Why in 1940 it was not possible to make a universal fighter from the Yak-1 according to the concept proposed by Polikarpov

In September 1940, Nikolai Polikarpov, who headed OKB-51, began work on a fighter with a 37 mm cannon. The universal winged vehicle was supposed to solve three main combat missions: air combat, destruction of ground targets and escort of bombers.

As armament for such an aircraft, the designer proposed using one Sh-37 cannon with 50 rounds of ammunition, as well as two ShVAK synchronous machine guns with 2400 rounds of ammunition.

At the same time, the emphasis in the design of the fighter was placed not only on powerful weapons, but also on a long flight range with high speed and maneuverability.

As a result, the aircraft was supposed to be close in its flight characteristics to the MiG-1 and I-185, but at the same time surpass them in terms of armament and range.

According to the designer's calculations, the universal fighter was supposed to reach a maximum speed of 535 km/h at an altitude of 7400-6700 meters with a speed range of 1450 km.

Already at the beginning of 1940, the head of the Air Force Rychagov turned to Shakhurin and Beria with a request to begin preliminary design of modern fighters with 37-mm cannons.

At the end of December, Alexander Yakovlev and the designers of Plant No. 31 tried to find a way to install the 37-mm Shpitalny gun on the Yak-1 fighter.

During the discussion of the project, it turned out that the design of the aircraft for these purposes would have to be seriously changed. The fact is that the weight of the Sh-37 cannon with 50 rounds of ammunition and two ShKAS machine guns with a full ammunition load of 2400 rounds, as well as a carriage and recoil shock absorbers, was 3,2 times greater than the weight of all standard Yak-1 weapons. The excess weight was approximately 243 kg.

But that's not all. The significant dimensions of the Sh-37 gun required the cockpit to be shifted towards the tail of the aircraft to maintain alignment.

In addition, due to the significant increase in weight, reinforcement of the chassis and the use of main wheels with larger pneumatics were required. This entailed not only a rearrangement of the chassis layout, but also strengthening of the wing, as well as radical changes to its design.

As a result, Yakovlev decided that installing a cannon on the Yak-1 was impractical, and included in the experimental aircraft construction plan for 1941 the development of a special aircraft with a 37-mm cannon.

Comments

[Eug]

And after how many shots from 37 mm. did the extremely lightweight Yak fall apart? And what engine were they going to put on it? As for me, at that level of technology universalism was unattainable, but no one dared to report this to Stalin...

[Dutchman Michel]

And what engine were they going to put on it?

M-105. There were no others

[solar]

The Airacobra, created at approximately the same time, had a similar armament - a 37 mm cannon and 2-4 machine guns. But for this purpose, the aircraft had a very unusual layout for a fighter of those years - with a mid-engine arrangement.

[Konnick]

The Airacobra, created at approximately the same time, had a similar armament - a 37 mm cannon and 2-4 machine guns. But for this purpose, the aircraft had a very unusual layout for a fighter of those years - with a mid-engine arrangement.

At the 9th minute of this video there is a layout drawing of the Gudkov fighter of the 41 year.

[solar]

it says "like an Airacobra".
Sorry

The first test flight of the Gu-1 ended in disaster in which Nikashin died. Based on the findings of the commission, Gudkov was accused of serious errors in calculations and during the assembly of the aircraft. People's Commissar A.I. Shakhurin reported on the commission's findings to I.V. Stalin and proposed depriving Gudkov of the title of chief designer of the 2nd degree and prohibiting him from engaging in design activities. Stalin agreed and by order of the NKAP dated July 6, 1943, Gudkov was stripped of the title of chief designer and sent as deputy head of the quality control department of plant No. 84, and the OKB-301 team in Gorky was transferred to OKB-21 under the leadership of S. A. Lavochkin.

And just two years earlier, Gudkov received the Stalin Prize of the first degree.

[Konnick]

"Airacobra type"

So the Americans came up with such a layout, hence the “Type”

[Eug]

And other safety margins, although ours still strengthened the fuselage structure in front of the tail unit.

