Korean War: "Helicopters, more helicopters, as many helicopters as possible!"

10 195 33
Korean War: "Helicopters, more helicopters, as many helicopters as possible!"

We should begin the conversation not with the epic battles between MiGs and Sabres, but with less visible aircraft, for which the Korean War was their finest hour. With helicopters. It's not that the battles on the peninsula were the first combat test for rotary-wing aircraft. No, the first use of a helicopter in combat was in 1944 in Burma. But it was Korea that truly revealed the combat potential of these machines! However, let's start from the beginning.


Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky on the "Horse"

Igor Sikorsky built his first helicopter as a child (Jules Verne's novel "Robur the Conqueror" was one of his favorite books). The machine used a rubber band as its engine, so payload, speed, and other performance characteristics were out of the question. A second attempt was made in 1909, but the 25-horsepower Anzani engine meant it was unlikely to succeed. The Kyiv Polytechnic University student realized this in time, dismantled the machine with its coaxial two-bladed propellers, and forgot about helicopters for a long time, switching to airplanes. As is well known, he achieved considerable success in this field, but his multi-engine bombers are not the subject of today's story (it's about the Korean War!).




The S-42 is Sikorsky's commercially successful flying boat.

A close acquaintance with Tsar Nicholas II after 1917 turned from a feature into a bug, and Igor Ivanovich decided not to tempt fate and instead change his place of residence, first ending up in France, and in 1919, in the United States. Here he designed amphibious aircraft, but his dreams of rotary-wing aircraft aviation He never abandoned it. The success of his four-engine S-42 flying boat provided the funds for its implementation: in 1939, the VS-300 took to the skies (tethered!), and the R-4, built on its basis, became the world's first mass-produced helicopter in 1942.


Boris Nikolaevich Yuryev, the author of the classic helicopter design and a prominent Soviet aviation theorist

Sikorsky didn't design it out of thin air. In 1911, Boris Yuryev, a member of Zhukovsky's circle and a student at the Moscow Higher Technical School, developed a swashplate mechanism, but was unable to patent it due to a lack of funds. Sikorsky was familiar with Yuryev's idea: they had met at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Moscow in March-April 1912, and on March 30, Sikorsky attended the morning session where Yuryev delivered a report entitled "A Helicopter of My Own Design." Plagiarism? Unlikely: at the time, Igor Ivanovich was designing the "Russian Knight," but he most likely appreciated the idea—at least, the swashplate mechanism he later created differs from Yuryev's only in minor details. The same applies to Yuryev's proposed helicopter design with a main and tail rotor—his earlier models resembled the later Kamov helicopters, with coaxial rotors.


Yuryev's helicopter

It must be said that Sikorsky was right about the helicopters. By the late 30s, a fairly well-developed network of airfields had emerged worldwide, and passenger flying boats were losing popularity. Sikorsky's aircraft competition was so strong that his chances of beating Boeing, Lockheed, or Douglas were minimal. Ultimately, Igor Ivanovich was facing bankruptcy, but the R-4 attracted the attention of the US Air Force. The US military financed the construction of 29 prototypes and later ordered a batch of 100 aircraft. These helicopters also served in the Royal Navy.


R-4 is Sikorsky's first production helicopter.

The R-4 was first used after the January 3, 1943, ammunition explosion on the destroyer Turner, off New York City: a helicopter piloted by Lieutenant Commander Frank Erickson delivered two crates of blood plasma to a hospital in Sandy Cook. And on April 22-23, 1944, Lieutenant Carter Harman rescued a downed liaison pilot and several British soldiers for the first time in the Burma theater. During World War II, helicopters played a modest role: they delivered spare parts to floating aircraft repair shops, evacuated the wounded, and one served as Brigadier General Clinton W. Russell's personal jeep. Strictly speaking, the machine, which could only carry one passenger (no, four were sometimes carried if necessary, but if you're foolish enough, you could stuff 17 people into a motorcycle with a sidecar—I've seen it happen), wasn't really capable of much else.


