Military Review

Soviet aircraft missiles during the war

32



Work to create aviation rockets (RS) began in the USSR in the late 20s. In 1929, the first 82-mm turbojet projectiles were tested, stabilized by rotation. However, it was not possible to achieve acceptable results then. Accuracy was not satisfactory, in addition, about a third of the engine's powder charge was spent on rotation to stabilize the projectile in flight, which naturally affected the firing range.

Having failed with turbojets, the developers began to experiment with feathered ones. Initially, these were shells with ring stabilizers that could be launched from compact tubular launchers. But, despite all the efforts to achieve sustainable flight of the RS with ring stabilizers did not work.

Subsequently, it was decided to go to the shells with four-blade feathers. After a series of experiments and firing, it was experimentally determined that for 82-mm RS the optimal span is 200-mm, and for 132-mm RS, 300-mm.

The gauges of the Soviet 82 and 132-mm rocket projectiles are caused by 24-mm powder-checkers, which are used in a jet engine. Seven tightly laid checkers laid in the RS combustion chamber give an internal diameter of 72-mm, taking into account the 5-mm walls, the 82-mm goes out. In the same way, the caliber of the 132-mm RS is also obtained.

Soviet aircraft missiles during the war



In 1935, the new operative 82-mm aircraft RS were first tested by firing from the I-15 fighter. The results were quite encouraging.



Within two years, simultaneously with the missiles themselves, the launching of launchers for them was underway. Suspension of fired shells caused a number of difficulties, after going through various options, it was decided to stop at the launcher, which was called the “flute”.



132-mm RSs were tested by shooting in the air in 1938 on an SB bomber. For firing at air targets, AGDT-I remote fuses were used, the response time of which was set on the ground before departure. The tests showed that subject to the revision of the remote fuses and the installation of an automatic tube installer on the aircraft (which was already implemented in anti-aircraft artillery), the PC-132 could successfully be used against enemy bombers, remaining outside the zone of fire of their defensive weapons. It was also quite realistic to create combat units for the MS with ready-made attack elements, which would increase the probability of hitting the target. Unfortunately, all this was never implemented.

On land targets, the RS launches were carried out from a gentle dive from a distance of no more than 1000 meters. In this case, the deviation of the projectiles from the aiming point was about 40 meters. The shooting was carried out on 2, 4 and 8 shells, the best results gave a salvo fire. Especially effective was firing at a single target as part of the link of their 4-x aircraft.

At the same time, during the tests, it was revealed that in a number of launches damage was observed in the skin of the aircraft by the jet engine. The maximum flight speed during the suspension of the guides with projectiles was reduced by 20-25 km / h. Increased climb time and inertia during maneuvers.

The PC-82 projectile had a weight of 6,82 kg, a fuel charge of 1,06 kg, a weight of explosives - 0,36 kg. The maximum speed was 350 m / s, and the range was 5200 m. For firing at ground targets, the projectile was supplied with a percussion fuse.
For attachment to the launcher, the projectile had four leading pins, and stabilization in flight was carried out by four stabilizers with a span of 200 mm. The halves of the stabilizer are stamped out of tin and joined together by welding. The assembled stabilizer was attached to the corners on the nozzle fairing.

The PC-132 had a generally similar design, but was the largest. The total weight of the rocket was 23,1 kg, of which the fuel charge - 3,78 kg, the explosive charge - 1,9 kg. The maximum firing range reached 7100 m.



Both rockets had high-explosive fragmentation warheads with an external notch for proper crushing of the fragments. The presence of the notches spoiled the aerodynamics of the shells and worsened their ballistic qualities, later during the war they switched to the release of the RS with a smooth warhead.

In general, missile tests were successful, and they were put into service. Soon in 1939, during the conflict on the Khalkhin-Gol river, the first combat use of the aircraft RS-82 took place.
Various Soviet sources provide various details of the application of this weapons, the I-16 and I-153 fighters are described as “rocket carriers”, the number of Japanese aircraft shot down with the help of the RS is also different. In one these sources are unanimous: "the use of Soviet fighter-missile carriers was extremely successful and had a huge demoralizing effect on the enemy."

Famous Russian military historian A.B. Shirokorad researched this topic when working in archives with declassified materials for his book "Armament of Soviet Aviation 1941-1991". However, in reports on the actions of the I-153 fighters armed with the PC-82, he could not find any mention of the Japanese fighters shot down by them. It is noted that the fighters armed with RS-82 participated in 14 air battles, and the launch of rockets from them, as a rule, caused the formation of enemy fighters to disintegrate and mix. This greatly facilitated the actions of Soviet fighters in air combat. The rocket-carrying fighters themselves demanded a separate cover from above and behind. They could successfully operate, being in the ranks of the head, making attacks in the most favorable environment. After that, immediately went out of battle.