[geniy]

The Airacobra didn't just have a 37mm cannon - supposedly exactly the same as they were going to put on the Soviet fighter - but a relatively short-barreled cannon with low recoil. So this comparison is inappropriate.

[MSN]

As for me, at that level of technology universalism was unattainable

Why unattainable. FW190 is a great all-rounder. Fighter, attack aircraft and fighter-bomber all rolled into one. The first Mustang again. Of course they entered service a bit later, but not for generations.

[Konnick]

Rastrenin, being a candidate of technical sciences, very carefully studied the history of the armament of our pre-war aircraft. I especially liked the lecture about the IL-2, where he dispelled the myth about the ideal attack aircraft. Our pilots had a hard time fighting the Luftwaffe.

[Cartographer]

"Our pilots had a hard time fighting the Luftwaffe"
So the attack aircraft was not created to fight the Luftwaffe, it was supposed to be covered by fighters. This is the same as saying “the Su25 had a hard time against the F-16.”

[Konnick]

it should have been covered by fighters

They should have... but in fact it was defenseless against German fighters, since they did not always cover it. In fact, the I-16 and I-153 used as fighter-bombers had a much better survivability during attack, despite the lack of armor, oddly enough. They did not need to be covered, they had excellent maneuverability for attacking anti-aircraft guns and evading attacks by Messerschmitts, and they could also dive-bomb and accurately launch RS. Read the memoirs of twice Hero of the Soviet Union Rechkalov about the beginning of the war.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Konnick

They did not need to be covered, they had excellent maneuverability for attacking anti-aircraft guns and avoiding Messerschmitt attacks, and they could also throw bombs from a dive and launch targeted missiles. Read the memoirs of twice Hero of the Soviet Union Rechkalov about the beginning of the war.

And what will it do to read memoirs? You can also read the memoirs of three times Hero of the Soviet Union A.I. Pokryshkin. There is also information about Rechkalov. Memoirs of K. Sukhov, who was Pokryshkin’s wingman. There are many memoirs. And they are all different, many, let’s say, do not always really show what really happened.

[Andrey A]

The Il-2 losses in the initial period of the war were microscopic and mainly from ground fire. German fighters almost never shot them down: it was not for nothing that they nicknamed it the "concrete" plane. But the Germans would knock out the I-16 and I-153 very quickly, and their strike capabilities were very modest.

[Konnick]

From the article

https://naked-science.ru/article/history/aviationww2

.... Even more interesting are the “Conclusions” numbers in the attack aircraft section. In June 1941-March 1943, the I-153 (aka “seagull”) had a survivability of 93 sorties (91 hours of combat flight time), and the Il-2 had a survivability of only 26 (27 hours of flight time). A gap exceeding three times. The IL-2 never reached the “Polikarpov” survivability of the I-153 at all - even in 1944-1945 it was below the level of the “Seagull” in 1941-1943. And this despite the fact that the “Seagull” operated in the skies where German aircraft dominated, and the Il-2 at the end of the war operated in the skies where the Soviet Air Force dominated

[Andrey A]

All these are the fantasies of Mr. A. Berezin, to say the least. He claims that the I-16 and I-153 were better than the Yaks and Ilyas. On I-16 and I-153 we flew back to Moscow, Leningrad and Rostov - on the Don (and these planes themselves were almost completely destroyed), and on Yaks and Ila we reached Berlin. The difference is obvious. And Berezin’s system of proofs is close to the constructions of the “flat-earthers”. As for Air Marshal Khudyakov-Khanferyants, who in 1942 advocated a return to the production of donkeys and seagulls, after the war he was repressed (shot because he lived and served under someone else’s name for many decades). So, it seems that he was repressed for his work

[Konnick]

What does Berezin’s fantasy have to do with it?