H-5 Dragonfly – Sikorsky's "Little Horse"

But by the Korean War, the situation had changed. By 1950, the "UN forces" were armed with much more advanced aircraft. The H-5 Dragonfly was a modernized R-4 (though it could still carry three passengers in addition to the pilot), but it was significantly more reliable and easier to fly. This helicopter was equipped with a more powerful 450-horsepower Wasp Junior engine, and 92 were delivered to the Navy, where they received the designation HO3S-1 and the affectionate nickname "Little Horse." In the US Army Air Force, it was also called the R-5: such was the confusion among Americans at the time regarding the names of the aircraft in service.

The fact that the helicopter was more advanced than the R-4 didn't mean it was particularly good: there were problems with balance, and it was recommended to carry two iron weights—11 and 23 kg—on a flight. When flying with passengers, they were to be placed next to the pilot, and when flying without them, they were to be stored in the baggage compartment. In hot weather, lift decreased, and the weights had to be jettisoned to prevent them from falling. And then they had to be replaced with stones or sandbags! Only about 300 helicopters were built, and they were the ones who "got things done" at the beginning of the war—rescuing downed pilots, evacuating the wounded, and even attempting to search for naval mines.


Bell-47 Sioux - so cute!

Besides Sikorsky, Bell was also involved in helicopter production in the United States. At the outbreak of war, its success was considerably more modest, but their light, single-engine Bell-47 also saw combat service. The US Army designated it the H-13 "Sioux," the Air Force designated it the YR-13A, and the Navy designated it the HTL-1. The aircraft was used for casualty evacuation, reconnaissance, and communications. It earned the nickname "Angel of Mercy" among the troops—the evacuation containers for the wounded were attached, one to each ski, and equipped with acrylic shields to protect patients from the wind. This small helicopter had a fortunate fate: it proved very successful as a civilian aircraft, and at least 2407 were produced after the war. And yes, this cutie was a favorite character in films: if you take films about the Korean War, he appears in "MASH Hospital," and if you take more modern films, he appears in "Crocodile Dundee."


Hiller OH-23 "Raven"

There's not much to say about the Hiller OH-23 Raven helicopter—it's very reminiscent of the Bell 47. During the war, it was used as a reconnaissance, ambulance, and multi-role helicopter. In the latter role, the Raven could be equipped with twin M37C 7,62mm machine guns, but during the Korean War, these were still homemade, pilot-initiated projects. The machine later served in the Vietnam War. A total of over 2000 units were produced.


H-19 Chickasaw - the first proper military transport helicopter!

But the true star of the conflict on the peninsula was Sikorsky's H-19 "Chickasaw"! All other helicopters seemed like toy dragonflies in comparison: the helicopter boasted a 600-horsepower engine, allowing it to carry over 900 kg of cargo—12 soldiers, or eight wounded on stretchers and one medic to escort them. It had a top speed of 177,8 km/h and a range of 667 km. Igor Ivanovich employed an ingenious layout for this helicopter: the cockpit was located on top, with the propeller gearbox above it, and the engine in the nose, below, which saved the crew in the event of an emergency landing. The engine fell forward and downward, preventing injury to the crew.

There was the usual confusion with the names in the US: the Air Force knew it as the H-19, the Navy as the HO4S-1, the Marines as the HRS-1, and the civilian version as the S-55. 1281 helicopters were produced in the US, with another 447 licensed. Interestingly, Sikorsky helicopters were not equipped with standard armament—it was a sign of war with the USSR, and creating weapon The designer didn't want to use them against his homeland. This, however, didn't stop the military from upgrading them in the field, letting their imagination run wild: they installed machine guns in the hatches, mounted NURS rockets, and so on. It's said that the French, to whom the vehicle was also sold, installed a 20mm cannon or a twin heavy machine gun mount in Algeria.


Chickasaw in Korea, 1953

It was the Chickasaw that changed the face of the conflict, giving it a third dimension. While all the previously mentioned helicopters could perform reconnaissance, evacuate the wounded, and similar tasks (for example, the H-5 was successfully used for naval fire adjustment artillery), the R-19 could land troops, which is what it soon did.