Fighters I-153 armed with RS-82


It is extremely doubtful that the Soviet pilots and their commanders in their reports to the higher command concealed the downed Japanese aircraft with the help of missiles. There is no mention of these weapons in the Japanese documents of the time and the questionnaires of captured Japanese pilots. Obviously, the first combat use of Soviet aircraft shells became “Soviet mythology” and has little to do with reality.

During the Winter War (1939-1940) against the ground targets in a limited scale were used armed with RS-132 SB bombers. It was noted that good results were achieved when the PC was launched from a distance of no more than 600 meters, at large distances the dispersion of projectiles turned out to be too large. Taking into account the successful experience of the use of RS with bomber against ground targets during the war with Finland, in 1940, mass production and their entry into the troops began. In total, more than 1940 thousand RS-135 and 82 thousand PC-31 missiles were launched in 132. In 1941, small experimental batches of 132-mm PCs were made with warhead incendiary, lighting and smoke equipment.

Contrary to popular belief, incendiary RSs equipped with termites were not massively released. The experience of the combat use of such shells in the initial period of the war showed their low effectiveness. Thermite mixture of iron oxides and aluminum powder has a high burning temperature, sufficient for burning through armor. But for ignition of the mixture requires considerable time. When hit in a tank such a warhead bounce, not having time to ignite.

By the beginning of the RS war, the biplane fighters I-15bis and I-153 were armed with assault air regiments. On the planes hung 4-8 PC-82.


Missiles under the wing of the IL-2


The armament of the newest single armored IL-2 attack aircraft was up to eight PC-132.


Pe-2 with suspension under the wings of ten PC-132


Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, practically all types of Soviet fighters, light bombers and attack aircraft began to arm themselves with missiles. Prior to this, a significant part of the released jet guns and PCs were stored in warehouses for reasons of secrecy. At the same time, the questions of the tactics of the PC application were worked out.


Su-2 light bomber with eight PC-132


The Soviet Air Force urgently needed new types of weapons and ammunition that could compensate for the qualitative and quantitative German superiority. Missiles were often the only weapon on fighters sent to attack enemy troops, with which it was possible to fight German armored vehicles.


I-16 fighter with six PC-82


There were attempts to use the PC-82 in air battles, for this purpose shells with remote fuses were used, the firing of which occurred after a certain time after the launch. However, against enemy fighters, the missiles, due to their low flight speed, were ineffective, besides, during firing, it was necessary to precisely maintain the distance to enemy aircraft.


LaGG-3 Fighter with RS-82


The RS-mounted jet implements suspended under the wing had significant frontal resistance and weight, thus reducing the key characteristics for air combat — speed and maneuverability.


Yak-1 fighter with six PC-82


Much more common was the situation when the Soviet fighters sent to attack were forced to engage in air combat. In this situation, the probability of hitting an enemy aircraft with a missile with an instantaneous contact fuse was even less, but due to the fact that such episodes of air combat with the use of MS occurred more often, there were more enemy aircraft brought down by missiles.


PC-82 with contact and remote fuses


In addition to Soviet aircraft, British Hurricane fighter jets armed themselves with Lend-Lease missiles. With the help of the RS to some extent compensated for the weakness of their machine-gun armament.


"Hurricane" with a suspension of six PC-82 taxiing to take off, Don Front


A few months after the start of the mass use of RS from the front, signals began to arrive about their supposedly low efficiency. In this regard, in September 1941, test firing rockets were organized at the Air Force training ground. These tests showed low efficacy of MS against single point targets. The average percentage of hits in a single stationary tank when firing it from a distance of 400-500 m was 1,1%, and in a tight tank column - 3,7%. When firing, it turned out that the RS-82 can defeat German light tanks like Pz.II Ausf F, Pz.38 (t) Ausf C, as well as the Sd Kfz 250 armored car only with a direct hit. Ruptures of 82-mm shells at a distance of more than 1 m from the tank did not cause damage to him. Shooting was carried out by single shells and in volleys of 2, 4 and 8 shells. The highest performance was obtained with volley fire.


