"Battle", not live up to expectations

61


In the Royal Air Force of Great Britain, since the First World War, along with heavy vehicles, light single-engine bombers were also in service. The first on the list of such aircraft is the De Havilland double biplane DN.4. The British considered the experience of using DN.4 successful, and the line of development of machines of this class continued. In 1932, the Ministry aviation issued a demand for the creation of another light bomber that would replace the obsolete Hawker Hut biplanes.

Of the four companies that submitted their versions, the construction of prototypes was ordered only to two firms - Fairy and Armstrung Whitworth. The most modern was the project of Marcel Lobel, the chief designer of the Fairy company. It was a streamlined monoplane with a retractable landing gear and a crew of two: a pilot and an arrow, which had separate cabins. Of small arms - two machine gun caliber 7,7 mm, one at the shooter, and the second in the right wing of the wing, from which the fire led the pilot.

Lobel at the project stage refused to use radial air-cooled engines, not wanting to degrade aerodynamics. The firm’s management offered the military a family of its own liquid-cooled engines “Prins” R.12, R.16 and R.24 (the figure meant the number of cylinders), but the choice fell on “Rolls-Royce” “Merlin” with the take-off power 1030 hp

After purging the model in a wind tunnel, to reduce drag, they decided to make one common glazed lantern for two cabins. Such a lantern was also needed because, at the request of the military, a navigator-scorer was added to the crew if necessary. He was between the shooter and the pilot, and during aiming and dropping bombs he took up space on the floor. Four bombs of 250 pounds (113,5 kg) were suspended in the bomb compartments in the root of the wing (a pair in each plane). There were outdoor nodes, which could take another 500 pounds (227 kg) of bombs.

For the first time, Fairy produced an all-metal aircraft with a semi-monocoque fuselage with a working skin and extensive use of light alloy parts. The two-spar wing had flaps and ailerons. Fuel tanks were located in the wing and fuselage. The main landing gear with one wheel was retracted backwards along the flight into the wing, and the wheels did not turn around and half protruded. This was done so that in case of not releasing the chassis it was possible to sit on the fuselage with minimal damage.

"Battle", not live up to expectations


At the beginning of 1936, the first car was ready, and in March, Chris Staniland first lifted it from the airfield at Hays. Equipped first with a three-bladed constant-pitch propeller "Fairy Reed" with a fairing, the prototype looked very elegant. But the characteristics of the bomber, despite the almost "fighter" appearance, turned out to be low. Motor power in 1030 HP clearly not enough. Although the control of the car did not cause any complaints, the maximum speed at the height of 4575 m was only 414 km / h. If the crew increased to three people, this number fell to 368 km / h (on 4000 m).

The plane with such speed and a small bomb load, besides protected behind only by one machine gun of rifle caliber, could hardly be called promising. But the Royal Air Force was in great need of updating the aircraft fleet, and more modern bombers were still being designed and their serial production could not start quickly. And in this situation, the military decided to adopt an elegant, but generally unsuccessful “Battle” - this is how the bomber began to be called from April 1933.

The serial production was launched in Sokport, and then another Austin factory in Birmingham joined the assembly. Together, they gathered until November 1940, the 2217 "Battle". Serial machines differed from the prototype with a new propeller of variable pitch De Hevilland and a longer cockpit lantern. The first 136 Battles had the Merlin I engine, and then the bombers received the Merlin II and, finally, the Merlin III with the take-off power of the 1440 hp. On some machines, a high-altitude “Merlin” V was installed. Depending on the engine’s serial number, the corresponding model of the bomber was also called: “Battle” Mk I, II, III or V. Although earlier, in summer 1937, the designation Mk II received the draft lightweight “Battle "With the range and speed increased to 2253 km in 410 by whom / h. However, the issue did not come to release

The second direction of development of the base machine was a light bomber, which was developed on the instructions of R4 / 34. This aircraft was equipped with a smaller area wing, an improved engine installation and a new chassis. The main pillars are now not removed back, and along the wing span in the side of the fuselage. The wheels were completely hidden in the wing and covered with shields. The new car turned out to be much faster than its predecessor, however, the main role here was played by the fact that the normal bomb load was halved.

In the autumn of 1937, this bomber at the factory airfield was demonstrated to the Soviet delegation, which included P.V. Levers and S.P. Suprun They got acquainted with the aircraft on the ground and in flight. The car was rated positively. The pilots recommended the Soviet leadership to purchase one copy for study. Through the trade mission made an offer to the company, but received a categorical refusal with reference to the ban on the Ministry of Aviation. But already in the summer of 1938, Fairy itself proposed to the Soviet Union to buy a license for 62000 pounds. However, the logistics department of the Red Army Air Force declined, explaining that only the propeller-motor group was interested in us, and the deal did not take place. It is worth noting that the aircraft, developed on the instructions of the R. 4 / 34, was also not included in the series in its original form, however, served as the basis for the serial heavy deck fighter “Fulmar”.

To speed up the training of pilots, several first-class machines were equipped with dual controls and transferred to the 63 squadron based at Upwood. It was this squadron at the beginning of 1937 that became the first combatant to retrain for new bombers; in 1937 1938, 17 squadrons of the Royal Air Force were added to it.



