned: during the war, 12 million PTABs were manufactured: if at least 10% of this amount were used in battle, and of which 3% of the bombs hit the target - from the armored forces The Wehrmacht would have nothing left. "

    Yes, you still find this tank / tanks ... PTABs are effective against armored vehicles, but it is better to use high-explosive bombs against field fortifications and enemy manpower.
    1. +6
      21 February 2013 12: 16
      PTABs were very effective when our attack aircraft covered the columns on the roads - after them there was a vinaigrette, my grandfather told me that. As for the Il-10, our head of the aircraft modeling circle at school, who flew this attack aircraft in 1945 in the Far East, said that his comrades sometimes caught up with the full load of the Japanese Zeros, shot them down, and then went directly to the attack Japanese troops. hi
    2. +1
      21 February 2013 21: 30
      Well, the Goering chicks with their astronomical victories at 50 years in advance have eradicated all Soviet aviation))))))
  6. 0
    21 February 2013 10: 47
    The Pe-2 is certainly not enough, although in fairness it must be said that it was more used as a horizontal bomber, and only dive bombing was used in only one air force during the war years.
    Interesting statistics on the IL-2. It turns out that almost every third plane was shot down! It would be interesting to see the losses over the years in order to have an idea of ​​their causes.
    1. 0
      21 February 2013 13: 46
      Quote: Appiann
      The Pe-2 is certainly not enough, although in fairness it must be said that it was more used as a horizontal bomber, and only dive bombing was used in only one air force during the war years.

      A reference is possible ?? ..... a pawn has always been a diving bomber and only in rare cases was it used as usual
      1. +2
        21 February 2013 16: 22
        For starters, the Pe-2 was a high-altitude long-range fighter :) And under the functions of a dive pilot, he was hastily imprisoned.

        And yes, indeed, the main type of work with it was bombing from a horizontal or gentle dive. The point here was not in the properties of the machine - it made it possible to dive and it was guaranteed to get out of the dive at angles even larger than "Stuck", but in the training of pilots and the organization of formations. Years from the end of 1943 began to master the dive attack with us. And then! As a rule, only 1 regiment regularly used a dive per division. The reason is that neither in 1941, nor in 1942, nor even in 1943 pilots at the school were NOT LEARNED to bomb from a dive. And teaching at the front is practically anrial, the "pawn" confidently fell at almost 90 degrees, accelerating to almost 700 km / h, at such a speed not every pilot could withstand overloads.

        And further. Unlike the German fighters, who were not particularly scrupulous about covering Stuka, our bombers could fly from the special department for the "proser", but don't play around. And to cover the dive bombers, which are organized in a very non-trivial way for the strike, is another task.
      2. mamba
        +1
        22 February 2013 12: 42
        Quote: gispanec
        A reference is possible ?? ..... a pawn has always been a diving bomber and only in rare cases was it used as usual