Hole from PC in 50-mm armor


PC-132 showed even worse results. Of the 134 shells fired, none hit the mark. And despite the fact that the tests were held at the site in ideal conditions. At the front, pilots on unarmored airplanes often launched a PC from the 700-1000 distance, trying to stay in the effective fire zone of the German small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery (MZA) for the minimum time. In addition, it turned out that due to the negligent handling of missiles during transport to the front, their tin stabilizers were often bent, which adversely affected the accuracy of firing.



At the same time, the RS was a very effective weapon against area patrols (artillery-mortar batteries and the positions of troops) and linearly elongated targets (columns of troops and trains).



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


RBS-132


In the arsenal of attack aircraft, along with the RBS-132 missiles, which had armor-piercing warheads, as a means of fighting German armored vehicles, the ROFS-132 rocket with improved, compared to the RBS-132 or PC-132, fire accuracy was firmly established. The warhead of the ROFS-132 projectile ensured the penetration (through a direct hit) of armor of medium-sized German tanks.


When ROFS-132 was broken near the tank at a distance of 1 m from it, the fragment kinetic energy angle in 30 was sufficient to break through the German tank armor with a thickness of up to 15 mm. At an elevation angle in 60 degrees, a gap of ROFS-132 at a distance of up to 2 meters from the tank ensured penetration of tank armor with a thickness up to 30 mm by fragments. With a direct hit in the tank Pz. IV armor, as a rule, made its way, and the equipment and crew inside the tank were put out of action.


ROFS-132 under the wing of the IL-2


Unfortunately, despite the increase in accuracy of ROFS-132 firing, their effectiveness in firing at tanks and the other was still 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 1942, RBSK-82 missiles with a cumulative warhead were developed. On tests, armored-piercing projectiles of a cumulative action pierced armor with a thickness of up to 50-mm. In most cases, the penetration of armor was accompanied by a metal spall around the outlet.

The test committee concluded that low armor penetration is a consequence of the delay in triggering the fuse "from the rebound and the cumulative jet is formed when the deformed cone."
It was recommended to refine the fuses and submit projectiles for re-testing. Cumulative MS were not accepted for service due to the lack of a clear advantage over standard rocket projectiles. On the approach was already a new, much stronger weapon - PTAB.

In the second half of the war, the value of missiles as a means of destruction decreased slightly. After the launch of the production of a sufficient number of specialized Il-2 attack aircraft, the practice of mass RS suspension on fighters was discontinued.



At the same time, rockets were used from attack aircraft throughout the war. Moreover, in the assault regiments there was the practice of installing additional jet guns on the IL-2, bringing the number of RSs suspended to 12 units. This was due to the fact that the missiles proved to be a very effective anti-aircraft weapon. In addition to the powerful fragmentation of action, MS had a strong psychological effect on the calculations of the Ministry of Defense. Attack aircraft armed with additional RS, as a rule, were allocated to suppress anti-aircraft guns.

The RS-132 proved to be a good weapon against the German high-speed amphibious landing barges. These small, maneuverable, well-armed boats were not easy to sink torpedoes and bombs.


German BDB (Marinefährprahm)


In addition to the IL-2, naval aviation, launching for six RS-132, were installed on the IL-4Т torpedo bombers in naval aviation units. The RSs were intended primarily to suppress anti-aircraft fire conducted from enemy ships during a torpedo attack. On part of the bombers to protect against enemy fighters, jet guns were mounted for firing back.

Separate mention should be made of the various ground-based handicraft launchers PC-82 used for air defense of airfields in the initial period of the war.



Shooting from such installations, which were primitive sighting devices, was carried out by projectiles with remote fuses in the course of enemy aircraft.

Their effectiveness was not great, the installations themselves are not safe for shooting, but they are often the only means of air defense of field airfields, allowing the Germans to scare away.

In general, assessing the role of Soviet aircraft rockets in the Great Patriotic War, it can be noted that with proper and proper use of them RS was a powerful means of defeating enemy personnel and equipment.