In the summer of 1943, the second department of operational management of the Red Army Air Force headquarters drew up a document - "Conclusions from the preliminary analysis of aviation losses", which analyzed the losses of aircraft of various types in the first couple of years of the war. These "conclusions" have truly revolutionary significance for understanding the course and outcome of the entire air war on the Eastern Front - from its first to the last day.

They included the combat survivability that Soviet aircraft of various types demonstrated in 138 sorties on the fronts from Mozdok to Murmansk. It turned out that the most tenacious Soviet fighters were I-183 and I-16. They made 153 sorties before the loss of the aircraft in battle for the I-128 (16 flight hours) and 118 sorties for the I-93 (153 flight hours). Here and below, the figures are given without losses at airfields, since they do not say anything about the combat qualities of the aircraft in the air. The number of sorties before loss is also called combat survivability, and this is the most important indicator for an aircraft in a war.

[MCmaximus]

There are many opinions that the IL-2 was a big mistake. All sides somehow managed without such an aircraft. And in reality the I-153 and I-15 were more effective.
There can be only one excuse - economic. The IL-2 has one engine, the bomber has 2. And with our engines, a single-engine strike aircraft is a suicide bomber. IL-2 has at least some chance. But reading the IL-2 pilots, you understand that it’s almost like in the infantry: life lasts for a couple of attacks. The leading ones survived. The rest played the lottery.

[Andrey A]

As for the Il-2, another German nickname speaks about its merits: “concrete plane”. At the beginning of the war, the Il-2 did not yet have an onboard gunner protecting the rear hemisphere, but suffered losses mainly from fire from the ground. German fighters practically could not shoot it down, hence the name. As for the complaints that no one built attack aircraft except us, you need to keep in mind that the Yu-87 ran out of dive bombers, no one else built them, but Ilyushin’s ideas for creating a well-armored attack aircraft live and win, and the same ones, The American A-10 attack aircraft and our Su-25 are still in service. True, their production began only in the 70s, and they finally confirmed their indispensability during the Afghan War and the Invasion of Iraq in the 90s. those. half a century after Ilyushin proposed his concept of an attack aircraft. So the IL-2 was many decades ahead of its time, in this regard it is a brilliant machine. The Su-6, mentioned by many as a competitor to the Il-2, was too weakly armored.

[MCmaximus]

The Il-2 fighters were tearing it to shreds. It couldn't escape. If it didn't have its own escort or if it missed the Germans, then its only hope was the gunner. And he wasn't protected at all. Gunners changed like gloves. They died.
It's hard to say which was better. The Americans and the British made do with fighters. And they also did not give life to the Germans. Yes, only one pass. And only with onboard weapons. But it was enough.
The same Skyraider was also unarmored. And guess what, you fought before Vietnam.
If you read the memories of the stormtroopers, somehow there is no great enthusiasm. Although there were super-successful flights. Well, and anti-tank sorties with PTABs.

[Andrey A]

The gunners were protected by 6 mm armor and the German fighters did not tear the Il-2 to shreds (the Il-2 was protected in the back by a large-caliber machine gun and a gunner protected by armor, but the German ace had no armor in the front).

Ilov's losses from fighters throughout the war were lower than losses from anti-aircraft artillery, and since 1943, attack aircraft sorties were carried out only with fighter cover.

As we can see: the main enemy of the Il-2 was anti-aircraft guns, not enemy fighters. And our fighters were covered by attack aircraft. As for the use of fighters for attack: this concept did not catch on, but armored attack aircraft (Ilyushin’s concept) are still flying to this day and this is a fact.

[MCmaximus]

But the Su-25 is only good where there is no proper air defense.
The Su-6 had a star engine at the front. Why does he need to carry extra armor?
So these delights are overestimated by our estimates.

