Military Review

"Elahs" against tanks

96
One of the main objectives of the armored attack aircraft Il-1941 adopted at the beginning of 2 of the year was the fight against armored vehicles. For this, the weapons of the caliber 20-23-mm, the rocket projectiles of the caliber 82-132-mm and bombs weighing up to 600 kg could be used.
The experience of combat operations in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War showed a sufficiently high combat effectiveness of the IL-2 during operations on uncovered manpower, artillery and mortar positions, train echelons and transport convoys.




Moto-mechanized columns attack aircraft Il-2 usually attacked with a strafing flight (approach height to the target 25-30 meters) along the column or at an angle 15-20 degrees to its long side. The first blow was struck on the head of the column in order to stop its movement. The opening range of fire 500-600 meters. Aiming was carried out "on the column in general" with sighting of tracer bullets from ShKAS machine guns. Then, taking into account the position of the route of bullets relative to the target, fire from cannons and the RS opened. The effectiveness of the IL-2 side fire on the targets that made up the columns (infantry in vehicles, armored vehicles, artillery, etc.) was quite high.
However, the 20-mm ShVAK air guns and 23-mm VYa that were part of the on-board armament could effectively deal only with light tanks, armored personnel carriers and armored vehicles.

During the fighting it turned out that the attacks of German light and medium tanks with Il-2 attack aircraft armed with ShVAK cannons along the column were completely ineffective due to the fact that the frontal armor of German tanks had a thickness of 25-50 mm and a ShVAK cannon did not penetrate.
Single early IL-2 attack aircraft, armed with 20-mm ShVAK cannons and 7,62 mm ShKAS machine guns


The ground tests of the ShVAK cannon when shooting at captured German tanks conducted by 8 in June-July 1942 showed that the ShVAK cannon armor-piercing projectile can penetrate the chrome-molybdenum steel armor with increased (up to 0,41%) carbon content up to 15 mm thick (Pz.II tanks Ausf F, Pz.38 (t) Ausf C, BTR Sd Kfz 250) at meeting angles close to the normal from a distance of no more than 250-300 m. When deviating from these conditions, firing of the ShVAK cannon became ineffective.

So, by increasing the angle of the projectile with armor above 40 degrees, solid bounce even in areas of armor 6-8 mm thick were obtained. For example, from 19 hits obtained when firing from this gun on an Sd Kfz 250 BTR (approach height 400 m, planning angle 30 degrees, opening distance 400 m), there were 6 through holes in the board (armor thickness 8 mm), 4 - in the roof of the engine hood (armor thickness 6 mm), 3 bounce and 6 chassis hits. Hitting the undercarriage as a rule did not cause significant damage to armored vehicles.
Destroyed German Sd Kfz 250 armored personnel carrier


The appearance on the front from August of the 41-1 Il-2 attack aircraft with cannoners WN-23 of the 23 mm caliber increased the combat effectiveness of the assault air units, but not as much as it should have been - the performance of the modified Illov against Wehrmacht armored vehicles remained low .
An armor-piercing incendiary 23-mm projectile of an air cannon VY at a distance of 200 meters pierced along the normal 25-mm armor. IL-2, armed with guns WN-23, could defeat only light German tanks, and even then when attacking the latter from behind or from the side under planning angles up to 30 °. The attack of the IL-2 by any German tank in the front both from the planning and from the strafing flight was completely ineffective, and the average German tanks were also attacked from behind.
In the opinion of experienced pilots, the most convenient and effective shooting from an IL-2 aircraft with cannons WN-23 at German tanks, in terms of orientation, maneuvering, time spent on a combat course, firing accuracy, etc., was firing from planning at an angle 25-30 ° with an input height in planning 500-700 m and input speed 240-220 km / h (output height - 200-150 m). The planning speed of a single IL-2 at these angles increased slightly - only at 9-11 m / s, which allowed maneuvering for aiming at the sight and the track. The total time of the target's attack (eliminating side gliding when turning on the target, aiming and firing from guns) in this case was quite sufficient and ranged from 6 to 9 sec, which allowed the pilot to make two or three target queues based on the elimination of the side Sliding attack aircraft when turning on the target must be spent around 1,5-2 sec, 1,5-2 sec also required for aiming and correcting intersection between the queues, and the queue length does not exceed 1 sec (firing of VY cannons more than 1-2 sec led to being Nome and crosstalk disturbance to a sharp increase shells dispersion, i.e. a decrease in accuracy). The range of the beginning of aiming at the tank was 600-800 m, and the minimum distance of opening fire - about 300-400 m.
In this case, it was possible to achieve the hit of several shells into the tank. It should be borne in mind that not all the shells in the ammunition were armor-piercing. And the angle of the meeting with the tank armor was often not optimal for penetration.

The firing accuracy of the RS-82 and PC-132 rockets used in the Il-2 armament made it possible to effectively hit area targets, but it was clearly insufficient to fight tanks.

Field firing of standard PC-82 and PC-132 rockets, conducted at the NPC AV VVS KA, as well as the experience of the combat use of IL-2 at the front, showed little effectiveness of this type weapons when acting on small targets due to the large dispersion of projectiles and, consequently, a low probability of hitting the target.

The average percentage of PC-82 hits on a tank point when shooting from a 400-500 m distance, shown in the report, was 1,1% and only 3,7 direct hits were received from the 186 projectile column. The height of the approach to the target is 7 m and 100 m, the planning angles are 400-5 ° and 10 ”, respectively, the aiming range is 30 m. The shelling was conducted with single shells and a volley at 800, 2 and 4 shells.


RS-82 Missiles


When firing it turned out that the PC-82 can defeat German light tanks like Pz.II Ausf F, Pz.38 (t) Ausf C, as well as the Sd Kfz 250 armored vehicle only with a direct hit.

Gap PC-82 in the immediate vicinity of the tank (0,5-1 m) does not inflict any damage. The smallest possible deviation was obtained in a volley from the 4-x PCs at the planning angle 30 degrees.
PC-82 under the wing of the IL-2


The PC-132 firing results were even worse. Attack conditions were the same as when shooting PC-82, but the launch range was 500-600 m. The PC-132 probable circular deviation in range for planning angles of Il-2 25-30 was approximately 1,5 times higher than for PC-82, and for planning angles 5-10 degrees - almost the same.
To hit a light and medium German tank with a PC-132 projectile, only a direct hit was required, because when the projectile ruptured near the tank, the tank, as a rule, did not receive significant damage. However, it was very and very difficult to achieve a direct hit - from 134 PC-132 shots made by ground pilots with varying degrees of training, there was not a single hit in the tank.

Especially for the fight against tanks were created aviation rockets with armor-piercing warhead - RBS-82 and RBS-132. Which, when hit normal, pierced 50 mm and 75 mm armor, respectively. These shells were created on the basis of the RS-82 and RS-132. In addition to the new warhead, the shells had a more powerful engine, due to this they increased, the flight speed of the RS and the probability of hitting the target. As shown by field tests. The RBS penetrated the tank armor and then exploded, causing severe damage inside the tank. Armor-piercing RSs were successfully used in battles in August 1941. However, their mass release began only in the second half of the war. Despite the improved accuracy and armor penetration rates, rockets did not become an effective means of fighting tanks. Penetration greatly depended on the angle of encounter with the armor, and the probability of hitting remained insufficient.

In the arsenal of IL-2, along with missiles RBS-132, which had armor-piercing warhead, as a means of fighting the German armored vehicles, rocket missile defense rocket-rocket-132 strengthened by this time with improved, compared to RBS-132 or PC-132, accuracy firing. The warhead of the ROFS-132 projectile ensured the penetration (through a direct hit) of armor of medium-sized German tanks.
ROFS-132 under the wing of the IL-2


When ROFS-132 was broken near the tank at a distance of 1 m from it, the fragment kinetic energy at the elevation angle in 30 was enough to break through the German tank armor with a thickness of up to 15 mm. At an elevation angle in 60, a gap of ROFS-132 at a distance of 2-meters from the tank ensured penetration of tank armor with a thickness of 30 mm by fragments.

With a direct hit ROFS-132 in the side, for example, tank Pz. IV (or into the side of a fighter tank Jgd Pz IV / 70) 30-mm armor penetrated, and the equipment and crew inside the tank, as a rule, were disabled. Contact ROFS-132 in the motor part of the Pz. IV led to the destruction of the tank.

Unfortunately, despite the increase in accuracy of ROFS-132 firing, their effectiveness in firing at tanks and other armored vehicles in dispersed battle formations, to which the Germans went everywhere by this time, was nevertheless unsatisfactory. The best results of ROFS-132 were given when shooting at large area targets - motorized columns, trains, warehouses, field and antiaircraft artillery batteries, etc.

In order to increase anti-tank capabilities, simultaneously with the launch of the IL-2 into mass production, work began on arming the attack aircraft 37-mm air guns ShFK-37.



After passing state tests in October 1941 of the year, in the second half of 1942, a small series of 10 units was launched with the IL-2 variant armed with 37-mm ShFC-37 cannons.

The 37-mm ShFK-37 aviation gun was developed under the direction of B.G. Spit The weight of the gun with the installation on the IL-2 was 302,5 kg. The firing rate of PFC-37 according to field test data was on average equal to 169 rounds per minute with an initial velocity of the projectile around 894 m / s. The ammunition guns included armor-piercing incendiary tracer (BZT-37) and fragmentation incendiary tracer (OST-37) projectiles.

