Military Review

TB-1 and P-6 - the firstborn of the Soviet Long-Range Aviation

65

At the beginning of the 1920s, a discussion broke out among the aircraft designers of the young Soviet Republic, from which it was necessary to build airplanes. The abundance of forests in the USSR, it seemed, should have been inclined to the idea that Soviet aircraft should be made of wood. But there were among the Soviet aircraft designers and those who adhered to the fact that the USSR should produce all-metal aircraft. Andrei Nikolaevich Tupolev was among them.


TB-1 and P-6 - the firstborn of the Soviet Long-Range Aviation


TB-1 (ANT-4) - became the first Soviet mass-produced bomber, and also, it is the world's first mass-produced all-metal heavy twin-engine bomber monoplane. The aircraft was designed by A.N. Tupolev, its development took 9 months. In 1925, the aircraft was made in metal. Serially produced from 1929 to 1932, a total of 212 bombers of this type were built. He was in service with the Red Army until 1936. Then he began to be transferred to the Civil Air Fleet and the Polar Aviation.

The tests carried out in the USSR proved that aluminum airplanes have better flight characteristics than wooden ones. Despite the fact that aluminum has a larger specific gravity than wood, the planes built from aluminum turned out to be lighter than wooden ones. This was explained by the fact that in wooden planes the lower strength of the wood was compensated for by the increased thickness of the side members, ribs, frames and stringers.

The success of light all-metal airplanes, which Tupolev had created earlier, convinced the country's leadership in the expediency of creating a heavy all-metal bomber. November 11 The 1924 of the year, commissioned by the Special Technical Bureau at TsAGI, began work on the design and construction of TB-1.

The TB-1 is a twin-engine, full-carrying, all-metal monoplane. The main material of the body is duralumin using steel in particularly stressed areas. The bomber glider could be divided into separate units, which facilitated its manufacture, repair and transportation.

The construction was based on trusses made of steel and duralumin pipes, which bore the main load. The corrugated skin provided the aircraft with torsional rigidity and strength.

The plumage of the TB-1 bomber was free-carrying, all steering surfaces were equipped with horn compensation. The stabilizer could be adjusted in flight. The angle of its installation could be changed using the steering wheel, which was located to the right of the left pilot. The aircraft was equipped with a BMW VI or M-12 17-cylinder water-cooled engines manufactured domestically. The operation of the machine allowed the use of one M-17 engine and one BMW VI. The engines were started using autostarter or compressed air, and, if necessary, manually, by unscrewing the propeller.



The propellers of the TsAGI design were wooden, two-bladed, left-handed. The diameter of the screws was 3,3 meter. They were made from ash or oak and supplied with aluminum fittings.

The aircraft had 10 gasoline tanks with a total capacity - 2100 liters, all the tanks were combined into one system. Tanks were suspended in the wing of the aircraft on metal ribbons with felt pads. Every engine apart from everything
other things equipped with a special oil tank on 56 liters, which was located in the engine nacelle behind the fire wall.

The TB-1 chassis was pyramidal and equipped with rubber cord damping. The wheels were needles. Initially, imported Palmer wheels of 1250 size on 250 mm, and later on domestic 1350 sizes on 300 mm were used. In the rear part of the fuselage there was a metal crutch with rubber damping. In winter, the wheels of the bomber could be replaced by skis. Also, instead of a wheeled chassis on the plane, you could install floats, while the tail crutch was removed.



TB-1, equipped with floats, additionally received floating and bottom anchors, mooring devices and hook. A speed indicator, an altimeter, an AH-2 compass, an Eger watch, a thermometer were installed in the front cockpit
outdoor temperature and other equipment. In the cockpit there were indicators of turn, slip and speed, altimeter, 2 tachometer, compass AL-1, clock, 2 thermometer for oil and water, as well as 2 gasoline and oil gauges. In the rear cockpit, there was an altimeter, an AN-2 compass, a speed indicator and a clock.



The bomber’s radio equipment included a short-wave receiving and transmitting telegraph station 11SK intended for communication with aerodrome radio stations at long range, as well as a station 13SP, which served to receive signals of radio beacons. Both could work with a rigid, tensioned between the uprights on the wing, as well as the exhaust antenna. Electrical equipment consisted of navigation and code lights, two landing lights, night lighting in the cockpit.



The bomber's small arms included 3 twin installations with 7,62-mm machine guns. Originally it was the English "Lewis", later the domestic YES. Machine guns were mounted on the Turre-5 turrets (fodder, rolling from board to board) and Tur-6 (bow). The total weight of the bomb load could reach 1030 kg. Possible boot options were: 16 bombs caliber 32, 48 or 82 kg in the bomb bay. Or up to 4-x bombs weighing in 250 kg on an external sling. The aircraft was equipped with a German Hertz FI.110 bomber sight.

The bomber crew consisted of a 5-6 man: the first pilot, the second pilot (for flights with a maximum duration), the scorer, and the 3 gunner. The flight mechanic could perform the functions of one of the shooters.

Performance characteristics of TB-1:
Dimensions: wingspan - 28,7 m., Length - 18,0 m.
Wing area - 120 square. m
Aircraft weight, kg
- empty - 4 520
- normal takeoff - 6 810
- maximum take-off - 7 750
Engine type - 2 PD M-17, HP 680 power. each
The maximum speed is 207 km / h.
Cruising speed - 178 km / h.
Maximum flight range - 1 000 km.
Practical ceiling - 4 830 m.
Crew - 6 person.
Armament: 6X7,62-mm machine guns PV-1 and up to 1000 kg. bombs.

A prototype of the TB-1 bomber took off on November 26 of the year 1925.
This plane became a truly legendary machine, to which in many cases it was possible to apply the phrase “first Soviet”. It was the first Soviet monoplane bomber, the first Soviet all-metal
bomber, the first Soviet bomber, which entered mass production. In addition, TB-1 became the ancestor of a whole family of multi-engined aircraft. It is with TB-1 that the formation of strategic aviation begins in our country.



The TB-1 was quickly mastered by Air Force personnel. 1 May 1930 bomber participated in the May Day parade in Moscow. A group of heavy bombers passed the formation over Red Square. For the second time, the aircraft was publicly shown on July 6 at the Central Aerodrome, where a solemn ceremony of handing over the Air Force of new vehicles, which were considered a gift to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b), was carried out. By August 25 of this year, the Red Army Air Force had 203 aircraft of this type, more than 1 / 3 of them were based in the Moscow Military District. However, in the autumn of 1932, bomber brigades began to rearm new TB-3 four-engined bombers. By the spring of 1933, only 4 squadrons armed with these aircraft remained in the Air Force. At the May Day parade of 1933, the TB-3 in the sky was already 2 times larger than the TB-1. Gradually, a twin-engine bomber was ousted to the role of transport and training aircraft. The pilot, who did not undergo training, was not allowed to fly on the new four-engine giants.

The combat use of the aircraft was limited. The 95 th trao in Central Asia has had one TB-1933 since the middle of 1. He participated in actions against basmachs in Turkmenistan, and served not only for transportation. Periodically, the aircraft was loaded with small bombs for strikes against gangs that were concentrated near settlements and wells. At the end of the 1930s, TB-1s were also found in other transport units and subunits, such as the 14s and 15s in the Air Force OKDVA, 8s under Kharkov. The 19 squad in Transbaikalia, among other vehicles, had two disarmed TB-1, which were used to transport goods from Chita to the front line during the fighting at Khalkhin Gol in May - September 1939.

The century TB-1 in the Red Army was short-lived. Since 1935, TB-1 aircraft began to be transferred to the Civil fleet or even write off. The weapons remaining in the Air Force were removed. They were also used in flight schools, which trained pilots, navigators and riflemen for bomber aircraft. On April 1, 1936, there were 26 such machines in flight schools. On September 25, 1940, only 28 TB-1 aircraft remained in the Air Force.

From 1935, obsolete bombers under the brand G-1 began to transmit to aviation GUSMP, and then to the Civil Air Fleet. All weapons were removed, the openings of the turrets were usually sewn up with a sheet. Often eliminated all the glazing navigator cabin. Over the pilot's seats mounted roof and made the side windows.



These aircraft were usually used as cargo, but sometimes they were transported and passengers. Most of them were exploited on the outskirts of the country: in Siberia, in the Far East and the Far North. These durable and reliable aircraft played a significant role in the development of low-habitable areas.



During the war with Finland, several G-1s joined the North-Western Special Air Force Group of the Civil Air Fleet, which served the active army. They transported food, ammunition and evacuated the wounded.


G-1 polar aviation in the UVN museum of the Civil Air Fleet


By the beginning of the war, the GVF had 23 G-1, they were included in the transport groups and detachments attached to the fronts and fleets. For the front line G-1 not sent, tried to use in the rear. Therefore, the losses were small: until the end of 1941, they lost only four G-1, and another lost in 1942. Old corrugated planes met at the forefront until the end of 1944.