        Here is what the wiki writes about this: The Pe-2 was rarely used as a dive bomber proper to attack point targets - it was common practice to group aimless bombing from a horizontal flight, “on the lead,” that is, on command from a leading aircraft, or from a gentle dive. Periodically, orders were issued by the Air Force prohibiting the use of a dive attack. This is due to the acute shortage of experienced crews, primarily pilots, the complexity of the aircraft in piloting and the desire of the command to somehow reduce losses. Only since 1943, the Pe-2 began to be used by experienced crews "in profile" as a dive bomber. The combat use of Pe-2 from a dive was quite successfully mastered by pilots led by I.S. Polbin, later the commander of the 6th air corps ... In practice, the use of Pe-2 throughout the war was reduced to areal strikes from horizontal flight or from a gentle dive. Only after the end of World War II, Pe-2 began to conduct full-scale research on deep-dive bombing, despite the fact that the aircraft did not have any special equipment for this and most of the fleet was already worn out and had limited maneuverability. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CF%E5-2
        Before the start of the Second World War, the Pe-2 did not have time to fully pass either operational or military tests, the order for which was issued by the command of the Air Force of the Red Army only in April 1941. The situation was even worse with the retraining of pilots on a new machine. If in the Air Force as a whole this indicator for new technology was 10%, then in bomber aviation it was only 5%. At the same time, retraining programs for pilots were simplified to the limit. Crews of dive bombers were not trained to conduct dive bombing, and were also not prepared for flying at high altitude. Only individual commanders could use pawns at heights of up to 7 thousand meters. http://topwar.ru/18194-aviaciya-krasnoy-armii-velikoy-otechestvennoy-voyny-chast
        -2-pikiruyuschie-bombardirovschiki-pe-2-i-tu-2.html
    2. 0
      17 February 2018 15: 20
      The reasons are simple. Lack of air supremacy. The paradox, when the sky was German, Il flew without a rear gunner, and the losses from enemy aircraft were terrible. Then they introduced the arrow, when it was almost no longer relevant, the enemy fighters decreased. Junkers was great and terrible while flying without opposition. The absence of Soviet fighters and military air defense in the Red Army (it’s not difficult at all (the author is cunning!) To get into it from an anti-aircraft machine gun, there weren’t just enough of them. With the loss of dominance in the air, it ceased to be a combat aircraft, did not reach its targets. In 1943, use was stopped Goebbels invented the majority of Rudel’s victories. They just honestly wrote about the effectiveness of the 3,7% IL-2, but this is an official report, not a propaganda article. I think the effectiveness of the A-10 is even less, so about the recoil is great. I didn’t see any mention of the real wrecked tanks with the help of this prodigy (the gun is meant). The warthogs hit all armored vehicles exclusively with missiles. The effectiveness of the anti-tank Junkers - Goebbels’s tales. I did not meet Soviet information about the defeat of tanks by these planes, and for some reason the tankmen didn’t call it.
  7. +3
    21 February 2013 11: 08
    Quote: Zerstorer
    Quote: "Nevertheless, the real effectiveness of this weapon is often questioned: during the war, 12 million PTABs were manufactured: if at least 10% of this amount were used in battle, and of which 3% of the bombs hit the target - from the armored forces The Wehrmacht would have nothing left. "

    And why did the author say nothing about the performance of the Thunderbolts. The article is similar to the stories of the History Channel. Or a translation of some rating from an English source

    Quote: Zerstorer
    Quote: "Nevertheless, the real effectiveness of this weapon is often questioned: during the war, 12 million PTABs were manufactured: if at least 10% of this amount were used in battle, and of which 3% of the bombs hit the target - from the armored forces The Wehrmacht would have nothing left. "

    And why did the author say nothing about the performance of the Thunderbolts. The article is similar to the stories of the History Channel. Or a translation of some rating from an English source
  8. +3
    21 February 2013 11: 52
    well, a controversial little article !!! - German pieces as well as Amer spectra are good when you have complete simplicity and in the air too !! shorter drive the Papuans !!!!! and our IL-2 hung over the battlefields distributing cots to all- and tanks too !!!!
  9. +14
    21 February 2013 12: 08
    weak .... such a short (not new) digression ..... minus, in any case, there is nothing to put ..... The story of the fantastic gun GAU-8 - praise .... the guns of Gryazev and Shipunov are very good! and multi-barreled in particular!