On September 2, 1951, US Marine Squadron HMR-161 arrived in Korea, equipped with 15 HRS-1 helicopters (yes, remember, that's the same H-19 Chickasaw, but for the Marines!). By then, the war had smoothly transitioned to a trench warfare phase, and the Marines' objectives were modest: to capture several hills from which, according to the US command, observers could direct artillery fire on the "Kansas Line" and the supply road for the "UN forces." The limited offensive turned into a nightmare: the 36th South Korean Regiment spent five days assaulting the Chinese People's Volunteers' positions head-on, earning the ridge the nickname "Bloody Ridge." The assault was unsuccessful; what's more, the Chinese launched a counteroffensive, and the Southerners were driven back. General Clark Ruffner, who commanded the 2nd Infantry Division, was forced to send the 9th Infantry Regiment to support the Allies.


U.S. Marines take up positions overlooking the Punchbowl.

The North Koreans worked efficiently: they waited out the air and artillery bombardment in concrete bunkers, and when it ended and the enemy infantry advanced through pre-laid minefields, they emerged and rained machine gun and rifle fire on the enemy. The Americans dubbed these positions "Punchbowl." By early September, they had managed to capture its northern part, and on September 4-5, the Koreans, having suffered heavy losses, abandoned the ridge.


Evacuation of MLRS by helicopter, by M. Coll

On September 13, American command carried out a unique operation dubbed "Windmill 1": HMR-161 flew 8,6 tons of supplies and 74 Marines to Punchbowl in their Chickasaws. Then, a week later, helicopter pilots delivered 224 Marines from a reconnaissance company and 8,1 tons of supplies to the remote ridgetop. The flights crossed an 11-kilometer-long "gray zone" exposed to fire. And there was more! During Operation Haylift II from February 23-27, 1953, these aircraft delivered 730 tons of supplies to two regiments. The official report on the operation stated:

These remarkable initial successes demonstrated the significant contribution the helicopter could make to the tactical tasks of transporting and supplying attacking troops.

Despite operating under enemy fire, the Sikorskys suffered no losses. Yet, they were operating at an extremely risky rate at the end of the war: they were tasked with removing multiple rocket launcher batteries, which, after firing, would kick up clouds of dust and become perfect targets for counter-battery fire. So, after the salvo, Chickasaws would fly in and move the launchers and their crews to new positions: the launchers would be attached to an external sling, and the gunners would be carried into the cockpit. And this happened twice a day!


The M422 "Mighty Mite" airmobile jeep

The use of the Chickasaw in Korea led to the creation of a rare vehicle: the M422 "Mighty Mite" SUV. Why rare? Well, the H-19 couldn't carry much cargo—less than a ton. So it was decided to develop a 770 kg jeep with an aluminum alloy body. Mid-America Research Corporation (MARCO) was created for development and production, hiring Harold Christ, chief engineer of American Bantam (the original Willys manufacturer), who brought in his own team.

The result was a two-seater vehicle (theoretically, the bed could hold six people), capable of hauling a 390 kg load off-road, plus the ability to tow a standard Willys military trailer. But... The first vehicle entered testing in 1958, and production began in 1960. The Jeep was quite expensive—$5000, equivalent to about $55 today. And by this time, the H-19 Chickasaw had already been discontinued. Epic fail!


Rescue Captain McConnell. This shot is likely staged, taken for helicopter publicity...

One of the most memorable pilot rescues of the Korean War occurred on April 12, 1953. Captain Joseph McConnell, in combat with Semyon Fedorets, was shot down and ejected over the Yellow Sea. H-19 pilots Joe Sullivan and Don Crabb spotted the falling Sabre and set a course parallel to McConnell's aircraft. As a result, the American pilot was pulled from the water two minutes after splashdown: "I hardly got wet."“— McConnell later recalled this incident (McConnell was a famous ace - 16 destroyed and 5 damaged aircraft).


Helicopter - in stock!

The use of helicopters revolutionized combat. First and foremost, they significantly reduced personnel losses—thanks to timely evacuation, the death toll from moderate and severe injuries dropped by a factor of 8-9. Before the Korean War, 80-90 percent of casualties occurred; with the advent of helicopters, this figure dropped to 10 percent. During the war on the peninsula, helicopters saved more than 25,000 lives of American soldiers. Meanwhile, helicopter losses were extremely low: the helicopters were resilient, and man-portable air defense systems had not yet been invented.


General Lemuel Shepherd - "More helicopters!"