[Andrey A]

Well, powerful air defense is not everywhere; Square has far from weak air defense and the Su-25 works and works well. And somewhere in third world countries there is no price for it even now, but no one has been producing dive bombers for almost a hundred years. The star engine is “ersatz”, it is not armor, which is why the Su-6 did not go into production and now it does not occur to anyone to hide behind the star engine. I repeat: Ilyushin’s concept was ahead of its time, only decades later our military was able to appreciate it; for almost a hundred years, armored attack aircraft have been “ironing” their enemies.

[Stas157]

Quote: Konnick

I liked the lecture about IL-2, where he dispelled the myth about the ideal attack aircraft

For a second, the most popular aircraft. And this is no coincidence! After all, IL-2 in the sky is the key to victory on earth.

Quote: Konnick

Our pilots had a hard time fighting the Luftwaffe.

And the Germans had a hard time on the ground when the Il-2s were hanging over the battlefield. But the attack aircraft is not designed for air combat. That was supposed to be done by escort fighters.

[Konnick]

For a second, the most popular aircraft. And this is no coincidence! After all, IL-2 in the sky is the key to victory on earth.

You see, our propagandists praised the IL-2, but in fact it was not that good. And it was our most shot down plane... unfortunately.

[Stas157]

Quote: Konnick

was the most knocked down

No wonder. After all, he was between a rock and a hard place. They hit him with everything from the ground. And he flew low. And they hunted him in the sky. And without an escort he was defenseless.
However, the Il-2 was the most necessary and in demand aircraft. His huge mass series is evidence of this. And there was no alternative, no replacement for him.

[Konnick]

No wonder. After all, he was between a rock and a hard place. They hit him with everything from the ground. And he flew low. And they hunted him in the sky. And without an escort he was defenseless.

The Il-2 was designed based on the results of the battles in Spain, the armored hull was made with bulletproof protection, then they used anti-aircraft machine guns of rifle caliber, and by the 41st the Wehrmacht was already saturated with 20-mm machine guns. And we had a vicious practice of storming forward positions covered by such anti-aircraft guns, and against these machine guns and shooters it was useless and only in the second half of the war they changed the use of the Il-2, it began to work on communications and engage in counter-battery combat. Read the awards for Beregovoy, our future cosmonaut, on the site "Memory of the People" and you will learn more about the use of the Il-2

[qQQQ]

Quote: Stas157

For a second, the most popular aircraft.

The most widespread, because the most knocked down. It was not for nothing that they awarded a Hero for 30 missions. Few people lived to see this moment. Since the middle of the war, the situation has improved due to fighter cover, but in general the IL-2s were shot down a lot.

[Stas157]

Quote: qqqq

The most widespread, because the most knocked down.

Do you think that the worse the plane is and the more it is shot down, the more they try to release it or something? Not the right logic at all!

The IL-2 was irreplaceable on the battlefield, like an attack aircraft. And there was no alternative to him. Even though he suffered losses, his contribution to the victory was very high. And it was precisely this circumstance that was the reason for the huge production of this aircraft.

[Konnick]

The IL-2 was irreplaceable on the battlefield, like an attack aircraft. And there was no alternative to him.

There was an alternative in the form of the Su-2 and then the Su-6.

[Stas157]

The Su-2 is not armored and not an attack aircraft. The engine is weaker. And the Su-6 did not go into production at all. And how would it be better than the Il-2?

[John22]

The fact that the Su-6 engine was air-cooled.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Stas157

Do you think that the worse the plane is and the more it is shot down, the more they try to release it or something? Not the right logic at all!

Whether it’s worse or better depends on who is considering what criteria. Your logic implies that if it is the most widespread, it is the best, but it is possible to be the most widespread due to production reasons while being inferior to other models in terms of characteristics. In the USSR, simplicity and mass production almost always prevailed over technical parameters, i.e. when choosing a cheap mass one, but a bad one and an expensive one, the cool choice was always the first option. I'm not saying that this is bad, especially during a war, but it is this option that leads to large losses.

[Stas157]

Quote: qqqq

In the USSR almost always simplicity and mass production prevailed over technical parameters, i.e. when choosing a cheap mass choice, but a bad and expensive cool choice always was for the first option.