With the beginning of the war in Europe, in September 6re 1939, the 10 squadrons of the "Battles" flew to France, where they became part of the Allied air forces. On September 20, it was the “Battle” shooter from the 226 squadron who opened the scoring for downed German aircraft, managing to destroy Bf.109. During the first month of the war, British aircraft carried out a series of reconnaissance flights and night bombardments of targets in Germany. The low speed and poor protection of the aircraft made such flights very dangerous. And on September 30 of the five “Battles” of the 50-th squadron, which appeared over Saarbrücken, the Messerschmitts shot down four.

In order to somehow improve the survivability of the aircraft and strengthen the armament, the British began to put an additional machine gun on the bottom and steel sheets to protect the crew. But this did not solve all the problems until the end, and the two squadrons returned to England to rearm themselves with more modern Blenheims.

When the Wehrmacht crossed the borders of France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg in 1940, the 110 combat battles still remained in Europe. For the bombing of the advancing German units, the British decided to use a new tactic. Since at medium and high altitudes the single-engine Fae were virtually defenseless against fighter attacks, the crews carried out attacks from low-altitude flight at low altitudes. But the intensive anti-aircraft fire from the ground from all types of small arms was no less destructive than the shells of the "Messerschmitt". On the very first day of 10 in May from 36 "Battles", attacking the Nazis on the border with Luxembourg, 13 was shot down. The next day, after the same combat departure from eight bombers, only one returned to its airfield. And a group of five "Battles", who tried to destroy the bridges across the Albert Canal in the Whites, were destroyed in full force.



Losses of lightly armed and slow-moving bombers continued to grow with each passing day. 14 May from 62 aircraft of eight squadrons, which went on combat missions, did not return 35. The greatest losses suffered 216-I squadron. From 11, its aircraft were destroyed by 10. Only the Wehrmacht’s rapid offensive saved the Battles from the total extermination, forcing the British to evacuate all their troops from the continent, and by June 15 there were no Royal Air Force planes left in France. After such an unsuccessful start of a military career, the bombers returned to England began to be quickly removed from service. The last combat unit remained 98 squadron, its "Battles" carried out reconnaissance flights and the search for German submarines until July 1941, taking off from the airfield in Reykjavik.



Remaining out of work, the bombers needed to be used. Back in the middle of 1939, the “Battle” version was tested as a towing target with a winch (shooters on the target could be fired by the gunners of other airplanes or by anti-aircraft gunners). The aircraft was recognized successful, and the firm "Austin" thus finalized the 1940 200 machines, which received the designation "Battle" (TT). The variant (T) was also created - a training and export aircraft for fighter aviation pilots with separate cabins of a cadet and an instructor. Here, the number of machines ordered was 200, and the first training Battles entered schools in 1940. In addition to the pilots, air gunners received their own training modification of the Battle. The Bristol Tip.1 turret with a single 7,7 caliber machine gun was mounted on the plane instead of the second cockpit.

The Battles were widely used as a flying laboratory for testing various aircraft engines. On 17 the planes flew around a whole rad motor: Nepir Saber and Dagger VIII, Bristol Taurus and Hercules, Rolls-Royce X and Peregrin, and various modifications of Merlin . The most powerful among the tested engines was the 2000-strong "Prince" R.24 firm "Fairy". True, the engine was not taken out at full power in any flight, but according to the calculations, the maximum speed at “full throttle” should have been 587 km / h.

The firm “Fayre” supplied its bombers to other countries. Back in 1937, the Belgian government became interested in "Battles". An inexpensive single-engine bomber with a crew of 2-3 people ideal for this small country. And in March, the 1938 and 5 squadrons of the Belgian Air Force received the 7 Battles. They differed from the cars flying in England, longer radiator intake from the bottom. By 16 in May 10, the 1940 combat bombers remained in service. The military fate of these machines was as unsuccessful as their English counterparts. The Belgian "Battlelom" managed to perform a single sortie on the bombardment of three bridges through the Albert Canal, and six of the nine aircraft were shot down.



At the end of 1938, 40 was bought by Battles Turkey. At the same time, the Royal Air Force handed 12 machines to Greece. These "Battles" as part of the XNUMHZ-th squadron of the Greek Air Force managed to make war against the Italians in October 3. Poland received one bomber, and after its surrender, the crew managed to fly to the Middle East. 1940 April 8, the British sent a copy of Battle to South Africa. The bomber carried out reconnaissance flights over Somalia, but the Italians managed to shoot it down on 1939 June 19. Soon the next 1940 machines arrived, flying sorties until August 12. In 1941, the South African Air Force received additional Battles 1942 in a double-seat version and as towing targets.

A significant number of training "Battle" the British transferred to Australia. The first aircraft arrived in Melbourne in April 1940 of the year, and before the end of 1943, Australians got the 304 Battlel to train pilots and 30 towing targets. Even more single-engine "Fae" went to Canada - 736. Of these, the 200 aircraft were reworked at the Fairchald plant in Quebec as a training option for shooters, installing a turret with a machine gun at the back. One of the Canadian cars was flying with an air-cooled Wright Cyclone engine. Several 6 target targets were transferred to India, where they were used in an anti-aircraft school in Karachi.



Born a bomber, "Battle" ended his flight career training aircraft and served in this capacity until the very end of World War II. But it was a very weak consolation to its creators. Built by a rather large series, this elegant-looking aircraft did not justify the hopes placed on it and was very unsuccessful in combat use. The war eventually proved the inability of this class of bombers.



After the war, fairly worn cars were quickly scrapped and even forgot to save several samples for museums. Only in the mid-sixties of the two found in various places of the remains of the aircraft collected one for the English Aviation Museum in Hendon. This aircraft is currently on display.