The BZT-37 projectile ensured the penetration of German tank armor 30 mm thick at an angle 45 degrees. normals from a distance of no more than 500 m. Armor 15-16 thick mm and less projectile punched at meeting angles of no more than 60 hail. at the same distances. Armor 50 mm thick (frontal part of the hull and turret of medium-sized German tanks) was pierced with a BZT-37 projectile from distances no more than 200 m at meeting angles not exceeding 5 degrees.
At the same time, 51,5% hits of the SFC-37 cannon shells on the medium tank and 70% hits on the light tank put them out of action.
Hit 37-mm shells in rollers, wheels and other parts of the undercarriage of tanks caused them significant damage, as a rule, disabling the tank.

The report on the ground tests of the SFC-37 cannons on the Il-2 aircraft emphasized that the flight crews should be well trained in conducting aimed fire with short bursts (2-3 projectile in the queue) for small-sized targets such as a separate tank, car, etc. . That is, for successful use of the IL-2 with the ShFK-37 guns, the attack pilot had to have excellent shooting and flight training.

The large dimensions of the PFC-37 cannons and the store supply (the capacity of the 40 projectile shop) determined their placement in the fairing under the wing of the IL-2 aircraft. Because of the installation on the cannon of a large store, it had to be strongly lowered down relative to the building plane of the wing (aircraft axis), which not only complicated the design of attaching the cannon to the wing (the cannon was attached to the shock absorber and moved along with the magazine when firing), but also required it is bulky with a large cross-section fairings.

Front-line tests showed that the flight data of the IL-2 with the large-caliber ShFK-37 air cannons, compared with the serial IL-2 with the ShVAK or VY cannons, decreased markedly. The plane became more inert and difficult in the technique of piloting, especially on turns and turns at low altitude. At high speeds, maneuverability deteriorated. Pilots complained of significant load on the rudders when performing maneuvers.

Accurate firing of ShFK-37 cannons on an Il-2 aircraft was greatly hampered due to the strong recoil of the cannons during firing and asynchronism in their work. Due to the large spacing of the guns relative to the center of mass of the aircraft, and also due to the insufficient rigidity of the gun mount, the attack aircraft experienced strong shocks, "pecks" and fired from the aiming line when firing, and this in turn, taking into account the insufficient the longitudinal stability of the "Elah", led to a significant dispersion of projectiles and a sharp decrease (by about 4 times) the accuracy of fire.

Shooting from the same gun was completely impossible. The attack aircraft immediately turned in the direction of the firing gun so that it was impossible to introduce an amendment to the aiming. In this case, hitting the target could only be the first projectile.

During the entire test period, the SFC-37 guns worked unreliably - the average percentage of the ammunition that fell on one failure was only 54%. That is, almost every second flight on the Il-2 combat mission with ShFC-37 cannons was accompanied by the refusal of at least one of the cannons. The maximum bombardment of the attack aircraft decreased and amounted to just 200 kg. All this significantly reduced the combat value of the new attack aircraft. As a result, the installation of guns ShFK-37 on the IL-2 aircraft was not found for most of the front-line pilots.

Despite the failure of the air cannon ShFK-37, the work on the reinforcement of the Il-2 armament continued. First of all, this was due to the fact that by the spring of 1943, the Wehrmacht’s only armor gates, with which “Elah” could still successfully fight using cannon armament, were only lightly armored armored vehicles, armored personnel carriers, and self-propelled guns (like “Wespe” and .d.) and anti-tank SAU (type "Marder II" and "Marder III"), created on the basis of light tanks. Actually, there were almost no light tanks in the Pancervaffe on the Eastern Front. They were driven out by more powerful medium and heavy tanks.

"Elahs" against tanks

IL-2 armed with HC-37


In this regard, in order to improve the anti-tank properties of the assault aircraft of the Red Army, by the Decision of the State Defense Committee No. 3144 of X-N-XX April 8, the aircraft-plant No. 1943 undertook to produce two-person attack aircraft Il-30 AM-2 with two guns of the 38 mm XNUM-X cal-2X-X attack gun. OKB-37 with 11 ammunition for shells per gun, without missiles, with a bomb load of 37 kg in the normal version and 37 kg in the reloading one.
The ribbon power supply of the HC-37 guns allowed them to be placed directly at the bottom surface of the wing using structurally very simple and quick-release fasteners. The guns were closed with relatively small fairings, each of which consisted of two easily opening flaps. Ammunition for each gun fit directly into the wing compartments. The weight of one HC-37 gun with ammunition was 256 kg.

Ammunition for the NS-37 gun consisted of cartridges with armor-piercing incendiary-tracer (BZT-37) and fragmentation-incendiary-tracer (OST-37) shells. Armor-piercing shells were designed to destroy ground armored targets, and fragmentation - to destroy air targets. In addition, for the new gun was designed and sabot projectile. Compared to ShFK-37, the NS-37 air cannon proved to be more reliable and rapid-fire.

20 July 1943 of the year began military testing of the Il-16 with two 2-mm air guns НС-37, which lasted until December 37. In total, X-NUMX Il-96 attack planes with NS-2 were involved in troop testing.

The deterioration of the flight characteristics of the new attack aircraft, as well as the IL-2 with the ShFK-37 guns, was due to the large separation of the masses in wing span and the presence of the fairings of the guns, which impair the aerodynamics of the aircraft. In the whole range of IL-2 alignments with HC-37, it did not have longitudinal stability, which significantly reduced the accuracy of shooting in the air. The latter was aggravated by the strong recoil of guns when firing from them.

The tests showed that the shooting of the Il-2 aircraft from the NS-37 cannons was necessary only for short bursts of no more than two or three shots, since when firing two cannons at the same time due to the asynchrony of their work, the aircraft experienced significant pecks and misled the aiming line. The correction in aiming in this case was in principle impossible. When firing from one cannon, hitting the target was possible only with the first shot, since the attack aircraft turned towards the firing cannon and an amendment to the aiming became impossible. The defeat of the same point targets - tanks, armored vehicles, cars, etc. during normal operation of the guns was quite achievable.
In this case, hits in the tanks were received only in 43% departures, and the number of hits to the used ammunition was 2,98%.
Ammunition to the firing-gun armament of various modifications of the IL-2


According to the general opinion, the aircrew flying on the Il-2 with the NS-37, attack aircraft with attacks of small-sized targets had no advantages over the Il-2 with smaller caliber guns (ShVAK or IJ) with a normal bomb load of 400 kg.
According to the results of military tests, the Il-2 armed with the guns НС-37 was not launched into the series.

Unfortunately, the proposal by S.V. Ilyushin to create an aviation machine gun of an aviation machine gun based on an 14,5-mm anti-tank rifle, which had excellent armor-piercing properties, was not implemented. This could significantly increase the ability to combat enemy armored vehicles. Created in the USSR at the end of the 30's 14,5x114-mm cartridge, the entire war was successfully used in anti-tank guns PTRD and PTRS. The BS-41 bullet with a metal-ceramic core fired from these guns had normal armor penetration: 300mm on 35 and 100mm on 40.
The massive defeat of tanks from aircraft guns, widely advertised in films and memoirs, in most cases refers to hunting stories. It is simply impossible to pierce the vertical armor of a medium or heavy tank made of 20-mm - 37-mm aircraft cannon. We can talk only about the armor of the tank roof, which is several times thinner than the vertical and was 15-20 mm in medium and 30-40 mm in heavy tanks. In the aircraft cannon used both caliber and sub-caliber armor-piercing shells. In both cases, they did not contain explosives, and only occasionally a few grams of incendiary substances. In this case, the projectile was supposed to fall perpendicular to the armor. It is clear that in combat conditions shells hit the roof of tanks at much smaller angles, which drastically reduced their armor penetration or ricochet at all. To this we must add that not every projectile, piercing the armor of a tank, put it out of action.

From bomb armaments, when fighting against tanks, the best results were 100 kg high-explosive aerial bombs, the fragments of which pierced armor up to 30-mm thick, when 1-3 m was detonated from the tank. In addition, welds and riveted joints were destroyed by the blast wave.



High-explosive 50 kg and fragmentation 25 kg aerial bombs ensured penetration of armor 15-20-mm thick at rupture in the immediate vicinity of the tank.



It is worth noting that the accuracy of the bombing of the IL-2 was not high. The attack aircraft was not adapted to a steep dive and did not have a special bomber sight. The aim of the PBP-16, which was mounted on attack aircraft in 1941, was practically useless with the generally accepted practice of strikes from the flight of flight - the target ran and disappeared from the eyes too quickly for the pilot to use this rather complicated device. Therefore, in the front-line parts of PBP-16, as a rule, they were shooting “by the eye” until the middle of 1942, launching a machine-gun fire at the target and turning the plane depending on where the route went (and dropping bombs by time delay). horizontal flight from heights above 50 and in the autumn 1941-th began to use aim marks on the windshield of the cockpit canopy and the aircraft hood, but they were inconvenient to use and, most importantly, did not provide the required accuracy of bombing.

AJ-2 ampoules with a self-igniting liquid CS proved to be quite effective.
In the IL-2 small bomb cassettes, 216 ampoules were inserted, and the result was a completely acceptable probability of destruction.
When the ampoule fell on the tank, it collapsed, the CS liquid was ignited, if it flowed inside the tank, it was impossible to extinguish it. However, the pilots of the CS ampoule were not to be liked, since their use was associated with a high risk. A stray bullet or shard threatened to turn the plane into a flying torch.