Based on:
http://alternathistory.org.ua/oleg-rastrenin-shturmoviki-velikoi-otechestvennoi-voiny-glava-3-udarnye-bisy-chaiki-i-drugie
http://www.vonovke.ru/s/rs-82_-_boevoe_primenenie
Shirokorad A.B. Soviet aviation armament 1941-1991.Minsk, Harvest, 2004.
Author:
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sfera
    Sfera 15 May 2014 11: 27
    +8
    Hello, Sergey! Thanks for the article, I liked it.
    1. Bongo
      15 May 2014 12: 12
      +13
      Hi Andrew! Glad I liked it! Once again, I decided to dig into the history of our weapons, but articles about Ukraine have already become boring.
  2. Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 15 May 2014 11: 28
    +6
    Thanks to the author, I did not know about this ...
    1. Fedya
      Fedya 15 May 2014 21: 36
      +4
      Well, like this ! While fishing for Vasily Stalin, the RSs tried to suppress the fish, and the officer switched the moderator for 2 seconds. From the officer only carnations on boots were found!
  3. savarineko
    savarineko 15 May 2014 13: 12
    +6
    Very interesting article. The anti-aircraft installation, in the last photo, in my opinion looks very unsafe for the shooter, it will be burned with a jet stream, and it will probably stun ...
    1. Bongo
      15 May 2014 13: 38
      +5
      Quote: savarineko
      Very interesting article. The anti-aircraft installation, in the last photo, in my opinion looks very unsafe for the shooter, it will be burned with a jet stream, and it will probably stun ...

      Shooting from such an installation was certainly not safe for the shooter, although the rockets on the one in the photo in the article were put to the side. Nevertheless, the aerodrome craftsmen made them and actively used them to repel attacks. According to eyewitnesses, German planes shied away and stopped the attack when launching missiles in their direction.
      Here is another 8-mi charging version that has survived to the present in the museum.
  4. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 15 May 2014 13: 16
    +3
    Interesting and informative.
  5. Igor75
    Igor75 15 May 2014 13: 57
    +5
    Good article. I did not know about such a large number of subspecies of RS.
  6. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 15 May 2014 13: 59
    +6
    Thanks for the wonderful stuff, Sergey.
    hi
    Although a layman in this matter, he read it with pleasure and interest.
    I learned a lot for myself.
    drinks

    ps
    There are no political "commentators".
    Come here it is not interesting to them - there’s nothing to yell at ...
    laughing
    1. Bongo
      15 May 2014 14: 04
      +6
      Thanks for the praise, Alex! hi I hope that other visitors to VO will be interesting. Not knowing my history, including the history of our weapons, as they are, without embellishment, in my opinion it is impossible to build a future.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      There are no political "commentators." If they are not interested here, there is nothing to yell at ...

      And thank God! yes
  7. iCuD
    iCuD 15 May 2014 14: 36
    +1
    Thanks, quite an interesting selection.
    For comparison, I would like to hear about Western developments in this area.
    1. Bongo
      15 May 2014 14: 41
      +4
      British and American rocket artillery of the Second World War:
      http://topwar.ru/44774-britanskaya-i-amerikanskaya-reaktivnaya-artilleriya-vtoro
      y-mirovoy.html
      The American and the British used almost the same rockets for the MLRS and aviation.
  8. Free wind
    Free wind 15 May 2014 14: 44
    +3
    I read the memories of our pilot about the war. I don’t remember his last name. He described the case of a shot down by volley of RS, from an aircraft, 4 aircraft of the enemy, not Germans, maybe Italians or maybe Romanians .. He wrote that this was the only successful use of RS against aircraft in his practice.
    1. Alex
      Alex 10 July 2014 19: 12
      +4
      Quote: Free Wind
      I read the memories of our pilot about the war. I don’t remember his last name. He described the case of a shot down by volley of RS, from an aircraft, 4 aircraft of the enemy, not Germans, maybe Italians or maybe Romanians .. He wrote that this was the only successful use of RS against aircraft in his practice.

      Very similar to the memories of Pokryshkin in his "Sky of War".
  9. badger1974
    badger1974 15 May 2014 14: 54
    +5
    there is a photo, the destruction of a German column on the Il-2 march, and so, Schwabedissen wrote in his writings that if attack aircraft "worked" from the head of the column to the rear, the German losses would be catastrophic, but he still does not understand why Il -2 attacked the flank of the column, suffering losses from concentrated anti-aircraft fire, tactics changed. but the frontal strike of the German columns on the march for the Soviet attack aircraft until the end of the war remained the very first technique, Schwabedissen does not find an explanation for this, especially since the first attack of the RSmi could tightly withdraw all the ZAK in the first run if they started from the head vehicle of the column
    pictured frontal attack of a German column by IL-2 attack aircraft
    1. Bongo
      15 May 2014 15: 03
      +6
      Quote: badger1974
      the first RSmi attack could tightly bring out all ZAK in the first run