Sources:
Kotelnikov V. The Loser of the Battle of AviaMaster. 2002. No.1. C. 8-16.
Kolov S. Fayry "Battle" is an elegant loser. // Wings of the Motherland. C.25-27.
Kotelnikov V. Aviation of Great Britain in the Second World War. Bombers. Part II. // aviation collection. No.7. C. 1-7.
Danielle j. March British military aircraft of World War II. M .: AST. 2002. C. 103-106.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    25 June 2015 07: 03
    + author hi
    Thank you for the article. Honestly, I didn’t know about this plane.
  2. +4
    25 June 2015 07: 05
    Outwardly, of course it looks fighterly predatory, however, our Su-2 turned out to be better.
    1. +3
      25 June 2015 07: 27
      By the way, you have well noticed the pro - Su-2. As far as I know, it turned out to be quite successful and in demand (but few were released and there were other priorities in production).

      Simply, as it does not fit (I quote) - "... The war ultimately proved the nonviability of this class of bombers."
      1. +1
        25 June 2015 08: 57
        In the initial period of the war, the British were not fond of tactical bombers, and in the final period of the war, these functions were perfectly performed by the R-47 and R-51. And we have IL-2. The truth is, attack aircraft, and not tactical bombing aircraft.
        1. +3
          25 June 2015 09: 48
          Quote: Yarik
          perfectly performed P-47 and P-51

          These aircraft, nevertheless, worked more on the rear rear and on the violation of communications. Disheveled column on the march is yes, for their part. And to put your nose into the cutting edge saturated with air defense, the Americans were not fools.
          1. 0
            26 June 2015 08: 59
            The Americans HAD ANOTHER WAR ...
  3. 0
    25 June 2015 07: 44
    Thank you very much.
  4. -8
    25 June 2015 08: 26
    "An airplane with such a speed and a small bomb load, besides
    protected from behind with just one rifle-caliber machine gun,
    could hardly be called promising "///

    Heavy single-engine aircraft. It takes few bombs, flies slowly.
    Very similar to IL-2.
    And the same problems.
    1. +1
      25 June 2015 09: 44
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Very similar to IL-2.

      He reminded me more of the Hurricane, especially in the photo where he was landed. In general, the concept of a single-engine BB seemed to be considered hopeless, but the same Americans in one form or another kept them right up to Vietnam, reorienting the truth to direct work on the front line. And for the life of me I don’t understand why not write, for example, the same problems as the "Skyrader" or "Avenger", are you innate?))))
      1. -9
        25 June 2015 10: 58
        "the same problems as" Skyrader "or" Avenger "////

        Avenger is a marine torpedo bomber. Other tasks.
        The Americans had heavy high-altitude single-engine fighters.
        And then they switched to twin-engine ones, like the Lightning P-38.
        One screw motor could not pull a load of bombs.

        If the IL-2 was released for narrow specific tasks - I understand.
        But he was in mass production, demanded continuous support
        armies of fighters and ... took a real minuscule of bombs and missiles because of its heavy weight and weak engine.
        It would be better if Yaki accompanied the usual medium 2-engine bombers, each
        from which he took 10 times more bombs than IL-2.
        1. +9
          25 June 2015 11: 28
          All the same, you have "garbage in your head" ... Sorry. Il is an attack aircraft, a battlefield plane ... its task is to "hang over the front" - providing suppression by fire. In this case, its relatively small bomb load is not fundamental - the vitality and power of forward fire are more important. The mass production of Ilov was due to the fact that it was an "infantry support" aircraft - it was needed everywhere ... Since the United States and Britain practically did not fight in the conditions of a land front of several thousand kilometers in length, they did not feel a great need for such a machine.

          By the way, "10 times more bombs" than silt 2 is from 4 to 6 tons - what kind of 2 motors did we actually have such a combat load then? And the weight of the combat load is a very relative matter - the question is where and how it was delivered ...
          1. +1
            25 June 2015 12: 14
            We must add to this that in no army in the world at that time there was such a weapon as RSs, this is five kg., B, B, with a caliber of 132 mm, where you can still find an airplane with 4 RSs of 132 mm caliber. Do not forget that five kg., V.V. this equals an anti-tank mine. Well, if you consider the bombs, not kg., Then the IL-2 took on board 360 PTABs of 1,5 kg each. And the 23 mm guns are the ZSU 23/4 caliber. The Americans didn’t even have such guns on mass planes at the end of the war. Secret armor IL-2 had a secret status even in the seventies.
            1. -10
              25 June 2015 14: 19
              The effectiveness of our NURS was negligible, which was confirmed by tests. But the allies had HVAR. Google, learn something new.
              VY guns had a huge dispersion. PTAB did not particularly justify itself. The actual load of Sludge is 200 kg. Armor was easily pierced by 20-mm shells, wooden wings and tail were easily shot back. Maneuverability is simply none. In combination with the wrong tactics, this led to huge losses.
              All modern researchers agree that the IL-2 was a very bad aircraft and did not justify itself.
              1. +15
                25 June 2015 14: 35
                Many "modern researchers" generally agree that the USSR won "incorrectly" ... This is not an indicator. Any RS of that time could only be used for areal targets ... But just for the battlefield, this option quite justified itself ... The VYa cannons calmly hit all targets except medium and heavy tanks, PTABs and clusters of small bombs perfectly covered the marching columns ensuring defeat even ammunition in the corks .... (read at least Rastrenin) The maneuverability of the machine due to the relatively low specific load on the wing was quite sufficient. And the shortcomings of tactics and the low level of pilot training have nothing to do with the level of the machine itself.
                Reservations are designed specifically for the main air defense assets on the front line - and these are machine guns and other small arms of rifle caliber from which Il was practically invulnerable ... Despite the legends, the saturation of the German front line with "flakes" was quite small ... it's easier to say there are practically no It was. The main losses of Ilov from anti-aircraft fire fell on the attack of airfields ...
                Like any other machine, he was not a child prodigy, but he wasn’t a UG ... In any case, not every combat aircraft can initiate a whole class of vehicles.
                1. -9
                  25 June 2015 15: 02
                  Do you judge the tables, specialist? A field test clearly showed that even an experienced tester in an ideal environment cannot get into a tank the size of a tank. The pilot on the IL-2 did not really see anything! And did not have a normal sight, shot and bombed by eye. And if the Germans did not have flakes at the forefront, then who shot down 7 attack aircraft, are they really infantry farthing?
                  And for some reason, even your Rastrenin writes: "At the same time, to perform an effective combat maneuver and attack the IL-2 target, there was clearly not enough maneuverability and controllability in the entire range of operating heights and speeds, and the composition of weapons did not ensure effective destruction of typical targets, the main in the manner of armored vehicles. "
                  1. +4
                    25 June 2015 15: 24
                    I judge by all the data ... but you don’t want to evaluate them in full ... Unlike you, I have real experience and I know for sure how the landfill tests and combat work differ.