The most effective anti-tank weapon of the Soviet attack aircraft was the special anti-tank bomb PTAB-2,5-1,5 of cumulative action developed at TsKB-22 under the guidance of I.A. Larionov.

The action of the new bomb was as follows. When hitting the tank's armor, the fuse triggered, which through the tetrile detonator bomb caused the detonation of the explosive charge. During charge detonation, due to the presence of a cumulative funnel and a metal cone in it, a cumulative jet was created, which, as field tests showed, pierced armor up to 60 mm thick at an 30 ° meeting angle followed by a destructive action behind the armor: defeating the tank crew, initiating detonation of ammunition , and also ignition of fuel or its vapors.
The minimum height ensuring the alignment of the bomb before meeting the tank's armor surface and the reliability of its operation was equal to 70 m.
The bomb charging of the IL-2 included up to 192 PTAB-2,5-1,5 aerial bombs in 4-x small bombs cassettes (48 pieces each) or up to 220 pieces when they were rationally placed in bulk in 4-x bomb racks.

When PTB was dropped from a height of 200 m from horizontal flight at a flight speed of 340-360 km / h, one bomb fell into an area equal to an average 15 square meter, while, depending on the bomb load, the total area of ​​discontinuities occupied the 190-210 strip square meters, which provided almost guaranteed defeat located in this lane of any tank of the Wehrmacht.

Adoption of the PTAB for some time kept secret, their use without the permission of the High Command was prohibited. This made it possible to use the effect of surprise and effectively use new weapons in the Battle of Kursk.



On the very first day of the battle at Kursk, 5 July 1943, the Red Army air forces for the first time used anti-tank aerial bombs of cumulative action PTAB-2,5-1,5. The first new bombs were tested by pilots of the 2 th Guards and 299 th assault aircraft divisions of the 16 th BA, acting against German tanks in the section of Art. Maloarkhangelsk-Yasnaya Polyana. Here, enemy tanks and motorized infantry were held during the day before the 10 attacks.
The massive use of PTAB had a stunning tactical surprise effect and had a strong moral impact on the enemy. The German tankers, by the way, like the Soviet ones, were already accustomed to the relatively low effectiveness of the bombing attacks of aviation by the third year of the war. At the initial stage of the battle, the Germans did not use dispersed marching and pre-combat orders at all, that is, on the routes of movement as part of columns, in concentration points and in initial positions, for which they were severely punished - the PTAB expansion zone blocked the 2-3 tank removed one from another on 60-75 m, as a result of which the latter suffered significant losses, even in the absence of massive use of IL-2. One IL-2 from a height of 75-100 meters could cover an area of ​​15x75 meters, destroying all enemy equipment on it.
On average, during the war, the irretrievable loss of tanks from aviation operations did not exceed 5%, after the use of PTAB, in certain sectors of the front, this figure exceeded 20%.

Having recovered from the shock, the German tank crews soon turned exclusively to dispersed marching and pre-battle formations. Naturally, this greatly complicated the management of tank units and subunits, increased the time needed for their deployment, concentration and redeployment, and complicated the interaction between them. On the parking lots, German tankers began to place their cars under trees, light net canopies and install light metal nets over the roof of the tower and the hull.
The effectiveness of IL-2 strikes using PTAB decreased approximately 4-4,5 times, remaining, however, on average 2-3 times higher than when using high-explosive and high-explosive bombs.

In this regard, the following two variants of the Il-2 attack aircraft under the action of the latter on the enemy’s tanks took root in the combat units of the Air Force KA. When the attack was carried out on large tank groups, the Elahs were fully equipped with PTABs, and when attacking tanks directly supporting infantry on the battlefield (that is, in dispersed combat formations), combined ammunition consisting of 50% PTAB and 50% FAB was used -50 or FAB-100.

In cases where the German tanks were concentrated relatively dense mass in a small area, each pilot aimed at the average tank. Aiming was made on the lateral point at the moment of entering into a dive, with a turn on 25-30 °. PTABs were dropped at the point of diving from a height of 200-400 m in two cassettes, with the calculation of the overlap of the entire group of tanks. At low clouds, bombing was carried out from a height of 100-150 m from level flight at an increased speed.
When the tanks were dispersed over a large area, the attack aircraft aimed at individual tanks. At the same time, the height of the PTAB-2,5-1,5 reset at the exit from the dive was slightly less - 150-200 m, and only one cassette was consumed per run.

Combat experience showed that tank losses, on average, 15% of their total number, which were hit by attack aircraft, were achieved when for every 10-20 tanks a force squad was released around the 3-5 groups of Il-2 (for 6 machines in each group ), which acted one after the other or two at a time.

At the end of the 1944 of the year, the Il-10 attack aircraft with the AM-42 engine, which had higher flight data than the IL-2, was launched into mass production.



But on the Il-10 weapon system, there was no advantage over the IL-2. He was less durable, suffered a mass of “childhood diseases”, and had no particular influence on the course of the hostilities.

Among the military professions of the Great Patriotic Profession, the ground attack pilot was one of the most difficult and dangerous.



Attackers had to work in the most difficult conditions - over the battlefield, at a low altitude, where the plane was extremely vulnerable. It was precisely in the first place that numerous small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery guns were sent to fight the Soviet attack aircraft, and for the German Ila fighters they were also priority targets. Just how dangerous this profession was can be judged at least by the following fact - at the beginning of the war, the title of Hero of the Soviet Union was assigned to all 25-30 sorties to attack. Then, after 1943, the number of sorties increased to 80 flights. As a rule, by the end of the war, not a single veteran remained in the assault aviation regiments that began to fight in 1941 — their composition had completely changed. Without a doubt, it was on the shoulders of the pilots of the famous Soviet IL-2 aircraft that the heaviest burden was laid among other aviators.

Based on:
http://vspomniv.ru/effektivnost_il_2/
http://www.battlefield.ru/il2-vs-panzers.html
Aircraft Design Bureau named after S.V. Ilyushin. (edited by G.V. Novozhilova)
A.B. Shirokorad Armament Soviet Aviation-1941-1991
Author:
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 25 October 2013 08: 49
    22
    No wonder the nemchura dubbed them "black death". They gave these cars to the Hans to ask. Until now, those who were lucky to survive after the attack on the ILov are remembered as the worst nightmare on a clear day.
    1. Fitter65
      Fitter65 25 October 2013 10: 02
      11
      In fact, the Germans called the plague "black death". It's just that at the beginning of the war, with a massive retreat, we wanted to have something that the Germans were afraid of. Here are the agitators who raised this name on the shield, which stuck with us, And Glavpur worked in this direction in a timely manner. But closer to the end of the war, it really was "BLACK DEATH", and about asking, I'll tell you an old anecdote, I heard from my grandfathers, I remember him from 6 years old, though I understood its meaning later.
      Things bombed and flew to our airfield. They shot out. Two technicians leave the bushes, one looks at his uninjured plane and says:
      _Fu, it’s gone!
      Yeah, the second one echoes - so much as three times!
      At the time, our soldiers cursed the pieces in the initial period an order of magnitude stronger than the Germans Il-2.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 25 October 2013 10: 05
        -17 qualifying.
        Considering the small number of "pieces" and their focus on point targets, for the private infantry Vanya, they were hardly of any interest.
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 25 October 2013 10: 18
          18
          Considering that they, Stucks, worked in the interests of the advanced units of the Wehrmacht, working point-wise on the centers of resistance that interfered with the advance of the Wehrmacht. They were not of interest for the infantry Vanya, but were a very big "nuisance." Because at the beginning of the war the Germans set sirens on Stuka not in order to irritate a point object, but diving with a siren on at a firing point, pillbox, battery, etc. and so on, they really frayed the nerves of the l / composition. Also, the Ju-87 in the initial period was also used to attack columns on the march, etc. In addition to the Ju-87, the Luftwaffe had another Ju-88 dive bomber.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 25 October 2013 12: 55
            -6
            The siren can be put on mass and on bombs with Ju-88.
            1. Bongo
              25 October 2013 13: 15
              11
              Despite the numerous shortcomings of the "piece", it had no equal in bombing accuracy.
              1. badger1974
                badger1974 28 October 2013 19: 14
                +2
                the thing is a pikker, ilyuha is a sturmer, and there is nothing to compare ilyuha with, because almost the entire Great Patriotic War passed without fighter cover, then he himself was with prejudices
                1. tomket
                  tomket 28 October 2013 22: 09
                  +4
                  the fact that you turned down the whole war without cover, since the main occupation of the exterminators was just the escort of the attack aircraft.
            2. Fitter65
              Fitter65 25 October 2013 15: 38
              +4
              Quote: Avenger711
              The siren can be put on mass and on bombs with Ju-88.

              As the saying goes, you can run a goat and a runaway cart, but the serenes were only on the Yu-87.
          2. Stix
            Stix 28 October 2013 21: 53
            +1
            in general, our troops called the Yu-87 raptors because of the fixed gear - they were called pieces by pieces and only in the first day of the war did your beloved Luftwaffe lose as many planes as it did over Europe before the attack on the USSR
        2. Bongo
          25 October 2013 12: 44
          13
          U-87 released on the order of 6500 units, not so little. In any case, it is impossible to call this type of aircraft a small number.
          1. badger1974
            badger1974 28 October 2013 19: 23
            +4
            group Ju-87G - demanded protection up to a group of jagda, which did not feel at ease in defense, the cut off from the Polish "carp" in the 39th forced Lyuftov to reconsider the status of the Me-110 as a fighter, and later the FV-190 began to "recoup" the need for attack aircraft, but none of the three succeeded in achieving the specifics of the assault, this is our illyuha
        3. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 October 2013 13: 49
          +4
          Quote: Avenger711
          Considering the small number of "pieces" and their focus on point targets, for the private infantry Vanya, they were hardly of any interest.