      Volodya, the firing accuracy of the RS was not so high that with a high degree of probability it would hit the head vehicle. As you know, the greatest effect from the use of RS was on areal and elongated targets. Hence the frontal impact on the column. In the photo, the optimal angle for the use of RS. I even know in which article this photograph was not so long ago. lol
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 15 May 2014 15: 38
        +4
        well, the photo flew around, for example, for example, the 10th combined aviation regiment acted exactly like in the photo, but, being in the 7th ShAP guard Emelianenko wrote in his writings, the attacks were on the forehead of the column and the RS lay nearby, pouring lead Germans completely eliminated ZAK from VY, and then proceeded to bomb testing
  10. 528Obrp
    528Obrp 15 May 2014 17: 26
    0
    turbojet shells

    How's that?
    Is a turbojet a turbojet engine, or am I mistaken?
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 16 May 2014 00: 13
      +2
      you’ll be mistaken, the displacement of gas outflow nozzles by a certain angle does not require plumage, stabilization in flight of the object is carried out by turbodynamics, unlike aerodynamics, then the Germans did not require an aerodynamic component, turbodynamics cause the projectile to unwind without grooves, unlike the PCs that started torsion only after leaving the guide
    2. Alex
      Alex 10 July 2014 19: 15
      +3
      Quote: 528Obrp
      Is a turbojet a turbojet engine, or am I mistaken?

      In this case, we are dealing with a fairly common case of using one term to mean different concepts. Everything is not bad here, the situations are similar, although everyone is aware, of course, of the turbojet engine.
  11. Gloster
    Gloster 15 May 2014 17: 31
    +5
    Thank you, I have not seen references to RS for a long time, although before in the memoirs of pilots I often came across references to them
  12. Maksim...
    Maksim... 15 May 2014 17: 50
    0
    As for ROFS-132, hitting near tanks like Pz-I, II, III, IV was usually enough to take it out of action (not to be confused with "disable").
    1. SLX
      SLX 15 May 2014 18: 50
      +3
      Quote: Maxim ...
      usually enough to take him out of combat (not to be confused with "disable").


      And what is "withdrawn from combat" and how and by what is this criterion of effectiveness determined?
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 15 May 2014 21: 55
        +2
        that is, the possibility of restoration to operation, this is one of the criteria of effectiveness, this technique disrupts the intentions of the command, that is, that is, in other words, to quit and not to ... brains to no one, it’s killed and that's it
      2. Maksim...
        Maksim... 15 May 2014 22: 21
        +2
        Well, this is when a combat unit has not received critical damage, but needs repair.
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 16 May 2014 00: 16
          0
          in need of repair is a failure to fulfill a combat mission, do not confuse it with guerrilla warfare,
        2. SLX
          SLX 16 May 2014 12: 00
          +1
          Quote: Maxim ...
          Well, this is when a combat unit has not received critical damage, but needs repair.


          According to the Soviet and Russian criteria of effectiveness, "withdrawal from combat" is damage to the target with at least a partial loss of combat effectiveness. And "out of action" or "out of order" - it is deeply purple.
  13. SLX
    SLX 15 May 2014 18: 47
    +1
    An article and, of course, its author is an absolute plus. Although briefly, broadly and informatively, it is also illustrated with great love, and not anyhow ...

    But I personally had one question:

    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    With a rupture of ROFS-132 near the tank at a distance of 1 m from it at an elevation angle of 30 degrees, the kinetic energy of the fragments was enough to break through German tank armor up to 15 mm thick. At an elevation angle of 60 degrees, a rupture of ROFS-132 at a distance of up to 2 meters from the tank ensured penetration by fragments of tank armor up to 30 mm thick.


    First, what angle of elevation are we talking about? The elevation angle in external ballistics is the elevation angle of the target when it is exceeded / lowered relative to the horizon OP. Still, probably, we should talk about the angle of incidence of the projectile or the angle of the meeting.

    Secondly, how did the kinetic energy of the fragments become dependent on the angle of incidence? The shape of the fragmentation field and, accordingly, the number of slaughter fragments will depend on it (when installing the fuse for fragmentation). And their kinetic energy will remain unchanged, because it depends on the mass of the fragment and its speed - and these parameters are determined by the design and equipped explosives, which remain unchanged at any angle of incidence.

    Maybe the author messed up something?
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 16 May 2014 00: 30
      +3
      rather, you confuse it, the Jet Shrapnel Fugany Snaryad- ROFS -132, just had that effect on the armor not on the forehead, but on the sides and stern, where even panthers and tigers were weak, and in those years when there were ROFS the Germans didn’t have nickel at all because of its shortage, there was carbon steel that crumbled aft from a landmine, and not that fragmentation of such dynamic force (Newtons) plus about 5 km per second fragments, engine and hodovka collapsed, moreover, these are memories Germans themselves
      1. SLX
        SLX 16 May 2014 11: 53
        0
        Quote: badger1974
        rather, you confuse it,


        Maybe. That is why I asked a question, not an affirmation.