                    "Note that the averaging of the results of firing rockets, carried out by NIP AV Air Force specialists, without taking into account the degree of preparedness of the pilots, the number of shells in the salvo and the planning angles of the attack aircraft, cannot be considered correct when assessing the real effectiveness of the PC when acting on ground targets.
                    The negative experience of the combat use of PCs at the front is mainly due to the increased (600-700 m) ranges of shells and not using the entire PC set in one salvo. "(C)

                    "The statistics of combat losses of the assault regiments of the Stalingrad direction show that Luftwaffe fighters shot down about 62% (!) Of Il-2 aircraft from the total number of lost attack aircraft during this period." (from)

                    “Many losses of the Il-2 and crews from the fire of the German anti-aircraft artillery occurred at this time as a result of the defeat (mainly by fragments from anti-aircraft shells) of oil and water radiators, because the pilots forgot to close the armored damper over the target.
                    In addition, due to the shortage of IL-2 and fighters, the command of the air armies of the Stalingrad direction was forced to form combined groups of attack aircraft and cover fighters from different aviation regiments, which, quite naturally, could not have good group flotation, which means to show high efficiency in battle .
                    Note that the shortcomings of the combat use of Il-2 attack aircraft were mainly due to serious miscalculations in the formation, manning and combat training of ground attack aviation regiments. "(C)
                2. 0
                  25 June 2015 15: 20
                  Quote: Taoist
                  VY guns calmly hit all targets except medium and heavy tanks,

                  About calmly - this is not entirely true. VYA-23 shells hit far from all LTs of the Panzerwaffe, moreover, harsh conditions were often required to destroy them.
                  Field tests showed that when firing from VYA-23 cannons with an armor-piercing incendiary projectile BZ-23 from an Il-2 aircraft at planning angles of up to 30 ° (approach height 100-600 m), light German tanks like Pz.ll Ausf F and Pz.38 (t) Ausf C when a shell hits the side and back of the tank from a distance of 300-400 m, since the thickness of the armor in these places is 15 mm. Damage to the roof of the towers of these tanks (armor thickness 10 mm) from the same distances is also possible, but with diving angles of more than 40 °.

                  Of 53 hits in these tanks received during 15 sorties, only in 16 cases were through penetrations (30% of the number of shells hit the tanks) armor, in 10 cases were dents in the armor and ricochet, the rest were in the chassis . Hit BZ-23 in the chassis of the tank did not cause damage to him. At the same time, all 16 through holes in the armor of the tanks were attacked at a planning angle of 5-10 ° (approach height 100 m, firing range 300-400 m).

                  The defeat of the armor of the Pz.38 (t) Ausf E tank with reinforced armor (the forehead of the hull and turret is up to 50 mm, and the side of the hull above the chassis and the side of the turret is up to 30 mm) under the same attack conditions was possible only on board the chassis parts of the tank where the 15 mm thick armor was installed. However, getting into the clean armor of this part of the tank was unlikely, since a large area was covered by rollers, wheels and tracks.

                  The frontal armor of all German light tanks, having a thickness of 25-50 mm, did not break through when firing from the VYA-23 cannon with a BZ-23 shell during an air attack from Il-2.

                  In other words, the Il-2 attack aircraft, armed with VYA-23 cannons, could only defeat light German tanks, and even then when attacking the latter from behind or from the side at planning angles of up to 30 °. The attack by an IL-2 plane of any German tank in front, both from planning and from a shaving flight, was completely ineffective, and medium German tanks also when attacking from behind.