Not always. Your argument is a negative, hackneyed (Western) cliché that you are trying to stick to the USSR.

Quote: qqqq

Your logic implies if the most massive then the best

You misunderstood me. The most widespread in this case - this means most necessaryIt was a ground battlefield aircraft, not an air fighter. It was critical to support the advancing troops.

[solar]

It was a battlefield plane on the ground

It is precisely this component that is controversial.
The plane was overweight, there was no bomb sight, it could not dive bomb, and the armor was not enough against the MZA. In the second half of the war, he was transferred to attacks on rear unarmored columns.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Stas157

this is a negative, hackneyed (Western) cliché

We can name a lot of examples that confirm this and very few that refute it. Moreover, I personally don’t know where we preferred the second option. Again, I understand the reasons for this approach and believe that at a certain stage they are simply necessary. No one has canceled the transition from quantity to quality.

Quote: Stas157

The most widespread in this case means the most necessary.

Nobody argues with this, but this does not refute the fact that the most necessary does not mean very good. It is necessity that completely dictates the conditions for the release of crude, technically weak equipment. It’s like with the release of light tanks in 41-42. , it was not because of a good life that they were used precisely as tanks.

[MCmaximus]

Well, again: at the beginning of the war, while these planes were still around, the I-15 of all stripes was BETTER than the IL-2 in attack aircraft. And they only have machine guns and small bombs, nothing.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Stas157

For a second, the most popular aircraft.

I'm afraid this is an attempt to pass off need as virtue.

Quote: Stas157

And there was no alternative, no replacement for him.

Ask yourself the question: how did the Germans manage without such an aircraft?
I had to read that they solved the problem of processing the enemy’s front edge mainly with artillery. That is, the mass production of IL-2 is the other side of our inability to use this tool

[Stas157]

Quote: Senior Sailor

I'm afraid it's an attempt to convey need for virtue.

So, do you agree with the need? But the IL-2 satisfied the need. Isn't this a virtue? Or do you think it would be better if there was no flying Il-2 tank at all?

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Stas157

Or do you think it would be better if the IL-2 didn’t exist at all?

It would be better if there was no such need
Pilots are too valuable a resource to be wasted like that.

[Stas157]

Quote: Senior Sailor

It would be better if there was no such need

Yes, it would be better if there was no war!

[solar]

But the IL-2 satisfied the need.

Excuse me, where did you get this from?

[shikin]

The Germans had a Yu-87, which caused a lot of bloodshed in the first years of the war, and it worked on the front line. And they were also beaten a lot. By the end of the war, the FW-190F shared this role with it.

[Cartographer]

Quote: Senior Sailor

Ask yourself the question: how did the Germans manage without such an aircraft?

They used dive bombers. But they also developed attack aircraft:
“Domestic historiography provides extremely scant information about the pilots of the Luftwaffe attack aircraft. But sometimes it was they who had a decisive influence on the course of hostilities on the ground, and sometimes at sea.
It should be noted the amazing intensity with which the pilots flew combat missions. During the war, 20 attack pilots flew over 900 missions, and 22 over 1000. The number of combat missions Hans-Ulrich Rudel flew is unsurpassed: 2!
After Germany entered the war with the USSR, most of the Luftwaffe attack aircraft operated on the Eastern Front, the battles on which ultimately decided the outcome of the war. During the war, 47% of attack aircraft pilots awarded the Knight's Cross died, two-thirds of them in battles on the Eastern Front
-Henschel Hs 129
-FW-190F

[MCmaximus]

Partly the lack of artillery was caused by the lack of shells. Due to the shortage of gunpowder and explosives. RDX appeared late.

[Dedok]

being a candidate of technical sciences,

and this means “indisputable authority”?
and without the prefix Ph.D. - you can’t/don’t have the right to think? - just listen...

[Grossvater]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

And what engine were they going to put on it?