    GSH-6-23 all the more, it works due to the energy of powder gases, and does not need an electric drive, which is energy-intensive to the point of horror .... correspondingly lighter weight
    1. +4
      21 February 2013 15: 23
      Quote: Dart Weyder
      GSH-6-23 all the more, it works due to the energy of powder gases, and does not need an electric drive, which is energy-intensive to the point of horror .... correspondingly lighter weight

      GSH-6-23
      Projectile weight 200 gr., Barrel velocity 715 m / s
      GAU-8
      Projectile weight 425 gr., Barrel velocity 1000 m / s

      GAU-8 Avenger and GSH-6-23 from slightly different weight categories ...
      By the way, to start firing firing from GSh-6-23, an electric drive of the barrel unit is not required, but pyro-cartridges are required, the number of which is limited.
      1. +2
        21 February 2013 22: 30
        gau-8 should not be compared with gsh-6-23, but with gsh -30, which is on the su-25, the projectile speed and rate of fire are lower, but not critically
        1. +2
          1 March 2013 01: 19
          GSh-6-23 - rate of fire up to 12 thousand / min
          GSh-6-30 - rate of fire up to 6 thousand / min

          Well, where is the "fantasy" of the American cannon with its 3 thousand / min?
          1. 0
            6 March 2013 16: 53
            GSh-6-23 speed-9000v / min when entering the mode, return about 6 tons.
      2. 0
        6 March 2013 16: 52
        The number of squibs-10 pieces, b / c-250 cartridges in a linkless version, cut-off-1 / 4 or 1 / 2 b / c or full. Enough in excess of one departure. And the analogue of GAU-8 is GSh-6-30, but the GAU is not suitable for it. (Read comm. Further)
    2. +1
      22 February 2013 01: 23
      The fact that GSH-6-23 is good no one disputes, but it is not anti-tank, the barrel length is small, hence the range, accuracy, and projectile power are lower again ...
      1. 0
        23 February 2013 17: 28
        Why forget about GSh-6-30?
    3. 0
      6 March 2013 16: 47
      The gun is about two meters long, it rises together, was mounted on the Su-24, in a linkless version with a cut-off, rate of fire up to 9000v / min.
  10. +2
    21 February 2013 12: 24
    Interesting article. I didn’t put anything. The reason is the discrepancy between the meaning of the article and its title. The comparisons are really strange. It seems like an attack aircraft is a plane of direct support to troops on the battlefield. And its main armament is small arms and artillery, bombing and missile. The attack aircraft works from low altitudes, and must be adequately protected from air defense fire, and enemy small arms fire.
    In other words, the Junkers "thing" is a dive bomber, not an attack aircraft. There is a memoir of one famous pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel (he flew with a prosthesis, like our A. Maresyev), where he describes the tactics of using the "piece", and even describes the modification of the Ju-87 with 37 mm cannons. This cannon plane can be considered an attack aircraft with an interference.
    Ganship "Spectrum" is another story altogether. The world's first "anti-aircraft" aircraft! In the presence of even a weak air defense, its use is doomed to the death of the aircraft and the crew! (Confirmed by Vietnam!). Amer does not use it if there is at least some enemy aircraft in the air (and even attack helicopters). That is still an attack aircraft!
    1. -2
      21 February 2013 15: 19
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      where he describes the tactics of using "stuff", and even describes the modification of the Ju-87 with 37 mm guns. This cannon plane and can be tight considered an attack aircraft.

      And it is possible without interference.

      Quote: AlNikolaich
      It seems like an attack aircraft is a plane of direct support to troops on the battlefield.

      Yu-87 is also an aircraft of direct support to troops on the battlefield.

      Only Junkers acted more efficiently than the IL-2: dive - accurate target attack - escape at high speed. And the IL-2 hung for tens of minutes above the front edge, performing multiple approaches (the lead-outs for firing cannons, machine guns and NURS were different) - as a result, everything that could shoot at them fired at them and the next hole became the last. Statistics - a third of all "super-armored Stormtroopers" were shot down!
      1. +1
        21 February 2013 20: 34
        It's a shame, by the way, that Douglas "Skyrader" is not mentioned. Yes, yes, I know: he fought nothing at all - Korea, Vietnam and Africa, but it is interesting at least because it was used in full and successfully in the era of the most jet aircraft (take the same Skyhawks and Intruders).
      2. +1
        22 February 2013 17: 21
        It is impossible without interference. The interference fit is called the air defense, which the Germans, our times exceeded. Especially MZA, in the area of ​​which both aircraft worked.
  11. -1
    21 February 2013 12: 45
    I have a feeling or some kind of unfinished article.
    The fragment breaks off and silence!,
    1. +1
      21 February 2013 14: 31
      Quote: carbofo
      I have a feeling or some kind of unfinished article.