Polar aviation aircraft were used throughout the war, but they were conducting ice reconnaissance and even searched for submarines. The last G-1 polar explorers wrote off in the 1947 year.

Based on the TB-1, the long-range reconnaissance P-6 (ANT-7) was created.



The plane was ordered by a multiple choice - at first they wanted to make a heavy escort fighter out of it, but already in August 1927 of the year (after the project was shown to the leadership of the Air Force) the specialization was changed to a reconnaissance aircraft and a light bomber. Accordingly, he was given the designation P-6, but Tupolev himself completely disagreed with this turn of affairs. The chief designer continued to insist on the further development of the aircraft as an escort fighter, with enhanced armament. However, the rapid improvement of aviation in the 30-ies and the increase in speed did not leave a chance for the P-6 in this role. It was not possible to create the P-6 in a purely fighter version.

The “reconnaissance” specialization for P-6 was left unchanged, but the military brought the requirements for maximum bomb load from 588 to 725 kg. November 9 The 1927 of the year has been updated requirements for the aircraft. According to the TTZ P-6, a crew of five was supposed to have a bomb load of 890 kg and armament of eight 7,62-mm guns. According to the calculations of the design bureau, after such a modernization, the aircraft significantly increased in size and lost in speed, which decreased to 160 km / h.

The first experienced P-6 was built at the beginning of 1929. Factory tests, which took place at the end of winter, were quite successful, but very significant flaws of the intelligence officer were revealed at state tests. The customer was very upset about the low performance of the aircraft, related to its insufficient speed and rate of climb. The flight range was insufficient, and in terms of maneuverability, the P-6 could hardly have fought with a similar fighter. In total, 73 revealed various defects in the aircraft design, after which the P-6 was sent back to TsAGI to eliminate the deficiencies.

June 24 reconnaissance was again presented to the military, and in the process of a new test phase, the 24 defect was discovered. However, the customer recommended the machine to mass production - firstly, the P-6 had a very impressive firepower, secondly - the plane could be used in many variants and, thirdly - in terms of its characteristics, the plane was not inferior to world analogues.



According to the construction plan in 1929-1930. Plant No.22 was supposed to produce 10 aircraft, and over the next three months of the new year - another 17. In reality, by the end of 1931, only two P-6 series of 5 and 10 scouts were released, respectively. The first two planes were not transferred to combat units - they were used only for tests.
The first serial P-6 was equipped with the German BMW VI engines, the Hertz Fl 110 sight and the Sbr-8 bomb dropping system. Bombs were placed only on the external suspension on Der-7 holders. The reconnaissance small arms consisted of two DA machine guns on the Tur-5 turret in the forward fuselage and one more DA in the ventral turret of the TsKB-39 turret.


Layout of the P-6 aircraft factory in Komsomolsk-on-Amur


After successful tests, the P-6 decided to install the M-17 engines and the aircraft with such a motor installation began to be tested from November 3 1931. With the Soviet engines constantly overheating, the weight of the aircraft increased by 126 kg, the speed decreased by 13 km \ h, the ceiling - by 1000 meters. In addition, all the P-6 variants had insufficient lateral stability, poor visibility for the pilot straight ahead and heavy loads on the steering wheel. Nevertheless, it was decided to continue mass production, making a number of significant changes to the design of the scout.
Most of the first production aircraft 15 hit the Air Force only in the spring of the year 1932, leaving 4 of them for testing at the factory.
In total, plant number 22 in 1932 year appeared float version of the scout - P-6a.
They installed floats of TB-1 on it and carried out a number of works aimed at refining the machine to the level of a marine intelligence officer. The tests that began on December 30 ended at the end of March 1933, and a new intelligence officer was put on the conveyor under the designation MP-6.



According to pilots reviews, compared with Western counterparts, the MP-6 did not have the required stability and seaworthiness, but it was favorably distinguished by greater maneuverability on the water and in the air and lower fuel consumption than the usual P-6. At the end of 1933, the MP-6 was sent to the 19 th MRAE and the 51 th AO Air Force of the Baltic Fleet, who had previously flown on Italian S-62bis flying boats and German Do “Val”. Closer to the summer of the 1934 of the year, the MP-6 got into the Pacific Fleet - these aircraft were introduced into the 30-th KRAE.

Almost at the same time with him, a new version of the intelligence officer, the KR-6 (Cruiser-Scout-6), arrived. According to the plan, his tasks included both reconnaissance and direct support of groups of bombers, for which the supply of fuel was brought to 3000 liters, and the oil supply went up to 250 liters, which made it possible to increase the flight distance. Ammunition nasal DA YES now was 20-24 disk, and the ventral tower was dismantled. In addition, outwardly, the KR-6 was distinguished by a new horizontal tail and a new form of motorcaps. The bomb dump system was replaced with Sbr-9. In April, the 1934 of the KR-6 was tested from the summer of the 1934, after which they conducted comparative tests of the marine modifications of the KR-6 with German engines. They wanted to build both versions in series, but mostly they released the first one. The overall release of the KR-6 was about the 222 of the aircraft, including the 72 of the KR-6 aircraft.

Very interesting were the experiments on installing heavy cannon weapons on the P-6. In 1930, even before the start of serial construction of the scout, they planned to install a 37-mm gun Hotchkiss or tank a semi-automatic 20-mm gun, but, due to low ballistic characteristics and strong recoil when firing, they were found unsuitable for installation even on such a heavy aircraft as the R-6. Then they began to consider options with Erlikon F and L aviation guns of 20 mm caliber, which were made in Switzerland, although it also did not come to the construction of a scout with such a gun installation.

In the middle of the 30-ies on the P-6 worked out suspension and the use of chemical weapons. In particular, bombs of the G-54, G-58 and G-59 type were suspended under the plane (its components included 300 small thermite bombs). The “chemical” P-6 units were not received.

It so happened that during the operation, the P-6 almost always lost to the reconnaissance aircraft of the biplane scheme.
Created in 1935, the KP-6-T float torpedo bomber (it was later modified and renamed KP-6T) was not accepted for service, in part because of its low TTX, in part because of the P-5T already in the formation. In mass quantities, P-6 appeared in the 1933 year, and CR-6 - in the 1935 year. But they almost immediately began to be transferred to reserve units or sent to warehouses. The moral and technical obsolescence of the aircraft was already clear then. On 31 December 1937, the units still had 227 reconnaissance aircraft of various modifications and a 81 float plane. By 1 on April 1940, their number was reduced to 171 aircraft and, in October, by order of the leadership of the Air Force, the last 116 reconnaissance aircraft Р-6 \ КР-6 were taken out of the first-line units. Regiments and squadrons that have passed their P-6, received in return biplanes Р-Z or more modern Р-10.

Converted reconnaissance aircraft first entered civil aviation as early as 1935. In October, the first two aircraft were sold to Dalstroy by the NKVD for courier work, where they were given the designation MP-6 (float-operated Р-6а) and ПС-7 (Р-6 on the wheeled chassis). These designations were subsequently assigned to all aircraft transferred to the Civil Air Fleet. Somewhat earlier, in the middle of 1933, the P-6 was reworked to civilian standards, removing all military equipment from it and equipping it with a passenger cabin for seven people. The crew was reduced to a pilot and navigator, and instead of the Soviet M-17, the aircraft again received BMW VI engines. The aircraft, renamed ANT-7, was transferred to the SUAI, where it was successfully broken by the 5 of September 1933. No more attempts were made to create a purely civilian vehicle from the P-6.



But P-6 and P-6, one might say, “found themselves” flying in the structure of the Civil Air Fleet and similar structures. Planes flying in the north of the country received indexes “H”. The H-29 and H-162 vehicles flew out to ice reconnaissance and performed transport functions, and the H-166 distinguished themselves during the rescue of the Papanin expedition. In the first flight of 21 March 1938, the crew of PG Golovin took the 23 man with him, and the whole 80 was evacuated.

Two KP-6 were remade under the standard PS-7 “limousine”, having equipped them with a passenger cabin. At 1939, the GVF had an 21 PS-7 aircraft.



Since the beginning of World War II, the squadron of the Red Army Air Force had very few reconnaissance aircraft of the type P-6 and KR-6. Neither in Spain nor in Mongolia, these aircraft flew because of the outdated design and, as a consequence, the inability to use these reconnaissance aircraft as full-fledged combat aircraft. By the time of the war with Finland, two P-6s were each part of 10, 24 and 50 of the second UE. They were used mainly for transport purposes, although very little is known for their more specific application.