U.S. Marine Corps Chief of Staff General Lemuel K. Shepherd said in September 1950:

The helicopter is receiving an exceptionally favorable reception in Korea... We must spare no effort to get as many helicopters to the front as possible... giving them priority over any other weapon... Helicopters, more helicopters, as many helicopters as possible to Korea!

And the general's words were heeded: soon, every American infantry division was assigned its own helicopter detachment. While before the war, the US produced less than a hundred helicopters per year, by 1952, that number had risen to over a thousand. A new branch of the Army—Army Aviation—was born within the ground forces. In fact, this was where the majority of helicopters went. By the start of the war, Army Aviation had 1186 fixed-wing aircraft and 56 helicopters; by 1954, it had 2518 fixed-wing aircraft and a whopping 1140 helicopters. While the number of fixed-wing aircraft had merely doubled, the helicopter fleet had grown twentyfold! And then there was the US Marine Corps, which also consumed rotary-wing aircraft like crazy. And the Navy also appreciated the opportunity to equip any ship, no matter how large, with its own air wing.


Frank Piasecki – his helicopters didn't make it to Korea, but it would be wrong not to mention them...

In 1952, the Chickasaw faced a rather unusual test: an atomic bomb was detonated at a test site, and Sikorsky helicopters delivered radiation reconnaissance teams and soldiers to the epicenter. Ultimately, it became clear that helicopters were indispensable even in a nuclear war. Frank Piasecki, a descendant of Polish émigrés, burst onto the market alongside Sikorsky, Bell Helicopters, and Hiller. He didn't have his helicopters ready in time for the Korean War, but he later produced the epic Chinook and Sea Knight. Ahead lay the transition to gas turbine engines, Vietnam, and competition from Mil and Kamov helicopters... But it was the Korean War that set the stage for it all.
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 11
    April 20 2026 05: 55
    I just noticed one small detail about Yuryev: according to some archival sources, he had no critical problems securing patent protection for his helicopter design with a tilt mechanism. His main difficulties, due to a lack of funds, arose specifically with finalizing the flying prototype, not with the patent application itself.
    Otherwise, it's just great material, thanks for your work! wink
    1. +4
      April 20 2026 09: 10
      Good morning! Perhaps so; in any case, Soviet patents weren't recognized in the US. But Sikorsky didn't cut the specific design, but the idea, which, apparently, isn't considered plagiarism.
      1. +8
        April 20 2026 11: 34
        When the Americans needed it, they did not recognize British patents either.
      2. -1
        April 21 2026 08: 57
        Military developments are not patented in open patents and foreign rights to them are not recognized in all countries of the world.
        But Sikorsky most likely saw his helicopters as primarily for civilian purposes.
        However, on June 30, 1919, patent legislation was amended (the "Regulations of the Council of People's Commissars on Inventions"), and he was no longer allowed to establish a cooperative for their production in the USSR. Had the law been slightly more balanced, Sikorsky's factories would have been located somewhere in Russia.
  2. +2
    April 20 2026 08: 08
    I read it with interest, thanks to the author
  3. +9
    April 20 2026 08: 40
    Captain Joseph McConnell was shot down in a battle with Semyon Fedorets and ejected over the Yellow Sea.
    McConnell and his wingman were credited with shooting down S. Fedorets. Each was credited with one aircraft shot down, for a total of two aircraft! But we didn't credit S. Fedorets with shooting down McConnell; the plane crashed into the sea, and the plane shot down before McConnell, also wasn't credited to S. Fedorets—the film footage burned in the FPC in S. Fedorets's downed plane. In fact, there were two, but according to the documents, none. This again shows how we and they counted downed aircraft.
    1. +3
      April 20 2026 09: 08
      Yes, that's where the difference in the number of aircraft shot down by Soviet and German aces comes from: we didn't have enough camera guns; we needed confirmation from the infantry, and sometimes even the engine plaque from the downed plane (if it crashed on our territory). Still, we still outdid the Americans in the Korean War.
      1. +2
        April 20 2026 10: 13
        Quote: Georgy Tomin
        Yes, that’s where the difference in the number of planes shot down by Soviet and German aces comes from: we didn’t have enough camera guns,