                  And this is if you still do not remember about the percentage of hits. With the optimal tactics of attacking the column:
                  ... in 12 sorties, the average percentage of hit from the VY cannons into the tank by the aiming point was 7%, and into the tank convoy - 7,5%
                  1. +2
                    25 June 2015 15: 44
                    Booking in 15-20 mm was completely overwhelming ... So we will not sin here against the truth. Well and most importantly, the fire of air guns has never been a particularly effective anti-tank weapon. This applies to absolutely all options - the aircraft is too unstable weapons platform. So, to destroy armored vehicles, special ammunition is needed ... and in this regard, the KS and later the PTAB completely paid off ...
              2. 0
                25 June 2015 18: 11
                The PTAB didn’t pay off. It’s strange but after their appearance the Germans greatly increased the distance between the vehicles in the tank columns ..
          2. -6
            25 June 2015 14: 07
            for Taoist:
            I want to correct you a little: the IL-2 could not "hang" over the battlefield by
            low fuel supply He could fly in - drop bombs -
            turn around - and back. Otherwise, it would not be possible to reach its airfield.
            The most effective weapons of the IL-2 were 100-kg FAB-100 bombs,
            not rockets.

            The Boston light bomber (A-20 Havoc) took about a ton of bombs.
            Some 3000 units were delivered to the USSR. He was much more effective than silt.
            in most combat missions.
            1. +7
              25 June 2015 14: 50
              Il had an acceptable fuel supply for our front - having a combat radius of 200-300 km, it fully provided 8-10 approaches over the target ... Il's unpretentiousness to airfields allowed significantly reducing the approach time using jump airfields ... When Il flying a battery using infantry was an elementary suppression of firing points and mortar positions was not the best solution - the KMG was used ...
              "Boston" car is certainly not bad, but it is a front-line bomber - and I think that if our designers had similar engines, we would have a car no worse. In any case, the Su-8 winged Boston in terms of performance characteristics like a bull to a sheep ... Another question is that from the point of view of the military economy it was more profitable to have 30000 Silt than 3000 Bostons ...

              I studied the issue quite deeply - if only because attack aircraft is my specialty ... ;-)
              1. -1
                25 June 2015 15: 32
                Quote: Taoist
                Il had an acceptable fuel supply for our front - having a combat radius of 200-300 km, it fully provided 8-10 approaches over the target ...

                For fuel - it’s possible. But would IL BK have enough for 8-10 calls?
                An analysis of the combat capabilities of IL-2 airborne weapons shows that it would be more appropriate to attack a short target (armored or unarmored) in at least three approaches with planning at angles of 25-30 ° from heights of 500-700 m, using only one type in each approach weapons. For example, in the first approach, the PC is launched in volley of 4 shells from a distance of 300-400 m, then, in the second approach, at the exit from the planning, air bombs are dropped, and starting from the third approach, the target is fired by cannon-machine gun fire from distances no more than 300-400 m.

                In the first run - all RS (to increase the likelihood of a hit)
                ... a pilot with good flight and rifle training, performing a salvo launch of 2 RS-4 at IL-82 from a range of 300 m at a planning angle of 30 °, could well hit a German medium tank of the Pz.lll Ausf J type in combat conditions with probability 0,08 , 8, and with a salvo of 82 RS-0,25 - with a probability of the order of XNUMX

                In the second run - all the bombs (again - to increase the hit probability - taking into account the "line on the hood" sight).
                And another 2-3 calls with guns.
                By the way, with such a load (RS + bombs + guns) hovering over the target is hardly possible (the same RSs spoiled aerodynamics). Only targeted work for predefined goals.
                And for hanging, the load will have to be reduced - which again will reduce the number of possible calls.
                1. +2
                  25 June 2015 17: 19
                  Well, if you believe the sources (and we have no reason not to believe them), often ground troops even asked to simulate attacks even with expended ammunition ... the Germans, having a circle of Ilov above their head, did not particularly have the opportunity to be distracted by the attacking infantry ... "I fought on Il 2"

                  Well, far from always, the attacks of Ilov were simultaneous and sequential, in particular, those who stood in the circle of Ila above the front usually attacked in turn - which allowed to increase the time of the fire ... So of course. Basically, the entire BC was worked out in 2-3x approaches ... But if necessary, much more was done ...
              2. +1
                25 June 2015 16: 19
                for Taoist:
                "I studied the issue quite deeply - if only because the attack aircraft
                this is my specialty ... ;-) "////