By June 1941, the P-6 and the KR-6 remained a few. In order to replenish the aviation units that were significantly thinned in the first months of the war, the old reconnaissance aircraft began to be withdrawn from warehouses and flying schools. In the autumn of 1941, the 2 AG was established on the Baltic Sea under the command of I.T. Mazuruka. The group consisted of four aircraft that took off for ice reconnaissance. Before the end of their operation (at the beginning of 1943 of the year), only one car was lost - it was smashed during an emergency landing of 25 in June of 1942.

The largest unit of the war, in which the former P-6 reconnaissance aircraft were exploited, was the Airborne Force Corps deployed on the Kalinin Front. It was composed, in addition to the gliders A-7 and G-11, the mass of a wide variety of aircraft, ranging from the old SB and ending with the relatively new IL-4. They also included P-6, recruited together with the Security Council, mostly from the Saratov Military Glider School. When the brigade was fully recruited and relocated to the Engels airfield, it turned out that the P-6 and KP-6 aircraft make up an 43 copy. Work for them was selected the most diverse.

Part of the P-6 and SB initially involved in the operation "Antifreeze", which lasted from 12 to 16 November 1942 of the year. The aircraft towed gliders in which there were tanks with coolant directly to the airfields near Stalingrad. Then, until the summer of 1944, the P-6 was actively used to supply partisan groups in the territory
occupied Belarus. For these purposes, Begoml and Selaschina airfields were allocated, from where the planes dragged the gliders and transported various cargoes themselves. On the combat losses of the P-6 involved in such sorties, at the moment there is only one reliable fact - in March 1943, the plane of G. Chepik was set on fire by a German fighter, but the pilot managed to land the wounded car “on the belly”, having had time to unhook the towed glider.

In 1942, another aircraft was sent to the front from the Kulyab airfield. This machine was a conventional PS-7 on which, in order to save time and money (and also due to the complete lack of spare parts), the wheels from PS-9 and shock absorbers from the captured Ju-52 \ 3m transported to Central Asia were installed. .

The longest PS-7 and P-6 have been using 87-th OTRAP and 234 AO. The first took an active part in the hostilities, carrying 12688 people and 1057,7 tons of cargo during the hostilities, losing two planes in battle. The 234 Squad served builders in Siberia and the Far East and only handed over their aircraft at the beginning of 1946.

Based on:
http://armyman.info/aviaciya/samolety/razvedchiki/498-tupolev-r-6.html
http://www.planers32.ru/mc_1097.html
Author:
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Apollo
    Apollo 7 December 2013 08: 04 New
    13
    quote-TB-1 (ANT-4) - became the first Soviet mass-produced bomber, and also, it is the world's first mass-produced all-metal heavy twin-engine monoplane bomber. The aircraft was designed by A.N. Tupolev, its development took 9 months
    1. Forget
      Forget 8 December 2013 12: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: Apollon
      its development took 9 months

      and now they have been designing for years (I mean with us), and it’s not a fact what else will fly ....
  2. svp67
    svp67 7 December 2013 08: 59 New
    20
    You have to be very keen on flying people in order to fly in the Arctic with an open cockpit, the courage and enthusiasm of these people can be envied. And most importantly, the pilots were their own, and not "guest workers" ...
    1. Bongo
      7 December 2013 09: 04 New
      11
      I am sure that the courage of the Russian aviators has not dried up. There are still enough people keen on the sky, they would still have the normal support of the state.
  3. Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 7 December 2013 09: 29 New
    +8
    yes, by the way about Ulyanovsk, a very good museum. I advise you to go there. True, the planes and helicopters are a little shabby of course ... but talking to a museum employee it turned out that for painting one aircraft they ask from 350 thousand rubles, which is a lot for them.
    1. vtur
      vtur 8 December 2013 13: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Petrovich
      for painting one aircraft ask from 350 thousand rubles

      This is not the main problem - such unique items as the G-1 should be stored in dry air hangars, and anti-corrosion work should be carried out on airplanes - otherwise there will simply be nothing to paint in 20-30 years ...
      As an example of how historical relics are stored and how much it costs, I recommend inquiring about Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose and the Vasa (Vasa) ship - two very impressive examples, although you can, of course, find more. What do we have? "Aurora" that is no longer "Aurora"?
  4. realist
    realist 7 December 2013 09: 55 New
    +5
    I was glad that such a plane was preserved, there is no such machine even in Monino! it’s a pity it is not stored in the hangar
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 7 December 2013 10: 40 New
      +9
      February 21, 1898, the famous pilot Semyon Shestakov was born in Bender. He circled three times around the Statue of Liberty in New York and talked with geisha in Tokyo. By the way, he joined the Red Army on the day of its creation - February 23, 1918.http: //www.polarpost.ru/forum/viewtopic.php? F = 8 & t = 1287 & start = 0
      1. svp67
        svp67 7 December 2013 11: 14 New
        +8
        Quote: Alex 241

        Alex hi
        I've always admired these people, okay P6 and TB1, but here on such airplanes flying TAM - you need to have special courage ...
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 7 December 2013 11: 24 New
          +7
          Hi Seryozha, this is a special caste of people, I remember how it sounded-POLAR PILOT! What top managers are there, to sit, be afraid!
          1. svp67
            svp67 7 December 2013 11: 38 New
            +9
            Quote: Alex 241
            special caste of people

            Such planes often visited our airfield. They stood out strongly against the general background, like their pilots, often in the summer they came out of them shod in high fur boots ????? As a boy it was funny, now of course I understand that they even had summer there "not summer ..."
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 7 December 2013 12: 02 New
              +4
              Seryozha, these planes often landed in Astafyevo, my uncle served there as deputy regiment commander, one of the IL-14 stood there, then drove to Stupino.
        2. Gamdlislyam
          Gamdlislyam 7 December 2013 12: 08 New
          +6
          Quote: svp67
          I've always admired these people, okay P6 and TB1, but here on such airplanes flying TAM - you need to have special courage ...

          Dear colleague Sergey, the R-5 was much more reliable, unpretentious and economical in operation than the TB-1 (G-1), not to mention the R-6. Yes, and the runway R-5 was required much less than the TB-1 (G-1) and R-6, and the load capacity of the R-5 was not inferior to the R-6. On the R-5, the engine was the same and the same type with the R-6 and TB-1 engines.
          R-6 was, in fact, an unsuccessful aircraft. The Air Force refused it, and therefore handed over the aircraft to the Navy (the sailors were supplied with aircraft according to the residual principle). Here the penetrative abilities of Tupolev A.N. and his administrative resource (he, nevertheless, was one of the leaders of TsAGI).
  5. avt
    avt 7 December 2013 11: 09 New
    +8
    ,, A prototype of the TB-1 bomber took off on November 26, 1925. "-------- And no one whined about the superiority of the West and the impossibility of solving heavy tasks! They just did it, without any intellectual whining and complaints about the absence There were no managers stomping, they were then called what they actually were from bureaucrats and parasites to pests.
    1. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 7 December 2013 12: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: avt
      The prototype TB-1 bomber took off on November 26, 1925

      Dear colleague avt, it’s one thing to lift an experienced aircraft into the air, and another thing to bring to mass production. Between these dates was 4 years. For those times it was a lot, because aviation was developing very rapidly, aircraft were aging rapidly.
      In 1932, Martin 139 twin-engine bomber took off in the United States, having a speed of 340 km / h. In 1933 he was adopted and launched into serial production.
      In 1934, the ANT-40 (future SB-2) took off in the USSR, having a speed of more than 400 km / h. Serial production of SB-2 began in 1935.
      1. avt
        avt 7 December 2013 13: 32 New
        +3
        Quote: Gamdlislyam
        Between these dates was 4 years. For those times it was a lot,

        request The car was lifted into the air at 25 m! IN USSR ! And when did the civil war end?
        Quote: Gamdlislyam
        For those times it was a lot,

        Quote: Gamdlislyam
        In 1932, Martin 139 twin-engine bomber took off in the United States, having a speed of 340 km / h. In 1933 he was adopted and launched into serial production.

        And when did the civil war in the united states of North America end? But were they fighting on their territory during the First World War? Well, when and at what time after the Tb-3 was charged in droves? As you wish, but this is a Labor Feat and there are no analogues!
        1. Gamdlislyam
          Gamdlislyam 7 December 2013 21: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: avt
          The car was lifted into the air at 25 m! IN USSR ! And when did the civil war end?