          The Germans compensated for their small number (relative to the USSR Air Force) by the number of sorties.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 25 October 2013 14: 34
            -1
            I compare on the scale of the German Air Force in June 41st, then there were few Ju-87s, although there were really a lot of "things" flying, just because of the scanty takeoff time, practically takeoff and landing.
            1. Bongo
              25 October 2013 14: 39
              +4
              Those. You state that in June 1941. Il-2 in the Red Army Air Force was more than the Ju-87 in the Luftwaffe?
              1. Avenger711
                Avenger711 25 October 2013 21: 09
                -1
                If we talk about what was more in the Red Army Air Force, then the number of aircraft was precisely the advantage for us, and the losses were not even due to the concentration and competent organization of the combat work of the Germans, they were really up to speed and sooner or later the airfield losses as much as the general retreat of the ground forces, which in infantry and artillery were inferior at times.
          2. Fitter65
            Fitter65 25 October 2013 15: 41
            +4
            As well as the concentration of the aircraft fleet in the direction of the main strike, which created the numerical advantage in this sector of the front.
    2. loft79
      loft79 25 October 2013 12: 26
      10
      Quote: aszzz888
      No wonder the nemchura christened them "black death"

      I read various memoirs of the Fritzes. So they mostly call "humpback"
      either "butcher" or "meat grinder".

      The article is good, fairly detailed and objective +
    3. nnz226
      nnz226 25 October 2013 17: 48
      +6
      Yeah, when ours stormed Berlin, and came close to the Germans in street battles, air support began to decrease, which led to big losses with us. Zhukov ordered pilots on the Il-Xnumx to raid German positions without bombing assaults, just fly. It helped. With the sounds of IL-2 flying up, the Germans frantically hid, who could go wherever and as deep as possible. The worked out conditioned reflex worked - HID !!! Those who did not acquire such a reflex in time already fertilized our fields with themselves.
      1. tomket
        tomket 28 October 2013 22: 13
        +3
        There was even such a thing as a "German look", which is characteristic mainly of Germans, that is, when a person constantly looks at the sky in anticipation of gifts from the sky.
      2. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 4 June 2016 11: 12
        0
        Quote: nnz226
        Zhukov ordered pilots on the Il-Xnumx to raid German positions without bombing assaults, just fly. It helped. With the sounds of IL-2 flying up, the Germans frantically hid, who could go wherever and as deep as possible.

        This was a fairly widespread practice in 43-45, and not at all some other "highlight" of the Berlin operation. Often the infantry simply asked the attack aircraft or even fighters to simply "show themselves", to show themselves, in order to give a moment (when the enemy would hide from the intended raid) for an attack.
  2. patriot2
    patriot2 25 October 2013 08: 52
    11
    The design genius of Ilyushin, multiplied by the heroism of Soviet attack aviation pilots, is the most important page in the history of the Great Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945!
  3. albai
    albai 25 October 2013 08: 59
    +5
    Truly pilots attack aircraft the most courageous part of the elite of the USSR Air Force !!!!
  4. avt
    avt 25 October 2013 09: 03
    21
    Good weapon review. good Calm and unbiased, without glitches. +
  5. Fitter65
    Fitter65 25 October 2013 09: 16
    +5
    Considering that by the beginning of the war the IL-2 had not been fully mastered by the flight crew, the only thing is that before taxiing out, to Kholobaev, a representative of the plant, standing on the wing, showed how to shoot RSs. And given that there were no established instructions for piloting, so and the combat use of an attack aircraft, then one can wonder how in such conditions people flew and fought. Again, to the location of the guns on the IL-2, it was more correct to place them in place of the internal guns (spreading the masses along the wing), but it was easier for the designer to install them on the place of external machine guns. Again, the test pilots of the NIP AV of the Red Army Air Force, developing the tactics of using an attack aircraft, made a mistake. Many experienced pilots in their memories regretted that the RS-132 was removed from service for the IL-2, experienced pilots achieved good results when using them. Both Emelianenko and Efimov spoke. The pilots did not yet have normal instructions and manuals themselves worked out the correct tactics, using only one type of weapon in each of the visits. Although many of the "developments" of one or the other regiment did not always become the property of other units, and often " Again, the command of the Air Force of the spacecraft during the entire war did not create special anti-tank assault air regiments that would be "trained" to fight armored vehicles.
  6. makarov
    makarov 25 October 2013 09: 27
    +6
    Very useful and instructive review material.
    I would like to add.
    And theoretically and practically, in pre-war ILs it was possible to conduct research on the installation of a Taubin grenade launcher, and supplement the range of GT ammunition with a cumulative grenade. I suppose that the effect could be a worthy answer to the Wehrmacht.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 25 October 2013 10: 07
      -2
      1 hit on 500 shots. Do more nefig.
  7. Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 25 October 2013 09: 29
    20
    Good article. Glory to our grandfathers who fought not sparing themselves! Thank God Heroes who fought in this truly legendary machine are still alive. The only living 2 Hero of the USSR is Begeldinov Talgat Yakubekovich who fought in IL 2. Huge health and happiness to him !!! Thank them for our peaceful stay !!!
    1. Lindon
      Lindon 25 October 2013 10: 10
      18
      Talgat Begeldinov not only twice Hero !!!
      He is the author of the book. "Silt" attack - I recommend to everyone
      http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/begeldinov_t2/index.html
      Legendary man - he has not only military feats. Labor were no less brilliant. An amazing generation of heroes raised that time.
      1. Asan Ata
        Asan Ata 26 October 2013 00: 36
        +3
        305 sorties - twice a hero, well done, handsome, my neighbor!
  8. Bigriver
    Bigriver 25 October 2013 09: 30
    +2
    Motorized convoys of the Il-2 attack aircraft usually attacked from a low-level flight ...
    The range of opening fire is 500-600 meters. Aiming was carried out "along the column in general" with targeting with tracer bullets from ShKAS machine guns. Then, taking into account the position of the bullet track relative to the target, opened fire from guns and RS.

    Loading only RS and BP to guns and rifle? what
    Even I have not seen this. According to the memoirs, as a rule: surely bombs, guns, ShKAS, and RSs could be. Could not be.
    In this case, if there is an opportunity for two or three approaches: first RSs or bombs, then an attack by small arms and cannon weapons.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 25 October 2013 10: 08
      -2
      How do you suspend all this at once? Or bombs, or RSs. 600 kg in overload.
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 25 October 2013 13: 06
        +5
        Quote: Avenger711
        How do you suspend all this at once? Or bombs, or RSs. 600 kg in overload.

        For a double IL-2, the boot options were considered normal:
        - eight guides RS-82 (132) + 200 kg on the internal suspension;
        - four guides PC + 400 kg bomb suspension.
        Cartridges 1500, VYA - 300 pcs.
        And 600 kg of bombs is an overload TOGETHER with the PC.
      2. Bongo
        25 October 2013 13: 19
        +5
        The typical composition of weapons: RS + 400kg bombs.
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 28 October 2013 19: 31
          +1
          in overload for the Communists of the regiments BK + RS + 600 kg-a memory of Vitruk, a memory of Emelianenko, Karpov, Eliseev
    2. loft79
      loft79 25 October 2013 12: 37
      +2
      I also read that in the first approach of the RS or bombs, then a carousel and an attack by small arms and cannon.
    3. Bongo
      25 October 2013 13: 18
      +4
      The article does not approve this. RS and bombs were part of the standard ammunition. Another issue is that it was difficult to use different types of weapons in one combat approach.
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 28 October 2013 19: 35
        +3
        with the development of the provision of the initiative to the air regiments, the tactical use of suppressive groups and attackers was also developed, and the former went almost lightly, covering after their "work" the cover of the shock groups
  9. Fitter65
    Fitter65 25 October 2013 09: 52
    +2
    Quote: patriot2
    The design genius of Ilyushin, multiplied by the heroism of Soviet attack aviation pilots, is the most important page in the history of the Great Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945!