        If we look closely at the photos, we'll see that Hartmann's aircraft don't feature a single FKP, but oddly enough, there's a famous photo of B.F. Safonov standing next to an I-16 Type 24 with a FKP. This refers to the "universal" equipping of Luftwaffe fighters with FKPs. If we look closely at those isolated shots, often used as documentary evidence of victories by anyone and everyone, we'll see that the Germans are responsible for only a few moments: shooting down an Il-4 from behind, attacking an I-16, and attacking a Spitfire MkV from behind. Then there are multiple shots of Messerschmitt 109s, 110s, and FW-190s being destroyed... But judging by their reports, they were shooting down our fighters in droves. One German, in 1941, over the Baltic Sea, shot down nine Pe-2s in a single attack in a single pass in a minute and a half, according to his report...
        1. +4
          April 20 2026 13: 30
          Hartman didn't need the FKP. They trusted him anyway. laughing laughing laughing
          They wrote as much as I said.
          1. +4
            April 20 2026 13: 48
            Quote: MCmaximus
            Hartman didn't need the FKP. They trusted him anyway. laughing laughing laughing
            They wrote as much as I said.

            You're laughing in vain. A few years ago, there was an article on VO covering the "victories" of German aces on the Eastern Front. In southern Ukraine. There was an interesting point: since the pilots couldn't claim to have shot down Soviet aircraft on all counts, a resolution was added to their reports. Since the pilots are respected, their reports are trustworthy. Therefore, it's reasonable to consider the aircraft they claimed to have shot down as genuinely shot down. True, according to our data, during that period, our Air Force suffered far fewer losses from all types of enemy attacks and from failure than those personnel claimed. And that day, others were also "shot down," and the anti-aircraft gunners couldn't keep up with the shot-down markers on their overheated barrels...
            1. +1
              April 20 2026 13: 57
              I wrote everything correctly. It's impossible to take these aces' accounts seriously.
              1. +1
                April 20 2026 15: 16
                Quote: MCmaximus
                I wrote everything correctly. It's impossible to take these aces' accounts seriously.

                What makes you think I'm laughing? I was just confirming your words. About how the Übermensch can't lie. laughing
        2. 0
          April 21 2026 17: 10
          But judging by their reports, they were killing our guys in droves,
          Our people, too, were picking off the Germans in droves based on reports.
          Everyone lied, the only question is the percentage of lies.

          Soviet submarine and torpedo boat commanders did not stand on ceremony.
          For the latter, the ratio of actual to declared results sometimes reached 1:30.
          Sometimes the commanders of the GSS received awards without sinking a single enemy ship - everything was just words
          1. 0
            April 22 2026 01: 34
            Quote: Lewww
            Soviet submarine and torpedo boat commanders did not stand on ceremony.

            I can't say anything about the navy, it's not my profile, so to speak.
      2. +2
        April 20 2026 17: 30
        Yes, that's where the difference in the number of aircraft shot down by Soviet and German aces comes from:

        The difference isn't just because of this. And not even that much. To the credit of the Soviet command, the truly fantastic lies about the number of Germans shot down began to be addressed at the command level somewhere around the middle of the war.
      3. +1
        April 21 2026 10: 59
        Quote: Georgy Tomin
        Yes, that's where the difference in the number of aircraft shot down by Soviet and German aces comes from: we didn't have enough camera guns; we needed confirmation from the infantry, and sometimes even a nameplate from the engine of a downed aircraft (if it crashed on our territory).

        There was also confirmation from the infantry not so simple - double counting was practiced (confirmations from different units for one downed aircraft were taken and presented as two downed ones).
        Having personal indiscretion and attachment to Government awards, not satisfied with the two orders already received, comrade Fyodorov took the path of extortion and fraud, ascribing to himself non-existent military merit (15 personally shot down and 3 wrecked enemy aircraft).
        As a result of the insistent demands of Colonel FEDOROV, the commander of 6 IAK presented an award sheet for conferring the title of Hero of the Soviet Union on Colonel FEDOROV. When considering the award material in January 1944, I was refused representation.
        In the month of February 1944, the commander of the 6th IAK re-presented the award sheet with the application of certificates of downed enemy aircraft. Considering the award sheet and the certificates attached to it, I had a doubt about the correctness of the latter, i.e. whether certificates for the same downed planes were issued, only in different parts and persons. Having asked the Commander of the Air Force 3 on the merits of this question, I received an answer as I had previously assumed that Colonel FEDOROV showed exceptional dishonesty and fraud, attributing to himself twice the same aircraft shot down by him.
        For the unworthy behavior of a senior officer, expressed in extortion and fraud, as well as unsatisfactory work as a division commander, I petition for the removal of Colonel FEDOROV from his post and for his appointment with demotion.
        © Letter from Lieutenant General Rudenko to Chief Marshal of Aviation Novikov.
      4. +1
        April 21 2026 12: 57
        Yes, that’s where the difference in the number of planes shot down by Soviet and German aces comes from: we didn’t have enough camera guns,