          Dear avt colleague, below is a quote from Wikipedia (you can also quote from the encyclopedia "Corner of Heaven") about the plant in Fili, where TB-1 was manufactured.
          "At the end of November 1922, on the basis of the Rapallo agreement, agreements were concluded with the Junkers company on the supply of aircraft and the construction of an aircraft plant on the territory of the USSR. They envisaged the production of metal aircraft and motors, as well as the arrangement of the transit between Sweden and Persia and the organization of aerial photography. Junkers undertook to establish a serial production of aircraft at the former Russo-Balt automobile plant in Fili near Moscow By the beginning of 1925 more than 1000 people were employed at the plant in Fili, the area of ​​production premises was 15 thousand square meters (for comparison - in total, 1925 people worked in the Soviet aviation industry in 5114). Up to a third of the funds allocated for the development of aviation in the USSR went to pay Junkers.However, the plant did not live up to the hopes of the Soviet leadership for the role of the flagship of the domestic aircraft industry.
          The Junkers spent most of the money received from the Soviet government and the German military leadership not on the development of production in the USSR and the improvement of the characteristics of aircraft manufactured at Fili, but on the needs of their aircraft factory in Dessau and the creation of a new aircraft engine plant, on the organization of new commercial airlines and the construction of company branches in Turkey and Sweden. According to German archival materials, out of 8 million gold stamps allocated by German military circles for the production of military aircraft in the USSR, the Junkers company invested only a little more than 2 million for these purposes. In an effort to maintain a monopoly on the production of metal aircraft and the ability to dictate prices for this The company's products and management in every possible way delayed the organization of a research center at the Fili factory and the training of Soviet specialists, avoided providing assistance in establishing the production of duralumin and motors in the USSR, and rejected the proposal to create a joint Soviet-German aviation enterprise instead of a concession plant.
          Nevertheless, the plant produced Junkers aircraft. So the A-20 light transport aircraft of 1923 release was delivered from Limhamn to Italy and Turkey as a tactical reconnaissance, and at Fili it was made for the Red Army Air Force under the designation U-20. The U-21 twin multi-purpose reconnaissance parasol has been produced since 1924 especially for the supply of the Red Army.
          The contract with Junkers was terminated in 1926 as it did not fulfill its obligations to supply metal aircraft. In total, with the participation of the Germans, by the end of 1925, 170 aircraft were built at the plant in Fili. "

          Quote: avt
          And when did the civil war in the united states of North America end? But were they fighting on their territory during the First World War? Well, when and at what time after the Tb-3 was charged in droves? As you wish, but this is a Labor Feat and there are no analogues!

          Dear colleague, I mentioned the Martin-139 (ANT-40 is our answer to Martin) to show how rapidly aviation was developing. No more.
          1. avt
            avt 8 December 2013 10: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: Gamdlislyam
            The contract with Junkers was terminated in 1926 as it did not fulfill its obligations to supply metal aircraft. In total, with the participation of the Germans, by the end of 1925, 170 aircraft were built at the plant in Fili. "

            The fact that the Russobalt factory in Fili was given a concession to Junkers and that there the Three-engine South and single-engine scouts were collected does not detract from the merits of Tupolev and the then leadership. On the contrary, it testifies to the high efficiency and competent approach to investing and training aircraft builders, which made it possible to make a real leap in aviation, floats for the marine option were also purchased in England first, but they were established quite quickly at home. Properly dispose of the available specialists, in the shortest possible time create an industrial base, and an advanced one with a reserve for the future, prepare personnel for it, this is the Labor Feat and it doesn’t matter with the help of Western specialists. Here you can even note the work of diplomats.
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 8 December 2013 13: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: avt
      They simply did the thing, without any intellectual whining and complaints about the lack of investment.


      + For example, I-5 created at TsKB-39 OGPU There is an emblem on the tail.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 8 December 2013 13: 11 New
        +1
        BT stands for Inland Prison
        1. svp67
          svp67 8 December 2013 13: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex 241
          BT stands for Inland Prison

          The list of "such" - "prison" is quite large ... the time is "tough and merciless" ...
        2. Vadivak
          Vadivak 8 December 2013 15: 52 New
          +2
          Quote: Alex 241
          BT stands for Inland Prison


          It was believed in all seriousness that it was in the sharashka that the engineer would work most productively. Since he did not have time for other "art", and by the way time was running out ...
      2. avt
        avt 8 December 2013 16: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Vadivak
        There is an emblem on the tail.

        VT is an internal prison. However, "the class element is alien" - Polikarpov was used for its intended purpose, as well as Grigorovich, although he did not make a single car that was included in the series. Hard. But again not stupid, quite in the spirit of the times.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 8 December 2013 16: 27 New
          +4
          Quote: avt
          Grigorovich, although he did not make a single car in the series.


          Not certainly in that way. For example there was a flying boat M-24, of course, it can be called a continuation of the famous M-9, but still.
          Also in 1936 there was a small cannon series with 76 mm IP-1 guns. But in general, yes, Grigorovich had his say more in naval aviation and worked mainly as an organizer
  6. smersh70
    smersh70 7 December 2013 11: 17 New
    +1
    ..transporting people can ... no problem..but the flight characteristics .... the horror is just .... they refused to Wordplanes right away, like everyone else ... although it was awesome, especially the Pegasus plane .. .. laughing....
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 7 December 2013 11: 30 New
      +3
      Well, Pegasus was supposed to be a mass attack aircraft, which is made almost from folding beds.
      1. smersh70
        smersh70 7 December 2013 11: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex 241
        Well, Pegasus was supposed to be a mass attack aircraft,

        Thanks, Alex.... smile I finally found him ... frame laughing it's horror, not a plane bully I sold it right away ... and now BSh and IL-2 ... a song ... good especially with the shooter !!!!!!
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 7 December 2013 11: 43 New
          0
          The main emphasis in the production of Pegasus is simplicity and mass, but from the point of view of characteristics, it is better to remain silent.
        2. Vadivak
          Vadivak 8 December 2013 16: 00 New
          +5
          Quote: smersh70
          and now BSh and IL-2 ... song


          Well, the idea of ​​a cheap "popular" attack aircraft, fighter, etc. is quite tenacious, remember at least a semi-wooden German salamander NOT 162, but that, unlike Pegasus, went into series.
      2. avt
        avt 7 December 2013 12: 05 New
        +5
        Quote: Alex 241
        Well, Pegasus was supposed to be a mass attack aircraft, which is made almost from folding beds.

        request 41 years old. The factories on the road to the evacuation site, from the Civil Air Fleet took everything to bomber aircraft, the same TB-3, U-2, there simply are no planes and there is no possibility of mass production. So this ersatz appeared, but didn’t go further than this sample, GKO decided to do normal ones.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 8 December 2013 16: 02 New
          +2
          Quote: avt
          but he didn’t go further than this sample, GKO decided to do normal.


          Counted and horrified. For the effective use of pilots required more than cavalry smile
    2. 0255
      0255 7 December 2013 13: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: smersh70
      ..transporting people can ... no problem..but the flight characteristics .... the horror is just .... they refused to Wordplanes right away, like everyone else ... although it was awesome, especially the Pegasus plane .. .. laughing....

      Do you really want to spend real money on a virtual plane in World of Warplanes? Wargaming shamelessly pulls money from you, as I was convinced from their tanks
    3. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 7 December 2013 15: 03 New
      0
      You got your nobility excited .... Great Pegasus machine in WoWP .......... I have 4 stars and five bombs on board ............. As they say ... Hands-and-hands ...:) ....... Whatever it was unfounded I give a nickname .... TR1X_
    4. The comment was deleted.
  7. VladimS
    VladimS 7 December 2013 12: 35 New
    +4
    Respect to the author!
    You must remember your story.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 7 December 2013 12: 52 New
      +7
      Breaking News: Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu arrived at the Borisoglebsk training airbase, where he examined the new Yak-130 aircraft and observed training flights of future military pilots.
      1. svp67
        svp67 7 December 2013 12: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: Alex 241
        Minister of Defense Sergey Shoigu