        Quote: badger1974
        The Shrapnel Fuganiy Rocket-ROFS -132 rocket had just that effect on the armor not on the forehead, but on the sides and stern, where even the panthers and tigers were weak,


        And what's the difference where he had an impact? Was the side armor softer than the forehead armor, and the stern armor was softer than the side armor? If not, then armor penetration the fragmentation of ammunition does not depend on the place where these fragments hit.

        Quote: badger1974
        and in those years when there were ROFS, the Germans didn’t have nickel because of its shortage, there was carbon steel that crumbled aft from a landmine, and not that from a fragment of such dynamic force (Newtons) plus about 5 km per second of fragments, engine and hodovka collapsed at a time, and these are the memories of the Germans themselves


        Nice explanation. But you would still look at the numbers carefully for a start: armor the same quality makes it easier, the farther the shell explodes: D
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 17 May 2014 21: 35
          +3
          Nice explanation. But you would still look at the numbers carefully for a start: armor of the same quality makes its way through the easier it explodes.
          what would it be so confident to say, practice is required, and the most militant one, do I have it, but does YOU have it?
          1. SLX
            SLX 17 May 2014 22: 39
            0
            Quote: badger1974
            what would it be so confident to say, practice is required, and the most militant one, do I have it, but does YOU have it?


            It's not even five, but all ten! I would even say - enchanting! Another opponent with a run out of arguments, angrily exclaiming "Who are you?" Are you such here at VO specially bred?

            In military depots, especially in clothing and food, practice is really required. For there are many little tricks that are not described in thick textbooks, instructions and instructions - about them only in criminal cases they write in detail. And I’m forced to note that warehouse managers are also war veterans. You, an hour, not about this practice?

            And if you are talking about armor penetration in the context of this article, then for this it is absolutely not necessary to have military practice - it is enough to open any textbook on ammunition in order to understand once and for all the mechanisms for the formation of fragmentation fields and penetration of various iron by these fragments. To do this, it is not necessary to study the formulas given there. Moreover, about these mechanisms even in popular literature such as murzilka are regularly written.

            But I would listen with great attention to how your combat practice helped you understand the dependence of the armor penetration of ammunition on the distance to the place of its detonation. Do not tell?
            1. badger1974
              badger1974 17 May 2014 23: 08
              +2
              well, it’s like pouring a couple of cubes of water from one volume into another
            2. badger1974
              badger1974 17 May 2014 23: 11
              +2
              sorry Vidio doesn’t rush, I’d have to load you up for my career, but according to VV the same way ....., you have your friends in Slavyansk near the dead, take it away, we won’t bury them, and the locals except spitting in they don’t do anything
              1. zyablik.olga
                zyablik.olga 18 May 2014 02: 00
                +5
                Vladimir, what's the point of arguing with him and wasting time, apparently your opponent is one of those who are happy with any squabbles, clinging to any typo and manipulating terms, i.e. ordinary TROL. Spit on it, as a rule, they don’t live on VO for a long time.
    2. Bongo
      16 May 2014 06: 04
      +5
      Quote: SLX
      First, what angle of elevation are we talking about?

      In the article, the term "target elevation angle" means the angle between the direction of movement of the projectile and the axis of the target. Significant differences in armor penetration depending on this angle can be explained by the different formation of the fragmentation field relative to the target and the summation of the own velocity of the RS and the fragments during the explosion. These data on armor penetration, relatively depending on the "elevation", were obtained empirically at the Scientific Testing Range of Aviation Weapons of the Red Army Air Force (NII AV VVS KA).
      Quote: SLX
      Maybe the author messed up something?

      Sources from where the data came from when writing the article are indicated, if you are not too lazy to familiarize yourself. So the author did not confuse hi
      1. SLX
        SLX 16 May 2014 11: 43
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        Sources from where the data came from when writing the article are indicated, if you are not too lazy to familiarize yourself. So the author did not confuse


        No, not laziness. We open the first source

        http://alternathistory.org.ua/oleg-rastrenin-shturmoviki-velikoi-otechestvennoi-
        voiny-glava-3-udarnye-bisy-chaiki-i-drugie

        Title of article from this source: "Oleg Rastrenin. Stormtroopers of the Great Patriotic War. Chapter 3 ...". We begin to read: "The third chapter of Oleg's book Plantin “Stormtroopers of the Great Patriotic War”. The name speaks for itself. " This blunder speaks for itself about the reliability of information from this source.