        Machine guns were used primarily for pilot training. As mentioned above, they were rarely installed on combat aircraft.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC3bVd2nPU
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kamdK7p1ZDM&t=1s
  4. +6
    April 20 2026 08: 49
    In this machine, Igor Ivanovich was original in terms of layout: the pilot's cabin was located on top, above it was the propeller gearbox, the engine was in the nose, below, which allowed the crew to survive in the event of an emergency landing; the engine fell forward and down and did not injure the crew.
    Our Mi-4, which began being designed in 1951, had a virtually identical layout. Moreover, it was the Korean War that spurred our designers to develop medium-class helicopters. Korea demonstrated that a transport helicopter was a serious undertaking.
  5. +2
    April 20 2026 09: 00
    Thanks. Very interesting article.
  6. +2
    April 20 2026 09: 07
    The H-19 Chickasaw was the first fully functional military transport helicopter.

    Thank you for the article !
    Everyone knows about Sikorsky helicopters, although visually (from cinema) all "mere mortals" are more familiar with Bell helicopters, the UH-1 Iroquois from "Vietnam" films, and the handsome 47th from "all other" films... The hard-working X-34 Choctaw (also Indians) from Sikorsky (the successor to the X-19 Chickasaw you mentioned) personally comes to mind visually only from the "Full Metal Jacket"...
  7. +8
    April 20 2026 09: 44
    Frank Piasecki, who didn't have his machines ready in time for the Korean War, but later produced the epic Chinook and Sea Knight.
    Well, the first production aircraft of this design was a helicopter, also designed by Piasecki, which, under the name PV-3, made its maiden flight in March 1945. In 1947, a series of 20 machines was produced. The next helicopter of this design, also designed by Piasecki, the HUP-1, went into production in February 1949. The US Navy received 32 of these machines... The machine was subsequently improved. In 1960, it received the general name UH-25 Army Mule for all branches of the US Armed Forces... Our "flying carriage", the Yak-24, took off as early as July 1952. And F. Piasecki's next model, the future H-21, was in April 1952. Ours, of course, was larger and more powerful than its American counterpart. But... As they say, the later appearance of the Mi-6 put an end to the further development of helicopters of this design in the USSR. But let's return to F. Pyasetsky's helicopters; they also fought in the Korean War. Here's a photo of American troops landing from Pyasetsky HRP "Flying Banana" transport helicopters.
    1. +5
      April 20 2026 14: 22
      Thanks for the photo, I couldn't find any information about the "flying bananas" participating in the Korean War...
      1. +4
        April 20 2026 15: 29
        Quote: Georgy Tomin
        Thanks for the photo, I couldn't find any information about the "flying bananas" participating in the Korean War...

        Quite rare, just like the aircraft itself. I saw this photo a long time ago, and finding anything detailed about this aircraft, especially its use in Korea, is quite difficult. At one point, this photo was even attributed to early Vietnam. Incidentally, the "flying banana" is no longer listed in the 1965 Album of Military Aircraft, Helicopters, and Rockets of Capitalist Countries.
      2. +2
        April 20 2026 17: 07
        Quote: Georgy Tomin
        I didn't find any data on the participation of "flying bananas" in the Korean War.