M-105. There were no others

Both the Yak and LAGG were originally designed for the M-106, with a capacity, if the memory does not fail, of 1350 i-go-go.
Alas, the engine never took off. I had to install the 105th, with a capacity of 1050 horses.
Lyaksandr Sergeich, due to his great design and organizational talent, obviously foresaw this, and therefore lightened his Yak to the possible limit, which made it possible to obtain a combat-ready aircraft even with a stunted engine.
“Aviation is made of sticks and holes, sticks for strength, holes for lightness.”

[Dedok]

Both the Yak and LAGG were originally designed for the M-106

I'll make an amendment: M-107

[Senior seaman]

two synchronized ShVAK machine guns

I apologize for what may be an amateurish question. But were ShVAK machine guns still produced in 1940? It seems like back in 1936 they started making 20mm ShVAK guns instead...

[S.Z.]

As far as I remember the pilots' memoirs, the Yaks were too light; after the first shot, the 37-mm plane was pulled to the side and the second shot went to an unknown destination. This is probably one of the reasons.

In general, our fighters were much weaker armed than American and many German ones, but here the question is about expediency. We fought with fighters and maximum medium bombers of the Germans, for them two 20-mm cannons were quite enough, and the Germans fought with flying fortresses and other Lancasters, they needed something more serious. American fighters were mostly much heavier than ours and all-metal, they could put a huge number of guns on board.

In general, IMHO, a 37mm cannon on a front-line wooden fighter or even an interceptor was an expensive overkill, or seemed like it.

[ivan2022]

Did the Yak-1 have a 37 mm cannon?

[MCmaximus]

The 37 mm would cause any single-engine aircraft to crumple and stop. Even now, suspended cannons create many problems.

[Smoked]

""The universal winged vehicle was supposed to solve three main combat missions: air combat, hitting ground targets and escorting bombers.""

Something small for the flight of engineering in the era of aviation. It was also necessary to add tracks and floats for take-off from the water.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Eug

And after how many shots from 37 mm. did the extremely lightweight Yak fall apart?

Tell the scorching truth about the Yak-9T with a 37-mm cannon, which fell apart due to the over-lightened design, well, simply in the thousands...

[shikin]

Apparently, not everyone knows that the Yak-1 (Yak-3) and the Yak-7 (Yak-9) are different aircraft, with different purposes and designs. The Yak-1 “grew” from a sports aerobatic aircraft, and the Yak-7 from a training aircraft.
And if the Yak-3 is a light fighter - “hunter”, then the Yak-9 is an escort fighter and fighter-bomber.

[Eug]

The distance between the Yak-1 and Yak-9 is quite large. I’m asking a question about the Yak-1, you suggest telling me about the Yak-9...

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Grossvater

Lyaksandr Sergeich, due to his great design and organizational talent

A creature distorting the name of a world-famous animal engineer.

[Sergey Valov]

Did you even understand what you wrote? You called Yakovlev an animal engineer. I'm not talking about Yakovlev's assessment, I'm talking about literacy. At your leisure, ask about the difference between a dash and a hyphen.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Dozorny severa

Quote: Grossvater

Lyaksandr Sergeich, due to his great design and organizational talent

A creature distorting the name of a world-famous animal engineer.

Wow! Actually, this is the customary pronunciation of a patronymic name in Russian literature. However, if Russian is not your native language...

[Monster_Fat]

To understand everything that was happening with aviation weapons at that time, you need to watch the entire series “Only Big Guns” (there are, in my opinion, as many as 7 films) on “Tactic Media”...

[Konnick]

To understand everything that was happening with aviation weapons at that time, you need to watch the entire series “Only Big Guns” (there are, in my opinion, as many as 7 films) on “Tactic Media”...

Most of the writers here, not the readers... didn’t even watch this video

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Konnick

or one fat pig from Istra

Is this about Isaev? Yeah...comment

No, not about Isaev.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: S.Z.

In general, IMHO, a 37mm cannon on a front-line wooden fighter or even an interceptor was an expensive overkill, or seemed like it.