    I have no right to say anything about the design genius of S.V. Ilyushin. I will quote V. Perov and O. Rastrenin - "... On the proposal of military pilots to install a second cockpit on the Il-2 for a radio operator gunner Chief Designer of the aircraft S.V. Ilyushin reacted very strangely. February 12, 1942 S.V. Ilyushin sent a letter No. 186 to the Aviation Industry People's Commissar A.I.Shakhurin (a copy of the letter was sent to Leshukov), which indicated that: "... 3) ... speed with The Il-2 is quite sufficient, as evidenced by the absence of losses from the air enemy. ... 5) With regard to increasing the crew of the Il-2 aircraft to 2 people, especially for the aircraft with the AM-38 engine, we consider it inexpedient and unnecessary, since when visiting the units it is clear that the Il-2 has no losses from the air enemy . It is advisable to produce one double-seat aircraft with the M-9 engine for 82 aircraft, which will act as the leader of the nine ... "(V.Perov, O. Rastrenin. Sturmovik Il-2. Aviation and Cosmonautics. 5-6.2001.str. 38. )
    The question is what parts for this period there were no losses from the air enemy, if according to the analysis of the command of the Air Force of the Red Army about 60% of those who did not return from the combat mission were lost from the actions of enemy aircraft. So, the heroism of Soviet pilots comes out on top. casualties during this period were almost the same as military ones. 444 aircraft were broken up and written off according to acts, of which 82 were officially lost at the front and assigned to non-combat ones, the rest in the rear.
    By the way, in the book "Aircraft of the Ilyushin Design Bureau" this moment is described .. "as a tense period of work on a two-seat version of the aircraft ..."
    And for reflection, in 1941, the average flight during the preparation of an attack pilot on an IL-2 aircraft was only 3-4 hours, several flights in a circle, 2-3 flights to a zone, 2-3 to a training ground, the same for group flying . As they say, without comment.
    1. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 25 October 2013 20: 42
      +3
      Quote: Fitter65
      And for reflection, in 1941 the average flight during the preparation of an attack pilot on an IL-2 aircraft was only 3-4 hours, several flights in a circle, 2-3 flights to a zone, 2-3 to a training ground, the same to a group flotation. As they say, no comment.

      Dear colleague of Fitter65, you apparently do not take into account that in 1941, the yellow-and-eared graduates of flight schools did not land on the IL-2. The regiments were formed from the flight crew either having already been at the front or having a decent raid. Most often, in the first year of the war, pilots flying the I-2, I-15, Su-153, R-2 were retrained on the IL-5. And there were enough such pilots in the spare regiments.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 25 October 2013 22: 59
        +1
        Yes, they did not put yellow-haired guys, but even for a super pilot 3-4 hours for retraining is not enough. A simple example from life. One man worked as a driver for a UAZ-452 "tablet". He came to our unit, since he had a category D PAZ. So he twisted the "pretzel" on it for almost a month, then he would demolish the mirror, then the side teranet. So this is a driver on the ground in peacetime. And another thing is a pilot in the military sky, and given that at the beginning of the war there were no instructions or manuals, no retraining techniques.
  10. Avenger711
    Avenger711 25 October 2013 10: 02
    +2
    Unfortunately, the proposal of S.V. Ilyushin on the creation of an aviation machine gun under the cartridge of a 14,5-mm anti-tank gun, which had excellent armor-piercing properties, was not implemented. This could significantly increase the ability to combat enemy armored vehicles.


    Yeah, a 23 mm cannon doesn’t penetrate, but a 14.5 mm bullet will. Looks like Ilyushin's rear propagandons rattled about PTRs, the very expediency of production of which, even in those conditions, raises doubts, it is unlikely that a 1 45 mm gun cost more than two dozen PTRs, while surpassing them in efficiency by dozens of times. With the same success it would be possible for VYa-23 (by the way, an excellent weapon in its class, the ZU-23-2 uses its ballistics), make an armor-piercing subcaliber projectile and scatter scarce tungsten over the battlefield without any effect, well, except ventilation in "shells" with scattering of cores in the armor space into dust.

    In general, tanks made up and still make up such an insignificant percentage of targets on the battlefield that hunting for them, besides mass bombarding with PTABs, could simply be neglected. Likewise, the success of Rudel, which even with the small number of anti-tank raiders, was unlikely to inflict up to 1/8 of all the losses of Soviet tanks from aviation during the War, raises doubts. Well, you do not break out of 37 mm neither Pz-IV, nor T-34. Except for a dive at a fixed target, and not anyhow.
    1. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 25 October 2013 12: 31
      0
      In vain minus the colleague Avenger711. Although he was somewhat clumsy, he correctly noticed that the effectiveness of a 14,5-caliber machine gun would be significantly less than that of a VYA-23 cannon.
      A machine gun was created on the basis of 14,5 mm ammunition, but brought to mind after the war. It is still in service in the Russian army, and even in several dozen countries.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 25 October 2013 13: 00
        0
        The people have a massive reluctance to accept the PTR defectiveness. A machine gun, KPVT, by the way, is really opposed to technology, and equipping two T-10 KPVTs is probably the best solution for machine gun armament of a tank in history.

        And the weapons in those years were much more profitable to strengthen by increasing the caliber than the introduction of over-deficient BPS. For the D-10 gun, they, for example, only appeared in 1956.
      2. Bigriver
        Bigriver 25 October 2013 13: 12
        +2
        Quote: Gamdlislyam
        In vain, minus the colleague of Avenger711 ... that the effectiveness of a 14,5-caliber machine gun will be significantly less than that of a VYA-23 gun.

        Also, I do not share optimism regarding 14,5. The attack aircraft do not need it.
        23mm is much more versatile. If you want, you slow down a locomotive, if you want a car or an armored personnel carrier, you can navigate the art battery, or even walk along the trench.
    2. Bongo
      25 October 2013 13: 44
      +2
      The question of the suitability of 14,5-mm for use in aircraft weapons could only be determined by practical use. Since this was not done on the effectiveness of reasoning difficult. But the superiority of armor penetration over 23-mm, I think no one doubts.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 25 October 2013 14: 03
        -3
        Quote: Bongo
        The question of the suitability of the 14,5 mm for use in aircraft weapons could only be determined by practical use. Since this was not done, it is difficult to discuss effectiveness.

        What kind of machine gun is 14,5 mm if the UBC could not be adapted to IL-2 instead of ShKAS.
        1. Bongo
          25 October 2013 14: 06
          +3
          And what was the point to install large-caliber 12,7-mm UB in the wing version?
          ShKASy perfectly coped with the tasks assigned to them to shoot and fight with manpower.
          1. Fitter65
            Fitter65 25 October 2013 15: 48
            -3
            If you yourself see that there was no point in installing a UBC, so why write about the suitability of a 14,5 mm machine gun in the armament?
            1. badger1974
              badger1974 28 October 2013 19: 40
              +2
              for the defense of the shooter, if you think that the weight salvo was not enough, then try a toy Il-2 attack aircraft, in the "like in life" option, I think everything will become clear for you right away
        2. Bigriver
          Bigriver 25 October 2013 14: 46
          +3
          Quote: Fitter65
          What kind of machine gun is 14,5 mm if the UBC could not be adapted to IL-2 instead of ShKAS.

          Ilyushin offered a 14,5 machine gun based on Volkov-Yartsev. That is, in the end, it was assumed: ShKAS + 14,5 VYA (INSTEAD OF VYA-23). A plane with a purely machine gun armament.
          I think there is nothing to discuss chickpeas, since the question of such expediency was only considered. No work was done in this direction. In any case, no traces of work were found.
          1. Bongo
            25 October 2013 14: 51
            +3
            It is possible that the 14,5-mm machine gun based on VYA would be in demand not only in aviation, it could become an excellent anti-aircraft weapon.
            1. Bigriver
              Bigriver 25 October 2013 15: 19
              -2
              Quote: Bongo
              It is possible that a 14,5-mm machine gun on the basis of the VL would be in demand not only in aviation, it could become excellent anti-aircraft tool.

              For whom / for what?
              In the critical echelons reaching the tip of the strike - TK, MK and KK there was an MZA regiment of 37 mm and a DShK (50x50). DShK worked out their heights normally.
              IMHO, 14,5 - this is only a diversion of resources without quality gain.
              Now, if in the shelves to 61-K (37 mm) instead of the DShK they would stick a massive 72-K (25 mm). it would besmile
              1. Bongo
                25 October 2013 15: 32
                +4
                Well, yes, this "diversion of resources" has been in service for over 60 years and has proven itself in numerous conflicts.
                The 72-K anti-aircraft machine gun proved to be unsuccessful, for this reason there were not many of them released.
                Article about the anti-aircraft weapons of the Red Army:
                http://topwar.ru/31576-zenitnye-sredstva-protivovozdushnoy-oborony-rkka.html
                1. Bigriver
                  Bigriver 25 October 2013 17: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Well, yes, this "diversion of resources" has been in service for over 60 years and has proven itself in numerous conflicts.

                  You proceed from the false premise that in the USSR during the Second World War, it was a shaft of everything: production facilities, specialists, metal, fuel, etc. Was there obviously unemployment and a shorter working day? what
                  The DShK was adopted 3 years before the war. And until the end of the war they could not produce it in sufficient quantities for the land.
                  Do you propose removing it from production and starting to develop a new device in the conditions of a mobilization economy.
                  Although, as a person who writes on weapons, they should know how difficult it was even in peacetime to master ANY new technology.
                  And the fact that "Vladimirov" is worth 60 years ... So this is a completely different, post-war story.
                  This is one aspect.
                  Second.
                  Aviation machine gun and anti-aircraft - these are TWO, significantly different modifications. Take an interest in the fate of ShVAK / Tnsh. How much the second was brought in the troops. And they did not finish it.
                  The logic of a German, rich assortment of toy store lost.
                  So .., of course. You can speculate at your leisure. That would be nice to bring the T-34M .. and the T-50. And to produce Su-6, Su-8 in the appendage to Ilu, etc ...
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 October 2013 14: 05
      +2
      Quote: Avenger711
      With the same success it would be possible for VYa-23, to make an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile and scatter the scarce tungsten over the battlefield without any effect, well, except for ventilation in the "shells" with scattering of cores in the armor space into dust.