        "...Unfortunately, it was a temperamental machine considered too fragile to be assigned to combat squadrons.The HRP-1 was instead relegated to use as a test bed and demonstration..."
        and in general, an interesting article:
        https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/Whirlybirds%20US%20Marine%20Helicopters%20in%20Korea%20%20PCN%2019000410500_1.pdf
  8. +1
    April 20 2026 19: 08
    Very informative, thanks!
  9. +2
    April 20 2026 20: 08
    Thank you, a very interesting and informative article. The Korean War forced us and our potential partners to rethink many things, including the question of whether a massive nuclear bombing of the USSR by bombers, covered by an armada of fighters, was really possible. The debut of jet aircraft (the end of World War II, with a few Messerschmitt jets, was not yet a practical experience), radars on American aircraft and radar warning devices on ours, the widespread use of helicopters, and the protection of electronics with compound fillers, previously used to seal the joints of airfield slabs.
    It's a pity, of course, that Russia lost, and America acquired, people like Sikorsky and Zvorykin, and by the way, they also profited greatly from scientists and engineers from the Germans.
    1. +1
      April 20 2026 20: 57
      Quote: faterdom
      The debut of jet aviation (end of World War II with several examples of jet Messerschmitts

      By the way, stealth aviation too... the Horten 229 was produced according to surviving drawings and its low visibility for the radars of that time was proven

      Quote: faterdom
      By the way, the Germans also profited greatly from scientists and engineers

      Incidentally, Werner von Braun and some of his engineers spent several years in a filtration camp, sorting through papers like an archive rat... and right after the Korean War! He was urgently pulled out and sent back to his assigned place... Meanwhile, in the USSR, another group of equally qualified German engineers with high ranks in the SS, led by Ethusiasm, worked tirelessly all this time. The result was the R-1 ballistic missile, which stunned everyone so much, and then Sputnik.
  10. +1
    April 20 2026 20: 32
    17 people on a motorcycle with a sidecar—that's a real competition at motorcycle festivals. And old-timers like the K-750 manage to move that crowd.
  11. +1
    April 21 2026 10: 42
    Quote: MCmaximus
    Hartman didn't need the FKP. They trusted him anyway. laughing laughing laughing
    They wrote as much as I said.

    About hunting stories. The shooting method described by Hartman and Kozhedub is identical. Shooting from a minimum distance. Even from a dangerous distance. The result is essentially the same. Compared to everyone else who pulls the trigger when they see something in the sights...
    Although Hartman flew 1425 sorties compared to Kozhedub's 330, it's logical to assume that if Kozhedub had flown the same number of sorties, he would likely have had over 200 victories... if he had encountered a German aircraft in the sky. However, his tally is several times smaller than yours.
    1. +1
      April 21 2026 13: 51
      About hunting stories. The shooting method described by Hartman and Kozhedub is the same. Shooting from a minimum distance.
      You are confusing something.
      Kozhedub didn't describe anything; he simply fired without thinking and shot down planes. He had an innate gift for accurate shooting with aircraft cannons and machine guns. That's why he fired and hit from such great distances that even other experienced pilots couldn't.

      And the theory was studied by Pokryshkin, and several other little-known pilots long before him
  12. -1
    April 21 2026 12: 37
    Quote: Fitter65
    But judging by their reports, they were taking down ours in droves; one German in 1941 over the Baltic Sea took down nine Pe-2s in a single battle in a minute and a half, in one attempt, according to his report...

    ...They say that consuming "Luftchocolate" caused side effects in the form of hallucinations. :)
  13. +1
    April 21 2026 13: 02
    Mid-America Research Corporation (MARCO) was created to develop and produce the car, hiring American Bantam (the original Willys manufacturer) chief engineer Harold Christ, who brought in his own team.
    A request to authors: please more accurately copy the Wikipedia sources on which you base your publications.

    The original Willys was produced by Willys-Overland Motor Company - hence the name.
    And Harold Christ worked for the company American Bantam, which developed the Bantam Reconnaissance Car Quarter-Ton jeep for the military, which went down in history under the abbreviation BRC 40, was produced in small series, most of these cars ended up in the USSR.

    Harold Christ was the plant manager for American Bantam. And the "chief engineer," or more accurately, the chief designer who developed the BRC 40 jeep, was Karl Probst.

    The development of the M-422 jeep was NOT driven by the Chickasaw's use in Korea. The jeep was designed according to the US Marine Corps' requirements, not for the Airborne Forces.
  14. 0
    April 24 2026 01: 19
    Helicopter - in stock!

    And Hot Lips are also available :))