        We look at one more source: "Shirokorad A.B. The armament of Soviet aviation 1941-1991. Minsk, Harvest, 2004." This one does not even need to be opened - the number of typos and mistakes in Shirokorad is well known.

        Quote: Bongo
        In the article, the term "target elevation angle" means the angle between the direction of movement of the projectile and the axis of the target.


        Well, what do you do - the documents of the ancestors are full and not of such terminological absurdities.

        Quote: Bongo
        Significant differences in armor penetration depending on this angle can be explained by the different formation of the fragmentation field relative to the target and the summation of the intrinsic velocity of the RS and the fragments during the explosion.


        This is utter nonsense.

        1). What do you mean? Those. You yourself do not know exactly? Still can explain the influence of green men.

        2). The elevation angle can (and should) affect the probability of hitting the target (disabling it, destroying it, etc.) by increasing or decreasing the number of fragments affecting the target. But not for armor penetration! And it turns out that the elevation angle of the target increases precisely the armor penetration, i.e. kinetic energy of fragments (!), more than 2 times.

        Quote: Bongo
        These data on armor penetration, relatively depending on the "elevation", were obtained empirically at the Scientific Testing Range of Aviation Weapons of the Red Army Air Force (NII AV VVS KA).


        Are these? Or maybe with numerous copy-paste the original numbers were mixed up? The level of reliability of your sources, as I think, is shown above clearly.
        1. Bongo
          16 May 2014 13: 19
          +4
          Quote: SLX
          Are these? Or maybe with numerous copy-paste the original numbers were mixed up? The level of reliability of your sources, as I think, is shown above clearly.

          Shirokorad A.B. Armament of Soviet aircraft 1941-1991. Minsk, Harvest, 2004. p.437 So all the claims to Aleksanr Borisovich. I think that through the administration of the site you can contact him.
          1. SLX
            SLX 16 May 2014 15: 37
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            Shirokorad A.B. Armament of Soviet aviation 1941-1991. Minsk, Harvest, 2004. p. 437


            Thank. I, in general, assumed this.

            Quote: Bongo
            So all claims to Aleksanr Borisovich. I think that through the administration of the site you can contact him.


            Yes, I have no complaints either against him, or against you, or against anyone else. If you want to copy-paste without thinking about what you copy-paste, you have every right.
            1. Bongo
              16 May 2014 15: 42
              +7
              Quote: SLX
              . If you want to copy-paste without thinking about what you copy-paste, you have every right.

              Thank you for allowing ...
              Well, yes, this article is a complete copy-book.
              1. SLX
                SLX 16 May 2014 22: 00
                -2
                Quote: Bongo
                Thank you for allowing ...


                I hope that I did not step on your painful author’s vanity and, moreover, didn’t crush anything in it.

                Quote: Bongo
                Well yes, this article is full of minesлast.


                Naturally. Did you first introduce new materials into the scientific circulation that you have requested in the archives? No? Or maybe you first put forward a new hypothesis on the basis of existing data or said some other new words? Also no? Then yes - copy-paste of the purest water in the form of compilation from various sources.
                1. badger1974
                  badger1974 17 May 2014 12: 41
                  +5
                  well, clever of course is not forbidden in VO, but to ulcerate is unnecessary, the author has grouped material about a certain weapon on the basis of data from available sources for people who are interested in technology (military), and if you want to visually observe the logorithmic calculations and graphics of distortions of matter in quantum elementary particle theory, then you obviously didn’t get there, almost more correctly, but in the drawoff (yes, yes, not an error. in the drawout)
                  1. SLX
                    SLX 17 May 2014 16: 16
                    0
                    Quote: badger1974
                    Well, clever of course is not forbidden in VO, but to ulcerate is unnecessary,


                    What do you offer in return? Especially in cases where the authors write complete nonsense? To give them a plus sign and more praise, so as not to accidentally hurt their author's vanity? Sorry for the next causticism yet there is no your advice on how to be.

                    Quote: badger1974
                    the author has grouped material on a particular weapon based on data from available sources for people who are interested in technology (military),


                    So I asked why the penetration of RS increases with increasing distance from the place of their detonation. And what is wrong?