        good
        Well done, not figs in the offices to sit, we must see everything with our own eyes ...
  8. pensioner
    pensioner 7 December 2013 14: 43 New
    +5
    I read in the book "The Fiery Nights of the Battle of Kursk. Long-Range Aviation in Battle" that TB-3 actually survived the war without catastrophic losses. Episodes, like the one described by Simonov in The Living and the Dead, took place, of course, but were not massive. TB-3 was used as a night bomber even at the Kursk Bulge. I was very surprised ... Here is the cover of the book:
  9. Argon
    Argon 7 December 2013 15: 22 New
    +5
    At the age of 37, my grandfather graduated from the Leningrad School of Polar Aviation (as far as I understood it was the last or penultimate graduation, later the school was disbanded) with the qualification of "multi-engine aircraft flight engineer." The main learning machine was the R-6, theoretically German and American cars, it was believed that in the future one of them (in a licensed version) would become the basis of the Arctic aviation of the USSR. Until the spring of 40 (conscription) he worked in the Main Directorate of the Northern Sea Route, flights on the R-6 were extremely rare, the cars were equipped with German engines. imported fuel.ZIP and consumables (also imported) had strict reporting. And they were mainly associated with the maintenance of expeditions of which there were not many. In a year, the grandfather flew no more than 15 times. The plane did not have an anti-icing system, so each flight began with careful processing of the whole machine "Arctic-fat" - an extremely aromatic substance reminiscent of modern grease, produced from the fats of game animals. At the parking lot, a similar procedure was carried out at least once a week. In general, the car "saved from unemployment" all those personnel, which is only the condensate systematically accumulating in the frame pipes and often tore them during thawing. It was also the cause of constant overload of the machine, approximately 100kg of ice at best. In flight, heating was produced by engine exhaust, but this system was ineffective and two Bofors outboard knots (something between a lantern and a stove) were installed, they were heated with special coal briquettes. The plane was not piloted a pilot's dream, an extremely unstable machine in roll, and strove to "surprise" with an energetic release of speed. The P-6 also did not differ in directional stability. In the Arctic aviation, the board engineer, if necessary, had to duplicate the co-pilot, for which even at the school he was given an independent flight time of 80 !!! hours. In each flight, the engineer took the board in place of the co-pilot for at least an hour, performing the role of opilot, so that I trust my grandfather's opinion.In 39, they began to equip the P-6 with autopilots, the same as later on the Li-2, but the grandfather did not see this, he did not have enough enthusiasm and at the first opportunity, he transferred from the detachment to the "area" as a pilot, before being drafted, he flew 20 hours on the P-5 and almost 700 flight hours on the Po-2.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 8 December 2013 04: 49 New
      +2
      condensation accumulated in the tubes of the frame and often tore them during thawing.
      Thanks, very interesting. That's just tearing when freezing: the volume of ice is greater than the original volume of water.
      1. Argon
        Argon 8 December 2013 16: 22 New
        +1
        Not trusting the written, carry out an experiment at home (in the refrigerator) so as not to spoil the glass containers, take a plastic bottle,! TOP! Fill it with water,! TIGHT! close with a lid and put in the freezer. Pay attention when the shape of the bottle changes when freezing or when thawing (on the balcony).
        1. Old_kapitan
          Old_kapitan 9 December 2013 03: 37 New
          0
          I don’t know what will happen with the plastic bottle. I know what happens with glass. She is tearing apart. Tested in childhood in practice. And then they explained at school that water expands when it freezes.
  10. Beck
    Beck 7 December 2013 17: 10 New
    -11 qualifying.
    Yes. TB-1 and R-6 first-born. But for some reason, long-range bomber aviation in the USSR did not receive further development. Just like in Germany.

    And so, by the beginning of WWII, the USSR and Germany came up without strategic, long-range bombers. And during the war they could not create this most important element not only of aviation, but of all armed forces.

    The United States came to the beginning of the war with its strategic bombers B-25, B-17, B-24. Already during the war, the Americans, in 1942, released the famous B-29.

    The British, by the beginning of the war, seemed to have a twin-engine Vickers-Wellington, but the British strategists understood that its performance characteristics did not meet the requirements of wartime. And before the war in England, a new bomber began to be developed. It came into operation in 1942, it is Avro Lancaster - a strategic long-range bomber.

    It was the B-series and Avro Lancaster bombers that ultimately destroyed the German industry.
    1. Uncle Vitya
      Uncle Vitya 7 December 2013 17: 27 New
      +2
      Further development could be if the TB-7 were launched into the series.
      And so it was released about 10 pieces, and it was used primarily as a plane for flights of the USSR government.
      The same flights of Molotov to England were nowhere recorded by German air defense due to the fact that he was not visible, TB-7 flew at an incredible height for German fighters and air defense forces. And there would have been a couple of hundred ... Berlin would have been in ruins in the summer of the 41st ...
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 7 December 2013 18: 26 New
        +3
        in 1941 there were about 20. And during the whole war, about 100 were released.
      2. samoletil18
        samoletil18 7 December 2013 20: 03 New
        +4
        Quote: Uncle Vitya
        Further development could be if the TB-7 were launched into the series.
        And so it was released about 10 pieces, and it was used primarily as a plane for flights of the USSR government.
        The same flights of Molotov to England were nowhere recorded by German air defense due to the fact that he was not visible, TB-7 flew at an incredible height for German fighters and air defense forces. And there would have been a couple of hundred ... Berlin would have been in ruins in the summer of the 41st ...

        I understand. Rezun the fellow countryman, writes intricately ...
        But, firstly, there was DB-3, DB-3f (Il-4). Secondly, the TB-7 (Pe-8), with its high cost, was not a "wunder-waffe" and Stalin did not allow the production of more than 79 vehicles. Better read the memoirs of A. Golovanov "Long-range bomber". The Lend-Lease B-25 is also often mentioned here. Yes, and TB-3 managed to prove itself during the war nights. But! The Pe-8 was periodically produced for a reason, "out of quiet sadness." It was the only mastered four-engine aircraft of that period, which made it possible to have an appropriate level of industrial, technical and flight personnel. Well, since there is a Pe-8, a 5-ton bomb was used against the Germans in the Battle of Kursk. Molotov visited England and the United States effectively. And let out 200 such expensive planes - how many smaller, but no less necessary, were we missing? And the resources, the thing is always insufficient. And "Pegasus" would have to be mass-produced.
        1. Uncle Vitya
          Uncle Vitya 8 December 2013 00: 02 New
          -4
          I agree with you completely! For this you +!
          But when you consider that before the war a large number of aircraft were released that turned out to be practically unsuitable, and how much effort and money was spent on their development, design and launch in a series, for example, the Su-2 attack aircraft.
          After all, the Su-2 with the outbreak of war was quickly taken out of production, it showed itself on the negative side, although it was cheap to manufacture.
          But as for launching the TB-7 (Pe-8) series, I don’t think that the high cost would stop Comrade. Stalin, who is who, but he would have found the means to launch it in the series! It seems to me that the matter is something else. In what even there are no sensible thoughts ... And yet ... pay attention to the fact that the release of the first TB-7 (about 10 or 20 pieces) was completed before the war. During the war, according to official statistics that walks on the Internet, 97 aircraft of this model were released. And Rezun in this, as it seems to me, is right ... Or comrade. Stalin calculated something wrong, or there were other ideas, or ... I don’t think that we will ever know fully.
          Regards to you !!!
          1. Bongo
            8 December 2013 01: 42 New
            +3
            Why does the Su-2 show itself from the negative side? It was not designed as an attack aircraft, but as a massive, not expensive near bomber, which was reflected in its other designation BB-1. In this role, he was not very bad. He also gave a good account of himself thanks to a spacious cabin with an excellent overview as a scout and spotter.
            1. Uncle Vitya
              Uncle Vitya 8 December 2013 01: 52 New
              -3
              Yes, I agree, it was designed as a Middle Bomber, but in the end, at the beginning of the war it was used as an attack aircraft. And ... at the beginning of the war it was discontinued, and the capacities at which it was produced were quickly transferred to a series of other, more needed aircraft. I don’t think that if he had well recommended himself, he would have been removed from production, especially during the war, when the cheapness of production and, at the same time, reliability are put in the first place.
              1. Bongo
                8 December 2013 02: 03 New
                +5
                As a Su-2 attack aircraft, of course, it was not very successful, mainly because of the purely machine-gun armament. Nevertheless, in this role, he proved himself better than fighters with liquid-cooled engines. However, to say that the plane was unsuccessful, in the root is not true. It is fully consistent with the technical specifications in accordance with which was created.
                21 November 2013 was an article about the Su-6 attack aircraft. Su-2 is also mentioned there.
                1. zyablik.olga
                  zyablik.olga 8 December 2013 11: 49 New
                  +7
                  For convenience and visibility from the cockpit of the Su-2 was out of competition among Soviet aircraft.
              2. avt
                avt 8 December 2013 12: 31 New
                +2
                Quote: Uncle Vitya
                Yes, I agree, it was designed as a Middle Bomber, but in the end, at the beginning of the war it was used as an attack aircraft.

                So what !? And here is the machine, fully made as part of the technical assignment of the Red Army Air Force? Zhukov also issued an order to bomb from a height of 400 meters, to storm convoys of tanks, and that’s Gastello with a partner on IL-4 ....
                Quote: Uncle Vitya
                And ... at the beginning of the war it was discontinued, and the capacities at which it was produced were quickly transferred to a series of other, more needed aircraft.