      It seems like the author wants to know the opinion of the members of the forum on this topic, who will give any assessment to this or that aircraft, the criterion is probably effectiveness.
      IL-2 aircraft victory, with all the advantages and disadvantages. Losses mainly due to the fact that often had to fly without fighter cover, departures at the same time and along the same route (learned to fight on their mistakes). Il-2 probably spent the most on the battlefield, so I give him the first place, the second Su-25 and A10, each in its own good.
      1. 0
        22 February 2013 08: 36
        saturn.mmm,
        Questions should be asked, not a logical break in the narrative.
        This is not a political forum, then the glittering of squirrels is not in fashion.
      2. 0
        22 February 2013 13: 31
        Most of all, IL-2 suffered losses precisely from anti-aircraft artillery
  12. +5
    21 February 2013 14: 23
    Indeed, the content of the article, to put it mildly, does not quite correspond to its title. And to talk about which attack aircraft turned out to be the best, we can only talk about those attack aircraft that were tested in battles with an equal enemy. In particular, neither A10 nor SU25 have ever been used, and thank God) in a full-scale war against opponents equipped with modern fighters and air defense systems.
    For example, the SU25 proved to be excellent in Afghanistan and was much more effective than the SU17, but its enemy was the Afghan Mujahideen, who used mainly heavy machine guns and Stingers for air defense purposes. By the way, with the appearance of the Stingers in the Mujahideen, the SU25 had to operate from heights of 5000 m and above, which significantly reduced the effectiveness of its weapons.
    The same can be said for the A10. This "fantasy" attack aircraft has not yet met a worthy enemy, which means that it is too early to talk about whether it is the best in its class or not.
    To talk about the AS-130 Spectrum fire support aircraft as an attack aircraft is also, to put it mildly, incorrect. This is nothing more than a flying platform of heavy weapons with which it is good to fight against unarmed peasants. Yes, and other examples, except for the Soviet IL 2, are also far-fetched.
    The same P-47 Thunderbolt multi-role fighter cannot be attributed to attack aircraft. because in addition to solid weapons, the attack aircraft must also have solid armor protection of the main components and the pilot.
    Equally important for modern attack aircraft is the availability of special navigation and sighting equipment.
    If all this is neglected, then a lot of other aircraft can be attributed to the class of attack aircraft, for example, SU7, SU17, MIG 27 fighter-bombers, and so on.
    1. 0
      21 February 2013 15: 12
      Quote: gregor6549
      For example, the SU25 proved to be excellent in Afghanistan and was much more effective than the SU17, but its enemy was the Afghan Mujahideen, who used mainly heavy machine guns and Stingers for air defense purposes.

      How would it have been initially designed for conflicts of this type. In 1967, it was not yet known what the Afghan would be, but the designers had already outlined the main tasks: it was required to create a subsonic aircraft capable of effectively finding and hitting point targets and withstanding the hit of small arms bullets (up to and including the DShK machine gun, and in the most dangerous areas - small-caliber Memory). Key features of the Rook.

      Quote: gregor6549
      And to talk about which attack aircraft turned out to be the best, we can only talk about those attack aircraft that were tested in battles with an equal enemy. In particular, neither A10 nor SU25 have ever been used.

      And there is no one to compare them with. All other "attack aircraft" (British Hawk or old A-37) are objectively worse.

      Quote: gregor6549
      The same P-47 Thunderbolt multi-role fighter cannot be attributed to attack aircraft. because in addition to solid weapons, the attack aircraft must also have solid armor protection of the main components and the pilot.