                    Quote: badger1974
                    and if you would like to visually review the logarithmic calculations and graphs of the distortions of matter in the quantum theory of elementary particles, then you obviously didn’t get there, almost more accurately, but in the hole (yes, yes, not an error. in the hole)


                    Have mercy! Only four (!!!) digital figures clearly characterize the entire depth of copyright errors. And do not need any logarithmic calculations and graphs. But the point is not even in these figures - we are all human beings, we all make mistakes from time to time. The essence is in the author’s attitude to his own mistakes. And this attitude already clearly shows the whole abyss of author’s ignorance.
                2. Bongo
                  17 May 2014 13: 24
                  +6
                  If you tried to publish at least one article of your own, then you would soon be convinced that there is no copyrights in VO. All publications are checked for originality. All YOU can do is to incite and criticize others without contributing anything of your own.
                  1. SLX
                    SLX 17 May 2014 16: 32
                    0
                    Quote: Bongo
                    If you tried to publish at least one article of your own, then you would soon be convinced that there is no copyrights in VO. All publications are checked for originality.


                    Judging by the fact that this is the second time you have written about "kopilast", we are talking about different things - I do not know what kopilast is, so I will willingly take your word for it.

                    Quote: Bongo
                    All YOU can do is to incite and criticize others without contributing anything of your own.


                    But now you can be proud not only of your articles, but also of your new word in the theory of ammunition. True, it is better to be proud of this new word only among amateurs. But after all, to each his own - to someone the mare’s bride (s)
                    1. Bongo
                      18 May 2014 02: 51
                      +4
                      By communicating in this way, you will very soon add to the "black lists". As for mares-brides, you, as a specialist in this, apparently what is called "know better".
  14. Cpa
    Cpa 15 May 2014 20: 31
    +2
    In the book "Flaming Sky" they wrote that RS were used when escorting our bombers and attack aircraft to destroy the formation of enemy air defense fighters, force them to change the trajectory and attack with guns, no one really hoped for a hit - "mortar for aviation" request
  15. sergerz
    sergerz 16 May 2014 06: 45
    +3
    In the memoirs of twice Hero of the Soviet Union Rechkalov, who flew on the MIG-3, much was written about the use of RS. He applied them very efficiently. As a rule by plane. And here about low efficiency. Probably needed to shoot for effective use. It was very interesting to read.
    1. Bongo
      16 May 2014 13: 22
      +5
      Quote: sergerz
      In the memoirs of twice Hero of the Soviet Union Rechkalov, who flew on the MIG-3, much was written about the use of RS.

      If the RS were really effective against aviation, then they would have been used throughout the war. After the 1943 year, they almost stopped hanging on fighter jets. Do not forget that with the RS the speed of the fighter dropped and maneuverability worsened.
    2. badger1974
      badger1974 17 May 2014 12: 30
      +3
      RSami air attacks are famous for more than the 72nd IAP of the Northern Fleet (the future 2nd Guards and Infantry Regiment of the KSF), on donkeys they have landed the lion's share of their regimental aerial shots of Luft bomber
      1. Bongo
        17 May 2014 13: 26
        +6
        This is true, but it should be borne in mind that they acted mainly against heavily loaded bombers. And those "donkeys" were basically only machine-gun ones. to break with the help of the PC system is a completely justified tactic.
  16. vietnam7
    vietnam7 18 May 2014 08: 08
    +4
    Each article has its own book-eater (SLX), which considers its word to be true in the last resort, and yes, God bless him. And will there be anything about jet weapons of the enemy aviation? Why did the Germans in the anti-tank plan prefer to install guns of ever increasing calibres?
    1. Bongo
      18 May 2014 08: 19
      +5
      Quote: vietnam7
      And will there be anything about jet weapons of the enemy aviation? Why did the Germans in the anti-tank plan prefer to install guns of ever increasing calibres?

      Perhaps that will be. At the moment, material is being worked out about the aircraft missiles of the allies (Americans and British), they used RS much more than the Germans.
      The increase in the caliber of "anti-tank aircraft guns" turned out to be a dead-end direction, both in our country and in the enemy. The Germans managed to create relatively effective sub-caliber rounds for 30-mm air cannons, but the lack of tungsten for the cores did not allow them to be used en masse.
  17. oreh72
    oreh72 19 May 2014 19: 04
    +1
    Quote: Free Wind
    I read the memories of our pilot about the war. I don’t remember his last name. He described the case of a shot down by volley of RS, from an aircraft, 4 aircraft of the enemy, not Germans, maybe Italians or maybe Romanians .. He wrote that this was the only successful use of RS against aircraft in his practice.

    It seems that this was in the memoirs of A.I. Pokryshkin
  18. aspid21
    aspid21 29 May 2014 15: 41
    0
    Can we, if we want?
  19. Alex
    Alex 10 July 2014 19: 29
    +3
    A great article on RS in aviation. I will look forward to continuing.