                Well, its further development was the SU-6, but in the series there was IL-2 and it was economically justified not to produce a bunch of cars economically in the conditions of the war, well, the situation was far from American, many good developments did not go in other design bureaus, but they made a reconnaissance aircraft from IL-2, even tried a torpedo bomber. But the front-line reconnaissance didn’t work out, life itself prompted this function to be transferred to fighter, single-engine and Pe-2, which was originally born as a long-range fighter and converted into a front-line bomber.
          2. samoletil18
            samoletil18 8 December 2013 02: 01 New
            +3
            Su-2 was not so bad. Pe-8, redesigned under TTZ TB-3, while maintaining the wing with a thick profile, stuffing the fifth engine, instead of the supercharger (they did not work in the USSR), and was not known before the war. The trouble with the motors did not end until the end of the war. And after the war, Stalin did not even consider attempts to produce it: a copy of the B-29 - Tu-4.
            Su-2 turned off with the evacuation of the Kharkov aircraft plant. But the M-82 engines continued to be produced. Lavochkin attached them to LaGG-3, it turned out La-5. The surviving Su-2s were used until 1944, working as scouts, spotters, and stormtrooper leaders.
            Stalin already had a formidable armada, which had passed into the category of "night lights" - 800 pieces. TB-3 and TB-1 covered the country during the period of industrialization. But over the years, the prime cost, maintenance of new aircraft, among analogues, only grew. And we need a fleet, ground forces. And money? It's simple for Bunich and Rezun.
            I hope it turned out to explain. With mutual respect to you.
          3. jjj
            jjj 11 December 2013 09: 04 New
            +1
            Pe-8 was generally designed for diesel. But it didn’t work out. In general, the lack of engines - very much affected the development of our aviation
            1. Bongo
              11 December 2013 09: 16 New
              +2
              Same as EP-2
        2. vtur
          vtur 9 December 2013 13: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: samoletil18
          And let out 200 such expensive aircraft - how many smaller, but no less necessary, were we missed?

          For all its merits, the Pe-8 was extremely low-tech in production. Plus problems with the presence of engines, plus the lack of reliable turbochargers (the ACN-2 unit, which Stefanovsky praised so much, was actually extremely low reliability). In all respects, two IL-4s exceeded one Pe-8. I think Stalin really wanted to have many such comrades, but he was a pragmatist. And Filin (the head of the Air Force Research Institute) fell under this hot hand in this matter and paid his head ...
    2. samoletil18
      samoletil18 7 December 2013 21: 31 New
      +4
      It was the B-series and Avro Lancaster bombers that ultimately destroyed the German industry.

      They destroyed the city and civilians killed unreasonably. Learn the growth rate of prom. German production in 1943-44.
      1. Beck
        Beck 8 December 2013 00: 00 New
        -3
        Quote: samoletil18
        They destroyed the city and civilians killed unreasonably. Learn the growth rate of prom. German production in 1943-44.


        WW2 is the most brutal war in history. All the warring parties, ALL, destroyed the cities in which civilians died. There is no such thing that the Angles and Americans destroyed the cities, but the Germans and the Soviet did not. What the Germans did not destroy English Coventry to the ground? (By the way, this is the starting point of total bombing by all warring parties). What German Koenigsberg our aviation and artillery did not turn into a pile of ruins?

        The growth rate grew up to a certain point by the tension of the last forces. And during 1944, everything that was somehow established was erased by the Allied strategic aviation.


        And that I wrote such a biased marked minuses? There is only one thing - the terrible rejection of reality.
        1. Uncle Vitya
          Uncle Vitya 8 December 2013 00: 10 New
          +2
          Quote: Beck
          What German Koenigsberg our aviation and artillery did not turn into a pile of ruins?

          Koenigsberg was not just a city, it was more of a fortress than a city, German Kaisers fortified it for at least 500 years!
          I would not compare the storming of the city using all possible means with the carpet bombing of the Anglo-Saxons. For example, the almost complete destruction of Dresden in front of the advancing Soviet troops!
          1. Beck
            Beck 8 December 2013 00: 32 New
            -3
            Quote: Uncle Vitya
            Koenigsberg was not just a city, it was more of a fortress than a city, German Kaisers fortified it for at least 500 years!


            Are you specifically negotiating something?

            By the beginning of the 20th century, the city expanded significantly and far went beyond the defensive ring of the fortress itself. Like the Kremlin and Moscow, but of course on a much smaller scale. Before the war in Koenigsberg, there were 370 thousand inhabitants. After the capture of Koenigsberg, there were 20 thousand civilians who were soon deported to Germany. For objectivity, there is no data on how many residents died from hostilities and how many could leave the city before the assault.
            1. Uncle Vitya
              Uncle Vitya 8 December 2013 01: 02 New
              +2
              Yes, I agree, Koenigsberg went beyond the defensive ring before the war, but ... nevertheless, the areas that went beyond the defensive contour were more likely to be workers' settlements than the city, and no one destroyed the defensive ring, did not destroy it, and kept it in battle state with German pedantry. In peacetime, in the defensive ring of Koenigsberg and in wartime there were military units, depots and schools for training non-commissioned officers of the Wehrmacht.
              As for the residents of the city ...
              I will give you an example from the history of Russia ..
              Before the invasion of Batu Khan to Russia, in particular to the Principality of Kiev, Kiev had long gone beyond the territory of the fortifications of the cities of Vladimir, Yaroslav, Vladimir Monomakh. And these were completely different fortifications, or rather, each Grand Prince of Kiev was already building his existing, according to his own understanding and so to speak, vision of the defense of the city, while not destroying the structures of his predecessors, but modernizing them, and + creating a new one! So the number of inhabitants of the city both inside the defensive ring, and not in it, does not mean the decline of the defensive ring itself.
              Khan Batu did not prevent the fact that Kiev at the time of the invasion had long gone beyond the size of this defensive ring, all the inhabitants left this defensive ring, abandoning their homes, and defended Kiev on this defensive ring!
              1. Beck
                Beck 8 December 2013 01: 12 New
                -1
                Quote: Uncle Vitya
                Yes, I agree, Koenigsberg went beyond the defensive ring before the war, but ... nevertheless, the areas that went beyond the defensive contour were more likely to be workers' settlements than the city, and no one destroyed the defensive ring, did not destroy it, and kept it in battle state with German pedantry.


                And who said that the bastions and strongholds of the Konigsberg fortress were in decline, they were functional.

                Outside the defensive ring were the main city blocks, several train stations, church, office buildings. And to all this, suburban areas were attached.
                1. Uncle Vitya
                  Uncle Vitya 8 December 2013 01: 28 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Beck
                  Are you specifically negotiating something?

                  So what do you think I’m not saying ???
                  That turning Koenigsberg into ruins is the result of an assault and not carpet bombing, is it not so?
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 8 December 2013 02: 38 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Uncle Vitya
                    So what do you think I’m not saying ???

                    That Koenigsberg was 45 more a city than a fortress.

                    And at the very beginning I wrote that Koenigsberg was turned into ruins by aviation and artillery. And I did not say that carpet. It is you who are changing. And what's the difference - destroyed by carpet bombing or just massive.

        2. samoletil18
          samoletil18 8 December 2013 02: 13 New
          +1
          I did not minus. And here is Koenigsberg? The best example of Helsinki in 1944. Ours were bombed and the Finns became even more accommodating. And the Germans resisted to the end. By your logic, dear Beck, Soviet long-range aviation acted more efficiently than Anglo-American. Italy does not count, not the enemy like the Finns.
          1. Beck
            Beck 8 December 2013 03: 08 New
            -1
            Quote: samoletil18
            I did not minus.


            Yes, if it was minus something strange then. Buttons have to use. I just do not understand the logic. What was minus only because in fact the WGLs and Amers had strategic aviation, but the Germans and the USSR did not. That I'm guilty of this.

            Quote: samoletil18
            The best example of Helsinki in 1944. Ours were bombed and the Finns became even more accommodating.

            Quote: samoletil18
            By your logic, dear Beck, Soviet long-range aviation acted more efficiently than Anglo-American


            Helsinki was not bombed by long-range aircraft, much less strategic. And which one can be more effective or not if the USSR simply did not have Strategic Long-Range Bomber Aviation.
            1. samoletil18
              samoletil18 8 December 2013 11: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: Beck

              Helsinki was not bombed by long-range aircraft, much less strategic. And which one can be more effective or not if the USSR simply did not have Strategic Long-Range Bomber Aviation.

              If long-range aviation was not called strategic and planes are not 4-engine, then everything, this is not aviation. A ton of bombs for 3000 - 3800 km could be abandoned on the IL-4. From Ezel to Berlin, from London to Berlin, flying about the same. The Pe-8 turned out to be worse than the DB-3f. Two motors - this is weight, this is the fuel consumption that you need to carry with you. You can’t call B-18, B-25 tactical, like IL-4. The failures of the outbreak of the war created the impression that Russian aviation was used exclusively incorrectly. This is not true.
        3. avt
          avt 8 December 2013 12: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: Beck
          And that I wrote such a biased marked minuses?