Where does this stream of consciousness come from? The subframe, load-bearing parts of the fuselage are steel, the wing spars, the hood trim on the Yak-9T are aluminum alloys.

[S.Z.]

Quote: Dozorny severa

Quote: S.Z.

In general, IMHO, a 37mm cannon on a front-line wooden fighter or even an interceptor was an expensive overkill, or seemed like it.

Where does this stream of consciousness come from? The subframe, load-bearing parts of the fuselage are steel, the wing spars, the hood trim on the Yak-9T are aluminum alloys.

My dear, how do aluminum alloy parts of the structure make a wooden plane all-metal?

By the way, the gun was also mostly metal...

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: S.Z.

My dear, how do aluminum alloy parts of the structure make a wooden plane all-metal?

What kind of treatment is this, in the style of a small, lousy import broker, my dear?
Where did I write that the Yak is all-metal? I wrote that the load-bearing parts of the fuselage were made of steel, and high-strength, alloyed with chromium. These load-bearing parts took the load, and, as follows from the practice of using the Yak-9T, quite successfully.
Therefore, the reasons for refusing to use the Sh-37 on Yak fighters are not due to design features or Yakovlev’s reluctance to install this weapon.
1. The gun of the Sh-37 spit turned out to be unsuccessful, so it was abandoned, including on the Il-2.
2. The use of a heavy 37-mm gun required a serious redesign of the Yak-1 fighters, including a change in layout (moving the cockpit back, which was later implemented on the Yak-9).
3. Making changes to the design, in turn, entailed a reduction in the production of serial products, which was recognized as unacceptable by the leadership of the design bureau and the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry.

[MCmaximus]

Yes, and there was no need for a 37 mm cannon on the fighters of that time. Because of Shpitalny’s intrigues, she began to drag these guns onto the fighters of that time
Shpitalny ran out of luck already at ShVAK. He desperately needed funds. And by hook or by crook he followed his line, where it was possible to snatch something

[Konnick]

Yes, and there was no need for a 37 mm cannon on the fighters of that time.

Watch the video. They tried to make three in one...including a fighter used against tanks

[MCmaximus]

There was a full cycle on the channel. 37 mm was needed by Shpitalny, not the military. The information seems to be exhaustive. Moreover, it coincides with articles from the 90s in other places.
There is a discrepancy only according to Taubin.

[Cartographer]

Quote: MCmaximus

37 mm was needed by Shpitalny, not the military

Apparently Nudelman too

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Konnick

To understand everything that was happening with aviation weapons at that time, you need to watch the entire series “Only Big Guns” (there are, in my opinion, as many as 7 films) on “Tactic Media”...

Most of the writers here, not the readers... didn’t even watch this video

And why waste time on this clown? All the information is on the Internet, for example in specialized publications, such as TV.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Senior Sailor

That is, the mass production of IL-2 is the other side of our inability to use this tool

Yeah, here’s another one, a major specialist in the field of aviation.
The Americans, apparently, are idiots too, they didn’t know how to shoot from the M-109, and therefore they came up with battlefield aircraft - A-1 Skyraider and A-10 Thunderbolt, as well as armored helicopters with cannon armament.
It’s a pity that years ago they couldn’t consult with you.

[MCmaximus]

With the exception of the A-10, all their attack aircraft were unarmored. That doesn’t stop them from considering the A-1 the best attack aircraft. Yes, the A-10, like our Su-25, is a suicide bomber against an enemy with air defense.

[lukash66]

I don’t understand, what does Polikarpov and Yak1 have to do with it in the title?

[bone1]

What does Polikarpov have to do with the Yak-1? - and why is the latter not universal?

[DenVB]

What I don’t understand is the logic of choosing the caliber of aircraft guns at that time.