                We have an interesting discussion, we don’t share a cow smile .
                I listen to all opinions and am glad to learn new things.
                1. +3
                  25 June 2015 17: 22
                  Of course, a typical mistake is usually usually made when they begin to compare attack aircraft and IS - moreover, experience has shown that there were periods when it was believed that IS could replace or effectively perform the work of an attack aircraft ... But the collision with the real battlefield put everything in its place.
                  1. -5
                    26 June 2015 02: 36
                    What does it mean - "there were periods" -? Life itself put an end to the attack aircraft by proving that - "it is not armor that protects, but maneuver." - Of course, arguments about the Su-25, an attack aircraft is not accepted from it as with g ... and a bullet, you then it is not known. No, well, the Basmachi will go through the mountains (and even then losses). The A-10 also does not count as a "special" anti-tank aircraft (by the way, helicopters in this path showed themselves much better). The Americans themselves call its last modification "anti-guerrilla" - a little expensive, of course, but they can afford it.
                    1. 0
                      26 June 2015 12: 32
                      Well, let’s not even start srach here again ... Su 25 is fully consistent with its objectives and continues to meet them.
                      Look at the clip "The Rooks Have Arrived" ... it is very clearly visible than the Su 25 is better than any IS ... Well, or you can talk with the "Afghans" who they preferred to see "Rooks" or the 17th as air support ... And no wonder the idea is the armored vehicle of the battlefield still has not outlived its usefulness ... unless it has moved more into the "helicopter" sphere ... But functionally it is still the same Il2.
                      1. -1
                        26 June 2015 17: 00
                        The Su-25 didn’t meet its objectives, nor when it could not use unpaved sites as a jumping point. Its reservation increases with each average or major overhaul.
                      2. +3
                        26 June 2015 17: 17
                        Where did you get this? So Su 17y definitely couldn’t fly from the ground ... but Grach was initially honing it ... but with his take-off distance he generally needed at least ...
                        Reservation does not increase at all because the armored capsule built into the power circuit cannot be replaced during repairs ... The structural protection of engines and tanks was really increased during modernization and according to the results of combat use ... well, it's not armor ...; - ) Something you are clearly floating around on the COP ... I don’t know what Grach didn’t please you, but he completely corresponded to his TK ... 102y maybe it would have been better not to have grown together. By the way, my products, along with the rook, were tested in Afghanistan ... So I really know what this product is really for. We smoke materiel: http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/su25/su25.html
                      3. 0
                        26 June 2015 23: 33
                        The Su-17M4 sits down and takes off from the ground (up to the 3rd category), of course, with restrictions on loading in suspensions and fuel supply. (Otherwise it would not have been adopted) I admit the take-off distance is too large. In the Union (in the Air Force) this practice did not take root (even on exercises) due to the fight against accidents, but it happened in naval aviation. In DRA this quality of the "pipe" helped out more than once. And the "comb" from the ground does not work at all !!! that's exactly what they sharpened but somehow "Bolivar could not stand." Therefore, in bewilderment, how you read so super plane, in reality TCB with a titanium "trough". You say, "Not armor" - but what ?? steel plates 5-20mm. I see you are a well-read person, this commands respect, but keep in mind, in most cases about technology, the history of its creation is written by people who are very far from the topic - journalists / publicists just p ... z ... boly. Here you read Su -25- "working horse of Afghanistan". I have two business trips in the DRA: 84-86 and 5 months blocked 88-89. In the air I saw the Rooks for the first time under the new 89 and rushed there with them like "golden eggs" . It cost a square on the PBR map to "blush" - (organized air defense area), "combs" are not assigned there. Even if "unblocking DRG" (the hardest and thankless job) helicopter pilots and reconnaissance (MiG-21, MiG-23) .Ya. I don’t want to shield any other aircraft. Until recently, in tactical strike aviation in general, there was a “vacuum” and it was clear that it was still there “beyond the river.” Although now there is hope for the Su-30SM (but not in a fairy tale) when assembling, components of French and INDIAN PRODUCTION are used !!! crying
                      4. 0
                        27 June 2015 21: 37
                        Well, it's even strange ... why immediately a "superplane" ... I think everywhere I say that "wunderwaffe" does not exist ... Just like IL 2, this is far from UG. Well, attack aircraft and IS have different capabilities and tasks by and large. But the human factor does not cancel everything ... and when "comrades with big stars" send a battery of Grad to the "cockroach" and a fighter with a "slipper" to the "elephant", then this has nothing to do with the actual technology ...?
                        You correctly noticed I’m quite well-read ... (well, I’m collecting military literature from childhood) but I also have good personal experience (if you noticed) ... I just do not absolutize my personal experience and try to adhere to an objective and technically competent look to the question.
                        Speaking of the work of the Rooks from the ground ... I definitely know that during Rhombus both our product and the Rook were tested for the possibility of working from time lanes.

                        I personally do not know how much the Rooks "took care" ... As a technician, we did not communicate much with the "ground" ... But nevertheless they made almost 60 sorties ... Let's just say a little more than the same "pipes "
              3. 0
                26 June 2015 09: 28
                (In support) With the support of the ground forces, sometimes (even very often) it is not required from aviation to destroy the enemy’s object, just suppress it ...
        2. +1
          25 June 2015 12: 47
          About 1 time? Please name the spacecraft bombers that took six tons of bombs excluding the PE-8 for all obvious reasons.
        3. +3
          25 June 2015 15: 15
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The Americans had heavy high-altitude single-engine fighters.
          And then they switched to twin-engine ones, like the Lightning P-38.

          Hmm ... actually, the "thunder" and "lightning" served in parallel with the Yankees. Moreover, it was the P-47 that became the most massive US fighter.
          The combat load of the "Tander" in the role of IS - in the region of 1 ton (standard - 2 x 227 kg).
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It would be better if Yaki accompanied the usual medium 2-engine bombers, each
          from which he took 10 times more bombs than IL-2.

          Which specifically conventional medium 2-engine bombers Do you mean? The USSR in this class has only Pe-2. Which raises ... a surprise - 500-600 kg. And which is vulnerable even to rifle-caliber bullets that the Il-2 armor held calmly.
        4. 0
          25 June 2015 17: 03
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Avenger is a marine torpedo bomber. Other tasks.

          Actually, "Avenger" and bombs dropped by the way for good health.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The Americans had heavy high-altitude single-engine fighters.

          "Thunderbolt" and "typhoon" were transferred to solve strike missions, including because there were aircraft that were preferable in the role of fighters. Mustang and Tempest. As fighters, the n-47 and the typhoon k 44-45 were no longer so good.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And then they switched to twin-engine ones, like the Lightning P-38.