          Have you heard anything about the number of losses of the Allied bomber aviation and how in the 8th American army the pilots refused to fly when the number of losses exceeded the limits admissible by the American command as "irrevocable"? Well, in general, the assessment of the theory of the Aglitsky air marshal of "Stone Age", the term really was introduced by the Americans in Vietnam, you know? And by the allies themselves, and besides by their contemporaries? In reality, the allies in the west began to shit at the Germans when they entered the continent and closed the sky on all floors, chasing even vehicles. Heavy bombers did not inflict a fatal blow on the Germans, they let blood, but in reality, until ours cut off the last supplies of fuel and raw materials, the Germans really had a powerful military machine and even re-equipped with new equipment. And they had heavy machines, only the use of missiles was much more effective, even the V-1, which the Angles intercepted, but finally sighed only with the elimination of the launchers on the coast of France.
          1. Beck
            Beck 8 December 2013 15: 18 New
            +1
            Quote: samoletil18
            The failures of the outbreak of the war created the impression that Russian aviation was used exclusively incorrectly. This is not true.


            I am not a strategist and I did not say that our aircraft were used incorrectly during the war years. It's not for me to judge, I'm not even a professional military man. I said that we did not have strategic bomber aircraft. And that is a fact.

            Quote: avt
            Have you heard anything about the number of losses of the Allied bomber aviation and about how in the 8th American army the pilots refused to fly when the number of losses exceeded the limits admitted by the amersky command as "irrevocable"


            Of course I heard. I do not know about amers, but Lancaster had a loss of either 42 or 48%. And this is precisely in connection with large losses in British aviation that wartime nonsense was introduced - Lancaster crews who made 40 sorties could be demobilized.

            But the conversation then went on whether or not the warring parties had strategic aviation, and not about their losses.
            1. avt
              avt 8 December 2013 16: 29 New
              +2
              Quote: Beck
              But the conversation then went on whether or not the warring parties had strategic aviation,

              "Strategic" aviation did not achieve any of the set strategic goals!? Even by raising the level of the B-17, higher than the Pe-2 and creating a masterpiece B-29, dropping two atomic bombs, rather with the prospect of intimidating the USSR, carrying out a bloody bombing of wooden Tokyo high-explosive bombs mixed with incendiary bombs, and the victims of the civilian population were twice more than from the atomic combined, they did not achieve the result.The Japanese capitulated after the USSR entered the war. And the Germans did not even prevent the bombing of the Romanian oil fields. So at the cost of the desired result did not receive, but the losses were sometimes unacceptable. Practical Germans, after trying to decide the outcome of the war by bombing with England, no longer distracted aviation on a large scale - they trained in working with a new type - missiles. And long-range airplanes, for example, He-177, did as carriers of guided weapons - bombs and missiles. Yes, they were so successfully used, especially on ships, that the Americans ordered a cruiser with 152mm versatile weapons. So the era of strategists was still ahead. Well, what can I say to the USSR - no time for fat, well, there was not enough strength to do not only the Pe-8, but also the Ep-2 in sufficient quantity and the required quality. They even used Li-2, C-47 at Golovanov's ADD, since the amer themselves used his Bolo version at the beginning of the Pacific War.
              1. Beck
                Beck 9 December 2013 10: 30 New
                -2
                Quote: avt
                The Japanese surrendered after the USSR entered the war


                Japan surrendered after the atomic bombings, and not after the entry of the USSR into the war. Before deserved praise always goes OBJECTIVITY.

                In 1943, in Tehran, America and England insisted that the USSR, after the defeat of Germany, enter the war with Japan. It is a fact.

                And it is not a fact that if Roosevelt knew that in 1945 he would have an atomic bomb, he would generally raise the question of the USSR entering the war in the Far East.

                On August 8, 1945, in violation of the nonaggression pact, the USSR entered the war with Japan.

                In the territory of Manchuria and Northern China, the millionth Kwantung Army lodged, 17 fortified districts were built.

                Give me at least one battle between Soviet and Japanese troops like the Kursk Bulge, Operation Bagration, the storming of Konigsberg. Not a single fortified area was subjected to such an assault as Konigsberg. Although Japanese soldiers are known for their bigotry. There were minor skirmishes, there were no major battles, but basically there was a march of Soviet troops, without the resistance of Japanese troops, to Port Arthur.

                On July 26, 1945, the USA, Great Britain, and China issued a declaration with the ultimatum of Japan on immediate, unconditional surrender, otherwise the United States threatened to use new, destructive weapons. On July 27, the Japanese government refused, stating that the Japanese islands would defend themselves until the last soldier.

                According to the calculations of the General Staff of the US Army, the full occupation of Japan would cost the lives of about a million American soldiers, up to three million Japanese and up to 5 million victims of the Japanese population. The war itself would drag on for a year and a half.

                On August 6, Hiroshima was bombed. The Japanese government delegation left for the place. Terrible consequences were reported to the emperor. The Japanese government hesitated. On August 9, Nagasaki was bombed. And on August 15, 1945, early in the morning, by radio, in plain text, an order was transmitted to all Japanese troops to STOP fighting. At lunch, a similar order was issued by the US command to its troops. This meant that the troops remained in place and did not conduct any military operations.

                The Soviet troops continued the march, not meeting the resistance of the Japanese troops and by the end of August reached Port Arthur.

                From what has been said it follows that the basis for Japan's surrender was atomic bombing.

                Private My father, captain, commander of a battery of 76 mm guns, Zis-3, as part of the 39 army of General Lyudnikov, made this march from Khingan to Port Arthur. He said that there was no serious resistance to the Japanese troops, there was a mass surrender. He, along with the orderly, somehow had to convoy a convoy of Japanese prisoners in the amount of about 2 thousand. Fortunately, Japanese soldiers were disciplined and executed the order to cease hostilities and surrender.
                1. avt
                  avt 9 December 2013 18: 01 New
                  0
                  Quote: Beck
                  And it is not a fact that if Roosevelt knew that in 1945 he would have an atomic bomb, he would generally raise the question of the USSR entering the war in the Far East.

                  Ayayayay! “Stupid American,” the president, did not know about the progress of the atomic project. laughing
                  Quote: Beck
                  On August 8, 1945, in violation of the nonaggression pact, the USSR entered the war with Japan.

                  laughing I'm sobbing right now from shame for the evil tyrant, the insidious "Stalin, who offended the bearers of the noble samurai spirit, who piously believe and abide by international law. It's okay that they attacked the Russian Empire without too much sound and the US attacked Pearl Harbor!? Ah, yes!, The Samurai Knights "did not have time to print the text of the declaration of war, they talked about it in the movies. laughing
                  Quote: Beck
                  In the territory of Manchuria and Northern China, the millionth Kwantung Army lodged, 17 fortified districts were built.

                  Tell me at least one battle between Soviet and Japanese troops like the Kursk Bulge, Operation Bagration, the storming of Konigsberg. Not a single fortified area was subjected to such an assault as Konigsberg.

                  Glory to the Soviet high command and Marshal Vasilevsky !!! It would be different -
                  Quote: Beck
                  Private My father, captain, commander of a battery of 76 mm guns, Zis-3, as part of the 39 army of General Lyudnikov, made this march from Khingan to Port Arthur.

                  Could not have come with a greater probability.
                  Quote: Beck
                  He said that there was no serious resistance to the Japanese troops, there was a mass surrender.

                  I believe that communications and command and control of the troops were destroyed, where not everyone completely dreamed of making hara-kiri for the glory of the emperor. These are specifically with the paratroopers in the ports of Korea.
                  Quote: Beck
                  From what has been said it follows that the basis for Japan's surrender was atomic bombing.

                  It follows from all that has been said that the defeat of an efficient army on the continent was the basis of Japan's unconditional surrender, which they wish to forget, raising a howl about the "northern territories".
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 9 December 2013 19: 21 New
                    0
                    Quote: avt
                    Ayayayay! “Stupid American,” the president, did not know about the progress of the atomic project.


                    This is you ayah. The president knew about the Manhattan project, he did not know what would come of it when. The physicists themselves involved in this project did not know this either.

                    Quote: avt
                    Nothing that they are on the Russian Empire without a sound and the United States attacked Pearl Harbor!


                    The fact that Japan unleashed the war in 1905 and attacked Pearl Harbor is also a violation of international standards. And I did not say anything about the nobility of the samurai. Why are you for this, for you seeming red-tongued, gave a stream of words about samurai.
                    I didn’t condemn the USSR for violating the non-aggression pact, circumstances so happened that I had to act exactly as it happened.

                    The intensity and bitterness that was in the war with the Germans was not. Since on August 15, the Kwantung Army ceased to conduct hostilities. The total number of the imperial army in August 1945 was 6 million, of which 5 million were actually in Japan. And it was simply not possible to transfer a million soldiers from Manchuria. And the Japanese rulers did not count on it when defending the islands themselves.