      The Germans have always considered practical people, but I honestly cannot understand this passion for large-caliber air guns (from 37mm). Efficiency 37mm. a projectile with a tungsten core is extremely low; it’s practically impossible to destroy a tank (namely, destroy it, and not temporarily disable it). 7.5 cm Pak 40 using the same amount of extremely scarce tungsten will destroy much more enemy tanks than Piece with 37 mm. guns.
      Quote: Avenger711
      Likewise, the success of Rudel, which even with the small number of anti-tank raiders, was unlikely to inflict up to 1/8 of all the losses of Soviet tanks from aviation during the War, raises doubts. Well, you do not break out of 37 mm neither Pz-IV, nor T-34.

      Rudel, despite the fact that he was still a brilliant stormtrooper pilot, often in his memoirs pretended to be wishful thinking, while he himself lamented that the Russians were deceiving them by setting fire to a rag in a tank in a bucket. His dedication to fighting tanks was clearly flawed. After all, it is much easier to strip the erupted supply tanks by destroying trucks and tankers that are not protected by armor, and there will be no attack without fuel and ammunition. A damaged tank in the workshop will be put in order in a day and it will continue to fight.
      Quote: Avenger711
      Except for a dive at a fixed target, and not anyhow.

      Undoubtedly! Ours were exposed to high-explosive bombs against tanks, undermining bombs at different distances from a standing tank. The result is sad, high explosive impact low, fragmentation, too, attachments and tracks suffer maximum.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 25 October 2013 14: 59
        -1
        The 75 mm cannon on the Hs-126 is a kind of curiosity, the 37 mm cannon on the fighter is just a purely Soviet armament scheme, I just got into it and didn’t even have to criticize anything, the fighters just scrambled. Our attempts to hang 37 mm on a plane are considered in the article, there is a lot of hemorrhoid, the result is not obvious, and according to the recollections of the pilots, the plane stopped by the pilot’s recollections. The Germans themselves invented so much for the war that there are doubts about their normality, the same 28 mm conical gun / PTR which is just standing, also has tungsten cores, though it had a landing niche.

        Here, however, I recall the modern 30 mm 7-shotgun on the A-10, but as I understand it, the A-10 also has better sights than "the device that hits the pilot 1 time hurts" (for some reason it is written in the article as PBP-16 instead of PBP-1B), and the gun itself gives such a burst that it can seriously damage the tank, some of the shells will certainly hit the roof, or somewhere else.

        Rudel, as I understand it, was in a unit specialized in tanks, this gave some effect, the same A. Isaev, for example, confirms bursts of losses from German aviation in the areas of operation of this unit. To hammer trucks from a sheer dive is a stupid task, it was the IL-2 that could walk along the road, or the trench, flooding everything with fire, but not the "bastard". The hunt for tanks itself has a simple explanation, the tank does damage, the truck does not, and when an attack aircraft meets a tank, the latter is already in battle, or the nearest reserve, something needs to be done with it here and now, but the total number of weapons, able to stop a tank at the infantry is limited, so they are involved in this case, everyone who at least theoretically can help.
        1. Bongo
          25 October 2013 15: 09
          +4
          The X-NUMX-mm air cannon was also mounted on the P-39.
          Article about Soviet air cannons from 37-mm and above:
          http://topwar.ru/31818-car-pushki-sovetskoy-aviacii.html
        2. Fitter65
          Fitter65 25 October 2013 15: 35
          +3
          Quote: Avenger711
          The 37 mm cannon on the fighter is just a purely Soviet armament scheme

          the American aircraft of the Bell P-39Q company also had a 37-mm gun firing through the propeller shaft ...
        3. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 October 2013 22: 42
          +2
          Quote: Avenger711
          The tank hunt itself has a simple explanation, the tank causes damage, the truck does not, and when the attack aircraft meets the tank, the latter is already in battle, or the nearest reserve, something needs to be done here and now, and the total amount of weapons able to stop the tank with the infantry is limited, that’s why they are involved in this matter, all who can at least theoretically help.

          Well, maybe despair affected their minds. To get into a moving tank is almost impossible, or rather, it is available to units of pilots of the highest class. But given their negligible amount of spending scarce resources on the manufacture of special anti-tank aircraft and their ammunition is more than stupid.
          1. Stix
            Stix 28 October 2013 22: 27
            0
            did anyone hold a gostovskoy can of condensed milk in their hands? measure the diameter of the akurat 75mm))) and so the bombs for silt were produced at canneries from tin)))) what is the scope? emptied the box on the shaver and netuta of the tank - cheaply and angrily
  11. Lindon
    Lindon 25 October 2013 10: 29
    +2
    The IL-2 in 1941 appeared a competitor. Sukhoi created the SU-6 which surpassed Ilyushinsky in all respects. But they did not begin to replace the production of an already mastered machine with a new one. And as further tests showed, the SU-6 correctly decided.
    In May 1944, the Il-10 attack aircraft with AM-42 successfully completed state tests, showing high flight data. Comparison of the LTD version of the Su-6 AM-42 with the IL-10 was not in favor of the first. The Sukhovsky attack aircraft was inferior to the Ilyushin machine by most of the defining characteristics. As a result, it was concluded that it was not practical to launch the Su-6 with AM-42 in mass production.

    In total, SU-6 was produced in total 10 pcs !!!
    Whereas IL-2 was 36 183 !!!
    And his receiver is IL-10 - 6 166.
    Complete victory of the Ilyushin attack aircraft !!!
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 25 October 2013 13: 02
      0
      So superior, or lost? And it may have exceeded, but it cost 2 times more.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 25 October 2013 14: 49
        -2
        Actually lost when he went to the IL-10 series (after all, if you look at the root, brought to the mind of IL-2), the Su-6 had no chance. There is no free factory in which production could be launched, without reduction, otherwise and production stops. And the IL-10, although it is considered a different aircraft, was technologically the Il-2 receiver and therefore the plants switching to its release did not slow down the rate of aircraft production very much, and after mastering the production of IL-10, its production began to increase. This, of course, I write is simplified, but the main point, I think, is clear.
    2. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 25 October 2013 21: 03
      +4
      Quote: Lindon
      In total, SU-6 was produced in total 10 pcs !!!
      Whereas IL-2 was 36 183 !!!
      And his receiver is IL-10 - 6 166.
      Complete victory of the Ilyushin attack aircraft !!!

      Dear Lindon colleague, the IL-10 of the late 1944-1945 release in combat qualities was really inferior IL-2 (exceeded only in flight speed). No need to compare the data of the IL-10 release of 1946, it is actually a different plane. And even more so give the number of issued IL-10 aircraft, which were actually produced after the war.
  12. Kars
    Kars 25 October 2013 10: 44
    +2
    No wonder there are so many Heroes among stormtroopers.
    1. Kars
      Kars 25 October 2013 10: 44
      +2
      ______________
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 25 October 2013 12: 27
        0
        Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns?
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 October 2013 12: 29
          +2
          Quote: cth; fyn
          Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns?

          surely
        2. loft79
          loft79 25 October 2013 12: 54
          0
          Wirbelwind.
          True number is minuscule
          "A total of 1944 (87) Wirbelwind were produced from May to November 105"

        3. Bigriver
          Bigriver 25 October 2013 13: 28
          +1
          Quote: cth; fyn
          Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns?

          From left to right: Ostwind, Mobelvagen, Wilberwind.
          They served in the air defense platoons of the tank divisions of the Wehrmacht and the SS.
        4. Fitter65
          Fitter65 25 October 2013 14: 53
          0
          Quote: cth; fyn
          Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns?