          They transferred him to the role of striking the ground for the same reason.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          But he was in mass production, demanded continuous support
          fighter armies

          What can we say about the "Flying Fortresses", they certainly delayed themselves, an uncountable number of escorts.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It would be better if Yaki accompanied the usual medium 2-engine bombers, each
          from which he took 10 times more bombs than IL-2.

          Yaks accompanied Eli. And the usual 2-engine, like "Peshek", "Boston", and Tu-2 were accompanied by Lavochkin and "Cobras". Because there was no equal to Yak in the races around the IL-2. And the range did not allow to move with the "pawns" to the full radius with the usual modifications. By the way. You don’t find it foolish to drop 4 tons of bombs on the leading edge. There is a known case when in 44 the allies did such a stupid thing by treating the leading edge with heavy bombs. After that, the Shermans could not get through there. More allies did not suffer from such nonsense.
          1. +1
            25 June 2015 17: 10
            Quote: tomket

            Actually, "Avenger" and bombs dropped by the way for good health.

            He-he-he ... on Tsushima, during the discussion on the tactics of using the aircraft carriers of the United States and Japan, the Avenger was generally called a bomber - because its fancy Norden bomber sight was much cooler than a torpedo one.
            Yes, and even used it on ships, mainly as a bomber - because of the famous troubles with Yankee air torpedoes (which were even in 1944). Britons lend-lease "Avengers" generally used as clean bombers - because their torpedoes did not climb into the bomb bay.
    2. +4
      25 June 2015 09: 46
      With IL-2 is not quite a correct comparison. The IL-2 had a fairly good reservation + impressive small arms, and in later versions there was also a shooter in the back hemisphere. soldier
      And this machine has 2 rifle-caliber machine guns (1 in front, 2nd in the rear shooter) crying
      Armor - Cardboard laughing
      1. +1
        25 June 2015 10: 00
        Quote: NOMADE
        With IL-2 is not quite a correct comparison.

        not only are these different classes, so the IL-2 I ascribe to the shortcomings of the "Battle" which he did not have. hang other people's dogs so to speak))))
        1. +2
          25 June 2015 16: 56
          On the one hand, it seems that the task of the vehicles under discussion is the same - the destruction of ground targets in the tactical zone of the OBD. On the other hand, the classes of vehicles are really different, I quite agree that it is not entirely correct to compare the IL-2 with the Betl or Ju-87. to discuss the effectiveness of the use of various types of machines in the context of the "doctrine" chosen by the state. But the choice of this very "doctrine" - whether to storm, bomb from a dive, or from a level flight, may well be a subject of dispute.
          1. 0
            25 June 2015 17: 34
            This is fair ...
            It is useless to compare machines using purely tabular data outside the context of the specifics of the theater and tactics of application.
            Those glorified in the West "Bolts" in the conditions of the Eastern Front were just a log ... And the Cobras that Pokryshkin liked so much did not become famous in the West ...

            In this regard, British aircraft construction is certainly excellent ... They often themselves did not know how they would apply ...
    3. 0
      25 June 2015 17: 03
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Heavy single-engine aircraft. It takes few bombs, flies slowly.
      Very similar to IL-2.
      And the same problems.

      What are the same problems?
      IL-2 perfectly conquered the whole war and was a formidable weapon, unlike ...
    4. 0
      25 June 2015 18: 08
      Consider the year the aircraft was built. At that time, there were a lot of cars of this class and with such weapons? Unlucky car-opponents were much more modern.
    5. 0
      26 June 2015 09: 03
      Well, the IL-2 has the main weight - armor and engine ... (well, weapons). And "BETTL" - fuel and crew ...!? Well, the combat use is completely different ...
      1. 0
        26 June 2015 23: 55
        super-comments ---- British industry is very specific (and it's good when you can choose) Pokryshkin did not choose, the Guards regiments did not choose ---- accepted that there is. But the government commission judged correctly. Its task was to supply the regiments " the aces were supplied with sufficient machines.
  5. +2
    25 June 2015 10: 33
    With such losses, how did they differ from Japanese kamikaze? Only by the fact that the Japanese consciously flew in this capacity, and the country armed the British pilots and forced them to fly on a plane unsuitable for this function. Actually one way ticket.
    1. 0
      25 June 2015 11: 47
      Yes, but you must admit, the Britons have eggs hi and they could fight with the help of the spirit.
      IMHO: if the Germans still landed on the British Isles, they would have washed themselves with blood.
      1. Alf
        +3
        25 June 2015 19: 24
        Quote: Ka-52
        Yes, but you must admit, the Britons have eggs and they could fight with the help of the spirit.
        IMHO: if the Germans still landed on the British Isles, they would have washed themselves with blood.