There is a 20 mm caliber, the projectile weighs approximately 100 grams. A bit weak. There is a 23 mm caliber, the projectile weighs approximately 200 grams. Still not enough? Let's make it more powerful. Bam - caliber 37 mm, projectile weighing almost 750 grams. It hits great. True, the plane began to stop in the air when firing. Trouble.

I just want to ask the designers of that time (and those who gave them technical specifications): doesn’t anything in this series seem strange to you? Maybe you missed some opportunity?

[MCmaximus]

Watch this series of videos. Much was published at one time in “Technique and Armament”. The Air Force directly believed that they did not need a 37 mm cannon for 1940. No tasks. Even now they put in both 23 and 37 mm. This means that 23 is almost always enough.

[ivan2022]

Yes, simply because in 1940 the Yak 1 was already in production.

And if Polikarpov proposed the concept in 1940, then why does it follow that the 37 mm gun should have been on the Yak-1? Or maybe it would have been better on the I-16? At least the I-16 is also Polikarpov's machine.....

Can someone explain? It seems to me that this is the same as “there is an elderberry in the garden, there is a guy in Kyiv.”

[MCmaximus]

The concept was proposed by Shpitalny. The single-engine aircraft did not carry the 37 mm cannon. And he had to attach it to stay afloat. Because with all his other developments he went bankrupt.
But Polikarpov was distinguished by some kind of carelessness. He took on everything, and eventually, from a certain point, he stopped issuing aircraft. Just developments. In the complete absence of real exhaust.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: MCmaximus

Yes, and there was no need for a 37 mm cannon on the fighters of that time.

The Americans from Lockheed and Bell thought differently.
It is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of a weapon without testing it in battle.
There was a rational grain in the rivalry between Shpitalny and Yakovlev: to determine the optimal set of characteristics of a promising fighter, taking into account the available resources. What was actually done was testing new weapons, including on the Il-2. This is the essence of technical progress.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: MCmaximus

Watch this series of videos. Much was published at one time in “Technique and Armament”. The Air Force directly believed that they did not need a 37 mm cannon for 1940. No tasks. Even now they put in both 23 and 37 mm. This means that 23 is almost always enough.

No need to bear the blizzard.
The adoption of new types of firepower cannot be determined by the desire or unwillingness of the Air Force leadership.
Nobody asked the Air Force. An order came from the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry to carry out tests, and they were carried out by everyone. After this, the production of OPP and use at the front followed, for testing in real conditions. Based on the test results, the final decision was made.
In general, there is no need to pretend to be an expert.

[Andrey A]

Universalism was promoted, first of all, by the military: one can recall the Ivanov project with a multi-purpose aircraft, then, during the war, the Il-10 appeared, which the military tried to teach to conduct air battles with Messers. Polikarpov's project is one of many. In order to make a universal car, you need to be head and shoulders above your competitors, and above all, in engine building. And so, universality brought us a lot of harm (in artillery, for example, where they tried to make a howitzer and an anti-aircraft gun from a divisional gun, the result was something indigestible).

[Maks1995]

It seems that the Germans put 37 mm on Lapotnik for hunting tanks.
Why such a large caliber on a fighter, and even without experience in similar smaller calibers???

Would you like NEIMs too?

[Andrey A]

We already had a universal fighter then: the I-16. In terms of speed, the latest modifications of the I-16 were only slightly inferior to Polikarpov’s “universal” fighter. In many ways, it was on this “super machine” that our aces met the war and suffered heavy losses. And so, even in artillery, Grabin showed that universalization is a path to nowhere. - The divisional gun created according to this principle was both a bad divisional gun and a bad howitzer and a bad anti-aircraft gun. The same can be said about the I-16: it was a bad front-line fighter, a bad long-range fighter, a bad high-altitude fighter, a bad night fighter, a bad attack aircraft and a bad bomber. And so, in order to play “universalism” you need to be head and shoulders above your competitors and, above all, have qualitatively better engines. A little later, our military tried to create a “universal” vehicle based on the Il-10. One can only be surprised at the popularity of the I-16 among our generals.