      And then she was not there!

      From the front hemisphere, the cabin was shielded by a huge engine, and the pilot himself was additionally protected by front armored glass and armor plate in front, rear armored, an additional radiator and turbo compressor - damage to these units led only to a decrease in engine power, otherwise the aircraft remained operational. From the bottom of the cabin, Kartveli installed a steel "ski", which excluded the pilot's death during an emergency landing with the landing gear retracted.
      1. 0
        21 February 2013 20: 07
        if you consider the amount of equipment on the plane as protection, then the B-29 turns out to be the most protected attack aircraft. somehow you are not looking at that
      2. 0
        22 February 2013 11: 56
        Dear Oleg,
        The history of СУ25 is described in some detail in many sources, including on the site http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/su25.html.
        And the designers of the Design Bureau of Sukhoi, Yakovlkev, Mikoyan and Ilyushin themselves did not "plan" anything, but took part in the competition for the creation of an attack aircraft conducted by the USSR Ministry of Defense, initiated by the commander-in-chief Sukh. Troops I.G. Pavlovsky and Air Force Commander P.S. Kutakhov. Sukhoi T-8 aircraft (prototype SU-25) won the competition. Further work on SU 25 proceeded neither shaky nor shaky, and only after the start of the war in Afghanistan, when it became clear that the then SU ​​17 fighter bombers did not fully meet the requirements of that war, work on the creation of SU 25, their testing and formation on their basis combat units were dramatically accelerated. This time.
        And two. No fragmentary armor of the aircraft, including the American P47, and the "shielding" of its pilot with the engine does not transform this aircraft into the class of attack aircraft. One of the fundamental differences between the attack aircraft and all other "battleships" is that the armor of the attack aircraft is an organic part of the aircraft structure, and not a hygienic "pad" (ladies forgive me) and from which no lady becomes "more beautiful", although the benefits of gaskets apparently some kind smile
    2. 0
      21 February 2013 19: 00
      In Afghanistan, IL-28 performed well, until their spirits were nailed to the ground.
  13. Heccrbq
    0
    21 February 2013 15: 27
    Basically the attack 2 World, interesting video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhreZIk07pI
  14. 0
    21 February 2013 15: 32
    Thank you, informatively, albeit briefly ... at another time, do not leave chopped off thoughts in the text ...
  15. rem
    rem
    +2
    21 February 2013 15: 35
    I served with SU 25 in '85. We had such a case when a pair of sushi went on a U-turn, the rear crashed into the front. The tail was blown off the front, and the rear cockpit along the very cockpit with the pilot. Both sat down as if nothing had happened. Vitality brutal (with an experienced pilot). Unfortunately, pilots died in Afghanistan due to poor knowledge of the mate.
  16. +4
    21 February 2013 17: 03
    What about the A-4 Skyhawk? The legendary plane.
    1. +1
      21 February 2013 20: 48
      The author either consciously or deliberately gathered all the classes of aviation capable of at least somehow working on the ground, and there are only three pure attack aircraft in fact. PS Henschel is more likely a misunderstanding than an attack aircraft.
      1. -1
        21 February 2013 21: 13
        Quote: tomket
        gathered all classes of aviation capable of at least somehow working on the ground