        Spirit is good. Now, if technology were added to the spirit ... Churchill’s famous statement — Yesterday I saw all British tanks, all 99.
        99 tanks for the defense of all of Britain is, of course, a force. laughing
        The opinion of the British ambassador in the midst of the battle for Britain-Britain was on the verge of defeat.
        If Goering had not transferred the Luftwaffe's efforts from fighting the RAF to the bombing of cities, then the Germans would have gained air supremacy. Then followed a landing in Britain, which would be unrealistic to repel without dominance in the air.
    2. 0
      25 June 2015 18: 28
      loss loss .. as you read Protection was a big problem. For each departure, at most, only 3 or 4 aircraft capable of flying could be assembled. In the 3rd squadron, we had only 7 aircraft in our hangars (anti-aircraft artillery shelling, oil leaks, plugs that need to be replaced, again anti-aircraft artillery shelling and all over again). Ken Hughes' plane looked more like a giant sieve than anything else - the noses of its wings, propeller and radiator were pierced by shell fragments. Johnny Walker's tail keel had a hole 2 feet wide. My mechanics were just finishing repairing two fist-sized holes in the fuselage of my "Grand Charles". And this is the end of 44 .. Pierre Klosterman. Read. There at the end when he was put on a tempest and sent to attack, each sortie is described with wild fear ... and the silts worked like that with 41 ...
  6. +4
    25 June 2015 10: 50
    Well, if you believe Rezun, England was preparing to attack first and created the ideal "jackal plane" for "clear skies" ...
    In general, of course, the features of the "national design school" are sometimes touching ...
    "Gentlemen" then create a bomber that has never been a bomber ... then a fighter that does not have a course weapon at all, then a "flying shed" with rifle caliber weapons ... And if you ask the question what prevented the installation of normal turrets, then most likely there will be an answer " Tradition sir "... ;-)
    1. 0
      25 June 2015 13: 56
      Taoist, have you mixed up anything with Rezun-Suvorov?
      According to his version, the USSR was preparing to be the first to attack "peaceful" Germany, and he called our Su-2, created on the theme of "Ivanov" by the plane-jackal.
      1. +1
        25 June 2015 14: 08
        I don’t confuse anything ... it’s confusion for the rezun - well, or if you didn’t see irony in my post about the calculations related to why this city called this type of aircraft "jackals" intended solely for waging an aggressive war ...
    2. 0
      25 June 2015 15: 37
      Quote: Taoist
      "Gentlemen" then create a bomber that has never been a bomber ... then a fighter that does not have a course weapon at all, then a "flying shed" with rifle caliber weapons ... And if you ask the question what prevented the installation of normal turrets, then most likely there will be an answer " Tradition sir "... ;-)

      In the latter case, these are not traditions, but stinginess. British flight officers in the 30s offered to abandon the rifle caliber and switch to 12,7 caliber. But their lordships said that the progress of aviation would soon make the 12,7 caliber too weak, so you should still wait - and immediately jump to 20 mm, saving on an intermediate caliber.
      The jump, as you know, did not succeed - not only was the serial 20 mm late for the war, but there were also problems with the production and operation of 20 mm cannons. As a result, 12,7 mm browning appeared on British planes anyway. But too late.
    3. +1
      25 June 2015 18: 36
      by the way, I also suspected him of lying on this ... when I read the jackal about the plane and immediately remembered the fairy betll ..
    4. 0
      26 June 2015 13: 43
      Neighing, thanks !!
  7. 0
    25 June 2015 18: 59
    Quote: voyaka uh
    heavy single-engine aircraft. It takes few bombs, flies slowly.
    Very similar to IL-2.

    On a shaving flight, the IL-2 just coped with its tasks.
    Do not forget that a dozen tanks have up to hundreds of trucks in supply.
    Such targets gassatets with a bang, RSami, guns and machine guns.
    One Il-2 pilot recalled: Here Kozhedub shot down 62 aircraft, and I was hardly behind in material damage. Destroyed up to 100 cars, not counting artillery batteries, etc.
  8. +1
    25 June 2015 19: 35
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The Boston light bomber (A-20 Havoc) took about a ton of bombs.
    Some 3000 units were delivered to the USSR. He was much more effective than silt.
    in most combat missions.

    It was a land lease. A direct analogue of the Pe-2. Which was already up to the mark.
    America, for example, did not have to evacuate plants. That strained in production, they certainly did not experience.
    The essence of your attacks is not clear.
    But could Israel survive without external supplies and financing? You do little yourself. Well, except for weapons.
    1. Alf
      +1
      25 June 2015 21: 52
      Quote: Denimax
      Direct analogue of Pe-2.

      Not quite an analog. The PE-2 is a bomber, and the Boston is a horizontal bomber.
  9. ABM
    ABM
    -1
    26 June 2015 00: 16
    by discussion - World War II convincingly showed the advantage of a diving bomber, for example, the Yu-87, over a horizontal attack aircraft, for example, the Il-2, exactly ...
    1. 0
      26 June 2015 12: 23
      Yes, that's just attack aircraft as a class continue to live and dive-bombers existed for nothing and sank into oblivion even before the war ended ... I don’t know what is so convincing. The dive pilot is certainly more accurate than the attack aircraft, but its vulnerability is too high ...
    2. Alf
      0
      26 June 2015 19: 00
      Quote: ABM
      by discussion - World War II convincingly showed the advantage of a diving bomber, for example, the Yu-87, over a horizontal attack aircraft, for example, the Il-2, exactly ...

      And what exactly was the advantage?
      1. +1
        27 June 2015 03: 30
        Quote: ABM
        by discussion - World War II convincingly showed the advantage of a diving bomber, for example, the Yu-87, over a horizontal attack aircraft, for example, the Il-2, exactly ...

        Only in 1943, the Germans, seeing the extremely low efficiency of the Stuka, began to additionally arm it and change the tactics of use, using it from low altitudes for direct support of the troops - that is, tried to make the same IL-2 out of the vaunted dive bomber. And in the 44th, having released a couple of hundred, they generally curtailed production. A convincing victory, only a Soviet attack aircraft, not a howling organ.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"