          Rather, they were mobile. Fortunately, they couldn’t lead aiming fire.
  13. pensioner
    pensioner 25 October 2013 11: 29
    +4
    I read from O. Rastrenin (like) in due time. Usually IL-2 carried no more than 12 RS-82. However, in one regiment they managed to hang as many as 24 (!) Pieces. Interestingly, he says: "How did this" construction "fly at all?" And "I fought on the IL-2" ed. Drabkin in 2 parts is one of the best in the series.
    1. Bongo
      25 October 2013 12: 49
      +4
      The general designer sharply objected to such a modernization in the troops, with the installation of a large number of RS, the flight data of the aircraft deteriorated.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 25 October 2013 13: 03
        0
        Airplanes with difficulty took off, more often fought, and then complaints went to the plant and to the design bureau; the end user always considers himself right.
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 25 October 2013 14: 16
          0
          There were many modernizations in the troops that did not go serially, because of the small need there was no sense in making scanty series. By the way, as users who consider themselves right, they developed the IL-2, first, art. Then, to captain Efimov read in his memoirs. military users began to equip the gunner’s cabin, and only then the design bureau was born ...
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 25 October 2013 15: 01
            0
            And OKB did exactly what the troops asked him to.
    2. Fitter65
      Fitter65 25 October 2013 14: 10
      0
      In fact, the standard suspension of 4 P-82s under each console, there were modifications in parts where they hung up to 24 RS, a kind of flying Katyusha. For a number of reasons, it did not justify itself. The most basic is the large dispersion of shells.
  14. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 11: 41
    +5
    It was a good plane to isolate the battlefield, against point targets did not pay off. Although it was created for a situation when you approach the target on a low-level flight and hit point blank. The Germans and allies used fighters modified for the attack version for these purposes. It turned out to be more profitable not to book the aircraft to the level of armored personnel carriers, but to use speed. And in the group the same type of aircraft flew for attack: fighters and attack aircraft based on them. In the USSR, at the beginning of the war, fighters with NURSs were also used.
    1. Fitter65
      Fitter65 25 October 2013 14: 24
      +2
      The low-level approach was a vital necessity, due to the lack of a shooter to protect himself from at least an attack from the rear lower hemisphere. Yes, and a camouflage aircraft flying to PMA is more difficult to detect. As soon as normal fighter cover appeared, and in addition, the rear gunner - that's all, Ily "left" at 1000-1500m. From here the target is better seen and the approaches to it, and even from such a height it is much more convenient to carry out an attack, FREEDOM OF MANEUVER !!! And fighters as attack aircraft at the beginning of the war were used out of necessity, and at the end from excess ...
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 25 October 2013 15: 04
        +2
        How does the shooter help from an attack from below? The shooter does not even see the enemy there. Low altitude here saves regardless of the presence of the shooter, simply because the enemy risks breaking. 1000-1500 m is still lower than the typical battle height of those years, plus it’s already impossible to shoot or bomb from this height, it’s possible to decrease before the attack.
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 25 October 2013 15: 20
          +2
          One shooter doesn’t overlook, but the group is already monitoring the entire back hemisphere. And in the presence of a dense formation, they support each other with fire. Yes, you can’t shoot from a height of 1000-1500 m, but you can choose the direction for the attack, build the approach correctly, and also at the same time attacking a target from different directions, which does not allow object-based air defense to concentrate fire on one plane, or alternately firing at planes coming from one direction. For what I explain. Take in hand the memoirs of pilots of attack aircraft, Efimov, Pstygo, Emelyanenko, there
          these nuances are well described. If my memory serves me, then fragments from the FAB-100 hit planes to a height of 600m.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 14: 45
      +5
      Not certainly in that way. The concept of an armored attack aircraft capable of "hanging" over the battlefield performing "additional reconnaissance" of targets in the process of attack, providing suppression of firing points at the front line, providing "direct support for the infantry" - this is precisely the IL2. Not a single information security system, working on the principle of running-throwing-running away, is unable to solve these problems. especially in those days when there was no homing weapon or any means of target designation. And Il, in fact, has never been an "anti-tank" aircraft - it was a universal aircraft for direct support of troops. With tanks, he fought much more effectively literally "cutting out" the supply columns - without shells and fuel you will not fight much.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 25 October 2013 15: 22
        +1
        Quote: Taoist
        nor any means of target designation.

        Advanced aviation observers, or simply aircraft carriers, began to spread very widely from 1943.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 25 October 2013 16: 49
          +2
          And then? How to designate a goal? how to highlight it ?. At the time of the Second World War, the maximum that an airman could shoot was towards a target with a signal missile. And then if the target is motionless. Those. the airman at that time simply reduced the time for calling air support, but he could not significantly affect its accuracy and efficiency. There was nothing. It’s now that the aircraft operator can mark the target with a laser or simply merge the exact coordinates on a digital computer line to the aircraft’s onboard computer ... And then ...
      2. Bigriver
        Bigriver 25 October 2013 18: 42
        +3
        Quote: Taoist
        ... With tanks, he fought much more effectively literally "cutting out" the supply columns - without shells and fuel you can't fight a lot.

        Better yet, bang the junction station laughing
        Very successful guys flew. Up to 15 echelons, tanks, cars, fuel, BP.
    3. Yemelya
      Yemelya 25 October 2013 19: 37
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      It turned out to be more profitable not to book the aircraft to the level of armored personnel carriers, but to use speed.


      Even did not understand. First, they made IL-2 just single for the sake of increasing speed, then they thought better of it, they set the arrow, scoring at speed.
      1. vtur
        vtur 15 November 2013 19: 07
        +1
        Quote: Emelya
        then they thought better of it, the arrow was planted, scoring at speed.

        worsening maneuverable characteristics and reducing the payload by 200 kg ...
  15. zmey_gadukin
    zmey_gadukin 25 October 2013 11: 48
    +3
    Good car and a good article. +!
  16. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 25 October 2013 13: 53
    +2
    Good informative article, thanks to the author. Something is somehow doubtful to me that the Yu-88 was a dive bomber.
    1. Fitter65
      Fitter65 25 October 2013 14: 34
      +4
      Was, was. And not only a dive. And a reconnaissance, and a fighter, and a torpedo bomber. Type in Google U-88, and purely for raising the educational level, you will learn about the U-88. I really use the monograph published by MINSK Harvest 2001. Plus books from the publishing house "Yauza", "Eksmo", "VERO PRESS", etc. etc. Monographs in the magazines "Technics and Armaments", "Aviation and Time", "World of Aviation", etc., etc.
    2. novobranets
      novobranets 27 October 2013 09: 37
      0
      Quote: Kovrovsky
      Yu-88 was a dive bomber.

      But he was not.
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 27 October 2013 10: 04
        +3
        I apologize, it turned out there was a modification with brake flaps and an automatic output from diving. hi
  17. Sergey_K
    Sergey_K 25 October 2013 14: 11
    0
    We make the body of modern materials - we win in weight.
    GLONASS, a little electronics - we get a modern cabin.
    Modern engine - we are tightening flight performance.

    = Tucano is resting. And we have an easy attack aircraft for border guards, drug control, etc. Plus, his formidable reputation will work no worse than guns)
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 25 October 2013 15: 07
      +1
      The idea is obvious, but in the warfare there are normal Su-25s and helicopters, and I would not ignore systems like the ZU-23-2, they’ll completely land an armored plane, which recommends more thrust.
    2. Bongo
      25 October 2013 15: 15
      +7
      A similar aircraft was developed in 1984-86 years under the program LVS (Easy-Reproducible attack aircraft).
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 28 October 2013 15: 38
        +3
        "duck" is an extremely dangerous scheme for an attack aircraft, rather than for any other direction of combat aviation, every time I first meet such a development, it is similar to the Sukhoi Design Bureau, especially the Su-12 "carried" this scheme, and the horizontal and vertical tail has a characteristic Su-host, why did they decide to simplify the assault? "Bronco" Northrop in the eyes scorching?
  18. Luga
    Luga 25 October 2013 16: 47
    +2
    Thanks to the author, great article. In my opinion, in terms of its performance characteristics, the IL-2 was not particularly suitable for fighting against tanks, and the author very consistently showed his efforts to adapt it for this fight. After all, as you know, "the main thing is to knock out their tanks."
  19. uzer 13
    uzer 13 25 October 2013 17: 46
    0
    It would seem that on IL2 a completely obvious way of placing a 37mm gun under the fuselage, rather than on the wing, and one, but with increased ammunition, suggests itself, and this could solve the problem of aircraft stability when firing. But such developments are not mentioned anywhere. could make a synchronization device with a screw? At the same time, you could leave 20-23mm Pushkin in regular places.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 20: 10
      +5
      Such a construct was not possible on this scheme. Under the fuselage at this place, Il had an oil cooler. Those. I would have to re-arrange the whole car - they didn’t do that.
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 28 October 2013 15: 08
        0
        utterly vain say so, the question was whether the oil cooler was split in two, another thing had to be done in the body of the aperture, and this was a weakening of the structure in the transverse load when the heavy machine exited a gentle peak, that is, a decrease in the dive degrees already low. it’s another thing to do the suspended guns in the 45 mm Nudelman located in the bomb compartments, I think it would be a blunder itself. and synchronizing the guns with the screw would only negate the disconnected volley
        1. Bongo
          28 October 2013 15: 44
          +3
          The experience of the war, both Soviet and German, showed the futility of assault aviation weapons with large-caliber guns (37-mm and above). All the negative aspects, in my opinion, are not badly reflected in the article.
  20. galiullinrasim
    galiullinrasim 25 October 2013 18: 01
    +4
    article plus undoubtedly but who will talk about small-caliber guns of the Germans somewhere I saw a lot of pictures of 20 mm PTR and like 27-28 mi mm
  21. Alex 241
    Alex 241 25 October 2013 18: 20
    +3
    Here is the information: http: //www.boardnews.ru/index.php/vooruzhenie/10381-malokalibernaia-z
    enitnaia-artilleriia-germanii-vo-vtoroi-mirovoi-voine
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver 25 October 2013 19: 08
      +1
      Quote: Alex 241
      Here is the information: http: //www.boardnews.ru/index.php/vooruzhenie/10381-malokal
      ibernaia-zenitnaia-artilleriia-germanii-vo-vtoroi-mirovoi-voine

      For some reason, all publications on the topic of the MHA of the Wehrmacht persistently circumvent this setting.
      Built MG-151/20 (Schutzenpanzerwagen Drilling MG-151 Geraet-921).
      1. Kars
        Kars 25 October 2013 19: 17
        +2
        Quote: BigRiver
        For some reason, all publications on the topic of MHA

        not only her - there are still many different German anti-aircraft guns.
        1. alex86
          alex86 25 October 2013 21: 46
          +3
          Recalling a long-standing conversation - the article demonstrates the effectiveness of the PTAB quite reasonably, although at the same time it notes a significantly greater efficiency of assault on lightly armored and unprotected targets (he wrote and laughed at himself - just the captain "Obvious" - opened America, it is called: it is easier to destroy a lightly armored target lol )
        2. Bigriver
          Bigriver 26 October 2013 10: 24
          0
          Quote: Kars
          ... not only her - there are still many different German anti-aircraft guns.