        Able to somehow provide direct fire support on the battlefield
        1. 0
          21 February 2013 21: 27
          with this approach, you can't write about "strike needles" and su-34 with F-111 - a crime against humanity)))))
      2. The comment was deleted.
  17. 0
    21 February 2013 21: 34
    before writing about the IL-2, the author would be nice to read, say, Drabkin, "I fought on the IL-2," you look and would not put different things in a row with Him
  18. +1
    21 February 2013 21: 57
    All the same, I wouldn’t put the spectrum on the list, because the attack aircraft is designed to work on troops (tobish over air defense), and the Spectrum can only work as a current air punisher, but at least armedly equipped with waxes ... such a suitcase does not fly for a long time, but English The typhoon on the list looked very nice ...
  19. 77bor1973
    +2
    22 February 2013 00: 24
    They cleaned the clean P-47 fighter, and the Fv-190 f where, and the Su-2, and Po-2, but what an ineffective IL-2 this is half the story!
  20. 0
    22 February 2013 01: 35
    All the relative advantage of the Su-25 is only in its reservation, but the plane is really blind, unable to detect masked targets, forced to descend to dangerous heights relying on armor to detect targets. The reserve for modernization is small due to the low load, at a maximum range of only 1,5 tones, which does not allow the use of suspended target detection systems. Even for the 80s, it was already obsolete and did not satisfy the customer.
    1. 0
      5 March 2013 16: 11
      Have you ever sat in his cabin? According to the tactics of the Air Force, assault aviation should be based at a distance of 60-70 km from the front line, and not at the maximum range. The Su-25 is an aircraft of close support on the battlefield, it should not fly at 10 km. At the same time, he can land on unpaved airfields and, if absolutely necessary, refuel with 80-m gasoline. He was also called "comb" or "death of a gunsmith." After using all the weapons he was left with a strip of plowed land and nothing alive.
  21. 0
    22 February 2013 02: 03
    On the other hand, any modern combined-arms offensive battle without quality air support is doomed to an imminent and inevitable defeat.


    A strange conclusion, and for some reason unreasonable. In Syria, which knead each other for a month, and one side has no aviation. Doges of Africa have successfully fought with each other.
    The USA on the battlefield from Vietnam did not encounter serious air defense, and usually had several months to suppress the available air defense.
    And the conclusion is that the tank division cannot directly advance without attack aircraft. Maybe of course the losses are big - there can never be extra firepower. But make such a categorical statement.

    In modern battles, large units still came up against it equipped with the latest technology, from BOTH sides.
  22. 0
    22 February 2013 10: 00
    Cool article is very interesting. Thank.
  23. +4
    22 February 2013 10: 15
    of course su-xnumx love for me she is the best attack aircraft
  24. +2
    22 February 2013 11: 26
    Strange article.
    IL-2 vs Yu-87
    "Without any opposition from the enemy, in ideal range conditions at a previously known target! Moreover, shootingand from a gentle dive it had a bad effect on armor penetration: the shells simply ricocheted off the armor - in none of the cases was it possible to penetrate the armor of enemy medium tanks. "The question is, does one of the other presented attack aircraft use their cannon armament from a dive? None. Even if the Ju-87, which dives so well, will shoot at tanks from a dive. That the tank will be made with 3 7.92mm machine guns? But the Ju-87 puts bombs from a dive. I agree. Then why is the Ju-87 compared to an Il 2 and not a pawn? A pawn is also good with a dive bomb, besides, Pe faster, and with cannon = machine-gun armament, the Pe-2 was doing better.

    What is the AC 130 doing here? An attack aircraft is a front-line support aircraft. AC 130 A simple and ingenious solution for local conflicts of low intensity. The main thing is that the enemy's air defense should not have anything more serious than MANPADS and heavy machine guns According to the same logic, Makarov’s pistol is a simple and ingenious anti-tank weapon, the main thing is that the enemy tank crew should be outside the tank and without weapons, then it would shoot the enemy tankers point blank and that’s it, the enemy’s tank without crew turns into a pile of scrap metal)))
  25. 0
    22 February 2013 11: 26
    Quote: Nayhas
    All the relative advantage of the Su-25 is only in its reservation, but the plane is really blind, it is not able to detect masked targets

    Then the main advantage of the A-10 in flight range. Americans consider their A-10 unsuccessful. First of all, due to extremely low flight performance. Maneuverability suffers, rate of climb and acceleration characteristics. Although it’s better than Hawk or Alpha Jet.
    In the USSR, they quickly reacted and prepared in the 1989 for the Su-39 series, which sees perfectly and destroys the enemy in most cases without entering the air defense defeat zone. Here it is the Miracle Machine created over 20 years ago. Which, alas, was not needed by the country.