                    It is impossible to completely defeat a million-strong army, even armed with swords, with its losses of 13 thousand soldiers. Namely, such losses were the Red Army in the Japanese campaign. This is a smaller division. And it is impossible to completely defeat the millionth army in six days, from August 9 to 15. (You have echoes of Soviet propaganda. During the war and for some time after the war, such propaganda was needed. Now you need to approach these events objectively).

                    Quote: avt
                    It follows from all that has been said that the defeat of an efficient army on the continent was the basis of Japan's unconditional surrender, which they wish to forget, raising a howl about the "northern territories".


                    After the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, on August 9, 1945, at 14 p.m., when the Soviet troops were just deployed on the borders of Manchuria and before the defeat of the Kwantung Army was far and unknown, an Extraordinary Cabinet of Ministers of Japan was assembled. By a majority of votes, the cabinet decided to adopt the Post-Japan Declaration on Japan's surrender. With one exception, with a request to maintain imperial power.

                    On the morning of August 10, the Japanese government, through the neutral countries of Sweden and Switzerland, informed the Allies of the acceptance of surrender (the defeat of the Kwantung Army was not yet foreseen). In a reply on August 11, the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, and China reaffirmed their determination to accept only unconditional surrender and abolish the power of the emperor.

                    It was because of the preservation or not of imperial power that bargaining took place from August 11 to August 15. In the end, the Japanese government accepted all the conditions of the allies and in the morning of August 15 ordered its army on land, in the air and at sea to STOP all military operations.
                    1. avt
                      avt 9 December 2013 19: 53 New
                      0
                      Quote: Beck
                      I didn’t condemn the USSR for violating the non-aggression pact, circumstances so happened that I had to act exactly as it happened.

                      Just so sweet reminded.
                      Quote: Beck
                      The intensity and bitterness that was in the war with the Germans was not.

                      Yeah, that means when the Germans traveled around the Maginot line and the frustrated French fled, losing control of the troops and surrendering in the thousands - this is an excellent military strategy. Well, when the troops did the same brilliantly under the command of Vasilevsky - well, the Japanese didn’t really want to fight, but again the Mikada gave the order to surrender.
                      Quote: Beck
                      in the air and at sea STOP all military operations.

                      Well, in Korea they did not hear the order, as in the Kuril Islands, and quite specific garrisons fought there on a place with a normal command. Like the division under the command of de Gaulle, so for comparison. Indeed, in comparison, it is known.
                      1. Beck
                        Beck 9 December 2013 22: 30 New
                        0
                        Quote: avt
                        Just so sweet reminded.


                        I said that it was. It was a story. And there is nothing to divide the events of history into which I like and which I do not like. They were all the same.

                        Quote: avt
                        Yeah, that means when the Germans traveled around the Maginot line and the frustrated French ran away, losing control of the troops and surrendering in the thousands - this is a great military strategy


                        Did I say anything in my comments about the Maginot line? Moreover, and why do you always switch to something.

                        I have made my case based on historical facts. I will accept your arguments if you provide evidence that the Extraordinary Session of the Japanese Government on August 9, after the bombing of Nagasaki, at which it was decided to surrender was not. That the Japanese government did not APPEAL Sweden and Switzerland on August 10 to transfer consent to the surrender to the allies. That the USSR, USA, England, China on August 11 did not give any answer to Japan. That on August 15 there was NO order from the Japanese command to its troops to end all hostilities. It was then still possible to assume that the Manchu operation of the Soviet troops was crucial in the surrender of Japan.

                        I bring you historical facts, you are responsible verbiage, not refuting my arguments. Vrt facts refute the above.
    3. Vadivak
      Vadivak 8 December 2013 16: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Beck
      It was the B-series and Avro Lancaster bombers that ultimately destroyed the German industry.


      That is why in the second half of 1944, German industry reached a record level of production of military equipment?

      in 1944, the Third Reich, by total mobilization of the resources of the country and occupied Europe, caught up with the USSR in the production of combat aircraft in December 1944, the production of fighters exceeded the level of March of that year and was almost twice as high as in December of the previous year. In total in 1944, almost 300% more single-engine fighters were produced than in 1943, and the production of twin-engine fighters grew by only 50%
      1. Beck
        Beck 9 December 2013 09: 35 New
        -2
        Quote: Vadivak
        That is why in the second half of 1944, German industry reached a record level of production of military equipment?

        Quote: avt
        ,, Strategic "aviation has not achieved any of the set strategic goals !?


        The damage to the German transport system was also very significant. In addition, the Luftwaffe was significantly weakened, and by mid-1944 the Allies had gained air supremacy over Germany in the daytime.

        The Luftwaffe attack in the operation known as the "Big Week" (February 20 - February 25, 1944) was successful - the losses of the German Air Force were such that Germany had to urgently deal with the distribution of industrial capacity, since German fighter aircraft could no longer defend the sky over Germany even during the day and with the support of the air defense system.

        A review of the effectiveness of strategic bombing by the US government in 1946 showed that German industrial production in aircraft construction, steelmaking, tanks, and other sectors increased significantly during the war, despite the ongoing strategic bombing. However, the increase in military production was much smaller than the German economy potentially allowed, and much less than the growth of military production in the UK and the USA. Moreover, a significant part of the military equipment did not reach the front line due to the disruption of the German transport system due to the bombing. [source not specified 80 days].

        the bombing of the factories of BMW and Flettner in Johanishtal, allocated for the production of an order for 1000 Fl 282 "Kolibri" helicopters, prevented the release of more than 24 prototypes.

        Attacks on oil wells, refineries and oil depots were, however, very successful, and made a big contribution to the overall collapse of the German economy at the end of the war. The main headache of the Minister of Arms Production A. Speer was the bombing of oil facilities; however, this happened quite late, when Germany was already defeated anyway. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the campaign of bombing oil facilities significantly reduced the duration of the war, thus saving a significant number of human lives.

        According to Speer, technically, Germany was defeated on MAY 12, 1944, when, thanks to the massive bombing of the Allies, 90% of the plants producing synthetic fuel were destroyed. Tanks that reached the Western Front in the summer of 1944 were transported by horses due to severe fuel shortages [source not specified 1659 days]. January 30, 1945, on the day of the twelfth anniversary of Hitler's rise to power, Albert Speer presented a memorandum to Hitler, emphasizing the importance of the loss of Silesia. ““ The war is lost, ”he began his report and then explained in an impassive and objective manner why“ After the massive bombing of the Ruhr, the Silesian mines began to supply 60 percent of German coal. ”"[


        What else is needed. Not for someone's praise or humiliation, but for objectivity.
  11. samoletil18
    samoletil18 7 December 2013 20: 15 New
    +2
    In adolescence, I remember a literary episode. KM Simonov flew at the end of 1941 on TB-1 to Arkhangelsk from Moscow ("different days of the war").
    The Americans in some performance (Discovery or Non-Geogr.) Called this aircraft the father of strategic aviation. What is controversial, but apparently the visit of this plane, in the early 30s, was not forgotten. And after these events their "strategists" appeared.
  12. LaPoT
    LaPoT 8 December 2013 01: 16 New
    +4
    for its time a futuristic model. from transparent biplanes to a metal monoplane. this is a breakthrough
    1. svp67
      svp67 8 December 2013 13: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: LaPoT
      for its time a futuristic model. from transparent biplanes to a metal monoplane. this is a breakthrough

      Of course, if you also think about the fact that "The impoverished Soviet Russia made a powerful AIR FLEET out of NOTHING, and not the poorest modern Russia, made ANYTHING out of a powerful AIR FLEET ,,,"
  13. avt
    avt 8 December 2013 16: 48 New
    0
    Quote: avt
    Quote: Beck
    But the conversation then went on whether or not the warring parties had strategic aviation,

    "Strategic" aviation did not achieve any of the set strategic goals !? Even by raising the level of the B-17, higher than the Pe-2 and creating a masterpiece B-29
    Sealed, of course, Pe-8
  14. Beck
    Beck 9 December 2013 10: 40 New
    -2
    Quote: avt
    Sealed, of course, Pe-8


    Pe-8 is TB-7. But he, as already mentioned by other visitors to the site, did not have enough mass to call a dozen aircraft strategic country. In addition, it was used little in military operations.
  15. Forest
    Forest 9 December 2013 15: 25 New
    +2
    in 1983 - 1986, the forces of VATUGA cadets, teachers and aircraft engineers at the school recreated the legendary ANT-4 aircraft with tail number H-137. Now he is in the Museum of Civil Aviation in Ulyanovsk.
  16. jjj
    jjj 11 December 2013 09: 13 New
    0
    There just not a full-fledged duralumin, but the so-called "chain mail-aluminum" was used. There was not enough strength, which is why the famous corrugation appeared
    1. Bongo
      11 December 2013 09: 18 New
      +2
      In the 30s, "corrugated" aircraft were built not only in the USSR. For example, the Ju-52 is widely known, which flew for a very long time.