          The same "Drilling" is. With barrels 20 mm.
          She, in the ground version.
          1. Bongo
            27 October 2013 08: 52
            +2
            All this low-volume semi-hand-made installations, not released from the good life.
  22. Andranik
    Andranik 25 October 2013 19: 27
    0
    IL-2s were very tenacious. Pearl dubbed them cement bombs.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 30 October 2013 12: 20
      0
      Quote: Andranik
      IL-2s were very tenacious. Pearl dubbed them cement bombs.

      In one of the books I came across a recommendation for Luftwaffe fighters not to engage in combat with the Il-2, if the latter were being rebuilt into a defensive "circle", tk. the probability of being hit by a volley of all cannons and machine guns sharply increased. Evaluating the desire for a net increase in the accounts of the Germans shot down, or how Hartman taught "to fight", it is likely. It is a pity that not all Germans fought like this.
  23. drop
    drop 25 October 2013 20: 26
    -1
    In addition to the T-34, Katyusha, the weapon of victory is considered to be the plane about which the materials in the article are so well presented. By type of work, I was familiar with Marshals Kutakhov P.S., Savitsky E.Ya. and Efimov A.N. The first are our legendary fighters, and Alexander Nikolaevich is an attack aircraft. According to him, only the cluster bombs of our IL-2 allowed the mass destruction of fascist tanks on the Kursk Bulge. These pilots lived to the Victory Day and in the 80-s created our aviation, which is now considered the best. It is only necessary to let our pilots fly those watches that will allow them to surpass the enemies of Russia. In NATO, the annual raid is about 300 hours.
  24. Urri
    Urri 25 October 2013 21: 06
    +7
    The book is called "Vanka-company". In the first chapters about summer 41, the author very accurately describes the terrifying effectiveness of the diving Ju-87 in the absence of air defense and the superiority of the Germans in the air. Apart from gnashing of teeth, there is no other reaction to the reading that comes to mind. A specialized aircraft for sniper strikes in the described conditions, with the growth of air defense and the number of fighters in the air, rapidly lost its effectiveness. And the efficiency of the IL-2 was also steadily growing, which, in comparison with the Ju-87, had never been a sniper. He was a machine gunner of the front sky, always on the front line, always in direct contact, always under fire. Tanks were not his main target. It was not the tankers who called the IL-2 the black death, but those who, on the marches and in the trenches, experienced the fiery tornado of ShKAS and RS on their own skin
  25. Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 26 October 2013 18: 46
    +1
    http://woodhammer.5bb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=507

    I think the veteran can be trusted. The Germans were afraid of Ilov (and their pilots especially) to a state of wild panic.
  26. badger1974
    badger1974 28 October 2013 14: 54
    +1
    The article is remarkable, though on the tactics of attacking the Wehrmacht and SS forces as part of the convoy in the initial period of the Second World War, it was not at all "ironing" as described, according to the testimony of veterans, "Ilyukh" in the initial period of the war, the attacks were mainly perpendicular to the movement of the column, this is described and Schwabedissen in their Analysis of "Stalin's Falcons", adding that a group of 5 cement bomber blindly attacked that the leader attacked, reducing the effectiveness of the group as a whole, this was until the 42nd year, when they still gave the initiative in preparing the assault to the regimental commanders, as a result why the tactics of Ilyukh's actions increased by a head while flying the same way without the cover of fighters
    1. vtur
      vtur 15 November 2013 20: 42
      +1
      Didn't you play the IL-2 computer game? What is the best way to kill the Fritzes? Of course, perpendicular to the column, "fucking" a pre-selected target, and after destroying it, turning to the next one! But this is an open field. And if the road is forest and winding? For this we need bombers, incl. and diving. But to "iron" the front edge or suppress the enemy's air defense - here you need an armored attack aircraft that will not fall apart after the first hit of the "Erlikon" ...
  27. samoletil18
    samoletil18 30 October 2013 12: 30
    +2
    The article is good, to the author +. And for the combat qualities of this great aircraft, its circulation of over 36000 speaks.
  28. rubin6286
    rubin6286 31 October 2013 17: 38
    +2
    Quote: Avenger711
    Considering the small number of "pieces" and their focus on point targets, for the private infantry Vanya, they were hardly of any interest.


    This is not true. The U-87 aircraft is a typical front-line aircraft. It was they who caused the greatest harm to the troops on the battlefield and on the march. They were released quite a lot and they were used on all TVDs. This is the only plane on which a German pilot of average skill diving from a height of 1500 meters to 400-500 m hit the ground in a circle with a radius of 7-8 meters. In Germany, their pilots told me that when choosing a car, many gave it preference for this reason and because there were only 4 bombs - for 2 calls. More likely threw and home.
  29. rubin6286
    rubin6286 31 October 2013 18: 37
    +2
    The need for a new aircraft for direct support of the troops arose in the mid-30s, when in the year of the Civil War in Spain it became clear that the P-5 aircraft armed with the Red Army had exhausted their capabilities and were very vulnerable to small arms fire.
    The plane should "hang" over the front edge and beat, beat, beat ...., while remaining invulnerable. At that time, the infantry had a rifle and a machine gun on the battlefield, there were no small or medium caliber anti-aircraft guns. They were installed in the 2nd echelon, covering bridges, crossings, command posts, warehouses, etc. etc. This was the case with everyone: Germans, Japanese, Italians, French, Russians, but by 1939 the situation began to change: large masses of tanks began to be used on the battlefield, and machine guns became large-caliber and easily penetrated duralumin planes and gas tanks. I will not list all that has been written about IL-2, I will only say that in the past war the fighter was counted on 3 sorties, and the attack aircraft on 5 and it was believed that IL-2 justified itself if it destroyed 1 tank and 5 enemy soldiers. Imagine what the losses were!
    The plane was very tenacious and at first could operate even without fighter cover. It was hard to say whether it was as effective as many people imagine, but the Germans were really afraid of them. With the advent of the PTAB, it became possible to bomb the areas of tank and fur. columns on the march, reduced the time of aiming and finding over the target. With the advent of MZA troops in combat formations, the losses of attack aircraft increased, but their number also increased, new methods of warfare appeared, division into suppression and attack groups, demonstration groups, etc. Attack aircraft released more than 20 thousand. This is the most massive Soviet aircraft of the past war. Many fighter regiment pilots wanted to switch to attack aircraft, as an armored cabin meant a lot. Air Marshal Efimov said: "This plane saved my life."
    With great difficulty, they managed to find the wreckage of several cars shot down in the war and even restore one plane to flight condition, after which it was sold to a private collection of a businessman from the United States. Like Vysotsky’s: “So our Motherland is being taken away from us slowly ... ..”
  30. vtur
    vtur 15 November 2013 19: 54
    +3
    Good article. The material, in places, word for word echoes what is published on the website airwar.ru - probably common sources ...
    A few words about the sight (quote from airwar.ru):
    "The very first days of Il-2 combat use also revealed a serious miscalculation in equipping the aircraft with a bombing sight. It turned out that in relation to the existing tactics of Il-2 actions, use the PBP-1b sight installed on an attack aircraft for bombing in horizontal flight (or when planning up to 5 ╟) at altitudes over 25 m it was impossible (due to the limitation of the field of view by the engine hood), and at lower altitudes its use was hampered by the conditions of the aircraft piloting (in this case, all the pilot's attention was focused mainly on observing the ground). Therefore, the pilots assault regiments were forced to drop air bombs at a time delay, which was tantamount to almost indirect bombing. often led to serious injuries, and during forced landings - and death. "

    The pilots dubbed him so: "PBP-1b - The sight hits once - it hurts"
    And about the accuracy of the RS with bent stabilizers, Pokryshkin also mentioned in his memoirs ... By the way, Michael Wittmann's "Tiger" was destroyed by the RS, presumably launched from the Hawker Typhoon, so that with a successful hit it was possible to destroy a heavy tank.

    Well, the question involuntarily arises, if the attack aircraft bombed so much due to the low efficiency of the assault attacks, maybe it was necessary to have more bombers, and use a smaller number of attack aircraft for their intended purpose? And then we got to the point that fighter pilots were financially encouraged for flying on combat missions with bombs, and Yakovlev even built the Yak-9B (individual bomb compartments for four fabs were equipped behind the cockpit of the Yak-9D -100), which was released by a military series - 109 vehicles (130th IAD).
  31. Mushroom
    Mushroom 26 December 2013 18: 32
    -1
    The emphasis on guns and eres for a WWII attack aircraft was a mistake. His real weapons were only bombs and machine guns (guns as machine guns) in the event of an attack of columns (a similar rarity). The main goal, for example - bridges.
    With eresami it is clear - no accuracy.
    Guns against armored vehicles are ineffective, and columns with cars and infantry are just too redundant. For columns, it is better to put 4 ShKAS machine guns or 3 ShKAS machine guns, one UB in each wing. Plus the bombs.
  32. Mushroom
    Mushroom 9 January 2014 19: 30
    -3
    Quote: Bongo
    Despite the numerous shortcomings of the "piece", it had no equal in bombing accuracy.


    Nothing like this. Any diving bomber had accuracy of bombing, it’s stupid to compare with Ilami, the Piece didn’t stand out from the dive bombers, it didn’t even have a sight adjusted for the wind.
  33. will you
    will you 2 June 2016 20: 19
    0
    the price of t34 at that time was about 150 thousand rubles, but how much was IL2?