    Quote: Nayhas
    All the relative advantage of the Su-25 is only in its reservation, but the plane is really blind, it is not able to detect masked targets

    Then the main advantage of the A-10 in flight range. Americans consider their A-10 unsuccessful. First of all, due to extremely low flight performance. Maneuverability suffers, rate of climb and acceleration characteristics. Although it’s better than Hawk or Alpha Jet.
    In the USSR, they quickly reacted and prepared in the 1989 for the Su-39 series, which sees perfectly and destroys the enemy in most cases without entering the air defense defeat zone. Here it is the Miracle Machine created over 20 years ago. Which, alas, was not needed by the country.
  26. +1
    22 February 2013 11: 28
    The article was clearly not written by the British, which is good. Here, in some of their films, they praised their "harricane", a thunderstorm of tanks, etc., etc. And there was no word about the IL-2, here are the clowns
  27. 0
    22 February 2013 11: 29
    No, after all, the wise were the military before perestroika. A-10 appeared, and the Tungusks appeared to shoot him before reaching the line of attack. Well, I’m not saying anything about TOR.

    No, after all, the wise were the military before perestroika. A-10 appeared, and the Tungusks appeared to shoot him before reaching the line of attack. Well, I’m not saying anything about TOR.
  28. kukuruzo
    +1
    22 February 2013 12: 39
    very interesting article .. we have good traditions in aircraft manufacturing
  29. lucidlook
    +6
    22 February 2013 13: 07
    The best song about the Su-25 and their pilots

  30. lucidlook
    0
    22 February 2013 13: 51
    IL-2 attack aircraft: ... crew of 2 people.

    Oh, if it were so from the very beginning and exactly as planned. How many pilots and shooters would return home.
  31. 0
    22 February 2013 14: 21
    Whatever you say, A-10 is a beautiful bird good
  32. askold
    0
    22 February 2013 15: 02
    Indeed, some sort of strange selection of attack aircraft. In my opinion, the SU-25, IL - 2, A - 10 are presented here from attack aircraft. Well, that’s all.
    In fairness, the Fokke-Wulf Fw 190 could add.
  33. SHOGUN
    +1
    22 February 2013 16: 22
    Quote: Nayhas
    All the relative advantage of the Su-25 is only in its reservation, but the plane is really blind, unable to detect masked targets, forced to descend to dangerous heights relying on armor to detect targets. The reserve for modernization is small due to the low load, at a maximum range of only 1,5 tones, which does not allow the use of suspended target detection systems. Even for the 80s, it was already obsolete and did not satisfy the customer.


    Well so there is: Su-25T / TM / SM
  34. cool.ya-nikola
    +1
    23 February 2013 00: 22
    Quote: qwert
    Americans consider their A-10 unsuccessful

    I would add to all the "advantages" of the "Warthog" the fact that when firing from a cannon, powder gases are sucked into the engines and very heavily contaminate the compressor blades. Which in turn makes it necessary, after each shooting in flight, necessarily wash the engine with special shampoos.
  35. +1
    1 March 2013 01: 26
    "Many questions are related to the invulnerability of the Sturmovik. The harsh reality confirms: heavy armor and aviation are incompatible things. The shells of the German automatic cannon MG 151/20 pierced the Il-2 armored cabin. did not have - the turn of the anti-aircraft machine gun easily "chopped off" the wing or tail from the armored cabin with the pilots "

    the author did not begin to minus the article, although it would be possible for such nonsense.
    The armored box made its way only at point blank range, depending on the angle, the internet has a bunch of copies of reports from the research institute.
    Read at least the memories of German pilots or something.
    Why they always tried to attack from below and get into the oil cooler - in another way the IL-2 was very hard to shoot down.
    About chopping off the limbs of IL-2 with anti-aircraft machine guns - also aftar amused.
    In general, thank you for your work, but learn the materiel, sir!
    1. 0
      5 March 2013 15: 57
      It is pointless to shoot on the oil cooler - he performed only on 10 cm. If there was a good fighter cover, then the Germans attacked in a steep peak (above the gunner's shooting sector) by skipping a formation and moving to height nobility on the forcing and below (if height allowed), but again after diving on climb and at high speed so that after the attack Ilov they were not intercepted by escort fighters.
  36. +2
    5 March 2013 15: 49
    Well, gentlemen, let's start in order.
    A-10A with its "most powerful cannon" and a rate of fire of only 3900. On the MiG-27BK
    there was a gun GSh6-30 (converted from a ship's anti-aircraft gun) with a rate of 60009SHET) thousand shots per minute and a recoil of 9 tons. Here it really stopped in the air, because of which it had to reduce the rate of fire. (We had it in our school) . But at the same time, shaking the plane was, God forbid. So that only amateurs can believe that 6 meters with a diameter of 1200 m fall into a circle (I am an engineer in aircraft armament and served as an engineer for the pr-nav. Complex on the Su-17m4). Effective firing range on the Dryer (two single-barrel HP-30 cannons at the root of the wing) with a rate of fire of 800) 1200-800м.And the inefficiency of firing a cannon at tanks, the author himself cites the example of IL-2.
    AC-130. It makes no sense to fly at high altitude, only to scare the raven. And on a small one, even the DShK will make it a sieve. An airplane is not a donut, if someone has ever seen its insides, it will understand. In general, a long repair, if at all, will be provided to him.
    Now "Rook". It has GSH-2-30, 10 suspension points, but the extreme points are intended for R-60M missiles (2-4 pieces, depending on the APU) "air-to-air". At our school there was an experimental Su-25 with a shifted to the right of the front landing gear.
    Yu-87. Speed ​​on a dive-up to 650km / h - but this is when the brake flaps are removed (on the Pe-2 720). with the released -420 (the lower the speed, the lower you can dive and more accurately drop the bomb). At the exit from the peak, the plane sags for Yu-87 min. dump height-500-600m. Otherwise, earth-hello. Plus, you need to consider the demolition of bombs. At the Pe-2, the navigator did this and put the BUR (combat turning angle) on the sight. it wasn’t on the Yu-87, so there’s no need to talk about the great accuracy of bombing .. On evading anti-aircraft guns - this is generally nonsense. At a dive, it cannot spin (if you want to hit the target at all). The Germans threw bombs from about a kilometer (Rudel descended to 500-600m because of his strength, he could take the plane out of the peak with greater overload). At 420 speed and kilometer altitude, this is not such a difficult target for the 37 mm anti-aircraft guns. And as soon as there were a lot of them in the troops, Yu-87 as a dive ended. Had to fly higher, resulting in a loss of accuracy and efficiency. And at the top there are fighters for which Stuck is a gift of fate. Therefore, by 44 the Germans didn’t even fly, but used the PV-190 in the Me-410 assault version.
    IL-2. During the war there was a saying: "IL-why are you hunchback? Because he took the whole war on himself!" The plywood wing was in a short period due to interruptions with aluminum in 42. PTABs are very effective weapons and are still in service today. And their use on the Kursk Bulge forced the Germans to disperse the battle formations, which led to a deterioration in command and control and combat effectiveness. Well, if Ilam came across a convoy or a cluster of equipment, then kiss the ficus, water my mother .. And the Germans believed that suicide bombers fly on the Ilah, because normal people cannot fly like that !!! Silts made an average of 3-4 calls (1-2 with strong anti-aircraft guns and fighter resistance), but they could do 7-8.
    1. The comment was deleted.